Vanderstock v Victoria: Fiscal Federalism Meets Environmental Constitutionalism?

Lael K Weis

Journal of Environmental Law, 2024, vol. 36, issue 2, 253-264

Abstract: This analysis critically examines the High Court of Australia’s recent decision in Vanderstock & Anor v The State of Victoria [2023] HCA 30 as an instance of environmental impact litigation (‘EIL’). The Vanderstock plaintiffs successfully challenged a state tax on low-emissions and electric vehicles on the basis that it was a duty of excise: a tax that can only be imposed by the federal parliament under s 90 of the Australian Constitution. However, the analysis cautions against viewing the decision as a victory for the environment. The High Court’s ruling has significant consequences for federal fiscal relations. At best, these have ambivalent implications for environmental policy. At worst, they may hamper or defeat environmental policy initiatives. Vanderstock thus offers a cautionary lesson for constitutional EIL, suggesting that any evaluation of the ‘impact’ of such litigation must have regard for structural implications of the legal norms involved.

Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jel/eqae009 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:envlaw:v:36:y:2024:i:2:p:253-264.

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Environmental Law is currently edited by Sanja Bogojević

More articles in Journal of Environmental Law from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().