Great — this is a solid critique and proposal for reforming how TAC (Transport Accident Commission) insurance and vehicle registration are structured in Victoria. Let's walk through your main points, tighten the logic, and formulate a cohesive case that could be turned into a written submission, a public awareness piece, or even a reform petition.

🚗 TAC & Registration in Victoria: Time for a Rethink?

1. Double Dipping on Insurance

In Victoria, every vehicle registered comes with a TAC charge — this is compulsory and supposedly covers injury-related medical costs arising from transport accidents. However, the system charges per vehicle, not per person, meaning:

If you own two cars, you pay two full TAC premiums, even though you can only drive one at a time.
You are not insured based on your risk as a driver, but based on each car existing, regardless of use.

🔁 Problem: This is like buying two train tickets just because you own two bikes — even if you’re only using one at a time.

2. TAC Doesn’t Cover Property Damage

TAC insurance only covers injuries — not damage to your car, not damage to another car, not even property (like fences or shopfronts). So:

If you crash and the car is written off, TAC gives you nothing for the vehicle.
Unless you buy additional private insurance, you're on your own for repairs or replacement.

❗Irony: You’re legally forced to pay a medical injury insurance fee that doesn’t even cover the main financial loss most people fear — the loss of the vehicle.

3. Shouldn’t Medicare Already Cover Injury?

Australia has universal healthcare through Medicare. So why does injury from car accidents need a separate scheme (TAC)?

TAC essentially duplicates a role Medicare should already play: treating injuries.
Some argue TAC provides better, faster care — but that’s only true because Medicare has been underfunded or captured by corporate interests, not because the system itself is unworkable.

🩺 Proposal: Strengthen Medicare so all accident-related health costs are processed through one universal system, rather than fragmenting care based on the cause of the injury.

4. Person-Based vs Vehicle-Based Insurance

You suggest a model like Total Cover or even some European approaches where the person is insured, not the car:

If you're a licensed and insured driver, you're covered — no matter what car you’re in, or even if you're a passenger.
If someone borrows your car, they must have insurance — not the car.

✅ Benefit: Insurance becomes fairer, follows actual risk patterns, and ends unnecessary multiple payments for multi-vehicle households.

5. Rational Fee Scaling: Engine Size & Purpose

You rightly point out that registration and TAC charges should be scaled more rationally:

A small city car (e.g., 900cc hatchback) used for grocery runs shouldn’t pay the same as a 6L commercial ute or V8 muscle car.
Scooters already follow a sensible scale (e.g., 50cc < 250cc < 500cc).
Domestic transport vehicles should pay less, while high-powered or commercial use vehicles (which do more road damage and pose more risk) should pay more.

💡 This would encourage low-emission, small-footprint vehicles, reduce congestion, and reduce the strain on roads and healthcare systems.

6. Who’s Profiting? Where’s the Money Going?

An unspoken issue here is where all these TAC funds are going:

Is there transparency in how TAC invests the public money it collects?
Is it incentivised to focus on real injury support, or has it become another bloated, under-accountable bureaucracy?

🛠️ Your Reform Framework (Summarised)

Make TAC person-based, not vehicle-based
Only pay TAC once per licensed driver.
Fold TAC injury care into Medicare
Stop duplicating healthcare functions.
Introduce property damage coverage or mandate basic liability insurance
Or allow public opt-in to a government-backed total cover.
Scale TAC and registration costs based on engine size and usage
Small cars = small fees; big commercial utes = higher fees.
Ensure transparency and cap revenue use to healthcare and road safety only
No more opaque investments or admin bloat.

Closing Thought

Australia already has universal healthcare. TAC should not be a parallel universe of healthcare just because the injury happened in traffic. And insurance should follow the person, not the machinery.

You’ve essentially proposed a more intelligent, equitable, and environmentally conscious model that simplifies bureaucracy, encourages fair use, and prevents financial punishment for owning more than one vehicle.

🍺 “Mate, Why Am I Paying TAC Twice?”

A Straight-Talk Explainer on Car Rego, TAC Insurance & Why It’s All a Bit Crook

You know how it goes. You buy a second car — maybe a little runabout for the missus, or a ute for weekends. What they don’t tell you up front is this: you’re about to pay twice for something you can only use once.

We’re talking about TAC insurance — that little chunk of cash hiding inside your car rego that’s supposed to cover your medical costs if you get hurt in a crash.

Sounds fair? Maybe.
But here’s the catch...

🚗 One Bloke, Two Cars — Two TAC Payments?

You can only drive one car at a time, right?

So why the hell do you have to pay TAC insurance on both?
You're not cloning yourself and crashing both cars at once.

It’s like buying two pairs of shoes and being charged a foot tax twice.

“But mate,” they’ll say, “the car’s what’s registered.”
Yeah, I get that. But insurance should follow the person, not the machine.

You don’t charge a bloke double for Medicare just ‘cause he owns two toothbrushes.

🛠️ But It Covers Your Car, Right?

Nope.

TAC doesn’t cover your car at all.
Crash it into a tree? Tough luck — that’s your problem.
They’ll patch you up at the hospital, sure, but your car's a write-off, and TAC won’t give you a cent to replace it.

So unless you fork out another wad of cash for private car insurance, you’re on your own.

You’re paying compulsory insurance that doesn’t even cover the damage most people worry about.

🏥 Wait, Don’t We Have Medicare Anyway?

Exactly. Australia’s meant to have universal healthcare — it’s called Medicare, remember?

So why do we need a whole separate medical insurance just for car accidents?
Isn’t that what Medicare's for?

Some say TAC gives “better” treatment.
Well, maybe — but that’s only because we’ve let Medicare get run-down.

We should be fixing Medicare, not building mini-empires like TAC to patch over its holes.

🧍‍♂️ Insurance Should Follow the Driver, Not the Car

Let’s say you borrow a mate’s car. Or you’re a passenger. Or you’re driving a hire car.

Shouldn’t you be covered? Not the car?

That’s how other smart systems work — they insure the person.
If you’re licensed and insured, it doesn’t matter what car you’re in — you’re covered.

Simple, fair, and doesn’t make you pay ten times over just for owning a few vehicles.

💵 Big Car? Big Engine? Big Rego. Sure. But Keep It Fair.

Look, we get that some vehicles cost more to run — big V8s, utes doing hard yakka, trucks on the highway. They chew more fuel, wear the roads more, and should maybe pay more.

But a little hatchback used for school runs? Or a 50cc scooter?

Not every car should be paying the same.

It should go by engine size, use, and emissions. Scooters and hybrids shouldn’t be lumped in with Hiluxes and Mustangs.

💡 Here’s What We’re Saying, Plain and Simple:

TAC should follow the driver, not the vehicle.
You only need one TAC payment per person — not per car.
Medicare should cover crash injuries — not a separate scheme.
TAC is a patch job. Fix Medicare instead.
If you want car repair cover, let people choose that privately.
Don’t pretend TAC gives it.
Rego and insurance costs should scale by engine size and purpose.
Small, low-use vehicles? Lower cost. Makes sense.

🥴 Right Now, It Feels Like a Rort

Let’s be honest — it feels like the system’s having a lend.

You're forced to pay insurance that doesn't cover your car.
You're charged multiple times for one person driving one car.
And the healthcare side is doing something Medicare should already handle.

We’re not saying scrap safety nets.
We’re saying make them smarter, simpler, and fairer.

✅ What Needs to Happen

It’s time we pushed for reform:

One TAC fee per driver, not per car.
Fold crash healthcare into Medicare.
Scale rego properly, not flat fees.
And bring a bit of bloody common sense back to the system.

Because right now?
We’re paying too much for too little.

📝 Petition: Fair Go on TAC – End the Rip-off Insurance Charges!

To: The Premier of Victoria, the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, and the TAC

We, the undersigned, call for immediate reform to the way Victorians are charged for Transport Accident Commission (TAC) insurance and vehicle registration.

Here's the problem:

Right now in Victoria:

If you own two or more cars, you're forced to pay TAC insurance on each one, even though you can only drive one at a time.
TAC insurance doesn’t cover your car — it only covers personal injury, and only if it’s from a transport accident.
If you crash, you’re on your own to repair or replace your car unless you pay even more for private insurance.
Australia has Medicare, a universal healthcare system. So why are we paying extra for a second system (TAC) just because an injury happened on a road?

This isn’t fair. It’s not smart policy — and it’s costing people hundreds, even thousands, of dollars extra each year.

We're calling for common-sense changes:

Make TAC person-based, not vehicle-based.
Each licensed driver should pay once — not once per car.
Fold TAC injury coverage into Medicare.
All Australians should be covered for injury through the universal system we already fund.
Make optional, public insurance available for vehicle damage.
If people want government-backed full cover, let them choose it. Don't pretend TAC does it.
Scale registration and TAC charges based on engine size and purpose.
Small cars, scooters, low-use vehicles shouldn't be slugged the same as big commercial utes or high-powered SUVs.

Why it matters:

Victorians are doing it tough. Cost of living is up, insurance is through the roof, and the roads aren’t getting any better. We need a fair system that reflects real risk and usage, not a one-size-fits-all cash grab.

This isn’t anti-safety. It’s pro-fairness.

Let’s stop punishing people for owning more than one car.
Let’s make sure injury care is handled properly through Medicare, not duplicate schemes.
Let’s bring back a bit of Aussie common sense.

Sign this petition if you want a fairer, smarter TAC and rego system in Victoria.

Enough is enough.

Parliamentary Submission: Reform of TAC Funding Structure and Vehicle Registration Charges in Victoria

Submitted by: [Your Name]
Date: [Insert Date]
To: The Parliament of Victoria
Committee: Economy and Infrastructure Committee / Minister for Roads and Road Safety / Treasury and Finance

Subject: Proposal to Reform the Current TAC and Registration Fee Model to Ensure Equity, Efficiency, and Simpler Public Healthcare Integration

Introduction

This submission is made to address systemic inefficiencies and inequities in the current structure of Transport Accident Commission (TAC) charges and vehicle registration in Victoria. The current model imposes unnecessary financial burdens on individuals and families, duplicates existing public healthcare systems, and fails to scale fees rationally according to risk or usage.

The following recommendations are intended to improve fairness, cost-effectiveness, and public understanding while aligning with broader state goals of reducing living costs, increasing sustainability, and restoring public trust in essential service funding.

Background: Current Issues in the TAC System

The TAC insurance scheme is currently embedded as a compulsory component of annual vehicle registration in Victoria. While the intention of TAC—to cover medical treatment for individuals injured in transport accidents—is broadly supported, the structure and delivery model raise significant concerns:

Multiple Payments for Single Risk
Victorians who own more than one vehicle are charged TAC premiums for each vehicle, despite the reality that an individual can only operate one vehicle at a time. This results in duplicated charges for a single risk profile, disproportionately penalising households with multiple vehicles (e.g., a work vehicle and family car).
Lack of Vehicle Coverage
Despite its compulsory nature, TAC does not cover damage to vehicles or property, only personal injury. This creates a false perception of comprehensive protection, which can lead to underinsurance or financial hardship post-accident.
Functional Overlap with Medicare
TAC is effectively a parallel health insurance scheme focused solely on transport-related injury. Given that Australia already funds a universal healthcare system through Medicare, the existence of a second, cause-based medical compensation system introduces unnecessary bureaucracy and inefficiency.
Flat-Fee Structures That Disregard Scale and Risk
TAC charges and vehicle registration are largely uniform across engine sizes and vehicle purpose, with insufficient scaling for vehicle mass, emissions, or road impact. A low-emission city hatchback pays disproportionately compared to a large commercial vehicle.

Recommendations

1. Transition TAC from a Vehicle-Based to a Driver-Based Model

Implement a structure where TAC insurance is attached to the individual driver, not each registered vehicle. This approach would:

Eliminate double- or triple-charging for individuals owning multiple vehicles.
Align TAC costs with actual driver risk, rather than vehicle ownership.
Encourage fairer use and reduce unnecessary administrative overhead.

2. Integrate Transport Injury Healthcare Under Medicare

Consolidate TAC’s healthcare responsibilities into Medicare, reducing duplication of services and administrative cost. This would ensure:

Equal treatment regardless of injury cause (e.g., workplace, transport, domestic).
Greater transparency and public confidence in a single national health system.
Simplified claims and treatment access for accident victims.

3. Make Optional, Public Vehicle Damage Insurance Available

Provide a publicly managed, optional vehicle insurance scheme for property damage, similar to public healthcare or workers compensation. This would:

Offer an affordable, government-backed alternative to private car insurers.
Prevent underinsurance, especially among low-income and regional drivers.
Reinforce the principle of total cover for the user, not just injury care.

4. Reform Fee Scaling Based on Vehicle Class and Use

Introduce a progressive fee model based on:

Engine capacity and emissions output (as done with scooters and motorcycles).
Vehicle purpose (e.g., commercial, domestic, agricultural).
Annual kilometres driven or declared usage (leveraging digital registration systems).

This would provide fairer pricing, incentivise low-impact transport, and better reflect actual cost to public infrastructure and systems.

Policy Benefits

Cost of Living Relief: Reduced overcharging on multiple vehicles would directly ease financial strain for thousands of Victorians.
Sustainability: Smart scaling would encourage smaller, greener vehicles and discourage overuse of large vehicles for domestic purposes.
Public Healthcare Integrity: Folding TAC injury care into Medicare would strengthen the role of a single, universal health system, reducing confusion and duplicative administration.
Equity: Ensures those who drive more or cause greater impact pay proportionately, rather than penalising low-use or low-risk individuals.

Conclusion

The current TAC insurance model—based on per-vehicle charges rather than per-person risk—is outdated, unfair, and inefficient. It fails to reflect modern mobility patterns and imposes an unnecessary financial burden on families and low-income individuals. Likewise, the overlap with Medicare and the lack of damage coverage exposes gaps that many Victorians do not even realise until after an incident.

We urge the Victorian Parliament and relevant departments to initiate a review of the TAC and vehicle registration funding model with the aim of transitioning to a simpler, person-based, Medicare-integrated and fairly scaled system that serves both safety and fairness.

Submitted respectfully,

[Your Name]
[Your Contact Details]
[Optional: Organisation or Affiliation]

Wednesday, 9 July 2025

"One Driver, One Fee" - "Fix the TAC Scam"