MORE INDUSTRY NEWS...
most recent
|
most popular
MORE TECHNICAL NEWS...
most recent
|
most popular
RELATED STORIES...
most recent
|
most popular
COMMENTED STORIES...
most recent
|
most popular


By Brad Gardner | October 21, 2009

Current registration fees should be abolished in favour of an industry-friendly user pays model, a trucking group argues.

The National Road Freighters Association (NRFA) has proposed replacing the current heavy vehicle registration system with a 7 cent fuel levy deducted from the fuel rebate when operators submit their BAS statements.

Because the levy will be deducted over the course of a year, the NRFA says smaller companies and those struggling to maintain profits will benefit because they will not be hit with a one-off bill.

Furthermore, a fee will only be deducted if a truck is consuming fuel, which NRFA National Treasurer Peter Whytcross says is good news for operators suffering a decline in work.

“For those who are doing it tough and sitting around waiting…you won’t be looking for money to pay registration on a truck not using the road,” he says.

“Our plan is to do away with the registration as we currently know it.”

Whytcross says governments will see an increase in revenue because the number of litres of diesel used will supersede the income gained from annual registration fees.

However, the group has opposed indexing the levy.

The NRFA wants the scheme introduced nationally, saying it will be simple to do because the fuel excise is collected by the federal government.

Whytcross says the level of revenue to be distributed to the states can be worked out using one of three methods: fuel sales, the location of the registered vehicle or by dividing the revenue by the number of kilometres in each jurisdiction.

The third option would likely be opposed by New South Wales which is significantly smaller than Queensland and Western Australia but carries the most road freight nationwide.

The NRFA, which claims it has almost 400 members, made the proposal in a submission to a review of Australia’s tax system.

Whytcross has also called for a flat $100 fee for all trailers.

“Having a low fee will ensure operators will register trailers and be less likely to use unregistered gear as the trend is now,” he says.

Whytcross says machinery booking fees should be included in the charge to remove the need for owner-drivers and operators to spend time and money organising booking times.

Treasurer Wayne Swan announced last year a review into Australia’s tax system. Treasury Secretary Ken Henry is due to release the review’s recommendations in December this year.

COMMENTS (8)
Comment by Kevin
posted 9 months ago
This will be my final comment on the topic, and as usual you will get the last say, however I don’t ‘whinge’ about the new regulations I’m trying to bring an awareness of the problems facing the industry that most professional operators such as yourself may not be aware of, if everyone were to subscribe to the fullyloaded .com website they may be better informed to make their own decisions about how to handle the changes, I encourage every member to keep in touch and as such promote the site as a source of good and up to date information.
The associations you defend don’t defend you, they don’t have the answers and I don’t claim to either, however I will challenge what I believe is not in the best interest of the road transport industry, collectively our board members have been working through the issues and developing solutions and alternatives, as I pointed out in the Registration proposal.
I encourage you to give your preferred association all the support you can as we have too many people sitting back taking the benefits and criticising the few who do all the work, that is the nature of our industry, plenty to say in the roadhouse but no substance in getting behind those who want to make a difference.
The board of the NRFA are not paid and contribute far more than anyone can imagine, there are no six figure salaries in our ranks, so it is easy to see that the passion we share is for the industry not for our own personal benefit, and because we are on the road, most likely as you, are we have a greater understanding of the problems,
My name is Kevin Michael Pattel I get Mick from my second name it’s a hangover from a stupid tradition of naming the first son after the father, so Mick results to avoid confusion growing up, and it stuck.
Mick Pattel
Comment by Unknown
posted 9 months ago
“I am Mick Pattel”? Then who on earth is “Kevin”…? You’re confusing me… are you “Kevin” and “Mick Pattel”? Which one do you prefer? I think I like Kevin more – it has more ‘warmth’ to it - but I guess it’s really your call.

Mick/Kevin seeks him here… he seeks him there… but alas he cannot pin down the Scarlet Pimpernal!!

Well actually, I’m not really… I’m the Unknown Warrior.

But am I just me? In the words of Barnaby Joyce, who are we all anyway?? (Or something like that) Perhaps I am one – perhaps I am many!!

I guess you’ve got a point about your hatred of all the associations (except your own, of course…) though – why should they bother to keep existing when it appears you’ve got the whole lot sorted! So when exactly will all your wonder cures actually be implemented…?

Or perhaps one day… just maybe… you may recognise that there are some very good operators – such as my modest self – out there who recognise the value of our professional organisations, and that it is pretty p#ss-weak politics to try and grow your own popularity by preying on the vulnerable with your hollow promises of salvation, and turning on the industry, rather than taking the fight up to those that actually design the regulations you incessantly whinge about…

Love UR x
Comment by Kevin
posted 9 months ago
People who hide behind an anonymous tag and throw mud don’t have much credibility, and in some respects highlights the gutless nature of their character.
I am Mick Pattel and I’m not going away, unlike you I’m not ashamed to use my name on everything I publish and I will always stand up and defend my point of view, whereas you and your friends at Natroads and the ATA don’t act, they react, in today’s world that’s not good enough.
The NRFA are in the process of pushing an alternative registration scheme, and it was interesting to note that after we had our submission published on the Treasury website the ATA decided to put forward one of their own, but it failed to convince us that it is a workable system, it also fails to actually spell out what the registration fees would be based on, they left it open-ended so their friends in the bureaucracy can milk us again.
The NRFA have also developed a course of action that will address poor freight rates in this country, unlike your lot we are not putting a band-aid on the festering sore, the NRFA will be addressing the cause of the problem not the problem itself.
I think my running for a Senate seat, or any parliamentary seat for that matter would be a long shot and a bit late in my life.
Comment by Unknown
posted 9 months ago
If you've got all the answers Mick, then why haven't YOU fixed the issue...? Or are you too busy blaming:

1) The 99% of industry that think your an idiot
2) The 99% of industry that thought it was funny watching you make a goose of yourself trying to get the industry to follow you on your mad escapades
3) The industry associations who actually achieve something
4) Those that know your primary objective is to become a Senate backbench Senate seat-warmer with your mate Mad Bob Katter, or
5) All of the above...

Until you've actually got something positive to contribute and can highlight why you are so much more effective than anyone else, it's probably time to just go away...
Comment by Kevin
posted 9 months ago
The unknown warrior strikes again in his usual gutless fashion, if the ATA are so good it should have been in years ago, I guess it was too hard for them to work out how it should work, well maybe they can take a lead from our submission and make some inroads that will give the industry some relief, but I think that we have to be careful of the ATA and its member orgs, they are so weak we may see a compromise that will leave us with higher registrations and higher fuel charges, and quite frankly unknown I don't care what you want to call it, so long as it happens.
Comment by Unknown
posted 9 months ago
Could Mick be finally seeing the light?? It's called Fuel Based Charging, Mick. The ATA and it's member orgs have been advocating it for years...
Comment by Harry
posted 9 months ago
Great idea Mick, but good luck. It's too simple. Graham Neal - Townsville
Comment by Harry
posted 9 months ago
Great idea Mick, but good luck. It's too simple. Graham Neal - Townsville

Add Comment
SUBMIT COMMENT
Sunday, August 01, 2010