❓ Question on Notice regarding the WA Government's convention centre proposal, specifically concerning land ownership after 35 years, residual interests, and tax implications of the government's $110m contribution. The Minister's response is somewhat evasive on the tax question.
AnsweredQoN 166Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Government’s convention centre proposal. (1) What is the proposal for the land at the end of the 35-year period? (2) Will the minister assure the House that neither the proponent nor any other parties, such as financiers, will have any residual interest in the land at the end of the concession period? (3) Will the minister assure the House that the proponent or the proposed project vehicle will be required to pay the appropriate tax on the Government’s contribution of $110m? (4) If not, is this the reason the Government is proposing to take some equity in the project to remove or reduce that tax obligation? Hon N.F. MOORE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(4) Perhaps I should ask the member whether he thinks the proponent should pay tax on a government grant. I would be interested in his view on that. The first part of the question was what would happen to the land. The land will return to the Government, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, as will the building; that is, the convention and exhibition centre, the stadium and the two parcels of land on which they will be located will revert to government ownership. Hon Tom Stephens: With any residual interest? Hon N.F. MOORE: No. They will return to the Government and the Government will fully own them. However, in 35 years the Government - it certainly will not include me - may wish to renegotiate the position on who the owners are. That is for the future. At the moment it is the intention of our negotiations that the land at both sites, and both buildings, revert to the Government. On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
(1) What is the proposal for the land at the end of the 35-year period? (2) Will the minister assure the House that neither the proponent nor any other parties, such as financiers, will have any residual interest in the land at the end of the concession period? (3) Will the minister assure the House that the proponent or the proposed project vehicle will be required to pay the appropriate tax on the Government’s contribution of $110m? (4) If not, is this the reason the Government is proposing to take some equity in the project to remove or reduce that tax obligation? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) Perhaps I should ask the member whether he thinks the proponent should pay tax on a government grant. I would be interested in his view on that. The first part of the question was what would happen to the land. The land will return to the Government, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, as will the building; that is, the convention and exhibition centre, the stadium and the two parcels of land on which they will be located will revert to government ownership. Hon Tom Stephens: With any residual interest? Hon N.F. MOORE: No. They will return to the Government and the Government will fully own them. However, in 35 years the Government - it certainly will not include me - may wish to renegotiate the position on who the owners are. That is for the future. At the moment it is the intention of our negotiations that the land at both sites, and both buildings, revert to the Government. On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
(2) Will the minister assure the House that neither the proponent nor any other parties, such as financiers, will have any residual interest in the land at the end of the concession period? (3) Will the minister assure the House that the proponent or the proposed project vehicle will be required to pay the appropriate tax on the Government’s contribution of $110m? (4) If not, is this the reason the Government is proposing to take some equity in the project to remove or reduce that tax obligation? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) Perhaps I should ask the member whether he thinks the proponent should pay tax on a government grant. I would be interested in his view on that. The first part of the question was what would happen to the land. The land will return to the Government, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, as will the building; that is, the convention and exhibition centre, the stadium and the two parcels of land on which they will be located will revert to government ownership. Hon Tom Stephens: With any residual interest? Hon N.F. MOORE: No. They will return to the Government and the Government will fully own them. However, in 35 years the Government - it certainly will not include me - may wish to renegotiate the position on who the owners are. That is for the future. At the moment it is the intention of our negotiations that the land at both sites, and both buildings, revert to the Government. On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
(3) Will the minister assure the House that the proponent or the proposed project vehicle will be required to pay the appropriate tax on the Government’s contribution of $110m? (4) If not, is this the reason the Government is proposing to take some equity in the project to remove or reduce that tax obligation? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) Perhaps I should ask the member whether he thinks the proponent should pay tax on a government grant. I would be interested in his view on that. The first part of the question was what would happen to the land. The land will return to the Government, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, as will the building; that is, the convention and exhibition centre, the stadium and the two parcels of land on which they will be located will revert to government ownership. Hon Tom Stephens: With any residual interest? Hon N.F. MOORE: No. They will return to the Government and the Government will fully own them. However, in 35 years the Government - it certainly will not include me - may wish to renegotiate the position on who the owners are. That is for the future. At the moment it is the intention of our negotiations that the land at both sites, and both buildings, revert to the Government. On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
(4) If not, is this the reason the Government is proposing to take some equity in the project to remove or reduce that tax obligation? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) Perhaps I should ask the member whether he thinks the proponent should pay tax on a government grant. I would be interested in his view on that. The first part of the question was what would happen to the land. The land will return to the Government, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, as will the building; that is, the convention and exhibition centre, the stadium and the two parcels of land on which they will be located will revert to government ownership. Hon Tom Stephens: With any residual interest? Hon N.F. MOORE: No. They will return to the Government and the Government will fully own them. However, in 35 years the Government - it certainly will not include me - may wish to renegotiate the position on who the owners are. That is for the future. At the moment it is the intention of our negotiations that the land at both sites, and both buildings, revert to the Government. On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) Perhaps I should ask the member whether he thinks the proponent should pay tax on a government grant. I would be interested in his view on that. The first part of the question was what would happen to the land. The land will return to the Government, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, as will the building; that is, the convention and exhibition centre, the stadium and the two parcels of land on which they will be located will revert to government ownership. Hon Tom Stephens: With any residual interest? Hon N.F. MOORE: No. They will return to the Government and the Government will fully own them. However, in 35 years the Government - it certainly will not include me - may wish to renegotiate the position on who the owners are. That is for the future. At the moment it is the intention of our negotiations that the land at both sites, and both buildings, revert to the Government. On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
(1)-(4) Perhaps I should ask the member whether he thinks the proponent should pay tax on a government grant. I would be interested in his view on that. The first part of the question was what would happen to the land. The land will return to the Government, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, as will the building; that is, the convention and exhibition centre, the stadium and the two parcels of land on which they will be located will revert to government ownership. Hon Tom Stephens: With any residual interest? Hon N.F. MOORE: No. They will return to the Government and the Government will fully own them. However, in 35 years the Government - it certainly will not include me - may wish to renegotiate the position on who the owners are. That is for the future. At the moment it is the intention of our negotiations that the land at both sites, and both buildings, revert to the Government. On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
Hon Tom Stephens: With any residual interest? Hon N.F. MOORE: No. They will return to the Government and the Government will fully own them. However, in 35 years the Government - it certainly will not include me - may wish to renegotiate the position on who the owners are. That is for the future. At the moment it is the intention of our negotiations that the land at both sites, and both buildings, revert to the Government. On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
Hon N.F. MOORE: No. They will return to the Government and the Government will fully own them. However, in 35 years the Government - it certainly will not include me - may wish to renegotiate the position on who the owners are. That is for the future. At the moment it is the intention of our negotiations that the land at both sites, and both buildings, revert to the Government. On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
(1) What is the proposal for the land at the end of the 35-year period? (2) Will the minister assure the House that neither the proponent nor any other parties, such as financiers, will have any residual interest in the land at the end of the concession period? (3) Will the minister assure the House that the proponent or the proposed project vehicle will be required to pay the appropriate tax on the Government’s contribution of $110m? (4) If not, is this the reason the Government is proposing to take some equity in the project to remove or reduce that tax obligation? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) Perhaps I should ask the member whether he thinks the proponent should pay tax on a government grant. I would be interested in his view on that. The first part of the question was what would happen to the land. The land will return to the Government, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, as will the building; that is, the convention and exhibition centre, the stadium and the two parcels of land on which they will be located will revert to government ownership. Hon Tom Stephens: With any residual interest? Hon N.F. MOORE: No. They will return to the Government and the Government will fully own them. However, in 35 years the Government - it certainly will not include me - may wish to renegotiate the position on who the owners are. That is for the future. At the moment it is the intention of our negotiations that the land at both sites, and both buildings, revert to the Government. On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
(2) Will the minister assure the House that neither the proponent nor any other parties, such as financiers, will have any residual interest in the land at the end of the concession period? (3) Will the minister assure the House that the proponent or the proposed project vehicle will be required to pay the appropriate tax on the Government’s contribution of $110m? (4) If not, is this the reason the Government is proposing to take some equity in the project to remove or reduce that tax obligation? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) Perhaps I should ask the member whether he thinks the proponent should pay tax on a government grant. I would be interested in his view on that. The first part of the question was what would happen to the land. The land will return to the Government, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, as will the building; that is, the convention and exhibition centre, the stadium and the two parcels of land on which they will be located will revert to government ownership. Hon Tom Stephens: With any residual interest? Hon N.F. MOORE: No. They will return to the Government and the Government will fully own them. However, in 35 years the Government - it certainly will not include me - may wish to renegotiate the position on who the owners are. That is for the future. At the moment it is the intention of our negotiations that the land at both sites, and both buildings, revert to the Government. On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
(3) Will the minister assure the House that the proponent or the proposed project vehicle will be required to pay the appropriate tax on the Government’s contribution of $110m? (4) If not, is this the reason the Government is proposing to take some equity in the project to remove or reduce that tax obligation? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) Perhaps I should ask the member whether he thinks the proponent should pay tax on a government grant. I would be interested in his view on that. The first part of the question was what would happen to the land. The land will return to the Government, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, as will the building; that is, the convention and exhibition centre, the stadium and the two parcels of land on which they will be located will revert to government ownership. Hon Tom Stephens: With any residual interest? Hon N.F. MOORE: No. They will return to the Government and the Government will fully own them. However, in 35 years the Government - it certainly will not include me - may wish to renegotiate the position on who the owners are. That is for the future. At the moment it is the intention of our negotiations that the land at both sites, and both buildings, revert to the Government. On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
(4) If not, is this the reason the Government is proposing to take some equity in the project to remove or reduce that tax obligation? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) Perhaps I should ask the member whether he thinks the proponent should pay tax on a government grant. I would be interested in his view on that. The first part of the question was what would happen to the land. The land will return to the Government, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, as will the building; that is, the convention and exhibition centre, the stadium and the two parcels of land on which they will be located will revert to government ownership. Hon Tom Stephens: With any residual interest? Hon N.F. MOORE: No. They will return to the Government and the Government will fully own them. However, in 35 years the Government - it certainly will not include me - may wish to renegotiate the position on who the owners are. That is for the future. At the moment it is the intention of our negotiations that the land at both sites, and both buildings, revert to the Government. On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) Perhaps I should ask the member whether he thinks the proponent should pay tax on a government grant. I would be interested in his view on that. The first part of the question was what would happen to the land. The land will return to the Government, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, as will the building; that is, the convention and exhibition centre, the stadium and the two parcels of land on which they will be located will revert to government ownership. Hon Tom Stephens: With any residual interest? Hon N.F. MOORE: No. They will return to the Government and the Government will fully own them. However, in 35 years the Government - it certainly will not include me - may wish to renegotiate the position on who the owners are. That is for the future. At the moment it is the intention of our negotiations that the land at both sites, and both buildings, revert to the Government. On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
(1)-(4) Perhaps I should ask the member whether he thinks the proponent should pay tax on a government grant. I would be interested in his view on that. The first part of the question was what would happen to the land. The land will return to the Government, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, as will the building; that is, the convention and exhibition centre, the stadium and the two parcels of land on which they will be located will revert to government ownership. Hon Tom Stephens: With any residual interest? Hon N.F. MOORE: No. They will return to the Government and the Government will fully own them. However, in 35 years the Government - it certainly will not include me - may wish to renegotiate the position on who the owners are. That is for the future. At the moment it is the intention of our negotiations that the land at both sites, and both buildings, revert to the Government. On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
Hon Tom Stephens: With any residual interest? Hon N.F. MOORE: No. They will return to the Government and the Government will fully own them. However, in 35 years the Government - it certainly will not include me - may wish to renegotiate the position on who the owners are. That is for the future. At the moment it is the intention of our negotiations that the land at both sites, and both buildings, revert to the Government. On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
Hon N.F. MOORE: No. They will return to the Government and the Government will fully own them. However, in 35 years the Government - it certainly will not include me - may wish to renegotiate the position on who the owners are. That is for the future. At the moment it is the intention of our negotiations that the land at both sites, and both buildings, revert to the Government. On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
On the tax question, I am not fully au fait with the ultimate situation in which a grant is given to a company under the conditions that we are discussing. It may well be that if it were a straight grant, tax may be payable. That would take a very large lump out of the amount of money that is being provided. The Government’s main interest in this - as I continue to try to explain to the Leader of the Opposition - is to preserve the Government’s interest in the project and to try to determine an ownership position for the Government. As far as we are concerned, the question of the tax payable by the company is not our problem; it is the company’s problem. We are seeking to look after the interests of the Government and to maximise its position. That has always been the case. This process began with an offer and, as the offer has proceeded and the proponents have negotiated with us, we have sought to improve the Government’s position. As I have already explained to the House, we have significantly improved the Government’s position from the original offer. On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
On the final point, we will continue with the negotiation process, which I hope will be completed by the end of this month. Then all the details will be revealed to the Leader of the Opposition and he can either applaud it or scream his silly head off, as I expect him to do.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.