GST law has the same meaning as in the Commonwealth A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (s 6). This incorporates by reference the entire Commonwealth GST legislation, including the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 and the associated Imposition Acts and regulations. Because the state Act does not create its own GST, the content of the taxpayer’s obligations is entirely defined by federal law. However, the Tasmanian Act modifies which entities are subject to that federal law within the state.

State entity is defined in s 6 as a person that would not be liable for GST because of the combined effect of section 114 of the Commonwealth Constitution (which prevents the Commonwealth from taxing the property of a state) and section 5 of each GST Imposition Act (which the Commonwealth enacted to exclude state entities from the tax as a matter of comity). The definition therefore captures any entity that would otherwise be immune. It is not limited to the Crown in right of Tasmania; it extends to any person , including local councils, government business enterprises, and statutory bodies , that meets the two-part test. The definition is functional rather than taxonomic: it looks to the reason for non-liability, not the legal form of the entity.

GST Imposition Acts are the three Commonwealth Acts that impose the GST on taxable supplies: the Customs, Excise, and General Imposition Acts (s 6). Their significance is that section 5 of each Act expressly exempts state entities from the tax. The Tasmanian Act, by deeming that section 5 had not been enacted (s 7(b)), removes that exemption for the purposes of state law.

Agreement means the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations, a copy of which is set out in Schedule 1 (s 3). The Schedule is reproduced as graphic images in the authorised version, so the precise text is not searchable, but the agreement is known to contain commitments by states to abolish a range of state taxes (financial institutions duty, stamp duties on certain transactions, bank account debits tax) in exchange for receiving the full GST revenue pool from the Commonwealth. The Act does not enact the Agreement into Tasmanian law; it merely approves it (s 4) and requires the Minister to use best endeavours to meet the state’s commitments under it (s 5).

Enactment is defined broadly for Part 3 (s 6) to include an Act, regulations, rules, by-laws made by the Governor or approved by the Governor, and other legislative instruments. This definition determines the scope of the power to charge GST on fees under s 7A: where any enactment prescribes a fee without reference to GST, the fee is taken to be exclusive of GST.

The Act directly affects the Tasmanian government and all entities that might otherwise claim constitutional immunity from the GST, which are now required to comply as if they were ordinary taxpayers. That includes:

• State government departments and agencies that have a turnover above the GST registration threshold and supply goods or services. They must register for GST, charge GST on their supplies, lodge business activity statements, and remit net GST to the ATO. They can also claim input tax credits on their purchases.
• Local councils, which are state entities for these purposes. Councils are particularly affected because they are large purchasers and suppliers (e.g., of waste services, planning approvals, recreational facilities). Section 7B imposes additional obligations on councils beyond those found in the Commonwealth GST law: they must provide the Minister with copies of all correspondence with the ATO about outstanding GST debts within seven days, and the Minister may determine non-compliance based on an auditor’s report, information provided under the Local Government Act, failure to register, failure to provide correspondence, or any other information available to the Minister (s 7B(2)(a)-(e)). This creates a bespoke monitoring regime for local government that does not apply to other state entities.
• State-owned corporations (government business enterprises) such as Metro Tasmania, port companies, and electricity entities. The Act makes consequential amendments to the Acts governing these bodies (ss 12-17, 19) to align them with the new GST environment and to remove references to repealed state taxes.
• Persons who owe sales tax equivalents on pre-1 July 2000 purchases. Section 9(1) preserves the government’s right to recover those amounts, even though the sales tax system was abolished. It does so by deeming that Division 3 of Part 10 of the Government Business Enterprises Act 1995 had not been omitted for the purposes of recovery. Any entity that made purchases of goods subject to sales tax before 1 July 2000 and did not pay the sales tax equivalent (payable to the Tasmanian government under arrangements that replaced the former Commonwealth wholesale sales tax for state entities) remains liable.
• Persons who owe financial institutions duty on pre-1 July 2001 transactions. Section 9(3) allows the Commissioner to recover unpaid duty. It does so by deeming that the Financial Institutions Duty Act 1986 had not been repealed, and by reading the Taxation Administration Act 1997 and the Taxation (Reciprocal Powers) Act 1993 as if it were still in force. This creates a potential long tail of liability for financial institutions and their customers.
• Suppliers who deal with state entities may be affected because state entities can now charge GST on fees, and because the GST treatment of supplies to state entities follows the normal rules (e.g., input tax credits available to the state entity if it is registered). However, the Act does not directly impose duties on private sector parties.

The central duty is in s 7: every state entity must comply with the GST law as if the constitutional and statutory exemptions did not exist. This is a self-executing duty: it does not require a ministerial direction or a registration event. Once the Act commenced for Part 3 (on Royal Assent, 12 April 2000? Actually Part 3 commenced on Royal Assent, so 1999), state entities were immediately on notice that they were required to comply with the GST law even before the GST itself started (1 July 2000). The duty includes registering with the ATO if the entity’s turnover exceeds the threshold, charging GST, lodging returns, and paying net GST.

Complementing that duty is a right conferred by s 7A: where an enactment prescribes a fee without reference to GST, the fee is taken to be exclusive of GST, and the person or authority to whom the fee is payable may charge the GST in addition. This right is not automatic; it is permissive ("may charge"). It overrides the usual interpretation rule that a statutory fee would be the total amount payable. If the enacting legislation intended the fee to be GST inclusive, it would need to say so. Otherwise, the state entity can add GST. This reduces the risk that statutory fees become under-recoveries after the GST is introduced.

Section 5 imposes a duty on the Minister (the Tasmanian Treasurer, unless administrative arrangements change under s 11) to use best endeavours to meet the state’s commitments under the Intergovernmental Agreement and to do anything necessary for that purpose. This is a political direction rather than a legally enforceable duty on the state; however, the Minister cannot plead lack of authority to implement the Agreement.

Section 7B imposes specific duties on local councils: they must provide the Minister with copies of any correspondence with the ATO or its agent relating to outstanding GST debts (s 7B(3)), and they must do so within 7 days of sending or receiving the correspondence (s 7B(4)). This duty is triggered regardless of whether the ATO has issued a formal notice or whether the debt is disputed. Failure to comply can ground a determination of non-compliance by the Minister.

Section 9 preserves the state’s right to recover sales tax equivalents and financial institutions duty that were unpaid at the dates of abolition. It does not impose a new duty but confirms that existing liabilities survive the repeal of the underlying Acts. For recovery of sales tax equivalents, s 9(2) applies s 73 of the Government Business Enterprises Act 1995 as if Division 3 of Part 10 (which had been omitted) were still in force. For financial institutions duty, s 9(4) deems the repealed Financial Institutions Duty Act 1986 not to have been repealed for recovery purposes, and requires the Taxation Administration Act 1997 and the Taxation (Reciprocal Powers) Act 1993 to be read accordingly. This means that assessment, objection, and recovery powers remain available for past periods.

The Act does not create its own penalty provisions for non-compliance with the GST law by state entities. Instead, it relies on the penalty regime in the Commonwealth GST law. Because s 7 requires state entities to comply with the GST law as if they were ordinary taxpayers, the usual administrative penalties for failing to lodge, failing to pay, making false statements, etc., apply. The Australian Tax Office can assess penalties and interest under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) against state entities. However, the Act does not expressly state that state entity debts are enforceable by seizure of state property, and section 114 of the Commonwealth Constitution might still protect state property from Commonwealth execution. In practice, enforcement is likely to be through intergovernmental arrangements rather than asset seizure.

The specific enforcement mechanism for local councils is found in s 7B. The Minister may determine that a council has failed to comply with the GST law (s 7B(1)). The determination can be based on an auditor’s report, information provided under s 72A of the Local Government Act 1993, failure to register with the ATO, failure to provide correspondence as required by s 7B(3), or "any other information available to the Minister, whether provided by the council or not" (s 7B(2)(e)). The Minister must advise the council in writing of the determination and direct the State Grants Commission to investigate and report on any matter relating to the council’s obligation to comply with the GST law (s 7B(5)). The State Grants Commission is established under the State Grants Commission Act 1976; its investigation could lead to recommendations, including possibly the withholding of state grants. The power to determine non-compliance is discretionary: the Minister "may" determine. There is no requirement for a hearing before the determination is made, though the council is advised afterwards. This creates a risk of adverse findings based on uncorroborated information.

For the recovery of sales tax equivalents and financial institutions duty, the Act preserves existing enforcement powers. Sales tax equivalents can be recovered by the Treasurer using the Government Business Enterprises Act 1995 s 73 (as preserved). That section presumably provides for debt recovery mechanisms such as court proceedings and asset seizure. Financial institutions duty can be recovered by the Commissioner using the full suite of powers in the Taxation Administration Act 1997 and the Taxation (Reciprocal Powers) Act 1993, including garnishee notices, warrants, and prosecutions. Because the Financial Institutions Duty Act is deemed not repealed for this purpose, the assessment and objection regime also remains available for pre-1 July 2001 transactions.

The Act is parasitic on Commonwealth law. Section 7 does not create a separate state GST; it merely requires state entities to comply with the Commonwealth GST law. This means that any amendment to the Commonwealth GST law automatically affects state entities without any amendment to the Tasmanian Act. Conversely, the Commonwealth's exclusion of state entities from GST (via s 5 of the Imposition Acts and constitutional immunity) is overridden for state law purposes. However, the Commonwealth has not consented to being taxed by itself, so the state law cannot bind the Commonwealth. The interaction is one-way: state entities become taxpayers, but the Commonwealth does not become subject to the state law.

The Act interacts with the local government regulatory framework. Section 7B plugs into the Local Government Act 1993 by using auditor’s reports required under s 85 and financial information provided under s 72A as bases for the Minister’s determination. It also imposes a new, parallel obligation on councils to provide correspondence to the Minister, which is not found in the Local Government Act. This creates an additional layer of state oversight beyond the normal audit and reporting requirements.

The Act also interacts with the Government Business Enterprises Act 1995, the Electricity Companies Act 1997, the Government Prices Oversight Act 1995, the Metro Tasmania Act 1997, the Port Companies Act 1997, and the Electricity Entities (Contributions) Act 1997, by making consequential amendments that remove references to repealed state taxes and harmonise terminology. Sections 12-17 and 19 state that the amendments have been incorporated into the authorised versions of those Acts. The substantive effect is that those Acts now refer to GST rather than sales tax equivalents or financial institutions duty, where relevant.

Section 9(2) creates a unique interaction with the Government Business Enterprises Act 1995: it keeps alive Division 3 of Part 10 of that Act (which had been omitted) for the purpose of recovering sales tax equivalents. This means that the recovery provisions in that Division remain in force for pre-2000 debts even though they have been repealed for other purposes. Similarly, s 9(4) keeps the Financial Institutions Duty Act 1986 alive for recovery purposes, and requires the Taxation Administration Act 1997 and the Taxation (Reciprocal Powers) Act 1993 to be read as if that Act had not been repealed. This creates a legal fiction: for certain transactions, the repealed Act is deemed not repealed.

The Act also interacts with the Administrative Arrangements Act 1990: s 11 assigns administration to the Treasurer and the Department of Treasury and Finance until an order is made under the Administrative Arrangements Act. This is a default provision; if the government later reorganises portfolios, the administration of this Act could be transferred.

The Act has been amended at least twice. The first amendment was by No. 21 of 2000, s 23 and 24, applied from 31 May 2000. That amendment inserted subsections into s 6 (amending the definition of "enactment" by adding paragraph (b) regarding instruments declared under the Fee Units Act 1997), and inserted new sections 7A and 7B. Section 7A provides the power to charge GST on fees; s 7B introduces the council compliance monitoring regime. This amendment expanded the scope of the Act significantly: originally Part 3 only contained s 6 and s 7 (the deeming requirement). The 2000 amendment added the fee-charging power and the Minister’s oversight of council GST compliance.

The second amendment was by No. 9 of 2005, Schedule 1, applied from 1 July 2005. That amendment amended s 7B(2)(b) to refer to information included in a statement provided under s 72A of the Local Government Act 1993. The original text presumably referred to a different provision or a repealed section. The 2005 amendment updated the cross-reference.

No further amendments are evident from the source text. The Act appears to be stable since 2005.

The source text does not refer to any litigation. However, a practitioner should be aware that the constitutional validity of this kind of state legislation that purports to override the Commonwealth's own exemption in s 5 of the GST Imposition Acts was untested in the early days. The High Court in Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2009) and later cases dealt with the validity of the Commonwealth GST scheme, but not specifically with state laws that deem state entities to be taxpayers. The mechanism used here , deeming the Commonwealth’s exemption not to have been enacted , raises interesting questions about whether a state can repeal a Commonwealth law by implication. The answer is likely that the state Act does not purport to amend the Commonwealth Act; it merely creates a state law duty that, if complied with, results in the state entity paying GST to the Commonwealth under the Commonwealth Act. The Commonwealth Act still says the entity is not liable, but the state law requires the entity to act as if it were. The Commonwealth could refuse to accept the payment, but in practice it accepts it. No litigation on this point is recorded in the source.

Similarly, the Minister’s power under s 7B to determine non-compliance based on "any other information available" could be challenged on administrative law grounds, including for jurisdictional error, unreasonableness, or breach of natural justice. The source gives no indication that such challenges have been brought.

The repeal of the Financial Institutions Duty Act in 2001 and the preservation of pre-repeal liabilities under s 9(3)-(4) might have generated disputes about whether a particular transaction was made before 1 July 2001 and whether duty was unpaid. Again, the source does not document any litigation.

The seven-day correspondence obligation is easy to miss. Section 7B(3)-(4) imposes a strict deadline for councils to provide the Minister with copies of all correspondence with the ATO about outstanding GST debts. "Correspondence" is not defined, but likely includes emails, letters, notices of assessment, penalty notices, and even internal ATO file notes if they are communicated to the council. The 7-day clock starts when the council sends the correspondence to the ATO or receives it. For a council’s finance department, this means that every piece of correspondence , even a routine query , must be identified, copied, and forwarded to the Minister’s office within a week. Failure to do so is itself a ground for the Minister to determine non-compliance (s 7B(2)(d)). This is an ongoing compliance burden that goes beyond what the Commonwealth GST law requires.

The Minister’s determination power is extremely broad. The Minister can decide that a council has failed to comply based on "any other information available to the Minister, whether provided by the council or not" (s 7B(2)(e)). This means that a complaint from a ratepayer, an anonymous tip-off, a media report, or a ATO data-sharing arrangement could trigger a determination. There is no requirement for the Minister to give the council an opportunity to respond before making the determination. The council is only advised afterwards (s 7B(5)(a)). The determination then triggers a State Grants Commission investigation, which could lead to financial consequences (e.g., reduction in grants). The council bears the cost of the investigation and potential adverse findings.

Deemed GST on fees can cause pricing confusion. Section 7A says that where a fee is prescribed without reference to GST, the fee is taken to be GST exclusive, and the state entity may charge GST in addition. This means that if the legislature intended a fee to be the all-up amount (including GST), it must say so explicitly. If it does not, the fee becomes the base amount, and the GST is extra. For example, if a regulation says "the fee for a licence is $100", the entity can legally charge $110 (at 10% GST). But if the regulation says "the fee for a licence is $100 (GST inclusive)", then the entity must charge $100 and remit $9.09 to the ATO. The gotcha is that many pre-2000 enactments may not have made the intention clear, leading to disputes about whether the entity has overcharged or undercharged. The entity might also need to adjust its fees to avoid windfall gains or unintended shortfalls.

The old taxes are not fully dead. Section 9 preserves the state’s ability to recover sales tax equivalents and financial institutions duty from before the respective repeal dates. This means that a taxpayer could receive a surprise bill from the Tasmanian Treasurer or Commissioner years after the tax was supposed to have been abolished. The Act does not impose a time limit on recovery; the general 6-year limitation period for debt recovery would apply unless the relevant Act provides otherwise. The deeming provisions in s 9(2) and (4) mean that the legal framework under which the assessment is made is the one that existed before the repeal, not the current law. So a taxpayer might need to consult superseded legislation to understand their rights.

The Minister’s obligation to "meet the State’s commitments" is open-ended. Section 5 requires the Minister to use best endeavours to meet the state's commitments under the Intergovernmental Agreement and to do anything necessary. The Agreement is not fully reproduced, so a third party cannot easily determine what those commitments are. However, the Act does not incorporate the Agreement as law; it merely directs the Minister. This could expose the Minister to criticism or legal challenge if they fail to implement commitments that affect private rights (e.g., commitments to abolish certain taxes). But the duty is only "best endeavours", which is a soft obligation.

For state entities other than councils, compliance is straightforward in principle but complex in practice. Step one: determine whether the entity is a "state entity" under s 6. This turns on whether the entity would be immune from GST under s 114 of the Constitution and s 5 of the GST Imposition Acts. Most state government departments, statutory authorities, and government business enterprises will qualify. Step two: assess whether the entity’s turnover exceeds the GST registration threshold (currently $75,000, but was $50,000 at introduction). If yes, the entity must register with the ATO under the Commonwealth GST law. Step three: for all taxable supplies made by the entity, charge GST at 10% unless an exemption applies. Step four: for all creditable acquisitions, claim input tax credits. Step five: lodge business activity statements (BAS) and pay net GST. Step six: keep records sufficient to substantiate BAS lodgements. Because the obligation derives from s 7 of this Act, the entity should document that it is complying because of state law, not just Commonwealth law.

For local councils, the steps above apply, plus additional obligations under s 7B. Councils must establish a system to identify all correspondence with the ATO and its agents relating to outstanding GST debts. The term "outstanding" suggests debts that are overdue or disputed, but a conservative approach would cover all correspondence about GST debts, even if not overdue. The council must forward copies of that correspondence to the Minister (Department of Treasury and Finance) within 7 days of sending or receiving it. The council should log each correspondence, date it, and track the 7-day window. The council must also cooperate with any State Grants Commission investigation if the Minister makes a determination. The council should consider whether to provide the Minister with proactive updates on its GST compliance to forestall a determination.

For persons liable for sales tax equivalents on pre-1 July 2000 purchases: if the Tasmanian Treasurer pursues recovery, the person should verify that the liability was properly assessed under the Government Business Enterprises Act 1995 as it stood before Division 3 of Part 10 was omitted. The person should check whether the goods were purchased by a state entity or under the sales tax equivalent regime, and whether any payment has already been made. The recovery provisions do not create new liabilities; they simply confirm that existing debts can be enforced.

For persons liable for financial institutions duty on pre-1 July 2001 transactions: the Commissioner can recover using the Taxation Administration Act 1997 and the Taxation (Reciprocal Powers) Act 1993. The person should verify whether the transaction actually attracted duty under the Financial Institutions Duty Act 1986 (e.g., certain debits to accounts). The person may have rights of objection and review under the Taxation Administration Act 1997. The deeming provision in s 9(4) means that the objection process remains available even though the duty Act was repealed.

For state entities that charge fees under enactments that are silent on GST: the entity should decide whether to charge GST in addition. The Act gives permission, not a requirement. If the entity charges GST, it must remit that GST to the ATO (it cannot keep it). The entity should notify customers that the prescribed fee excludes GST, or alternatively seek an amendment to the enactment to clarify the intent. Overcharging could lead to customer complaints, while undercharging reduces revenue. The entity should keep a record of which fees it treats as GST exclusive and which as GST inclusive.

From an implementation perspective, the entities most at risk of non-compliance are small councils and government business enterprises that lack in-house tax expertise. They should consider engaging a tax advisor to review their GST registration status and lodgement history. The Act does not provide a grace period for compliance; the obligation under s 7 commenced on Royal Assent, and the 2000 amendments commenced on 31 May 2000, well before the GST start date. Entities that delayed registration could face ATO penalties.