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

[Vostok]

A good $100 of that was a road trip up and around NSW.

Less than a tank of petrol though.

NSW will implement an RUC in 2027 (or sooner, when ZEVs reach 30% of new car sales, which is likely). But I am OK with that. It is the quid-pro-quo for not paying stamp duty on that same vehicle. VIC could at least have the decency to do that.

If every state had an RUC charged at the same (or similar) rate, then the “extraterritorial“ nature of these laws effectively becomes irrelevant.

 

[OzVic]

Neither is the EV tax. Road construction and maintenance comes from fuel excise which is a federal fund. It has nothing tp do with the state.

Stop repeating this bullshit. No matter how many times it is repeated, it doesn't make it any truer. Fuel excise goes to federal general revenue. Comprehende?

 

[Burnt Toast]

Stop repeating this bullshit. No matter how many times it is repeated, it doesn't make it any truer. Fuel excise goes to federal general revenue. Comprehende?

That's right, and the general revenue is then distributed to pay for road maintenance to state governments. So the state government has no right collecting a Federal tax, comprehende?

 

[cafz]

So the state government has no right collecting a Federal tax, comprehende?

It's not collecting a "Federal tax". It's levying a distance-based charge on vehicles registered in that State. There are limits on the kinds of levies, duties and taxes that a State can collect, but not a blanket prohibition. As to whether this particular charge falls under those limits or not, we'll see what the High Court decides.

 

[Vostok]

That's right, and the general revenue is then distributed to pay for road maintenance to state governments.

Well, once money goes into consolidated revenue, it‘s pointless to argue whether the money the Feds spend on roads has come from fuel excise, company tax, import duties, income tax or any other revenue the government has collected. It’s one big mixed-up bucket of money. What we do know is that Federal road funding is not tied to the fuel excise.

 

[bcarp]

It's not collecting a "Federal tax". It's levying a distance-based charge on vehicles registered in that State.

I’d have no problems if this were actually the case. But it’s not true. It’s only on a certain subset of vehicles registered in that state. If the state wants to levy this tax, then it should apply to all vehicles, whether EV, ICE, hybrid, etc. Then it would be more fair.

 

[ZeeDoktor]

Taxes are as fair as justice is just...

 

[Vostok]

I’d have no problems if this were actually the case. But it’s not true. It’s only on a certain subset of vehicles registered in that state. If the state wants to levy this tax, then it should apply to all vehicles, whether EV, ICE, hybrid, etc. Then it would be more fair.

That’s the case in VIC but not NSW. In NSW, the RUC will apply only to vehicles which have been exempted from paying stamp duty. Which sounds pretty fair to me. I suspect any thinking about broadening the RUC to other vehicles will wait until the High Court has handed down its judgment.

 

[EcoCloudIT]

Did you get an email to remind you to pay ? Or was it with rego
I recently paid my rego online, but haven't yet received any reminder or notice to pay. So I thought they had paused it until the court rules

You'll get a link a few days/weeks after paying the rego..

 

[P100D_Me]

You could always get TeslaFi or Tessie and use the detailed reports to deduct the trips outside of Victoria. Send that to Andrews...
It is a joke that they can charge road usage and collect a portion that doesn't belong to them.

Google tracks me just fine , but is it the case that once outside Victoria those kms traveled don't need to be counted towards the money going back to Dicktator Dan?

 

[cafz]

Google tracks me just fine , but is it the case that once outside Victoria those kms traveled don't need to be counted towards the money going back to Dicktator Dan?

No. Distance travelled outside the state is still covered.

The only thing that doesn't count is distance travelled on private roads - eg on the racetrack, farm, mine site or hi-rail vehicles travelling on the railway.

 

[P100D_Me]

No. Distance travelled outside the state is still covered.

The only thing that doesn't count is distance travelled on private roads - eg on the racetrack, farm, mine site or hi-rail vehicles travelling on the railway.

Well that stinks

 

[cafz]

Well that stinks

Ultimately it won't matter if all or most states end up with the same thing.

 

[LWI]

In Post #404 from EcoCloudIT, Equity Generation Lawyers state that the submissions have been published by the High Court on a dedicated webpage. I have made several attempts to find this page on the High Court website without success. Can anyone direct me to these submissions? Many thanks.

 

[David G]

In Post #404 from EcoCloudIT, Equity Generation Lawyers state that the submissions have been published by the High Court on a dedicated webpage. I have made several attempts to find this page on the High Court website without success. Can anyone direct me to these submissions? Many thanks.

Here you go:
Case M61/2021 - High Court of Australia

 

[LWI]

Thank you

 

[cafz]

If the Commonwealth's argument in their intervention is adopted by the court, it is hard to see how vehicle registration charges themselves wouldn't be immediately called into question, at least in as far as they don't reasonably reflect the cost of providing the vehicle registration service.

Reading the submissions, I do feel that Victoria would have improved their position a bit if they'd implemented this by restructuring their vehicle registration charge as having two components, a base component and a per-km component, with the values of those being different for different classes of vehicle. That may have forced a bit more deftness to the arguments against.

 

[ZeeDoktor]

I'm not a lawyer. But this doesn't look good for the plaintiffs. If I'm understanding this correctly that is.

Every state's AG intervened in support of VIC. The main hook on which plaintiffs are mounting their argument appears to be their contention that the ZLEV tax is "a duty of excise for the purposes of s 90 of the Constitution" and that this is a tax “on the production, manufacture, sale or distribution of goods, whether of foreign or domestic origin”. - which the states do not have authority to impose.

But, in my understanding, that is not the kind of tax that this is. It's a consumption tax, namely the consumption of roads via damage incurred by the vehicles.

That doesn't change the exceptionally poor moral standards VIC has exhibited by being first in throwing disincentives at technology finally doing away with the murderous pollutants expelled by ICEs. But the plaintiffs case certainly doesn't seem to be based on sound legal arguments.

 

[Vostok]

Here you go:
Case M61/2021 - High Court of Australia

I’m no lawyer but having read the AG’s submission I reckon the arguments are a bit weak.

The first argument appears to be that an excise, although having been previously defined as “an inland tax on a step in production, manufacture, sale or distribution of goods” is not an exhaustive definition of an excise - and therefore other things like the use of a good could be included. That seems a bit rubbish to me. What’s the point of a definition if it is not exhaustive? Otherwise, the Commonwealth could arbitrarily add anything else it likes onto the definition of an “excise” to capture other types of revenue it would like to control.

The other main argument appears to be that a former court case that found that the use of a good was not an excise was wrong and it should be reopened and overturned (para 4). Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they . Overturn the cases that undermine your legal argument, but don’t overturn other cases that you think support your argument.

I thought this text in para 43 was amusing - “There is no suggestion that the ZLEV charge is a fee for the provision of “specified roads” or that the rate of the ZLEV charge bears any discernible relationship to the cost of their construction or maintenance”

Nor does Commonwealth fuel excise!! The amount collected is completely unrelated to the costs incurred by the Commonwealth for road construction or maintenance. The money goes into consolidated revenue. An own-goal, methinks.

It will be fascinating to see how this plays out in February!

 

[Vostok]

If the Commonwealth's argument in their intervention is adopted by the court, it is hard to see how vehicle registration charges themselves wouldn't be immediately called into question, at least in as far as they don't reasonably reflect the cost of providing the vehicle registration service.

Exactly. If the plaintiffs win this case, a whole host of State taxes, levies and charges would also be brought into question and the entire economic foundations of the Federation would be in doubt. It would be a legal earthquake.