Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Hansard source

The member for New England is absolutely correct: there is no doubt. The jury is back in, and the conclusion is firm: the GST is having a compounding effect on those who live outside our capital cities. As a result, those people—more particularly those living in rural, regional and remote Australia—are having a greater burden of taxation imposed upon them than are their city cousins when they fill up their cars at the petrol pump. So it is very important to note that the bill makes that change at a time when fuel prices are at a record high and imposing significant burdens on Australian individuals and Australian families.

It is also worth noting that the Excise Laws Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2006 puts in place new arrangements for the way in which business claims back fuel tax for which it is not liable. Up to now, businesses have been able to claim back immediately those fuel taxes from the Australian Taxation Office. The government proposed that, in future, businesses would need to make the claim on their business activity statement. Given that most businesses put in business activity statements on a quarterly basis, the government is imposing a significant cash flow problem on business. Most businesses will be carrying that taxation burden for three months and, in some cases, they will be carrying it for up to 12 months.

Following pressure from the opposition and a Senate committee, a reference for which was given by the opposition, the government did a backflip—or at least a half-pike. It announced that a period of grace would be extended to businesses caught up in the new scheme. The effect is that the new arrangements will not come into effect for two years for those businesses that choose to stay under the current arrangements.

It is very notable that, during the second reading debate on the fuel tax bill, I foreshadowed that I would be moving an amendment in this place to put in place that grace period ad infinitum—in other words, to allow business to choose which system they wanted to use on a permanent basis. Disgracefully and disappointingly, the government chose to gag that debate and, in doing so, denied me the opportunity to move that amendment. It therefore denied me a democratic right to move that amendment and it denied the people I represent in this place the right to have that amendment considered by this House. That is a disgrace, and the government should reflect on that point. We will continue to campaign on that very significant burden being imposed on Australian business, particularly small and medium businesses.

When this bill was in the Senate, the Democrats moved a reference to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to look at some alcohol taxation arrangements. Labor noted that that reference was probably outside the scope of the bill, but the committee process went forward in any case. It is interesting to note that there is a unanimous report from that committee, opening up the whole question of alcohol taxes in this country. It asks the government to review them and to consider whether there are some better options for a range of economic, social and health issues—notably, moving to a volumetric system and removing some of the disparities between alcohol taxes as they rest upon particular alcoholic drinks. I expect the parliamentary secretary, some time during this debate, to respond to some of those issues raised by the Senate committee. (Time expired)

See this speech in context