1 / 16

Tasmanian Freight Assistance Arrangements

Tasmanian Freight Assistance Arrangements. Productivity Commission Inquiry Public Hearing – Hobart 17 October 2006. Agenda. Rationale Benefit Assessment Quantification of the Sea Freight Cost Disadvantage Assistance Mechanisms Parameters Rorting Key Points. Rationale.

noam
Télécharger la présentation

Tasmanian Freight Assistance Arrangements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tasmanian Freight Assistance Arrangements Productivity Commission Inquiry Public Hearing – Hobart 17 October 2006

  2. Agenda • Rationale • Benefit Assessment • Quantification of theSea Freight Cost Disadvantage • Assistance Mechanisms • Parameters • Rorting • Key Points

  3. Rationale “The Scheme assists in alleviating the comparativeinterstatefreight cost disadvantage incurred by shippers of eligible non-bulk goods carried between Tasmania and the mainland. Its objective is to provide Tasmanian industries with equal opportunities to compete in mainland markets, recognising that, unlike their mainland counterparts, Tasmanian shippers do not have the option of transporting goods interstate by road or rail.”[1] [1] Department of Transport and Regional Services, http://www.dotars.gov.au/ transport/programs/maritime/tasmanian/index.aspx, 9 June 2006

  4. Benefit Assessment “The main reason the model reduces Australian imports by the level it does is simply due to the closure of the model. It is assumed that TFES does not alter the level of Australia’s balance of trade. The Australian government is assumed to have a target for external liabilities and will adjust macroeconomic settings accordingly.”

  5. Sea Freight Cost Disadvantage

  6. Sea Freight Cost Disadvantage 1. Additional Transfers consequence of need to change transport modes

  7. Sea Freight Cost Disadvantage 1. Additional Transfers consequence of need to change transport modes 2. Landside Transport Inefficiencies consequence of using short haul land transport for part of a line-haul task

  8. Sea Freight Cost Disadvantage 1. Additional Transfers consequence of need to change transport modes 2. Landside Transport Inefficiencies consequence of using short haul land transport for part of a line-haul task 3. Optimisation of task around shipping consequence of striving for lowest total cost solution

  9. Alternative Assistance Mechanisms • The suitability of the mechanism to achieve a programs objectives needs to be assessed against the extent to which it achieves the objectives • Without “measuring” the sea-freight cost disadvantage it is difficult to conduct any comparative assessment of alternatives

  10. Alternative Assistance Mechanisms • Assistance through a “flat rate” approach: • Is unrelated to the magnitude of disadvantage experienced • Is inequitable in its impact across different shippers and different products • Creates greater distortion in the market • Minimises the chances of successfully achieving the program’s equity objectives

  11. Parameters • Road Freight Equivalent • Door-to-wharf/W-D adjustments • Route Scaling Factors • Intermodal Cost Adjustment • Median wharf-to-wharf disadvantage • Heavy weight adjustment • Adjustment Process

  12. Key Points • Rationale exists • Benefit assessment is inaccurate • The proposed “flat-rate” approach is inferior to the current approach • Parameters need adjustment and refinement • Allegations of rorting needs to be quantified and where present severely dealt with

  13. Suggestions • TFES retained in current form until such time as a better, more equitable, methodology can be proven up – incl. quantifying the disadvantage • A framework needs to be developed and implemented for the annual adjustment of parameters – to restore equitable assistance levels, send right signals to the market, reset incentive mechanisms • Mechanisms need to be instituted to identify potential rorting and allow remedies to be applied

  14. For information on this document, please contact: Simon Talbot, Corporate Relationship Manager Australian Paper 307 Ferntree Gully Road Mt Waverley Vic 3149 (03) 8540 2382 Manfred Ruzsicska Strategic Adviser M-Strad Pty Ltd PO Box 316 Lara Vic 3212 Tel: 0412 243 167

  15. Tasmanian Freight Assistance Arrangements Productivity Commission Inquiry Public Hearing – Hobart 17 October 2006

  16. t+3 t+1 t+2 t t = door-to-wharf adjustment in year “t” Door-to-Wharf/Wharf-to-Door Adjustment Conceptual Not to scale n Cumulative Claims / value / TEUs $0 Door-to-wharf component of freight rate ($) Cumulative wharf-to-wharf number ‘n’ = 85% of claims, 43% of value, 38% of TEUs Productivity Commission, Tasmanian Freight Subsidy Arrangements Draft Report, Sept 2006 p.14

More Related