Abbott Bypasses the Senate and Raises Fuel Excise

[csv8]

"Prime Minister Tony Abbott has defended the Government's decision to bypass the Senate and push through a fuel tax increase, saying the Coalition has a mandate to fix the budget.

The Government has been unable to get the Senate numbers to increase the excise, so is instead using a Customs tariff to achieve the same outcome without the need for a parliamentary vote.

It means the price of petrol will rise by about half-a-cent per litre from November 10. The Government says "every cent" will be spent on new roads.

Finance Minister Matthias Cormann said the move - forecast to generate more than $2 billion in net revenue over the 2014-15 forward estimates - would need to be ratified by parliament within a year.

But he warned that the extra revenue would be paid back to fuel companies, not to motorists, if MPs refused to give their assent, and challenged the Opposition and Greens to allow the measure to pass.

"We're very confident it will be validated within 12 months," Senator Cormann said.

"The question for [Opposition Leader] Bill Shorten and the question for [Greens leader] Christine Milne is whether in 12 months' time, they want the additional revenue collected through this measure to be refunded to fuel manufacturers or fuel importers, or whether they want to see this additional revenue invested in job-creating, productivity-enhancing road infrastructure."
Video: Labor attacks Abbott over fuel excise 'ambush' (ABC News)

The Greens had initially supported the measure if the money raised was spent on public transport, but in June decided not to enter into any negotiations.

Today the Greens did not make any public comment, instead releasing a statement describing the Government's move as a "sneaky trick".

But the minor party, which holds 10 Senate seats, has not said it will knock back the legislation.

"The Greens will examine the Government’s legislation when it is released in order to determine the best way forward," the statement from Senator Milne's office said.
Increase will cost average family 40 cents a week: PM

Mr Abbott told Parliament he regretted the increase but "there is no easy way to address the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite left us".

"It will cost the average family 40 cents a week," he said.

"Is that something that I'm relaxed about? No, it's not, because I appreciate that the families of Australia are doing it tough."

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten pressed the Prime Minister on what he has described as a "gutless decision to ambush motorists".

"Today he ambushes Australian motorists, he ambushes the Parliament of Australia, and through the back door he's launched a sneak attack on the wallets and the cost of living of every Australian," he said.

"The Abbott Government are going to bypass the Parliament of Australia to impose new petrol taxes on every motorist in Australia."

Senator Cormann said the increase was forecast to generate $2.2 billion of net revenue over the 2014-15 forward estimates and $19 billion over the next decade."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-2...ber-10/5846882
My Comment : Democracy no longer exists in Australia..it will cost me 50c a week not 40c a week and it goes up every six months !!!!!

[Windsor220]

Half a cent per litre is not even worth worrying about.

[Itsme]

I'm sure you will afford the paltry increase.

[Ruination]

Define "Average Family"

Originally Posted by Windsor220

Half a cent per litre is not even worth worrying about.

The cost isn't a worry, its the Government changing legislation at the drop of a hat via loop holes that don't require a Parliamentary vote.

[karj]

"You can’t tax your way to prosperity"
~ Tony Abbott, 2013

Must've been a non-core philosophy that we shouldn't have taken as the gospel truth.

[MrEL]

Its not the cost , its the principle.
Where does it stop?

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Ruination

Define "Average Family"



The cost isn't a worry, its the Government changing legislation at the drop of a hat via loop holes that don't require a Parliamentary vote.

They are not changing legislation

Of course few people will like paying more for fuel, however if the government had the numbers in the senate then they would change legislation, result would still be the same, it is a mute argument from that perspective.

We had all best suck it up, paying for previous excesses.

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by Windsor220

Half a cent per litre is not even worth worrying about.

And that is where the problem lies, they will take something like $19b over the next ten year (ABC online article) and we'll hardly notice it.

They can start the increase now but it they can't get it ratified in legislation within 12 months, they have to pay the money back.

To the oil companies.

There's something wrong here, but I can't quite put my finger on it........


How do I become an oil company?

[Nikked]

I think the greater problem is that one of the biggest drives from the liberals was the removal of the carbon tax...andnow they are replacing it with tax increases elsewhere. GST on the rise too...

[EA2BA]

Start keeping ALL your fuel receipts if it doesn't get ratified you should be able to claim back from the oil company if you can be bothered.

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by cheap

They are not changing legislation

Of course few people will like paying more for fuel, however if the government had the numbers in the senate then they would change legislation, result would still be the same, it is a mute argument from that perspective.

We had all best suck it up, paying for previous excesses.

Yes, like this from Octobr last year (source - The Australian website)

The budget deficit is heading towards $40 billion this year in the wake of a decision by Joe Hockey to bolster the funding of the Reserve Bank.

The Treasurer has granted the bank $8.8 billion to lift its reserves which had been run down by foreign exchange losses and high dividend payments.

"This injection of funds puts beyond any doubt the Reserve Bank's continued ability to perform its core monetary policy and foreign exchange functions, in an environment of heightened financial market volatility," Mr Hockey said.

The rise in the value of the Australian dollar has inflicted heavy losses on the Reserve Bank, which is required to hold sufficient foreign exchange reserves to manage any extreme movements in the currency market.

Losses peaked at $5.8 billion in 2011-12, leading governor Glenn Stevens to call for dividend payments to the government to be suspended until reserves had been rebuilt, however former Treasurer Wayne Swan demanded an additional $500 million from the bank last year in his ultimately fruitless effort to deliver a budget surplus. Dividend payments had peaked at $5.2bn in 2009-10.

Mr Hockey said this had left the bank's reserve fund at just 3.8 per cent of its funds at risk, down from a level of 11 per cent in 2007-8.

"Since the election, the Governor of the Reserve Bank has written to me indicating that the Reserve Bank Board believes that it would be appropriate for the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund to be increased to 15 per cent of the Bank's assets at risk," Mr Hockey said.

The capital injection will add $8.8 billion to the 2013-14 budget deficit, which Treasury had estimated before the election would reach $30.1 billion. Mr Hockey says there has been further deterioration in the budget outlook since Treasury compiled its pre-election budget assessment.

Later, Mr Hockey denied the government was bailing out the Reserve Bank to help it perform its core functions in a volatile economic environment.

He said the one-off grant did not mean it was in trouble, but it was important Australia's key institutions were in the best shape to face the financial challenges ahead.

“It's not a bailout,” he told reporters in Canberra, adding he did not want to suggest the central bank was in “any way in a diminished position”.

He conceded the money would have to be borrowed and would deal a “significant hit” to the budget and a time when the government was trying to bring debt under control.

However it was a necessary measure that should have been taken by the former Labor government, which instead withdrew “extraordinary” dividends from the RBA and weakened its position.

Mr Hockey, who recently returned from a meeting in Washington DC with other world finance ministers, said Australia's economy was still growing but trouble lurked on the world stage.

He vowed not to allow Australia become as vulnerable as the United States.

“We need all the ammunition in the guns for what's before us,” Mr Hockey said.

“Our institutions must be at their absolute strongest to deal with the challenges in the days, the weeks and the months ahead.”

[Trump]

Originally Posted by Ruination

Define "Average Family"



The cost isn't a worry, its the Government changing legislation at the drop of a hat via loop holes that don't require a Parliamentary vote.

No legislation was created/amended with today's excise increase change. Changes to excise indexation methods/processes requires an amendment of the existing legislation. Abbott and Co didn't do this. This one action is of far more import than unvoted "law" changes. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell, this is unprecedented.

[cheap]

The way it was introduced stinks. But this type of taxing had been done before by other parties.

The interest bill is $1 billion per month! This fuel excise may produce a measly $2 billion, do the maths, we haven't seen the end of price increases/taxes.

What I don't see is too much in the way of the government cutting their spending.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

No legislation was created/amended with today's excise increase change. Changes to excise indexation methods/processes requires an amendment of the existing legislation. Abbott and Co didn't do this. This one action is of far more import than unvoted "law" changes. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell, this is unprecedented.

I think the introduction of the Alcopop's tax was very similar

[CoupeKing]

Smokers are fist pumping now.

[Windsor220]

Originally Posted by cheap

What I don't see is too much in the way of the government cutting their spending.

What could you cut without anyone getting upset?

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Windsor220

What could you cut without anyone getting upset?

There are rusted Labor people/electorates who will never vote for the Libs no mater what, pork barrelling in reverse...

[xxx000]

The govt could raise billions by closing loopholes that let the billionaires and many of the largest companies pay little or no tax.
Instead they do this and similar measures all the while claiming 'it's necessary to pay back the debt of the previous govt'.
What utter b.s.! This is the same govt that criticized the previous govt when the P.M. or a minister travelled overseas to meet counterparts claiming they could and should instead use video conferencing to save $
Can anyone provide an example of where this video conferencing has been used instead of traveling?
The proposal was ridiculous, imagine regional or world conferences with our seat empty but a video link in place instead.

[chevypower]

It seems like Labor and Liberal have switched positions since I left. Liberal Party is supposed to be for economic freedom, low taxes, and bigger opportunities (conservative).

[burnz]

Originally Posted by chevypower

It seems like Labor and Liberal have switched positions since I left. Liberal Party is supposed to be for economic freedom, low taxes, and bigger opportunities (conservative).

just call them "govco" ...

its like saying I voted Woolworths but got Safeway, and big W has the balance of power in the senate.

[robertjp]

With an upstart called ALDI, that is supposed to look after the average person but only looks after themselves.

[zilo]

Over the years they sold everything, Telstra,qantas,commonwealth bank.

Now it's crunch time, anyone can balance the books by selling assetts.

So surprise surprise...GST,fuel excise, medibank sale....

[Trevor 57]

and people criticised Gillard for 'lying', jesus this lot leave her in the dust for the telling of 'untruths' and the breaking of promises, this lot have taken it to a whole new level

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

and people criticised Gillard for 'lying', jesus this lot leave her in the dust for the telling of 'untruths' and the breaking of promises, this lot have taken it to a whole new level

Im trying to imagine where we'd be if she were still running the joint, hmm...

[devilcv8]

Don't forget the CPI increases that kick off in February. This a gift that will keep on taking.

Yet public servants can't even get a wage increase that comes anywhere near the CPI.

[DanielXR8]

Originally Posted by Windsor220

Half a cent per litre is not even worth worrying about.

Absolutely. Do you mind if you pay mine too? My income has dropped recently as the economy has been taking a bath.

Thanks mate.

[DanielXR8]

Originally Posted by MrEL

Its not the cost , its the principle.
Where does it stop?

Presumably when the middle class is wiped out. The working class have weekends off as a distant memory and we are all working Christmas day to keep retailers happy. Oh and whatever else Tony can copy from the Republican party.

[DanielXR8]

Originally Posted by cheap

They are not changing legislation

Of course few people will like paying more for fuel, however if the government had the numbers in the senate then they would change legislation, result would still be the same, it is a mute argument from that perspective.

We had all best suck it up, paying for previous excesses.

Like surviving the GFC. How dare us.

[DanielXR8]

Originally Posted by nuthin' fancy

And that is where the problem lies, they will take something like $19b over the next ten year (ABC online article) and we'll hardly notice it.

They can start the increase now but it they can't get it ratified in legislation within 12 months, they have to pay the money back.

To the oil companies.

There's something wrong here, but I can't quite put my finger on it........


How do I become an oil company?

Well you will have to have some good contacts in government. As for Tony.

[DanielXR8]

Originally Posted by cheap

Im trying to imagine where we'd be if she were still running the joint, hmm...

That was a hopeless government under Gillard. Now fast forward to today. The Australian Tea Party are running the country under the guise of the old Liberal banner. Parliamentary members in the Liberal and National party are gagged/ There is Presidential style government under which, our democratic system is being underminded by the Prime Minister and the country economically is sinking fast.

Can't say its an improvement, but seriously question if its even as good.