HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-05-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Goods and Services Tax

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (14:58): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question to the Treasurer on the topic of the GST on sanitary products.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: As the Treasurer and, I imagine, most members of this council would be well aware, in 2015, the former federal treasurer Joe Hockey unsuccessfully lobbied the states and territories to make sanitary products exempt from the GST. There have been several moves and, again, this is a hot topic currently before the federal parliament and certainly one of public debate.

It has been estimated that the GST on sanitary products is worth $30 million a year to the states, as Australian women spend around $300 million annually on these items. It has also been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition in the federal parliament that perhaps the revenue loss could be offset by applying the GST to 12 natural therapies that are sometimes GST free, such as herbalism and naturopathy.

What is not lost on me is that the GST-free status currently applies to condoms, dental dams, femidoms, lubricants, folic acid, sunscreen and nicotine patches, as well as in some cases aspirin, ibuprofen, paracetamol and indeed, in certain situations, Viagra. My question to the Treasurer is: will he advocate for the GST to be dropped from sanitary products and stand for women who do not see that the GST should have ever been applied to them?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:59): As I have indicated publicly on behalf of the government, I am prepared to, and the government is prepared to, enter into discussions with treasurers from other jurisdictions in the commonwealth in relation to this particular issue. I note the comment of Gladys Berejiklian on behalf of the New South Wales government when she indicated her concern about the proposition. Her concern, as she articulated it publicly, was that the GST already applied to a number of other essential items as she designated them. Essentially, the point she made on behalf of the New South Wales government was, given that that was the case, where do you draw the line? She therefore wanted to have discussions with interstate colleagues as well in relation to the proposition.

The situation by law is that there has to be unanimous agreement if there is to be a change in the base of the GST. When this issue was discussed about three years ago, as the honourable member has highlighted, there was not unanimous agreement amongst the jurisdictions. As I understand it, the New South Wales government and, indeed, some other governments didn't agree at that time and because there wasn't unanimous agreement therefore the base could not be changed.

As I said, Gladys Berejiklian, on behalf of the New South Wales government, has recently spoken about the issue, publicly indicating the position of the New South Wales government. So, at this stage, it would appear that there is not unanimity amongst the jurisdictions in relation to the issue. The position I have indicated is that I am more than prepared to have this discussion with the other jurisdictions in relation to this particular issue. The issues that would be important would not only be the issues that the Hon. Ms Franks and others have articulated publicly but what the impact would be on the state GST base.

The member has noted some suggestions of what might be included as compensation in terms of revenue that might be lost if this particular change would occur. I have asked Treasury to see whether they or indeed interstate jurisdictions have done or could do some work to work out whether what is being suggested would compensate the loss of revenue that the states might find in relation to this particular proposed change. That work is still being undertaken.

I think the next meeting of the board of treasurers is in the next month or so. That doesn't include the commonwealth Treasurer, that is only the state and territory treasurers. I think the next meeting which involves the commonwealth Treasurer is not until later this year where the issue might be able to be discussed. In summary, my public position that I have put already is that we are prepared to have this particular discussion. I have indicated the issues that we would need to consider as a state jurisdiction but, as always, I am prepared to have the discussion to see whether or not there can be unanimity in relation to this particular issue at the national level.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT