EV Tax Being Challenged in High Court with a Fundraiser Campaign. Please Consider Supporting The Cause

Victoria went rogue and introduced a ZLEV (EV) tax in July, under the false pretense that electric vehicles don't pay to use the roads and they will be collecting the tax for the roads…but forgot to mention the ZLEV (EV) tax just goes to state general revenue..not roads, and it is big brother (the Federal government) who collects taxes for road maintenance…not states!

Also didn't divulge that stamp duty, rego, electricity, battery maintenance and consumables such as tyres etc are all far from free, and attract GST which actually does go towards roads. They forgot to mention over a 10 year time frame, petrol is cheaper, and totally neglect our need (environmentally and financially) to get off fossil fuels… yesteryear!
Lastly, a tax is used to slow or stop something. Ie smoking. Why on Earth would you want to slow or stop EV uptake? Totally unethical and uncalled for. A pack of lies to maintain support for the petrochemical industry.

I just saw this fund raiser to challenge the legislation and putting it out there if anyone wants to support it.



John Codogans opinion if interested (with insights into the change in the way taxes are collected from EVs vs old school petrol excise).



  • A pack of lies to maintain support for the petrochemical industry.

    Sweet, petrol for longer, wont need to update either of my cars or bikes.. Bring it on

    • +11

      Fair enough, but I have a little daughter now and realise one day I will need to explain to her that we sat in traffic burning fuel going nowhere… even though we were aware that there was an environmental crisis going on.
      I paid $16k for my PHEV nearly 4 years ago, so they aren't the million dollar vehicle people make them out to be. If not, hopefully a Hydrogen kit becomes available for people to keep their existing ICE vehicles.

      I expect (if it stays in) the Vic road tax to be applied to petrol vehicles very soon at a higher rate than EVs, say 5 -8c per km. It's just a blatant cash grab, and it adds up quickly for regional drivers. Don't think for a minute that any vehicle is safe from it.

      • +4

        As long as i have diesel for the GU and 98 for the Pont I'll be fine.

        the onlyo winners out of this court case will be the Lawyers.. but we already know that

        • +4

          My old V6 petrol Outtie is now cheaper to drive than the electric version, and I'd be fine as well. Could just go back to that. But it's not just about me anymore. Need to be better than those before us. I swam the Barrier reef when I was 6. Went back 30 years later .. mind blown.

          As for Lawyers, until we are allowed to go and boot our Muppet politicians square in the date every time they do something stupid, Lawyers remain the only way to challenge something dumped on us.

          I mean "chose carefully who you vote for" ..but look at the last 10 years in the US and Australia and there is no correct answer. The fact that Anthony Albanese called this tax by his own Labour party members "madness" says plenty. Don't get me wrong, Liberals are equally rubbish. I'd prefer them to ditch the whole Labour and Liberal shenanigans, and ask us the people to simply vote on things like this. Not leave it to the descretion of Muppets at the funny farm… But yes, shits me no end that a legal firm can profit on what should be bloody obvious and never created… don't tax something that is good for us.

          • +1

            @tunzafun001: Really? You are going to get rid of politicians by either major party, and replace them with what?

            Jacquie, Clive, Zali, Nick, Pauline and every other one trick, who arent interested in the country as a nation.

            We have a Senate that is totally dysfunctional, nothing is done because each is trading off their support, to mean they get re-elected. Surprise surprise, isnt that what elected party members do also.

            You have 24 million people who elect around 200 people to represent them, meanwhile those in the West want… while those in the East want…. while those in the South want… while those in the North want….

            Slice and dice it with Old vs Young, Rich vs Poor vs Middle and so on.

            Then Business Brokers vs Union Brokers, and others Like Developers, Financiers, Lawyers, Drug Runners, Bikie Gangs, Mafia, Religious orders.

            We need a benevolent Dictator to decide who gets what and who doesnt. Just make sure you elect the right one. And who might that be.

            So great and simple to say

            and ask us the people to simply vote on things like this

            We are going to vote on every decision?

            Fact is its never going to be fair or right, but fracturing the vote and waiting for the public to decide aint going to work.

            Excuse me Mr Covid, Mr Foreign power, Mr Economic recession, please wait until we get everyone in agreement. As likely as asking Ozbargainers to wait to buy a bargain until I get my order in….

            Oh and how do we understand all the nuances of each decision? True and honest Social Media, with Puffed Lips, Big Butts and Ripped Arms?

            • -2

              @RockyRaccoon: I hear what you are saying, but the current system doesn't work. Current system is set up to only support what helps them (and or their party) in the future. It's literally getting rediculous. Then add a senate so more time is wasted going nowhere. Unless the senate is one sided…and we are then just wasting the whole point of having one in the first place. It's broken rubbish.

              So I propose we get rid of the lot. No parties, no affiliations. Then we split the issues into public votes, or industry experts. We make decisions by simply clicking an online monthly poll (with factor 2 etc so it can't be hacked).

              For example, same sex marriage - public vote. This EV tax, auto and infrastructure industry experts only vote. Industry could put out a public vote if they are divided.

              Turf all politicians inflated salaries (How many PMs are now on the equivalent salary of winning the "Fit for Life Lotto" for doing a terrible job for 10 minutes at the helm? It really is the same as that lotto. I say place a small earning value on voting to encourage uptake by all in lieu of these rediculous salaries.

              • @tunzafun001: Your problem will be the details. More often than not it’s these the parties fight over and so will the public.

                Same sex marriage. Are churches mandated to perform them, or can they refuse. Sure they can be civilian marriages, but is that what they want.

                And then later if the mood changes, if say a vote is rejected, when would it be reintroduced.

                And what about legislation for mandatory bicycle registration, or speed limiters on battery scooters. How can anyone keep up with the arguments for and against and vote accordingly.

                And who prepares all the pros and cons of each case. Look at the propositions put forward in California, money is behind many of these. More money for ads and “independent” assessments. The same problem you want to try and stop.

                And what can be determined as needed to be voted on.

                You know past data said that 80% of legislation was agreed on by all parties.

                Then how much will each of these voting sessions cost. You can’t have it electronically as not everyone has the technology. Plus we will need to have everyone verified for voting. They can even do that for simple elections. You vote in one booth and can vote again. Sure they know it was a double vote but was it you? Could be someone pretending to be you. And since the votes aren’t linked to any voter, they can’t be eliminated.

                Simple idea fraught with much complicated issues. Not simple like teaching kids to add 2+2 this is like complex trigonometric equations, on each issue.

                As for cost, the total parliamentary salaries would be eclipsed many times over on just a few public vote sessions. Let alone maybe one day trying to get a vote on a major critical decision in a timely matter. Eg should we attack bad nations ships bombing our major cities?

                • @RockyRaccoon: Yeah, it wouldn't be a 10 min overhaul, and my example is very simplistic. But the current system is equally rubbish. I used Vote Compass last election and I was 33% on Lib/Lab/Greens. But I can't vote on 1/3 of each. Get rid of the party system. Still can have elected people in charge with those elected supporting issues in 'the people's' direction. They may still oppose the majority, but probably wouldn't last long .. unless they turned out to be right (yay, the system works!).
                  I don't believe the people of Victoria want this legislation for their state.

      • +2

        Hybrids and Hydrogen cars are not really "EVs".
        Sure they're usually more environmentally friendly than most Gas, Petrol, and Diesel cars… but it's not accurate to compare them to a BEV like a Tesla. You could literally have a Battery Pack in your Home, Solar Panels, and basically be mostly self-sufficient, and require very little maintenance/expenses compared to other options. Unlike hybrid options. Those are good thing, and that is what a good government wants for its people.

        If BEVs:
        …are discouraged or taxed, and if they aren't encouraged, that means the people in power are evil. They do not want to actually improve the environment in the shortest reasonable time, nor do they want good standards of living for their citizens. They either want more power, and/or more money, and/or they want to lower quality of life for their fellow man. That's the "If".

        I would look at Norway. They are the least polluters globally, and BEVs are cheap and abundant there in-comparison to most places. We share similarities with them, because we can be as environmentally friendly as them if we wanted/prioritised it. And both our nations actually produce/export natural resources that are harmful globally, such as Oil and Coal. Whilst we export the stuff, it makes sense we use those proceeds to transition our society to be forward-thinking and eco-friendly.

        • Hydrogen vehicles like the Toyota Mirai and Hyundai Nexo are definitely "EVs". They are driven by an electric motor which uses electricity generated by a fuel cell which reacts hydrogen fuel with oxygen from the air. They are covered by this new tax.

          There are companies like Lavo who are developing home hydrogen storage units that are functionally equivalent. They take electricity from solar panels and use it to generate hydrogen which is stored and later converted back to electricity.

          Pluggable hybrid EVs are functionally "EVs" for periods when they are being driven with battery power only.

          • @trongy: Yep, agree with all above. The tax is actually on "ZLEVs" to encompass all future tech. The Nexo is a couple of years old now, still zero uptake :(

            Hydrogen generation efficiency is poor, but they are turning solar export off in SA as they can't use it all. So the efficiency issue is redundant in SA at least. But will be expensive at the mainstream level…

            A Hydrogen powered EV is perfect for Australian regional drivers..

            So what does the Vic government do..tax it and put it even further out of reach.


          • +1

            @trongy: Hydrogen cars still need an engine to do combustion. This either leads to generating a mechanical force for direct power. Similar to an ICE. Or the combustion is used to generate electricity, which in turn is used for mechanical force. This is what we know as a Hybrid.

            Again, a hybrid system is not an BEV. Hybrids have been around for a long time and we've never called them EVs. And when people hear about EVs what they're thinking about is a BEV. It's disingenious to say otherwise.

            Hydrogen is not a good solution, at least not for cars. It is dangerous to transport, dangerous to store, and is not very green to produce. What I can see Hydrogen being used for is where "energy density" is more important than efficiency, such as in Helicopters and Planes.

            • @Kangal: The current production Hydrogen cars use Fuel Cells. No combustion. Only need around 6L for a comparable petrol range. As for being more dangerous than a petrol / LPG tank / Lithium battery..I'm on the fence on this one. Arguments on both sides.

              Agree to disagree on Hydrogen not being green to produce. As I said earlier, SA turn off solar exporting on high export days. This energy could be diverted to a Hydrogen farm. 100% green.

              Definitely agree re usage in ships and planes.

              Funny about your comments regarding Hybrids. The Vic government still included PHEVs in the tax (even though they don't conform to the legislation).

      • I know it’s got nothing to do with EV but Have fun explaining why she or her generation wont ever own a home in Australia either.

        • -1

          This is a factor of MMT. Australia printed something like 15% of its all time cash last year (America pumped out 30%). So houses are basically just keeping up.

          For what it's worth, you can buy a beach side, 3 bedroom home for under $150k. I know this because I'm selling one. The reality is you just need to get out of a CBD. Don't know why everyone pays big money to be in the smog pit. Just step outside…

          • @tunzafun001: Because we are social animals… we crave human connection and conveniences that come with a city life.

            In many ways, buying a million dollar house that is no-thrills is "worth it" (or rational) compared to a house an hour drive away.

            • @Kangal: Biology dictates you are right, but I love being out in the back country without another person in sight. Must be missing that gene!

              Regional centres still have arguably better communities and convenience (1 min to work/ shops). But people still shun them. I think the other human emotion plays out, fear of moving away.

              Pretty rare to hear someone say, geez I regret moving out to the country.

              Anyway, no need to pay huge $$ for housing.

  • +11

    I think they have Buckley's hope of winning this lawsuit. They would have more chance of repealing this law if they spent the money starting a new political party with a platform of abolishing this tax and winning a majority of seats in the upper and lower houses in the next Victorian state election.

    • +7

      Agree… but this is australia … everyone will swing a fist at a cloud, yell, complain, pitchforks…. and thats about it.

    • Normally I would agree, but there are so many failings in this legislation (as they do didn't do any due diligence and have little idea on the product they were taxing). For example, the legislation is for ZLEVs (Zero level emission vehicles). Yet includes PHEVs, which are not ZLEVs. Surely a free hit.

      The fact they are collecting funds for Victoria from other state roads is another flirt with the constitution. You could argue it's a state tax, so the constitution doesn't apply. But the legislation is written in a federal context (ie they blatantly say the tax is for road maintenance). An analogy, you can't impersonate a police officer. This legislation is dressed like an officer and is collecting funds as such, but isn't an officer.

      Then the state has ethical obligations, and taxing EVs (and EVs only) when there is no reason to tax something (with modern monetary policy) which ultimately helps with public health and the environment would be a clear breach of such policies. They rushed it through and it's a terrible piece of legislation.

      • The constitution definitely does apply, but I am not sure of the constitutional grounds the legislation is being challenged on.
        For example, s. 90 prohibits States from levying customs duties and excise. But this doesn't feel like an excise.
        So, what is the basis of the challenge?

        • I only just saw it and have no direct involvement to it, but I'm guessing their angle is Victoria are claiming income from all states of the country, which is a federal job. Ie. I've been across the border since lock down, but Victoria are claiming the $$ even though its not their roads.
          Alternatively I'm guessing the defining of what is being taxed would be crucial. EV travel (which is ultimately derived from paid for electrons stored in a battery) which the state then take 2.5c per km (which could be argued as 2.5c / kWh) . Is this the same as taking a cut from a car with a petrol tank containing petrol instead of electrons, therefore it's actually an imposed excise? Ie. Electrons like petrol are a commodity. They both have a cost base.

          Watching the video it seems he is also interested in pursuing ethical implications of the tax.

          PHEVs should be a cake walk as they are included even though they don't meet the criteria as a "predominant ZLEV". Black and white challenge there.

          • @tunzafun001: Yeah - I understand the 'moral' basis of the claim - I just don't understand the legal basis for the claim.

            • @Almost Banned: I guess states taxing electricity consumption (like petrol) as a commodity (which is an excise) is a no no in the constitution. Also, breaching the Ethics policy.

              • +1

                @tunzafun001: I'm not super across the legislation, but I am not sure it is correctly characterised as a tax on electricity use. I suspect it doesn't matter if the EV uses electricity, or wind, or gravity to do the kms - so long as they do the kms.
                So, it is a tax on use, but is it a tax on consumption?

                • @Almost Banned: This is it. Diesel can be from fish n chips, petrol can be grown from sugar cane. The point is consumption and distance are joined at the hip. You can't do kms without consuming a product.

                  I guess they would argue they have "manipulated" the constitution for pure benefit of a single state, by claiming it's a tax on distance, not consumption (which is excise)…but they are analogous. Ie I pay 33c/kWh to my energy provider+ .95c/kWh to Victoria for electricity. Same as Petrol, but the extra goes to the Federal government (where it legally should). Im hoping the judge would need to accept that EVs run on nothing for it to stand (Tim Pallas actually said this, and may actually believe it). There was a statement saying an electric car can regenerate as it drives and not require a charge at all. Not how physics works.
                  So reality hopefully dictates it will fail.

                • +1

                  @Almost Banned: The legislation is here for anyone who is interested enough to read it (clearly not the OP). It's 58 pages and I'm not reading it all - there's a lot about collection and enforcement.

                  However, I have read enough to satisfy myself that it's a tax on distance travelled in the vehicle (page 6).

                  Two other tidbits that I hadn't seen in any media reports:

                  • the tax also applies to hydrogen vehicles
                  • the tax rate will be adjusted according to CPI changes.Point 3
                  • @trongy: Pure wordsmith wizardry. But the reality is, this was enough to get it through.

                    How do you travel distance without consumption? (Which puts it in federal territory).

                    A rose (excise) by any other name, is it still a rose. That is the question.

                    I'm not a lawyer and probably totally wrong, but I wonder why no other state has done it. Maybe just because its a very obvious stupid tax. It's harm is infinitely worse than its bugger all yield. After administration costs, it will currently run at a loss.

                    Maybe grounds for discrimination in there (shouldn't they have scrapped fuel excise entirely and charged everyone a "distance tax")? Why only ZLEV drivers?

                    The real reason is they are looking to sell off and privitise Vic Rego, and just gave it another income stream. Needed to target a minority to not hurt future election votes. EV drivers are the patsy, but I'm hoping people realise what this means for everyone. Decentivising a good thing .. honestly!

                    As for the other bit, it's a "predominant ZLEV" tax (includes Hydrogen, Nuclear or whatever else comes along that doesn't produce carbon emissions).

                    That being said, they still tax PHEVs, and they aren't ZLEVs.

    • don't need to win a majority, a QLD Greens style party down south with 3-4 seats could potentially hold the balance of power. (I mention QLD greens because the nature of QLDs economy has forced them into a sensible middle ground)

      • A minor party can only hold the balance of power on an issue if the major parties oppose each other.

        If the Libs get into power in Victoria they will not repeal this tax (unless they do a deal with the federal government for a decent share of a future federal EV road use tax).

        Introducing new taxes always makes the party in power unpopular. For any party new to power, a tax introduced by the previous government is a gift from the gods, because they get to blame the previous government at the same time as spending the revenue in a way that makes them look good.

        • Correct, the Liberals have basically said this… Unless 100 000+ partitions drop on their desk saying you won't get our vote if this stays.

          SA did a public perception survey prior to announcing their tax. Something like 80% opposed it, they canned it.

  • tax is used to slow or stop something

    Income hmm

    • Yes indeed, income tax is used to slow and control inflation.

      • Wouldn't that be a wealth tax?

        • Closest thing to a wealth tax is an inflation target from the reserve bank.

          Economics of balancing a budget get confusing when you can literally print money. So yes income tax and in particular a progressive tax scheme where high income earners pay a larger percentage is used to shape wages and keep inflation within the target range. Recent cuts to income tax are a good example of tax changes being used to try and increase demand.

      • -1

        Pretty sure it's used to pay for all the stuff provided by the government "for free".

    • +1

      A good video by Luke McGregor (Lukenomics) on MMT and why the tax makes no sense.

      Worth a look if you are wondering how we are going to pay for all the vaccines, testing… and now nuclear subs.


      • Nice explanation.

  • @Jimothy Wongingtons need your supply of pitch forks! They are in high demand again after the trusty 🧻 .

    • +5


      WE GOT 'EM ALL!

      Traditional —-E
      Left Handed Ǝ—-
      Fancy —-{


      33% off! —-F
      66% off!—-L
      Manufacturer's Defect! —-e


      The Euro —-€
      The Pound —-£
      The Lira —-₤

    • Pretty sad isn't it when we need to do this $hite for something that is obviously wrong!

  • +4

    Support? Not @ all likely.

  • Wow. People still have faith in the legal system?

    Good luck with that, but when it comes to taxation I'm not aware of too many that have ever been repealed (and not replaced with something else, usually worse), as for mileage tax, hypothetically speaking a person could, I suppose do some searching on GPS jammers?

    • +1

      It really isn't about legal system. Even if they win the government will implement something else. Tax is accepted part of life. There is taxes you can't escape from. EV tax is optional. Especially if you pay up big time for an EV and suddenly cry poor.

      One thing I learnt is never under estimate the government's willingness to pull the rug from under you. You'd be best served to hide behind big vested interests (share market and property market, or whatever politicians are in bed with).

  • +8

    2c a kilometre and say you travel 15,000km a year. $300 a year. If you were in a petrol at 5L/100km it is 750L which is $1.1k ($1.50/L)

    So if you can afford an EV you can't afford an extra $300? I'll leave donations to EV drivers thanks.

    • -1


    • +3

      Come on. Lets be sensible.

      You pay, the tax is good.

      I pay, the tax is bad

      And if you argue its good for the Nation, just make a donation instead.

      • EV drivers argue they are doing good for the country, their extra $300 a year is doing more good for the country. It goes directly to the states and big oil doesn't get a cut.

        Maybe they should just raise their rego by $300 a year and give them a windscreen sticker for the pleasure.

      • +2

        You pay, the tax is good.
        I pay, the tax is bad

        Finally, someone who understands how I feel about tax!

        • +1

          There we go, it was a vote catching idea wasn’t it. 😀

    • You're comparing 2 different things - the EV tax is on top of charging costs while petrol has no additional tax on it.

      • +3

        You know EV owners keep telling me it is literally free when you have your own solar panels.

        I'll entertain you. 15k/kms a year. 500km range a full battery (580km Tesla says on model 3) 70kwh battery (assumed) it is 30 full charges at 30c a KwH is $630 + $300 km tax is $930. Still cheaper than ICE. So what is the rage?

        I don't see EV owners handing back their Victoria solar grants and interest free loans. Neither do I see them donating the servicing cost saved to keep their local dealership open.

        We could go on all day.

        In the end all these MG EV, Leaf etc drivers are just giving a bunch of lawyers a model S each.

        • -2

          @netjock. A lot of new drivers don't realise the batteries fall over pretty quick in the Australian heat and haven't factored in replacement battery costs (which are still rediculous). Not the time for an EV tax yet until this price comes down.

          • +1

            @tunzafun001: Guess you want tax payers to pay for battery replacement too?

            • @netjock: No, but the government needs to acknowledge it has a cost.

              Tax payers do need to pay for seawalls and infrastructure being ripped apart in more frequent storms due to climate change etc etc. The cost of not changing is on a scale we are yet to see.

              Surely we can agree a legislation in 2021 that actually encourages the continued use of fossil fuels is irresponsible and stupid?

              • +3


                Tax payers do need to pay for seawalls and infrastructure being ripped apart in more frequent storms due to climate change etc etc. The cost of not changing is on a scale we are yet to see.

                Yes there is but we going to stop building infrastructure so that individual EV owners can benefit?

                Just because I haven't been to the hospital for 20 years I don't want to defund hospitals because I can't just pay for a pop up hospital when I need one. You mix public good vs individual good.

                • @netjock: So you are saying continued endorsement of combustion engines is in the public interest? (As combustion engines don't have a road tax) ..Come on.. seriously?? Encouraging EV uptake is in the interest of public good, but for now at the Expense of individuals (before the tax). The tax is rediculous and based on lack of knowledge.

                  We have already covered the purchase price, inflated stamp duty, battery maintenance and electrical running costs of a current EV are higher than petrol consumption and excise derived from a combustion engine.

                  Don't understand your first statement at all. How are EV owners costing more and taking away from infrastructure? Check out the John Codogan video link in the title for clarification. Diesel subsidies for Heavy vehicles are doing the damage to infrastructure.

                  Get a feeling you are looking for an argument for the sake of an argument.

                  Comes down to if you think EV uptake should be encouraged or discouraged.

                  • @tunzafun001:

                    We have already covered the purchase price, inflated stamp duty, battery maintenance and electrical running costs of a current EV are higher than petrol consumption and excise derived from a combustion engine.

                    Tesla Model 3's battery does upwards of 350km and costs $12k - $15k to replace.

                    Tesla Model 3 (2021 model at least) claims an efficiency of 147 Wh/km. x100 is 14.7kWh/100km

                    Based on these numbers:
                    14.7/0.9 = 16.33
                    $6.39/1.4=4.56L of petrol equivalent / 100km

                    Copy and pasted from a thread farther down. Costs of running a current EV isn't higher than petrol, unless you've got a petrol car that burns less than 4.56L/100km.

                    • @CMH: Ughhh… We could do this all day.

                      I'll mention that as soon as you turn on a heater (basically a 4KW kettle) or the A/C on, this efficiency number takes a massive hit (again nuasanses people don't know until you drive one). Then reference a Hyundai i20 (that I drove in NZ that only used 3.9L/100) and say it's cheaper.

                      Then you might find something next week that is more efficient than a Tesla…

                      Then I can say, yeah, but if you watched the video link in the title (regarding 6+ years of tax paid up front in lieu of future petrol excise), then factor in you need to buy and install your own "petrol station" at home which has a cost….more GST…blah blah

                      Then the lower socioeconomic people who will be "put off" the most from this tax (and chose a petrol car again over an EV) won't be looking at Tesla's anyway….blah, blah.. blah.

                      Its not the point. So I'll get this back on track….

                      Individual states shouldnt be impersonating federal policy. Technically the Federal government get nothing from it (they haven't put GST on it yet), and that's where the road maintenance finance technically comes from (which this tax pretends to be for).

                      A PHEV isn't even a ZLEV anyway. So this is just plain dumb taxing them. PHEVs are the remote regional drivers EV of choice.

                      They falsely state the funds will be used for charging infrastructure. That will be done by private businesses (AGL etc), who want to sell their kWh's. Got nothing to do with government funding.

                      As I keep repeating, a tax is used to stop / slow / prevent something. Why are we slowing EV uptake? Look at the number of fossil fuel cars to EV car sales ratios. They are shocking compared to the rest of the developed world. Something like 300 000 ICE to maybe 4000 EV in Australia.

                      Manufacturers weren't bringing EV cars here, and specially cited these taxes as the reason. Thankfully other states have just said they arent looking at any tax at all, or holding off until 2027, or some arbitrary uptake %. Plus giving stamp duty and registration discounts etc. So we should see some better EV offerings. But Vic is very much the embarrassing cousin in the room.

                      The climate situation is pretty clear. While I agree about public transport is environmentally a better option… people aren't going back. Same as Air-conditioners and bigger TVs, once tasted no one is going back to wall air vent housing of 1970 and 18" TVs. People will continue to buy cars, and we don't have time for 300 000 people to continue buying petrol cars annually (which means they will still be around for another 20 years).

                      The cost of not changing (quickly) is going to cost the tax payer far more than this ZLEV tax will collect. For some reason we forget about that cyclone, bush fire, ice cap melt, glacial retraction, species extinction, pandemic, bleaching event etc etc within 6 months of it happening. What do the Vic government get..$300 off a select few… honestly!!

                      We need to pull our heads out of our own arses. This summer, try and live like a bird. Spend a week outside in a heat wave with no aircon, no running water and any tree with fruit is netted. Any native fruit land or creek cleared. Yet everyone hates those birds "stealing their fruit". Animals are moving into human populated areas chasing our "comforts" for survival. Next minute, a Bird with a flu cross infects a water bubbler spout..(ok a long bow, but the concept is there). Most are so nieve to believe Covid started from a Bat in 2019. SARS (this is what it actually is) has been floating around the globe well back into the 90s and beyond. The poor bat is just another sufferer. The point is, we are causing un natural population dynamics through climate change. Covid has cost probably trillions globally..but its just a shot across the bow. It's not even that dangerous compared to others.
                      Wait for MERS and 700 000 others to make Covid look like a scratch.

                      EVs arent the be all answer. But they are a start. But if this is the way we are going to handle "solutions", then we are stuffed before we start.

                      I will say thanks for at least taking the time to have a conversation, and put the numbers out there (more than the government did). It does show you can argue there is bugger all in it, well sort of (at least for those at the top end of the market), which tells you how much the Vic government have dropped the ball in encouraging people to uptake solutions we needed 20 years ago. No incentive whatsoever (giving a rebate and then taking it back doesn't count).

                      Well done ACT and QLD in particular for leading the way…well actually every other state but you Victoria.

                      • @tunzafun001: In that particular post I'm only talking about the running cost part, which you keep insisting is more expensive to run an EV than an ICE vehicle, which might be true only in very select comparisons rather than the norm.

                        I'll mention that as soon as you turn on a heater (basically a 4KW kettle) or the A/C on, this efficiency number takes a massive hit (again nuasanses people don't know until you drive one).

                        You'd be surprised to note that you yourself have assigned a value of 90% conversion efficiency. And all my calculations uses this value you have provided. Not to mention all the calculations are done with the cost of electricity you have provided (33c). Could easily shave 10% off that too based on my own personal electricity bill. And if we go to the Essential Services Comission, the standard rate for electricity (on flat tariffs) is anywhere from $0.2324 to $0.2972 per kWhr. If electricity costs matter that much to you your bill should be on the lower end.

                        And that's for flat rate, the smarter consumer would go for 2 period use and charge the car off-peak, which would be between $0.1849 to $0.1981 per kWhr.

                        Want me to re-do those calculations to see how much EV drivers save compared to ICE with these actual numbers that anyone can search up themselves?


                        Our long-term 2019 Tesla Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor test car is currently averaging 95 percent efficiency from a Level 2 Tesla 240-volt wall connector. Staffers charging at home using a typical 120-volt wall outlet saw efficiency of, at best, 85 percent
                        Quoted from https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36062942/evs-explaine...

                        So 90% is acceptable, even if our 240V standard in Australia should give us 95% efficiency, which points to cheaper EV running costs. For full disclosure the article does show as low as 60% efficiency from (assumedly) 120V system in "very cold weather" (American article, so we'd NEVER get this sort of weather unless you're in the Vic alpine region. Nor do we use 120V), so we know how low this efficiency could get.

                        I'll mention that as soon as you turn on a heater (basically a 4KW kettle) or the A/C on, this efficiency number takes a massive hit (again nuasanses people don't know until you drive one). Then reference a Hyundai i20 (that I drove in NZ that only used 3.9L/100) and say it's cheaper.

                        The Tesla Model 3 I based my calculations on is a sport sedan. Forgetting the whole "sport" part (and boy, they are definitely sporty!) find me another sedan that would burn less than the calculated 4.56L of petrol per 100km (only car I can imagine coming close to this would be a camry hybrid). Anything coming close to the sportiness of the Model 3 wouldn't come anywhere close, and would need premium fuel, which costs even more.

                        An i20 is a much smaller car, and is NOT mentioned anywhere in any of my posts.

                        the lower socioeconomic people who will be "put off" the most from this tax

                        The entry cost for EV's bring so much more than an equivalent ICE vehicle isn't putting off this same group? Considering that it's so much cheaper to run an EV than an ICE vehicle especially if you run a solar setup.

    • +1

      Or alternatively, how can we afford (as an entire planet) to continue and in this case endorse fossil fuel usage? Turn it around the other way. Save $300 per year and buy a petrol car…right now.. you can honestly say sounds like a good policy? Also, for regional drivers you can double this. So rego is $1350 per year for a ZLEV.

      As you say people who have made the shift to EV are already paying more. Why should they be hit again? and why do you assume they are wealthy?

      I'm just a teacher, and my partner is on minimum wage. We bought a PHEV for $16k four years ago. It's not pure EV, but at least doing something. But people are still not interested in buying a $16k PHEV because of rubbish policy like this. Even worse, we extended ourselves to buy it, and never factored in rubbish extra expenses like this coming 3 years down the track. It isn't even retrospective.

      Anyway, the tech has been around for 10 years. The used market should be flooded with them by now.

      But this is the problem. We have so little EV options here (making them expensive) because of rubbish policy like this. Manufacturers have no incentive to sell them here. The UK has hundreds of options and they are set to ban all petrol vehicles in 5 years. Meanwhile, we are still stuck in 1985 mode.

      Even petrol loving "auto expert" John Codogan agrees this is pure stupidity.


      • +2

        You can argue all day but if you don't have a margin of safety (financially) if you choose to buy a car at $x price then maybe you shouldn't.

        If you haven't already realised nothing makes sense but if it makes sense to you and you want to making financial or environment stand each to their own.

  • I agree it is a bad tax as it disincentivises EV uptake, however in terms of state government not being able to impose taxes, how is it any different to the motor vehicle tax that we pay when registering our cars. As people would know there is a small fee but most of the cost to register a car is the motor vehicle tax we pay.

    • You could say luxury car tax is a disincentive for luxury car uptake but no shortage of nice cars driving around.

      • I’m sure if the tax was removed more people would drive luxury cars.

        • Indeed, imagine what would happen if you removed an EV tax…hmmm.

          • +3

            @tunzafun001: Yeah they'll use their $300 bucks to buy an extra set of floor mats

            • @netjock: Yes, and give them to their neighbour who just bought an EV.

        • +1

          Lets say luxury car tax is 33% above the threshold. ATO

          So if you go $1k over threshold then you can probably get an extra set of floor mats.

    • I think it's fairer to introduce the tax now, giving people prior warning, rather than after a huge percentage of the population have already purchased EVs.

      (when the tax was first announced in 2020, the number of EV's registered in Victoria was of the order of 1000)

      • That's why they did it. If there was a huge number of EV owners it would be political suicide. So do it now while not enough people are in the mindset to consider the ramifications.

        As for the people who purchased EVs early and paid a premium (therefore more tax, stamp duty), will need to pay for a battery replacement in the future, triple screw em right?

        Should look at something in 5 - 10 years time, and retrospectively (current owners exempt to encourage early uptake) as they intend to do in NSW/ Federally.

  • +1

    Isn’t this like Trump fundraising to challenge the election results? I wonder where are all the money now?

    EV drivers aren’t the poorest bunch of people in the country I assume?

    Assuming EV tax will turn people away from EV is like believing GST will stop people eating out.

    • +2

      Assuming EV tax will turn people away from EV is like believing GST will stop people eating out.

      Yes. If you are deterred by $300 a year (2c over 15k/kms) and over 10 year $3k for a $40k car (MG EV) then I'd suggest people have a serious look at their finances. Maybe skip the $4 lattes every 5 days ($292 pa)

      • -2

        I think this is a bit ignorant and arrogant thinking. This is just 15k KMs. Low income earners (usually being outer suburbs) usually do more than this. So let's say an extra $500+ in registration fees per year (which can be a lot for some).

        So it's actually leveraging lower income people who are trying to do the right thing and giving those who might have considered an EV another reason to give it a miss.

        Either way, you don't tax something that is in the interest of public health, period.

        • +2

          I think this is a bit ignorant and arrogant thinking. This is just 15k KMs. Low income earners (usually being outer suburbs) usually do more than this.

          It is ignorant and arrogant to think low income earners are buying a $40k EV (never mind a $60k Model 3, that would be really financially irresponsible) instead of a $20k Kia Piccanto.

          15k kms a year is almost 60km a day (52 weeks x 5 days). Melbourne CBD to Craigieburn (outer north) is 37km one way.

          • @netjock: We are a low income family and bought a used PHEV for $16k four years ago. You don't need to spend $40k to own a EV. But this is the perception.

            I drive 108km per day to work. Never did we think 3 years later I would need to pay an extra $700 in rego per year. Not making it retrospective is just plain nasty. I'm now driving my partners petrol car a lot more. That's just terrible. I have the car to reduce my carbon footprint, but financially being crippled to not do so by the government.

            All irrelevant though really. The major issue is Victoria is the only state that is stupid enough to incentivise people to still buy and use petrol cars. It's playing a false hand and doing the work of the federal government. The policy effects all Australia and auto manufacturers aren't bringing their EV range here (as they are worried other states will do the same). We are already 15 years behind the UK.. and now sinking further.

            • @tunzafun001: Goes to show you can't buy an EV for $16k. PHEvs are unpopular for a reason.

              You probably shouldn't be buying a PHEV if you are driving a 108km a day. Given the fuel economy once you run out of battery you would be better off with a Camry / Prius. You welcomed yourself into the worst of both worlds having to pay kilometre tax and petrol excise. Get rid of the monkey. Either go full EV or hybrid.

              It isn't an extra 700 a year. As you are demonstrating you are escaping it by using an alternative vehicle.

              We might be 15 years behind the UK in EVs but you don't want to catch up to the UK level of youth knife crime. Every week some kid is stabbed to death in London.

              As consolation we have caught up to UK in pissing off the EU via pissing off the French so sinking the chance of a free trade deal like the UK.

              • @netjock: In short, the PHEV is the perfect car for me as I need 600km range (without a charging option - out bush), I need off road ability, needs to be able to tow a tonne, need something to power a house and tools off grid. Also wanted something that doesn't burn fuel when I cross the city going nowhere and short runs to the shops. Wanted to do something for the environment, but needed to be cheap.

                Definitely shouldn't even be included in the ZLEV tax (as it isn't one).

                Subs are a perfect example of why the tax isn't required. We can piss $billions against the wall with MMT, but need to chase $500 from those not burning dinosaurs.

  • I think the lawsuit will go nowhere. OP, did you find out which of the 15 political parties want to abolish the EV tax and/or support EV?

    • Who would you trust? They all will turn on a dime. If this gets negative heat, you watch them all come out and say "we apposed this from the start".

      Even the leader of the Labour party went on record to say he doesn't endorse his own parties policy. What a $hitfest!

      • If you say there's no party on EV, then voters won't consider EVs at the ballot then

  • +1

    I support this legal challenge.

  • +4

    Victoria went rogue and introduced a EV tax in July

    this is your opinion. I think Vic govt did well.

    • Please elaborate?

      I mean they did well "working the angles" and blatantly lieing in parliament to exploit loop holes to fatten their coffers at the expense of public health and the environment. I think it will get canned and ended up costing millions in wasted tax payer money (well I sadly hope so for my daughter).

      But I'm keen to know your opinion?

      • Please elaborate?

        The Victorian government did this, not the Victorian people.

        • Imagine if a government actually represented its people!

          • @tunzafun001: Yeah, they weren't exactly talking about an EV tax at election time. A lot can change in 4 years.

  • +3

    The government will find a way to tax any related usage to new EV vehicles , fight it in court all you like at the end of the day unless you are lining the pockets of a few politicians directly you won't get anywhere , you are wasting your time and money for nought.

    Neg me all you like its the truth , just like the current fuel excise and the fact they still charge us for tolls that we pay to travel in our ICE vehicles currently , just cause your changing from a petrol powered motor to an electrical doesn't mean you get to pass go and not pay big daddy govt what they are due.

    • ACT has no rego fees at all for EVs (funny that a lot of pollies live there). NSW realise this is not the time to decentivise EV uptake and will review the roll out of a tax retrospectively in 6 years or similar. Currently I believe they have a small rego discount on EVs. So not can be done, it is being done … by everyone but Victoria.

      As you say big daddy will roll out an extra tax, and they will. This is the Federal governments job, not the states grabbing general revenue at the expense of the environment and public health for all Australia.

      Not the time to do it yet, and the Federal government have said so themselves.

      • +1

        ACT has no rego fees at all for EVs (funny that a lot of pollies live there). NSW realise this is not the time to decentivise EV uptake and will review the roll out of a tax retrospectively in 6 years or similar.

        You really think it is "no" rego fees? It is just robbing it from elsewhere. The pollies use ICE BMWs Commonwealth cars, they really don't care how much rego is.

        Your concept of retrospective is actually not "retrospective". It actually means back dating taxes to a point in the past. You probably mean in 6 years they will implement a charge. Buy it now you get 6 years of benefit, in 4 years time only 2 years of benefit until a new charge comes into effect.

        People should just think about whether things are free lunches or just to suck you in like a great introductory offer. 99.9% I can guarantee is the later.

  • Is there also a legal cause against income taxes as I would like to support?

  • People who are truly worried for the planet would be using and promoting public transport.

    • True, but public transport doesn't really exist in regional areas (there's a bus around 3 full of school kids). Also, haven't seen any electric buses yet. Might exist somewhere?

      • Are you starting a vendetta against ICE vehicles, or are you interested in saving the planet?

        Money could be better spent getting cars off the road by promoting public transport (which doesn't necessarily mean ICE busses) than to convert all your vehicles to electric. My point is pick your battles, the fact you're trying to promote this one shows you're not really grounded in the reality of being green.

        • Wouldn't say a vendetta against ICE, as our charging infrastructure is far from being up to scratch, and can understand why people who drive decent distances still chose ICE.

          But look at places with large EV adoption overseas and you will see private industry has placed charging infrastructure everywhere. Similar to petrol stations popping up everywhere when transitioning from horses. We just don't have the incentive to adopt EVs. In this case, the opposite.

          As for public transport, I'm all for it. Definitely prefer electric over Diesel. But if public transport promotion is the end game, then place a tax on all vehicles. This tax specifically targets EVs only…madness.

          • @tunzafun001: However, you still fail to see the bigger picture.

            Don't you realise our electric trains are part of the public transport network? Yet you are still like a dog on a bone with the "electric over Diesel".

            Clearly this is just about how it's affecting you, rather than anything about being green.

            • @CMH: Discouraging EV uptake only affects me?

              I invest a lot of my time and energy trying to save this planet of ours. I'm an educator, and feel it's my responsibility to do so. Heck, I generally only drive if the bike ride is more than 30km.

              I understand electric trains are part of a public transport network. But I also know installing electric rail in small rural and regional areas.
              A) Generally doesn't exist. As..
              B) Makes no sense economically or environmentally.

              Anyway, getting off track. If you think that EVs should continue to be taxed higher than ICE vehicles, then fair enough.

              • @tunzafun001: They should be taxed the same.

              • @tunzafun001:

                Fuel excise is a flat sales tax levied by the Australian Government on petrol and diesel bought at the bowser. The current rate is 42.7 cents in excise for every litre of fuel purchased.

                The EV tax is 2.5c/km. That's $2.50 per 100km.

                The equivalent ICE vehicle needs to burn $2.50/0.427=5.845L/100km.

                Looks to me that it's about equal because let's face it: the average ICE vehicle out there burns more than 5.845L/100.

                So again, EV's aren't being taxed higher. Just different.

                Again, from where I stand it looks like it's not about being green, but about a tax you don't want to pay. And I fully understand that, I don't want to pay tax neither but let's call a spade a spade shall we?

                p.s. I forgot to add GST to that fuel excise as well, so the true mileage should be 5.322L/100