On its own that's not surprising: the States all intervene on the side of interpreting the Constitution with the widest State powers, and the Commonwealth on the side of the widest Commonwealth powers. That's just how the game is played!
-
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
No its not an own-goal. The difference is the commonweath can charge such an excise. Whether a state can is the question
But it does look like the argument is strung up on a (in my view) weak quibble of excise duty definition.
A much stronger argument would have been to liken the ZLEV to a consumption duty akin to the GST, which is a federal privilege to levy.
But who knows - maybe that's what they're trying to nudge the judges towards by ways of a roundabout argument inconsequential to the matter at heart.
A much stronger argument would have been to liken the ZLEV to a consumption duty akin to the GST, which is a federal privilege to levy.
But who knows - maybe that's what they're trying to nudge the judges towards by ways of a roundabout argument inconsequential to the matter at heart.
For me the killer text is in the submission from NSW, referring to Justice Gibbs’ judgment in the Dickinson’s Arcade case:
“The Constitution is a federal constitution, and s90 is intended to effect a distribution of the power to impose taxation between the Commonwealth and the States. Of course, the section confers no power on the Commonwealth... it denies power to the States. The extent of the denial must be found in the words of the section themselves rather than in economic, social or political theory”
The Commonwealth cannot simply wish the definition of an “excise” to be more broad than it is based on inferences, or a sequence of connected steps, or the impact a particular interpretation would have outside the law (e.g. whether the RUC would impact the sale of ZLEVs). In Justice Gibbs’ view, unless s90 expressly reserves a power to the Commonwealth, or expressly denies it to the States, then it is not unlawful for a State to exercise such a power.
Therefore, because consumption taxes (which is what the RUC is) are not mentioned in s90 (neither reserved for the Commonwealth, nor denied to the States), it would be lawful for a State to impose one.
“The Constitution is a federal constitution, and s90 is intended to effect a distribution of the power to impose taxation between the Commonwealth and the States. Of course, the section confers no power on the Commonwealth... it denies power to the States. The extent of the denial must be found in the words of the section themselves rather than in economic, social or political theory”
The Commonwealth cannot simply wish the definition of an “excise” to be more broad than it is based on inferences, or a sequence of connected steps, or the impact a particular interpretation would have outside the law (e.g. whether the RUC would impact the sale of ZLEVs). In Justice Gibbs’ view, unless s90 expressly reserves a power to the Commonwealth, or expressly denies it to the States, then it is not unlawful for a State to exercise such a power.
Therefore, because consumption taxes (which is what the RUC is) are not mentioned in s90 (neither reserved for the Commonwealth, nor denied to the States), it would be lawful for a State to impose one.
Please add TAS to the title. The government have kept it quiet.
I only know about the road user charge because I emailed The Minister for Climate Change The Hon Peter Gutwein and his email response on 4 Apr 2022 stated “In the 2021‑22 Budget, the Government announced the introduction of a road user charge for zero and low emission vehicles from 1 July 2027 or when zero and low emission vehicles make up 30 per cent of all new vehicle sales, in line with the approach taken in New South Wales and South Australia.”
I only know about the road user charge because I emailed The Minister for Climate Change The Hon Peter Gutwein and his email response on 4 Apr 2022 stated “In the 2021‑22 Budget, the Government announced the introduction of a road user charge for zero and low emission vehicles from 1 July 2027 or when zero and low emission vehicles make up 30 per cent of all new vehicle sales, in line with the approach taken in New South Wales and South Australia.”
WA are also introducing an RUC from 1 July 2027… so it’s all states bar QLD at the moment. The SA ALP Government promised to repeal the SA law though, I don’t know if they have actually done that yet.
@meloccom - maybe change the thread title to “State-based EV road usage charges”?
If the states could freely impose a consumption tax then they would have all imposed a state gst by now. They cannot help themselves when a taxable opportunity arrises.
QLD has said they won’t introduce it “at this stage” and that states that are introducing it in 2027 “sounds reasonable”. So I suspect that QLD will follow
A GST is a sales tax, which is within the meaning of excise under Dickenson's Arcade.
If you ask me, all case law based systems are kinda crazy... but then again, so are "democracies" based on the Westminster system, the Royal family, and anything else that pretends Oliver Twist is a contemporary novel. All Commonwealth systems serve the primary purpose of encrusting outdated power structures.
Irrespective of who imposes it, a odometer based tax system will be a nightmare to enforce once EV's become more common, or it's applied to all cars. The administration costs must be through the roof compared to other user-pays taxes.
Just a dumb tax. Why don't we look at how other countries like Norway finance their roads?
Edit: 40% of norways road funding is from tolls. While no one likes tolls, everyone has an etag already so adding small-charge toll detectors on most major roads would be easy to implement.
Just a dumb tax. Why don't we look at how other countries like Norway finance their roads?
Edit: 40% of norways road funding is from tolls. While no one likes tolls, everyone has an etag already so adding small-charge toll detectors on most major roads would be easy to implement.
Candleflame
Active Member
we already have too many toll roads and those also have same poor australian road design and speed limits as other roads.
I don’t know about other states, but in NSW a “pink slip” vehicle inspection is required every year (once a car is 5 years old) in order to renew registration. The odometer reading is recorded as part of that process, so the incremental administrative burden is zero to calculate an RUC from that already submitted reading and then add it to the registration fee which is paid online.
Well not quite zero, for the first 5 years of any new car’s life, the owner would need to self-report that number prior to renewing registration. If they lied at any point, it would catch up with them in year 5.
Over 30% of the national car fleet is under 5 years old. Self reporting is cumbersome and error prone.
Tolls can be targeted and has zero operational cost and no errors.
Tolls also have significant political implications, and there are a few people who like to hang onto their job near the trough
Which is why it has been postponed in SA, presumably too many pollies felt their tenure threatened
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
