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

[srwx]

Scammers. If I get an email offering a refund from the government that isn’t via one of their apps it gets very sceptical treatment

If that's true hats off to them for being so quick off the mark, it was a private number so I let Google screen it and all I got was the transcript. They basically said more info will be emailed to the email address registered with my vicroads account or I can keep up to date with the latest about it on the vicroads website. From the transcript it doesn't sound scammy but maybe that's the script they run if people don't answer.

 

[dronus]

@bradjc

Disagree all you want:
As I said before, the Feds have let the states keep the revenue collected prior to legislation being disallowed. I hope you get your cheque but don't hold your breath....

View attachment 983101

How is that even allowed? Make up a tax, collect money, be told it is illegal, keep money. It doesnt help citizens increasing distrust of governments.
Did someone get reprimanded?

 

[Quickst]

How is that even allowed?

The Feds have power of taxation and can legislate in anyway it wishes. It's been done twice...

At the moment the lawyers for the plaintiffs are reading the judgement to see whether they can claw back the "excise" already paid. It's a bit premature to expect the cheque.... though I hope everyone who paid gets a cheque/refund

Link to the allens screenshot

And from the Victorian Minister (reported in news.com.au)

 

[donmac]

Did someone get reprimanded?

I think the best you can hope for is that someone will get a stern talking to by their mother...

 

[Hairyman]

If that's true hats off to them for being so quick off the mark, it was a private number so I let Google screen it and all I got was the transcript. They basically said more info will be emailed to the email address registered with my vicroads account or I can keep up to date with the latest about it on the vicroads website. From the transcript it doesn't sound scammy but maybe that's the script they run if people don't answer.

Sorry, I was a bit ambiguous. I was meaning it was the govt calling to reassure the email on the way was not a scam.

 

[dronus]

The Feds have power of taxation and can legislate in anyway it wishes. It's been done twice...

At the moment the lawyers for the plaintiffs are reading the judgement to see whether they can claw back the "excise" already paid. It's a bit premature to expect the cheque.... though I hope everyone who paid gets a cheque/refund

Link to the allens screenshot

And from the Victorian Minister (reported in news.com.au)

View attachment 983102

So even after he loses in court he is still defending it, and whether money collected under it illegally should be given back.
One would hope he checks to see how many EV's are parked in driveways around his electorate on his way home to gauge how many votes he might need to make up next election haha. At least do things legally, and take it on the chin if you make a mistake, especially if a court says so

 

[Vostok]

How is that even allowed? Make up a tax, collect money, be told it is illegal, keep money. It doesnt help citizens increasing distrust of governments.

The Mabo decision in 1992 overturned the construct of “Terra Nullius” meaning this country was occupied and owned by others prior to 1788, and hence the annexation of the entire country was made on an unlawful pretext.

Did that result in all land titles issued between 1788 and 1992 being declared invalid and the land returned to those whose ancestors owned it? Despite the best efforts of the scaremongers at the time to say it would (sound familiar?), the verdict did not have that result. It had only prospective not retrospective impact, and a relatively limited one at that.

 

[AussieOwner]

@bradjc

Disagree all you want:
As I said before, the Feds have let the states keep the revenue collected prior to legislation being disallowed. I hope you get your cheque but don't hold your breath....

With interest?. I have a sneaky suspicion that will be a no...

View attachment 983101

With the Greens holding the balance of power and huge majorities, I wouldn't think this would occur.

 

[cafz]

How is that even allowed? Make up a tax, collect money, be told it is illegal, keep money. It doesnt help citizens increasing distrust of governments.
Did someone get reprimanded?

It's only allowed if a government that does have the power creates new legislation to retrospectively authorise the tax. They've done it in the past when the tax that was ruled invalid had been in place for a long time, many people had made a lot of decisions based on it being valid, and unwinding it would have been highly disruptive. In this case, I don't think that applies - it hasn't been in place long and hasn't affected many people, so I would guess the Federal Government won't retrospectively authorise it and Victoria will end up refunding the money collected.

With a 4-3 High Court decision on its legality, I don't think anyone here acted in bad faith and a reprimand isn't warranted. You're essentially asking them to know Constitutional Law better than 3 High Court justices. They'll be paying the court costs for the plaintiffs and having to figure out how to unwind and refund the tax - that seems like punishment enough.

 

[dronus]

The Mabo decision in 1992 overturned the construct of “Terra Nullius” meaning this country was occupied and owned by others prior to 1788, and hence the annexation of the entire country was made on an unlawful pretext.

Did that result in all land titles issued between 1788 and 1992 being declared invalid and the land returned to those whose ancestors owned it? Despite the best efforts of the scaremongers at the time to say it would (sound familiar?), the verdict did not have that result. It had only prospective not retrospective impact, and a relatively limited one at that.

Yeah true. If nipped in the bud like this one it would be a lot less impact (apart from trust). Straight to the pool room

 

[dronus]

It's only allowed if a government that does have the power creates new legislation to retrospectively authorise the tax. They've done it in the past when the tax that was ruled invalid had been in place for a long time, many people had made a lot of decisions based on it being valid, and unwinding it would have been highly disruptive. In this case, I don't think that applies - it hasn't been in place long and hasn't affected many people, so I would guess the Federal Government won't retrospectively authorise it and Victoria will end up refunding the money collected.

With a 4-3 High Court decision on its legality, I don't think anyone here acted in bad faith and a reprimand isn't warranted. You're essentially asking them to know Constitutional Law better than 3 High Court justices. They'll be paying the court costs for the plaintiffs and having to figure out how to unwind and refund the tax - that seems like punishment enough.

Surely a state govt has some checks and balances in place that require them to seek legal advice before introducing a new tax though?
Good to hear though and i hope all of you find whatever repatriation that gets decided adequate

 

[bradjc]

The Feds have power of taxation and can legislate in anyway it wishes. It's been done twice...

At the moment the lawyers for the plaintiffs are reading the judgement to see whether they can claw back the "excise" already paid. It's a bit premature to expect the cheque.... though I hope everyone who paid gets a cheque/refund

Link to the allens screenshot

And from the Victorian Minister (reported in news.com.au)

View attachment 983102

I'm not disagreeing with you @Quickst just expressing 'thumbs down' to that outcome. The amount they collected isn't huge and affects a small number of people so should be easier than trying to figure out refunding an excise paid by a huge amount of people.

What gets me from that quote is that Pallas is still not budging on his position saying it was a "fair charge", when the court just ruled that it wasn't fair. I paid mine just last month, and for someone who's is due this month now doesn't need to pay it, that doesn't seem "fair" either. Can't see a good argument why they shouldn't refund everyone, but that won't stop them from keeping it I'm sure. Just saw an email from Vicroads saying an update on next steps soon, hopefully that will clarify things.

 

[cafz]

Surely a state govt has some checks and balances in place that require them to seek legal advice before introducing a new tax though?

They would likely get advice from the Solicitor-General, but in this case it was obviously not clear-cut - remember that the judgement requiring overturning a previous High Court ruling from the 70s (and in more recent rulings the High Court had studiously avoided giving an opinion on the exact matter that was in question here).

 

[meloccom]

Moderators note:
Title of thread changed to show that State based Road User Charges were overturned today.

 

[jamesgo]

Moderators note:
Title of thread changed to show that State based Road User Charges were overturned today.

This little thread I started back in 2020... oh what you've become...

 

[ZeeDoktor]

Guess Pallas isn't taking that pineapple with stride. Oh the infinite pleasure of seeing a perp reap what they sowed.

 

[Zoltrix77]

All I can say is that it's the vibe.

 

[EcoCloudIT]

How is that even allowed? Make up a tax, collect money, be told it is illegal, keep money. It doesnt help citizens increasing distrust of governments.
Did someone get reprimanded?

Even more so if you log in to your VICRoads account they are telling people to still pay any noticed of assessment of charges until further notice...surely they would be deemed an at the least "issue/unfair" or more so down right out illegal now?

 

[Max Spaghetti]

They'll We'll be paying the court costs for the plaintiffs

Just fixing that for you - I'm sure this little exercise just cost the Vic Treasury (and therefore the Vic taxpayer) a lot more than they've ever earned from it. As usual, the winners are the lawyers.

 

[Quickst]

Surely a state govt has some checks and balances in place that require them to seek legal advice before introducing a new tax though

But the High court judgement was a 3+1 for the plaintiff vs 1+1+1 for the defence
So there were 5 opinions written from a combined 7 Judges.
No wonder the usual "legal advice" didn't prevail

Pallas is still not budging on his position saying it was a "fair charge", when the court just ruled that it wasn't fair.

The HCoA was not asked to make a Judgement on fairness. It was asked about the legality of one very specific question
So when Pallas bangs on about fairness, he is at least not directly criticizing the HCoA, and more importantly he is also not saying the HCoA was wrong. He won't admit it though. Politicians are great at double speaking