-
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
Well done to Chris Vanderstock. I hope this video is widely broadcast and that all who agree with him, and can afford it, give to the fund raising via
chuffed.org
LEGAL CHALLENGE TO VICTORIA’S "FLAWED" ELECTRIC VEHICLE TAX
We are two Victorian electric vehicle (EV) drivers. We live with our partners and children in suburban Melbourne - Chris is a nursing manager and Kath is an engineering consultant. We think we are pretty normal, everyday people. We drive EVs because we care about our families’ health and the...
chuffed.org
No SA’s is delayed, which is consistant with anything government related in SA
The new ALP government in SA plans to abolish the RUC (although it hasn’t started yet). NSW and WA RUCs won’t start until 2027. Although NSW’s could start earlier, when 30% of new vehicles sold are zero emissions, which could happen as soon as 2025.
That’s not quite right. The Motor Vehicles (Electric Vehicle Levy) Amendment Repeal Bill 2022 was introduced into SA’s parliament on 18 May. I don‘t know what the timetable is before it is expected to be passed into law, but there’s no suggestion that the Bill has been delayed or it won’t be passed to my knowledge.
The question was asked if the tax has started yet. It has not. It was supposed to start on 1 July. It didn’t.That’s not quite right. The Motor Vehicles (Electric Vehicle Levy) Amendment Repeal Bill 2022 was introduced into SA’s parliament on 18 May. I don‘t know what the timetable is before it is expected to be passed into law, but there’s no suggestion that the Bill has been delayed or it won’t be passed to my knowledge.
I’m afraid that’s not correct either. The EV RUC is currently law in SA and under that law the RUC itself will come into effect on 1 July 2027 (not 2022) or when sales of battery electric vehicles are 30% of new motor vehicle sales in South Australia. The same approach as in NSW.
See the Act:
The saving grace here of course is the Act can be repealed well before anyone would be required to pay the RUC.
They've all intervened because the implications are considerably wider than just road usage charges. The argument seems to be about s90 of the constitution:
(This is why the original state-based fuel taxes were removed in 1997 - the High Court ruled a NSW license fee for tobacconists based on the value of tobacco sold was an excise and therefore can't be levied by a state, which implied that the state fuel taxes were as well).
If the road usage charge is ruled an excise as well, depending on the reasoning it could imperil a bunch of other state-based revenue sources. The states have enough trouble as it is with their spending responsibilities exceeding their powers to raise revenue. They'd have intervened whether or not they specifically wanted to implement a RUC, because of these wider implications.
Maximillan
Member
Vostok - "It's the vibe your honour"Yes. I’m not a lawyer, but to me the RUC is a charge or levy on the use of a good, not the good itself. Which would not make it an excise. But the High Court will know more about this than I
This has seemingly become a very narrow constitutional law battle (for at least some of the issues) - which is rarely litigated in the HC.Yes. I’m not a lawyer, but to me the RUC is a charge or levy on the use of a good, not the good itself. Which would not make it an excise. But the High Court will know more about this than I
If Vic loses I suspect the States will not be happy.
I think the question arguably becomes where a good is intended to be used (eg. A car being driven, or a box of breakfast cereal or milk being consumed) should that leave any additional state powers. I mean imagine if Vic asked for $1 per cereal box and 25c per container or carton of milk.
In addition the Vic legislation seemingly allows an exclusion for private roads (but not interstate roads) but their system does not, at least easily, provide an allowance for this, which I suspect the HC might find interesting.
You mean like the 10c per container fee (sorry, "deposit") for disposable drink containers that every state except Tasmania and Victoria currently levy? This might be an example of the kind of thing that the states feel could be at risk if they lose the case.
AussieOwner
White M3 2021 LR
Unsure if this has been posted.
Unsure if this link will work cause its got a swearword according to the website in it. Basically Vic Libs will get rid of the tax if elected.
https://thedriven.io/2022/04/19/vic...rop-bat-*sugar*-crazy-ev-road-tax-if-elected/
Unsure if this link will work cause its got a swearword according to the website in it. Basically Vic Libs will get rid of the tax if elected.
I’ll put that one up there with the WA LNP promising to close down all of WA’s coal-fired power stations by 2025 at last year’s state election. They knew they couldn’t win, so instead were trying to out-Labor Labor, for what purpose I don’t know. Just to do something unexpected in order to get some oxygen?
Maximillan
Member
And now the Feds have stepped in to back the little guys.
Labor Government backs owners' High Court case against Victoria's EV tax
Labor Government backs owners' High Court case against Victoria's EV tax
Consider the case of an EV owner in Wodonga who might travel over to Albury every day for work, etc. Hypothetically, lets says 50% of their driving is in NSW. Would Victoria remit 50% of the collected RUC to NSW? Not very likely!
Pretty much spot on, unfortunately. While I think the tax is bad policy, I don't think it's invalid. The HCA would have to extend pretty radically the definition of excise as settled in Ha from an inland tax on a step in production, manufacture, sale or distribution of goods to a tax on the use of goods after sale. That is not going to happen, as you'd obliterate the distinction between a tax and an excise. And if you did that, you would be imperilling land tax and stamp duty. The validity of the extraterritorial aspect of taxing use in another State is more interesting.Yes. I’m not a lawyer, but to me the RUC is a charge or levy on the use of a good, not the good itself. Which would not make it an excise. But the High Court will know more about this than I
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
