May 8, 2014

How the ANAO ended up costing taxpayers billions in lost revenue

As the government contemplates restoring indexation of fuel excise, Crikey's former top bureaucrat explains what drove the Howard government to freeze it over a decade ago.

Bernard Keane — Politics editor

Bernard Keane

Politics editor

It was a normal morning in March 2001. I received a phone call from my former department, Transport, from my replacement. Where, he wanted to know, had I put the 1998 incoming government briefs? He wanted to know urgently. As in, extremely urgently. As in, NOW. I'd co-ordinated the incoming government briefs for the 1998 election at Transport. I had no idea what had happened to them. I'd deleted the Labor ones from the system, as per protocol, after the Coalition won. I think. Maybe. I'd left paper copies with the secretary's office. Of course, that was Allan Hawke, and he'd long since moved to Defence. I think I heard Hawke's successor, Ken Matthews, pacing furiously in the background of the phone call. "Try the cupboards outside the secretary's office," I lamely offered. Consternation. I was suddenly very relieved I'd left Transport. I knew what the urgency was about. All hell had broken loose over fuel excise. The Howard government, badly trailing Labor in the polls, was being hammered over petrol prices, and was looking desperately for a solution. The immediate cause wasn't so much petrol prices per se, which were indeed high, or the introduction of the GST, which had been offset by a reduction in excise, but a report by the Australian National Audit Office about the administration of the government's roads spending. It would turn out to be the costliest ANAO report in history. In looking at the highways program to check how well it was administered, the ANAO had stumbled upon something virtually forgotten at Transport: there was an old Hawke-era act, the Australian Land Transport Development Act 1988, which specified that a certain proportion of petrol and diesel excise, which was indexed twice a year, was to be paid into a trust fund and spent on roads. The government could lift or lower that proportion, but if they didn't specify it, a default rate of 4.95 cents per litre applied. Except, the Commonwealth hadn't spent 4.95 cents per litre on roads for a very long time. The problem with the ALTD Act was one of the core problems of "hypothecation", which is the silly idea that tax revenue from a particular area is earmarked for specific spending. Motoring groups like to pretend that all fuel excise should be hypothecated to road building and that if it isn't, motorists are somehow being ripped off -- although they never specify which schools and hospitals should be shut to offset more roads spending, or which other taxes should be raised to pay for it. But a big problem with hypothecation is that revenue from the fuel levy would go up and down depending on the economy, making it a bad funding source -- if the economy slumped, the government might want to stimulate it with extra roads spending at the exact time there was less excise revenue. Moreover, governments need to commit funding for roads projects years in advance. So they'd long since abandoned the notion of spending whatever came in via the ALTD in favour of a guaranteed program of roads spending announced each budget, usually reflecting election promises. The ALTD fund was simply rolled into ordinary Commonwealth accounts.
"That was why hell had broken loose. The government was taxing motorists and not even spending the money on roads!"
The ANAO, however, calculated that nearly $3 billion extra "should" have been spent on roads under the ALTD Act if the default 4.95 cents per litre rate had applied, because the last time the Commonwealth had varied the rate was in 1993-94. It was rubbish: governments of both sides had abandoned that sort of approach years before. The ANAO even acknowledged in its report that roads funding "complied with current government payment practice". But its officers refused to see reason and, in the face of pleas from Transport officials, insisted that, because the ALTD Act was still on the books, there'd been a $3 billion underspend on roads from fuel excise. That was why hell had broken loose. The government was taxing motorists and not even spending the money on roads! For the media, this was a very, very red circus tent to a bull (Malcolm Farr yesterday gave an inside account of the fury from the media end). The government, from the prime minister down, panicked -- thus the desperate call from my former department to find all the briefings that might have been prepared on the subject. There was even a story, possibly apocryphal, that the heads of the Roads Branch -- one of the best, most decent public servants I ever met -- had been hauled into cabinet to be personally dressed down by Howard. But while Howard might have pushed the panic button, the button did the job. He cut excise and then ended indexation of it, and launched an inquiry into it. Along with some handouts to pensioners, it got his government off the floor. By midway through 2001, the Coalition was competitive again. Then along came Tampa, and 9/11, and the rest is history. The cost, however, has been enormous. The conservative estimate, based on Treasury figures in 2001, is that non-indexation was costing $3 billion per annum in lost revenue in 2010-11, but there are other estimates of up to $6 billion a year. Whether full indexation would have survived all the way through until now isn't clear -- periodic petrol price panics sweep Australian politics, and prices would be a lot higher now if indexation had been in place over the last 13 years. But the restoration of indexation, apparently under consideration for Tuesday's budget, will only see incremental increases in prices over time. Some years ago I bumped into a former Transport colleague, a senior officer there when the whole thing had unfolded. Mention of the affair still got him seething. "It was a complete act of bastardry by the ANAO," he said. And, as it turned out, a hideously expensive one.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

20 thoughts on “How the ANAO ended up costing taxpayers billions in lost revenue

  1. Yclept

    Well Bernard, if hypothecation is so ridiculous then so are the calls for “user pays” and sending “price signals” whenever it is clear that people are losing their lives on badly maintained and sub-standard roads.

    The user pays principle only seems to apply when it suits.

    And nobody said that hospitals and education spending should be cut, more that governments of all colours should get their act together so that they can be funded out of general revenue because we always seem to have billions to waste on concentration camps on far flung islands.

  2. Kfix

    While I agree with Bernard that the policy outcome was poor, surely the fault lies with the government(s) that broke the law instead of changing it, rather than the ANAO that pointed out the breakage?

  3. Simon Mansfield

    Let’s face it – be it defense procurement, currency policy, climate science, education or just the time of day – BK is simply an expert on every area of government, industry and science. And consequently should be appointed El President for life – the money saved by doing away with such a messy concept as democracy would easily pay for a dedicated nursing home just for BK when he’s no longer a fit and proper person to be El President for Life.

  4. Dolly

    Both Bob and I agree too that you are a “know all”, albeit a good one, but never the less, a “know all”.

    We often lay awake at night pondering how you became so knowledgeable. BoB and I understand that all knowledge is recyclable but it does have a point of origin. Was that the public service?

    We both feel that you may have missed your opportunity on our smash hit ” Pick a Box”. If it ever comes around again make sure you either choose ” BP Comprox Box ” or the ” BP Zoom Box “.

    Bob always stuck the money behind them two.

    Hugs & Kisses now

  5. CML

    I think it is Bernard’s job to be a ‘know-all’. I’m sure he has told us before that he worked for the C/W public service, so if he has knowledge directly related to this story, why wouldn’t he tell us?
    Apart from that, it was always obvious that Howard stuffed up the fuel excise decision that his government took in 2001, for political reasons. And yes, successive Labor governments didn’t do anything about it, mainly because it is regressive. This levy/tax, if re-introduced, will unfairly affect the poor and low-income cohort of the community far more than those further up the pecking order. Bit like the GST really.
    So what else is new? Just another broken promise/l+e from the masters of deception!

  6. Last Chance Cafe


    I personally really liked this article. It gives us a snap-shot of the political workings between public servants and politicians. That’s something we would never get to see if BK had not shared his experience with us.

    But I don’t think Simon Mansfield or “Dolly” if that’s her real name, actually meant any harm. They were just hamming it up, jesting, horsing around. I am sure BK would not take offense at their comments either..LoL..he’s got thicker skin than that.

    Great article!

  7. Drew Blue

    I have learnt a lot from your articles Bernard, over the years. Your in depth research and investigative journalism is of a quality not matched in Oz. I know that’s big call but I am calling it.

    But this “Try the cupboards outside the secretary’s office,” I lamely offered.”

    You knew damn well they were n’t there, did n’t you. Evil knows no bounds.

  8. AR

    Gonna make the carbon impost look miniscule, ain’t it? And the workers’ dormitories on the outskirts of the big cities who voted this lot in will be well pleased with their choice.

  9. Drew Blue


    ” whenever it is clear that people are losing their lives on badly maintained and sub-standard roads.”

    Is it sub-standed roads and bad maintenance that causes people to lose their lives or just poor driving habits and lack of care and personal responsibility.

    I get suspicious of govts of any persuasion that have excess focus on roads spending.

    They do it because it’s visible and easy to grandstand, as opposed to the more abstract and less visible spending that’s essential but does n’t catch votes.

    If the road you travel has a few potholes, get over it and just slow down.

  10. Andrew Blacker

    Interesting point Drew. It’s usually Big Industry who benefits from any major highway extension and maintenance but according to govt propaganda it’s for community.

    I am not even a Lefty and I can see that.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details