Man killed in triple-vehicle Sturt Highway crash at Tarcutta east of Wagga Wagga
Shortly before midday on Friday emergency services were called to the Sturt Highway at Tarcutta, about 50 kilometres north-east of Wagga Wagga, after reports two trucks and an SUV had collided.
NSW Ambulance responded and found the male driver of the SUV trapped. He died at the scene.
A spokesperson for NSW Ambulance said three other male patients were treated at the scene.
The 31-year-old driver of one of the B-Double trucks was taken to Wagga Base Hospital with minor rib injuries.
His passenger, a man in his 30s, suffered leg and back injuries and was also transported to hospital in a serious but stable condition.
A 25-year-old man, the driver of the other B double which was carrying a load of hay, was treated for minor hand injuries at the scene.
Police said the two truck drivers, aged 25 and 31, would undergo mandatory testing.
Fire and Rescue NSW also attended the scene and worked to secure a large diesel leak caused by the crash.
Police have begun an investigation into the incident with assistance from the Crash Investigation Unit.
The Sturt Highway was closed between Tumbarumba Road and the Hume Highway for more than five hours on Friday.
It was the third full closure of a major inland NSW highway in the past 24 hours, with the New England Highway and Newell Highway closed on Thursday.
A report will be prepared for the coroner.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
25 minutes ago
- ABC News
Illegal tobacco is a deadly $10 billion industry wiping out legitimate businesses
Australia's illegal tobacco problem has made the proverbial transition from tragedy to farce. Illicit, excise-evading cigarettes now comprise half of the cancer-inducing products sold to Australia's 2.7 million smokers. A study published by FTI Consulting put it at 39.4 per cent in 2024, up from 14 per cent six years ago, but an update for the month of June puts it at 50 per cent. And, according to studies of wastewater, nicotine consumption in Australia, including vaping, is at an all-time high. We can now conclude that the strategy of taxing and banning nicotine addiction out of existence is a complete failure. The result is that organised crime is making about $10 billion a year in revenue. Who needs narcotics? With them, you risk lengthy jail time; with smokes and vapes, it's a fine, but only if you're very unlucky. It means Australia's criminals are better paid than they have ever been, and the result of that is showing up in an explosion in both the amount of crime and its brazenness. And because the people engaged in this "industry" are gangsters, competition is not met by price wars and the ACCC, but by burning your competitor's business to the ground, or, as happened last week, by allegedly murdering your competitor's staff. Athan Boursinos, 21, an alleged employee of "tobacco kingpin" Kazem "Kaz" Hamad and his cousin, Ahmed Al Hamza, both of whom live overseas, was shot dead in a laneway behind his home in broad daylight on Thursday morning. In the past couple of years, there have been 125 fire-bombings of tobacco shops in Victoria, and another 50 or so in other states — the most recent last week in Corrimal, NSW. Victoria's coat of arms bears the phrase "Peace and Prosperity", but there's a lot more of the latter in that state these days than the former, and that's not saying much. Violent robberies in Victoria have grown by more than 150 per cent since February 2024 due to tobacco-related crime. This is much worse than an unintended consequence of the effort to reduce smoking; it is a complete stuff-up. A window into what's happened was provided last week by Viva Energy, which operates Australia's largest network of petrol stations with convenience stores attached. In its six-monthly results, the company reported that tobacco sales are down 27 per cent — in one year! — because of the growth in the illicit tobacco trade. The problem for Viva is more than money: its petrol stations and other convenience stores are now being regularly robbed by gangs of balaclava-wearing teenagers waving handguns and machetes, traumatising the staff. Serious, well-resourced gangs are only after cigarettes — the entire stock — because at $57.89 a pack, the stock can be worth $100,000. Do five or six of those in a night, and you're making very good money. The till is small beer. The Albanese government is having a similar financial problem to that of Viva. This year's federal budget contained an estimate of $7.4 billion from tobacco excise for the current financial year, down from $8.75 billion just six months ago in MYEFO. The CEO of the Australian Association of Convenience Stores, Theo Foukkares, says the tipping point happened in 2019 when the excise increased 55 per cent over three years to $1.10 per cigarette stick. As a direct result, illicit smoking took off and tobacco excise revenue to the government collapsed, from a peak of $16 billion in 2019 to this year's $7.4 billion. And it's not just the price that's driving people towards the much cheaper illegal alternatives, although that's the main thing, especially in a cost-of-living crisis. For a start, the packs look nicer without pictures of horrible mouth tumours. And on July 1 this year, menthol cigarettes were banned completely, along with those that contain a little burst of minty flavour in the filter. Also, cigarette companies are now required to print health warnings on the cigarette stick, not just put gruesome pictures on the packet — another increase in cost. Naturally, illegal tobacco importers are not concerned about complying with the menthol ban and are even bringing in berry-flavoured cigarettes as well as menthol ones, hoping to appeal to a younger demographic. The requirement that vaping products with more than 20mg of nicotine must have a prescription is not working either. Only 700 chemists around the country stock them, reluctantly, while the products are readily available without a prescription in the same stores that stock the illicit cigarettes. There are thought to be 1.5 million regular vapers, adding to the 2.7 million smokers. The real danger now is that the stores selling legitimate tobacco will give up and leave the industry to the crooks. Coles' Liquorland has already stopped selling cigarettes, and both Coles and Woolworths are reported to be considering dropping them from behind the service counters of their supermarkets. It's harder for petrol stations to do that, since tobacco represents 25-30 per cent of store revenues; if they didn't sell cigarettes, many petrol stations would close. But eventually, with more and more staff suffering PTSD, they'll have to do it if the problem is not resolved. At which point, Australia would have managed to hand over an entire industry to gangsters. The basic problem seems to be that the excise is collected by the federal government, but the enforcement is done by under-funded state police forces. The illegal products all arrive at Australia's ports, and the importers are engaged in tax avoidance, so in theory, it should be two federal agencies that deal with it — Border Force and the Tax Office. But only about 1 per cent of incoming containers are inspected by Border Force, and ATO officers don't have the resources, or the desire, to chase organised crime gangs for a few hundred thousand dollars of excise and risk a Molotov cocktail landing on their doorstep. Once the stuff is in the country, selling it is not a criminal offence, and while blowing up or torching your competitor is a very criminal undertaking, the arsonists are proving hard to catch, except when they set fire to themselves in the process, which happens quite often, perhaps unsurprisingly. In this year's budget, the federal government said it was committing $156.7 million to the "Illicit Tobacco Compliance and Enforcement Package", adding to the $188.5 million over four years that was "invested" in 2023. That's a new total of $86.3 million a year, of which $10 million will find its way to the states. Most of it goes into the welcoming arms of Border Force. But they're bringing millions to a game of billions; a knife to a gunfight. It may be that the criminals are now too rich, well-organised and violent to be shut down, but Australia's governments can hardly give up. Confronting crime and large-scale tax avoidance is not an optional activity for the government. The only state that is coming to grips with the problem is South Australia. The Malinauskas government has set up a special tobacco enforcement squad of 45 officers and given them warrant-free search and seizure powers. Members of the squad can enter a shop selling illicit tobacco or vaping products, confiscate the stock, and shut the store for three months. With an order from a magistrate, the closure can be extended to 12 months. Theo Foukkares reports that nearby legal tobacconists experience an instant uplift in sales when that happens. The Queensland government has now copied South Australia, but the other states are slow to do it. What's needed is a meeting of state and federal attorneys general and health ministers to agree on a uniform national approach that mirrors the SA laws. Everyone knows where the shops are that are selling the illicit cigarettes — this is not an industry shrouded in mystery; it operates in plain sight. The other thing the federal government could do is reduce the tobacco excise back to what it was before 2019, which would lead to a huge increase in revenue. Alan Kohler is a finance presenter and columnist on ABC News, and he also writes for Intelligent Investor.
ABC News
25 minutes ago
- ABC News
Law firms and investors making millions from class actions while victims get just thousands
For Minnie McDonald, the class action represented hope — justice after decades of unpaid work. The lawsuit was supposed to right a wrong, provide compensation for thousands of Aboriginal workers who received little or no money for their labour. Instead, some Aboriginal workers and their families will end up with payouts as little as $10,000, while the law firm and its financial backers have pocketed tens of millions. Minnie agreed to be the lead plaintiff in a Northern Territory class action, meaning she represented the group, instructed the lawyers, reviewed costs, and signed legal documents on behalf of the group. But Minnie can't read or write. For help, she relied partly on her granddaughter, who has no legal experience, alongside Shine's lawyers. Shine told Four Corners that Minnie was given independent legal advice. One document Minnie signed was a proposed $11 million increase to Shine's costs. At least one class action is launched every week on average in Australia against banks, governments, and big corporations. But the stolen wages case raises questions about whether class actions are delivering justice for ordinary Australians or are simply a money-making exercise for lawyers and investors. Minnie was just 14 years old when she started working on an outback station near the Queensland-Northern Territory border. Her family was paid in rations of flour, sugar, and tea. Now aged in her 90s, Minnie still remembers life on the station. "It was hard work," she says. Living in a tent and working alongside her family, they would occasionally receive the bones of a bullock killed by the station owner and cook it over an open fire. "My mother used to cook it. Backbone, leg bone, everything," she says. In Western Australia, Mervyn Street and his family lived and worked on another station and were also paid in rations. Mervyn remembers his father being given "a blanket, a canvas and an axe". "My family worked like slaves," he says. Like Minnie, Mervyn was the lead plaintiff in the WA class action representing thousands of Aboriginal men, women, and children who lived and worked on stations and in missions over the past century, receiving little to no pay. Like Minnie, he can't read or write either, and relied on a younger relative and Shine lawyers to help him. Class actions are hugely expensive, but a law change in Australia almost 20 years ago transformed them into a form of investment where "litigation funders" provide the capital. These dedicated companies team up with lawyers to finance the legal costs of a class action in return for a slice of any payout. When they are successful, funders can more than double or triple their money. However, if they lose, the funders lose their investment and have to pay the other side's costs. The chairman of the Association of Litigation Funders of Australia, John Walker, says they don't see it as gambling. This business model is how legal firm Shine Lawyers was able to launch class actions in NT and WA to recoup stolen wages, after securing the backing of Litigation Lending Services, a company chaired by billionaire businessman Shaun Bonett. It took four years, but both class actions eventually reached a settlement. In WA, the state government agreed to pay $180 million, and the federal government paid about $200 million for the NT. But first, the law firm and investors have to take their cut. Shine Lawyers will receive more than $41 million in approved costs for its work in both cases, while Litigation Lending Services will take a commission of up to $57 million. The exact amount that Aboriginal workers will receive is unclear because the final number of eligible recipients is not known. Based on court documents, Four Corners estimates the workers will get between $10,000 and $14,000. If those workers have died, the amount will be divided among their families. Although it was Minnie who had to approve the proposed settlement, she said it wasn't enough. She had hoped there would be enough to buy a car so that her children "could take me for a picnic somewhere, you know, have a feed, cook kangaroo tail or whatever, but I didn't get enough". When Four Corners spoke to Mervyn, he was unaware of the final payout individuals would receive until it was spelt out to him. "What you're telling me is not good enough," he says. Shine Lawyers did not want to do an interview with Four Corners. It said in a statement that governments had ignored "the stories of indigenous workers who were denied fair wages. Shine Lawyers gave Aboriginal workers "the chance to tell their stories, receive compensation and be acknowledged … for the historical injustices they suffered". When asked about Minnie and Mervyn's inability to read and write and their capacity to understand legal and financial issues, Shine said: "We are confused that the ABC would suggest that illiteracy implies a lack of intelligence". "This is an unacceptable proposition." Shine said it was not appropriate to comment on "the way in which we provided advice … as these are privileged communications". "We can confirm, however, that both clients received independent legal advice" and that "Shine Lawyers used Aboriginal barristers to bridge communication and cultural barriers." Former Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney questioned how much people understood about the class action. "If you are illiterate, if you're innumerate, and your first language is not English, how on Earth are people supposed to understand anything?" she says. "It is very exploitative because you are seeing such a disparity in the outcomes for the legal teams financially, and the outcomes for those that have joined the class action." The stolen wages cases have highlighted concerns about the business model underpinning class actions in Australia and the amounts being taken away by funders and lawyers. The judges who oversaw the WA and NT class actions flagged their concerns about the high legal costs when delivering their judgements, but ultimately approved the settlement amounts as "fair and reasonable". In the NT, Chief Justice Elizabeth Mortimer was scathing in her judgement, saying "the pursuit of the business model" had, at times, overshadowed the good intentions of the lawyers. She said "it would not be surprising" if Aboriginal workers who were part of the class action thought that "the proceeding was little more than a money-making exercise for others". "It seems to me a not inconsiderable number of people … would be frustrated, and likely mystified about how city-based non-indigenous participants in this proceeding come out with so much money compared to their family and friends," Justice Mortimer said. In WA, Justice Bernard Murphy remarked on the "enormous costs" Shine racked up travelling around the state signing people up to the class action. Part of those costs included law clerks who were billed out at a rate of $375 an hour, even though many of them were undergraduate law students. Describing the charges as "excessive" and "seriously overblown", Justice Murphy deducted $4 million from the firm's claims. Shine said "the costs were incurred over the course of six years" and that "a significant portion … came as a result of a "court-ordered outreach and registration process". The breakdown of what lawyers are charging is rarely disclosed, even to members of a class action other than the lead plaintiff, although class members can usually request access. But a confidential report of Shine's costs was released to Four Corners after an application through the courts, revealing in granular detail what the law firm charged while working on the WA class action. It shows Shine had at least a dozen barristers – one charging almost $5,000 an hour — who billed the class action almost $3.5 million. But there were bills that were rejected by a costs expert appointed by the court. Shine tried to charge almost $35,000 for booking and credit card fees from its clients, but the expert rejected it because they were "usually considered to be an overhead of the business rather than a cost reasonably borne by the applicant". Thousands of dollars for Uber and taxi fares were also rejected. Shine also tried to claim tens of thousands of dollars for "grocery items, meals purchased whilst travelling to various communities, and meals and alcohol purchased in hotels and restaurants". The expert rejected these, saying these "should form part of the firm's internal overheads in running a matter such as this". The funder of the stolen wages cases, Litigation Lending Services, bankrolled another action in Queensland. They are set to make up to $95 million in commission from all three cases, which equates to a 250 per cent return on their investment. The funder, Litigation Lending Services said "the real injustice" is how "government fought these claims fiercely, with considerable public resources over many years". "Without LLS's financial support and commitment to taking on all the risk, these claims would not have been brought and group members would have received nothing," it said in a statement. They told Four Corners they were proud of their role and their commission was lower than market rates "to reflect the social justice nature of the claims". George Dann, a member of the WA class action who started work at age 14, was appalled by the amount going to Shine and Litigation Lending Services. He says the amount being taken in fees and commissions is disgraceful. "They get that in an hour, what our family would get in a year," he says. His cousin, Sharon Todd, who put in claims for both her parents, was shocked to learn of the sums. "It's a real insult. It just makes me feel that we are an industry that is being used over and over again to make money for other people," she says. "How are these people sleeping at night?" Although the settlement was approved by the Federal Court almost a year ago, none of the people who joined the WA class action have received any money. The administrators, Grant Thornton, who is being paid up to $3 million to administer the funds, says it's been unable to distribute the funds because it's been dealing with the Australian Taxation Office over a tax issue, which has now been resolved. Shine Lawyers has been paid its share. "It's a farce," George Dann says. "A lot of people worked all their life, and for this to happen, it's a terrible thing." In Canberra, there has been a political battle over the lack of regulation for law firms and litigation funders in the current class action system. Most of the litigation funders operating in Australia come from overseas, with some of them based in tax havens. They are not required to hold a financial licence with ASIC, the corporate regulator. "We have a system where litigation funders who were taking sometimes 30, 40 per cent of the settlement away from victims operate in a largely unregulated environment," says David Hughes of the Liberal-aligned Menzies Research Centre. "In many instances, you could argue that they have less regulation than real estate agents or mortgage brokers." The Morrison government tried to crack down on lawyers and funders in 2021 by capping legal fees and funder commissions at 30 per cent of the settlement. Labor opposed the proposal, and the legislation never went through parliament. Mr Hughes believes the reason for Labor's opposition was because the party is connected to the law firms. "The Labor Party has had strong links with what we call these plaintiff law firms, so think of the Slater and Gordons and the Maurice Blackburns … they're often seen as a training ground for future Labor politicians," he says. "Labor was sympathetic to the cause of these plaintiff law firms, but ultimately these plaintiff law firms just knew that their profit share was at risk if these reforms went through." Maurice Blackburn said it "actively engaged with decision-makers … to make sure everyday Australians were better represented by the law". A statement from Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said that class actions provide an important pathway for Australians who might otherwise be denied justice. John Walker, the head of the Litigation Funders Association of Australia, says the Coalition and the Liberal-aligned Menzies Research Centre have their own agenda in wanting to protect "the big end of town" from shareholder class actions against big business. He says litigation funders are necessary to pay the legal bills so that ordinary people can get justice. "We're a for-profit industry and we seek to maximise profit as much as we can, but at the same time seek to focus on creating value," he says. Mr Walker also disputes suggestions that litigation funders are not regulated. "We are regulated daily. The system has a capacity to do the best it can. It has checks and balances," he says. "We need to submit to the court and say, 'you tell us what we are going to get paid'. Barrister Peter Cashman, who was at the forefront of class actions in the 1990s, believes the system needs to change to ensure group members get a fair share of the settlement. "Transaction costs are high, the legal costs are high, the funding commissions are high, and the ultimate people who pay the price are the consumers or the class members," he says. "Australia has become a honey pot for commercial investors in litigation. They're not in it for love, and they're not in it to further the interests of access to justice. They're in it for the money. Mr Cashman wants to see the federal government establish an alternative model to fund class actions and prevent them from becoming money-making machines. "You need a publicly funded not-for-profit entity to fill the void that was filled by commercial funders that would do the cases without seeking to make a profit out of it … where the transaction costs are lower, and where the funder is interested in funding … public interest cases." Watch Four Corners' full investigation, The Price of Justice, tonight at 8.30pm on ABC TV and ABC iview.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
EV batteries are fit to run a home or even power the grid – but some car brands say 'no'
Richard Chapman likes to joke that his claim to fame was being treated to a cup of tea by James May, one of the trio of presenters on the hit former British motoring show Top Gear. It's a sign of his tastes. The English expat, who now calls the historic port city of Fremantle in Western Australia home, is a car nut — a self-described "petrol head". "I've absolutely adored cars ever since I knew what a car was," Chapman says. While that love has always extended to muscle cars, Chapman does not discriminate. These days, it equally applies to electric vehicles, or EVs. Richard Chapman knows the future of cars is electric. ( ABC News: Daniel Mercer ) "They're just incredible cars," he explains. "And for me, being a petrol head ever since I was a child, I never thought I'd quite embrace the EV thing so fully." Soaking up all the solar But embrace it he has. In fact, the rail signals and communications engineer has three EVs. Chapman uses power from the solar panels on his roof to charge the cars in the middle of the day. What his solar panels can't charge, he does with dirt-cheap electricity he buys from the grid during daylight hours. "We get ultra cheap power from 9am to 3pm because there's so much excess solar on the grid," he says. "So what we do is we just go hard from nine to three every day. "Whichever one of the three cars needs a charge, I'll just pull that in the garage and then that'll give a bit of a blast." Ideally, Chapman would like to take some of the energy stored in his cars' batteries to power his home in the evening, when his solar panels have stopped producing for the day and buying from the grid costs a relative fortune. Compared with most people, he's lucky — he has a couple of batteries mounted to the wall of his garage to store excess power for the evening periods. But he says that's not always enough. "When it's in the depths of winter and it's when the peak of summer, either we're using the heating or we're using the cooling overnight, that's when we run out of power in the (batteries)," he notes. "What I would really like to do is … draw off of the electric vehicles that have got hundreds of kilowatt hours sitting there." Massive battery on wheels Indeed, the batteries in most EVs are enormous compared with the size of the average household system. Whereas a typical household battery has a capacity of 10 kilowatt hours, many popular EVs have batteries that can hold up to 50kWh, 60kWh, or even 70kWh. It is enough energy, Chapman notes, to run an average household for days at a time. There's just one problem. His car is a Tesla, and it's not designed to pull power back out from the battery. There are many EVs for sale that can feed power out, but currently, the only Tesla that has the hardware to do this is the Cybertruck. There are ways to use third-party equipment to get around this on a Tesla, but Chapman says doing this would void the warranty of a car worth more than $100,000. Tesla currently does not support bidirectional charging. ( ABC News: Daniel Mercer ) "Tesla are very reluctant to have you do that, at least on the cars that they currently sell in Australia," he says. At issue is a little-known technology that some say has big potential — so big, in fact, they believe it could help cut Australia's dependence on fossil fuels. It's called a few different names, including bidirectional charging, two-way charging, vehicle-to-grid and many others. Being able to tap into EV battery storage could fundamentally change — and benefit — the electricity system. ( ABC News: Alex Lim ) Ultimately, it boils down to a simple proposition — not only charging EVs so they can be driven around, but discharging them, too. Ross De Rango used to run energy and infrastructure at the Electric Vehicle Council, an industry body, and now works as a consultant in the sector. De Rango says there's a "big golden pot at the end of the rainbow" if Australia can make bidirectional charging work. "If we have a couple of million cars that are able to export to the grid at peak time … the amount of power that that makes available … will mean that we can do things like close down coal-fired power stations," De Rango says. According to De Rango, the different names ascribed to bidirectional charging reflect the fact it's not a single technology or application, but many. He says the uses range from relatively low value and easy to much more technically difficult but valuable. In its most basic form, he says it amounts to using an EV battery to power appliances and devices — what's known as vehicle-to-load. Vehicle-to-load (V2L) "It's simply using your car to run things like power tools from a power outlet in the car," he explains. This technology, he says, is already broadly available in Australia, and all that's needed is a common extension cord and V2L adaptor fitted to the external charge port if the car does not have a built-in outlet. Vehicle-to-home (V2H) At a higher level, De Rango says EVs have the potential — and the energy — to help run a household through what's known vehicle-to-home. It means using the battery in the car like a household battery. While the car is plugged in, it can either be charged — or charging the house. For one, the EV needs to be designed to pull power back out from the battery. "Lots of electric vehicles in the market have that today," he says. "If what you want to do is run your home from the car without exporting to the grid, then obviously you need that electricity supply to be sized appropriately and the car-maker needs to be happy for you to do that." Bidirectional chargers convert the DC power electric cars run on to AC power used in power outlets, but they don't come cheap, costing several thousand dollars. Using EVs to power homes is still a fledgling technology, De Rango notes, and faces a range of requirements that are imposed on the householder. But he says there is evidence some people are already using it, including during blackouts. Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) Finally, De Rango says there's the biggest potential application of all — so-called vehicle-to-grid technology. As the name suggests, it would involve motorists providing the energy from their cars' batteries to the grid at times when it was needed most — typically during the evening peak. A mix of hardware, software, and regulatory permissions is required to turn the energy from a car battery that's already hooked up to the home into the grid when required. De Rango notes there are about 15 million cars on Australia's roads at the moment. Although only a fraction of these are currently electric, he says this is bound to change markedly in the years ahead. Eventually, he says, there will be millions of them. If they all discharged into the grid at times when renewable sources wind down and gas and coal fill the gap, such as the evening, they could drastically reduce Australia's need for these fuels. Being able to tap into that combined energy storage could fundamentally change — and benefit — the electricity system, De Rango says. "It's going to be a huge step towards enabling us to no longer be burning things in order to produce electricity," he says. Crucially, De Rango argues that motorists will need to be properly rewarded before they agree to use their car's battery to help prop up the grid. Removing roadblocks On that front, he says governments will need to take the reins and corral automakers and poles-and-wires network companies into a position of support. "Government support will make the difference between it being adopted by the early adopters … and it being the case that hundreds of thousands, millions of people can do it in relatively short order," he argues. Electric vehicle expert Ross De Rango. ( ABC News: Ben Knight ) Federal Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen backs bidirectional charging and is calling on car makers to do likewise. The minister says the government is trying to smooth the way for the technology. For example, he says it has approved standards, including for vehicle-to-grid charging. He put sceptical automakers on notice, saying consumers would increasingly vote with their feet. "I certainly encourage car manufacturers to get with the program," Bowen says. "Consumers will want this. "As consumers hear more and more about it, they'll see the advantages. "And increasingly, when consumers go to the car yard or check online to pick their next car, they'll be looking at EV options, and they'll look at which EVs give them the capacity to reverse charge." For his part, De Rango acknowledges the disconnect between the promise of two-way charging and the reality so far. He says it's true some car brands — led by Tesla — are wary of the technology. "It's not so much a technical impediment, it's more a question for Tesla from a corporate standpoint," De Rango says. "I would note that it is reasonable for an individual car maker to set conditions around that. "After all, they are the ones that own the risk of the warranty on these vehicles for a period of time." Tesla, not only a leading electric car brand, also sells household batteries. ( ABC News: Daniel Mercer ) De Rango also notes a growing number of car makers are getting on board and many of those are starting to challenge Tesla's traditional dominance of the EV market. Still, he says the potential benefits of bidirectional charging are too great to squander. "The opportunity is the earlier closure of coal and gas-fired power stations," he says. "The risk of absence of support for this technology is that those benefits will take many more years to materialise." Tesla was contacted for comment. Fremantle EV owner Richard Chapman, for one, is impatient for the change. He personally suspects brands that oppose bidirectional charging will be on the wrong side of a bet with consumers. Richard Chapman sees a future for EVs beyond their traditional use. ( ABC News: Daniel Mercer ) And he describes as "frustrating" the inability to capitalise on the significant amounts of electricity stored in his cars' batteries. Most of the energy that is typically stored in his EVs is generated by renewable sources. Chapman says it would be the same writ large as ever more electric cars soak up excess wind and solar generated by Australia's electricity system. "The key thing that's missing right now is battery storage," Chapman says. "And that is what we have now with EVs. "We've got all this battery storage around, all in our suburbs. "What we need to do is tap into that because we've got all of this solar."
