The High Court's Decision on Victoria's EV Tax: Implications and Insights

In a landmark ruling, the High Court of Australia has declared Victoria's electric vehicle (EV) tax invalid. This decision has sent shockwaves through the nation, prompting intense discussions about the future of road-user charges and the broader implications for state revenue streams. In this article, we delve into the specifics of the case, the reasons behind the High Court's decision, and the potential ramifications for other states and territories.

Background of the EV Tax in Victoria

Victoria had introduced a distance-based charge for drivers of zero-emission and low-emission vehicles. Specifically, electric and hydrogen vehicle owners were charged 2.8 cents for each kilometre they travelled during the year, while plug-in hybrid vehicle owners were charged 2.3 cents per kilometre. Notably, hybrid vehicles were exempt from this tax. The primary rationale behind this tax was to recoup revenue losses from EV drivers, who do not contribute to the petrol excise.

The Challenge in the High Court

Two electric car drivers challenged this tax in the High Court, arguing that it was unconstitutional. Their contention was that states do not possess the authority to impose excise taxes on the consumption of goods.

The High Court's Decision

Four justices of the High Court – Chief Justice Susan Kiefel, and Justices Stephen Gageler, Jacqueline Gleeson, and Jayne Jagot – concurred that the Victorian EV charge was indeed invalid. The majority opinion revisited and overruled the 1974 decision of Dickenson’s Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania, which had previously held that a tax on the consumption of goods did not constitute a duty of excise.

The court concluded that a prohibited state excise was a tax closely related to the production, sale, distribution, or consumption of goods, which could influence its manufacture or production. In the case of the Victorian EV tax, it was deemed a tax on goods due to the close relationship between the tax and the use of EVs. Furthermore, the tax was found to impact the demand for EVs.

Dissenting Opinions

The decision was not unanimous. Three of the seven judges dissented, offering critiques of the majority's reasoning. Justice Michelle Gordon criticised the majority for abandoning past authority, referencing cases that had determined certain taxes on goods were not duties of excise. Justice James Edelman highlighted flaws in the assumptions about the tax's impact on consumption, questioning the authority of the decision.

Potential Implications for Other Taxes

The ruling has raised concerns about the validity of other state taxes. Justice Edelman expressed "serious doubt" over whether states can levy taxes on gifts, inheritance, payroll taxes on companies producing goods, industrial land taxes, and more. There were also concerns about duties on the transfer or conveyance of goods, motor vehicle duties, gaming machine levies, and waste disposal levies, among others.

The Future of EV Taxes and Road Charges

While the High Court's decision has invalidated Victoria's EV tax, it does not necessarily spell the end for road-user charges. Justice Jagot noted that the Victorian charge was invalid because it was a tax and not a fee for service. This suggests that states might still be able to impose charges on EVs if structured differently, such as an additional charge on vehicle registration.

Furthermore, there are calls for the federal government to introduce a nationally consistent system for charging road users. The Automobiles Association of Australia and independent MP Zoe Daniel are among those advocating for this approach.

Conclusion

The High Court's decision on Victoria's EV tax has significant implications, not just for Victoria but for all states and territories. It underscores the complexities of state revenue streams and the challenges of navigating constitutional boundaries. As the landscape of transportation evolves with the rise of electric vehicles, it is clear that governments will need to tread carefully in crafting policies that are both equitable and legally sound.

Verge Legal provides legal advice in all states in Australia, contact us today if you need assistance.

This blog post provides general information and is not intended as legal advice. It may not be complete or up-to-date. For specific legal advice, please consult a qualified lawyer.