Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter



Jun 25, 2014

Green-Labor stupidity on fuel excise could be prevented with an X

Allowing at least part of the rise in fuel excise indexation through would be sensible long-term politics from Labor.


The Greens’ opposition to fuel excise indexation is, in policy terms, one of the more bizarre decisions from any side since the election.

For a government that has talked incessantly about its readiness to take tough decisions, the restoration of fuel excise indexation was the real thing. It reversed a bad Howard government decision, and it exposed the government to criticism on a subject dear to the hearts of many voters — petrol prices. And it would have minimal impacts at first, with the big gains to be had beyond forward estimates — the real beneficiaries of the decision will be the governments of the 2020s. It was good policy and politically courageous from the Coalition, and if the Liberals were able to get it past the easily gulled Nationals by waving a shiny thing called “diesel fuel rebate”, all the better.

Labor, of course, wouldn’t pass up the opportunity to oppose it. If they’d introduced it in government, the Coalition and News Corporation would have gone bananas screaming about Labor’s attack on low-income earners. But Labor knows perfectly well how valuable the measure will be down the track once they’re back in government. They were privately hoping the Greens would wave the measure through, or Clive Palmer’s motley crew and another couple of crossbenchers would. That’s not going to happen.

The Greens, however, might have been expected to back increased taxation on a non-renewable fuel and source of greenhouse emissions. Transport currently yields 17% of our CO2-equivalent emissions and, unlike electricity-related emissions, their growth has shown no signs of tapering off in recent years. The excise increase would be a carbon tax: even Tony “great big new tax” Abbott himself admitted that increasing fuel excise was “at least on one level part of the price of carbon”.

Between the excise increase and the extent to which electricity companies have been allowed to gouge customers via overinvestment, half of our emissions would have been covered by a de facto carbon price even after the removal of the current carbon pricing regime — and an effective one: electricity generation emissions have fallen significantly in recent years as demand for electricity has fallen in response to gouging, so that the stationary electricity generation sector now produces 33% of our emissions.

The Greens’ substantive objections to increased excise — about hypothecation to road funding and the diesel fuel rebate for mining companies — don’t stack up. As Peter Martin has explained, the government’s hypothecation of revenue from the increase doesn’t guarantee any extra road funding — it’s a legislative sleight of hand designed to soften the political blow of higher fuel prices, though a cleverer one than the witless “medical research fund” being used to justify GP co-payments. And the diesel fuel rebate is intended to ensure that mining companies don’t pay the road user charge component of heavy vehicle diesel fuel excise for their off-road operations — why should companies not using roads pay for roads? I’m more ready to criticise the mining industry than most in the media, but on the diesel fuel rebate, their case is sound.

And if the Greens are concerned about the impact of higher fuel excise on people in outer suburbs poorly served by public transport who are heavily reliant on their vehicles, the way to address that is through transfer payments for low-income earners, not through simply blocking the measure altogether.

Fortunately there’s a way either the Greens or Labor could rescue the measure, albeit at some cost, but with honour intact. Rather than index excise according to the consumer price index, as proposed in the measure, it could be indexed at CPI-X, with X being whatever number takes your fancy — maybe 1%. So twice a year, excise would rise by the six-monthly CPI minus 0.5%, meaning excise would grow at a level below inflation — but still grow. Being able to argue that excise is growing more slowly than inflation would be a motorist-friendly argument, while still locking in most of revenue gains and maintaining its carbon pricing effect.

There’ll be plenty more opportunities for Labor to get revenge on Tony Abbott for his wrecking tactics in opposition. Letting through much of the fuel excise increase, however, would be a sensible long game.


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

23 thoughts on “Green-Labor stupidity on fuel excise could be prevented with an X

  1. Mark out West

    It’s so easy to denounce this as a weak willed gesture from the Greens but this was their Democrats moment.

    Why impose a tax that, like all the rest of the budget matters, would affect the poor disproportionately.

    Why impose a tax when the Govment has entrenched subsidies for the largest polluting sector.

    Dumb commentary, I might take back my renewal if this is the best you can do Bernard.

  2. Lee Tinson

    Seems to me this is one of Bernard’s less well-thought-out articles. While I agree with the broad thrust, much has been written about how this is NOT a carbon tax in any way at all. It’s just a tax, and doesn’t contain a signal. It’s my understanding that the excise was frozen as a knee-jerk to the tax-on-a-tax situation caused by introduction of the GST, and reintroducing indexing on the excise will do away with the defacto rebate that Howard gave us. What probably should happen is that the excise should be charged separately at the servo and not be subject to GST.

    Also, since I understand that only about 25% of the diesel fuel excise actually goes to roads, I don’t see the case for a full rebate for mining companies as “sound”. How about a rebate on 25% of it? And if the mining companies whinge, and threaten to go offshore, well let them. Confiscate their licenses and award them to someone else (preferably Australian) who is prepared to actually work for their money.



  3. Hunt Ian

    Mark out West might have reason to complain about Bernard’s support for renewed fuel excise indexation. Western Sydney has long travel times and little public transport, so the renewed indexation will hit hard in some places and not only Western Sydney. This was why the Green’s backed away from support but, in the the absence of the carbon tax, the excise is a good tax to discourage fuel use. In theory, that is. Abbott and Hockey have made costs to the poor such a sensitive issue with measures that reduce low incomes by 10-15% that little in the way of good policy in isolation will look good under Abbott. Perhaps another time and place. In the meantime, we need to go back on income tax cuts that needed the mining boom to look good. But Labor does not want to stick its hand up for the right solution for future increasing costs in the atmosphere that Abbott’s opportunism has fouled. Look at RET, which is a good piece of direct action, which Abbott wants to cut because it is so effective. A one term Abbott government please.

  4. Pedantic, Balwyn

    Every now and then Bernard lets economic correctness override common sense and fairness. FT indexation maybe reasonable in a different time and place, but in the context of 2014 budget policy measures that target the disadvantaged this is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Just ask low income rural voters and you’ll hear the howls of rage over imposing further taxes on them whilst the wealthy share little of the burden.
    As for suggesting that miners shouldn’t pay taxes for what they don’t use, well where did Bernard get the idea that taxes should be deployed to within a country mile of their source; how quaint!
    Labor may have loved the idea of the Coalition getting punished for good policy, but they would be better off pointing out the inequality in both the budget and the broader tax structure; and then tabling revisions to laws on negative gearing, trusts and so. I bet they won’t though.

  5. Richard

    mark out west – i agree that this may have been a democrats moment for the greens, but not in the way you mean. here’s a party of the environment refusing to pass legislation that would have significantly reduced the amount of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere. the mind boggles.

  6. Robert Brown

    BK, have you seen http://www.tai.org.au/content/mining-age-entitlement which studies how much states spend in support or mining companies (among others)?

    Mining companies do use roads, and rail and ports, etc. Surely this weakens the case for them to be exempt from fuel excise?

  7. Robert Brown

    @Lee Tinson

    It’s just a tax, and doesn’t contain a signal.

    I don’t see how that works. If something becomes more expensive, don’t people start to look for opportunities to use less of it?

  8. Robert Brown

    Is the resumption of indexation really such a imposition on the poor? As I understand it, this will mean after 3 years, the fuel tax will be $0.06 higher than it is today (assuming 5% inflation). This is about an extra $3.04 to fill a 50l tank.

    By contrast, in three years time, high income earners will no longer be required to pay the budget deficit levy. So if we are advocating equity, shouldn’t we be arguing for this to be a permanent tax rather than temporary levy?

  9. bushby jane

    There wasn’t supposed to be ANY excise on fuel when GST was introduced, remember?

  10. CML

    Maybe not all is lost yet. The Guardian is reporting at lunch time that Clive Palmer is to announce, at 5.30pm today, the PUP stand on voting to repeal the carbon tax. Apparently, Clive may be having second thoughts, and his party may NOT now be voting to abolish carbon pricing in its entirety.
    Coupled with that is Christine Milne’s statement this morning that the Greens may back the early introduction of an ETS, rather than see carbon pricing disappear completely. I think that has been Labor’s position all along?
    It is speculated that Clive may be on board with this development, if only to give the rAbbott a kick up the backside. What fun! (only joking)
    If carbon pricing remains in some form, maybe this would make it less urgent to reintroduce a petrol excise, both for environmental and economic reasons. So, if Labor, the Greens and PUP unite on this issue, the government’s repeal bills go down in the new senate! I do so hope this will come to pass.

  11. AR

    BK – you never cease to amaze. Clearly intelligent, and not entirely bereft of analytical skills, you have an irrational (hardly cerebral, not even the lizard/hind brain could think the diesel fuel rebate for miners is sound) visceral aversion to anything Green though you occasionally make the Right..oops..correct comment from your Filofax on green stuff, just for the kiddies.

  12. MJPC

    I am with the rest of commentators here. The Greens have shown some leadership in refusing this tax and hopefully with help, to thwart the Libs true intentions.
    Typical of this carbon loving government the increased excise was to build more roads, more pollution, more congestion, more cars (toll roads to look after their buddies in those money making ventures). What about public transport?
    Trains carry more persons, more quickly over a given distance, more efficiently and at less environmental cost.The LNP’s policy is, again, looking after their rich mates who now can drive their leased vehicles on better roads at a greater write off to the poor taxpayers who have not been able to avail themselves of such taxable write-offs on vehicles and often travels on packed public transport systems.
    All power to the Greens.

  13. Interrobanging On

    If there was to be a carbon tax on fuel, then do it specifically, like British Columbia. Not some half arsed thing that isn’t intended to be a carbon tax (although it is worth noting Abbott claiming a price signal here that will reduce usage, but denying it with the Toxic Tax).

    And note that all the money is going to roads – big carbon emissions in their construction and more emissions in encouraging more drivers (my guess: overwhelming the small reduction, if any, in usage from the increased price).

    Abbott’s idiotic ban on funding any transport infrastructure bar roads is the really stupid policy and the Greens should not be part of it.

    But that would mean the uppity Greens weren’t lashed, rather BK’s ‘man of the year’ in Tony Abbott. Can’t have that, can we?

  14. Lyn Gain

    I too think this is a very bad article by Bernard Keane. The petrol excise is just as regressive as the gst, which I have been arguing from the beginning. And what a silly thing to say about Western Sydney. What about low income people in rural areas who have NO public transport and have to drive long distances to work and shop. I applauded the Greens for finally having come to their senses when I heard about their change of policy yesterday. Crikey should be ashamed of itself.

  15. marant

    The Greens’ response is incomprehensible and their supporters must be bewildered by such an illogical stance.
    The effect of the increase on stressed budgets could be largely off-set by driving more slowly, not only using less fuel but saving lies as well.
    This bit of the budget appeared to me to be its only redeeming feature.

  16. malcolm

    I’m left wondering if anyone who has commented here actually lives in a rural area. I do and I support increased taxation on fuel. Have any of you noticed that there appears to be a great need in the country to drive gas guzzling utes and 4WDs. Of course rural people justify this by claiming they need them because the town acreage. Well I live on acreage, and run a hobby farm, and yet I changed years ago to a small car that only uses 5L per 100 Kms. I’ve not suffered one bit because of this. I also do not have a great wage, I’m a nurse.

  17. marant

    The Greens’ response is incomprehensible and their supporters must be bewildered by such an illogical stance.
    The effect of the increase in excise on stressed household budgets could be largely off-set by driving more slowly, not only using less fuel but saving lives as well.
    This bit of the Abbott budget appeared to me to be its only redeeming feature.

  18. fractious

    There is no reason why Greens policy should not be subject to trenchant criticism Bernard, but on this I think you’re way off-beam. If transport accounts for 17% of current CO2e emissions, that’s not *just* people driving to work and back – it includes buses, trains, trucks and aviation. If you increase the levy on those, you can bet your ar$e prices of tickets won’t go up by fractions of 1%, and guess who feels the pinch most… Given the Abbott guvmint’s intention to pare everything to the bone and beyond, how do you suggest those under-30s who are unemployed and not getting any dole get to job interviews (assuming there are jobs to be had within a reasonable radius) at locations nowhere near a bus top? How do they get to their crummy shiftwork job on a wind-blown rubbish-strewn industrial estate at 4.00am?

    And “why should [mining] companies not using roads pay for roads?” Presumably the bulldozers, excavators, tunnelling equipment and 100-ton payload trucks got to the mine site on the backs of fairies, and the hundreds of bulk-haul tippers I see travelling from coal mines to Port Kembla are just figments of my imagination.

  19. fractious

    malcolm @13 (at 5:58 pm)

    Good for you (no, I’m not being in the least sarcastic). If I were in your position I would happily do the same. Many, however, aren’t, and can’t, no matter how much they might wish otherwise.

    (Though I do agree there are far too many LandBruisers in certain locales)

  20. Ian

    Sure the fuel excise tax might discourage fuel use on the margins but for the poor who are not provided with any alternative but to keep driving their cars it becomes yet another burden. It is a regressive tax.

    If the tax were imposed as part of a well-considered scheme to reduce carbon emissions and oil consumption then I would support it. Of course such a scheme would provide compensation to the poor that would not undermine the purpose of the tax.

  21. Ian

    Malcolm, I also agree with an increased tax on fuel but not in this context as I have noted in my previous comment.

    These massive 4 wheel drive tanks are not only pervasive in rural areas but in the cities too and there use should definitely be discouraged for instance by increased license and registration fees and sales duties. I may be a bit out of date on the legislation but as I remember it when FBT was introduced these sort of vehicles were exempted in certain cases thus encouraging their use as a substitute for more fuel-efficient vehicles.

  22. Itsarort

    It’s good to see you’re ‘Keane’ on the FT too, especially since hobby farms can have certain tax benefits by scamming the idea that there’s some ‘primary production’ going on…

  23. Liamj

    Fuel excise is regressive and also disproportionately hurts regional voters, i wonder if the latter aspect features in Milne’s increasingly pro-rural thinking.

    Bernard seems welded to the idea of excise indexation as the one great hope for fiscal reform, but is yet to explain why nongovt MPs should nobly assist the LNP to stay in govt.


https://www.crikey.com.au/2014/06/25/green-labor-stupidity-on-fuel-excise-could-be-prevented-with-an-x/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.