Goods and Services Tax

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (15:29): My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer update the house regarding GST funding and his demand that South Australia will not be disadvantaged?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:30): I can sort of give the house a brief update this afternoon. I would hope tomorrow or Thursday, when more information becomes available, perhaps to better inform the house as to the latest, we hope, significant developments in relation to the GST funding deal from South Australia's viewpoint. The honourable member will be aware—we have put it on the public record both before and after the election—that the South Australian government will always put the interests of South Australia first, irrespective of the flavour or colour of the federal government, whether that happens to be a federal Labor government or a federal Liberal government.

On the issue of GST funding arrangements, we unashamedly have put South Australia first. We have said right from the word go that we don't support and wouldn't support anything that disadvantaged South Australia. To that end, we have continued to argue that case with the former treasurer, the current Prime Minister and the current Treasurer. At two recent Board of Treasurers meetings, there has been a united view in relation to GST funding arrangements, albeit Western Australia has had a slightly different tweak to some elements of those discussions. Nevertheless, on most occasions it has either signed joint media statements from the Board of Treasurers or has agreed with the overall position of the Board of Treasurers.

At the most recent one, importantly, once the commonwealth government had made a decision to introduce legislation into the federal parliament, which I have expressed our concerns about on behalf of the state government, once that decision had been taken, South Australia and all the other states and territories took a united view that, given the commonwealth government had given a guarantee that no state or territory would be worse off under the new deal, there should be an amendment to the legislation to reflect that no-worse-off guarantee.

All states and territories at the Board of Treasurers meeting agreed with that proposition—that is, to move an amendment—albeit, as I have acknowledged in my media statement, that Western Australia did indicate that they would support the legislation with or without that particular amendment.

We are advised as of this morning—and I had a brief conversation with the federal Treasurer and a number of my interstate treasury colleagues—that the commonwealth government has indicated that it will introduce an amendment to the GST legislation sometime later this week. We understand that amendment will provide, in broad terms, a no-worse-off guarantee for the duration of the proposed structure of the agreement that the commonwealth government has talked about from 2018 through to 2026-27. We understand it will propose a Productivity Commission review at the end of that particular guarantee period.

Again, whilst the South Australian government's preferred position is to stick with our current funding arrangement—that is, the GST deal—given the decision to introduce the legislation, we have welcomed the announcement from the commonwealth government that a no-worse-off guarantee amendment will be moved in the federal parliament. I have indicated to the federal Treasurer that we are supportive in principle of the announcement, subject of course to looking at the final detail of the amendment. We have not yet seen the detail of the amendment, although clearly a no-worse-off guarantee in and of itself would seem to indicate the nature of what that amendment will be.

Again, through an excess of caution, many years in federal/state financial relations, I will await the detail of the particular amendment on behalf of the state government. I would hope, perhaps tomorrow or Thursday, to be in a position to provide greater clarity to this house in relation to the detail of the amendment and the potential impacts on the state of South Australia as a result of that particular amendment.