Now FTA slams the 'crash tax'
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
rHINLY disguised extra tax that's how the Freight insport Association labelled Government's plans for overing the costs of treatroad crash victims.
he FTA has questioned the partment of Health and !,ial Security's logic in sinig out one sector of the )ulation to repay accident ut then perhaps "it was the ?.ntion to apply the principle other hazardous activities ndustrial and social life." lso attacked was the lack liaison between Governnt departments.
'he DHSS wanted to get accident costs through a , rate levy on insurance icies and the Department of insport was seeking to put goods vehicle taxation on same grounds.
Surely the Government ,sn't want to have it both vs," was the FTA comment. mother and little known nt affected companies ich lodged special deposits h the Supreme Court. They uld be particularly hard hit h the deposit being raised 'old. "Unless phased in over a long period, this would be "completely unacceptable."
In addition to the flat rate imposed by the DHSS, users would inevitably have to pay an additional administration cost incurred by insurance companies in their role as tax collectors.
These extra costs would have to be passed on, adding to the inflation spiral.
The proposal that a certificate of insurance would be invalid if the "crash tax" had not been paid, was both unworkable and unacceptable.
Accidental omission of payment could arise for all sorts of reasons beyond the control of the policy holder.