State based EV road user charge (Overturned 18/10/23)

[ZeeDoktor]

@Vostok providing necessary infrastructure for the common good is not an incentive. It's a government obligation.

How exactly that's financed is a different matter altogether. But don't try and sell me my own investment back for pennies on the dollar.

An incentive as per the dictionary is "a thing that motivates or encourages someone to do something." In car world, that means EVs can replace an ICE at cost parity. Considering EVs still have considerable charging network disadvantages, that means a significant cost benefit for the prospective owner must be apparent. Hence my position: No Rego, No LCT, No Stamp Duty on any EVs until we have at least 50% market share. And most certainly no additional tax.

 

[aegidius]

Yes its tax avoidance so I’m not encouraging it, but it seems an obvious loophole that will be exploited

To quote Martin Luther King: “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

This tax is an absolute howler, so I'm sure many will try all sorts of things to get around it. I'll be up front in the protests of my state even thinks about doing such a thing - they are being at least sensible and watching the pioneers take arrows in the back first.

 

[ZeeDoktor]

A sidenote: Back in Switzerland 30 odd years ago, the greens argued that clean breathing air is a common good that every citizen is entitled to, and therefore you should pay a disincentive if you spoil it. This came to be known as the "polluter pays" principle. Countless crude jokes ensued chiefly from the political right, or the dumb, or the (surprisingly common) political right and dumb, but regardless ultimately led to legislation that prohibited city centers and public transport accessible supermarkets from providing free parking for any length of time. You drove your car, you polluted, you must pay.

Now there's a huge lifestyle difference between here and there, so mandatory charging for parking most certainly would not translate to Australia. But the underlying argument that clean breathing air is a common good is convincing. And by the logic of deduction, polluters should pay for their misdeeds, especially in the presence of viable alternatives.

What I'm trying to say with this: If there are no significant incentives to accelerate the uptake of EVs, at the very least then start charging the polluters for the direct health cost inflicted by them onto the general population. And we do have numbers for that.

 

[paulp]

A sidenote: Back in Switzerland 30 odd years ago, the greens argued that clean breathing air is a common good that every citizen is entitled to, and therefore you should pay a disincentive if you spoil it. This came to be known as the "polluter pays" principle. Countless crude jokes ensued chiefly from the political right, or the dumb, or the (surprisingly common) political right and dumb, but regardless ultimately led to legislation that prohibited city centers and public transport accessible supermarkets from providing free parking for any length of time. You drove your car, you polluted, you must pay.

Now there's a huge lifestyle difference between here and there, so mandatory charging for parking most certainly would not translate to Australia. But the underlying argument that clean breathing air is a common good is convincing. And by the logic of deduction, polluters should pay for their misdeeds, especially in the presence of viable alternatives.

What I'm trying to say with this: If there are no significant incentives to accelerate the uptake of EVs, at the very least then start charging the polluters for the direct health cost inflicted by them onto the general population. And we do have numbers for that.

Interesting concept. It could also translate to EV. Charging stations not powered by renewables could have a levy added to the user charge.

 

[Vostok]

In summary government says it has legal advice.

Which is what every Government says. They usually refuse to release said advice, and rarely is legal advice absolutely emphatic or un-caveated. If there are no case law or common law precedents, the advice might say little more than it might withstand a challenge and grounds X, Y and Z but ultimately they don’t know for sure because the only way to determine it is for a Court to rule on it.

And as I indicated before, there are plenty of examples where Courts have determined that a Government’s legal advice was wrong and struck down a law.

 

[Vostok]

@Vostok providing necessary infrastructure for the common good is not an incentive. It's a government obligation.

How exactly that's financed is a different matter altogether. But don't try and sell me my own investment back for pennies on the dollar.

Well I think that is hair-splitting, but whatever. Most tax receipts go into a bucket called consolidated revenue, making it impossible (and pointless) to distinguish where a particular dollar came from.

 

[paulp]

Well I think that is hair-splitting, but whatever. Most tax receipts go into a bucket called consolidated revenue, making it impossible (and pointless) to distinguish where a particular dollar came from.

Treasury know where every dollar of tax comes from as its itemised on BAS returns. Yet goes into general or consolidated revenue making it impossible to see that its all spent as intended. Knowing where taxes are collected is actually quite important for the future. An example is the panic that will set in federally as EV’s get traction and fuel purchasing decreases. Without the data, they wouldn’t know.

 

[Vostok]

If an EV driver from VIC is fired up about this and wants to not just get mad but get even, here’s my suggestion, for what it’s worth.

First, contact a “public interest advocacy” law firm, like the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Maurice Blackburn or Gilbert+Tobin, explain the issue and ask if this is something they could conceivably take on. It might not be in PIAC’s remit, they tend to be more social justice / human rights oriented. Not penalising EV use given the climate emergency certainly ticks some boxes though, as well as its potential to impact every driver in VIC (eventually...). A “first in Australia” case like this could attract their interest, given it could become a template for wider adoption.

If they look at it and think there isn’t a case because they know a lot more about the law than I do, then that might be that.

Second, my understanding is that Courts don’t rule on hypotheticals. A Victorian driver would need to keep a detailed log-book of driving they do outside the state, wait until they are sent the bill for their EV driving, then challenge that bill on the basis that the Victorian Parliament does not have the “extraterritorial” power to bill their EV driving in another state, and that is what would be tested in Court.

Since public advocacy law firms make their money by taking a significant slice of any settlements, then it might require a group of drivers to agree to form a class action. With a small number of EV drivers, and a small proportion of revenue at risk from interstate driving, the total pool of money might not enough on its own. Public interest firms do set aside funds for actions which are unlikely to pay for themselves, it just depends on how ‘worthy’ they think it is and probably the personal biases of the people you speak to.

 

[Vostok]

Treasury know where every dollar of tax comes from as its itemised on BAS returns.

Well, of course, but that’s not what I said. If a Government subsidises a DCFC somewhere, I consider it utterly pointless to debate whether that money came from sales tax, payroll tax, property stamp duty, or a road usage charge. It all got mixed up in a metaphorical bucket of money when it came in. Unless there is specific tied funding that quarantines money raised from “X” to only be spent on “Y” - which is normally not the case.

 

[paulp]

Well, of course, but that’s not what I said. If a Government subsidises a DCFC somewhere, I consider it utterly pointless to debate whether that money came from sales tax, payroll tax, property stamp duty, or a road usage charge. It all got mixed up in a metaphorical bucket of money when it came in. Unless there is specific tied funding that quarantines money raised from “X” to only be spent on “Y” - which is normally not the case.

You might like to read what you said again, as it is what you said…

 

[Flatbat]

How does this EV tax establish your KMs travelled? Is it a simple declaration or photos of screen showing odometer or something else?

 

[SMAlset]

Tonight stumbled upon TheJuiceMedia's latest satire video on Electric Vehicles in Australia. In reading through the recent posts here I see that unfortunately Victoria has passed their EV tax. Wow. Anyway here's their video (two versions, one toned down).
Original version
Modified version for teachers

 

[Vostok]

You might like to read what you said again, as it is what you said…

The statement “making it impossible (and pointless) to distinguish where a particular dollar came from” was referring to when taxpayers’ money is spent not when it is collected. Read the comment I was responding to, and I would have thought that the meaning was obvious. Context is everything.

 

[paulp]

The statement “making it impossible (and pointless) to distinguish where a particular dollar came from” was referring to when taxpayers’ money is spent not when it is collected. Read the comment I was responding to, and I would have thought that the meaning was obvious. Context is everything.

I’m not a mind reader, sorry. I just read what is written.

 

[ZeeDoktor]

Tonight stumbled upon TheJuiceMedia's latest satire video on Electric Vehicles in Australia. In reading through the recent posts here I see that unfortunately Victoria has passed their EV tax. Wow. Anyway here's their video (two versions, one toned down).
Original version
Modified version for teachers

Love it! And to the point...

 

[AussieOwner]

If an EV driver from VIC is fired up about this and wants to not just get mad but get even, here’s my suggestion, for what it’s worth.

First, contact a “public interest advocacy” law firm, like the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Maurice Blackburn or Gilbert+Tobin, explain the issue and ask if this is something they could conceivably take on. It might not be in PIAC’s remit, they tend to be more social justice / human rights oriented. Not penalising EV use given the climate emergency certainly ticks some boxes though, as well as its potential to impact every driver in VIC (eventually...). A “first in Australia” case like this could attract their interest, given it could become a template for wider adoption.

If they look at it and think there isn’t a case because they know a lot more about the law than I do, then that might be that.

Second, my understanding is that Courts don’t rule on hypotheticals. A Victorian driver would need to keep a detailed log-book of driving they do outside the state, wait until they are sent the bill for their EV driving, then challenge that bill on the basis that the Victorian Parliament does not have the “extraterritorial” power to bill their EV driving in another state, and that is what would be tested in Court.

Since public advocacy law firms make their money by taking a significant slice of any settlements, then it might require a group of drivers to agree to form a class action. With a small number of EV drivers, and a small proportion of revenue at risk from interstate driving, the total pool of money might not enough on its own. Public interest firms do set aside funds for actions which are unlikely to pay for themselves, it just depends on how ‘worthy’ they think it is and probably the personal biases of the people you speak to.

I’d chip in for the court costs if someone challenges this. This tax is horrible (and the 300th tax that Labor has brought in since being in government.)

 

[EcoCloudIT]

I’d chip in for the court costs if someone challenges this. This tax is horrible (and the 300th tax that Labor has brought in since being in government.)

Me too...anyone got the skills or know someone that does?

 

[Vostok]

I’d chip in for the court costs if someone challenges this. This tax is horrible (and the 300th tax that Labor has brought in since being in government.)

You might not need to ”chip in” if a G+T or Maurice Blackburn decide to take it on. But someone in VIC has to make that initial phone call to at least find out if that path is feasible. Maybe a partner in one of these firms owns an EV and will take an interest I’m in NSW so could not be an “interested party” to any litigation.

 

[LWI]

I'll chip in - that's a firm commitment - to at least get an opinion from a constitutional lawyer, with a view to taking it further if seen as a reasonable case.

 

[OzVic]

I'd like to know if it's constiutional to target a particular subset of a group (cars) for any arbitrary reason for a tax just because they choose to. ie. No underlying reason.

Could they charge a road usage tax on 'all red cars'?

Or a road usage tax on 'all cars registered in Bendigo'?

Why are they allowed to charge for 'all cars driven by electric propulsion'?

Surely that is arbitrary targeted discrimination and must be against some law / common law or precedent? Create a law it should apply to all unless there is a valid reason for an exemption.

The only reasoning I have heard is the federal fuel tax BS, and that couldn't surely stand up in court considering it's nothing to do with the Victorian government.

Might be another angle for any class action lawsuits.