AAA Joins Chorus Of Opposition To Treasury Proposal To Tax Motorists By Distance

Aug 24, 2009
ShareThis

Updated 24/08/09: Australian Automotive Association responds to Government Paper recommendations.

AUSTRALIAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION (AAA) Chief Executive, Mike Harris, has joined the chorus of opposition to a proposed 'kilometres tax' on motorists, which recommends taxing them on how far they drive, and conjestion charges on vehicles in urban areas, similar to London's congestion charge.

The proposal, as reported on TMR last week, is contained in a paper commissioned by Federal Treasury Secretary Ken Henry.

Mr Harris however described the paper's recommendations as "nothing more than a revenue-raising exercise, using the private motorists as a cash cow to generate tax revenue".

 

"To make matters worse, this "Ivory Tower" report then suggests that motorists should be charged again on the basis of their use of the road network," Mr Harris said.

"Motorists already pay more than their fair share of taxes and charges, including excise which sees only one third going back into the road network – and two thirds going to pay for other government services.

"AAA supports a proper user-pays approach to paying for our road networks, similar to that used for other utilities such as electricity and water – but the underlying prerequisite is the abolition of the fuel excise."

 

The paper also recommends that truck drivers should be charged at a higher rate to reflect the wear and tear on roads caused by heavy commercial vehicles.

LaTrobe University's Professor Henry Clarke, one of the paper's authors, says the main proposals are to levy congestion charges on vehicles in urban areas.

 

"[The aim is] generally to try to get to the point where we're charging people for the actual damage and costs of using roads - rather than fixed charges that are independent of the way they use roads," Professor Clarke told the ABC.

"The technology exists now; telemetric devices, or essentially boxes that are inserted in vehicles.

"These can provide information for commercial trucking fleet operation, or they can provide information to regulators."

 

The technology would also give the Government the ability to track a vehicle's specific route, but Professor Clarke believes motorists need not be concerned about privacy issues.

 

"That information would only accrue to the device and the user of the device would possess the information, but essentially the Government would be able to work out the charges that were associated with different types of use of roads," he said.

 

Professor Clarke also said that current charges are not reflecting the full social cost of trucks on low-durability roads. He contends that a system that imposes a higher rate on trucking companies would encourage heavy vehicle drivers to use the roads sensibly and to choose routes along more durable roads.

David Purchase, Executive Director of the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce (VACC), said last week that the recommendation for a congestion charge "tops the list of ridiculous road traffic proposals".

 

“Motorists are not irresponsible, gas-guzzling, eco-vandals. Motorists are people commuting to work, delivering and collecting vital goods and services, parents taking the kids to school or visiting elderly relatives," Mr Purchase said.

“This is yet another blatant money-making exercise targeting the motorist. If vehicle owners were assured the income raised from tracking devices was to be ploughed back into road safety and enhancement initiatives it might be a different matter. But we all know that this will not be the case."

 

Related Stories

Comments

  • Gidge [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    That might bear some credence if the government actually spent any money on maintaining the roads in the first place. It's all about increacing revenue. Call me paranoid but this also strikes me as a pretext to get the GPS hardware into cars and automatically book motorists for speeding.

    All this has been proposed shortly after the Victorian Government decides to upgrade"Road Safety Enforcement Technology" to the point where it is will earn revenue of half a billion anually. If that's one of their key performance indicators then they can't argue it's not about revenue raising.
  • Phill [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    This is a bad Idea.It would start out fairy cheap,but over time the rates will go up and in a country like Oz that has large distances between populations,this idea is HIGHLY UNAUSTRALIAN.Aussie driving enthusiasts should oppose this.
  • Trump [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    would be much cheaper for the real car enthusiasts who have multiple cars
  • abc [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    im all for it, so long as the money is spent fixing the damn roads in the first place! Im sick of stupid dead flower beds in roundabouts whilst i weave / hit potholes on brisbane roads..
  • Phill [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    I was thinking about average people,who might drive on a holiday to see relatives in Australia instead of going overseas,(because they can't afford it)or someone thats drives 50km a day to work and 50 back,people who what multiple cars must have dosh,so they can afford it.
  • Morris [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    Don't like this idea.

    I really don't think the government has the right to install any sort of tracking device in a person's car. They are already charging a huge amount from motorists. When they get their act together and start to provide the state with smoother and better maintained roads they can start asking for more money.
  • 57 [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    just put all the charges on fuel, the more you drive, the more you pay, the bigger the fuel consumption, the more you pay
  • Steven [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    How about world class public transport and security? Oh and lower taxi fees?

    Rural drivers should be exempt too as they have no choice but to drive.
  • Mick [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    Quote "A PAPER COMMISSIONED by Treasury Secretary Ken Henry"

    I think this sums it up.

    I suspect the question he posed was " How can I get more money"
    He will decide what to do with it at his leisure.
  • David [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    Ahhh, another great idea by those who can afford to live in the middle of town..

    Maybe they think everyone who has to come in from the distant suburbs should walk ??

    lol
  • d [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    Shifting the focus from sub-par public transport and roads (maybe look to the Eurpoeans for assistance).
    Also, this will result in price increases for consumers.
    Anything you see, most likely came in off the back of a truck at one stage or another. The cost will be passed on.
  • Charlie [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    Surely the fuel excise is a distance tax? You need more fuel to travel further

    It requires no monitoring as the laws of physics ensures that people driving lots pay more. That means you don't need someone checking the odo once a year, or fitting GPS, which allays privacy concerns.

    It also has the bonus of benefiting people with efficient cars and penalising gas guzzlers, which is good for the environment.

    It's not like they're spending that money fixing our roads anyway, so maybe they should start doing so before adding more tax.

    LaTrobe must be joining Monash in having its academics sell out their independence for grant money, to write bullcrap papers supporting the government's latest hare-brained ideas.
  • DM [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    This isnt a bad idea in theory but it is flawed. Firstly, you cant charge people fro driving when there is no practical alternative. When quoting London as an example, London also has a world class Public Transport system as an alternative to driving. Our pathetic excuse for public transport is overcrowded, undermaintained and takes 4 times longer to get anywhere than driving. It is also non existant one you get past middle suburbia. If they are looking for more money, then i agree with "57", raise the taxes on fuel. People will move from gas guzzlers to more fuel efficient vehicles, more likely to take cheaper alternatives (if they exist), and brings in more revenue. Spending Billions on tracking devices is a stupid idea and wreaks of big brother.
  • Jess [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    What a joke. What's next? Taxt us for breathing and taking a dump? Please! I'd love to see them police this one. I'd just rip the unit out, problem solved. It's like the pink slip ispection laws, they're a joke. I know plenty of mechanics who will give you a pink slip without even seeing the car. No F'n way I will pay a tax base on distance travelled in my car, they can get stuffed. I already pay way too much tax as it is. I find it amazing that in Australia we are becoming so apathetc and letting the governement run riot with all sorts of stupid laws. We need to start caring, protesting and voting out any stupid government who suggests such rubish!
  • robbo [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    Just wanted to say: Jess, love your comment, you have made my Friday :) thanks...
  • Tony D [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    "but Professor Clarke believes there is no reason to be concerned about a possible invasion of privacy."

    I give it a year before laws are adjusted to so law enforcement agencies can access these devices at will "in the name of national security". They do what they bloody well want when it comes to fighting 'terrorists' as it is, this'll just be the next logical step...
  • AB [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    We already pay more the further we drive... It's called a tax on Petrol!
  • Reggie [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    In my experience in the field of GPS and Vehicles telemetry, mass produced GPS is not accurate to properly provide speed and measurement in Metro areas. Gov't will have to fork out a lot of public funds to implement GPS system to accurately used it to book for speeding. But in saying that, I have work with telemetry kits for cars the size of a 3.5external HD that records speed, impact (G-force), engine hours, etc. It works to well it is scary. It can even broadcast the info automatically via Wifi, GPRS or GSM.
  • AB [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    So I drive 80km on a freeway using minimal fuel each day and will have to pay more tax, yet someone in the city drives 40km each day in stop start traffic and most likey uses more fuel yet may pay less tax...
    Go figure.....
  • Martin [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    I have this cool telemetry box in my car, it's using CANBUS to retrieve information from car computer, but it can be easily bypassed, you buy a "CHIP" for 150$ which can modify data on CANBUS, GPS can be simply jammed.
  • Trump [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    Jess agreed with you on the pink slip.

    Last pink slip i got, the brake test was conducted by holding the machine in the air, dropping it and then catching it before it hit the ground. The machine then printed out the report. 0.9g during deceleration. Didn't know drum brakes were that good.
  • Kire [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    This is just an abuse of the Australian Tax system and the abuse on us as well, in today’s time of era stealing is a harsh word and everyone will overreact on the word ‘Stealing” so now it’s been replace with one magic word called TAX..

    The problem is with this country is everyone just sits at home while the government quietly pounds new tax’s each week and the media/newspaper will continue to side track you with dancing with the stars on the front page.. and we complain to our families and friends about high prices but we never complain to the right people TOGETHER.

    We really have to open our eyes and please do remember the transport system is not even up to scratch…… we already pay registration and petrol tax + gst TAX again on petrol…. Plus car insurance all this comes out of your pay check… and inflation and job losses are continuing to go down hill.

    I remember last year…. when the high petrol prices occured then companies such as ‘pure milk’ and supermarkets and so on said we have to lift prices due to petrol prices and every other company contrinued to do so.…. Everyone was like………. Yep fair enough understandable… high petrtol. more transport costs...

    When Petrol prices went down…. Did prices go down??? Obviously NOT.. it’s nothing but a CON… open your eyes! To the world we live. Your life and money is being controlled and you don’t even know it your self.

    The nice part about all this... they dont steal your money without you knowing, you give your money with your self knowing..
  • auto [reply]
    7 months ago 0 points
    a start in the right direction would be to toss this government OUT!!!!

Post new comment

Want to join the discussion, or start one off?

Before you can get started, you'll need to log in to the TMR comments system via one of the services below (TMR Hub, Facebook, OpenID). If you don't have an account with any of those three, we'd recommend a TMR Hub account, so that you can take advantage of the great features that are just around the corner.

OR OR

(optional)
(not shown to others)


To comment, you must be logged in via one of the above methods.