[VIC] Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus $65,094 Delivered after $3000 VIC ZEV Subsidy (Was $68,084) @ Tesla


Victoria government has just announced the Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) Subsidy. $3000 for EV with purchase price below $68,740 (exclude stamp duty, and other charges).

No income test for this subsidy (can't see it on the website). Only 4,000 spots for this wave of subsidy.

P.S. if you buy a Model 3 SR+ (any colour), you will be eligible for the subsidy.

*** Update: my bad, even with Red colour it should still be below $68,740. So any colour is fine! ***

Related Stores

Solar Victoria: Solar Homes Program
Solar Victoria: Solar Homes Program


    • +34

      Sorry to ruin your day, this $3,000 discount is before the $5,000 Tax to be applied on any purchase of Electric Vehicle because their argument is "we're losing tax money from the Gas they don't purchase"


      • +4

        great clip! government will always find a way to screw and rob the people

      • +6

        I was just about to post a link to that video. Also worth watching the follow up video https://youtu.be/F2UUlo89cpE

      • +2

        what did they do to her voice .. the audio is odd right?

        • +2

          Haha yeah, they always add voicing after , kinda makes it look like a stupid ad you'd see on TV, doesn't it :p?
          I'm sure it's intentional, it's hilarious too ☺️

    • +12

      The government would get better value from:

      • Switching public transport to electric or hydrogen. Hydrogen is a viable option for buses because refuelling occurs at depots.
      • Switching government fleets to electric as these cars will become available in the second hand market improving affordability.

      Subsidising the wealthy to purchase cars is poor policy.

      • +3

        It is appearing to be doing something but really doing nothing. Government is very good at moving money around to appear like something is being done.

        • Also, the more you move money around, the more opportunities to skim off a part of it for "admin fees".

      • They need to do both. Is this a wealthy purchase?

        • According to Canstar Blue "Aussies spend an average of $40,128 on new cars".

          This statement warrants further investigation: "Our latest survey indicates electric cars are now on average slightly cheaper to buy than petrol or diesel cars, although only about 2% of Australians bought a new electric car over the last three years, according to our results."

      • Second is being done in ACT. Not sure whether we can get hydrogen fuel in the ACT.

    • +3

      Quite so. I definitely prefer using Other Peoples’ Money when making major purchases.

  • +57

    Basically a $3000 loan since you'll be paying it back through the EV road tax.

    • +29

      Why the heck would you levy electric vehicles.
      I didn’t think the government needed to do any worse when it came to emissions.

      • +9

        But what about the tax on pedestrians … they use the walkways on the side of the road and the bridges over the freeway. We need a new tax.
        And then we need another tax which is emission linked like in Europe (bigger engine - more emissions … higher registration cost).

        • -2

          So basically a tax on a tax on a tax? :)

        • +1

          But what about the tax on pedestrians … they use the walkways on the side of the road

          Footpaths are provided by local councils who pay for them through rates. So pedestrians are already taxed, as are ICE vehicles through a fuel excise.
          EV's skip this tax since they don't use fuel, so that tax will have to collected another way, most likely a road use levy.
          If you think this is unfair, who do you think should pay for you to use a road?

          • +2

            @1st-Amendment: The problem here is the suggestion that road use should be paid for by users, whereas other costs (in this case footpaths, but also schools, hospitals, defense force, etc) are paid for by everyone. A similar argument would be to suggest people who don't drink alcohol should pay a tax on, say, water, because they aren't being taxed fairly for their drinking choices. Perhaps another way you could view this is fuel, alcohol, and cigarettes are taxed because they are bad for society and create additional costs, where as EVs, water, and not smoking, don't.

            We should all pay to use the roads, and, in fact, we do. That's what general use taxes are for.

        • what about the tax on pedestrians

          Great idea for shoe tax. Not selling you a new pair unless you bring in your old pair and the new pair cost will be determined by thread left on the old pair!

    • -32

      Petrol and diesel vehicles pay fuel-tax/levy for traffic/road management. So far EV haven't paid anything while using the same roads, so it's time to even out the taxes.

      • +33

        That’s the dumbest argument. If it is to pay by road use my bicycle should also be taxed. If it’s by petrol use my lawn mower should be tax. Go figure!

        • -1

          Yes bicycles and motorcyclist should be heavily taxed. Both for road usage, parking and taking up an entire spot, carbon emissions.

          • +2

            @sunnyc: Motorcyclist are already heavily taxed and I don't see how can cyclist be compared to other users.

            • -2

              @Chridim: Cyclist don’t park irregularly. I have nothing against motorcyclists as it was aimed at scooters(mopeds) in the same category. Whilst theyre saving fuel and money. Motorists are burning more fuel trailing behind at lower gear and slow hill climbs because scooters drive too slow due to a very small engine.

              • @sunnyc: I don't think that's the normal complaint when it comes to motorbikes in Australia.

          • @sunnyc:

            parking and taking up an entire spot

            How much of a spot do you take up when you park?

            • @1st-Amendment: mopeds park in the middle of a standard car spot which means no cars can park in that spot.

              • @sunnyc:

                mopeds park in the middle of a standard car spot which means no cars can park in that spot.

                So when you park in parking spot you use the whole spot, but for some reason you think other people aren't entitled to do the exact same thing?
                Why do you think you should get special privileges?

                • -1

                  @1st-Amendment: Yes. Absolutely. For a vehicle that doesn't pay for parking in a ticketed parking zone or in any other scenario. Too many privileges have been given to cyclists. It's not fine for a vehicle to drive incredibly slow on the road so why should it be allowed for bicycles. Bike lanes that have 1 bike every hour taking up precious road spaces. Hire bikes littered and dumped on driving roads. Hire bike riders who ride without a helmet. Foreign riders who don't go through the same riding procedures and get their full license in 1 day. Riders who have complete disregard for road rules as well as reckless driving endangering pedestrians or motorists alike. Literally, cyclists who wear fully muted colours riding in the middle of the night with no lights.
                  Prior to covid, I saw 3 rider accidents a day on average.

        • +17

          in terms of road damage 1 truck is probably equal to 10000 bicycles

          • +1

            @akib: I think the road is more likely to damage the bike given the size of some of these potholes around here..

        • +8

          .. plus this government still continues to collect the "Luxury Car Tax" which was meant to support local car manufacturers… no sign of it going away since the demise of the said Australian car manufacturing industry. Meanwhile, various Coalition MPs/Senators keep banging on about reduced tax receipts from from Fuel excise as a result of take-up of electric vehicles slowly increases. No doubt these same hypocrites will insist that the ComCar fleet transition to E.V.s, subject to an expensive Senate enquiry handing down findings (i.e. the bleeding obvious).., and so the circus will continue inside the magic bubble of Canberra.

        • +6

          if your lawnmower uses petrol then you are paying tax,

        • +3

          the money has to come from somewhere to fix roads and stuff.. currently lots comes from fuel tax. when theres no fuel being sold, theres gonna be a hell of a hole in the budget … again

          • -2

            @pharkurnell: the govt needs to start making cyclists start paying rego, just like any vehicle/motobikes who uses the road…roads need upkeep maintenance also

          • +6

            @pharkurnell: It doesn’t actually. Fuel tax is federal where most of the roads you would drive on are built and maintained at a state or council level.
            The excise goes into a federal kitty that pays for all sorts of shit like tax rebates for companies doing carbon reduction projects.

            • +3

              @Roger Ramjet: Fuel excise was both a federal and state based tax until around 1997 or so (can’t remember exact date). Victoria had high rates of excise and Qld was excise free. Generally the excise worked out about 7 cents a litre on average.
              Anyway, some guy fantasising he could end the excise took his case to the high court and won. States could not levy an excise, with only the feds having that power. Hence all current excises on fuel, smokes and drinkies must end. The dude thought he had won a great thing for ordinary Aussies over the state governments.
              Of course, all that happened was the political class from all sides got together and agreed the fed excise would increase and the states would get the increase. In Qld, the state government offset the excise so fuel was still cheaper there until Anna Bligh killed the offset in 2009.
              Meanwhile, the feds had indexation on fuel, which means the excise increases every six months by CPI. This was stopped by John Howard over the brouhaha of the introduction of GST on top of the excise, but reintroduced by Abbott in 2014.
              We now pay over 43 cents in excise plus over 4 cents in GST on that excise for every litre of fuel we buy. It won’t be long before fuel tax is half the cost of fuel.

        • +4

          It's an old-fashioned, indirect tax. Your point re your lawn mower is fair. But damage to roads is exponentially related to the weight of the vehicle. A million bikes could ride over a road and do virtually no damage to it. Cars should have to pay proportional to their driving. The most logical way to do so would be to do it by directly taxing kms driven and adjusting for weight, but that would be extremely administrative burdensome.

          • +3

            @bobswinkle: Ask any pavement engineer and you will find that pavements are designed only for the trucks they carry and passenger cars/motor cycles/bikes/etc are totally ignored, because as you noted the damage is exponentially related to the wheel load. Based on your argument, we should only tax the trucks adjusting for weight/payload, which can actually be done as many of them do get weighed to stay within legal axle weight limits.

          • @bobswinkle: well that is done through fuel and trucks and larger cars are taxed proportionally to weight in rego/ tolls and ontop in servicing and cleaning.

          • +1

            @bobswinkle: Right now there are former road lanes locked up for exclusive use by the bike rider in CBDs across Australia. Usually nary a bike to be seen on them of course, even in peak hour.

            In Brisbane an extensive network of bikeways have been built at a cost of tens of millions of dollars. The SE bike way along the freeway even has massive concrete bridges. It’s the kind of thing that gets regional people’s’ blood boiling, while they rely on lower standard public services than the city.
            So if I was a heavy bike rider I too would prefer to focus on damage, certainly not cost of the road per user. Bikes would look very, very bad.

          • @bobswinkle: We have computers

        • +1

          Eh. Technically you can get a fuel tax refund for off-road usage for heavy vehicles.

          The fuel excise is logically supposed to fund road development (even though it's nowhere near the amount required), however as you say this doesn't entirely work.

          Infrastructure Australia has recommended for a while some way of directly taxing road usage and dropping the fuel excise altogether. That said it's just strange for the Victorian government to go it alone here given it's really a federal responsibility, as well as the fact it's not really the time for us to be doing this. Eventually, but not yet.

          • @Ezuku: The fuel excise raises more than that spent on roads. It’s a cash cow for government that would be hard to unpick, as so much relies on the revenue.

      • +27

        It is not at all time to even out the taxes
        Australia is monumentally behind the rest of the world in this sector - now is definitely not the time to tax EVs

        • +9

          Get on the petition if you haven't yet people https://www.change.org/p/all-politicians-and-australians-sto...

        • +1

          The problem is energy policy has been completely (profanity) by the Feds repealing the carbon tax. Electric vehicles could be much more competitive if that tax was still in place. Instead we end up with direct, inefficient subsidies from state governments instead of direct pricing of the actual problem (carbon).

          • -1


            Electric vehicles could be much more competitive if that tax was still in place.

            Lol, if they only way to be competitive is to tax your competitors then you product is probably inferior

        • Why should your car purchase benefit from my pocket?

        • I hope you are right. Even Norweigan politicians are considering removing subsidy from EVs.

      • +2

        States no longer collect any fuel taxes.

        Some of the tax collected by the federal government is used to offset the costs imposed on society by using fuels, such as air pollution. Doesn't seem even to me.

      • +1

        no, we pay extra taxes because we dont question it and just pay it, it makes no sense we pay tax on tax on tax for road cars, i mean all you have to do is look at fuel levy charge - 40c of each l of petrol is tax then you pay GST on the other part, then rego and other fees
        there will no doubt be some form of tax on these "green" vehicles and it will have nothing to do with evening things out, government just cant get enough of tax to cover all the debt they are in

      • +8

        We need more EVs not taxes for them. Changing all cars, trucks etc to EV by 2030 could easily be achieved. The governments been shit talking EV and pushing fuel cell that costs more per car to buy and run.

      • +3

        This tax is a Federal tax, not state, and hasn't actually been used for maintaining roads since forever ago.

      • dinosaur mentality

        • I reckon the dinosaurs would be opposed to fossil fuels.

      • +1

        That is flat incorrect.

        For the start, EV cars on average costs at least $10,000 more than the non-EV equivalent. Eg: Outlander. So that's an extra GST they get they can use on the road (the Rego is supposed to pay for roads and we can have debates about cyclists not paying the rego despite using the roads on another day)

        Secondly, PHEV STILL pays for fuel/petrol. Some so called statisticians say on average people don't drive anymore than 41kms (15,000 / 365) but that is based on 20kms radius (return trip) and in most circumstances, people do still drive more than 20kms. If you work in the City and living in Glen Waverley, thats 50kms every day. On top of that, PHEV outlander does not do 40kms, they only do 35kms IF you are not using Air Conditioning. So PHEV still pays for fuel PLUS 2.0c per km. PHEV will be mostly disadvantaged.

        Three, the extra electricity people will pay because of EV/PHEV will drive higher GST. Once again, Government gains.

        The State Government of Victoria is at best naive, at most, misleading and being deceptive about this whole argument about EV tax. They have the audacity to claim the high moral on taxation when they are not (and have not) even helping the EV industry, AT ALL!

        • If you live in Glen Waverley and drive to the city and have no reasonable work or medical related reason i don't think you are concerned about the environment at all. The suburb is literally the first train station on it's line….

          • @Importmonster: You can substitute Glen Waverley to whatever suburb you want to use. Twas only example.

      • +3

        None of the money coming from fuel-tax goes towards the road management.

        Why don't you complain about fuel producers not paying a single cent in tax in Australia instead ?

        • Sure it goes into general revenue where it pays for university educations, aged pensions, unemployment benefits, abused women's shelters and cancer treatments for children…. All things that don't matter.

          • -1

            @CJ31: So why don't you go after the biggest tax dodgers then ? Surely, the ones that cause the biggest damage to the health of general public could at least contribute towards that then ?

      • What’s the point of paying damn rego then?

    • +2

      That is not true.

      If you do a mileage of 10,000 km per annum, you're only paying $250 per year, which is WAY cheaper than fuel cost + excise duty that you pay to cover 10,000 km with an ICE car.

      even after 10 years you're still only paying $2500.

      And don't forget there's a pro rata rego discount of $100 per year.

      • +7

        Cheap unnecessary tax is still tax. They’d get more cash going after Google, Microsoft and Apple by changing the tax laws they follow and circumvent to not pay billions in tax. Leave the little guys alone and go after the big players

      • +1

        There is no guarantee the EV tax will not increase beyond 2.5c/km for 10 years.

        • Could decrease

        • I don't remember any state tax that goes down PERMANENTLY.

          Even Congestion Levy has been going up, not down.

          Once you introduce a tax, indexation will ensure it will always go up unless the whole tax is repealed like for example, Carbon Tax.

          • @burningrage: Stamp duty used to apply to fhb and now it doesn't that's a decrease

      • +1

        Ummm….i didn't know a Tesla is a perpetual motion machine?

        Why does everyone forget that electricity has a cost, and if you are paying 30c/kW a Mazda 3 would be cheaper to drive over the same distance.

        Also forgotten is you need to pay for multiple charging infrastructure / options/ adapters.

        • Charge off-peak and pay 11-14c

          • @BlinkyBill: Not all states have off peak. Some states it's illegal to use off-peak for anything but hot water, and lastly What if you work during off-peak hours. The 2.5c rule is rediculous any way you look at it.

      • Still gotta pay for power to charge, can't win they are discouraging ppl to work towards 0% emission

    • The EV road tax is a significant saving premium over ICE costs through fuel excise imo it's an invalid argument

    • Not sure that's how loans work but yes, pretty sure this move is to offset the EV road tax a little bit.

    • Take the $3k and put in an old ICE engine… profit! (so stupid but it checks out).

  • +19

    Victoria government has just announced the Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) Subsidy. $3000

    What a waste of tax payer money…

    If you can afford to buy a $68,000 car, don't need a $3,000 tax payer subsidy…

    • -21

      This is terrible policy.

      From here:

      "In subsidizing electric vehicle purchases, Ontario and Quebec end up spending up to 29 times and 16 times, respectively, the carbon market price for each tonne of GHGs eliminated."


      It's similar in Australia.

      If you're a committed environmentalist you should be horrified at the inefficiency of these kinds of subsidies.

      • +42

        That study was commission by the MEI, a private think-tank with the oil and gas sector being its 2nd highest donator

        • Ad hominem. The basic point is fair. You could achieve far greater emission reduction by spending that money elsewhere. These sort of policies are wildly inefficient and expensive.

          • @bobswinkle: It's true subsidies and capitalism are an ill mix as market forces are wealth maximising… Not sure why you are downvoted

            • +1

              @Importmonster: funny thing is that this isnt even a true 'Ad hominem' attack,

              That person merely pointed out that the study subsidised by oil and gas and its up to the person reading to judge that.

              Raynes never said it was a good or bad thing. Smart person.

              Its up to each individual to use their own prejudices and bobswinkle took the bait.

              Shows the smart compared to the reactionary.

              • @tonyjzx: That is the meaning of an ad hominem attack. Attack the messenger if you can’t attack the argument.

              • -1

                @tonyjzx: What? If they aren't implying their funding source should affect your assessment of their conclusion then I may as well write a comment stating that the Easter bunny isn't real. Because it adds about as much to the conversation.

                "Shows the smart compared to the reactionary." Lol, what a sad attempt at a troll.

                • @bobswinkle: All those tobacco industry sponsored studies in the past not suggestive enough for you? How about the bought climate change pseudo-science reports sponsored by the Koch's? Or the VW test figures? Or perhaps the vast majority of government commissioned reports, other than RCs? Or the really big one - the GFC where the relationship between ratings bureaux, auditors and companies irrefutably affected financial reporting.

      • +9

        the upvote and downvote button is not there for you to make a political statement

      • It's similar in Australia.

        What's the carbon market price in Australia?

    • +20

      It's not necessarily about making them more affordable, it's about convincing more people to buy them over other polluting cars

      • -7

        It think that was my point if you read my comment…

      • +2

        Actually, it is about making them more affordable. I mean yeah if you're thinking only about Teslas, $3000 pales in comparison to its cost price. But keep in mind the ZEV subsidy applies to MG ZS EV, Nissan Leaf, Kona electric, etc other electric vehicles too; the $68k is a cap so that it does go towards people who buy electric Audis and MBs. Yeah it's an arbitrary line but at least a division between expensive and cheap EVs is made.

      • Yes but who is holding off buying a $68,000 EV where 3K will make them change their mind…

Login or Join to leave a comment