MikeAqua:

 

You have misunderstood.  The objection (not mine) is primarily not about the subsidy it's about the tax.  A punitive, targeted tax policy, that they cannot avoid.  The tax policy is intended to encourage people to avoid high emitting vehicles, but .if people don't have a choice, that is unfair and they should be exempted.  The subsidy is probably just salt in the wounds

 

Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight.  I bought my SUV before the ute tax.  By the time I need to replace it in 10 years/250,000km from now, I'm sure EVs will have developed much more and will be reasonably priced.

 

And that right there is the reason why new Utes should be taxed, either at the time of purchase of through bumped up RUCs!

We don't want any more new Utes on the roads today than is absolutely necessary as they'll still be belching CO2 in 10-15 years time.

If you absolutely have no choice in buying a brand new Ute for work, I'm sure there are some but it's significantly fewer than claimed, then you should suck it up as a cost subsequently mitigated by the tax treatment of business vehicles in general.

Got any other methods for discouraging "non essential" purchases of SUVs and Utes?

Here's a couple of leftie suggestions guaranteed to cause palpitations on the libertarian right:

 

1. Ban advertising of Utes/SUVs to curb the incessant marketing from the car manufacturers that steer people towards these higher margin vehicles.
2. A Permitting system for Ute purchases so that people need to prove a genuine need. No chitty=No Ute!

That second one is a bit draconian, even for me. 😉

But it would certainly clamp down on urban utes.