The diesel rebate is not a concession because excise on diesel is an example of an hypothecated tax.
I pay full excise on the diesel in my Landcruiser because it is used on the road (almost exclusively) and fuel excise is supposed to be used to maintain the roads network.
A hypothecated tax is one where the tax income is earmarked for a particular purpose or purposes.
If the diesel were going into my tractor or my D9 (assuming that I owned either) I would receive the rebate to reflect the fact that neither uses the road system.
As the excise is earmarked for a particular thing it would be unjust to charge me for that if I don’t use it.
You can read the history of fuel rebates to 2001 here up. The diesel rebate has been in existence since 1982.
Claims that the rebate is a concession are just propaganda from mainly green groups who don’t like farming or mining.
The rebate is about equity, not a tax dodge.
It’s about time that journalists, including Chris Uhlman this morning on AM, stopped mindlessly repeating the lie.
I’m particularly annoyed because Chris is one of the best and fairest journalists, and should know better. (Probably does: producers write the scripts that he reads).