tip off

Ignore rentseekers, the petrol excise should be indexed

The government has made a good call in unfreezing the indexation of the fuel excise, and future treasurers will be grateful. But the decision will herald recurrent political problems for Joe Hockey.

If indeed the government has decided to restore fuel excise indexation, it’s a gutsy and correct policy decision for which it deserves credit.

It also shows the Coalition has come a long way, not merely from the Howard era when indexation was abandoned, but from the petrol price scare campaign it launched in the early days of the Rudd government — although at least that produced one of Brendan Nelson’s (unintentionally) funniest speeches.

That the Abbott government plans to restore the indexation of the petrol excise is being rumoured and reported on in the media ahead of Tuesday’s budget. There’s a strong case for higher petrol excise. Ignore the rentseekers of the NRMA and Australian Automobile Association — the current ~$15 billion per annum in excise revenue does not cover the costs that motorists inflict on the community, which include not just road building and maintenance but congestion costs, which are currently around $15 billion a year alone and predicted to reach $20 billion per annum by 2020.

Moreover, higher petrol excise will function as a de facto carbon price: based on 2008 CSIRO figures, a 10 cent per litre increase would be equivalent to a carbon price of $40 a tonne (2008 prices). This is considerably braver than the Gillard government managed — it refused to place the carbon price on petrol and would only have levied it on heavy vehicles from July 1 this year. So full credit to the Coalition for being prepared to implement a carbon pricing measure even Labor and the Greens didn’t want.

Restoring indexation won’t help the immediate return to surplus, but the treasurers of later this decade and the 2020s will benefit from billions in extra revenue as a consequence — just as all now rue the freezing of indexation 13 years ago.

Politically, however, it risks potentially greater damage than the deficit levy, which now looks like it will only apply to the very top income-earners and thus be unnoticed by most voters, regardless of the high dudgeon accompanying its announcement. It’s not so much that the indexation will represent a clear broken promise — yet another, despite Treasurer Joe Hockey’s embarrassing insistence that the Coalition never promised no new taxes, that black is in fact white and that water isn’t wet. For all the talk about Abbott’s “Julia Gillard moment” and losing trust, governments can get away with breaking promises as long as they convince voters it’s in the national interest — John Howard did it repeatedly. Gillard’s biggest failure was to not convince voters that a carbon price was good for Australia, rather than about securing the support of the Greens.

Instead, the problem will be that every six months — if that is the regularity with which excise will be indexed — there’ll be occasion for a new blow-up about petrol prices and the role of government taxation, and a reminder to voters of the government’s decision. If Labor opposes indexation, it will be a political gift that keeps on giving, twice a year.

It’s also particularly problematic in electorates where large numbers of voters are highly car-dependent, like in western Sydney. In early 2013, Abbott tried to sell himself as a kind of honorary westie, leading a party that would make western Sydney its new heartland. Despite copious assistance from The Daily Telegraph, that failed to transpire at the election. Higher petrol prices will make the chances of future success even dimmer. It’s reported that the government will try to offset this by emphasising its infrastructure investment — but, of course, there’s no point in raising excise if all of the rise is going straight into more roads, unless you cut roads spending elsewhere and pocket the savings that way.

Nonetheless, if Hockey and Abbott can manage the restoration of indexation, they deserve credit for a substantial contribution to fiscal sustainability. The treasurers of the future, of both sides, will thank them.

26
  • 1
    Hunt Ian
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    Spot on Bernard, even if the NRMA is not a “rent seeker”. Indexing the excise for inflation ensures that it does not decline in real terms and the environment calls for that, as does the cost of maintaining roads, as you say. I doubt that the Greens will try to block this, though Labor will, if only because it is a gift that will keep giving.

    Nevertheless, Western Sydney is in a bad position and a lack of public transport, to which Abbott is ideologically opposed, is part of it. Perhaps a Western Sydney rail loop, which Vienna has will help out if only the public gives this mob the toss next election. That will be a real gift that keeps giving!

  • 2
    Honest Johnny
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    Kind of like a ‘Claytons’ GST. Broad-based and user pays. Howard should never have frozen it. Bernard is right. It will also be a de-facto carbon tax, indeed will have a bigger impact on the price of petrol than the carbon tax ever did.

  • 3
    Emoticom
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    Petrol prices vary from week to week by up to 20 cents and we drivers just swallow hard and pay the pump price. It escapes me why we would get outraged by an extra couple of cents per litre going to the government to provide infrastrucure or to pay down the national debt. It is also a subtle form of carbon pricing.

    Even with indexation of the petrol tax, our petrol prices will remain low by world standards. Of course, the fuel rebates given to big industry should also be adjusted down to zero over the next five years as well.

  • 4
    Dez Paul
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    It may be a gutsy decision, viewed from a stand alone perspective, but it still comes from a pissweak, lazy, visionless administration, wracked by contradiction and confused purpose. The Coalition has not made any progress since Howard blamed Labor for the Budget woes of 1996. And don’t mention to them it’s a de-facto carbon tax or they’ll not proceed with it.

  • 5
    klewso
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    Some Kismet to Honest John-Cosjello’s economic legacy?

  • 6
    Richo T
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    Interesting that Bill Shorten has been far nuanced in his response to the fuel excise announcement compared to the deficit ‘levy’. I would say based on that, they will let it go through while still attacking the decision

    Out of interest, what is the likelihood of Labor and the Greens blocking budget measures in the Senate? It seems all the measures the Coalition are proposing involve tinkering with existing taxes/spending programs? Would blocking the measures be in effect blocking supply?

  • 7
    Yclept
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    And it will hit those at the bottom of the ladder the hardest. But that seems to be an Abbott/Hockey given.

  • 8
    zut alors
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    How fortunate we are that it’s only an excise - not a tax.

  • 9
    Electric Lardyland
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    So, essentially it’s a probably permanent carbon tax, that will go into the construction of more roads, which should increase the amount of people driving and the amount of carbon emissions.

  • 10
    bushby jane
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    I love the carbon tax comparison-hope the useless Labor opposition pick it up. However, it seems like yet another Abbott attach on the GP rather than the other fuel move they could have made raising heaps more, that of getting rid of the tax deduction on diesel fuel excise for miners and farmers. (Have you ever met a farmer (or fisherman) who doesn’t drive a diesel vehicle?)

  • 11
    Geoff Thomas
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    The media is giving coverage to the fuel excise and the temporary tax on the rich. Spare a thought for the patients of bulk billing general practitioners. They cop a “price signal” on each visit. The same Government is repealing the “price signal” on emitting a ton of Carbon Dioxide, and the Mining Tax. So the big end of town (some partially or wholly foreign owned) are relieved of a tax impost it is necessary to save the economy by neatly transferring the tax liability to the person in the street. I hope you all have long memories.

  • 12
    Rubio Diego
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    If the coalition is for it, then I’m against it.

  • 13
    The Pav
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    Although I am car dependant & the move will cost me dearly I support the reintroduction of indexation but:-
    1) Will somebody ask Abbott that given he made so many reckless and unkeepable promises why should Australians either his competence or his integrity and will Abbott man up and tell Australians how many further promises he intends to break.

    2) The reintroduction is a further nail into the lie of the Howard/Costello financial competence and fiscal fortitude
    3) One of the problems with indexation is that it magnified the effct of GST. In effect you paid a tax ona tax. GST should be on the pre - level price of fuel
    4) The proceeds should NOT be spent on roads per-se but on improving public transport so that the battelrs can minimise the impact
    5) As a final nail in the Howard/Costello myth I look forward to the abolition in full of FTB A & B which is the most expensive, inefficaient and inequitable way to distribute funds to families.

    It is ironic that the Gillard Govt was painted as in a shambles /ineffective despite being effective and having a paper thin majority yet Abbott with all his and his experienced associates and a sound majority is stumbling from one crisis to another yet is let off the hook.

  • 14
    The Pav
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Furthermore I find it incomprhesible the “fuel price cycle”

    If Abbott wants to win back some votes a genuine investigation into the rorting of fuel prices and unconscionable conduct of the fuel companies would go a long way to help

    That diesel costs more at the retail than ULP defies commonsense

  • 15
    Jock Webb
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    Well, easy to see that none of the advisers live out of the coastal fringe. We don’t have the 20 cent swings, it never gets as low as the high point. Petrol is cheaper in Camooweal than Dubbo. We also outside the CBD just about Zero public transport, we HAVE to drive, I admit that it’s a convenient tax, but it is monstrously unfair because we pay GST on the excise, so the price goes up twice over.
    Tell me why those who already get a price hike of 10-15 cents a litre because they live 200k or west from Sydney and have the most neglected road and transport infrastructure should pay even more?

  • 16
    tonyl
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    Many farmers may drive diesel vehicles but the fuel used on a road is not subject to the rebate. The rebate applies only to diesel used on the farm. If the rebated fuel is used on a public road the the law is being broken. If the excise rebate is scrapped for the tractors of grain growers there will be a mighty outcry and in my opinion rightly so. I would also like the excise rebate continue for mining companies but a decent resource rent tax should be applied.

  • 17
    Glen
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

    …the current ~$15 billion per annum in excise revenue does not cover the costs that motorists inflict on the community, which include not just road building and maintenance but congestion costs

    And road trauma costs, which Alan Davies identifies in today’s Crikey as 1200 killed and 33,000 admitted to hospital per annum. At a conservative $2M per death and $100k per admission in real costs and lost productivity, that’s another $5 billion at least.

  • 18
    Tyger Tyger
    Posted Friday, 9 May 2014 at 11:58 pm | Permalink

    Geoff @11: +1.

    That’s it in a nutshell. Without any apparent sense of irony, Tone and Joe call it, “sharing in the lifting”.

  • 19
    Liamj
    Posted Saturday, 10 May 2014 at 12:15 am | Permalink

    It is nonsense to call fuel excise a defacto carbon tax, transport is <20% of GHG emissions, & it lets the real megapolluters, the coal & methane burners off scot free, and the miners, deforesters and farmers too. Lab+Grns left transport fuel out of C trading for pragmatic political reasons AND because oil just isn't that big a contributor.

    I'm not against raising fuel excise even tho i drive 100s kms a week, but call it a carbon tax again and i'll spam every article you post BK.

  • 20
    AR
    Posted Saturday, 10 May 2014 at 7:50 am | Permalink

    The battler ‘burbs that voted this lot in are going to pay far more in higher fuel prices than the (deliberately) misnamed carbon tax. A further delicious irony of the lumpen being bitten on their fat arse for being so dumb as to buy Mudorc’s mendacious muck.

  • 21
    Popeye
    Posted Saturday, 10 May 2014 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    Nonsense Liamj? Well, you know the old saw about ducks… If it looks like, quacks like etc. And the fuel excise tax, regardless whether or not transport accounts for less than 20% of GHG, is a tax on carbon. You’re right about the mega polluters, however; and in his haste to heap praise on this gang of incompetents called the Coalition, BK forgot to place this sensible - though regressive - measure into the context of the ‘Infrastructure Tony’ nonsense: More roads, higher fuel prices? Absurd.

  • 22
    Richard
    Posted Saturday, 10 May 2014 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    full credit to the Coalition for being prepared to implement a carbon pricing measure even Labor and the Greens didn’t want.”

    top notch trolling, bernard.

  • 23
    Liamj
    Posted Sunday, 11 May 2014 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    Hockey: “any increase in excise will be spent on roads”, “$40bil to be spent on roads in next 10 years”. So LNP will use tax on oil (2/3 imported & rising) to pay their party donors in infrastructure corporations for build more highways, despite vehicle km/capita declining for 10+ years, despite oil prices high & likely to rise further.

    Compare this to proceeds of Lab-Green-Indi carbon price that were spent on compensating low-income households & subsidising industry adaptation.

    But keep calling it a carbon tax BK, News Corpse will call eventually.

  • 24
    zut alors
    Posted Sunday, 11 May 2014 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    The $40 Billion designated for roads fails to atone for the woeful lack of investment in infrastructure during the Howard/Costello era. It looks like they’re trying to play catch-up.

  • 25
    AR
    Posted Monday, 12 May 2014 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    Such a pity that Customs is due to disappear today but even they stopped “dipping” on-road vehicles for coloured ag-diesel decades ago.

  • 26
    Chris Hartwell
    Posted Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    My mother just returned from Europe, where prices were around the 1.8 Euro per litre for ULP. Diesel was higher still.

    Yeah, even with the return of indexation, I’m not complaining. But whodathunk that the Coalition actually wanted a higher carbon price after all? And not one dictated by the market? For shame LNP - you’re supposed to be the free market party.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...