Revealed: The hidden cost of Australia's ute tax breaks compared to EVs
OPINION: We've all seen the headlines: electric vehicle (EV) tax breaks are costing taxpayers billions.
According to Government modelling, the Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) exemption for EVs, alongside other related perks, is forecast to cost Australians $23.4 billion by 2036.
That's a staggering figure, especially when you consider this policy only began in July 2022.
As the Productivity Commission highlighted in its second report, the cost of the EV FBT exemption has blown out from an initial forecast of $55 million per year to a staggering $560 million, leading to calls to scrap it.
But have you ever wondered about the figures for subsidising big, diesel and fuel-chugging utes over the past decade?
Well, that number doesn't exist.
RELATED: What Albo's new road tax means for you
2025 Ford Ranger Wildtrak PHEV. Picture: Supplied
While policymakers and commentators are lining up to slam EV incentives as 'inefficient' or 'costly', Australia's longstanding love affair with utes is being ignored.
HUGE COST OF UTES IGNORED
These vehicles, which make up four of the top five best-selling models in the country, are quietly driving away with generous tax perks – and Aussies are paying for it.
Under Australia's tax system, commercial vehicles, such as dual-cab utes, can claim a Fringe Benefit Tax exemption, provided they're used 'primarily' for work.
But the rules are so vague, that many use utes for personal reasons, which is allowed as long as it's 'minor, infrequent, and irregular'.
In reality, many of these utes aren't ferrying tradies and tools. They're doing school drop-off, towing jet skis, and sitting in suburban streets.
According to the Australian Institute, there are 1.5 times more utes on the road than there are actual tradies, which suggests a lot of people are claiming a tax break for a 'tool of trade' that's really just a big, comfy family car.
MORE: New ute to spark price war
Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers during Prime Minister Anthony Albanese opening remarks at The Economic Reform Roundtable at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman
It's not just FBT, utes also avoid the Luxury Car Tax, even if they cost well over six figures, because technically, they're not 'passenger vehicles'.
So you can buy a RAM 1500 and avoid paying LCT, while someone buying a more efficient EV might get slugged.
In 2023, high-end American-style utes alone cost Australians over $250 million in foregone revenue from the Luxury Car Tax, according to a report by the Australia Institute.
That figure doesn't even count the tax revenue lost from the FBT exemption.
Australia Institute research director Rod Campbell said Australia is subsidising 'big, dumb utes by hundreds of millions of dollars each year'.
'These vehicles are damaging roads, reducing safety and increasing emissions, yet they are given a massive tax break,' he said.
I'm not ignoring the $23 billion figure attached to EV tax breaks, including FBT exemptions, import tariff relief, and other incentives but these tax breaks are designed to make EV ownership more accessible and affordable, particularly through novated leasing.
MORE: Chinese brand moves into Holden's home
A driver charging his car at an EV charging station in Caringbah. Picture: Jonathan Ng
According to the National Automotive Leasing and Salary Packaging Association, more than 100,000 Australians have taken up an EV novated lease since mid-2022.
These policies are critical to making EVs accessible, especially as the upfront costs are a little higher than petrol and diesel equivalents.
These EV tax breaks are part of a broader push by the Federal Government to reach net zero by 2050, with transport making up 20 per cent of national emissions.
HALF-PREGNANT APPROACH
But the Productivity Commission's report now recommends scrapping the EV FBT exemption, arguing it's too costly and now 'duplicative' with the New Vehicle Efficiency Standards (NVES).
Sure … the (NVES) will encourage automakers to import cleaner cars into the market, but that's only half the battle.
If consumers aren't incentivised to buy them, nothing changes.
You need both; one brings supply, the other brings demand.
BYD electric cars for export waiting to be loaded onto a ship at a port in Yantai, in eastern China's Shandong province. (Photo by AFP) / China OUT
As the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) noted, without continued consumer support, the 'continuation of current customer buying preferences will inevitably lead to the accrual of substantial penalties.'
Automakers can't just absorb these costs; they will likely have to raise prices on popular models, reduce their availability, or exit the market altogether.
Countries that have successfully transitioned to high EV adoption rates such as Norway, have almost always used both strong efficiency standards and generous consumer incentives.
Relying solely on one or the other often leads to slower progress.
So if we're serious about being fair and decarbonising the transport sector, then shouldn't we be looking at everything?
Including utes.
So why are we ignoring the ute loophole? Is it because it's politically uncomfortable?
Talking about utes means comforting one of Australia's most beloved vehicle segments.
Tradies vote and Aussies rely on them.
If the Federal Government decides to pull EV tax breaks now, while leaving the ute loophole wide open, that's like turning off a light in a room and calling it a major win for energy efficiency.
We need better policy and smarter decisions.
Originally published as EV cuts loom while Aussies pay for ute tax
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

9 News
7 minutes ago
- 9 News
Majority of Aussies living in homes that are 'too big', report finds
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here Up to 60 per cent of Aussies either live on their own or with just one other person, but the bulk of houses in Australia have three bedrooms or more, a study from Cotality shows. The reasons for Aussies wanting larger homes include the desire to have a home office as work from home rises, as well as having a spare bedroom for visitors. Despite most housing having three bedrooms or more, it is clear most households have no more than two people in them. (Supplied/Cotality) Houses have also become larger over time; as the urban sprawl pushes new developments further away from urban centres, homeowners prioritise features such as home gyms and home theatres. However, it could cause inefficiencies in how housing is allocated across the country, exacerbating the housing crisis that has gripped Australia. "When most Australians picture the 'Great Australian Dream', they see a family with kids in a three or four-bedroom house. But data shows that dream does not match reality," Eliza Owen from Cotality said. "Couples without children and people living alone make up the majority of households, raising questions about how well our housing market is serving real demand." (A Current Affair) One-bedroom and studio homes make up just six per cent of Australia's current housing stock. Despite this, there is some change beginning to be seen; the share of units and dwellings other than houses has risen to 40 per cent, which would provide a more appropriate housing option for smaller households, according to Owen. She said governments need to take more action to help stimulate change, however. "Governments could make it more expensive to have more housing than you need, and cheaper to live in smaller housing," she said. "Many advocate for tax reform like abolishing stamp duty - which makes it cheaper to move housing - and replacing it with a broad-based land tax, which raises costs the more land you own." housing Australia national Economy Politics CONTACT US

Herald Sun
an hour ago
- Herald Sun
CBA workers win fight to keep jobs threatened by AI voice bot rollout
Don't miss out on the headlines from Banking. Followed categories will be added to My News. Commonwealth Bank workers have forced the bank to reverse its decision on AI-driven job cuts. The Finance Sector Union has described the U-turn over dozens of jobs by the CBA as a major win, but the fight to stop Australia's biggest bank replacing people in secure jobs with machines remains. After a dispute before the Fair Work Commission, CBA has admitted it got it wrong and backtracked on the job cuts. The 45 workers impacted will now be offered the option of staying in their roles or taking a voluntary exit payment. It came after CBA announced in July that it would make the customer service roles redundant and replace them with a new AI-powered 'voice bot' in a move to reduce call volumes. However, FSU members claimed it had the opposite effect, with call volumes rising and management scrambling to offer overtime. The union said the 45 workers affected had endured weeks of unnecessary stress, not knowing if they would be able to pay bills or support their families. The FSU has warned that more so-called 'efficiency measures' dressed up as digital transformation are already in play across the sector. Finance Sector Union National Secretary Julia Angrisano said: 'This is a massive win for workers, proving what can be achieved when members stand together — but let's be clear, this is no victory lap. 'CBA has been caught out trying to dress up job cuts as innovation. Using AI as a cover for slashing secure jobs is a cynical cost-cutting exercise, and workers know it. 'Our members want to be part of the conversation about how new technology is used in banking. They want secure jobs today and the training needed for the jobs of the future, not to be discarded under the guise of efficiency. 'CBA likes to talk about being a digital leader, but real leadership means investing in your people, not tossing them aside and blaming the technology.' A spokeperson for CBA said internal processes would be reviewed. 'CBA's initial assessment that the 45 roles in our Customer Service Direct business were not required did not adequately consider all relevant business considerations and this error meant the roles were not redundant,' the spokesperson said. 'We have apologised to the employees concerned and acknowledge we should have been more thorough in our assessment of the roles required. 'We are currently supporting affected employees and have provided them with choice regarding continuing in their current roles, pursuing redeployment within CBA or to proceed with leaving the organisation. 'We are also reviewing our internal processes to improve our approach going forward.'

ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
Calls for Commonwealth housing fund to dedicate half to regional
The federal government is being urged to dedicate almost half its national housing target to regional Australia.