The tax should definately be distance based, which the RUC and fuel excise is. To dump an equal tax on all users (eg triple rego) would be extremely unfair to low volume users, many of whom are financially disadvantaged. I see no issue with a per km tax for all vehicles, with it being higher for fossil fuel based cars and no fuel excise.
-
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
Not all users. All tax streams whether it be GST, income tax, company tax, mining resources tax etc or all combined.
As mentioned previously, everyone benefits from roads. Are you happy to go live in the middle of a forest in Tasmania or the Simpson desert, unroaded? ie. with no means to travel / get to work/ or receive goods? Even if you don't drive a car? It is a societal benefit.
The current system is unfair to country folk, people who can only afford to live in outer suburbs and need to travel, who don't have available PT, etc.
The financially disadvantaged will actually be better off using the current safeguards in place. ie. Paying no or low income tax rates etc.
Hell, we could forgo the coming reduction in tax rates to pay for the roads for years to come.
Stage-three tax cuts cost blowout predicted, with men and the wealthy to benefit most
Adam Bandt decries ‘massive black hole’ after Parliamentary Budget Office analysis puts cost at $313bn over a decade
www.theguardian.com
Every tax has winners and losers. Roads are public property and as such have to be paid for from tax, (unless a toll road). I cannot think of a single tax model for roads that does not advantage or disadvantage someone, often substantially.Not all users. All tax streams whether it be GST, income tax, company tax, mining resources tax etc or all combined.
As mentioned previously, everyone benefits from roads. Are you happy to go live in the middle of a forest in Tasmania or the Simpson desert, unroaded? ie. with no means to travel / get to work/ or receive goods? Even if you don't drive a car? It is a societal benefit.
The current system is unfair to country folk, people who can only afford to live in outer suburbs and need to travel, who don't have available PT, etc.
The financially disadvantaged will actually be better off using the current safeguards in place. ie. Paying no or low income tax rates etc.
Hell, we could forgo the coming reduction in tax rates to pay for the roads for years to come.
Stage-three tax cuts cost blowout predicted, with men and the wealthy to benefit most
Adam Bandt decries ‘massive black hole’ after Parliamentary Budget Office analysis puts cost at $313bn over a decade
No, that would be unfair for people who don't own a car. Lots of infrastructure have a pay to use contribution.
Main point is that any tax will be unfair for some. There are ways to make adjustments so much as Axle number, GVM/tare, high performance vehicles, driver disability, regional vs urban,
ICE should have same per km rate with adjustments FAA I mentioned above. However, the fuel excise should remain.
Where the govt can reduce ICE use is to completely remove or reduce ATO tax deductibility for business use of ICE cars. Additionally lower the depreciation limit of ICE cars further from the current $68108 to the price of a Toyota Camry which is under $40k.
Last edited:
I think Victoria will lose the High Court case - it does not make logical sense for a state to charge for use of public roads beyond its borders, while not charging for private roads within them.
As for the separate, overarching issue of a state charging for use of roads, this is more difficult. Pertinently though, once the federal government became a party to the case suggested to me that Victoria would be unsuccessful. The problem for Victoria is their reasoning - that’s the kicker - missing out on a share of federal excise. I believe the reasoning makes it unconstitutional.
It’s quite possible that the explanation within the court judgement will result in Victoria amending or rewriting the law to become constitutional
As for the separate, overarching issue of a state charging for use of roads, this is more difficult. Pertinently though, once the federal government became a party to the case suggested to me that Victoria would be unsuccessful. The problem for Victoria is their reasoning - that’s the kicker - missing out on a share of federal excise. I believe the reasoning makes it unconstitutional.
It’s quite possible that the explanation within the court judgement will result in Victoria amending or rewriting the law to become constitutional
Last edited:
What’s relevant here is what the Constitution says and what similar or related cases in the past have concluded, after the justices try to read the minds of the authors of the Constitution as to what they actually intended.
Generally in law, the most important thing is consistency over time and so precedents are extremely powerful. Which is fair enough - we don’t want the law to be arbitrary and decide one thing in one matter, and then something completely different in another but extremely similar matter. That kind of outcome really offends our sense of fairness. Judgments which substantially or fundamentally overturn precedents are legal earthquakes. It does happen but they are extremely rare, especially at the High Court level.
The Federal Government becoming an “intervening” party means nothing legally in terms of the likely outcome. All it meant is the High Court agreed that the Federal Government has a relevant and direct interest in this case even though it is not one of the respondents. This is not surprising, since this case goes to the heart of taxation powers in this country and whether consumption taxes applied immediately after the sale of a good are in fact an Excise hence the sole preserve of the Commonwealth, or they are not Excises and so can lawfully be implemented by the States. All of the other States became “intervening” parties for exactly the same reason. Doesn’t mean they‘ll win.
The motivation for implementing the tax is unlikely to be relevant. The justices may or may not take that into account in their decision, and if they do, it may play only a very minor part. Victoria probably would have been safer though to have given no reason whatsoever for introducing the tax other than to raise money. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is whether the Justices conclude whether or not the RUC is an “Excise” under Section 90 of the Constitution. If they conclude it is, then Victoria’s law would be struck down.
The justices may or may not provide guidance as to what changes to the VIC law, if any, would make it constitutional. Their reasoning in their judgments (and we could get 7 different written judgments, depending on how divergent their views are) could provide clues as to what would make it lawful. Perhaps not applying the RUC immediately but have it take effect some period of time after (e.g. > 1 year) would be enough.
We will soon find out.
Hypothetically, let's say the Victorian RUC is struck down. What do you think happens to the RUC payments already collected by the State? Would the State need to refund EV owners I wonder? I imagine this question would be answered in the ruling if the ruling goes against the State.
If the law was struck down as unconstitutional then all monies collected from said law would need to be refunded.
A similar thing happened in NSW with some specific types of Covid fines that were struck down by the NSW Supreme Court. The Government had to refund any such fines that were paid, and not pursue any unpaid fines.
The government actually decided to waive all Covid fines after that ruling, even ones that were lawfully imposed. Note they did not refund valid fines that were paid, but they ceased collection action on valid fines that remained unpaid.
Biodiesel ("synthetic diesel") attracts excise, and anyone who manufactures it must hold an excise license under pain of criminal prosecution.
In fact that's not even required. The Federal and State Governments have a right to join any constitutional case at the High Court, reflecting the nature of the Commonwealth as a union of States. The same right is customarily extended to the Territories as well.
there was a case where this was not required . The Feds passed legislation that allowed the State to keep any $ raised up to until they lost the case.
Electric-vehicle owners in New Zealand will soon have to pay a road-user tax, based on the distance they travel.
From 31 March 2024, any electric car and plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV) weighing less than 3500kg will be required to pay the new tax, in an effort to recoup revenue lost from the petrol excise, the New Zealand Government said.
It is expected electrified cars will fall under the same road-user charge applied to diesel vehicles in the country, taxed at a rate of $NZ0.076 per kilometre ($AU0.073/km)
www.drive.com.au
From 31 March 2024, any electric car and plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV) weighing less than 3500kg will be required to pay the new tax, in an effort to recoup revenue lost from the petrol excise, the New Zealand Government said.
It is expected electrified cars will fall under the same road-user charge applied to diesel vehicles in the country, taxed at a rate of $NZ0.076 per kilometre ($AU0.073/km)
New Zealand announces road-user tax for electric vehicles
Electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles in New Zealand will soon have to pay a road-user charge, to help bolster infrastructure spending.
www.drive.com.au
Looks like its an entire package with high polluting cars paying a tax at purchase that is passed onto ev buyersElectric-vehicle owners in New Zealand will soon have to pay a road-user tax, based on the distance they travel.
From 31 March 2024, any electric car and plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV) weighing less than 3500kg will be required to pay the new tax, in an effort to recoup revenue lost from the petrol excise, the New Zealand Government said.
It is expected electrified cars will fall under the same road-user charge applied to diesel vehicles in the country, taxed at a rate of $NZ0.076 per kilometre ($AU0.073/km)
New Zealand announces road-user tax for electric vehicles
Electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles in New Zealand will soon have to pay a road-user charge, to help bolster infrastructure spending.
The new NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey delivered his first budget today and this was on p.168 (B-2) of Budget Paper #1, in the section titled Fiscal Risks and Budget Sensitivities:
Still no word on when the High Court will hand down its judgment in this case.
Still no word on when the High Court will hand down its judgment in this case.
I’d suggest its on hold until the High Court hands down its judgement. There will be a RUC in every state or federally or both within a couple of years
It’s not very well thought out considering if it’s a state based tax and last time I checked, cars can travel interstate. If they actually used the money to fix the roads it would be a different story.
Just wait until they suggest that EV charge operators share metadata from charging infrastructure… can see that coming..
Just wait until they suggest that EV charge operators share metadata from charging infrastructure… can see that coming..
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
