The Victorian government’s road-user charge for electric and hybrid vehicles has been deemed unreasonable by the state’s Ombudsman, Deborah Glass. The Zero and Low Emission Vehicles (ZLEV) Act, which was introduced in 2021, is the nation’s first distance-based road charge for EVs and hybrid cars. However, the legislation’s validity is currently being challenged in the High Court.
Glass released a report today titled “Investigation into the Department of Transport and Planning’s implementation of the zero and low emission vehicle charge,” which outlines the failures in the government’s implementation of the charge. She describes the Victorian Department of Transport and Planning as unreasonable and inflexible in dealing with issues such as double taxation of road users. Glass compares the implementation to the federal government’s Robodebt scandal, highlighting the use of averaging calculations to charge people.
Over 30 complaints were received by the Victorian Ombudsman regarding the application of the ZLEV Act, with two-thirds of them relating to unsatisfactory processes or policies. The complaints centered around two main issues: the unreasonable application of charges based on vehicle usage and additional charges imposed for late odometer declarations.
The Department of Transport and Planning received over 180 complaints and was criticized for its poor and inflexible responses. One example highlighted was a driver of a plug-in electric hybrid who traveled in remote parts of Australia with no charging stations. Despite paying fuel excise, the Department refused to waive the additional charges imposed by the ZLEV Act.
Reporting for EV drivers is burdensome, and failure to meet the demands of the Transport Department results in punitive actions. Drivers are required to provide photographic evidence of kilometers traveled at the start and end of each registration period. The report states that one driver had their registration canceled because they were late in providing these photos due to being overseas.
The Ombudsman also found issues with the Department’s handling of complaints related to penalties. In five cases, the Department initially refused to amend invoices when the estimated charges exceeded the actual distance traveled, describing them as penalty charges. The report states that there is no provision in the ZLEV Act for the Department to impose such penalty charges, and they should be repaid.
While the report does not address the validity of the legislation, it emphasizes the poor implementation and calls for better policy guidance, flexible handling of complaints, and the importance of exercising discretion.
Many experts, including Professor Hussein Dia from Swinburne University, argue that the road-user charge is flawed policy and impedes EV adoption. Dia suggests that the charge should be applied equally to all road users and that it should only be introduced when EV uptake is more substantial and charging infrastructure is widely available.
In conclusion, the Ombudsman’s report highlights the shortcomings of the Victorian government’s road-user charge for electric and hybrid vehicles. It calls for improvements in policy implementation and raises concerns about the impact on road users who are trying to make environmentally friendly choices. The report does not address the legal validity of the legislation, which is currently being challenged.
