That doesn’t sound very constitutional to me... Victorian law does not apply in NSW, or SA, or...
The tweet above says “every km driven on Victorian Roads” which I interpret as excluding kms driven on roads outside of Victoria.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
State based EV road user charge (Overturned 18/10/23)
- Thread starter jamesgo
- Start date
The tweet above says “every km driven on Victorian Roads” which I interpret as excluding kms driven on roads outside of Victoria.
I think by saying it ‘covers it’ modusop meant it covers the problem with the log book solution. Seems like there is going to be a lot of tesla showing log book entries to interstate and private roads. This will never work as state law. It needs to be a federal solution
Absolutely needs to be Federal - and done in conjunction with a review on the diesel rebate.
Excise has been going down because there are more fuel efficient vehicles on the road.
Mild hybrids and stop-start technology have probably had a bigger dent to Federal revenues than EVs and it will probably stay that way for more than a few years.
This new Vic law is a grubby, badly designed, badly implemented impost.
Excise has been going down because there are more fuel efficient vehicles on the road.
Mild hybrids and stop-start technology have probably had a bigger dent to Federal revenues than EVs and it will probably stay that way for more than a few years.
This new Vic law is a grubby, badly designed, badly implemented impost.
Unfortunately that is not what I meant by covers.
Below is the definition of 'specified road' directly from the bill as passed.
specified road means— (a) a public road within the meaning of the Road Management Act 2004; or (b) a road related area within the meaning of the Road Safety Act 1986; or (c) a highway at common law in Victoria that is not a public road or road related area referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); or (d) a highway at common law outside Victoria; or (e) a road within the meaning of the Road Management Act 2004, other than a private road, prescribed by the regulations;
You will note point (d) includes a highway at common law outside Victoria. Here is a link to the Bill: https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-05/591310bs1.pdf you will be able to read it more easily there. Its section 3 page numbered 5 on that copy.
As for this being unconstitutional that might be a bit beyond my area of expertise but it is probably not unconstitutional or otherwise ultra vires. There are a number of extraterritorial laws which exist and apply to Australian/Victorian citizens overseas (for example the Child Sex Tourism Act). This is not so different. Provided there is some connection to the state the law will be upheld by the courts, in this case driving a car registered in Victoria is likely to be enough.
Of course this is completely unfair and may interact poorly with other states laws if they introduce Road User Taxes that apply to anyone driving on that states roads.
Punchbuggy
Member
I don't believe it's off the table in SA. My understanding is that a decision has been deferred until mid 2022. Could be that they're waiting to see what other States come up with, knowing that Vic's method is likely to be contentious.
But as with other comments, state-specific taxation is insane and inequitable - it must be a Federal solution. How long before most EVs driving around in Vic magically have home addresses in other states? Hmm... do you think anyone would ask questions if I have 50 cars registered to my home address in the ACT?
I know this claim has been made, but I’m not sure it is the “first in the world” (society seems to have been infected with a Trump-like need to hyperbolise everything as the ‘biggest’, ‘best’, ‘largest’, ‘first’, ‘worst’, ’last’ etc even when it’s not. Truth, unfortunately, has been the casualty).
19 states in the USA have EV-specific taxes: California (from Jan 2021), Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.
Now, all of these are annual or bi-annual lump sum taxes rather than per-km fees, but VIC’s law is not the world’s first EV specific tax. It might be the world’s first EV-specific road-usage charge but I have not been able to fact-check that.
7 US states (Maine, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and Washington) have enacted road-usage charges but these are not EV specific.
You dont even need an address. If you fly interstate you simply show in your logbook that you drove…..a lot. Yes its tax avoidance so I’m not encouraging it, but it seems an obvious loophole that will be exploited
Also did you note the question mark? ”first in the world?”
I was asking a question of the community, but if its easier for you I can change it to “has any other durisdiction imposed a cents per km tax on ev’s?
Something being described as first, second, biggest, smallest etc happened way before trump.
The SA government doesnt have the numbers to pass it as the independants signalled they will not support it. Our election is in march 2022, and its unlikely the libs will gain enough seats to not need the independants. Assuming the libs retain goverment (and they may not) all they can hope for is an independant being kicked out. Thats also unlikely.
As a low km driver I’d be better off with what the SA government broadly proposed If the victorian rates were used, but I still expressed my concerns to my local mp that this is not the role of state governments.
Interstate driving is not exempt. You are still taxed in Victoria for driving in NSW, Qld or even overseas.
The only loophole is to claim you drove off-road or on a racetrack or your own private driveway.
I wrote a longer post explaining this but it is held for moderation probably because I linked to the legislation.
I’m not a lawyer but that does not sound Constitutional to me. A state cannot impose its laws in some other state, which effectively this is (if indeed the Act is phrased that way). Otherwise criminals would not need to be extradited from one state to another - they would just be charged and face justice in whatever state they are caught.
Surely a golden opportunity for a public-interest advocate law firm to get in and test this.
Sure, I noted the question mark, and responded as such, which was a post to update said community in response to a question. I also noted I had not been able to fact-check whether it was the first EV-specific road usage charge in the world. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, I haven’t been able to verify it either way. I haven’t been able to find any report which made this claim provide a reference as to how they arrived at that conclusion, i.e. what research did they do, or were able to cite, in order to provide substantiation.
Didn’t the VIC Government say they would use some or all of the money raised to build more infrastructure to support EVs in the state? Is that not counterbalancing? Happy to be corrected if that is not the case.
Look, I’m no fan of this, and that a Labor government did it makes it ten times as bad - it totally sends the wrong message. Doesn’t mean that I cease striving for accuracy in debate.
The act definitely is worded that way. Here is section 6:
6 Extraterritorial operation
(1) This Act applies within and outside Victoria to the full extent of the extraterritorial legislative power of the Parliament.
(2) In particular, this Act extends to the use of ZLEVs outside Victoria.
I'm not an expert in this field but I believe so long as there is some connection between Victoria and the law (here it would be driving a Victorian registered Vehicle) then the courts will uphold the law. There are lots of laws imposed on Australians and Victorians when the are interstate or overseas. Extradition is relevant because only our courts will enforce those laws.
However, in this case making the law apply outside Victoria seems incredibly unfair. And completely exposes the governments lies that this is to make users of our roads pay their fair share.
Well, if the “full extent of the extraterritorial legislative power of the Parliament” turns out to be zero, then there’s your answer. That's what needs to be tested.
Just because the Parliament of Victoria would like to have extraterritorial powers, or thinks it has such powers, does not make it so.
One might think surely that’s something the relevant Department and their legal officers would have checked was Constitutional, and presumably they did, but there’s been plenty of examples where a Government has done something they claimed was lawful, supported by the best legal advice money (or Ministerial power) can provide, only for a Court to later disagree. RoboDebt was a recent example, and that happened at the Commonwealth level!
It’s also not unknown for Governments to “try things on”, because if no-one ever puts in the time/effort to challenge a given law or test its Constitutionality, then it will operate as written.
I’m not aware of any law or mechanism that allows a state to enforce laws on its citizens whilst they are in another state. Someone is extradited for an offence back home. If they visit a state and commit an offence they are subject to the laws and penalties of the visited state, and the home state has no mechanism to penalise.
Further, any lease or contract generally states which state law applies, especially when the parties are from different states.
Now lets suppose SA do impose the same tax, but tweak ot so it applies to any australian ev in the state, kind of like how tolls work. A visiting victorian car would be taxed twice.
This has so many loopholes to challenge, for those that enjoy such things.
It would be nice if this could be challenged, it is completely unfair. I'm sceptical though.
I think it is actually relatively common to legislate against people while outside Victoria. For an extreme example at the federal level which has been tested in the High Court look at the Child Sex Tourism Act. Australians while overseas can commit crimes punishable in Australia by engaging is sex acts with non-australian minors even where doing so is not illegal in those countries (most countries make this illegal but the age is often different to Australia) have a look at XYZ v Commonwealth, High Court 2006. Plenty of other laws that apply to people who have never even been to Victoria. A Nigerian who scams a Victorian would be guilty of all sorts of crimes if we could ever catch them and get them into Victoria. People from overseas who conduct online business with Australians are subject to GST. There just has to be some connection to Victoria. I think driving around and relying on your Victorian Plates and Rego will be enough to make the connection to Victoria (take those off and I think you have a real argument).
The best example I can think of that would be worth exploring as it is closer to the new law would be to look at something like fishing quotas. I'm not familiar with these. How do they work? Does a Victorian registered boat still breach its fishing quota if it fishes from waters outside of Victorian Waters? I suspect it would.
I would be very interested in an opinion from a lawyer specialising in this area. I didn't see many arguments about it made during the few parliamentary debates I watched which surprised me. I might go back and search Hansard a bit better.
The double taxation is a worry, it would be doubly unfair. That wouldn't make it invalid though. That's the problem with all of this it seems like it should be illegal just because it seems so unfair (paying Vic to drive my car around another state WTF) but being unfair doesn't make something illegal. The courts will uphold any law that is legal whether it is fair or not. The protection against laws being fair is supposed to be provided by parliament who should only pass fair laws, a clear and present failure in this case.
I dug up some discussion on this point from Hansard if people are interested it can be found here: Dr RATNAM: Minister, what impact will registration leakage have as some EV opera - Pastebin.com
In summary government says it has legal advice. Government will keep revenue generated from Victorians driving on other states roads. They expect other states to do the same but they will work that out as we go along.
A very good point was raised by an MP about truck registrations (although electric trucks aren't much of a thing yet). It will be a large disincentive for transport companies to be registered in Victoria and may move some businesses interstate.
In summary government says it has legal advice. Government will keep revenue generated from Victorians driving on other states roads. They expect other states to do the same but they will work that out as we go along.
A very good point was raised by an MP about truck registrations (although electric trucks aren't much of a thing yet). It will be a large disincentive for transport companies to be registered in Victoria and may move some businesses interstate.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
