Bronze user
•
52 Messages
Some States proposing introduction of a 2.5¢-per-kilometre road user charge for EVs
Fuel tax is collected by the Commonwealth and distributed to the states, ostensibly to spend on roads. We will still need roads when all cars are electric.
Frustrated by the spinelessness in Canberra, some states started freelancing by flagging or introducing their own charges.
Here’s the economic equation. Fuel excise this year is forecast to deliver a net return to the budget of $13.7 billion. By the time the vast majority of the nation’s vehicle fleet is electric, that revenue will have disappeared.
What do people think?
Recent article in link below from AFR...
Dan Alex
Community support
•
44 Messages
2 years ago
Hi @Enforcer - thanks for sharing this one. I also shared back with our Policy team as I think it will be a conversation they take a special interest in.
NRMA has some established positions on this one that we outlined in the FAQs at the bottom of this page: New incentives for Australian EV drivers | Road User Charging | The NRMA (mynrma.com.au)
A key point from our point of view is as follows:
Does the NRMA support road user charging and Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles?
The NRMA is supportive of bringing forward the evolution to cleaner and more efficient vehicles and transitioning to a Road User Charging system to improve consumer equity and road network efficiency.
As all vehicles progressively become more efficient, the opportunity to consider how we better fund, finance and pay for roads and transport infrastructure will become increasingly important.
In the short-term, the NRMA discourages any additional impost on buying and using ULEVs and implores policy makers to consider the broad economic and societal benefits of ULEVs before creating additional barriers for their adoption.
Electric vehicles are currently more expensive than their combustion-engine-equipped counterparts due to battery prices and economies of scale, and while the NRMA supports reforming how we fund, finance and price road use, additional taxes on ULEVs will further delay adoption in Australia.
How could Road User Charging be progressed?
Acknowledging the benefits of ULEVs, as well as the fact that road-related revenue is increasingly becoming an own-source revenue stream for state and territory governments, transitioning ULEVs to a Road User Charging system based on distance travelled in the first instance could underpin a broader and longer term reform agenda, supporting a move away from suboptimal fuel excise, registration and stamp duty charges.
Transitioning ULEVs to a Road User Charging system should initially incentivise uptake, particularly in the mass market; this first phase of a longer term reform agenda could be enabled by replacing government registration and stamp duty charges at the state and territory level – effectively administering a ‘tax switch’.
This approach places no additional impost on ULEVs in the short term while purchase prices remain high, and does not preclude a cross-jurisdictional commitment to ensure national consistency and simplicity; a nationally consistent approach to this type of reform is preferred and encouraged.
A trial or pilot of this type of model on a voluntary, opt-in basis would be supported by the NRMA.
There are a few more Q&As on the page that are worth reading.
What do you think? Do you think Road User Charging sounds fair?
0
Mal_P2
New user
•
49 Messages
2 years ago
I see this raised from time to time. Most people aren't happy about it, but for me, I don't have an issue paying a reasonable amount for building and maintaining infrastructure.
If you do the sums, EV owners are still way in front in regard to both fuel/energy prices and petrol taxes.
0