Okay, a damn fine bit of rort. [Rego rant]

If it costs too much, don’t buy a car. Driving is a privilege not a right. And don’t get me started about lack of public transport etc etc, you also chose to live where you live knowing this information.

Bump. I’ve finally got up off of the floor after opening our rego notice for the next 12 months on our very small second car. An increase on last year of $61. Almost 8%. I’m astounded. Won’t bother carrying on about it, but just to say that I don’t think it’s justified.

Madam Cholet said :

Even though the car is used to basically only take the dog to the park .

Have you asked the dog to contribute? You know, seeing how he’s too lazy to walk to the park.

Our rego and insurance is due right now and because of the ridiculous enormity of the CTP insurance we are wondering whether to only get third party insurance through AAMI instead of fully comp. Even though the car is used to basically only take the dog to the park and the odd work trip when a bus can’t do the trick, we are veering towards fully comp as we had an experience a few years ago where we were hit by a driver who was not insured AT ALL. We ended up obviously claiming on our insurance, which otherwise we could not have done if we’d only had third party.

Anyway, looking at the bills I have to pay, I can’t get over the fact that AAMI will replace my car in it’s entirety for an almost paltry $470, compared to the CTP cost of $772 through NRMA.

If the market in Canberra is too small for other insurers to bother, then why really does the NRMA bother? Even if another insurer could shave off $100 they’d get more business.

It does seem to go up exponentially.

Aeek said :

screaming banshee said :

Exactly why my ute is registered in QLD saving me around 5-600 a year.

I look forward to the cameras cracking down on this rort. You are eroding the revenue base and driving up the costs for everyone who registers legally.

Until they are wiling to do something about all rental cars being registered in vic, I’m not expecting any problems. Besides any ctp claim resulting from an accident would be drawn from the QLD pool and contributions to the act road funding pool are made every time I fuel.

I am 100% behind a user pays system though which should be levied through a per litre levy on fuel. The less you drive the less you pay, the worse fuel efficiency the more you pay and it would make owning more cars more affordable to get rid of the excuse of a single person driving an suv to work because they need it to take the soccer team to practice on the weekends.

rhino said :

But since it is just a pool of money, you also have to consider the rest of the taxes they collect from you. Overall you pay thousands in income tax plus thousands in GST and thousands in fees like rego, licences, levies etc. Roads and infrastructure should be one of the main goals for all of this to be spent on. So I guess it’s more of a complaint of overall tax levels. If they cut income tax, I’m sure people could live with high rego levels too.

Welcome to the Federal/State fiscal imbalance party…

Rego goes to the state government. In theory the state government is also responsible for road funding. However, income tax and GST goes to the Federal government, which doles it out to the states as the Feds see fit (in theory all GST goes back to the states). So the Feds may earmark some money for road funding, or even give the states additional money for roads (eg joint funding for the Pacific Highway).

But the chances of the states reducing rego because income tax is ‘too high’ is pretty much zero.

Jim Jones said :

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

rhino said :

The thing is though, it just goes into the pool of money they spend on anything, along with all the GST money and fines and levies and fees and charges etc. They don’t strictly spend it on the roads.

The amount of money needed to maintain roads, clean up after crashes, etc. and everything related to car ownership far outstrips any money the gummint makes from car registration.

If you want a ‘user pays’ system then registration would increase tenfold.

How much money out of the fuel excise collected from the operation of motor vehicles goes to funding road infrastructure?

None of it goes specifically to ‘funding road infrastructure’.

That’s not how tax works.

You were the one talking about a “user pays” system, I was simply pointing out that a large amount of tax is collected through the operation of motor vehicles outside of vehicle registration.

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

rhino said :

The thing is though, it just goes into the pool of money they spend on anything, along with all the GST money and fines and levies and fees and charges etc. They don’t strictly spend it on the roads.

The amount of money needed to maintain roads, clean up after crashes, etc. and everything related to car ownership far outstrips any money the gummint makes from car registration.

If you want a ‘user pays’ system then registration would increase tenfold.

How much money out of the fuel excise collected from the operation of motor vehicles goes to funding road infrastructure?

None of it goes specifically to ‘funding road infrastructure’.

That’s not how tax works.

pete09 said :

rhino said :

pete09 said :

Congratulations. As a car driver you make a contribution towards the roads you use.

The thing is though, it just goes into the pool of money they spend on anything, along with all the GST money and fines and levies and fees and charges etc. They don’t strictly spend it on the roads. But I guess it is fair to have only the people using the roads contribute money towards them in theory. Although having 2 cars and paying twice as much doesn’t make as much sense in this regard. You can only be driving one of them at a time. So if you have 2 cars and drive 5kms to work every day or you have 1 car and drive 30kms to work every day it doesn’t make sense really that the 2 car guy pays twice as much. He can only drive one of them at a time.

Valid point re: pool of money, however the roads and related infrastructure budget is definitely larger then revenues raised through rego.

As for your second point, I agree. A system that charges rego based upon KM’s driven would be fairer, however creating one that doesn’t discriminate against rural residents and is politically implementable seems impossible.

Yeah I’d agree with that. I don’t know the numbers, but it sounds likely that the costs of infrastructure etc would be definitely larger than the rego collected. In that regard it doesn’t seem so unfair of a number. But since it is just a pool of money, you also have to consider the rest of the taxes they collect from you. Overall you pay thousands in income tax plus thousands in GST and thousands in fees like rego, licences, levies etc. Roads and infrastructure should be one of the main goals for all of this to be spent on. So I guess it’s more of a complaint of overall tax levels. If they cut income tax, I’m sure people could live with high rego levels too. But it is good to subsidise the rego a bit, because it is something that almost everyone needs to pay for and the poorer people often need it even more than the richer people yet pay the same for it. I guess it’s hard to balance a fair system, but within the specific CTP system in ACT, it does seem from the discussion that the government side of the system is set up in such a way as to waste our overall society resources and be a bit unfair. There is definitely room for change to make it more efficient and fair.

Jim Jones said :

rhino said :

The thing is though, it just goes into the pool of money they spend on anything, along with all the GST money and fines and levies and fees and charges etc. They don’t strictly spend it on the roads.

The amount of money needed to maintain roads, clean up after crashes, etc. and everything related to car ownership far outstrips any money the gummint makes from car registration.

If you want a ‘user pays’ system then registration would increase tenfold.

How much money out of the fuel excise collected from the operation of motor vehicles goes to funding road infrastructure?

rhino said :

I would have to disagree. This argument takes a wide approach to the entire effect on the community, which is valid, but you have not considered the other side of the coin, being the positives they provide to the community. In the absence of cars, we would have horses which would be worse for some of these issues and would cost far more to our economy in missed opportunity and productivity and freedom(which you can’t quantify so easily) than anything else that is negative about them.

In other parts of the world where the majority of people do not own their own motor vehicles, they’ve managed to implement this ingenious system of things known as trains and trams. There’s also bicycle route networks, 24 hour bus services that come every 5 to 30 minutes around the clock.

Nothing wrong with a sensible approach to privately owned motor vehicles though.

However at present, the motor vehicle is the first, and sometimes only choice for people in Australia… especially Canberra given we live almost exclusively in low density housing areas. Low density housing in cities is unsustainable for many reasons… one of them being it makes public transport less viable, and forces people to own at least one car each. This is hardly sensible.

Jim Jones said :

rhino said :

The thing is though, it just goes into the pool of money they spend on anything, along with all the GST money and fines and levies and fees and charges etc. They don’t strictly spend it on the roads.

The amount of money needed to maintain roads, clean up after crashes, etc. and everything related to car ownership far outstrips any money the gummint makes from car registration.

If you want a ‘user pays’ system then registration would increase tenfold.

Cars allow a massive percentage increase in productivity. Our economy would halve or something drastic like that if we went back to horses. And we would still need some kind of paths for the horses to be maintained. The income taxes the government collects from this drastic increase in productivity would be very large.

rhino said :

pete09 said :

Congratulations. As a car driver you make a contribution towards the roads you use.

The thing is though, it just goes into the pool of money they spend on anything, along with all the GST money and fines and levies and fees and charges etc. They don’t strictly spend it on the roads. But I guess it is fair to have only the people using the roads contribute money towards them in theory. Although having 2 cars and paying twice as much doesn’t make as much sense in this regard. You can only be driving one of them at a time. So if you have 2 cars and drive 5kms to work every day or you have 1 car and drive 30kms to work every day it doesn’t make sense really that the 2 car guy pays twice as much. He can only drive one of them at a time.

Valid point re: pool of money, however the roads and related infrastructure budget is definitely larger then revenues raised through rego.

As for your second point, I agree. A system that charges rego based upon KM’s driven would be fairer, however creating one that doesn’t discriminate against rural residents and is politically implementable seems impossible.

rhino said :

The thing is though, it just goes into the pool of money they spend on anything, along with all the GST money and fines and levies and fees and charges etc. They don’t strictly spend it on the roads.

The amount of money needed to maintain roads, clean up after crashes, etc. and everything related to car ownership far outstrips any money the gummint makes from car registration.

If you want a ‘user pays’ system then registration would increase tenfold.

Sgt.Bungers said :

No it’s not a rip off, in fact it’s not at all reflective of the cost of motor vehicles on society.

Assuming a very generous average of $1000 per registered vehicle, registration of passenger motor vehicles, motorcycles and utes including CPTI insurance raises around $15 billion per year.

Motor vehicle crashes costs alone cost Australia almost $18 billion per year (2006 figures).

On top of that, we have road maintenance costs, road building costs, (infrastructure), cost of land taken up by high capacity roads and car parks, environmental costs, tax consessions for car leasing/use.

Not to mention indirect costs associated with the private motor vehicle being the main form of transport for the majority of the country… high rate of heart disease, social costs, we’re officially the fattest nation on the planet, pollution costs…

One could argue that a person driving 5000 k’s per year should not have to pay as much as someone driving 100,000 k’s per year… but the idea of registration charges based on distance travelled meets fierce opposition at every turn.

I would have to disagree. This argument takes a wide approach to the entire effect on the community, which is valid, but you have not considered the other side of the coin, being the positives they provide to the community. In the absence of cars, we would have horses which would be worse for some of these issues and would cost far more to our economy in missed opportunity and productivity and freedom(which you can’t quantify so easily) than anything else that is negative about them.

My bicycle costs nothing to register, and is fueled by energy that I create myself.

I should ride it to work more often instead of driving my turbocharged sedan.

jayskette said :

Has any of you actually paid rego and CTP in Sydney as a under 25 yo? For light cars, it is MUCH more expensive then the fixed CTP/rego rates in Canberra.

So you’re saying that we older drivers who have never had an accident in our lives let alone injuured anybody are subsidising the crash-prone youth here in the ACT?

How is that fair?

I understand that the $1100 per annum *I* pay every year in CTPI is essentially funding lawyer parasites and insurance cheats. Brilliant.

pete09 said :

Congratulations. As a car driver you make a contribution towards the roads you use.

The thing is though, it just goes into the pool of money they spend on anything, along with all the GST money and fines and levies and fees and charges etc. They don’t strictly spend it on the roads. But I guess it is fair to have only the people using the roads contribute money towards them in theory. Although having 2 cars and paying twice as much doesn’t make as much sense in this regard. You can only be driving one of them at a time. So if you have 2 cars and drive 5kms to work every day or you have 1 car and drive 30kms to work every day it doesn’t make sense really that the 2 car guy pays twice as much. He can only drive one of them at a time.

No it’s not a rip off, in fact it’s not at all reflective of the cost of motor vehicles on society.

Assuming a very generous average of $1000 per registered vehicle, registration of passenger motor vehicles, motorcycles and utes including CPTI insurance raises around $15 billion per year.

Motor vehicle crashes costs alone cost Australia almost $18 billion per year (2006 figures).

On top of that, we have road maintenance costs, road building costs, (infrastructure), cost of land taken up by high capacity roads and car parks, environmental costs, tax consessions for car leasing/use.

Not to mention indirect costs associated with the private motor vehicle being the main form of transport for the majority of the country… high rate of heart disease, social costs, we’re officially the fattest nation on the planet, pollution costs…

One could argue that a person driving 5000 k’s per year should not have to pay as much as someone driving 100,000 k’s per year… but the idea of registration charges based on distance travelled meets fierce opposition at every turn.

Has any of you actually paid rego and CTP in Sydney as a under 25 yo? For light cars, it is MUCH more expensive then the fixed CTP/rego rates in Canberra.

Congratulations. As a car driver you make a contribution towards the roads you use.

Mysteryman said :

PoQ said :

troll-sniffer said :

Oh yeah the old ACT TPI rip-off chestnut pops up again eh?

Fact: Canberra incomes are on average quite a bit higher than the other states.
Fact: NRMA is the only provider because it was the only company willing to offer TPI in the ACT last time the gubmnt went through the process of awarding the rights etc.

That you raise the fact that Canberra incomes are higher merely proves your antagonist’s point. The income of the claimant is not relevant to the risk of an accident.

The ACT system is the worst of all worlds. You could have the Victorian system, with the TAC dealing with all TPI claims; or you could have the NSW system, where any insurance company can offer TPI. TPI is more expensive in ACT as the NRMA has a monopoly.

+1. Average income has nothing to do with the issue.

Ironically, for those who can do math – Averages mean bugger all.. means 50% above the median income and 50% below the median income = median income. Yay. I’m rich… (not…) So in a town of 300k that means 150,000 people earn below the posted median income (100/120k I think) and 150,000 earn above that… (not discounting those who bludge, unemployed, kids, retiree’s, etc…) 😀 Wish people would stop using words they don’t understand. Especially if they parrot any gubment numbers… With enough spin, i can make anything sound good.

EvanJames said :

troll-sniffer said :

Fact: Rego is expensive, having a whinge about it won’t change a thing, you need to suck it up or give up the car and walk, ride or bus, princess.

You were doing so well with your collection of derisory bogan cliches, but you forgot the one about hardening up with a spoonful of concrete. You could also have thrown in cry me a river, and something about a waaahbulance, and maybe something about would you like some X with your whine.

I sometimes get the distinct impression that some people just don’t quite “get” the idea of discussion forums.

That’s right.

The point of discussion forums is to whine about how unfair it is that things cost money, blame the gummint and call anyone who disagrees with you a bogan.

It’s like talkback radio for people with internet access.

troll-sniffer said :

Fact: Rego is expensive, having a whinge about it won’t change a thing, you need to suck it up or give up the car and walk, ride or bus, princess.

You were doing so well with your collection of derisory bogan cliches, but you forgot the one about hardening up with a spoonful of concrete. You could also have thrown in cry me a river, and something about a waaahbulance, and maybe something about would you like some X with your whine.

I sometimes get the distinct impression that some people just don’t quite “get” the idea of discussion forums.

dungfungus said :

cranky said :

An even bigger rip-off is the weight related breaks in the system.

Where my 1565Kg Commodore wagon is charged at the same rate as my 2.5t truck, and a mates 2.6t 4wd. Apparently the cutoff is about 1520kg.

For the privilege of paying $1326 pa.

All business regos – again, deliberately inflated as they can pass the cost onto the Federales, being ‘tax deductable’ for business use.

And as a Commodore Wagon is not classed as a “goods carrying vehicle”, you still are not allowed to use a loading zone. You are correct; it is a rip-off.

As Cranky said it was registered under a business, he is entitled to a free 10 minute loading zone pass for his Commodore Wagon.

From http://www.rego.act.gov.au/parking/parkinggoods.htm:

“A free 10-minute loading zone parking permit can be obtained for station wagons that are registered for business use. Contact Road User Services for more information.”

Eppo said :

If you’re upset by this, try registering a motorcycle and see how ‘unfair’ it seems.

Anything above 250cc (I think??) and you’re paying very close to that $700 figure.

As at 16 Aug 2011

Engine size up to 300cc = $228.20
301cc to 600cc = $626.30
Engine size over 600cc = $626.30

I think it is a rip too, especially the middle cat.

Not only do we have to pay the rego fee in March (approx $850) but also the NRMA car insurance (another $900) and all the ACTEW bills (electricity, water, gas). I have no idea how people on a small income cope.

Mysteryman said :

PoQ said :

troll-sniffer said :

Oh yeah the old ACT TPI rip-off chestnut pops up again eh?

Fact: Canberra incomes are on average quite a bit higher than the other states.
Fact: NRMA is the only provider because it was the only company willing to offer TPI in the ACT last time the gubmnt went through the process of awarding the rights etc.

That you raise the fact that Canberra incomes are higher merely proves your antagonist’s point. The income of the claimant is not relevant to the risk of an accident.

The ACT system is the worst of all worlds. You could have the Victorian system, with the TAC dealing with all TPI claims; or you could have the NSW system, where any insurance company can offer TPI. TPI is more expensive in ACT as the NRMA has a monopoly.

+1. Average income has nothing to do with the issue.

What about the rest of Troll-sniffer’s post?

troll-sniffer said :

Undeniable but sad fact: NZ, which doesn’t have a TPI industry with its attendant scum sucking lawyers etc, charges the princely sum of $287 per year for licensing ($430 when first registered, then the lower figure on a continuing rego basis).

That’s because of the government-run Accident Compensation Corporation picks up the tab for medical bills for all accidents (and that is all accidents, not just car related ones), but it is funded by direct taxes on wages. So it’s still paid for one way or another. On the other hand, the lawyers don’t get involved and you are not allowed to sue people who injure you, so there is probably a saving there.

PoQ said :

troll-sniffer said :

Oh yeah the old ACT TPI rip-off chestnut pops up again eh?

Fact: Canberra incomes are on average quite a bit higher than the other states.
Fact: NRMA is the only provider because it was the only company willing to offer TPI in the ACT last time the gubmnt went through the process of awarding the rights etc.

That you raise the fact that Canberra incomes are higher merely proves your antagonist’s point. The income of the claimant is not relevant to the risk of an accident.

The ACT system is the worst of all worlds. You could have the Victorian system, with the TAC dealing with all TPI claims; or you could have the NSW system, where any insurance company can offer TPI. TPI is more expensive in ACT as the NRMA has a monopoly.

+1. Average income has nothing to do with the issue.

troll-sniffer said :

Oh yeah the old ACT TPI rip-off chestnut pops up again eh?

Fact: Canberra incomes are on average quite a bit higher than the other states.
Fact: NRMA is the only provider because it was the only company willing to offer TPI in the ACT last time the gubmnt went through the process of awarding the rights etc.

That you raise the fact that Canberra incomes are higher merely proves your antagonist’s point. The income of the claimant is not relevant to the risk of an accident.

The ACT system is the worst of all worlds. You could have the Victorian system, with the TAC dealing with all TPI claims; or you could have the NSW system, where any insurance company can offer TPI. TPI is more expensive in ACT as the NRMA has a monopoly.

Perhaps I left my tin-foil hat at home, but I reckon its no accident that Kate Carnell ended up on the NRMA board.

Oh yeah the old ACT TPI rip-off chestnut pops up again eh?

Fact: Canberra incomes are on average quite a bit higher than the other states.
Fact: NRMA is the only provider because it was the only company willing to offer TPI in the ACT last time the gubmnt went through the process of awarding the rights etc

Conjecture based on observed cases: The TPI system is regularly rorted by quite a substantial number of claimants aided and abetted by a cronyist legal profession, and ACT awards for even minor injuries or claimed injuries are often high

Fact: My father’s car is the same make model as mine, older but substantially the same, the difference in rego between ACT and NSW where he lives is about $20.

Undeniable but sad fact: NZ, which doesn’t have a TPI industry with its attendant scum sucking lawyers etc, charges the princely sum of $287 per year for licensing ($430 when first registered, then the lower figure on a continuing rego basis).

Fact: Rego is expensive, having a whinge about it won’t change a thing, you need to suck it up or give up the car and walk, ride or bus, princess.

Doesn’t really contribute anything to the topic, but it’s amusing none the less to compare.

CTP for a passenger car is $526
For an undertaker’s vehicle it’s $364
For a Police vehicle, it’s $1280
and for a taxi: $8500!

http://www.nrma.com.au/car-insurance/third-party-act/current-rates.shtml

Decided to compare the passenger car above with a NSW CTP from NRMA, here’s the quotes.

For a 28yr old driver with no at-fault accidents in past 2 years and existing comprehensive insurance with 65% no claim discount: $638

For a 17yr old driver with at-fault accidents in the past 2 years and never insured: $770

(Interestingly the quotes for NSW were the same for both a 2011 1.0L Hyundai Getz and a 2011 Rolls Royce Phantom 6.8L)

Why is Third Party less expensive in NSW than the ACT if not for the NRMA monopoly? It is ridiculous, and as usual the government for the people, isn’t really for the people at all. Drivers of tiny little cars should be rewarded for using less resources, space and less damage to the roads.

I have written before about why CTP is more expensive in the ACT, so wont bother writing it again, just look for my comments. But the fact that you have a little buzz box makes very little difference as to whether that buzz box can hurt or injury or kill someone in comparison to a larger car. Indeed, for every 4WD you hit and dont injure the other person because you have a small car, there is a small car occupant who is injured because they are in a small car and not in a larger car. So it all evens out. Small cars do not result in less claims or cause less injury (actually, small cars are disproportionately involved in accidents, but that is mostly because young drivers often drive small cars).

If you want to argue that CTP should not be the same for everyone but based on statistics, such as comprehensive insurance (ie young drivers pay more), then that could be an argument.

Now if you are arguing about the rego cost itself, that is a different issue. You can certainly argue that smaller cars should have cheaper rego – although the counter argument is that larger cars pay their tax via petrol tax anyway.

Or you could argue that rego should be free and petrol more highly taxed. Which means you can own a car for when you need it (second car etc, using public transport usually) without it really costing you that much

It is quite interesting when you look into it. Across the eastern state the same car would cost me:
State – CTP – Total
VIC – $317 – $540
NSW – $331 – $790
QLD – $313 – $808
ACT – $526 – $1187
So I save $400 just by having an address in NSW.

screaming banshee said :

Exactly why my ute is registered in QLD saving me around 5-600 a year.

I look forward to the cameras cracking down on this rort. You are eroding the revenue base and driving up the costs for everyone who registers legally.

If you’re upset by this, try registering a motorcycle and see how ‘unfair’ it seems.

Anything above 250cc (I think??) and you’re paying very close to that $700 figure.

gasman said :

I work in the emergency operating theatres of a major Canberra Hospital. While I have not done a formal survey, a substantial number of the serious injuries that come through our doors are related to car accidents, and a large percentage of those are third party (meaning a car driver injured another person).

You can see in the breakdown of the rego fees that Third Party Insurance makes up the bulk of it. That money is used to pay for the medical care of those that are injured as a result of cars. Do you think an operation to fix multiple broken bones, a closed head/brain injury and a ruptured liver followed by a 2 week stay in Intensive Care is cheap?

While I can’t comment of the relative costs for rego on a 900kg car vs a 2tonne truck/4WD, suffice to say that these funds are being used in a very real sense in hospitals and rehabilitation units around the country.

While all this is true, you dont thing the fact that the TPI prices might be inflated because the NRMA are the only provider in the ACT?

Swings and roundabouts. My electricity is twice the price of yours. My Hilux rego is half the price of yours.

I know which I would rather!

Exactly why my ute is registered in QLD saving me around 5-600 a year.

cranky said :

An even bigger rip-off is the weight related breaks in the system.

Where my 1565Kg Commodore wagon is charged at the same rate as my 2.5t truck, and a mates 2.6t 4wd. Apparently the cutoff is about 1520kg.

For the privilege of paying $1326 pa.

All business regos – again, deliberately inflated as they can pass the cost onto the Federales, being ‘tax deductable’ for business use.

And as a Commodore Wagon is not classed as a “goods carrying vehicle”, you still are not allowed to use a loading zone. You are correct; it is a rip-off.

I work in the emergency operating theatres of a major Canberra Hospital. While I have not done a formal survey, a substantial number of the serious injuries that come through our doors are related to car accidents, and a large percentage of those are third party (meaning a car driver injured another person).

You can see in the breakdown of the rego fees that Third Party Insurance makes up the bulk of it. That money is used to pay for the medical care of those that are injured as a result of cars. Do you think an operation to fix multiple broken bones, a closed head/brain injury and a ruptured liver followed by a 2 week stay in Intensive Care is cheap?

While I can’t comment of the relative costs for rego on a 900kg car vs a 2tonne truck/4WD, suffice to say that these funds are being used in a very real sense in hospitals and rehabilitation units around the country.

An even bigger rip-off is the weight related breaks in the system.

Where my 1565Kg Commodore wagon is charged at the same rate as my 2.5t truck, and a mates 2.6t 4wd. Apparently the cutoff is about 1520kg.

For the privilege of paying $1326 pa.

All business regos – again, deliberately inflated as they can pass the cost onto the Federales, being ‘tax deductable’ for business use.

Just got my rego, 5 door hatch Focus, $830. I swear it’s a jump of around $100+ from last year!

As a comparison, same model car was registered in Vic at $680.