Treasurers of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and the ACT lock in their positions before a meeting with Joe Hockey next week

This article is more than 5 years old

This article is more than 5 years old

All state Labor treasurers have pledged to support the removal of the goods and services tax on tampons, locking in their positions before a meeting with their federal Liberal counterpart Joe Hockey next week.



The federal treasurer promised campaigners in May that he would raise the idea with all state and territory treasurers at their next major meeting.

The treasurers of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory are set to issue a joint statement on Friday saying the removal of the 10% GST from tampons and pads “is about fairness”.

Joe Hockey rules out GST rise to fund states' expenditure Read more

“Currently, Australian women spend close to $300m on sanitary products, but unlike condoms, lubricants and sunscreen – which are all exempt from GST – also pay GST on those purchases,” they will say.

“We look forward to Mr Hockey putting it to the states and territories, and providing the opportunity for all the treasurers to back it in.”

Rallies are planned in Sydney, Perth, Canberra, Melbourne and Hobart on Friday, when campaigners will call on federal, state and territory governments to “stop taxing my period”.



Analysis by the federal Treasury suggests the change would cost state and territories a total of $120m over four years. The GST is collected by the federal government but all revenue is distributed to the states and territories.



Victoria, Queensland, SA and the ACT argue the states and territories can support the measure without suffering a financial loss because the foregone revenue will be “more than covered” by new revenue from the so-called “Netflix tax”.

The latest federal budget proposed extending the GST to include “cross-border supplies of digital products and services imported by consumers from 1 July 2017”. Federal Labor has previously suggested that both changes be seen together because it was a “rare opportunity” to strike a deal.

The Victorian treasurer, Tim Pallas, said there was “no sensible reason why GST – an unfair tax by its very nature – should be imposed on sanitary products, and it’s high time that this was removed”.

His Queensland counterpart, Curtis Pitt, said the issue dated back to when the former prime minister John Howard introduced the GST.

“It was unfair to subject essential female hygiene products to GST then and it still is now,” he said.

The ACT chief minister and treasurer, Andrew Barr, said the inclusion of tampons was “a clear case of inequality in the GST system”.

Tony Abbott's GST 'epiphany' has been a long time in the works Read more

“The lost revenue can be recouped from other reforms such applying the GST to digital downloads and overseas products bought online,” he said.

The acting SA treasurer, Jack Snelling, said he hoped all state and territory treasurers would support the call at the meeting with Hockey next week.

Hockey committed to re-examine the issue when he appeared on the ABC’s Q&A program in May and was asked a question by the campaigner Subeta Vimalarajah, whose petition has now attracted more than 100,000 signatures.



When pressed by the host, Tony Jones, as to whether the GST should be taken off the items, Hockey replied: “It probably should, yes. The answer is yes.”

In a press conference the next day, Tony Abbott played down expectations of exempting tampons by saying: “It’s certainly not something that this government has a plan to do.”

But in question time the prime minister said GST revenue went to the states and territories “and if all the states and territories can agree obviously we are happy to hear from them”.

The focus on the base of the GST comes at a time when the federal government is considering big changes to the tax system, including an increase in the rate.

Abbott has not ruled out taking major tax changes to the next election but an increase to the GST is generally opposed by Labor jurisdictions.