Mrs BRAHAM - 2007-05-01
Any reduction in stamp duty that assists business and consumers is appreciated. Did you fix the situation regarding stamp duty being charged on GST; that is, insurance premiums have a 10% GST component and then you charge 10% stamp duty on the total cost of the premium and GST? That means there is a Northern Territory stamp duty on a Commonwealth GST tax.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, it is a good question, indeed, from the member for Braitling. It is an issue that does get tossed up in a variety of forums – fora, I discovered the word was - wherever you are. In particular, if I go to the Treasurers’ conference this year, where all state Treasurers meet before the meeting with the federal Treasurer, it was never a part of the intergovernmental agreement that taxes be removed. It was never part of that. When the GST was first signed off, there was a set of taxes agreed by the Treasurers and the federal Treasurer of the day, which would go when the GST was introduced. It was never part of that original agreement. That, then, was subsequently changed when food came off the list. Before the GST was finally put in place, the Senate knocked out food and then there was a reduction of that list. However, it was never part of either of those lists.
It has been treated, in an historic sense, the same as the old sales duty was, in that it goes on top of transport and all the costs to get it here. The way that that is treated has always been a bone of contention with Territorians. The same issue, in principle, applies around this, where it is seen and judged as a tax on a tax.
Whilst the issue continues to be discussed - and as I said, as recent as in March, less than two months ago, it was discussed at a round table between state Treasurers when I was at the Treasurer’s conference – there was no agreement as to how it might go into the future. It was not part of the original agreement to move it but, clearly, other jurisdictions get representation from a whole range of people in the community on this very issue. I am getting the question here, so it is an Australia-wide issue that will continue to be looked at and considered from every which way, including the fairness of it. I would think that it would be something, whilst it was not in the original raft of taxes to be removed, that does go back to the relationship and the agreement between the Commonwealth and the states and territories in relation to the imposition of the GST. In that sense, it is not something that the Northern Territory could jump out on its own.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, it is a good question, indeed, from the member for Braitling. It is an issue that does get tossed up in a variety of forums – fora, I discovered the word was - wherever you are. In particular, if I go to the Treasurers’ conference this year, where all state Treasurers meet before the meeting with the federal Treasurer, it was never a part of the intergovernmental agreement that taxes be removed. It was never part of that. When the GST was first signed off, there was a set of taxes agreed by the Treasurers and the federal Treasurer of the day, which would go when the GST was introduced. It was never part of that original agreement. That, then, was subsequently changed when food came off the list. Before the GST was finally put in place, the Senate knocked out food and then there was a reduction of that list. However, it was never part of either of those lists.
It has been treated, in an historic sense, the same as the old sales duty was, in that it goes on top of transport and all the costs to get it here. The way that that is treated has always been a bone of contention with Territorians. The same issue, in principle, applies around this, where it is seen and judged as a tax on a tax.
Whilst the issue continues to be discussed - and as I said, as recent as in March, less than two months ago, it was discussed at a round table between state Treasurers when I was at the Treasurer’s conference – there was no agreement as to how it might go into the future. It was not part of the original agreement to move it but, clearly, other jurisdictions get representation from a whole range of people in the community on this very issue. I am getting the question here, so it is an Australia-wide issue that will continue to be looked at and considered from every which way, including the fairness of it. I would think that it would be something, whilst it was not in the original raft of taxes to be removed, that does go back to the relationship and the agreement between the Commonwealth and the states and territories in relation to the imposition of the GST. In that sense, it is not something that the Northern Territory could jump out on its own.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016