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

[mike_j]

I finally received my refund entitlement letter today, just as the AFR posted an article about the governments chutzpuh in demanding an indemnity. If anyone is planning on refusing to sign the indemnity - I would be happy to join in the fight.

Victoria’s EV levy refunds come with an indemnity clause

In a country known as “a Third World dumping ground” for automotive technology, Victoria tried to slug conscientious citizens to plug a fiscal crisis.

www.afr.com

 

[cafz]

I finally received my refund entitlement letter today, just as the AFR posted an article about the governments chutzpuh in demanding an indemnity. If anyone is planning on refusing to sign the indemnity - I would be happy to join in the fight.

Think about it like this: you're settling a legal claim you have against the State. As is standard in settlements, you get your money and they get your agreement that it's the end of the matter.

I guess you could instead take your own legal action to recover your money. Doesn't seem like it would buy you anything though.

 

[mike_j]

Think about it like this: you're settling a legal claim you have against the State. As is standard in settlements, you get your money and they get your agreement that it's the end of the matter.

I guess you could instead take your own legal action to recover your money. Doesn't seem like it would buy you anything though.

Think about it like this. They took our money illegally and want us to agree not to sue them if they are kind enough to give us our own money back.

How about they just give our money back with a nice note to say they are sorry.

We are all lucky enough to get our money back because a few people were brave enough to not act like sheep. The more we tolerate this rubbish, the more it occurs.

 

[cafz]

Think about it like this. They took our money illegally and want us to agree not to sue them if they are kind enough to give us our own money back.

Yes. That is how settlements work. (Noting that it is specifically suing them on this issue).

The question is, do you think what they have offered you (money back and interest) leaves you whole?

 

[Quickst]

We are all lucky enough to get our money back because a few two people were brave enough to not act like sheep.

Corrected...

Not everyone disagreed with the "tax"

There are some /many (me included) who actually agree with a road users tax.

 

[AussieOwner]

Corrected...

Not everyone disagreed with the "tax"

There are some /many (me included) who actually agree with a road users tax.

As long as it isn’t distance based as that punishes country people who drive further.

 

[ZeeDoktor]

Was it a settlement though? Usually a settlement means both parties agree to not further pursue the issue and the injured party receives a make good offer. In this case the court ruled that Vic's RUC was illegal, so there should be a penalty as a disincentive on top of returning the stolen money.

 

[paulp]

As long as it isn’t distance based as that punishes country people who drive further.

They are already punished as they require more fuel, so more fuel excise is paid

 

[Vostok]

As long as it isn’t distance based as that punishes country people who drive further.

Except the data does not support the theory that country people drive further than city people on average.

 

[Vostok]

If anyone is planning on refusing to sign the indemnity - I would be happy to join in the fight.

I’m not in VIC but that is just irrational. You’re getting a full refund to fully settle your loss.

But, if you want to blow 100 times that on legal fees to sue the state in order to get exactly the same amount of money back and 3 years later than now, then go for it, if it makes you feel better

 

[Vostok]

They took our money illegally and want us to agree not to sue them if they are kind enough to give us our own money back.

It wasn’t illegal at the time they took it. It only became illegal once the High Court ruled it so.

 

[Quickst]

As long as it isn’t distance based as that punishes country people who drive further.

How is a road usage charge/tax any different to the fuel excise for ICE cars.

There are mechanisms that deal with inequity or perceived inequity.

If anyone is planning on refusing to sign the indemnity - I would be happy to join in the fight.

What are you trying to fight?
Lots of people were happy to "join the fight " when this issue appeared but only 2 people took it to the HCoA.

so there should be a penalty as a disincentive on top of returning the stolen money.

That requires further litigation - "Your mission, if you choose to accept it"
Penalty imposed by which authority?. It is a civil constitutional case.
"Disincentive" - the case has been decided. The States cant impose similar taxes. However nothing to prevent the Federal Govt imposing similar as their Fuel excise gradually reduces over time - in fact constitutionally the Federal Government has the power to raise such a tax.

 

[Quickst]

do you think what they have offered you (money back and interest) leaves you whole?

Yes, and "feeling aggrieved" does not count in that analysis.
.......


Dont forget people, the HCoaA Vanderstock v Vic was a 4-3 majority. The caselaw on State's power to raise revenue is not by any stretch of the imagination settled....

 

[Vostok]

Dont forget people, the HCoaA Vanderstock v Vic was a 4-3 majority. The caselaw on State's power to raise revenue is not by any stretch of the imagination settled....

Yep a different bench on a different day and it could easily have been 3-4 the other way. The HC overturned two previous judgments in order to make its judgment in this one. Overturning previous judgments is incredibly rare in the HC.

Now that a precedent is set, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that a future bench could overturn Vanderstock vs Victoria and reinstate Ha and Capital Duplicators.

“Pandora’s Box” or “minefield” comes to mind…

 

[OzVic]

It wasn’t illegal at the time they took it. It only became illegal once the High Court ruled it so.

Um, I don't think that's how the constitution works.

 

[OzVic]

Dont forget people, the HCoaA Vanderstock v Vic was a 4-3 majority. The caselaw on State's power to raise revenue is not by any stretch of the imagination settled....

4-3 or 7-0, it doesn't make any difference. They've interpreted the constitution and made a clarifying ruling which is the law of the land. If another state implements an identical tax, a lower court dismisses it citing the above ruling, and the state appealed and it somehow comes up through the courts.. I highly doubt the High court would even take it on.

We could always hold a referendum...

 

[Quickst]

We could always hold a referendum...

Correct and that would be the way to go for certainty. The problem is that the issue of "excise" remains a very grey area especially when in reaching this decision the HCoA overturned 2 cases on this very subject and effectively changed the definition of excise (see Gordon J's dissenting opinion). It is likely to cause further issues down the track (not necessarily just for EV)

Was it a settlement though

In effect it is. The settlement is refund of monies + interest as determined by the Govt + zero damages.
If someone can prove damages due to this law they can elect not to sign the indemnity letter and pursue the matter in Federal Court

don't think that's how the constitution works.

Yes, that's is how it works. Just parse it out. If Vanderstock and Co did not take legal action, then the road users charge law remains legal - until or unless it is overturned. Similarly the 2 cases which was effectively overturned by the HCoA remained valid case law until such time as it is changed.

 

[Vostok]

They've interpreted the constitution and made a clarifying ruling which is the law of the land. If another state implements an identical tax, a lower court dismisses it citing the above ruling, and the state appealed and it somehow comes up through the courts.. I highly doubt the High court would even take it on.

With the current bench probably not. But in, say, 10 years time when there may have been a turnover of 2 or 3 justices, and possibly the dissenters in the previous judgment were still on the bench, then they could well take on such a case in order to reverse everything and ensure their original views prevail.

It’s a bit academic though, because the most likely thing that will now happen is that the Feds will at some point introduce an RUC (and there is zero Constitutional doubt the Feds have the power to do that) and the states will administer it and collect the revenue. So no state will likely attempt to legislate this ever again.

 

[Vostok]

We could always hold a referendum...

We could. “Do you approve of a law to give the Australian States the power to introduce consumption taxes on goods?”

But I can’t see that getting up…. Dutton would certainly say “no”

 

[cafz]

We could. “Do you approve of a law to give the Australian States the power to introduce consumption taxes on goods?”

We couldn't, because the Federal Parliament would have to pass it first, and the Federal Government never wants to give more power to the states.