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

[EcoCloudIT]

I wouldn’t have a problem with that. It’s the EV specific nature of the current rules that I have an issue with.

Or that fuel is massively subsidised and the true cost of the excise tax doesn't even cover the medical costs/negative health side effects.....if us EV users have to pay our way (I'm okay with that) then so should the real cost of drive a fuel car be taxed accordingly.

 

[cafz]

whats the difference between excise and tax? I understood states are not allowed to levy tax but they allowed to levy excise?

An excise is a kind of tax. Specifically it is a tax levied on goods, commonly on the manufacture or distribution of goods, calculated with reference to the quantity or value of the goods in question. How wide the definition gets, at least as far the the Australian Constitution goes, is one of the principal questions in this case ("is a consumption tax on goods an excise?").

The States aren't allowed to levy "duties of customs or excise". They are allowed to levy taxes (and charges) in general. Payroll tax is commonly imposed by the States, and income tax was a State power too until they voluntarily referred it to the Commonwealth during World War II.

 

[carefreesea]

If they want to charge based on 'consuming' the road (regardless of engine type), why not add a tax or excise to tyres? They are a) a common denominator for road use, b) used more by those who use the road more, c) relatively geographically accurate - tyres bought in Brisbane are likely to be causing road use near Brisbane, d) easily trackable. Add to this, retreads would also need to beconsidered.

 

[SL666]

Because they are a safety item.

 

[Chuq]

The other issue with taxing tyres is that if you only replace them every 2-3 years, Imagine having to pay the equivalent of three years of fuel excise in one go.

 

[paulp]

Plus everyone would do a trip interstate to replace tyres or order in some tyres from interstate to avoid the tax

 

[cafz]

A tyre excise would have to be Federal anyway.

 

[Vostok]

The transcript for the final day of the hearing has not been published yet

The justices have reserved their decision. It might be many months before we hear the outcome.

 

[Hairyman]

The plaintiff mentioned late June or so.

 

[Candleflame]

also people will drive down their tires as much as possible - just unsafe. Especially on ultraperformance cars the tires should be changed well before legal minimum (or if you live somewhere with shitty weather i.e. monsoon areas or high alititude areas in nsw/victoria)

 

[jamesgo]

So I see South Australia has come to their senses and repealed the pay per km for EV tax. Now just for Vic to realise it's a dumb concept while EV's are still such a small driver base

 

[Vostok]

So I see South Australia has come to their senses and repealed the pay per km for EV tax.

While at the same time, South Australia still argued in the High Court to retain the right to impose such a tax

SA in fact claimed that every State has, at some point in the past, imposed a road use charge of some kind, calculated on the basis of distance travelled, and that these have never been considered to fall within the concept of an excise for the purposes of s 90.

 

[AussieOwner]

So I see South Australia has come to their senses and repealed the pay per km for EV tax. Now just for Vic to realise it's a dumb concept while EV's are still such a small driver base

Chairman Dan and his high taxing government will go kicking and screaming as they are big on taxing everything. I have my fingers crossed that this tax gets repealed as this years VicRoads bill for me is over 1000$

 

[paulp]

Chairman Dan and his high taxing government will go kicking and screaming as they are big on taxing everything. I have my fingers crossed that this tax gets repealed as this years VicRoads bill for me is over 1000$

I dont agree with the tax, however I’m sure you saved a lot more than your bill by not paying petrol levy?

 

[Candleflame]

I dont agree with the tax, however I’m sure you saved a lot more than your bill by not paying petrol levy?

he is not getting a refund for the extra tax he pays on the EV compared to a combustion car either.
Or for that he saves medicare money by producing no local emissions.
Or that he pays high rates for fast charging (same as petrol).

petrol levy goes to consolidated revenue and the other issue is that the government uses the money where its needed - victoria just wants to claw the tax for their own state and bypass the federal government, even if you drive outside of Victoria.

The only fair way to fix it is to reduce fuel excise and replace it with a per-km tax on all vehicles and petrol would get an extra emissions/health-tax which goes towards treating health problems associated with local emissions. But this would make fuel very cheap and the government would miss out on revenue.

 

[Vostok]

The transcript of the third and final day:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2023/11.html

Another interesting read, especially with the Solicitors-General of every State and Territory intervening in support of Victoria. Legal high-fiving at work.

Then the Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth got a grilling.

Towards the end, apart from an amusing self-confessed “low point” where the etymology and dictionary definition of the word ”excise” was discussed, the Chief Justice said firmly that while “The Court is not minded to reopen either Ha or Capital Duplicators” that it would allow the Commonwealth to make a submission as to the operation of section 90 as if those cases were reopened.

Note that this was the fourth pillar of Victoria’s defence - that if the first three pillars fail (and they all would need to fail for VIC to lose the case) that these cases would need to be reopened because Victoria argued the elements of those cases the Commonwealth is relying upon to characterise the ZLEV as an excise are wrong as well, and that Victoria would seek to reopen those cases to have those parts thrown out too. I‘m not a lawyer, so don’t blame me if that explanation is screwed up

The Commonwealth sought 1 month to prepare this submission, and then Victoria asked for 1 month to reply to that submission. So 2 months, plus another 2+ months of judges deliberations, definitely places us mid-year before we hear a verdict.

 

[cafz]

...the Chief Justice said firmly that while “The Court is not minded to reopen either Ha or Capital Duplicators” that it would allow the Commonwealth to make a submission as to the operation of section 90 as if those cases were reopened.

"allow"? It sounded to me more like the court was giving the Commonwealth Solicitor-General a homework assignment!

 

[AussieOwner]

What do we think our chance are of winning (if anyone is of a legal mind in here)?

 

[Vostok]

What do we think our chance are of winning (if anyone is of a legal mind in here)?

Well I’ve already firmly nailed my colours to the mast - the plaintiffs will lose and the Victorian law will be ruled Constitutional. It might not be a 7-0 slam dunk, maybe 6-1.

Having said that, I am not a lawyer, so I might be completely wrong. But that’s fine, I’ll own it .

I would be interested in what an actual lawyer thinks after reading the transcripts. High Court judges though play poker-face better than the pros, so you really would need to know the actual case law and precedents to get a sense one way or the other.

 

[evbee]

Whatever the govt does, it will have consequences. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.