Re: 7-30 report on fuel excise

[mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <7c8840$u29$1@the-fly.zip.com.au> "Andrew Honan" <ahonan@wr.com.au> writes:
>From: "Andrew Honan" <ahonan@wr.com.au>
>Subject: Re: 7-30 report on fuel excise
>Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 22:15:56 +1100

>You raise some interesting points concerning diesel fuel excise.
>I believe that the trucking industry should pay a greenhouse (or carbon tax)
>and not receive a reduction in diesel fuel excise. The trucking industry is
>getting a free kick by not properly paying road usage charges as well as
>receiving diesel fuel excise rebates.

>I don't believe that spending nothing on rail infrastructure is viable. The
>rail infrastructure is already in a very poor state and needs investment to
>make it competitive (along with logistics and operations).
>There has to be some micro economic stimulus (tax breaks) by government for
>rail to be given a chance. I think bodies such as the ACCC and IPART view
>access fees. they would probably view access feesin terms of fair
>competition to rail operators (trying to get access to the infrastructure)
>and infrastructure cost recovery.

>Regards

>Andrew Honan

I wasnt advocating that nothing be spent of rail infrastructure.
I simply indicated that if there is little money to be spent of rail,and this 
seems to be the case , it will do far more good if it brings immediate relief 
, than infrastructure spending that tends to provide relief over a long period.
Track access charges are inequitable as road users dont have to pay them 
and there is no chance that any Govt will ever try to impose them on the 
trucking industry.
The problem with infrastructure fixing is that its a massive 
problem and needs to be fixed in its entirety to have any benefit, no point in 
fixing up bits and pieces.
There are a few other inequities in the whole fuel excise debate that while 
not specifically rail related need to be addressed.

All users of fuel pay some sort of fuel excise.
The problem is that the excise varies extremely widely and doesnt appear to 
have any basis.

For example the poor petrol consuming motorist pays the most , around 38 c/ 
litre , whilst the aviation industry pays the least , 1.8 c/litre for aviation 
kerosene, with diesel fuel in the middle.

One could ask the obvious question why do we pay fuel excise at all, and if 
the argument is to raise revenue, then why isnt the rate the same for all 
users.
Could it be that the aviation industry pays the least because most pollies fly 
everywhere?

MD