@Vostok I'd say it's because we disagree on what you call "retrospectivity" that this could be a case for the courts to decide. I believe my argument is one possible legal angle to get it thrown out.
But as @ICUDoc says, the real crime and offense here is that those who have taken it upon themselves to pay a 30%-50% premium over an ICE car to largely benefit the Australian public (i.e. us EV owners), are now slapped with a further disincentive for the privilege of not killing our compatriots with exhaust fumes. I don't think any of us really care about the money this is going to cost us. It's the principle that is shameful.
At what point can politicians be held criminally responsible for laws they introduce that knowingly contribute to causing physical harm to many Australians? There must be some accountability somewhere?
But as @ICUDoc says, the real crime and offense here is that those who have taken it upon themselves to pay a 30%-50% premium over an ICE car to largely benefit the Australian public (i.e. us EV owners), are now slapped with a further disincentive for the privilege of not killing our compatriots with exhaust fumes. I don't think any of us really care about the money this is going to cost us. It's the principle that is shameful.
At what point can politicians be held criminally responsible for laws they introduce that knowingly contribute to causing physical harm to many Australians? There must be some accountability somewhere?