How are these policies, which are directly opposed to each other, not in conflict? It's also been called almost a beat-up, which is defined as "an artificially or disingenuously manufactured outcry, usually in the media". Seems to be a peculiarly Australian word.
If one policy makes EVs less expensive and another results in them costing more, how does a statement to that effect become a beat-up? It is just a plain statement of fact.
The problem with buying an EV is not the range, it's the price, goes the next argument. Who said so? The statement that claims range could be a problem for non-city dwellers isn't true. There are enough EVs that can be used off-road.
Politicians have got people nicely conned if they can get them to think this way. The truth is that politicians in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia — and more will follow — were unprepared for the entry of EVs and are now frantically looking around for a way of raising money to plug the hole.
Never mind that excise from petrol sales is never used for maintaining or building roads.
Who believes government promises about future spending on things which are for the benefit of the citizenry? Remember Steve Bracks and his wonderful promise to give us a freeway, known as Eastlink, without any tolls?
Remember John Howard and his never-ever GST? Recall Julia Gillard and her "no carbon tax" promise? And for good measure, let's not forget Tony "no funding cuts to the ABC, no funding cuts to SBS" Abbott. Politicians will say anything and everything when they are in a bind. Those who swallow such proclamations are naive.
Politicians are not bothered about anything except having enough taxpayer funds to spend on their own vanities. Like taking an air force plane to go to Melbourne to watch the Melbourne Cup. The public? What's that?
Any member of the public who backs the imposition of more taxes on a citizenry which is already paying through its nose — and then some — does not even deserve to be heard.
The author has been using an EV since August last year, but even if he were not, he would not support the imposition of more taxes on people who are up to their ears in debt.