This bill became law on Dec 12th, 2022.
Budget, tax & economy
Employers can provide eligible low-emissions cars for employees’ private use without paying fringe benefits taxA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars., if the car is below the fuel-efficient luxury car tax thresholdA price limit used to decide whether a car is too expensive to qualify for the exemption; eligible cars had to be below this fuel-efficient car threshold when first sold..
Low take-up of electric cars left transport emissions higher than the Government wanted and made eligible electric cars less affordable for Australian road users. The bill lets employers provide eligible zero or low-emissions cars for employees’ private use without fringe benefits taxA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars., with a three-year review of the discount.
Australia already taxed employer-provided private car use through fringe benefits taxA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars., while EVA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. registrations were under 1% in 2021 and ministers argued high prices were holding back take-up and transport emissions cuts. The Albanese government responded with its election-promised FBTA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars. exemption for eligible low- and zero-emission cars from 1 July 2022; after the ActA bill that has passed Parliament and received Royal Assent, meaning it is now law. passed, leasing demand rose, the cost later blew out as uptake accelerated, and the government moved to review and then phase down the subsidy.
The main criticism was that the FBTA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars. exemption was a poorly targeted subsidy that could cost taxpayers heavily while mainly helping higher-income workers able to salary-package or lease new electric cars. Coalition speakers opposed the bill on that basis, while some supportive crossbench and Greens MPs backed it only as a modest step and pushed changes such as review requirements and ending plug-in hybridA car with both an electric motor and a petrol or diesel engine, where the battery can be charged from an external power source; these cars lose access to the exemption from 1 April 2025 except for some existing arrangements. eligibility.
Hon Dr Jim Chalmers MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, some crossbench members; opposed by Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 12 Dec 2022
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
138 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Employers can provide eligible low-emissions cars for employees’ private use without paying fringe benefits taxA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars., if the car is below the fuel-efficient luxury car tax thresholdA price limit used to decide whether a car is too expensive to qualify for the exemption; eligible cars had to be below this fuel-efficient car threshold when first sold..
The tax break covers battery electric cars, hydrogen fuel cell cars and plug-in hybridA car with both an electric motor and a petrol or diesel engine, where the battery can be charged from an external power source; these cars lose access to the exemption from 1 April 2025 except for some existing arrangements. cars, until plug-in hybrids lose access from 1 April 2025.
The fringe benefits taxA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars. exemption applies to eligible car benefits provided from 1 July 2022.
Plug-in hybridA car with both an electric motor and a petrol or diesel engine, where the battery can be charged from an external power source; these cars lose access to the exemption from 1 April 2025 except for some existing arrangements. cars stop qualifying for the fringe benefits taxA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars. exemption from 1 April 2025, except for some already-committed employer car benefits.
The government must review the discount after three years to test whether it has increased the use of zero or low-emissions cars.
The Bill amends the FBTAA 1986 to exempt from FBT the use, or availability for use of cars that are zero or low emissions vehicles made available by employers to current employees. Additionally, to be eligible for the exemption the value of the car at the first retail sale must be below the luxury car tax threshold for fuel efficient cars.Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) explanatory memorandum
(2) A zero or low emissions vehicle is:Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Act 2022 final Act text
(1) The amendments of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 made by this Schedule apply to benefits provided on or after 1 July 2022.Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Act 2022 final Act text
(1) The amendments of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 made by this Schedule apply to benefits provided on or after 1 April 2025.Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Act 2022 final Act text
(2) The review must relate to the operation of those provisions, as so inserted or amended, during the 3 years from the commencement of this Schedule and, in particular, their effectiveness in encouraging the uptake of cars that are zero or low emissions vehicles.Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Act 2022 final Act text
Context
Australia already taxed employer-provided private car use through fringe benefits taxA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars., while EVA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. registrations were under 1% in 2021 and ministers argued high prices were holding back take-up and transport emissions cuts. The Albanese government responded with its election-promised FBTA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars. exemption for eligible low- and zero-emission cars from 1 July 2022; after the ActA bill that has passed Parliament and received Royal Assent, meaning it is now law. passed, leasing demand rose, the cost later blew out as uptake accelerated, and the government moved to review and then phase down the subsidy.
Electric vehicleA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. registrations remain below 1%
In parliamentary debate, supporters said less than 1% of new Australian car registrations in the previous year were electric vehicles, far below the United Kingdom and linked to high prices and weak incentives.
Hansard ↗Government introduces the electric car tax discount
Treasurer Jim Chalmers introduced the bill as part of the new government's early climate agenda, using tax settings to make eligible electric cars cheaper through workplaces.
Hansard ↗Electric car discount becomes law
Royal AssentThe final formal approval that turns a bill passed by Parliament into an Act. turned the bill into an ActA bill that has passed Parliament and received Royal Assent, meaning it is now law., allowing eligible employer-provided low- and zero-emission cars to receive the fringe benefits taxA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars. exemption from 1 July 2022.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Drivers rush to lock in the new EVA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. tax break
The Australian Financial Review reported a sharp rise in inquiries from business owners and drivers after the legislated exemption, while leasing companies warned of months-long waits for popular models.
Australian Financial Review ↗Cost of the EVA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. tax break blows out as uptake jumps
The Australian Financial Review reported the measure had blown out tenfold to about $560 million a year, with one in three EVA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. drivers exempted from fringe benefits taxA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars..
Australian Financial Review ↗Government considers ending the EVA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. tax break after a larger cost blowout
Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen announced a review after the estimated cost reached $1.35 billion in 2025-26, about 15 times the original forecast.
Australian Financial Review ↗Government plans to phase down the EVA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. subsidy
The Australian Financial Review reported the 2026 federal budget would keep the tax break open for 12 months before gradually scaling it back, with projected savings of $1.7 billion over five years.
Australian Financial Review ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (28/07/2022): Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (06/09/2022)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Committee of the Whole debate
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Committee of the Whole debate
Recorded vote: 31 to 24.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form. The main amendments were: Observed added text: "8 Review of operation of electric car discount (1) The Minister must cause a review to be undertaken, in accordance wit…".
Consideration of Senate message
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final formal approval that turns a bill passed by Parliament into an Act., turning the bill into an ActA bill that has passed Parliament and received Royal Assent, meaning it is now law..
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the FBTA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars. exemption was a poorly targeted subsidy that could cost taxpayers heavily while mainly helping higher-income workers able to salary-package or lease new electric cars. Coalition speakers opposed the bill on that basis, while some supportive crossbench and Greens MPs backed it only as a modest step and pushed changes such as review requirements and ending plug-in hybridA car with both an electric motor and a petrol or diesel engine, where the battery can be charged from an external power source; these cars lose access to the exemption from 1 April 2025 except for some existing arrangements. eligibility.
Criticism focused more on targeting, cost and design than opposition to electric vehicles themselves.
Poorly targeted tax break
Critics argued the discount would mainly help higher-income employees, salary-packaged car users and larger employers, rather than ordinary buyers or regional motorists who could not easily use a fringe benefits taxA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars. exemption.
Budget cost and fiscal risk
Opponents warned the measure was fiscally irresponsible and later reporting said uptake far exceeded forecasts, with the annual cost and long-term budget exposure rising sharply as more drivers used the concession.
Weak design for cutting emissions
Some critics said the bill was an indirect and clumsy way to increase EVA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. uptake, because it subsidised private car benefits instead of directly addressing vehicle supply, charging infrastructure or fuel-efficiency standards.
Plug-in hybrids and battery waste concerns
Amendments targeted environmental design risks: one successful change ended plug-in hybridA car with both an electric motor and a petrol or diesel engine, where the battery can be charged from an external power source; these cars lose access to the exemption from 1 April 2025 except for some existing arrangements. eligibility from 2025, while a defeated amendment sought a government plan for safe disposal, recycling costs and resale standards for EVA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. batteries.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 31 to 24. Support came from Labor, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Penny Allman-Payne (Greens) voted no. Greens had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
The House agreed to the amendments made by the Senate, so the bill could pass both chambers in the same form.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senate
Defeated 23 to 29. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor and minor parties and independents. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Penny Allman-Payne (Greens) voted aye. Greens had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Because this was a second-reading amendmentA parliamentary motion moved during debate on the bill's general purpose, often used to state criticism or propose an alternative position rather than directly rewrite the bill., it would have added a statement of criticism to the motion rather than directly changing the bill text. Its defeat meant the Senate rejected that criticism and continued toward passing the bill.
Defeated 24 to 27. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, and One Nation. Opposition came from Labor and minor parties and independents. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Penny Allman-Payne (Greens) voted aye. Greens had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a second-reading statement rather than a direct change to the bill text. Its defeat meant the Senate did not attach that criticism and call for action to the bill's second-reading motion, then proceeded to agree to the bill in principle.
Passed 29 to 25. Support came from Labor and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Jacqui Lambie Network, and One Nation. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Penny Allman-Payne (Greens) voted no. Greens had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This directly changed the bill text by narrowing the vehicles eligible for the electric car fringe benefits taxA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars. exemption. It was a substantive Senate amendmentA change made to the bill by the Senate; the House then had to agree to those changes before the bill could pass in the same form. later accepted by the House, so it shaped the final ActA bill that has passed Parliament and received Royal Assent, meaning it is now law..
The APH progress recordThe official parliamentary record used here to track what happened to the bill and its amendments. says 1 Independent /Australian Greens amendment was agreed without a counted division being collected by this run.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The APH progress recordThe official parliamentary record used here to track what happened to the bill and its amendments. says 2 Independent /Australian Greens amendments were agreed without a counted division being collected by this run.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate agreed on voices to a proposal requiring the Minister to conduct and publicly report on a review of the electric car discount scheme to evaluate how well it encourages the uptake of low-emissions vehicles.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
The parliamentary record also shows 1 Independent/Australian Greens amendment and 2 Independent/Australian Greens amendments agreed without a counted division.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Jim Chalmers strongly backs the bill and urges the House to pass it because it will cut the cost of eligible electric cars through a fringe benefits taxA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars. exemption, boost EVA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. uptake and help reduce transport emissions.
Read in Hansard ↗Rennick opposes the bill, arguing it gives large tax breaks to wealthy electric car buyers at the expense of lower-income taxpayers and will harm the economy and the environment.
Read in Hansard ↗Janet Rice says the Greens will support the bill as a worthwhile but limited step to speed up electric vehicleA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. uptake, especially through fleets and cheaper second-hand EVs.
Read in Hansard ↗Bob Katter opposes the bill because he says it subsidises imported electric cars instead of creating an Australian electric vehicleA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. industry.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
14 speakers · 15 contributions · 14 support
“This bill is an important part of the government's wider electric car discount and Driving the Nation Fund policies, making electric cars cheaper, increasing sales and expanding the used car market. This will all lead to the necessary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Currently passenger transport makes up almost 10 per cent of Australia's carbon dioxide emissions. Our transport sector is one of the largest emitters, and we want to work with the transport sector to make sure that we can bring those emissions down and make the replacement products as affordable as possible.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Finally, I just want to acknowledge the strong community support in my area and the work of the South East Councils Climate Change Alliance—councils right across south-east Melbourne who have been advocating for exactly the things the government speakers have been talking about. This bill is good for motorists, good for employers, good for climate action, and I encourage the opposition to get on board.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I think it has to be acknowledge that this was a very clear commitment from the Albanese Labor government during the election. We absolutely have a mandate to implement this. There would be an outcry—and justifiably so—among the Australian people if this bill were not to pass through this parliament in both houses. It is certainly the way that the rest of the comparable democracies are travelling, and it would be a crying shame for Australia not to be taking part in ensuring that we make electric vehicles a more affordable option for the Australian people. We don't wish to become the dumping ground for all the vehicles that no one else in the world can sell. That's not the kind of future I want for my city of Newcastle. I'm pretty sure it's not the future we want to see for anyone in Australia. So I encourage all members of this parliament to get behind this bill and give it your support.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So I fully support what we're doing here. I think it's a great step on the path to a better Australia and a great step on the path to a cleaner Australia. Working together with governments, businesses, and individuals makes a real difference to our environment. So supporting initiatives like these is so important. With that, I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“To incentivise and engage constructively with industry and to make electric vehicles a product that Australians are not only making but purchasing is something that is so important for Australian businesses, for the future of Australian manufacturing and for the future of our efforts to tackle climate change. Vehicle emissions account for roughly 10 per cent of our emissions as a country. We need to change that. We need to put more electricity into the grid so we that we can have access to them, and a good way to start that work is via this bill. I would encourage all members of the House to support it. It's an excellent piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I welcome this bill. I think it's momentous. I know that people in my community will benefit from it. I know that businesses will benefit from it. And I know that it actually improves our liquid fuel security, which is a serious vulnerability that, for all the chest beating that sometimes happens on the other side, has been neglected for 10 years.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The bill before us today is part of that leadership Australians have been looking for on climate action. We will provide that leadership in a way which brings Australians together on the journey. Our Driving the Nation policy for a fast charger every 150 kilometres, for example, is designed to ensure Australians in rural and remote communities like my electorate of Corangamite will have real choice when it comes to their next car purchase. Electric vehicles are not and cannot be the preserve of the well-off and urban dwellers. We are implementing policy settings that make electric vehicles affordable and attractive to all. This bill is important. It will be an important catalyst for reducing carbon emissions through the increased uptake of electric vehicles.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is a positive bill that delivers on the Albanese Labor government's election commitment to make electric vehicles cheaper in Australia. Coupled with our electric vehicle strategy and the fact we will be rolling out charging infrastructure on highways throughout the country, it will make it all the more attractive for Australians to invest in electric vehicles in the future. That's a good thing for households, businesses, the Australian environment and our kids' future.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Real action on climate change—that's what the Albanese Labor government's all about. It is committed to delivering this by reducing taxes on electric vehicles. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 is the first step in achieving this, by providing a fringe benefits tax exemption for eligible employer provided electric vehicles. Put simply, what this means is that, when an employer allows an electric vehicle to be used privately by an employee, it will no longer attract a fringe benefits tax. This will incentivise greater uptake of electric vehicles, which are rapidly becoming a more efficient and cheaper form of transport; it will reduce transport emissions, contributing to the government's plan to reach net zero by 2050; and it will make electric cars more affordable for families and businesses across Australia who are currently locked out of the market due to very high costs.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Teslas are terrific fun but they're too expensive right now, and this bill seeks to address the challenge of affordability. It is extraordinary, when we have a cost-of-living challenge like we do in Australia right now, that the coalition would be arguing against a measure which makes electric vehicles cheaper. At last count, consumers in the United Kingdom could choose from 26 low-emission vehicles under $60,000. In Australia, that number is only eight. The global average of EV uptake is five times higher than Australia's level of two per cent. Today, the ACT is outperforming the national average, with five per cent of new vehicle sales electric. But as we move to ensure that Australia has sufficient uptake of electric vehicles to curb carbon emissions and to reduce the cost of living, it's important that we make electric vehicles cheaper. We know that the running costs are significantly lower. A petrol car working at an average of 11 litres per 100 kilometres, costs $14. The average electric car costs $4 per 100 kilometres. Right there, for every 100 kilometres that the typical household drives they will save $10 by driving an electric vehicle instead of a petrol car. We need to also ensure there are more fast chargers available, and that is why the government is committed to working with states and territories to expand the network of fast-charging stations.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Jim Chalmers on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Jim Chalmers strongly backs the bill and urges the House to pass it because it will cut the cost of eligible electric cars through a fringe benefits taxA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars. exemption, boost EVA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. uptake and help reduce transport emissions. He says the measure is good for motorists, employers, workers and climate action.
“This bill is good for motorists, it's good for employers, it's good for workers, and it's good for climate action.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Jim Chalmers strongly supports the bill, saying it will cut the cost of electric vehicles through an FBTA tax employers usually pay when they give employees non-cash benefits, such as a car available for private use; this Act removes that tax for eligible electric cars. exemption, boost EVA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. supply and help with both climate action and cost-of-living pressures. He argues it is a practical first step in the government's broader electric vehicleA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. plan and criticises the opposition for refusing to back it.
“This is a significant signal that Australia now has a government that recognises the economic and generational imperative of acting on climate change. It is disappointing but not especially surprising to hear that those opposite don't support a tax cut for electric vehicles, which would bring down the cost of living and also incentivise the types of cars we increasingly want to see on our roads so that we can take climate change seriously but also take the cost of living crisis seriously at the same time.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This Bill is good for motorists, good for employers and their workers, and good for climate action.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Currently, the fringe benefits tax is payable when an employer makes available a car, including electric car, for private use of an employee. The amendments in this bill exempt from the fringe benefit the use of eligible electric cars made available to employees or those who take up a salary sacrifice arrangement. This exemption will apply to battery electric cars, hydrogen fuel cell electric cars and plug-in hybrid electric cars below the luxury car tax threshold for fuel-efficient cars of $84,916 for all vehicles made available for use after 1 July 2022. I welcome these changes, which will ensure that employers providing employees with an eligible electric car will not pay fringe benefits. This is an important measure that will help increase the uptake of electric cars in our nation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The amendments contained in this bill will incentivise greater electric car uptake in Australia and contribute to reducing our emissions. I commend the bill to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
15 speakers · 17 contributions · 15 oppose
“Then there's the cost of recycling. Who could forget Larry Marshall's famous words in estimates when he said—and I didn't ask him this; he actually proffered this himself—that it's going to cost three times as much to recycle a battery as it will cost for the materials that actually go into it. What are the chances of that actually ever being economical, when the cost of recycling something is three times more than the cost of building it? I'll tell you: it is not going to happen. This bill will not only destroy the environment; it will destroy the economy and it will destroy our country. It is just another step on the path to destruction because of this useless Albanese Labor government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I note the amendment proposed by others to sunset the inclusion of plug-in hybrids in this FBT-exemption bill. While the coalition doesn't support the bill—because we don't believe in just providing subsidies to the wealthy to enable them to buy electric vehicles while poorer people or those on lower incomes, particularly in the outer suburbs and regional areas, won't be able to afford it—I have to say that this amendment is actually sending the wrong message. If the purposes of this bill are to increase the uptake of EVs and get high-emissions vehicles off the road, then ensuring that hybrids are off the road, that they're not going to be part of this, is sending the wrong message. It doesn't actually deal with the reality, particularly the uniquely Australian reality. The most popular vehicle in Europe—I can't remember the name of the car—is basically the size of a Corolla; it's a small vehicle. Here in Australia, the most popular vehicle is a HiLux and the second most popular is a Ranger. Then we have the RAV4 and, further down the list, the D-MAX. Four of the top 10 best-selling vehicles, by a long way, are four-wheel drives and dual-cab utes. So those opposite are sending the wrong message to people.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We, on this side, believe in choice. If you want to buy an electric vehicle, knock yourself out—buy it. And, if you don't want to buy it, then why is the government subsidising the actual people who could afford it the most? If you want to subsidise something, subsidise poor people into a vehicle, full stop. That's what you should be subsidising people into.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Generally speaking, I support electric vehicles. Bring it on; I don't mind that. But I do think the government has chosen the wrong mechanism to accelerate uptake in this case.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition will not support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. It's not because of electric vehicles; it is about bad policy. In this legislation, the government has failed to do a number of things. It's failed to establish clear criteria and metrics of success for the policy. It has failed to ensure the expenditure is temporary, proportionate and linked to tangible productivity gains. It has failed to quantify any benefit of the policy to electric vehicle uptake, to emissions reduction or to the budget bottom line. It has failed to tangibly address the biggest constraint on electric vehicle uptake, which is supply and infrastructure, and it has failed to consult with business and civil society on policy design.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I support the amendment moved by the member for Hume to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. In government, the coalition's Future Fuels and Vehicles Strategy was a technology led approach to reducing emissions in the transport sector. It directly involved working closely with the private sector to increase the uptake of hybrid, hydrogen, electric and biofuel fuelled vehicles. Designed to make it easier to roll out future fuel technologies, it focused on giving people choice in the vehicles they need to drive or want to drive. A critical part of that strategy was to ensure that our electricity grid, a key part of the infrastructure required, had the capacity for more electric vehicles and the greater demand on the system, which demonstrates why our opposition to this bill is based on the fact that this is poor legislation, lacking in careful planning. This is something we saw repeatedly the last time Labor was in government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition will not support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022, but the coalition's opposition is not about low-emissions vehicles; it's about the stewardship of hard-earned taxpayer money that should be used for the best possible policy impact. This is a piece of legislation that has no sunset to it. The Parliamentary Budget Office has said that the bill will cost well over $2 billion over the next decade. The government cannot say what this bill will deliver in terms of emissions reduction. It cannot say what it will deliver to the low-emissions vehicle market. It cannot even say what criteria will make it a success.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I will be voting against this bill. I think it's going to pass—and I will thank you for the 20 or 30 grand you give me if you pass this bill—but it shouldn't be like that. That's not why we were elected. That's not an energy policy that will reduce any emissions. In the regions this will be the weekender car, the hobby car or the spare car; it won't be the main car. The people in the regions who buy one will be treating it as such.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 seeks to amend the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986, to exempt from fringe benefits tax cars that are zero or low emissions held by the provider and used by, or made available for the private use of, employees. It is a classic Labor government market intervention cheered on by rent seekers who hope to get a free ride on the backs of other taxpayers. I support the greater rollout of electric vehicles in Australia, but this bill is a very clumsy attempt to get there and, as such, I won't be supporting it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I suppose it is too much to ask the government to explain the full-cycle carbon emissions that will be saved or how much the temperature of the planet will be lowered. The evidence from the Treasury and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water shows that the impact of this policy on emissions reductions has not been quantified. The third-party evidence suggests it is negligible. I do not support the government's bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As I look at this bill and all of the actions that those opposite are taking where they are proposing to reduce the cost of living for everyday Australians, I fail to see how that's actually going to be achieved. Through their policies, they are going to increase the cost of living, not reduce the cost of living.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Obviously, I certainly won't be supporting this bill—and there are so many reasons not to support this bill. As I said, it really just represents a transfer of wealth in our society from the regions to the inner city. But it's also bad economic policy. We've got inflationary pressures in the budget, and how has the government chosen to respond? With measures such as this: measures that potentially just lead to more inflation in our economy. And will it have an impact on carbon emissions? No. Experts have said: 'It will have a negligible impact on reducing Australia's carbon emissions for the transport sector. Government's assertions that this initiative makes the take-up of EVs more affordable is misleading. Private buyers and sole traders of EVs cannot access these savings. There are other measures that would have a far greater short-term benefit for the environment than this measure.'”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Perin Davey on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Perin Davey opposes the bill and says it should be scrapped because she sees it as an expensive tax break for higher income city buyers that does little for regional Australians or practical electric vehicleA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. uptake. She argues the money would be better spent on charging and other EVA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. infrastructure instead of subsidising cars for people who already can afford them.
“The best thing the government could do is scrap this bill, take the revenue that they would achieve through the ongoing fringe benefit tax and invest in practical measures that would actually drive investment into EV infrastructure, which would by its own measure lead to market change, lead to behavioural change and see more people take up the opportunity to drive electronic vehicles. As I said at the outset, on this side we're not anti electronic vehicles, we are not anti electric and we're not anti low or zero emissions transport, but we are pro investing into how to make it possible and not just delivering a benefit to those who actually don't need it.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Perin Davey opposes the bill, arguing it is a city-focused tax break for people buying electric cars while regional Australians lack charging infrastructure and still need roads funded and repaired. She says the measure ignores flood-hit and rural communities and will reduce revenue for road maintenance.
“As with so many policy issues that we have seen since the change of government, regional and rural Australians are once again the forgotten people in this legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. They've been thrown to the kerb. While the virtue signallers on the other side of the chamber clamber to make expensive cars cheaper so they can demonstrate their climate credentials, we have hundreds—possibly more—of families in rural areas at the present time with no car, no truck and no means of transport, and their roads are being absolutely shredded to pieces. Even when these floods go, buying any car will be a challenge for these people, who will have to face the clean-up costs and the repair bills in their struggle to get back to some semblance of normal life. How do you think those families in our flood effected areas, who are trying to save their homes and furniture, are going to feel when they hear the Albanese government is pushing hard to get legislation through, doing secret deals with the Greens to get legislation through, that gives people who can probably already afford it access to a discounted imported electric car? How do you think our local governments in those areas are going to feel when they realise the Albanese government is pushing hard to legislate to get more vehicles on our roads that contribute nothing to road maintenance, because electric vehicles don't pay the fuel excise?”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Dean Smith on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Dean Smith says the coalition will oppose the bill because it would cost taxpayers heavily while offering unclear benefits for emissions reduction or the electric vehicleA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. market. He argues the measure mainly adds structural spending and is a poor-value way to support electric vehicles.
“The opposition will not be supporting this bill. The coalition's opposition to this bill is not about electric vehicles; it is about, instead, financial responsibility. It is about the sustainability of the federal budget. The independent Parliamentary Budget Office has said this bill will cost billions of dollars over the next decade. It will cost $200 million in the next four years alone.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Dean Smith says the coalition will oppose the bill because he argues the tax break is too narrow, will not help most Australians and especially misses workers in small and medium businesses.
“With increasing pressure on inflation, ensuring there's a demonstratable benefit to government expenditure is even more important now than it was before. But this is not what this bill does. As the coalition senators pointed out in the Senate Economics Committee report, most Australians will be unable to benefit from this tax policy change, which is extremely narrow in its application. It will mean that people working in small businesses are less likely to access the proposed tax policy change due to the lower level of use of salary packaging in small and medium businesses. For these reasons, the opposition will not support the government's bill.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 support
“So we've got a message to the government: we will support this bill, but we want to see a really thorough electric vehicle strategy that takes the serious action that's needed; that doesn't include fake electric vehicles, the plug-in hybrids, as part of it; and that really takes seriously the role of transport and transforming our transport and vehicle fleet to 100 per cent clean energy. That's what's needed. That's what the Greens are going to continue to push for. We know that's where we need to head as quickly as possible to tackle the role that our transport system is playing in the climate crisis and the role that it can play in effectively tackling the climate crisis.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Listening to previous speakers, you might think that this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022, was about to bring electric cars within reach of everyday people and see a massive investment. It is a step towards electrifying our transport fleet, but it primarily applies, in this bill, to people who salary package their cars or who are on forms of leases or for big corporations that are buying cars and using them for their staff. It is important that we tackle that. It is important that we take a step towards electrifying our transport fleet. But let's be clear. Despite the rhetoric from the previous speakers, there is still a long way to go to ensure that we fast-track the electric vehicle revolution here in this country. If we're serious about taking steps that would see the electrification of our transport fleet across this country, we need policies to push out old, dirty and obsolete vehicles; we need policies to bring in cleaner, better and more efficient electric vehicles; and we need the infrastructure to power-up Australia's new electric vehicles and our vehicle-manufacturing industry. Let's just go through those one by one.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“This bill states that its purpose is, 'To encourage a greater uptake of electric cars by Australian road users to reduce Australia's carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector by making cars more affordable'. Let me be straight: this is a big-business perk to help the richest people in this country improve their environmental virtue-signalling and their social credit status on paper. It is nothing more. Labor is offering another incentive to the rich, urban, professional teal voters to come on over to Labor and to keep their buddies in government, the Greens, with them.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
7 speakers · 9 contributions · 5 support · 1 oppose · 1 mixed
“I just find it almost impossible to vote for legislation that subsidises imports. A number of crossbenchers have discussed this at great length and we prepared legislation which was to go before the last parliament. What we're proposing is that we build electric cars in Australia. The simple way to do this, without any cost, is for all government cars in metropolitan areas to be electric and all buses, which we do make in Australia, to be electric. It's very simple to do that. Why wouldn't you do that? More people die in Australia from motor vehicle emissions than from motor vehicle accidents. You can cut that out by simply putting five to 15 per cent ethanol in your petrol tank, which every country on earth has done except Australia. Look at the map of the world. The European agreement is that every country goes to a minimum of five per cent—and I'm not going to go into the details. If you move from a rural centre into Sydney, then your chances of dying of lung cancer or heart disease double. Those are the long-term findings in America, out of California. From that point forth, America immediately moved the Clean Air Act and put ethanol in their petrol tanks.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Anyone interested in an immediate decrease in our carbon emissions achievable by rapid electrification of our transport system will welcome the bill that we're debating today, but these changes are only baby steps. The FBT scheme has been costed at only $20 million for the first year, implying that the scheme will benefit only around 2,000 vehicle owners. The fringe benefit tax is available only to employees who have the ability to salary sacrifice; it's not available to all people looking to buy a new car. The FBT saving applies only to those cars priced below the luxury car tax threshold for fuel-efficient vehicles, which this year is $84,000-plus. It excludes more expensive EV models which constitute a very significant part of the existing EV market in this country, and it has no immediate impact on the second-hand car market in this country.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Allegra Spender on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Allegra Spender supports the bill because she says encouraging electric vehicleA vehicle powered wholly or partly by electricity; on this page it mainly refers to the eligible electric cars covered by the tax discount. uptake will help cut emissions, improve fuel security and ease living costs, though she argues it is only a limited first step and must be followed by fuel efficiency standards, charging investment and broader incentives.
“I rise in support of the second reading of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. The shift to zero-emission vehicles is essential to Australia's climate ambitions, to our fuel security and to easing cost-of-living pressures on households. With global supply likely be constrained for several years, Australia must act immediately to create a viable mass market for electric vehicles. Transition to EVs is an absolute priority for the community of Wentworth, from which I come. This bill is a step in the right direction, but it is only a very small step. It must be part of a much wider package that includes fuel efficiency standards, rapid investment in our charging infrastructure and a broader set of financial incentives that make EVs more affordable in Australia.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Kylea Tink supports the bill because it will help cut transport emissions and make electric vehicles cheaper, but she argues it should be improved so the benefits reach more people, especially through including imported second-hand EVs in the tax exemption.
“The bill we are debating today aims to help ensure and encourage greater uptake of electric vehicles and reduce our transport emissions as part of the government's broader climate agenda. By reducing the upfront costs and ownership costs of electric vehicles, the bill is addressing a significant barrier to buying them. As an outspoken advocate for faster, cleaner transport for all, while I support the intention of this bill, I think there are some improvements that could be made to it to ensure the opportunity and benefit from this reform is available more equitably across Australia.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“When a third of Australia voted for minor parties and Independents in May, they voted not just for climate action; they voted for more vision, for politics over the long term, for more action when it comes to embracing opportunities. Australians are tired of being small, being behind the rest of the world and governments being afraid to embrace opportunities. We know now that there is a unique opportunity in our lifetime to establish our economy for the future, to genuinely set future generations up. The prior government refused to do this. I don't know if it was out of ideology, ignorance or opportunism. There was just an unwillingness to do it. Should this well-meaning government—and we hear a lot of talk, and there have been good actions—fail to act now, out of fear, out of political opportunism, just to hang on, then you also will be judged, and the question will be: who really missed the opportunities? We only have eight years till 2030. We need policies that are ambitious, that make big steps. We can't do it in baby steps. So, whilst I welcome this legislation, there is so much more that can be done when it comes to our transition to clean transport and to electric vehicles. I urge the government to do it without delay.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Dai Le on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Dai Le broadly supports the bill’s push to cut transport emissions and make cleaner cars cheaper, but says the tax break is too narrow because it mainly helps higher-income employees and should also cover cheaper hybrids. She argues low-income communities like Fowler will otherwise see little benefit.
“This government and this parliament have strongly endorsed progress on Australia's climate policy and climate awareness, and I stand largely in support of this movement. I believe Australia should strive for a green and renewable future. It is imperative that we do so to support the wellbeing of future generations and preserve this beautiful country we call home. Handled correctly, a transition to renewables presents rich and diverse opportunities for the Australian economy that will be sustainable into the future. Furthermore, I commend the government for its desire to reduce transport emissions and make electric cars more affordable for families and businesses. Encouraging the uptake of battery electric cars, hydrogen fuel cell electric cars and plug-in hybrid electric cars is in theory a positive step. However, the government's amendment bill only helps a narrow group of employee beneficiaries and disproportionately supports high-income earners.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Dai Le says the bill is too narrow and will do little unless it is amended to include hybrid vehicles, arguing that many working-class and small-business Australians cannot yet afford or use full electric cars. She supports the goal in principle but makes her backing conditional on a smoother transition, better infrastructure and a fairer approach that includes hybrids.
“What we see in the government's proposal is the minimum. We see the absolute minimum from this government in incentivising the uptake of electric vehicles. If they're truly planning to increase the number of EVs on the road, they have certainly not proposed how they plan to support such an uptake. Such a plan should include consideration for investing in our domestic manufacturing. I therefore implore the chamber to hold this government accountable for considering all Australians in their transition to renewables—not just those who can afford it—and support my amendment to the bill to include hybrid electric vehicles.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“With this legislation, employers have the potential to save $9,000 per vehicle. That is significant. It will drive the market. It is, however, not enough on its own to deliver cost parity. The upfront cost of owning an electric vehicle is the biggest hill to climb. I am voting in favour of this bill, but I would have more confidence if it were part of a broader strategy that is multifaceted and comprehensive. I call on the government to implement additional policies that will fix Australia's electric vehicle supply problem—to ensure that there are enough electric vehicles on the market here so that every business and person who wants an EV can actually get an EV.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We need to act now. We have an opportunity to act and to start realising this benefit. It's great to see Minister Bowen and the government commit to fuel efficiency standards to drive the change that we need. We need independent, robust and ambitious fuel efficiency standards. We need them to ensure that these standards have integrity. They need to be mandatory to ensure standards apply fairly across different manufacturers, and they must be based on real-world driving patterns. Recent research of SUVs in Sydney shows that actual emissions are up to 65 per cent higher than claimed by manufacturers. Indeed, we've seen in the news over recent history vehicle manufacturers being caught out for fudging the numbers. The same standard should be implemented for all passenger vehicles without exception. Finally, it should be based on and monitored by independent and publicly accessible data. I'll continue to work to encourage the government to move swiftly to bring on these fuel efficiency standards that have integrity, alongside a world-class fuel efficiency standard. The government needs to move quickly to improve EV charging infrastructure across the country. In our cities many people are renting or are in apartment buildings without charging infrastructure. In regional and remote Australia, range anxiety acts as a barrier to the uptake of electric vehicles.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Senate · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 31 to 24.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
House · Message from Senate reported
Message from Senate reported
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final formal approval that turns a bill passed by Parliament into an Act., turning the bill into an ActA bill that has passed Parliament and received Royal Assent, meaning it is now law..
Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (06/09/2022)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (28 July 2022): Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (6 Sept 2022)
APH bill page notes
