Latest news with #roadusercharge
News.com.au
4 days ago
- Automotive
- News.com.au
How the Albanese Government plans to revolutionise the taxes you pay for driving a car
Australia's new tax on electric vehicle drivers is set to kick off with a trial period for trucks before it stings cars. can reveal that the Albanese Government is looking at a staged rollout to test the proposed new EV tax and trucks will be the first cab off the rank. It is also interested in a new road user charge that sends price signals on the best time to be on the road, or the freeway. Over time, it could replace petrol taxes and apply to all cars based on distance travelled and when cars and trucks are on the road to tackle congestion. Free ride for EVs nearly over The free ride enjoyed by drivers of electric vehicles is coming to a close with Treasurer Jim Chalmers and state governments finalising plans for a new road-user charge. All Australian motorists who buy petrol and diesel at the bowser pay 51.6 cents a litre in fuel excise. But drivers of EV vehicles pay nothing. 'The status quo won't be sustainable over the next decade or two,'' Treasurer Jim Chalmers told 'As more and more people get off petrol cars and into EVs we've got to make sure that the tax arrangements support investment in roads. 'But we're in no rush, changes of this nature will be made, because the status quo won't work in 10 or 20 years.' The Treasurer made no secret of his support for a road user charge before the election, but favours a staged rollout of the changes. Based on a planned NSW road user scheme, a national rollout will depend on your mileage but might cost between $300 and $400 a year. Victorian Treasurer Tim Pallas said that electric vehicles are 'heavier and do more damage to the road network as a consequence than do internal combustion engine vehicles'. 'By giving drivers a clear signal about the cost of infrastructure, they would have an incentive to use it more efficiently,' the Productivity Commission report said. How does fuel excise work? The current rate of fuel excise is 51.6 cents in excise for every litre of fuel purchased. For a typical household with a car running on petrol, the tax costs more than $1200 a year. But the flat sales tax isn't paid by drivers of pure electric vehicles, who simply need to plug in their cars to recharge. While registration and driver's licence fees go to state and territory governments, fuel excise is collected by the federal government. Australian motorists paid an estimated $15.71 billion in net fuel excise in 2023-24, and are expected to pay $67.6 billion over the four years to 2026-27. However, governments have long-warned that a road-user charge will be required to fill the gap in the budget left by declining revenue from the fuel excise, as the petrol and diesel engines in new cars consume less fuel and Australians adopt hybrid and electric cars. What does the AAA say? The Australian Automobile Association (AAA) is calling for a national approach to road-user charging but wants a guarantee the revenue will be earmarked for road upgrades. The AAA backs a distance-based road-user charging as a fairer and more equitable way to fund land transport infrastructure. The 2024 federal budget forecasted a reduction in fuel excise receipts by $470 million over four years from 2024-25. Roadblocks to reform Currently, New South Wales is the only state with firm plans to introduce a road-user charge from 2027 or when EVs reach 30 per cent of new car sales. Plug-in hybrid EVs will be charged a fixed 80 per cent proportion of the full road-user charge to reflect their vehicle type. Western Australia has also stated an intention to implement a road-user charge. Meanwhile, Victoria's electric vehicle levy had to be scrapped following a ruling from the High Court. Two Victorian electric car owners launched a legal challenge on the basis the tax was not legal as it was an excise that only a federal government could impose. They won, with the High Court upholding the legal challenge. There have been several false starts to enshrine a road-user charge including in South Australia, where the former Liberal Government planned to introduce a charge for plug-in electric and other zero emission vehicles, which included a fixed component and a variable charge based on distance travelled. It was later pushed back to 2027 due to a backlash before the legislation was ultimately repealed. 'Gold standard' for reform Some experts argue the gold standard for reform is a variable rate that factors in the vehicle's mass, distance travelled, location, and time of day. But there's a big barrier to the Commonwealth imposing those charges because the Constitution prohibits it from imposing taxes that discriminate between states or parts of states.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Aussies erupt over new $363 per year tax hit
There are fears that electric vehicle (EV) sales could be affected if a road-user charge (RUC) is introduced to level the playing field with other cars. At the moment, EVs don't attract a tax for using Aussie roads like those in internal combustion engines (ICE). But ahead of the government's economic roundtable, there have been calls for EV drivers to pay their fair share with a brand new levy designed just for them. Electric Vehicle Council's (EVC) head of legal, policy and advocacy, Aman Gaur, told Yahoo Finance it doesn't make any sense to him why Australia would go down this path. "The simple principle around taxes is that you tax the things you don't want to see, like smoking or alcohol," he said. "Why are we taxing something that is actually trying to make Australia and the country safer from climate change? It just seems very counterintuitive." RELATED Major EV warning as true battery range for big brands like Tesla and BYD exposed ATO $2,548 tax refund cash boost for 2.6 million Aussies Hidden $3,000 per year cost of cashless revolt as record number of banknotes hoarded Why is a road-user charge being considered for EVs? Those in ICE vehicles have to pay an excise on fuel at the moment, which goes to the federal government as general revenue and can be used to fund transport infrastructure. It raises around $17 billion a year, but that revenue stream could start to go on a downward trend if more people buy EVs and don't pay a RUC. According to the Australian Automobile Association, one in 10 cars sold in the June quarter in Australia was an EV, which is a new record. The EVC said a RUC for electric cars shouldn't be introduced until that statistic hits at least three in 10 vehicles sold. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese acknowledged there needed to be a shakeup in the system to account for the rise of battery-powered vehicles. 'We need money to ensure that roads are adequate, and that is a long-held belief,' he said this week. 'What we need to do is to work those issues through and to come up with a realistic plan that can be implemented. And we'll await those discussions.'How would a road-user charge work? That hasn't been hashed out yet, and will form part of the discussions at next week's productivity and economic roundtable. 'We haven't settled on a model or on timing when it comes to that change, but clearly a government of either political persuasion will need to make changes there because the excise take on petrol will come down as petrol vehicles exit the fleet," Treasurer Jim Chalmers said this week. He added "people shouldn't anticipate that there will be a change very soon". Instead of EVs having their own type of RUC, Gaur told Yahoo Finance there should be a universal road tax applied to every vehicle. This was supported by EV motoring expert Toby Hagon, who said electric car drivers needed to start paying their way, but not with their own unique levy. "I'm not sure why we would treat EVs any differently to any other car on the road; we should be taxing them all equally," he told Yahoo Finance. "Don't just single out EVs or hybrids or plug-in hybrids. Apply a road user charge across the board and get rid of fuel excess. It seems like a logical way to do it." Hagon suggested a possible RUC scenario of 3 cents per kilometre driven. The latest data found the average Aussie drives around 12,100 kilometres per year, meaning EV motorists could be paying around $363 each year under Hagon's prediction. Comparatively, the fuel excise is currently 51.6 cents per litre of petrol or diesel, and, according to Compare the Market data from last year, a typical household pays around $3,200 a year in petrol or diesel. Would people stop buying EVs if they had to pay an RUC? A poll of more than 2,500 Yahoo Finance readers found 64 per cent would avoid buying an EV if they had to pay for a road tax. But Hagon said an RUC should not influence a person's decision-making if they're looking for a new car. "The running cost of an EV is so much lower than $363 a year, so it's not going to be the determining factor of whether someone buys an EV or not," he said. When you compare that $3,200 per year cost for ICE car drivers, an EV owner is typically only paying around $701 per year for charging. Gaur said there is a much bigger potential cost than a possible $363 yearly charge to contemplate. "To the person who's thinking about their next car, think about your children, think about your own lifestyle, and what is the best way to keep Australia safe from the effects of climate change," he said. Scott Maynard, the Australian boss of Swedish EV maker Polestar, said Australia needs to make sure that whatever direction it goes in with an RUC that it makes sense for everyone. 'Driving is an essential activity, so it's important the government has a clear understanding of what it would be seeking to achieve with a road user charge," he said. "Only when we understand that question can a framework be developed, and commentary applied. 'I don't think any driver, electric or otherwise, will have an issue with a road user charge system to replace fuel excise as long as it is fair and equitable."Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
Daily Telegraph
5 days ago
- Automotive
- Daily Telegraph
Aussies explode over Albo's latest cash grab
Don't miss out on the headlines from Motoring. Followed categories will be added to My News. Earlier this week, we published a story about the Federal Government's intention to introduce a road user charge (RUC) for electric vehicle (EV) owners. A per-kilometre tax to replace the fuel excise revenue lost as more Australians switch to electric vehicles. The proposal encouraged more than 2000 readers to comment. What followed was a passionate public policy debate, part stand-up comedy and a masterclass in Australian scepticism. RELATED: Carmaker's fury over Albo's new road tax Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers has long flagged the development of a new road-user charge across Australia for drivers of electric vehicles to ensure EV drivers are contributing a fair share to road upgrades. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman While the conversation is divided, a large majority of readers believe EV drivers should contribute to road maintenance. But many also say the policy must be fair, transparent and apply equally across all vehicle types. 'Tax the trucks, not the Teslas,' one reader wrote, summing up a sentiment that hundreds of readers agreed with. Another, HelpMeOverHere, accused the government of double standards: 'A mining truck the size of a suburban street guzzles thousands of litres a week and gets all the fuel tax refunded.' The 'free ride' is over Many of our readers argue it's simply time for EV owners to pay their way. They believe that EV owners are currently getting a 'free ride' by avoiding the fuel excise, which raises more than $15 billion annually. 'There is not one solitary argument that supports the notion that EV drivers should be able to use the roads and not contribute to their upkeep. Not one,' nonedeplume said. RELATED: New EV tax makes no sense Heavy vehicles cause heavy road damage. Stephen argued: 'EV manufacturers are upset that the free ride is coming to an end and the EV drivers will have to pay to use the road like everyone else.' But others saw it less as fairness, more as the government's latest 'gotcha' tax. 'It's always the proletariat that has to pay for incompetent government,' Walker Texas Ranger said. 'Just another tax to prevent us from moving up in the world.' Some readers proposed replacing the fuel excise entirely with a universal RUC. 'Why don't we scrap the fuel excise and then just apply a RUC to all road users - that would then be fair to ALL road users regardless of what type of fuel (petrol, diesel, EV, hybrid),' Gaynor said. The trucking elephant in the room A big chunk of outrage was over Australia's heavy freight industry. Many said heavy vehicles are the 'culprits' and should pay more, given their impact on infrastructure. Fair enough. RELATED: What new Albo road tax would mean for you EV owners fear a new road tax will hit them harder than fuel guzzlers. Picture: AFP Infrastructure Australia data shows that one five-axle truck causes the same road wear as 2900 cars. The actual ratio varies depending on factors like axle weight and road construction, but a truck's damage is often cited as being much higher than 2900. Currently, heavy vehicles pay a RUC of 32.4 cents per litre, set to rise 6 per cent annually until 2025-2026. They also pay the federal fuel excise, now around 51-52 cents per litre - but operators can claim back the difference through fuel tax credits, reducing their net cost by about 20 cents per litre. 'Trucks are the issue,' Grande_choice said. 'All those regional roads are getting slammed by trucks but not EVs.' Aussie drivers are split over who should really pay the price. Picture NCA Newswire / Gaye Gerard Rural drivers fear being slugged harder Polestar Australia's managing director Scott Maynard said a one-size-fits-all approach could unfairly hit regional drivers who travel long distances for essential services. According to Australians tend to drive longer distances for essentials and often live further out because property is more affordable. 'People in regional areas generally are poorer and drive more distances to get from A to B,' BobtheBuilder said. 'Hence why the CEO (Scott Maynard) makes the point that they will be discriminated against.' Reader Vicki agreed: 'I'm rural and 75km from my nearest town, doctor, supermarket…city EV owners with public transport will cost them nothing, and rural/regional drivers big money. When the policy debate turned into a comedy set In between the policy arguments came some memorable one-liners that had me chuckling hard. 'If it can't be eaten or plucked, it will be taxed.' 'The word of the day is fungible.' 'I'm just going to wait until a hamster-powered car comes out.' 'How about we bring in a tax on breathing?' Another day, another tax for Albo?. Picture: NewsWire / Nikki Short The green glow-up….or greenwash? Some readers went straight for the environmental jugular. 'It's time the idealists wake up to the fact that electric cars aren't better for the environment…they will never pay off the carbon footprint cost of making the batteries,' Mark wrote. But Adam added, 'battery disposal facilities are already at 90+ per cent recyclability…the 'cut even' point for emissions is approx 37,000km.' Trusting the government…like trusting a cheating ex Underlying much of the conversation was the distrust of the government. Even commenters who back the idea of EVs paying said they didn't trust Canberra to use the money for roads. 'For FY23-24 the fuel excise raised $15b while [the] government only spent $10bn on roads,' Bryn wrote. 'When is it enough?' 'It's just revenue raising,' Jeff said. 'Once they have you hooked, they tax you.' The road ahead So the consensus? Most readers agree that EV drivers should pay and contribute. But it's simple, they want it to be fair. If the government can deliver that, they might just win people over. But if not, they'll be left with a few angry Australians. Originally published as Aussies explode over Albo's latest cash grab
News.com.au
5 days ago
- Automotive
- News.com.au
Aussies explode over Albo's latest cash grab
Earlier this week, we published a story about the Federal Government's intention to introduce a road user charge (RUC) for electric vehicle (EV) owners. A per-kilometre tax to replace the fuel excise revenue lost as more Australians switch to electric vehicles. The proposal encouraged more than 2000 readers to comment. What followed was a passionate public policy debate, part stand-up comedy and a masterclass in Australian scepticism. While the conversation is divided, a large majority of readers believe EV drivers should contribute to road maintenance. But many also say the policy must be fair, transparent and apply equally across all vehicle types. 'Tax the trucks, not the Teslas,' one reader wrote, summing up a sentiment that hundreds of readers agreed with. Another, HelpMeOverHere, accused the government of double standards: 'A mining truck the size of a suburban street guzzles thousands of litres a week and gets all the fuel tax refunded.' The 'free ride' is over Many of our readers argue it's simply time for EV owners to pay their way. They believe that EV owners are currently getting a 'free ride' by avoiding the fuel excise, which raises more than $15 billion annually. 'There is not one solitary argument that supports the notion that EV drivers should be able to use the roads and not contribute to their upkeep. Not one,' nonedeplume said. Stephen argued: 'EV manufacturers are upset that the free ride is coming to an end and the EV drivers will have to pay to use the road like everyone else.' But others saw it less as fairness, more as the government's latest 'gotcha' tax. 'It's always the proletariat that has to pay for incompetent government,' Walker Texas Ranger said. 'Just another tax to prevent us from moving up in the world.' Some readers proposed replacing the fuel excise entirely with a universal RUC. 'Why don't we scrap the fuel excise and then just apply a RUC to all road users - that would then be fair to ALL road users regardless of what type of fuel (petrol, diesel, EV, hybrid),' Gaynor said. The trucking elephant in the room A big chunk of outrage was over Australia's heavy freight industry. Many said heavy vehicles are the 'culprits' and should pay more, given their impact on infrastructure. Fair enough. Infrastructure Australia data shows that one five-axle truck causes the same road wear as 2900 cars. The actual ratio varies depending on factors like axle weight and road construction, but a truck's damage is often cited as being much higher than 2900. Currently, heavy vehicles pay a RUC of 32.4 cents per litre, set to rise 6 per cent annually until 2025-2026. They also pay the federal fuel excise, now around 51-52 cents per litre - but operators can claim back the difference through fuel tax credits, reducing their net cost by about 20 cents per litre. 'Trucks are the issue,' Grande_choice said. 'All those regional roads are getting slammed by trucks but not EVs.' Rural drivers fear being slugged harder Polestar Australia's managing director Scott Maynard said a one-size-fits-all approach could unfairly hit regional drivers who travel long distances for essential services. According to Australians tend to drive longer distances for essentials and often live further out because property is more affordable. 'People in regional areas generally are poorer and drive more distances to get from A to B,' BobtheBuilder said. 'Hence why the CEO (Scott Maynard) makes the point that they will be discriminated against.' Reader Vicki agreed: 'I'm rural and 75km from my nearest town, doctor, supermarket…city EV owners with public transport will cost them nothing, and rural/regional drivers big money. When the policy debate turned into a comedy set In between the policy arguments came some memorable one-liners that had me chuckling hard. 'If it can't be eaten or plucked, it will be taxed.' 'The word of the day is fungible.' 'I'm just going to wait until a hamster-powered car comes out.' 'How about we bring in a tax on breathing?' The green glow-up….or greenwash? Some readers went straight for the environmental jugular. 'It's time the idealists wake up to the fact that electric cars aren't better for the environment…they will never pay off the carbon footprint cost of making the batteries,' Mark wrote. But Adam added, 'battery disposal facilities are already at 90+ per cent recyclability…the 'cut even' point for emissions is approx 37,000km.' Trusting the government…like trusting a cheating ex Underlying much of the conversation was the distrust of the government. Even commenters who back the idea of EVs paying said they didn't trust Canberra to use the money for roads. 'For FY23-24 the fuel excise raised $15b while [the] government only spent $10bn on roads,' Bryn wrote. 'When is it enough?' 'It's just revenue raising,' Jeff said. 'Once they have you hooked, they tax you.' The road ahead So the consensus? Most readers agree that EV drivers should pay and contribute. But it's simple, they want it to be fair. If the government can deliver that, they might just win people over. But if not, they'll be left with a few angry Australians.
News.com.au
6 days ago
- Automotive
- News.com.au
Automaker boss says road ‘slug' must be fair
A leading electric automotive brand has urged the Federal Government not to 'slug' motorists with a new road user charge (RUC) that unfairly targets electric vehicle (EV) owners. Polestar's Australian boss Scott Maynard said the fuel excise gap created by EV adoption is an opportunity to consider the 'whole transport ecosystem' not simply a new charge targeting zero-emission drivers. 'Motorists are already subject to stamp duty, registration fees, fuel excise, Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT), Luxury Car Tax (LCT) in some cases, as well as tolls and parking space levies in the CBD,' he said. Earlier this week the Productivity Commission suggested a per-kilometre charge for electric vehicle (EV) owners as the fuel excise revenue is shrinking as more Australians switch to EVs. Maynard said the scheme, which Treasurer Jim Chalmers is fast-tracking, could be fair but only if it's applied equally across all vehicles and not used to squeeze money from drivers. 'Driving is an essential activity, so it's important the government has a clear understanding of what it would be seeking to achieve with a road user charge. Only when we understand that question can a framework be developed, and commentary applied,' he said. The Swedish EV maker argued that revenue from any new scheme should be ring-fenced for road maintenance and infrastructure, unlike fuel excise which 'just goes into the pot of government spending'. 'Transparency is key,' he said. Maynard also warned against a 'one-size-fits-all' approach that could penalise rural and regional drivers. 'We do need to be careful that people in regional and rural areas are not unfairly targeted given the long distances travelled to obtain services such as medical care, education, and household supplies,' he said. 'We don't want to have a situation where people who commute long distances from regional or rural areas are then at a disadvantage to drivers who can afford to live in the inner city.' Maynard suggested Australia should look to 'best practice other markets' and consider both distance and weight to reflect road wear, focus on the biggest emitters, such as heavy vehicles, if cutting carbon is a primary goal. 'I don't think any driver – electric or otherwise – will have an issue with a road user charge system to replace fuel excise as long as it is fair and equitable,' he said. Maynard added that the system should be designed on clear goals, whether reducing congestion, cutting emissions, of funding road maintenance - and if emissions reduction is the aim, 'targeting heavy vehicles with higher emissions should be a priority'. 'Australia will need to identify its goals with a road user charging system and establish a framework accordingly,' he said. 'There's a myriad of issues that need to be addressed before a road user charge can be applied.' The Treasurer's office said that they 'will work with the states and territories on policies in this area, but we'll do it in a considered and consultative way and take the time to get it right'.
