Kathleen Davies remembers driving an electric vehicle in 2012, and how it felt as if she was commuting in a spaceship.
“There were hardly any on the road – it felt quite bizarre,” she says.
Her family were in the minority almost a decade ago when they bought their first electric vehicle. Davies had been inspired to lead a more environmentally sustainable life after reading The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery, one of Australia’s leading climate writers.
Another Melbourne driver, Chris Vanderstock, is similarly a proponent of electric vehicles and their environmental benefits, and now owns two.
On Wednesday, after joining forces, Vanderstock and Davies had their fight for greener transport vindicated by the nation’s highest court. They were the two plaintiffs in a landmark high court case that struck down Victoria’s electric vehicle tax.
The pair had argued that the imposition of a tax, charged per kilometre driven, was unconstitutional because the states do not have the power to impose such excise taxes on consumption.
Davies, an engineering consultant, bought her family’s first electric vehicle in 2012 for almost $60,000 – “more money than I’d ever spent on any car”.
But when the Victorian government’s tax was introduced in 2021, Davies began a flurry of activism – ringing politicians, signing petitions and writing letters objecting to the levy.
“It was an obstacle to electric vehicle uptake and we need to do all we can to de-carbonise the roads. I felt like I was being punished for trying to do the right thing,” she says.
Davies says reading coverage of the eight Australian teenagers who won a landmark climate litigation case against the then federal environment minister Sussan Ley – which was overturned on appeal – sparked her determination to pursue a legal case against the tax.
“I thought if they can do it, this is another thing I can do,” she recalls.
“It was a leap in the unknown but my husband said ‘just go for it’. He could see I was getting more activated. It was the fear that turned into anger, and that’s what drove me.”
Davies and Vanderstock were represented by Equity Generation Lawyers, which represented the eight teenagers.
Vanderstock, who works as a nurse manager, says he was “ecstatic” to win the high-stakes case.
He says leaving a legacy for his children, by helping reduce emissions on the state’s roads, was a major driver for pursuing the case.
“I wanted them to be proud of something I had done here,” he says.
The court’s decision will likely prevent New South Wales and Western Australia from proceeding with plans to introduce road-user charges from 2027 and could spark constitutional challenges to everything from gaming taxes, to car registration and waste levies.
Vanderstock says he hopes the ruling will pave the way for the Albanese government to implement a national road-user charge that is “fair and equitable”, and help accelerate the transition to electric vehicles.
“The ball is now in the commonwealth’s corner to decide how they’ll address fuel excise shortfall, which has been on the decline for more than 20 years,” he says.
“What Victoria had is a good example of what not to do.”
The federal treasurer, Jim Chalmers, on Thursday said the court ruling had consequences for the taxes at both levels of government and said the commonwealth would work through what it meant for electric vehicles.
Victoria’s treasurer, Tim Pallas, on Thursday said the state would consider retrospectively refunding the tax paid by electric vehicle owners.
Vanderstock says it will be “lovely” if the tax is retrospectively refunded, but adds he never pursued the case to recoup money.
“We never did this to avoid paying taxes. We just want a fair and just system,” he says.
