The changes to the FBT exemptions for EVs in the May budget have been published. Seems a reasonable way to phase out.
Article:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-04/electric-vehicle-tax-…
Summary below:
| Period | EVs under $75,000 | EVs $75k to LCT Threshold ($91,387) |
|---|---|---|
| Now – Mar 2027 | 100% FBT Exempt | 100% FBT Exempt |
| Apr 2027 – Mar 2029 | 100% FBT Exempt | 25% FBT Discount |
| Apr 2029 onwards | 25% FBT Discount | 25% FBT Discount |
I wish they went harder and got rid of it…next they need to charge them fuel tax like everyone else.
Why should the tax payer support EVs
Because EVs are part of the government's strategy to de-carbonize our economy, improve energy efficiency, reduce our reliance on foreign oil imports and reduce the negative health impacts of combustion pollution in urban areas.
If anything, the scheme should be reconfigured to make it accessible to more people, rather than relying on FBT exemptions. And to save money, the tax exemptions on dual-cab utes should be axed as these are entirely contrary to the government's objectives.
Supporting EVs reduces the amount of oil we need to buy. Wether you support reducing emissions or not, reducing the amount of oil we buy and replacing it with home grown electricity (wether coal or renewable) helps our economy
The incentives to lease EVs also mean that in a few uears there are likley to be more used EVs on the market for the rest of us that dont want to, or cannot access, lease for tax benefits.
Why should I pay for your choice to buy an EV?
Why should i pay for your healthcare after your choice to smoke and get lung cancer? And dont tell me you dont smoke, the point is that our taxes pay for all sorts of stuff that dont benefit all individuals, but are for the benefit of lots of us.
Yeah, its not fair that rich people get discounts on cheaper motoring, but two points still stand: it reduces our reliance on imported fuels, it boosts the used EV market when leases expire.
You think we are gonna use solar and windmills to power the whole grid?
We have soooo much oil and other resources and our government doesn't tax it properly or refuses to mine it..
Tired of this EV crap..now they want to slap on $1.44 to every electricity bill to pay for the network
You think we are gonna use solar and windmills to power the whole grid?
Sure, why not? It already happens on smaller grids all the time. Scale up the generation to suit the size of the grid and you're good. Batteries and pumped hydro can soak up the excess and help fill the temporary gaps, and inverters and syncronous condensors take care of the inertia.
Obviously we're keeping gas peaker plants available as a source of last resort, which is the prudent thing to do. But given how expensive the electricity from gas plants is, we're all better off if they're only used rarely.
We have soooo much oil
No, we don't. That's just plain false. We have relatively small reserves of oil that's expensive and difficult to extract, and isn't well suited to our needs.
I totally agree that we should be taxing the extraction of sale of Australia resources more, especially gas. And we should do more with the other valuable resources we have (copper, zinc, lithium etc) ather than simply allowing them to be shipped offshore.
$1.44 to every electricity bill to pay for the network
A whole $1.44 per year, per household, starting in 2029. We all had better start saving up to afford that one……get a grip.
@klaw81: It will start small, and the levy Wil increase.
They should slap it into regos for EVs.
EVs don't pay fuel tax yet use the roads the tax pays for!
@Dunks: In 4 years time, it might be $5 a year. The horror! /s
Fuel excise hasn't been linked to road maintenance for over 30 years. It goes into general revenue like almost everything else.
You could equally claim that people who don't smoke are shirking their responsibility to pay for the upkeep of roads…or alternatively, that I'm being unfairly taxed because I'm contributing to the cost of schools even though I don't have kids.
Your irrational tirades against EVs are getting pretty stale at this point.
You think we are gonna use solar and windmills to power the whole grid?
In the not too distant future, yes. Solar and battery are cheaper now than any other form of electricity.
We have soooo much oil and other resources and our government doesn't tax it properly or refuses to mine it..
I'll agree that the government is failing to properly collect revenue from coal and gas. we dont mine it because its more expensive to do so. But it is going to run out, after getting more and more expensive to extract, why not build its replacement now while we dont have to rush it. Build renewables that produce energy for next to zero input costs or keep extracting fuels that are used once and they are gone?
Tired of this EV crap..now they want to slap on $1.44 to every electricity bill to pay for the network
"I dOn'T lIKe ChAnGE!" Get used to it. Its here to stay. Electrification is the future.
You think we are gonna use solar and windmills to power the whole grid?
the chinese have >10% of their total power coming from wind now
We have soooo much oil and other resources and our government doesn't tax it properly
we do? is that why were panicking about running out of fuel? we have refineries, we don't have oilfields
the chinese have >10% of their total power coming from wind now
They're at roughly 40% renewables in total (solar, wind, hydro) and growing rapidly.
@V2L: Yes, we do. Go do some research about South Australia.
It's Labor refusing because of their bullcrap agenda.
Funny we don't wanna use coal. Yet we sell it overseas. Makes no sense
Go do some research about South Australia.
South Australia's oil reserves are almost entirely unconventional shale oil, rather than the conventional reserves common in the Middle East.
The same applies to the majority of Queensland and WA oil reserves.
It's Labor refusing because of their bullcrap agenda
Once again, this is false. It has nothing to do with politics.
Several oil companies have made studies of Australia's shale oil reserves and deemed most of them to be economically unviable due to the difficulty of extraction.
If we were to attempt extraction, the resulting oil would be very expensive compared to imported foreign oil
@klaw81: Yeah no, it's Greenie BS holding it back.
As of early 2026, the South Australian Government has reaffirmed its rejection of oil drilling in the Bight
The Great Australian Bight: Geologists have estimated that the Bight could contain over 1.9 billion barrels of oil. For perspective, that would make it a "world-class" oil province.
Not to mention all the uranium we have, yet again Greenies stopping us
Yeah no, it's Greenie BS holding it back.
There's nothing being "held back" as you've claimed. There are currently zero oil companies seeking to exploit those oil reserves. The National Party is the only entity currently pushing this barrow.
Equinor, BP, and Chevron have all done exploration in the Bight Basin in the past decade or so, with the latest work as recent as 2020. All three companies have deemed the oil reserves in that area as economically unviable. The reserves would be very expensive to access.
However, it's also true that there are also massive environmental concerns about such a development, including a significant impact on major fisheries in one of the most pristine marine environments remaining in Australian waters. That's hardly "greenie BS."
Even if the tax concession was to go away the government will just misuse funds on some other crap like submarines
You have linked to an illegal tax that won't be implemented.
What makes it illegal?
Vanderstock v Victoria is a High Court of Australia case concerning excise. A charge imposed by the state of Victoria on zero and low emission vehicles was ruled invalid on the grounds that it imposed a duty of excise as defined by Section 90 of the Constitution.
Wikipedia entry
High Court of Australia judgement
What made it "illegal" (more like "unconstitutional") was it was considered an excise tax that cannot be enacted at a state level. Fuel excise is a federal "tax" that is applied evenly across all states that the revenue generated goes into a federal slush account to be divided up for road projects (among other things). Victoria just saw this as an opportunistic cash grab to sure up their state revenue coffers.
The problem with a "state" level "tax" was that it does not discriminate where you drive your car. You could live in NSW, register in NSW but work across the border in Qld or Vic and essentially be paying a "road user tax" to NSW for using other states roads and they do not get the benefit of the collected tax, OR, you could be from a neighboring state, work and/or spend a majority of your time in NSW and still pay ZERO road user tax.
On top of this, is if the federal government did decide to enact a federal "road user tax", then the road users in Vic/NSW would be double slapped by both a state and federal road user tax.
@pegaxs: That's good to know, thanks!
It's getting harder and harder to tell these days if there's a genuine point or just cooker nonsense in threads like this, so appreciate the details
@Jolakot: Yeah a couple of cookers downvoted my post. The guy I replied to who was spreading misinformation in the first place didn't even read his own link because the information was contained within.
Cookers gonna cook.
EDIT: Yet another neg. The cookers are out in force.
driving 20 000kms per year will cost an extra $600 if this tax is in…..ironically this is more than it will cost me to drive the original 20 000km……how much petrol will $600 buy? is it really a big enough deterrent to make me switch back to petrol? Come on bargainers, use some brains.
Petrol at 7L/100km and $1.80 per L means that $600 could drive you ($600/1.80)*(100/7) = 4,761km.
So your estimation is a bit off there.
That is indeed how much petrol would cost to drive that far at that economy…..but whats that got to do with my EV driving 20 000km for less than the extra $600 tax they're gonna put on?
driving 20 000kms per year will cost an extra $600 if this tax is in… ironically this is more than it will cost me to drive the original 20 000km
Oh, I want to do some maths as well;
For an average fossil fuel powered vehicle that does around 8l/100km (12.5km/l), that vehicle would use about 1,600 litres of fuel. That would work out to be around $2,880 in fuel costs if fuel was $1.80 all year.
Fuel excise is (was and will be again) $0.526/litre. So, of that 1,600 litres of fuel, you would be paying $841 in fuel excise alone… or $241 more than the EV road tax. This does not even include the GST that you pay ON TOP of the fuel excise (a tax on a tax)
On that, to go 20,000km in an EV, you could effectively charge off free charging/solar/free charge windows and pay $0 for a years worth of "energy"
But let's make it really expensive and only charge our EV on DC fast chargers at $0.60/kWh…
An average EV will get about 17kWh/100km (5.88km/kWh)
20,000km would need about 3,400kWh or about $2,040 from only DC fast charging.
So, for the worst case scenario of ALL DC fast charging + $600 in "road user tax", it would still only come to $2,640…
So the RUT would cost a 20,000km/y EV driver between $600 and $2,640, and both of those numbers are still far less than the $2,880 is would cost to run a petrol/diesel vehicle.
why would you NL a non EV?