Home›Questions on Notice›QoN 2351

❓ Mr. Redman questions the Treasurer regarding the GST treatment of infrastructure investments made by Rio Tinto and other resource companies, specifically why these investments aren't considered in the GST distribution by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The Treasurer's response is vague, stating it depends on the nature of the payment and the Commission's judgment.

AnsweredQoN 2351Legislative Assembly

Asked

1 November 2017

Member

Mr D.T. Redman

Portfolio

Treasurer

QuestionView source ↗

I refer to Question on Notice No. 1830 to the Premier, in particular the response to (e), and ask: (a) given Rio Tinto made an infrastructure investment to offset State Agreement obligations and to the benefit of the State, why wasn’t this investment included in the State's GST considerations by the Commonwealth Grants Commission; (b) if resource companies with legacy obligations (such as secondary processing proposals) to the State were to settle this obligation with a single cash payment to the State, would this be included in Commonwealth Grant Commission calculation of the states GST returns; and (c) what is the Treasurer's understanding of the GST treatment of infrastructure payments and/or investments made by resource companies to the State, where the investment has a benefit to the broader community, such as road or utilities infrastructure?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered

13 February 2018

Response time

11 days

(1)(a) Infrastructure investments made by private companies have not to my knowledge been included by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in considering the GST distribution. These investments should be viewed in the context of States’ own substantial assistance to industry that remains largely unassessed by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
(b) This will depend on the nature of the payment and the judgment of the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
(c) Refer to (a) and (b).

View on Parliament of WA