A Bowl of Curd Rice Became the Silent Witness That Cracked a Murder Case Wide Open — One of the Most Unexpected Forensic Breakthroughs in Tamil True Crime History

This is the Guardian. I'm not Hyder, coming to you from Gadigal land, and this is the full story. This year, the federal government will spend billions on a scheme that makes it cheaper for mining and other industries to use diesel and petrol. It's known as the fuel tax credit scheme, and there are growing calls for it to be wound back. And while this chopout exists, while this rebate exists, that is working against the country's efforts to reach climate targets. So, with the federal budget under pressure, is it time to re-evaluate? I would have thought it's the area in which the government could make change without their being. Significant political pushback at a time in which they really need to. So, yes, I think it makes less and less sense all the time. Today, climate and environment editor Adam Morton on Australia's most costly anti-climate policy. It's Monday the 9th of March. Hey, Adam. Welcome back to full story. Hey, no, good to be here. The fuel tax credit scheme has been in the news lately, but I don't think many people would understand what it is or how it works. Can you, in simple terms, explain that. Yeah, I'll give it a go. So, every time we go and buy petrol or diesel, we pay a significant tax on that. It's a fuel excise. Currently, 51.6 cents a liter, and that's indexed and increases every six months. But a number of companies, big mining companies, farmers, tourism operators, and others in industry, get a cutout on this tax and can have it rebated in full. The argument is because in many cases these companies are buying diesel, particularly, and petrol to run in vehicles that are off-road, that run at mining sites and on farming properties, and not on the roads that governments need to pay to maintain and build, that they should not be paying this tax. So, they get that full amount rebated back, and it's a huge drain on the budget each year. This financial year, the government estimates it'll be $10.8 billion, which is one of the 20 biggest costs in the federal budget. So, just to clarify, supporters of this scheme argue that the fuel excise exists to fund roads, and that those who get the credits are not using public roads, and should therefore be exempt from paying it, but you say there are holes in that logic. What do you mean? Well, I mean, as you say, the argument that has used time and again is that, well, if you're not actually using the roads with these vehicles, why should you be paying this tax? Because this tax is used in road upkeep. But the reality is that it's actually not used in roads, not used in road upkeep. A very small percentage of what is collected in fuel excise is directly linked to road funding, about 5%. That's under a change that Tony Abbott introduced when he was Prime Minister of BitOver a decade ago. But the remainder has four decades since the mid-1950s, actually just been directed into general budget consolidated revenue. So, yes, governments pay for roads, and that's an important part of what they do. But there is no direct link between this tax and road funding. And the argument that I've seen made, and that I think is compelling, is that people pay tax for a whole range of services to fund a whole range of services that they don't use. People pay tax for education, for health and hospitals, for childcare. You don't get a rebate on the tax that you pay that goes towards those services if you are not using those services. In this case, the argument has made that big miners, in many cases, huge multinationals, should get this rebate because they're not using the roads. And we're seeing now a growing number of people from a range of perspectives arguing that doesn't make sense, particularly at a time in which the budget is under structural strain. And we're seeing the treasure at Jim Charmers talk about the need for restraint in spending, the upcoming budget that will be released in May. And the idea is an area where there's a big chop out for big corporates. And it's a problem for a few reasons that we're getting to, but increasingly people are saying it's just no longer justified. Adam, I was stunned to read just how much money goes towards this game. As you said, $10 billion each year. You've described it as the most costly anti-climate policy in the budget. And as you've noted, there are now more and more individuals and groups calling for it to either be round back or abolished entirely. Who is speaking out against this policy and or what are their criticisms? So it's worth breaking down how much we're talking about. This is $30 million a day, nearly this year, and more than $20,000 a minute around the clock. They've fast sums. And some of the people who have been critical are really very strong labor supporters. The ACTU representing the unions across the country last year made a pitch that this should be substantially round back and no longer made sense. Matt Kean, the former Liberal treasurer who's now the climate change authority chair, has described it as insane that big miners are getting this tax break and says the money could be better spent. We're seeing now a range of groups, including Fortescue, the mining company, led by Andrew Forest, the Labor Environment Action Network, which is basically Labor's environmental arm, and a think tank called Climate Energy Finance, arguing for a cap on how much any one company can claim on this each year to really sort of wind back what some people had described as a budget wrought. But it is worth noting, though, that the Mineral's Council has said that it will campaign strongly against any proposed change to this rebate. And we can expect significant impact from the resources of mining industry, generally, who have a very powerful and successful lobbyists in the past. Is it a fossil fuel subsidy? Because there's some debate around that. Yeah, I mean, there are people who dispute it, because that's not obviously the intention of the tax. The fuel excise is not, was not introduced to discourage the use of fossil fuels directly. But the reality is that it is a tax on fossil fuel use. You say that this policy actively encourages pollution. Yeah, absolutely. Think about the people that are getting this rebate. Particularly the big miners were talking big multinationals, Rio Tinto, BHP, Fortescue, which is saying it should be changed. Many of them have net zero emissions targets. They are governed by a government policy called the Safeguard Mechanism, which requires big industrial facilities to reduce their emissions year on year. And at the same time, we have a policy here that is encouraging them to continue to use polluting fuels in polluting vehicles and machinery. There's obviously other incentives through the Safeguard Mechanism and just the general pressure to act on climate change for them to move to cleaner practice, to cleaner vehicles, for example. At the same time, we're taking a foot off the brake, encouraging them to lock in the use of polluting vehicles. The justification for that seems to make no sense. And you have here, I think, an increasing number of people are making the case, government policies that are working against each other. And while this chop out exists, while this rebate exists, that is working against the country's efforts to reach climate targets. There are mining trucking groups who are strongly opposed to any changes or reforms in this area. They say that it would increase the cost of freight, that businesses could or would fail. I'm sure that would unnerve many in the government, but also in the public who don't want to be paying more for things that they purchase. There would be economic and financial impacts, wouldn't there, if this were to be wound back or abolished? If it was abolished outright, I think that's very likely the case. And I think that's why most of the people in organisations who are calling for a change, I suggesting it shouldn't be just dropped completely, but wound back so that the amount of money that is paid back particularly to the big mining companies, that's really what they want to see targeted. So if there was a cap introduced and different organisations have suggested a cap of $50 million or in the ACT use case, $20 million of how much you could claim back before it cut out, that is less likely to hit smaller operators. It's less likely to hit farmers. I think farmers, if there is ever a change, are very likely to be exempted by the government just because they do not want to be seen to be making life harder for farmers. It's less likely to hit tourism operators and smaller operators that are running trucks, but it would hit the big miners who obviously have much greater capacity to cover the cost of this exercise that they currently don't have to pay. And it's worth noting that some of the people are calling for a change, lean, the Labour's environment arm, notably us saying that any money above that cap could be used to help with decarbonisation efforts, including helping perhaps smaller mining operators, other transport operators that need assistance to make this shift for the good of everybody to invest in decarbonisation technology and projects. So Adam, the government says that it is looking to make budget savings. Are there any signs that it would be open to considering some of those suggestions about winding back this scheme? How have they responded so far? Yeah, it's interesting. We've seen some stories in the Australian financial review in January about this and the resources Minister Madeline King went on Sky News the following day and was asked about it and said there were no plans for any change. My understanding is there are different views within the government on this and it is something that is potentially on the table at some level and that includes treasury looking at models where it could be wound back a little perhaps not as much as some of the critics are saying. I think that it is a live discussion perhaps feeding into the budget this year perhaps next year as we're looking ahead before the next federal election in 2028. We're in a window here where change is possible, but I don't think we could say more than that. Do you think it would only get harder and harder for the government to be able to justify this policy given some say that it should have been dealt with ages ago and that clash that you describe. It's at odds with the government's pursuit for net zero. Well, look at it this way. It's some big mining companies. A lot of them do important work. It's worth knowing that this also goes to coal companies so they get more than $1 billion in rebates. I'm not trying to dismiss the importance of the role these mining companies play, but I do think most people would look at it and wonder why it is cheaper for them to burn petrol and diesel and contribute to the climate crisis than it is for everyday households. That just doesn't seem to make any sense and I would have thought it's the area in which the government could make change without there being significant political pushback at a time in which they really need to. So yes, I think it makes less and less sense all the time. I thought it was really interesting that Matt Keen used such strong language around it and he obviously felt like it was an area where he was free to speak that frankly. So yeah, it's going to get harder for the government to defend over time. We'll be right back. Adam, while we've got you, I want to ask you a question about a adjacent issue. I'm sure you would have seen that the Prime Minister made some remarks when asked about the amount that gas companies pay under the PR RT compared to the B tax. The average person pays more in tax to have a beer than the billion dollar mining companies get taxed, bleeding our resources dry. How do you respond to that? Well two things. One is that the mining companies do pay taxes and they also provide for a lot of our prosperity. That's the truth. The Green's political party is shut down all of our industry. I think this is POCO raising it. If they had a chance, well, you know. You don't think he's right? We got pretty tasty and accused David POCOC, independent Senator David POCOC of seeking to promote grievances because he has been pushing for reforms in this space. All right. I look forward to David POCOC's response to that in the Senate. I'm sure he will cherry pick accordingly. I wonder what you make of the way that the Prime Minister responded. I mean, I think as we've seen in other areas this week, these off the cuff answers to these questions. I think the Prime Minister sometimes uses language that he might think again if he had another moment. But the main takeaway I would have is that it shows the sensitivity of this area for the government. It's obviously well known that the resources and minerals industries are very effective, lobbyists and political campaigners. And we've seen campaigns in the past against carbon pricing and mining tax increases against labor governments. We've seen the Prime Minister oversee a step back in an increase that was proposed for their petroleum resource rent tax in the past, which is applied on the gas industry. They didn't go as hard as that on that as they suggested they would. So he's very sensitive around it. It's a good line. It's from the Australia Institute to say that Australians are paying far more in beer tax than they are on in BRRT. I wouldn't say that it means no change will happen, but it is a very sensitive area for the government. And we know the Prime Minister is a cautious leader and I think it's just where the evidence of that. POCOC says that he believes he's struck a sore point for the government. Adam, thank you so much for your time. No worries. Good to be here. That was Adam Morton, Guardian Australia's climate and environment editor. You can find more of his work on the guardian.com and we've also linked to his piece on the fuel tax credit scheme on the full story page. That's it for today. This episode was produced by Miles Herbert, sound design and mixing by Joe Coney, the executive producer of full story ears, Hanif Hawks. Don't forget to subscribe or follow full story wherever you listen to podcasts. And please leave us a review. I'm Nod Heider. Thanks for listening. You