MMCC2060 Final Report - Tampon TAX PDF

Preview

Summary

MMCC2060 Final Report - Tampon TAX issue...

Description

Running head: THE TAMPON TAX 1

A Critical Analysis of the Influence of the ‘Tampon Tax’ Removal Word Count: 1973 Macquarie University

THE TAMPON TAX 2 A Critical Analysis of the Influence of the ‘Tampon Tax’ Removal A key discussion in modern human rights arguments is the right to have equitable access to health services and products. The definition of these products/services has recently been expanded to include feminine hygiene products (FHP) (tampons, pads, re-usable menstruation products, etc.) – an inclusion which has been continually sought after by women’s rights groups, media outlets, and multiple community groups (E.g., The Period Project, Share the Dignity, Don’t Tax My Period) for numerous years. The policy change to remove the 10% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on FHP comes in response to objections that women’s menstruation products should not be taxed, as they are a health product required to support a natural bodily function. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyse the impact that the removal of GST on these products has had on the Australian (and potentially global) political landscape, the responses to this change from various governmental and community platforms, and the overall impact that this has had on the Australian community – in particular the female demographic. The concepts of healthism, biopower, and medicalization and demedicalisation will be the majority lenses through which these assessments will be observed and commented on.

Background Context Taxation on FHP began with the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax Act (1999) and was further expounded with the release of the first determination from then Minister for Health (Dr. Michael Woodridge) giving exemption to health products and services, including products such as condoms, lubricant, some sunscreens, etc.; reviewed further in 2011 to include nicotine as an assistance to quit smoking (Parliament of Australia, 2018). This decision was contested by the community as it raised questions in regard to the validity of taxation on what

THE TAMPON TAX 3 might not be classified as a ‘medical’ product but is agreeably a health product – a tax which stimulated around than $35 million in government tax revenue per year. The notion that FHP were then classified as a ‘luxury good’ became increasingly contested with the rising establishment of feminist lobby groups, media support, and public outcry. The protestation of the GST Act was made clear through the creation of media campaigns and online petitions such as ‘Stop Taxing my Period’ and ‘Axe the Period Tax (which garnered over 180,000 signatures combined) (Parliament of Australia, 2018), Share the Dignity – an organization helping to subsidise the cost of and provide period products to those experiencing ‘period poverty’ ("Help End Period Poverty", 2021) Young Women Speak Out, an activist group for women’s rights, and many more globally (for example, Tax Free. Period., Girl’s Globe, Period Equity). The movement to abolish GST was also supported notably by the ‘Menstrual Avengers Protest’ whose protest involved throwing tampons at government officials during a rally in February 2000 when the legislation was first introduced, as well as several women’s magazines and government senators (Deslandes, 2019). The tax on FHP was finally removed in the wake of public pressures, subsequently legalized with the release of a consultation paper in 2018 with the inclusion that FHP should be included in the tax-free bracket. According to ‘A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Determination’ (GSTD) proposed by the Australian Treasury, “maternity pads, menstrual cups, menstrual pads and liners, menstrual underwear, tampons, and other similar products specifically designed to absorb or collect lochia, menses or vaginal discharge” are to be included in the definitive list of tax-free products as of January 1st, 2019 (The Australian Government the Treasury, 2018).

THE TAMPON TAX 4 Biopower The view of power argued by Michael Foucault suggests that power is not merely a topdown/bottom-up mechanism but has rather shifted to being an omni-present, self-reproducing and repetitious entity that is innately belonging in every possible situation. His term ‘biopower’ refers to the manipulation by the government of innate power that lies in educational institutions, the health sector, politics, and legislative procedures which control the overall productivity and health of the population (Lakimsetti, 2014). With this viewpoint in mind, the introduction of and more specifically the removal of the ‘tampon tax’ is a critical example of how the government utilizes biopower to control the health and productivity of the Australian population. This issue strikes a similar chord to the analysis of the relationship between sex workers and the government during the HIV pandemic in India, examined in Lakimsetti (2014) – similarities here lie in the ability of public outcry to instigate radical social change, divide governmental agency opinions, prompt claims for equitable justice against discrimination, and weaken the ability of the national leadership to ignore the community’s viewpoint. The sustained call for GST cancellation on FHP created discourse in the media, created the aforementioned campaigns/petitions and divided house/ state powers as perceived in the conflicting bills presented by the Greens, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Coalition (Parliament of Australia, 2018) and various media interviews (ABC News, 2015). The ongoing and building nature of public opinion created by this movement led to the revision of the GST Act (1999) presented in the GSTD, not as the government’s response to ‘stop’/quiet public opinion, but instead to cooperate with mitigate the power disturbance presented by these external factors (via the control of GST) to create a largely more productive and health-satisfied population. By removing the 10% GST, the financial burden on charities which supplying FHP to those who cannot afford them is also greatly subsidised and therefore engenders a more stabilized, healthy, and satisfied population – all of which are key in maintaining a productive work force essential for a successful government. However, this raises the question of whether this is an equal exchange for the generated revenue and potential for discourse instigated from FHP taxation towards creating a more equitable society; the revenue lost form FHP tax – an estimated $480 million over the next decade according to Parliament of Australia (2018) – does in part go towards funding critical forms of biopower such as the public health and education systems, transportation, and welfare benefits, which could notionally suffer a decrease in funding due to this change, as well as set a precedent for dispute of GST on a number of other manufactured goods (Australian Tax Review, 2011., Irvine, 2018., Stewart, 2019). Healthism Healthism is the practice of seeing health not simply as being free of illness and infirmity – instead, referring to health as an unattainable ideal; a constant state of yearning through which we try to achieve the optimal state of mental, physical, and social wellbeing (Cheek, 2008). It is through healthism that the decision to reverse taxation on FHP can be seen as the most beneficial. Attaining a healthier state of being is made possible through the denotation that

THE TAMPON TAX 5 having access to cheaper menstrual products will result in a range of physical health benefits as well as decrease social stigmatism around menstruation. Healthism can be seen as an improvement over outdated models such as the biomedical model, which sees health as merely the absence of illness, and all mental phenomena as unrelated to bodily functions. For the purpose of exploring menstruation as causational regarding more than physical infirmity in the following paragraphs, the biomedical model does not constitute a sufficient model for healthcare systems (Wade & Halligan, 2004). Menstruation is a regular, unavoidable bodily function that can greatly influence women’s overall mental, physical, and social well-being (Critchley et al., 2020) – treating FHP as ‘luxuries’ rather than necessary goods not only makes it more difficult for those living under the poverty line to obtain these goods, but also supports the continued misunderstandings of women’s bodily processes and health experiences (Crawford & Spivack, 2017 & Critchley et al., 2020). Senator Janet Rice has been quoted calling the GST a “sexist and unfair tax on our biology” (ABC News, 2018) – a statement aimed at the sexist nature of the tampon tax, which can be further illuminated in Crawford and Spivack’s (2017) notion that the discourteous and chauvinistic handling of FHP taxation laws comes down to an issue of confusion and underlying anxiety regarding women’s menstrual cycle as uncontrollable and debilitating in nature. This is further illustrated in the limitation of publicized health promotions and medical knowledge regarding periods/FHP addressed in Critchley et al. (2020) which could contribute to the misinformation and unrest in this discussion. The causational relationship formed between healthism and the negative, often sexist experience of equitable access to period products is detrimental women’s access of the innate sense of self and identity that comes with having a healthy bodily function become naturalized

THE TAMPON TAX 6 and accepted (Brantelid, Nilvér & Alehagen, 2014). The term ‘emergent identity’ used by Fox and Ward (2006) refers to the confluence of an individual’s cultural and physical environment in the creation of identity from a young age – when applied this scenario of societal misinterpretation and inequitable access to FHP and menstruation as a whole, discourse is created between the desire to accept this bodily function the rebuffing of this notion from society. By removing GST on FHP, the Australian govt. has made a show of moving towards a more inclusive society by embracing the normalization of women’s menstruation and marginalized technologies that would previously have been periphery of healthcare (Cheek, 2008). This in turn creates a stabilized base for which benefits women’s ability to improve their sense of health and identity in the view of healthism as a lifelong endeavor.

Medicalisation and Demedicalisation The central focus in both the biopower and healthism segments of this paper is the discourse spanning more than a decade regarding menstruation as a healthy bodily function, thus requiring a tax exemption to provide mitigation of the symptoms of this presented with FHP. The modern interpretation of medicalisation goes beyond the summary of recognizing a ‘condition’ as an ‘illness’ and has broadened to include the way in which we as a society have come to rely on medicine and medicinal diagnoses to justify our pathological identities (Rose, 2007). In the traditional use of the word medicalisation, the change to tax-free FHP is progressive in that is recognizes menstruation as natural and normal rather than a condition that women ‘choose’ to alleviate. However, an advancement of this argument could be made to address the underlying benefits and also disservices brought on by this change using modern medicalisation.

THE TAMPON TAX 7 The GSTD which led to the reversal of tax on FHP is simultaneously an instance of medicalisation and demedicalisation. Whilst it could be argued that introducing FHP as ‘basic necessities’ is demedicalising menstruation, this could not be classified as complete demedicalisation without the removal of all medical opinion, processes, and assistance (Halfmann, 2011); this is not the case with the GST removal as the elevation of FHP to a tax-free health good also medicalises them, to an extent. Requiring a basic health necessity to alleviate symptoms of menstruation, especially when considering the potential health problems such as anemia (Critchley, Munro, Shakur-Still & Roberts, 2021), depression, psychological stress, and endometriosis (Brantelid, Nilvér & Alehagen, 2014., Critchley et al., 2021 & Crawford & Spivack, 2017). Whilst most treatments and medications for alleviations for these conditions are still taxed, the GTSD creates a precedent which has the potential to change this. In spite of the positive light which this change has been situated in and the positive reaction from community groups and the public, this could also lead to the deregulation of other contested GST products and thus a massive decrease in tax revenue – which, as was mentioned in Irvine (2018) and Stewart (2018), could be detrimental to accessing funding for the public sector financed by government GST revenue. Then Prime Minister John Howard’s statement from the 2000 tax debate encapsulates this issue – “… I could mount an argument for a whole lot of things … But we've had that argument and if you start doing that, you will have no GST in the end, and the whole system will begin to unravel” (ABC News, 2015).

THE TAMPON TAX 8

Reference List ABC News. (2015). Tampon tax: Key quotes from the 2000 debate. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-26/key-quotes-in-history-of-tampon-tax/6497382 Australian Tax Review. (2011). GST in Australia: looking forward from the first decade (p. 5). Sydney: Sydney: LBC Information Services. Cheek, J. (2008). Healthism: A New Conservatism? Qualitative Health Research, 18(7), 974982. Doi: 10.1177/1049732308320444 Crawford, B., & Spivack, C. (2017). Tampon taxes, discrimination, and human rights. Wisconsin Law Review, 2017(3), 491-550. Critchley, H., Munro, M., Shakur-Still, H., & Roberts, I. (2021). Menstruation should not be overlooked in control of anaemia. The Lancet, 397(10268), 26. Doi: 10.1016/s01406736(20)32718-5 Critchley, H., Babayev, E., Bulun, S., Clark, S., Garcia-Grau, I., & Gregersen, P. et al. (2020). Menstruation: science and society. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 223(5), 624-664. Doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.06.004

THE TAMPON TAX 9 Deslandes, A. (2019). How Australia’s Menstrual Avengers Won Their War on the Tampon Tax. Ms. Magazine. Retrieved from https://msmagazine.com/2019/03/28/meet-themenstrual-avengers/ Fox, N., & Ward, K. (2006). Health identities: from expert patient to resisting consumer. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for The Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine, 10(4), 461-479. Doi: 10.1177/1363459306067314 Halfmann, D. (2011). Recognizing medicalization and demedicalization: Discourses, practices, and identities. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for The Social Study of Health, Illness And Medicine, 16(2), 186-207. Doi: 10.1177/1363459311403947 Help End Period Poverty. (2021). Retrieved 20 May 2021, from https://www.sharethedignity.org.au/ Irvine, J. (2018). Why you should keep paying the 'tampon tax'. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-26/key-quotes-in-history-oftampon-tax/6497382 Parliament of Australia. (2018). Removing GST on feminine hygiene products. Sydney: Parliamentary Library. Rose, N. (2007). Beyond Medicalisation. The Lancet, 369(9562), 700-702. Stewart, M. (2018). I'm a feminist: keep the tax on tampons. The Australian Financial Review. Retrieved from https://global-factiva-com.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/redir/default.aspx? P=sa&an=AFNR000020181003eea40001p&cat=a&ep=ASE The Australian Government the Treasury. (2018). Goods and Services Tax (GST) Treatment of Feminine Hygiene Products. Canberra: The Australian Treasury.

THE TAMPON TAX 10 Wade, D., & Halligan, P. (2004). Do biomedical models of illness make for good healthcare systems? BMJ, 329(7479), 1398-1401. Doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7479.1398 Yaxley, L. (2018). Senate vote to scrap 'tampon tax' won't stop women paying 10 per cent more for sanitary products. ABC News. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-0618/tampon-tax-to-stay-despite-senate-voting-to-remove-it/9879382...