{"id":101299,"date":"2025-02-13T07:30:00","date_gmt":"2025-02-12T20:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/au\/?p=101299"},"modified":"2025-02-12T23:33:14","modified_gmt":"2025-02-12T12:33:14","slug":"new-road-tax-for-electric-vehicles","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/au\/new-road-tax-for-electric-vehicles\/","title":{"rendered":"New Road Tax for Electric Vehicles: What Australian Drivers Need to Know"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Australian government is reportedly considering a nationwide road user charge for electric vehicles (EVs)<\/strong> to offset diminishing fuel excise revenue. Federal Treasurer Dr Jim Chalmers<\/strong> has raised the prospect of introducing a charge based on kilometres travelled, a move that could replace state-level schemes ruled unconstitutional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This potential shift comes as EV adoption continues to rise<\/strong>, with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO<\/a>) projecting that 97% of light passenger vehicles on Australian roads will be electric by 2050. With fewer vehicles consuming petrol, the fuel excise\u2014currently set at 50.6 cents per litre\u2014continues to decline<\/strong>, prompting calls for an alternative system to fund road infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Federal government considers national approach to road funding<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The proposal for a federal EV road user charge<\/strong> follows the High Court of Australia’s decision<\/strong> to invalidate Victoria\u2019s state-based scheme, which was deemed an excise and therefore unconstitutional<\/strong>. According to the Australian Financial Review<\/em>, Dr Chalmers recently discussed the issue at a Business Council of Australia event<\/strong>, highlighting the need for a sustainable revenue model for road maintenance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Previously, Victoria had imposed a 2.8-cent per kilometre charge on EVs<\/strong> and 2.3 cents per kilometre on plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs)<\/strong>. This scheme generated $3.9 million in the 2022\/23 financial year<\/strong>, with a total of nearly $10 million collected since its introduction in 2021<\/strong>. However, with state-based initiatives now legally challenged, industry groups are pushing for a coherent national framework<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Australian Automotive Dealer Association (AADA)<\/strong> has urged the government to create an \u201cequitable national road user charging system\u201d<\/strong> that does not discourage EV adoption. In its pre-budget submission, the organisation emphasised the need for a technology-neutral approach<\/strong>, ensuring that all vehicle types contribute fairly to road maintenance without undermining climate targets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Calls for fair and effective taxation of road use<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Australian Electric Vehicle Association (AEVA)<\/strong> has also weighed in, advocating for a mass-based road user charge<\/strong> that applies to all vehicles, regardless of fuel type. According to AEVA National President Dr Chris Jones<\/strong>, heavier vehicles\u2014both electric and conventional<\/strong>\u2014cause greater road wear and should be taxed accordingly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The New South Wales<\/a> and Western Australian governments<\/strong> had previously planned to introduce their own EV road user charges by 2027<\/strong>, while South Australia reversed course following a change in leadership<\/strong>. The federal government\u2019s consideration of a national charge could provide uniformity across states, ensuring a consistent approach to road funding<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As electric vehicles become the norm, Australia faces a growing gap in road funding. The federal government is now considering a kilometre-based charge to replace declining fuel excise revenue. Industry groups are calling for fairness, while legal challenges have disrupted state-led initiatives.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":101301,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[44],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-101299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","generate-columns","tablet-grid-50","mobile-grid-100","grid-parent","grid-33","no-featured-image-padding"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101299","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=101299"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101299\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":101325,"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101299\/revisions\/101325"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/101301"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/en.econostrum.info\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

\u201cA universal, mass x distance road user charge should eventually replace fuel <\/a>excise as the user-pays component of roads and their maintenance,\u201d Dr Jones stated<\/strong>, adding that heavy vehicles, including trucks, should not be exempt<\/strong> as they account for significant road damage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n