Australia ranks behind nations such as Slovakia and Poland when it comes to vehicle emissions. (Dave Hunt/AAP PHOTOS)
The August EV sales numbers are in. This single data point shows us that the threat of an EV Road User Charge has clearly not dented the appetite for EVs. We can sleep easy and not worry about how the need for a quick fix to the budget has dissuaded people from buying an EV.
EV owners can happily carry the can for a decline in excise revenue. A decline caused, not by the rise in EV ownership, but by perfidious foreigners in the EU and the US imposing efficiency standards; denying Australians the right to naturally aspirated gas guzzlers like the great God Henry Ford intended. The brave new world was foisted upon us.
Road user charging is something I studied at Carnegie Mellon University’s Department of Engineering and Public Policy. A comprehensive road user charge proposal was a case I was given to anlayse.
Conducting the analysis in Pittsburgh, a city with visibly crumbling infrastructure. A city where, some years after I left, a major road bridge collapsed, injuring 10 people, with the collapse atributed to a lack of maintenance.
Sitting there and looking at the budget shorfall in road funding, it’s easy to come to the conclusion that a road user charge is the perfect quick fix for decrepit infrastructure. Getting people to pay directly for something the use seemed logical to me, as I’m sure it does to Jim Chalmers.
A well constructed road user charge is may be great policy, but it is also terrible politics. Exposing people to the real costs of something they have had to think about will always challenging.
We take roads for granted, never really thinking about how we all pay for them. Perhaps Jim Chalmers should be applauded for his bravery in putting an unpalatable policy back on the table, but what is on the table is not a well thought out, comprehensive road user charge.
Australia must consider the transition to a low-carbon economy holistically, not as a series of isolated problems. This transition is an opportunity to achieve better and fairer outcomes for all Australians.
Owning a car is a costly necessity for most people. Expanding the road system to meet the needs of a growing population of multi-EV households will cost us billions and create congested, ugly and polluted cities. The transition is an opportunity to give people the choice to liberate themselves from the costly burden of car ownership.
A road user charge is a useful tool to shape how Australians live their lives and fairly allocate the costs of providing infrastructure.
But it must fit with a clearly articulated vision for what we want Australia to look like. True bravery lies in creating that vision, selling it to Australians. Do this, then deciding whether a road user charge should form part of how we pay for it will be easy.
Ed Lynch-Bell is Principal at Second Mouse, dedicated to building more sustainable energy tech and mobility products, services and businesses. Ed is also a co-host of the Melbourne and Sydney EV Meet-ups, bringing the e-mobility industry together.
With a WLTP range of up to 529km, practical design, and premium touches, does the…
Volvo releases price and specs of its new electric offering, this time for drivers with…
Tesla launches its most powerful Model Y in Australia with big jump in range, performance…
The owners of older Tesla vehicles who purchased FSD long ago have not heard anything…
NSW government has purchased 151 new electric buses, part of the government’s longer-term goal of…
Škoda launches its second EV onto the Australian market. How does it stack up against…
View Comments
Good tax policy is always bad politics. And it only ever happens when one party has a huge majority. Last major tax reform was the GST, and that's not going to be repealed any time soon. At least the GST is a meaningful proportion of total revenue. Road-related revenue is tenth of that...
But if the road user charge is done right; that is, universal, mass x distance, and retains a disincentive to buy pollution-powered vehicle, it can be a set-and-forget measure which lets us crack on with creating the better world we want to live in.
And then we can ask ourselves if spending $39 billion per year on roads is good value for money anyway.
Remove and replace taxes, don't add more.
39 billion? That is about $2700 per worker! So much spent going places. Enjoy local.
I hear you bro! Asking people to pay more up front for a better society and more pleasant life later is akin to asking toddlers to share their lollies with the class. Best idea might be to jump the GST up.
If there is a mass x distance charge it should not disadvantage Rural/Remote users. So it should be mass x distance - postcode.
The thing that most annoys/ frustrates me about the 'road user charge for EV' debate is the false claims, from not only most of the mainstream media, but even the Treasurer, that fuel excise is used for road maintenance. By all means let's have the debate, but base it on the facts, not someone's convenient lie.
The old guard are turning themselves inside out trying to suggest that the BEV pollutes also...... what pollution penalty does the tailpipe attract ?. None.
The Federal budget would benefit from the elimination of tailpipe emissions in our big cities...less demand for hospital beds staffing etc .... whilst also encouraging EV adoption. All it would take is a Federal Government with a very substantial numerical advantage to offset the weakness of heart. It's called a bold initiative.....and our biggest trading partner (China) is already destroying the unaffordable argument.