High Court Determines ZLEV Charge Is Invalid (VIC)

bemybubble on 18/10/2023 - 11:41

an extract from the decision:

Today, the High Court, by majority, held that s 7(1) of the Zero and Low Emission Vehicle
Distance-based Charge Act 2021 (Vic) ("the ZLEV Charge Act") is invalid on the basis that it
imposes a duty of excise within the meaning of s 90 of the Constitution. Section 90 relevantly
provides that the power of the Commonwealth Parliament "to impose duties of customs and of
excise" is "exclusive" of the powers of the States and self-governing Territories.

Can already see the VicRoads phone line getting clogged for peeps demanding refunds…

Financial

Comments

  • Gdsamp on 18/10/2023 - 11:45
    +10

    Owned severely

    • bemybubble on 18/10/2023 - 11:45
      +7

      Yep - should start a GoFundMe for Christopher Vanderstock and Kathleen Davies to fund a thank you hamper :D

      • Gdsamp on 18/10/2023 - 11:46
        +1

        inb4 Dan etc

  • Drakesy on 18/10/2023 - 11:51
    +5

    Lel, between this and the $5000 rebate for young rural drivers Vic Labor really have missed the mark.

    And this is coming from someone that's not a fan of the liberals.

    • jv on 18/10/2023 - 12:32
      +12

      Vic Labor really have missed the mark

      They were told many times they could not charge this tax, but Dan and Pallas, as usual, just ignored everyone…

      Now the taxpayer has to pay the damages yet again…

      • jackspratt on 19/10/2023 - 18:01

        What damages are they, jv?

        • tunzafun001 on 19/10/2023 - 23:05
          +3

          Hmm…apart from all the money wasted on bringing it in and implementing it..then all legal fees (both sides)..then 12 months (at least) of refunded ZLEV..and then possibly the refund of ALL state taxes (and every state) on luxury car rego, mining etc…

          • jackspratt on 19/10/2023 - 23:28
            -6

            @tunzafun001: "Damages" is a legal term.

            None of what you describe fits within that term.

            • tunzafun001 on 19/10/2023 - 23:42
              +4

              @jackspratt: Fair enough..but turns out legal definitions can be interpreted differently by different judges ;)
              How about Tim Pallas has created a very expensive shit sandwich! Potential damages I guess for lost revenue (fleet owners) and maybe miners (still to come).

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 20/10/2023 - 09:54
        -1

        jv, what are you going to do with yourself next year now that Dan has gone?

        • jv on 20/10/2023 - 11:29
          +2

          next year now that Dan has gone?

          Depends where he is going…. Albo is looking shaky…

          • Sammyboy on 20/10/2023 - 13:41

            @jv: You never know, he might be eyeing Albo's job now given how things have unfolded

            • jv on 20/10/2023 - 13:47

              @Sammyboy: I'd put a bit of money on that…

        • GooseHoward on 20/10/2023 - 12:08

          Hate whoever Sky News tells them to, obviously

  • Sawtell on 18/10/2023 - 11:51
    +20

    It has only opened the door for the federal government to implement the same charges.

    Realistically, there has to be some kind of excise on EVs to fund the road network.

    • Drakesy on 18/10/2023 - 11:57
      +10

      I agree,

      Although something like 80-90% of road wear is caused by trucks.
      I don't think the fuel tax has even been going back into maintenance of roads.

      • jv on 18/10/2023 - 12:34
        +1

        I don't think the fuel tax has even been going back into maintenance of roads.

        It goes to consolidated revenue, and only a small portion is required to maintain the roads…

        It needs a serious overhaul, but I doubt Albo has the balls to make it happen…

      • ESEMCE on 18/10/2023 - 12:34
        +8

        The other obvious consumable to tax is Tyres…
        Ouch!
        Imagine to price of tyres if Tyre tax was designed to substitute fuel excise!!

        • plmko on 18/10/2023 - 13:14
          +1

          It's not farfetched. New emission guidelines like Euro7 do take into account tyre emissions so if it can be measured then it can be taxed.

          • ESEMCE on 18/10/2023 - 13:56
            +2

            @plmko: That's the thing their wear rate is directly correlated to road use.
            No need to measure, when you need a replacement set you need a replacement set, whether it's from 80,00Km highway cruising or 5,000Km of hooning.

            • bemybubble on 18/10/2023 - 14:01
              +4

              @ESEMCE: What if someone slashes your tyres?

              • JIMB0 on 19/10/2023 - 08:24
                +1

                @bemybubble: There would have to be a refund for unused tread.

            • RockyRaccoon on 18/10/2023 - 14:35
              +3

              @ESEMCE: Damn there goes the burnouts.

            • Leiothrix on 19/10/2023 - 08:25
              +3

              @ESEMCE: Or from five years of sitting in your driveway going nowhere.

              Tires are something that need to be replaced with age, not just usage.

              • Kangal on 20/10/2023 - 14:55

                @Leiothrix: That's true, but the correlation is a strong one. And we don't perfect solutions, we need solutions that work for the majority of the circumstance. Ergo think of the Pareto Principle and be smart about targets, and the law of unintended consequences.

      • valuer on 18/10/2023 - 17:59
        +1

        EVs are often fairly heavy cars. That also means great wear on tyres. They should certainly be taxed for their use and problems, but not sure the tyre pollution thing is best addressed by taxation.

      • xdigger on 20/10/2023 - 11:24

        Yup big trucks for mining and transport should have higher taxes to pay for their real usage.

    • burningrage on 18/10/2023 - 12:24
      +4

      Arguments in favour of EV tax being the fact that they don't pay excise are only telling half of the stories. The fact of the matter is, EV owners are ALREADY paying more tax than petrol ones.

      For example, a Mitsubishi outlander PHEV vs Petrol has a price differential nearly $20k (https://www.drive.com.au/news/2023-mitsubishi-outlander-phev…)

      That means an extra $1,818 in GST money which goes to the VIC states in the end.

      According to ZLEV Vicroads website (https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/registration/registration-fe…), Govt expects to earn $310.50 from PHEV each year (not indexed so would be higher year by year) and 1,818 / 310.50 = nearly 6 years to earn the equivalent $1,818. That means the Govt already received the windfall 6 years early from what they lost in petrol GST.

      PHEV also pays the tax twice. Every PHEV at least would fill 4x a year (at best). An 2014 Outlander by now would have only be able to travel max 30kms and inevitably, they pay twice the petrol (at least 4x, more commonly 1x a month) and the ZLEV tax. If you take this car on the country road or interstate, you get fully whacked 2x.

      Also don't forget charging at home at current offpeak rate of on average 21c means every day you could spend somewhere between $2-$4 per day (18c to 36c in GST) that they are getting from electricitity GST. Even higher if you own 3 phase charger and have full EV (eg: Tesla).

      It is a lie by omission and I think it is time most people should wake up and realize this. Vicroads website information is only telling half of the stories.

      • plmko on 18/10/2023 - 13:07
        -2

        You dedicated 90% of your rant with an extreme example of a car that sells so few. Hardly "half the story" or lies when you're peddling an extreme bias with outlier examples.

        • burningrage on 19/10/2023 - 09:44
          +3

          It is no less valid argument (fully backed up by evidence) nevertheless but you are proven yourself to be an extremist with no hope of sense of logic. I pity you

        • raginggiant on 20/10/2023 - 09:59
          +1

          So look at the ones that sell more, like Teslas and you see there is an even bigger tax gulf.

          • burningrage on 20/10/2023 - 12:26
            +1

            @raginggiant: Likewise with Tesla. Take Model 3 for example which I think would look like a Camry ($34,320) if they were to be reimagined as petrol car and give and take with the technologies, say $45k. A Model 3 costs about $62k. That's a price difference of $17k.

            Since Tesla has higher battery capacity, their running costs would be higher in particular the electricity and so the Govt can enjoy higher GST from that.

      • tunzafun001 on 19/10/2023 - 23:16
        +1

        Check out the transcript of the words Tim Pallas used to get cross benchers onboard..along the lines of ZLEV vehicles have "no running costs whatsoever"…and they believed it. All the calculations were based on a zero running cost.

        Not sure if it was a lie…or just a room full of idiots.

      • dcash on 20/10/2023 - 07:50
        -1

        If you think most people who own an ICE vehicle only end up paying $1,818 in fuel excise over the life of the vehicle, I think you're seriously deluded!

    • dcash on 20/10/2023 - 07:44

      Indeed. The fairest thing would be to remove the fuel excise, and implement a distance tax across the board. Possibly said tax should be based on the GVM, to ensure trucks and EVs pay their fair share.

      • Kangal on 20/10/2023 - 14:58

        A "road train" going the same distance as a hatchback have significantly different amounts of wear on the road.

        Distance is not a great metric, imho.

        • dcash on 20/10/2023 - 17:17

          Precisely why I suggested that the tax should be based on Gross Vehicle Mass ;)

    • jaimex2 on 20/10/2023 - 08:13

      I don't think anyone debated that. Its just stupid to do it early.

      Victoria trying to be sneaky and jump the gun with an illegal excise for money they weren't entitled to was always the issue.

      Every other state incentivises EVs so you know, there are actually EVs in meaningful numbers first.

    • lechuck123 on 20/10/2023 - 08:49
      +2

      Isn't that rego? Why must we continually pay more and more hidden taxes on everything.

  • pegaxs on 18/10/2023 - 12:03
    +6

    Lol. Knew that was coming. What a bunch of dickbags the Victorian government thought it was… also good news for the NSW road user tax they were going to implement in 2026 (or whenever it was…)

    I am all for paying a road user tax, but it should NEVER be levied by a state government.

    • ESEMCE on 18/10/2023 - 12:32

      Why not?
      State and Local Government maintain the roads.

      • pegaxs on 18/10/2023 - 13:04
        +2

        State governments build and maintain roads with grants from the federal government and through things like stamp duty and vehicle registration.

        What current state level tax do ICE vehicles pay that EV's do not?

        Local governments fund their roads through state and federal government grants and through land rates.

        Again, what tax is paid by ICE vehicle owners that is not paid by EV owners at the local government level?

        • ESEMCE on 18/10/2023 - 14:04

          Agreed, but I was responding to your hypothetical scenario of a road user tax.

          If we're actually to have a road tax to fund construction and maintenance of roads, why would we not want to pay it directly into the government tier that spends the funds?

          • Speckled Jim on 19/10/2023 - 09:35
            +2

            @ESEMCE: It will ultimately be phased in at the Federal level to eventually replace the fuel excise.
            Make all the cheap solar you want, they'll get you somehow!

      • sss333 on 18/10/2023 - 14:56
        +5

        Wasn't Victoria charging it for total distance travelled for Victorian registered vehicles regardless of where they drove them? Since one person could drive across every state and territory but only be registered in one state/territory makes more sense doing it nationally.

        • pegaxs on 18/10/2023 - 18:00
          +3

          Absolutely…

          Like, living in Wodonga and working in Albury. Almost all of your travel would be in NSW, but you are paying the road user tax in Vic for Vic roads. Or you could register in Victoria and then spend 12 months travelling around Australia and only a week in Victoria and pay for every other km you did in every other state.

          I’m sorry, Victoria, but you don’t get to tax people who are not driving on your roads.

          • Guybrush57 on 20/10/2023 - 00:06

            @pegaxs: For the exact same reason I don't think 5+ year old Victorian cars without roadworthies should be allowed on NSW roads.

    • valuer on 18/10/2023 - 18:00

      TBF it seems that it was a split decision by the court. So much for justice when we now see how people can have different outcomes depending on which one they may meet in court.

  • burningrage on 18/10/2023 - 12:39
    +8

    LoL. Sweet revenge for motorists vs Vicroads

    https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/registration/registration-fe…

    Check the FAQ and they are clearly buckled under pressure.

    I still remember the Director of Service's first letter to me 2 years ago introducing this tax with the letter was full of threatening words pay-or-else kind of wordings and I thought to myself at the time, what a wan&er.

    • Kangal on 20/10/2023 - 15:05

      Username checks out

  • plmko on 18/10/2023 - 13:01
    +5

    Don't worry Albo will be ready to charge it country wide.

    • tunzafun001 on 19/10/2023 - 23:25

      Likely, since the Commonwealth also backed this legal case.. but he did say publically "I would have
      thought that now is not the.time to bring in an EV tax".
      The cost of not changing from fossil fuels is also very significant.

  • Seraphin7 on 18/10/2023 - 13:04
    +7

    You mean the Victorian Labor government of screwed the proverbial yet again?? Amazing.

  • Save Medicare on 18/10/2023 - 14:52
    +2

    Distance and weight/capacity based taxes make sense when we're talking about paying a fair amount for your share of road maintenance

    This would be easier to implement in NSW which has yearly odometer checks for cars over 5 years

  • leiiv on 18/10/2023 - 15:09
    +2

    They're both Labor, why can't they just talk it through internally instead of having to go to the high court wasting everyone time and money?

    The fairest way would be to tax all vehicles based on the weight and distance, and remove the tax on petrol. Also need to make sure that all the money can only be used to build new roads or to maintain existing ones.

    • Almost Banned on 18/10/2023 - 15:37

      Because an owners group sued the State of Victoria - meaning they had to respond???
      There was no prospect of sorting it out between themselves.
      It was also an important constitutional point to resolve what counts as an excise under s. 90. Whether a tax effectively on consumption was also an excise.

      • leiiv on 18/10/2023 - 15:46

        From the news: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/18/victoria…

        The plaintiffs were supported by the commonwealth, which argued that taxes on the use or consumption of goods were not exempt from the constitution’s ban on the states imposing customs and excise taxes.

        Are you saying that all disagreements between federal and state gov must go through the court?

        • Protractor on 18/10/2023 - 17:26
          +1

          Pretty sure some of the rates and levies local govts use to milk us, are also dodgy

        • Almost Banned on 18/10/2023 - 17:56

          Actually, no, that's not what I am saying at all.
          A group of EV owners decided to sue Victoria.
          The Commonwealth and the Truck Drivers Association joined the action in support of the Plaintiffs.
          The other States joined the action in support of Victoria.
          The additional parties do not change the basic fact that this was a dispute between EV owners and Victoria over Victoria's tax. The extra parties added their own arguments to those of the original parties, but they could just as easily have not participated.

        • Almost Banned on 18/10/2023 - 18:00
          +3

          It was actually quite an interesting and important question of law and is hugely relevant to the vertical fiscal imbalance that exists in Australia.
          The fact is that since the States gave up their income tax power to the Feds, it has become more and more clear that financially the States are mendicants to the Feds.
          The Feds collect the vast majority of taxes - and the States then have to beg for handouts.
          The States lost the fuel levy because of the exact reason this case was about.
          The States couldn't levy something like the GST.
          And, as stated, they gave up the income tax.
          So now the Feds collect almost all the money and hand some back to the States.
          It is an issue for the strength of our federation that the Commonwealth has all the money.

          • xylarr on 19/10/2023 - 09:33

            @Almost Banned: Sounds like we need a referendum…. Oh wait

          • tunzafun001 on 19/10/2023 - 23:33

            @Almost Banned: If states all did their own thing, then they might as well be countries! The big mining export states would be delighted…

  • Protractor on 18/10/2023 - 17:22

    EVs should pay by power rating and weight on the road rego,then.And public charging stations should be metered. Pppl are not switching to save the planet, so they should pay their way, like all other road users.

  • afah0447 on 19/10/2023 - 11:57
    +3

    Its a bit of a myth that the petrol excise is used to pay for roads. It isn't earmarked specifically for road expenditure. It is part of Commonwealth consolidated revenue which is used to pay for anything. I don't own an EV but wanted to clear this up anyway.

    • Guybrush57 on 20/10/2023 - 00:12

      Isn't that also the case with the Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge? Goes to a big bucket of money that mostly doesn't go towards the health system.

    • dcash on 20/10/2023 - 07:48

      Yes, but either way the money has to come from somewhere. Far better to have it "user pays", than simply to increase taxes somewhere else and penalise people who don't drive at all or infrequently.

  • yellowfever on 19/10/2023 - 14:37
    +4

    F**K THE GOVERNMENT

  • Roney on 19/10/2023 - 22:36

    Both PHEV and Hybrid car owners would be unfairly double taxed with both fuel excise and distance-based charge if driven in countryside. That's when electric motors are not normally in use at highway speed. Another of treasurer's conniving plot whilst incentivising on cleaner cars?

  • bigbadboogieman on 19/10/2023 - 23:39
    +1

    State govt loss, Federal govt win. Peeps can never win no matter what.

  • eklipsils on 19/10/2023 - 23:52
    +1

    EV tax based on KMs is stupid. If the Gov really needed the funding from the loss of revenue from fuel because of EV vehicles, why not just add the tax onto Vehicle Registration every year at a static rate….or have no EV tax at all and get everyone onto a greener vehicle for the benefit of not polluting the world… but money makes the world go round.

    • Yawhae on 20/10/2023 - 05:47
      +2

      I think paying a tax per kilometre is the best way to tax road use, scrap 90% of the cost of rego and all of the fuel excise tax and just charge a per kilometre tax to all road users.

      It efficiently charges people for road use and doesn't penalise people who may have multiple cars / motor bikes that sit in a garage.

  • Thaal Sinestro on 20/10/2023 - 06:49
    -8

    Society would function much better without these courts. They are so expensive and inefficient. An extreme example is if a criminal sentenced to death in America; they can just keep appealing and re-appealing and drag their execution date out by 10 years or more.

    The judicial system and the Constitution prevents the government from getting things done.

    • illusion99 on 20/10/2023 - 08:05
      +1

      So basically be like China where the courts are a rubber stamp for whatever outcome the government wants. Even if it’s wrong. Then means as soon as you arrested for anything it’s automatically guilty

    • raginggiant on 20/10/2023 - 10:04
      +2

      I see you have an overly inflated sense of respect for government competence. The idea is that courts should be independent of the government (it's where the AAT went so wrong) because governments get things wrong and someone has to interpret laws. Many smart people told Pallas he was being an idiot and this would get overruled but he did it anyway. If you want unaccountable autocrats there are plenty of other countries out there you can move to.

  • max900 on 20/10/2023 - 11:09
    +2

    The saving from healthcare and the cost of climate change will far exceed whatever EV tax the government collect.

    • xdigger on 20/10/2023 - 11:29
      +2

      Yeah the $369 Billions spent on aggressive nuclear subs could have done alot of good if re-directed into our underfunded Medicare, housing and cost of living crisis issues which the federal government conveniently chooses to ignore.

      Can I add how bizarre the government are promoting EV cars through leasing tax benefits but yet also wanting to introduce these new EV taxes? Whole thing just screams poorly thought out.

  • burningrage on 23/10/2023 - 15:46

    Vicroads has today updated the page. No more reference to ZLEV tax but rather just a simple, "We'll give you $100 off your rego for owning a ZLEV".

    Also said, "Customers are no longer required to pay an upcoming ZLEV related invoice or provide a vehicle odometer reading."

    I want my refund for 2 years worth of tax!

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join