Home›Questions on Notice›QoN 2357

❓ Mr Redman questions the Treasurer about exploring infrastructure payments as an alternative to iron ore royalties to mitigate GST implications. The Treasurer confirms advice was sought but the Commonwealth Grants Commission would likely reclassify such payments as royalties.

AnsweredQoN 2357Legislative Assembly

Asked

21 November 2017

Member

Mr D.T. Redman

Portfolio

Treasurer

QuestionView source ↗

I refer to comments the Treasurer made in respect to revenue alternatives to the payment of royalties by iron ore miners in the Productivity Commission hearings on 14th November on GST, and ask: (a) has the Treasurer sought advice on revenue alternatives such as infrastructure payments as an alternative to royalty payments by iron ore miners; (b) if yes to (a), will the Treasurer table this advice; (c) has the Treasurer sought advice on the GST implications of taking an infrastructure payment (or another considered alternative) from iron ore miners as an alternative to a royalty payment; (d) if yes to (c) will the Treasurer table this advice; (e) is the Treasurer considering any other revenue alternatives to taking a royalty payment from iron ore miners as a strategy to reduce the impact of the Commonwealth Grants Commission's treatment of such royalties in the GST carve up; and (f) if yes to (e) what are these alterternatives being considered?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered

13 February 2018

Response time

6 days

(1)(a) Yes. (b) I am advised that the Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC) would likely counter any such proposal by reclassifying the payments as royalties. The CGC has previously taken similar action. (c) Yes. (d) Refer to (b). (e) No. (f) Not applicable.

View on Parliament of WA