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 | May 3, 2010

Sections of the trucking industry will get concessions under reforms to Australia’s taxation system, but uncertainty still remains over whether existing road charges will be overhauled.

The Rudd Government yesterday released its response to a review into Australia’s taxation system by Treasury Secretary Ken Henry.

The company tax rate for small businesses will drop from 30 to 28 percent from the 2012 financial year. Larger firms will begin paying 28 percent from the beginning of the 2014 financial year.

Small businesses, those with less than $2 million in annual turnover, will be allowed to write off assets up to $5,000 and depreciation requirements will also be simplified. The review recommended the cut-off at $10,000.

“The changes will let them write off many assets more quickly, increasing their cash flows at a time when they are investing to grow,” Treasurer Wayne Swan says.

The tax review recommended dropping the company rate to 25 percent. While not ruling lowering the figure from 28 percent, Swan says it is not affordable to do so right now.

ROAD USER CHARGES REFORM DELAYED
He has also deferred a shake-up to road user charges advocated by Henry.

Henry recommends fast-tracking a scheme to collect money from the trucking industry based on a vehicle’s mass, its location and the distance it has travelled.

According to the review’s findings, the system means trucking operators will pay their own specific costs instead of cross-subsidising other companies.

The document says there will be an incentive for trucking operators to avoid routes and vehicles that cause the highest costs, but they will have access to roads and bridges if they are willing to pay.

Revenue, the report goes on to say, will be directed into road maintenance projects.

“The revenue from efficient charges could help finance new urban transport infrastructure, and cover the cost of heavy vehicle damage,” the review says.

However, the report suggests retaining a network access charge or a variable charge because governments will not recoup enough funds for the full cost of operating the road network.

Henry also recommended heavy vehicles pay an additional charge on routes where road freight is directly competing with rail that must recover its capital costs.

Furthermore, it proposes applying a tax to be indexed on all fuels used in road transport on the basis of energy content.

“Heavy vehicles should be exempt from fuel tax and the network access component of registration fees if full replacement charges are introduced,” the review says.

Henry has recommended a congestion charge that would vary depending on the time of day.

“City roads would be less congested during peak periods, with higher travel speeds and shorter travel times saving time for road users, reducing vehicle costs and reducing greenhouse emissions,” the review states.

“In general, congestion charges should apply to all registered vehicles using congested roads.”

Revenue from the scheme will go back to the community to fund public transport projects.

In response to the proposals, Swan says: “Well, we are not going to pursue those recommendations at the moment.”

The Government has listed proposals it will not introduce, such as indexing the fuel tax, but it has not ruled out changes to road charges.

Employers’ superannuation obligations will increase from nine to 12 percent by 2020, but there will be a three-year lead in time before changes gradually happen to give businesses time to adapt.

The reforms are due to be funded by a new 40 percent tax on the profits of mining companies from July 1, 2012.

The Opposition has already indicated it may block the proposed tax, fearing the impact it may have on the resources sector.

“The package I have outlined just now depends entirely on the successful implementation of the resource profits super tax. No super profits tax – no super investments, infrastructure or tax cuts,” Swan says.

Australian Trucking Association CEO Stuart St Clair says the trucking industry supports the changes to taxes on small business.

“I know trucking operators will welcome any decrease in their compliance burden,” he says.

But the ATA repeated its opposition to Henry’s proposed road user charge, with St Clair saying it will be expensive and complex.

He claims it will cost $1 billion to install the necessary monitoring systems in trucks and then $800 million a year in ongoing costs.

“The ATA has put forward an alternative model for heavy vehicles charging called fuel based charging,” St Clair says.


COMMENTS (9)
Comment by Unknown
posted 1 year ago
New Zealand, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Oregon and soon Sweden, France and the Netherlands have distance/weight based charging systems for trucks. The economic arguments are strongly compelling (why complain about paying for the costs you impose on infrastructure?), and the costs of collection range from 6-12% of revenue. It is being widely investigated elsewhere in Europe and the US.

As long as all revenue is hypothecated and dedicated to paying for the heavy vehicle share of road maintenance and capital, it would be fair. It could allow greater mass and dimensions on roads that can handle it, and ensure that roads are kept in good condition.

Charging based on fuel makes no more sense than charging based on tyres or brake pads. It is the roads that are to be paid for, and consumables on trucks bear next to no correlation to those costs.

However, until cars are moved to a similar scheme, congestion should not be charged for, except perhaps a discount for operating late at night when roads are empty.

By the way, all of this should also mean an end to any subsidies or protectionism for rail or coastal shipping.
Comment by Unknown
posted 1 year ago
Guys you have all managed as per usual to turn my comment around to justify your own agendas. Not one of you has addressed what I brought up, I didnt think it was clouded over or covered up. 18 months ago the "power or wisdom" changed our driving hours legislation, in that we were advised - whether we agreed or not, that to drive at night - definitely a NON-CONGESTED time of the day - was no-no. Definitely not a good idea, so that then narrowed the times of the day that we should/could drive. Now that the window has been narrowed, the powers say that we now see a window of opportunity for revenue raising, we will charge you to use the roads during congested times of the day - hello the only advised times of the day that we are now allowed to drive - according to the "powers"
Comment by Unknown
posted 1 year ago
@unknown

The problem is compliance cost, which I note isn't mentioned in the Wordpress article.

Fitting every truck with a regulatory GPS system would cost trucking operators well over a billion dollars in upfront costs and about $800 million per year in ongoing costs.

That's just the cost of running the charging system. The actual charges would be on top of these figures.

Most of the reports arguing for market based mechanisms for road pricing (for example, the recent Infrastructure Partnerships Australia report) do not factor in these costs to trucking operators.

The ATA's fuel based charging model is a much simpler approach, and fully addresses the concern raised in the Wordpress article about fuel charges not scaling well with the road wear caused by larger trucks.

Bill McKinley
Communications Manager
Australian Trucking Association
Comment by Unknown
posted 1 year ago
I reckon the road charge is a good idea. The Soviet-style model of Government ownership and free provision has gone on too long. We shouldn't be queueing to get where we're going like Ukrainians queueing for Bread. A proper market rate for using busy roads would solve a lot of traffic: See this article

http://thomasthethinkengine.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/i-heart-tax-reform/
Comment by Bill
posted 1 year ago
@Damian

The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Research Economics (BITRE), an Australian Government agency, has done an excellent working paper on whether congestion charging would work in Australian cities. Its report also looked at the success of the London scheme.

In summary, it concluded that a scheme like the London one would not work well in Australian cities. It also questioned the success of the London scheme.

Go to www.bitre.gov.au and look for Working Paper 74.

Bill McKinley
Communications Manager
Australian Trucking Association
Comment by Unknown
posted 1 year ago
Please be careful about introducing so-called "Congestion Charges" (ie further taxes). As a former member of the London Assembly, which attempts to hold the London Mayor to account, I quickly realised that it is very expensive to operate, the revenues are almost never used to fund anything except the private companies who collect the charges, and that fining people heavily for minor contraventions is the only way to make money. The best one of these in London was to give drivers a time within which to pay, 10pm on the same day, jam all the lines full for half an hour beforehand and then fine every one of those who can't get through over $100. This happened every night in London when the thing was introduced and it was later revealed that it was only these fines that enabled the charge not to make a massive loss. Do not be fooled. It will make no money and will not reduce congestion either. Damian Hockney
Comment by Unknown
posted 1 year ago
@169524: The Henry Review recommended the COAG process should be accelerated even further.

The Australian Trucking Association is closely involved in the COAG process and is working hard to explain the compliance cost problems with mass-distance-location pricing.

We are also working hard to advocate our fuel based charging model as an alternative. Fuel based charging would slash heavy vehicle registration charges. For example, the registration charge for a B-double is set to be $15,340 from 1 July 2010. Under our proposal, it would be $1,200.

Bill McKinley
Communications Manager
Australian Trucking Association
Comment by 169524
posted 1 year ago
Planning for mass, distance, location charging for trucks is not on the backburner - there is a full inquiry underway backed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) into how it might be introduced - see: www.roadreform.gov.au - everybody in the road freight industry should understand what's going on, otherwise you will wake up one day to find it has been mandated!
Comment by Unknown
posted 1 year ago
Someone pls explain to me why we, as drivers and companies, now regulated severely so that we dont drive at night - hello the least "CONGESTED" part of the day, and now WOW they want to charge us to drive during the CONGESTED times of the day, which are the times that they (the government)say we drive.
SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS NOT REVENUE RAISING..
Make up your bl..... minds!!

Leanne McArdle

Add Comment
SUBMIT COMMENT
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Australasian Transport News - AT A GLANCE
Home News Subscriber Exclusives Diesel Prices Truck Sales Daily News Bulletin