CASE 21/96

Members:
TE Barnett DP
SD Hotop
RD Fayle

Tribunal:
Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Decision date: 2 February 1996

TE Barnett (Deputy President), SD Hotop and RD Fayle (Senior Members)

The applicant conducts a transport operation involving haulage of ore mined by two unrelated mining companies to their respective processing plants located in the Goldfields region, near Kalgoorlie and Kambalda, Western Australia. The applicant also transports blue metal, crushed at its plant, for sale. The respondent assessed the applicant pursuant to s 101 of the Sales Tax Assessment Act 1992 [``the Assessment Act''] for sales tax on spare parts purchased in May 1993, for use in repairing trucks used in its transport business. This assessment and a request by the applicant for a refund of overpaid sales tax, duly refused by the respondent, were the subject of objections, pursuant to s 107 of the Assessment Act and s 14ZU of the Taxation Administration Act 1953, lodged by the applicant, on 23 November 1993 and 1 December 1993. The grounds of the objections were that the spare parts were goods exempted from sales tax since they were for repair of trucks used in carrying out mining or prospecting operations under contract to the mining companies. These objections were disallowed by the respondent and notification of the objection decisions was communicated to the applicant in August 1994. These decisions are the reviewable decisions in the present proceedings.

The issues

2. In brief, the three issues for determination by the Tribunal are - (i) the correct interpretation of the relevant legislation which provides an exemption from sales tax for general purpose road vehicles [``the vehicles''] and their spare parts; (ii) whether the applicant's use of the vehicles under contract to Newcrest Mining WA Limited and Western Mining Corporation Ltd [``the principals''] is exclusively within premises controlled by them; and/or (iii) whether the use made of the vehicles by the applicant in the course of its contract work for the principals is exclusively within premises controlled by the principals or in going between adjacent premises.

3. The applicant submits that the correct interpretation of the relevant legislation (infra) is that the sales tax exemption prevails provided the applicant's vehicles are used mainly for mining or prospecting operations conducted by the principals, and that use is within or in going between adjacent premises controlled by the principals. This submission maintains that the use made by the applicant in its business of

ATC 259

haulage and sale of blue metal does not detract from the sales tax exemption eligibility, provided that use is not the main use made of the vehicles.

4. On the other hand, the respondent submits that the correct interpretation of the relevant legislation is that no sales tax exemption is available for (in this instance) the cost of spare parts for vehicles unless those vehicles are used exclusively for mining or prospecting operations conducted by the principals.

5. It is common ground that, regardless of whether the use by the applicant is mainly or exclusively for mining or prospecting operations conducted by the principals, that use must be within and/or in going between adjacent premises controlled by the principals.

6. Should the Tribunal decide that the total use of the vehicles must be exclusively, rather than mainly, for the principals, then, in this context, if the word ``exclusively'' is to be interpreted literally, the applicant must fail because the evidence is that the vehicles were not used exclusively in this way. However, if the Tribunal decides that the word ``exclusively'' may be given, in context, a liberal meaning, then it needs to decide whether the non-exclusive use is sufficient to deny the exemption.

The evidence

7. At the hearing the applicant was represented by Mr C Zelestis QC and the respondent by Mr R LeMiere QC. Evidence in chief was called by the applicant from Mr A, the Tenure Manager in the Mineral Titles Division, Department of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, Mr B, the Tenement Manager for Newcrest Mining WA Limited [``Newcrest''], Mr C, Properties Officer with Western Mining Corporation Ltd [``WMC''] and Mr D, joint Managing Director of the applicant. Seven exhibits were taken in and the Tribunal had before it the documents filed pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 [``the T documents''].

8. The object of Mr A's evidence was to establish that, when mineral leases and prospecting or exploration licences are granted by the State Minister for Minerals and Energy, roads are not excised therefrom. His evidence was to this effect. However, mining and prospecting activity would not be carried out on, or in close proximity to, roads without the express consent of the local shire council and subject to the Minister attaching whatever conditions are considered appropriate. If mining is to be carried out on a road then that approval would require the mining company to re-route the road, usually at its expense, as has happened on occasion. Further, in relation to mineral and prospecting leases, there is a general requirement that mining, exploratory or similar work be carried out.

9. Mr B and Mr C are respectively officers of the principals, Newcrest and WMC respectively, for which the applicant undertakes ore haulage from mines to processing plants and other related activities in the conduct of the mining operations of those companies. The object of their evidence was to establish that the various mineral leases, prospecting, exploration and miscellaneous licences [``the tenements''] are premises controlled by either principal or adjacent premises controlled by them.

10. Exhibits taken in the course of their evidence included Mines Department maps (Ex. A1) of the tenements belonging to the principals over which the applicant hauled ore and other products for the principals in their respective mining operations. These maps were supplemented by a ``mud map'' of the relevant area (Ex. R2) and a map of the south-west of the State (Ex. A7) to show the relative location of the tenements which included the mines and the respective ore processing plants.

11. Mr B is the Tenement Manager for Newcrest, responsible for that company's applications for tenements and ongoing administrative maintenance of those tenements. The latter responsibilities include ensuring rents are paid on time and that the required reports to the Department of Minerals and Energy are lodged. His evidence was that Newcrest's processing plant is located on one of that company's mineral leases, known as Slippery Gimlet, which lease is currently being mined along with other mineral leases. Those also mined by Newcrest during the relevant period covered by this application were the Ora Banda, Zuleika and Breakaway Dam tenements. In addition, Newcrest, which explores for and mines gold, holds other leases which, whilst not currently being mined, are the subject of exploration from time to time. Unproductive leases are surrendered as a matter of company policy. Total expenditure, including mining for each of the most recent years has approximated

ATC 260

$34 million. However, the actual sites of the mining operations on Slippery Gimlet, Ora Banda, Zuleika and Breakaway Dam occupy only a relatively small area of the leases.

12. The ``mud map'', (Ex. R2), indicates roughly the juxtaposition of all the mines and the processing plants serviced by the applicant's vehicles. The Newcrest mines, called Breakaway Dam and Zuleika and their gold processing plant, are in the area known as Ora Banda. This map shows that Ora Banda is north of the township of Kalgoorlie. The Newcrest mines, their proximity to the Ora Banda processing plant and the nature of the roads over which the ore is hauled are as follows:

13. It is noted that haulage from the mine at Ora Banda to the processing plant there is within Newcrest mineral leases.

14. Haulage of ore from Ora Banda [reference: Map 6; M 24/29][1] These are references to Exhibits A1 and A7. The prefix ``M'' and ``ML'' refer to mineral leases, the latter signifying that it is held under a State Agreement Act. The prefix ``P'' indicates a prospecting licence, ``E'' an exploration licence and ``L'' a miscellaneous licence. , Zuleika [reference: Map 4; M 16/45] and Breakaway Dam [reference: Map 2; M 16/106] mines, traverses both private roads on Newcrest's miscellaneous leases and public roads.

15. Mr C is responsible for the management of all WMC's tenements. WMC mines for both gold and nickel and, depending on the site of the mine, the ore is hauled to either the Kambalda or Kalgoorlie processing plant. The Kambalda processing plant is located north east of the East Kambalda townsite [reference: Map 23 on mineral lease ML 150] and the Kalgoorlie Nickel smelter is located on freehold title [reference: Map 15; CG Loc 100] near the town of Kalgoorlie. Nickel ore is crushed at the Kambalda plant and may be transported to the nickel smelter in Kalgoorlie for further processing. From there it is transported by rail to Kwinana for further processing, an operation in which the applicant is not involved. Some gold is produced at Kambalda and may also be produced as a by-product from the nickel refining process. The evidence is that the mine areas occupy only a relatively small part of the respective tenements and that the area of each of the Kambalda processing plant and the Kalgoorlie smelter is approximately 3 hectares.

16. Maps (Ex A1, maps numbered 1 to 37) depict the approximate location of mines. Mr C's evidence is that WMC carries out mining in an area known as Widgie Dome, which covers mines at Mt Edwards [reference: Map 29; ML15/102], Wannaway [reference: Map 24; ML 15/89], Mariners [reference: Map 26; ML15/92] and Redross [reference: Map 23A; ML 15/90]. It also mines at Blair [reference: Map 16; ML 26/220], Mt Burgess [reference: Map 7; ML 15/125] and St Ives which is a name given to a group of mines (called Defiance, Foster, Victory, St Ives, Junction and Lan Franchi [T, p. 61]) in close proximity [reference: Maps 22, 23, 34 and 35]. Mines can produce ore for both nickel and gold.

17. The WMC mines, their proximity to the Kalgoorlie nickel smelter or the Kambalda processing plant (which plants are about 50 kms apart with access by public roads), and the nature of the roads over which the ore is hauled are as follows:

18. Roads constructed on miscellaneous licences must be maintained by the licensee whereas shire roads can be maintained by both the applicant, as a condition for it having a road train licence, and also the shire council, to which rates are paid.

19. The mine areas of both principals are generally fenced for safety reasons (Breakaway Dam is an exception). Private roads into mine areas have signs to warn the public that they are private roads and some have gates.

20. The essence of Mr D's evidence is set out in some detail below since it is critical to considerations concerning the use of the applicant's vehicles and whether that use is within premises controlled by the principals or in going between adjacent premises.

21. Mr D is a joint managing director of the applicant and has been involved in its business for approximately 28 years. That business, so far as is relevant, is the transportation, under contract, of nickel and gold ores and sand from mine sites to processing plants. The business also involves the processing of waste products into blue metal for one of the principals and on its own account. Road haulage is undertaken for the principals and also on the applicant's own account in its processing and sale of blue metal. In addition to haulage from the mine sites mentioned in the evidence of both Messrs B and C, by-products of processing, aggregate and fines, are carted from the processing plants to the Widgie Dome mine sites as back-loads. Aggregate and fines are used to make mine site roads. Also, sand is transported from the Mt Burgess mine area to the Kalgoorlie nickel smelter. Sand is used for flux in processing.

22. As mentioned, the applicant hauls blue metal for one of the principals and on its own account. It produces blue metal, under licence, by crushing mine by-products in its plant at Kambalda. It transports blue metal to various WMC mine sites and also to its own customers in and around the Kalgoorlie area. The vehicles used for this operation are generally those which are to return to the Blair mine. This involves a diversion. Instead of turning east off the Kalgoorlie/Kambalda Highway along Mount Martin Road to Blair, the vehicles continue along the highway and Anzac Drive for about 33 kms to the Kalgoorlie area to make the delivery before returning along that route to the Mount Martin Road turn-off. So, in effect, the 16.8 km stretch of the Kalgoorlie/Kambalda Highway between the Kambalda nickel plant and Mount Martin Road, travelled in both directions (i.e. 33.6 kms plus the return distance from the crushing plant to the highway, in total about 14 kms), being about 48 kms, is the ``back-load'' part of an overall trip of about 178 kms, ending with a load of ore from Blair to the Kambalda nickel plant; (Ex. A7, p. 12).

23. The evidence (Ex. A5.1 to 5.3; see below) shows the proportion of productive time of three selected vehicles used intermittently for blue metal cartage. These exhibits are tendered as evidence of typical truck usage patterns over five annual periods. Exhibit A5.2 indicates significant (9% for 1992-93) blue metal cartage use for truck T13 during the year of income in question, whereas for trucks T9 and T15,[2] Besides Ex. A5, three schedules were tendered (Ex. R1), also prepared by the applicant, depicting the time each of the three vehicles spent on mineral leases, exploration or prospecting licences or miscellaneous licence as compared with time spent on public roads. The schedules show the time, in hours and as a percentage of the total, for each vehicle by month for the calendar years 1991 to 1994 inclusively. the usage is not significant (being about 1%). Mr D estimated that the applicant hauled about 200,000 tonnes of blue metal annually, of which WMC used about three-quarters. The remaining quarter was sold to customers in and around the Kalgoorlie area. A minor part of this haulage was done by sub-contractors to the applicant.

24. The applicant's blue metal crushing plant is located at the WMC ``mullock'' stockpile, on freehold at the site of the old Dirkin mine [reference: Map 22, Hampton Loc 48]. The haulage from this site to the applicant's crushing plant is over a distance of about 6 km [Ex. A7, p 12] covering 2.4 km over WMC freehold property [Hampton Loc 48] and 3.6

ATC 262

km over WMC mineral lease, ML 149. From there the blue metal, bound for WMC mines, is delivered on demand to mines at Blair, Widgie Dome, St Ives and Karnelia which, like St Ives, is on WMC roads across its mineral leases. These trips are always organised as back-loads after having delivered ore to the Kambalda nickel plant.

25. In addition to carting ore and blue metal, the applicant also carts processing plant waste materials to the mullock dumps near the Kambalda processing plant. These waste materials are used for back-fill in WMC's underground and open cut mining operations. The waste (called slime) is carted as back-loads from the plant to the various mine sites.

26. The evidence is that the applicant's vehicles are designed for ore haulage rather than blue metal haulage, the latter requiring a lighter steel and therefore enabling a higher tonnage to be carted.

27. Further, the applicant is required by the relevant shire council to maintain shire roads over which it uses its road-trains (as part of the road-train licence) and the miscellaneous licence roads belonging to WMC and Newcrest, as part of the haulage contracts. The public roads and highways are maintained by the government. Further, the mineral leases and miscellaneous leases are generally over pastoral land.

28. The applicant employs 14 trucks, 10 of which are road trains. This review concerns objection decisions in relation to sales tax charged on parts purchased in April, May and June 1993, for repair of these trucks.

29. Summaries of productive hours of three of the applicant's trucks were produced in evidence (Ex. A5.1-A5.3) as depicting typical use of its trucks for five annual periods ending 30 June, for 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93, 1993/94 and 1994/95. These show productive hours of use, that being described as when the trucks are on a cartage job. Non-productive time, which includes maintenance and idle time, is not reflected in the summaries. The summaries show, for each selected vehicle, its recorded productive hours of use in relation to haulage for WMC, Newcrest and blue metal to other than WMC customers. The schedules show the productive hours for the vehicle in relation to each of the mines, back-loads and what has been termed ``WMC-Kambalda'' (Mine Lease Roads) use. These schedules are complemented by those tendered as Ex. R1 (see footnote 2).

Findings of fact

30. From the evidence the Tribunal finds the following facts:

The statutory provisions

31. Section 24 of the Assessment Act states:

``24 An assessable dealing is not taxable if:

  • (a) the goods are covered by an exemption Item that is in force at the time of the dealing; and
  • (b) all the requirements of that Item have been met at or before the time of the dealing.''

32. Section 4 of the Exemptions Act provides:

``4(1) Schedule 1 has effect for the purposes of those parts of the Assessment Act that refer to exemption Items. The Schedule does not by itself have the effect of exempting an assessable dealing from sales tax.

4(2) In broad terms, Schedule 1 has the following effects (through the Assessment Act):

  • (a) if all the requirements of an exemption Item are satisfied at or before the time of an assessable dealing, the dealing is not taxable;
  • (b) a non-lease AOU is not taxable if, at the time of the AOU, the applier has the intention of satisfying the requirements of an exemption Item;
  • (c)-(ca) [not relevant]
  • (d) an intention to satisfy the requirements of an exemption Item can be a ground for quoting;''

The terms ``AOU'' and ``non-lease AOU'' are defined in s 5 of the Assessment Act as:

``(5) ...

`AOU' means application to own use;

...

ATC 264

`non-lease AOU' means an application to own use that does not consist of the granting of a lease;''

Schedule 1 of the Exemptions Act contains the following relevant items:

``Item 1: [Mining activities] [R]

(1) Goods for use by a person ( `the exemption user' ) mainly in carrying out one or more of the following activities:

  • (a) mining or prospecting operations in the course of a business of carrying out mining or prospecting operations;
  • (b) [not relevant]
  • (c) an activity that is ancillary (as defined by section 10) to one or more activities covered by paragraph (a) or (b);
  • (d) an activity that is ancillary (as defined by section 10) to one or more activities covered by paragraph (c).

(2) Eligible raw materials and parts (as defined by section 11) in relation to activities covered by subitem (1).

(3) This Item does not cover:

  • (a) generally-excluded property (as defined by section 12);
  • (b) a general-purpose road vehicle, unless it is for use exclusively:
    • (i) within premises controlled by the exemption user and used by the exemption user mainly in carrying out one or more activities covered by subitem (1); or
    • (ii) in going between adjacent premises covered by subparagraph (i); or
    • (iii) for a combination of both;
  • and is not for use, to any extent, in any part of premises described in subparagraph (i) that is used, or for use, mainly in connection with a township, accommodation complex or similar place;
  • (c) goods for use mainly in connection with administrative activities (other than activities covered by paragraph (1)(c) or (d)).

(4) In this Item, `mining or prospecting operations' means:

  • (a) mining operations;
  • (b) quarrying operations;
  • (c) exploring or prospecting for deposits that are to be recovered by mining or quarrying operations.

...

Item 28: [Storage, transport etc.] [R]

(1) Goods for use by a person ( `the exemption user' ) mainly in carrying out one or more of the following activities:

  • (a) storing, handling, transporting or dispatching qualifying goods of the exemption user on premises that are controlled by the exemption user, except where the storing, handling, transporting or dispatching is on premises, or parts of premises, used mainly in connection with the retail sale of goods at those premises to the general public;
  • (b) an activity that is ancillary (as defined by section 10) to one or more activities covered by paragraph (a);
  • (c) an activity that is ancillary (as defined by section 10) to one or more activities covered by paragraph (b).

(2) Eligible raw materials and parts (as defined by section 11) in relation to activities covered by subitem (1).

(3) This Item does not cover:

  • (a) [not relevant]
  • (b) a general-purpose road vehicle, unless it is for use exclusively:
    • (i) within premises that are controlled by the exemption user (not including so much of those premises as is used, or for use, mainly in connection with the retail sale of goods at those premises to the general public); or
    • (ii) in going between adjacent premises covered by subparagraph (i); or
    • (iii) for combination of both.

...

Item 36: [Subcontractors]

(1) Goods ( `the exemption goods' ) for use by a person ( `the exemption user' ) mainly in carrying out one or more activities described in subitem (1) of exemption Item 1,... 28,... on behalf of one or more other persons ( `the principals' ). For this subitem to apply, either the condition in subitem (2) of this Item or the conditions in subitem (3)

ATC 265

of this Item must be met for each activity ( `countable activity' ) that is relied on to establish that this subitem applies.

(2) If the exemption goods were for use by the principal concerned mainly in carrying out the countable activity at the place at which the activity is to be carried out by the exemption user, the exemption goods would (in relation to the principal) be covered by the Item in which the countable activity is referred to.

(3) All the following conditions must be satisfied:

  • (a) the countable activity is to be carried out by the exemption user on premises controlled by the exemption user;
  • (b) the exemption goods are not for use by the exemption user mainly in connection with any business of the exemption user that involves selling goods (other that qualifying goods of the exemption user);
  • (c) the goods would be covered by exemption Item 28 (in relation to the principal concerned) if:
    • (i) the goods were for use by the principal mainly in carrying out the countable activity on the premises at which the activity is to be carried out by the exemption user; and
    • (ii) those premises were controlled by the principal.

(4) Subitems (2) and (3) are to be applied on the assumption that the principal concerned is registered at all relevant times.

(5) Eligible raw materials and parts (as defined by section 11) in relation to activities covered by subitem (1).''

Sections 11 and 12 of the Exemptions Act relevantly provide:

``11(1) Any subitem in Chapter 1 that refers to... parts in relation to specified activities is to be read as referring to the following goods:

  • (a)...
  • (b) goods for use by the exemption user exclusively as parts for goods/equipment for use by the exemption user mainly in carrying out one or more of the specified activities;
  • (c)...

11(2) In this section:

`goods/equipment' means goods, or machinery, implements or apparatus.

...

12(2) The following property is generally- excluded property:

  • (a) motor vehicles covered by Item 1 in Schedule 5 (other than vehicles known as four-wheel drive vehicles);
  • (b)...
  • (c)...
  • (d)...''

33. Item 1 of Schedule 5 to the Exemptions Act refers to ``luxury motor cars'' and does not apply to the applicant's road vehicles for which the subject parts have been purchased.

The submissions

34. Notwithstanding that the onus of proving that the respondent's objection decision is wrong, rests with the applicant (s 14ZZK of the Taxation Administration Act 1953), since the respondent made the relevant decision its submissions are summarised first.

35. The principal submission of the respondent is that, as a preliminary matter, the correct or proper interpretation of the statutory provisions requires the vehicles to be used exclusively under contract to the principals. That submission is examined first.

36. The respondent submits that subitem 36(1) of Schedule 1 to the Exemptions Act requires that for the parts in question to be exempt from sales tax they must, in the present context, be covered by exemption Items 1 or 28 in relation to each countable activity. A ``countable activity'' is prescribed by either subitem 36(2) or (3) and refers to the activities of the principals in carrying on their businesses. The respondent submits that for the applicant to succeed one of two tests must be satisfied:

37. In the case of general purpose road vehicles or parts for their repair, exemption subitems 1(3)(b) and 28(3)(b) require that they be used exclusively in carrying out countable activities within premises controlled by the exemption user; or exclusively in going between adjacent premises controlled by the exemption user; or exclusively in relation to a combination of those two requirements. Should the general purpose road vehicles be used by a contractor for a principal in carrying out its countable activities then Item 36 requires that to be the exclusive use of those vehicles. The respondent submits, on the facts:

38. It submits that this is the correct interpretation of Item 36 which depends on Items 1 or 28 in the present context.

39. It is submitted that, if the Tribunal accepts this interpretation, that is the end of the matter and the decisions under review must be affirmed. This obtains because the evidence is that the applicant's use of the vehicles is not exclusive to the undertaking of countable activities for the principals, but includes some use in transporting blue metal in and around Kalgoorlie for sale, which is not a countable activity.

40. The respondent relies on a second submission in the event that the Tribunal rejects the first or finds that ``exclusively'' does not mean ``without exception'' such that minor or insignificant non-complying use would not disqualify either the principal or contractor. In this event its submission is:

41. In a related context, the Tribunal notes that exemption Item 1 is further qualified in that, should the general-purpose road vehicles be used to any extent in any part of premises controlled by the exemption user mainly in connection with a township, accommodation complex or similar place, then the vehicles or parts do not qualify for exemption. In this respect the evidence is that the town of Ora Banda (reference: Ex. A1, Map 1) is within the Newcrest mineral leases and the town of Widgiemooltha (reference: Ex. A1, Map 29) is between WMC's Widgie Dome area leases and its St Ives leases. Otherwise none of the leases or licences in question contains a township, accommodation complex or similar place although the blue metal sales require transport in and around the Kalgoorlie township.

42. In sum, therefore, the respondent submits in the alternative - on the evidence, the vehicles in question, whilst mainly used in contract work for the principals, insofar as that use is concerned, are not used exclusively on premises controlled by Newcrest and WMC respectively or in going between adjacent premises controlled by those principals. Accordingly, it follows that the parts in question do not qualify for exemption from sales tax.

43. Whilst the applicant's submissions turn on an interpretation of the same statutory provisions upon which the respondent relies, paradoxically it submits that the exclusivity requirement for general-purpose road vehicles, pursuant to exemption sub-items 1(3)(b) and 28(3)(b), in respect of the principals for each countable activity, has no overall application to the sub-contractor's (i.e. the applicant's) use of the vehicles and parts. It submits that it is sufficient to meet the requirements of Item 36 that the applicant mainly, as distinct from exclusively, uses its general purpose road vehicles on contract work for the principals in carrying out their countable activities. The applicant maintains that the various mineral leases, exploration, prospecting and miscellaneous licences are premises in relation to each discrete mining area, which are controlled by the principals respectively and in the context of the legislative provisions, they are adjacent. Therefore, it submits, the vehicles, whilst used under contract for the principals, are used exclusively either within, or in going between, adjacent premises controlled by them.

Consideration

44. The Tribunal deals first with the matter of the correct interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions. In context, it examines the following question:

ATC 267

Is the use of the applicant's general purpose road vehicles for the purposes of transporting blue metal for sale in and around Kalgoorlie sufficient to disqualify the applicant from exclusive use of those vehicles in terms of Item 36?

45. The Tribunal adopts the interpretation of Item 36 advanced by the respondent.

46. Although Item 36 exempts from sales tax, goods mainly used by the exemption user (that is, the applicant) in carrying out one or more countable activities described in subitem (1) of Items 1 and 28 (for the present purposes), it is qualified because, in relation to each countable activity, all of the conditions specified in subitems 1(3) or 28(3) must be met. For the purpose of the present analysis it is assumed that the provisions of subitems 36(3)(a) and 36(3)(b) are met[4] However, clearly, whether the conditions of subitem 36(3)(a) are met is contentious and is discussed later in these reasons in relation to the evidence. . However, the provisions of subitem 36(3)(c) require that for the exemption to apply to the applicant, in relation to both principals, the goods would be covered by Item 28 mainly in carrying out the countable activities[5] It is assumed, for argument's sake, that the requirement relating to transport on premises controlled by the principals is met. .

47. Item 28 provides exemption in relation to goods for use by a person mainly in carrying out specified activities which include transporting qualified goods. However, subitem 28(3)(b) states that Item 28 does not cover a general-purpose road vehicle unless it is for use exclusively within premises or in going between adjacent premises controlled by the exemption user.

48. Therefore, whilst goods used by an exemption user (under both Items 1 and 28) qualify for exemption from sales tax even if only mainly (that is, more that 50% as defined in s 3(2) of the Exemptions Act) used in carrying out, in the present instance, mining or prospecting operations, there is an exception for general purpose road vehicles. In their case they must be used exclusively as stated.

49. The Tribunal finds that the legislation in this respect is not ambiguous. It observes that this interpretation is consistent with the general tenor of the relevant statutory provisions. It would seem strange, in the alternative, that for a general purpose road vehicle owned by a mining company to be exempt from sales tax it must be used exclusively for countable activities, whilst one owned by another need only be used mainly under contract for countable activities. That result must be unintended as it would provide a competitive advantage to contractors of entities carrying out mining activities as against the entities themselves carrying out the same operation.

50. However, the Tribunal is of the view that ``exclusively'', in the context of the use of general purpose road vehicles devoted to mining operations, ought not be construed strictly literally. It would seem reasonable that incidental or insignificant use should not operate to deny an otherwise qualifying use. For instance, if a vehicle should need to travel away from the mine site for repairs or to make an occasional trip to the town dump or be used occasionally for charitable or community purposes, such incidental and minor use, in a pragmatic sense, ought not disqualify the user who would otherwise comply.

51. By reference to Ex. A5.1-A5.3, being records of typical truck usage, it is evident that the use of the vehicles for cartage of blue metal, that is, the only use not exclusive to contract work for the principals, during the year ended 30 June 1993 (the relevant year in question) was 1% for vehicle T09, 9% for vehicle T13 and 1% for vehicle T15. The evidence is that these three vehicles typify the overall use of all 14 vehicles. However, having regard to the provisions of s 24 of the Assessment Act and subsections 4(1) and (2) of the Exemptions Act, one needs to consider the facts at or before the time of the assessable dealing. In the previous year vehicle T13 was used for 19% of its productive time hauling blue metal, a not insignificant proportion of its use.

52. Having regard to the de minimis doctrine, ``exclusively'' should be, at least, considerably more than ``mainly'' (the other relational word used in the provisions) but not necessarily 100%. Words synonymous with ``mainly'' often used in revenue statutes are ``primarily'' and ``principally'' but those do no more than connote something more than 50%. Given that it may be reasonable, in some circumstances, to accept ``exclusively'' as something less than 100%, one needs to make a subjective judgement about appropriate non-exclusive circumstances. The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Sales Tax Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1991, the Bill which became the Sales Tax Amendment Act (No 2) of 1991 which amended the predecessor 1935 legislation, states:

``Exclusive use within eligible premises

ATC 268

Whilst ordinary meaning of `exclusive use' would suggest 100% use of the goods is required, the term has been interpreted by the courts to be subject to the de minimus (sic) non curat lex doctrine.

This means that occasional, irregular or insignificant use away from premises will not disqualify a general purpose road vehicle from exemption from tax.

Examples of use away from premises that would be acceptable as irregular and insignificant include:

  • • yearly motor vehicle registration tests;
  • • necessary servicing of the vehicle away from the premises;
  • • emergency situations where a vehicle is required to be taken `off site'.

Examples of uses away from premises that would not satisfy the exclusive use test are:

  • • pick up and delivery vehicles which regularly leave the premises to pick up materials from suppliers etc;
  • • the garaging of vehicles off premises at employees' or other residences;
  • • travel between goods producers' premises where those premises are not contiguous. [Note that the word `contiguous' has been substituted by `adjacent' in the 1992 Exemptions Act.]''

53. These are examples only and do not presume to be an exhaustive list of acceptable exceptions. However, they imply a sense of necessity arising as ancillary to the qualifying use. The exceptional use made by the applicant in this case was for commercial purposes - to sell its blue metal to customers in and around Kalgoorlie. The evidence is that whilst the time spent on this activity was relatively minor in comparison to that spent on the principals' countable activities, the use was frequent if not regular. Usage, in terms of time, at or before the assessable dealing of between 19% and 9% of one (sample) vehicle's time, in the opinion of the Tribunal, is neither ancillary to the countable activity use nor insignificant.

54. Therefore, as the applicant's use of its vehicles in carting blue metal for sale disqualifies it from exemption from sales tax under subitem 36, the answer to the primary question is ``yes''. This, of itself, is sufficient for the Tribunal to affirm the decisions under review.

55. Should, however, the Tribunal be wrong in its interpretation of the scope of Item 36 in relation to the use of the applicant's general purpose road vehicles, or in its interpretation of the meaning of the word ``exclusively'', in context, then it needs to go further. Should the preferable view of the statutory provisions be that as submitted by the applicant - that it is sufficient for the applicant to use its vehicles mainly under contract work for the principals - then the Tribunal must examine the evidence in relation to whether that use is within or in going between adjacent premises controlled by the principals. In this respect the Tribunal first considers the scope of the phrase ``premises controlled'' and then the meaning of ``adjacent premises'' in context.

What are the relevant premises controlled by the principals for the purposes of subitems 1(3)(b) and 28(3)(b) of schedule 1 to the Exemptions Act?

56. Sales tax exemption provisions in relation to mining are intended to encourage the production of minerals in Australia and should be construed and applied liberally (see
FC of T v ICI Australia Ltd 72 ATC 4213 at pp. 4216, 4227; (1972) 127 CLR 529 at pp. 563; 581, as cited with approval by Beaumont J in
FC of T v Reynolds Australia Alumina Ltd & Ors 87 ATC 5018 at 5022 and Burchett J at 5030).

Also, in Reynolds, Beaumont J said (at 5022):

``In determining whether the [sales tax] exemption is applicable, it is appropriate to have regard to practical and businesslike considerations and, for this purpose, to look at the matter in the context of the taxpayer's activities as a whole (see [Lockhart J in FC of T v Northwest Iron Co Ltd 86 ATC 4202 at] 4210-4211...).''

57. The Tribunal, guided by Beaumont J's approach in Reynolds, at p. 5022, finds that the ultimate question of characterisation in the present case, one of degree and judgment, is whether the relevant tenements are premises controlled by the principals.

58. The word ``premises'' is not defined in either the Assessment Act or the Exemptions Act. ``Controlled'' is defined inclusively in subsection 3(2) of the Exemptions Act as:

``3(2) In this Act unless the contrary intention appears:

...

ATC 269

`controlled' , in relation to premises, includes owned or leased;''

59. The crucial question is whether the principals' mines, their respective processing plants and the integrated (in a business sense) exploration, prospecting and miscellaneous licences are together to be regarded as ``premises''. Burchett J provides a relevant and instructive analysis in Reynolds case where his Honour states (at 5033-5034):

``The word `premises' has a long history of use as a wide and general word referring to land or land and buildings. This is a secondary meaning derived from the fact that the lands referred to in a deed of grant were set forth in that part of the deed technically called the premises. In Blackstone's Laws of England vol. 2, p. 298 the premises of a deed are said to contain, in addition to the names of the parties, recitals of such matters `as are necessary to explain the reasons upon which the present transaction is founded', and the consideration, `the certainty of the grantor, grantee and the thing granted'... was, of course, the land conveyed, which might or might not have buildings erected on it. The development in language which followed is explained by Lord Goddard CJ in
Gardiner v Sevenoaks Rural District Council (1950) 2 All ER 84 at p. 85, where he said:

```Premises'' is, no doubt, a word which is capable of many meanings. How it originally became applied to property is, I think, generally known. It was from the habit of conveyancers when they were drawing deeds of conveyance referring to property and speaking of ``parcels''. They set out the parcels in the early part of the deed, and later they would refer to ``the said premises,'' meaning strictly that which had gone before, and gradually by common acceptance ``premises'' became applied, as it generally is now, to houses, land, shops, or whatever it may be, so that the word has come to mean generally real property of one sort or another. There is no doubt that from time to time the word ``premises'' has been given different meanings, either extended or more restricted.'

Lord Goddard went on to hold that, in an Act restricting the use of premises for the storage of film, `Parliament intended to use the widest possible word'. He held that a cave, to the entrance of which a door had been attached, constituted premises within the meaning of the Act.

In
Phonographic Performance Ltd v Pontin's Ltd (1967) 3 All ER 736 Cross J held that a considerable area of land, containing chalets capable of accommodating over 1,000 people, a cafe, a shop, a bar, a swimming pool, tennis courts and other structures, could not be regarded as a number of separate and distinct premises, but should be regarded, as a whole, as one `premises'. He took into account the common purpose, of a sort of seaside hotel, to which all these things were devoted.

It seems to me that the integrated activity carried on over the whole of a continuous area of land does, in the present case, assist in correct characterisation of the whole area as relevantly `premises'.''

``Premise'', in the context of land, is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary, Second Edition, as:

``premise ... 2. (pl.) a. the property forming the subject of a conveyance. b. a tract of land...''

This definition merely links the word ``premises'' with ``property''. In the Northwest Iron Co case, Lockhart J said, in relation to provision of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 dealing with mining operations:

``A mining property is an area of land on which mining operations are being carried on: FCT v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd (1967-69) CLR 240 [`the BHP case'] per Kitto J at pp. 245 and 245; Barwick CJ, McTiernan and Menzies JJ at 275. A mining property may cover part only of a large tract of land. Several parcels of land over which a person who is working a mine on one of them may form one mining property. It is in each case a question of fact and depends on whether mining operations are being carried on either upon the land or in such circumstances that for practical purposes the relevant land is integral with other land on which such operation exist: BHP case per Kitto J at pp. 245 and 246.''

60. In the Tribunal's opinion, his Honour's reference to a ``mining property'' can be appropriated to the concept of ``premises'' as

ATC 270

referred to in subitems 1(3)(b) and 28(3)(b) of Schedule 1 to Exemptions Act, especially as that provision particularly embraces ``mining or prospecting operations'', which the Tribunal interprets as ``mining and prospecting operations'' by reason of the definition in subitem (4) of Item 1: (see also Lee J's reasons in
Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd v FC of T 90 ATC 5028 at 5040).

61. The statutory reference to ``premises'' in relation to the use of general purpose road vehicles is that they be used within premises controlled by the exemption user or in going between adjacent premises used for mining or prospecting operations. In practical and businesslike terms, the use of general purpose road vehicles of the kind in question (heavy haulage stand alone vehicles and road trains), is to transport ore taken from either an open cut or an underground mine on a mineral lease, to the processing plant, which, in these instances, is located on another mineral lease. Transport in this manner is presumably the most economical way to convey the ore.

62. Evidence indicates that both principals maintain their respective tenements, not presently mined, for exploration, prospecting or future mining. To do this they must meet certain State compliance requirements which involves annual expenditure in respect of each lease. The relative position of a mine and the processing plant is determined by practical and businesslike factors. These two locations can be joined by a continuum of leases, as is the case for WMC's St Ives location.

63. The Tribunal finds that ``premises'', in the present context, includes adjoining mineral leases being mined, mineral leases held for mining or prospecting operations, exploration or prospecting licences and integral miscellaneous licences and the lease or freehold on which is located the processing plant.

64. Therefore, the St Ives group of leases continuing through WMC leases and licences to the Kambalda nickel processing plant form ``premises''.

65. However, the route taken from the Mt Burgess mine to the Kalgoorlie nickel smelter is not exclusively over mining tenements but includes main roads so it would not be ``within premises'' in that sense.

66. Similarly, the relevant premises for the Blair mine and the Widgie Dome group of mines do not extend uninterrupted to the Kambalda nickel plant as these are interspersed by public roads. The route from those mines to the processing plant is not within premises of the principal.

67. On the other hand, both the Breakaway and Zuleika mines contiguous with the Ora Banda processing plant through a succession of mining tenements (which expression includes miscellaneous licences), form two distinct premises of the principal - the Breakaway/Ora Banda premises and the Zuleika/Ora Banda premises.

68. The definition of ``controlled'', in relation to premises, includes premises either owned or leased. In this context, the tenements are for ``mining or prospecting operations'', and are in a loose sense ``leased''. However, for reasons stated below, mining tenements which include public roads, to that extent, despite ss. 66, 67 and 91 of the Mining Act 1978 (WA), are not controlled by the lessee.

69. Ore hauled from Mt Burgess traverses parts of the Coolgardie North Road and the Great Eastern Highway; from Blair, parts of the Kalgoorlie/Kambalda Highway; and from Widgie Dome, parts of the Coolgardie/ Esperance Highway and Emu Rocks Road. These carriageways are public highways or roads, which, if they occur on a mining tenement, do so only because they were not specifically excised by the State Minister for Minerals and Energy when the lease was granted. Nevertheless, those carriageways remain in the absolute control of either the State of Western Australia or the local shire council. They are not controlled by either of the principals which, as distinct from their private roads on miscellaneous licences, do not maintain them. The carriageways are unrestricted public roads whose maintenance is funded, presumably, from government revenue or shire rates.

70. In relation to the cartage of ore from the mines at Breakaway Dam and Zuleika mines to the Ora Banda processing plant, that usage is over both miscellaneous licence roads and shire roads. The evidence is that the shire roads in question are maintained by the applicant under contract to the relevant principal, as a condition of its being granted the licence. Therefore, both routes are ``controlled'' by the principal. However, vehicles operated at those locations are required to travel public roads from the

ATC 271

applicant's depots at either Kalgoorlie or Kambalda, so to that extent their usage is not within premises controlled by the principal.

71. The Tribunal therefore finds that the principals' mining tenements, with the exclusion of those over public carriageways, are ``controlled'' by them within the meaning of Item 1 of Schedule 1 to the Exemptions Act.

72. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the relevant premises of the principals which are controlled by them respectively are:

73. However, it finds that none of the following is within premises controlled by the respective principal tenement holder, because each route traverses public carriageways:

74. Those findings, that the vehicles are not exclusively operated within premises controlled by the principals, are not sufficient to conclude the matter. It is sufficient to comply with the requirements of subitems 1(3)(b) and 28(3)(b) if the use of the vehicles in going between controlled premises is adjudged as in going between such premises as are adjacent.

75. As foreshadowed, it is also necessary to consider the matter of ``adjacency'' in this context.

Are the premises mentioned above, which include the ore processing plants, ``adjacent'' to each other?

76. This question has two distinct parts for the present purposes:

Since ``adjacent'' is not defined in the statute it takes on its ordinary meaning. It is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary, Second Edition as:

``adjacent, adj. lying near, close, or contiguous; adjoining; neighbouring: a field adjacent to a main road.''

77. It is not uncommon to find the word used in revenue statutes in the context of mining operations - for example it is found in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, Division 10, Mining and Quarrying, instances of which are in the definition of `` housing and welfare '' in s 122 (``residential accommodation... at a place adjacent to,... mining operations;... health, educational and recreational... facilities... at a place adjacent to,... mining operations''); and in s 164(7) of the Customs Act 1901, where, in relation to other operations connected with mining operations, paragraph (ca) states ``... being operations carried out in, or at a place adjacent to, the area in which the dressing or beneficiation occurs;''. ``Mining operations'' is defined in subsection 164(7) as ``... and includes other operations... that are carried out in, or at a place adjacent to, the area in which the... mining occurs''.

78. The Tribunal was directed, by the applicant, to several authorities in this regard. These are considered below. The applicant submitted, that the object of Items 1, 28 and 36 exemptions is to encourage mining (c.f. ICI Australia and Reynolds Australia). The use of the word ``adjacent'', in relation to the use of vehicles, is to ensure their use within the mining industry is not exempt from sales tax unless the use is exclusively in mining or prospecting operations. In a mining industry context subitem 28(3)(b)(ii) cannot be discerned entirely arbitrarily. Rather, it was submitted, the sub-item embodies a flexible standard of proximity which is able to take full account of the relevant exemptions. As such, it may extend to premises which are separated by large distances since the Parliament cannot have been ignorant of the fact that, with respect to Item 1, mining economics will itself impose a sensible limit on transport operations between mining and processing sites. The word ``adjacent'', it was submitted, ought not be construed narrowly in these contexts but beneficially. The submission is that ``adjacency'' should be determined by reference to the overall proximity, in a relative not absolute sense, of the mines and processing

ATC 272

plants. This requires reference to not only spatial factors but also to business and economic considerations. Therefore, all journeys are either within premises (e.g. those relating to the St Ives group of mines and the Ora Banda mines) or involve going between adjacent premises.

79. The Tribunal understands this submission to require it to disregard the absolute distances as evidenced but to find that mining tenements of a particular miner are adjacent if it is economical to haul mined ore to the processing plant, bearing in mind that mines are generally located in remote areas. The Tribunal cannot adopt this as a relevant determinative test. The test of adjacency is geographically spatial rather than one of economics although the latter factor may have an influence in remote areas. If it was economic to transport ore say, from the North West of Western Australia to Perth where it is beneficiated, one could hardly say those two locations are therefore adjacent. Economic determinants are dictated by market forces and it could not be that Parliament had only those matters in mind when formulating the legislation. In this respect it is of interest that the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill 1992, which became the Exemptions Act, states at paragraph 5.42:

``Adjacent premises : The reference in the existing law to contiguous premises will be changed to adjacent premises.

Reason for change : Adjacent is a more commonly used word. This change will not alter the scope of the current exemption.''

80. The relevant item, as it appeared in the predecessor legislation, was amended by the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1991 which became the Sales Tax Amendment Act (No. 2) of 1991 amending the then current 1935 legislation. The Explanatory Memorandum had this to say about ``contiguous premises'', the term then used but replaced in the 1992 legislation as mentioned above:

``As discussed earlier, general purpose road vehicles are eligible for exemption within the main categories of eligible business goods where used exclusively within certain premises.

However, in some cases, such vehicles may be used exclusively within, or between, adjacent or adjoining production premises which may, for example, be separated only by a public road....

Clause 14 allows exemption for general purpose road vehicles that are for use exclusively both within and in going between `contiguous' areas.

`Contiguous premises' is an established sales tax concept. Other exemption items in which the term `contiguous' occurs include the aids to manufacture definition[6] It is noted that the amended provisions of the 1992 Exemptions Act are embodied in Sub-Chapter 1.2: Manufacturing and industrial etc , in particular, for the present purposes, Item 18, subitem (3)(b) (supra) . , which allows exemption for storage of raw materials and work-in-progress in the manufacturing premises `or premises contiguous to any such premises'.

The term `contiguous' has been subject of judicial interpretation in other legislation, and consistent with the existing sales tax law, the term will not be defined in this Bill.

The term covers travel between adjacent or abutting premises which are owned, leased or controlled by the goods producer concerned....

Remote Areas

In remote areas, premises separated by short distances may also be treated as being contiguous. For example, mining leases separated by 5 kilometres of desert in the remote outback would be considered to be contiguous premises. Travel exclusively within and between the two leases would qualify vehicles for exemption. However, the two leases would not be considered to be contiguous if they were separated by a township.''

81. The predecessor statutory term ``contiguous premises'' was replaced by ``adjacent premises'' in the legislation now being considered. However, it is useful to consider what the courts have said in relation to the notion of contiguous or the scope of the term ``adjacent premises''.

82. The issue in Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd (supra) was not adjacency but, in part, whether the constituent parts of the railway used to transport ore over 190 kilometres from the mine site to the crushing and blending facility were exempt from sales tax as machinery etc for use in carrying out mining operations or in the treatment of the products of those operations. The railway was constructed on leased areas which were contiguous and stretched from the mine to the port destination.

ATC 273

It was held that the transportation was within premises. The Tribunal can draw no relevant conclusion from this decision other than, in remote area mining, a distance of 190 kilometres across contiguous leases, to transport ore for processing, does not detract from the character of the operation as integral to mining and treatment of the ore.

83. Residential accommodation provided by the taxpayer, BHP Minerals Limited, in the central highlands of Queensland at Capella and Emerald, being respectively about 50 kilometres and 60 kilometres from the mine site has been held, for the purpose of ss. 122 and 122A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, to be adjacent to the site of the mine within the definition of ``housing and welfare''. In a majority decision of the Federal Court in
FC of T v BHP Minerals Ltd 83 ATC 4407, Toohey and Lockhart JJ decided that the word ``adjacent'' (in the context of the Income Tax legislation) should be interpreted broadly. In s 122, it is used in the sense of ``near'' or ``close''. It does not require contiguity or abutment nor does it necessarily require very close proximity. It is sufficient that the residential accommodation is near or close to the mine site; (ref: CCH headnote at pp 4407-4408). In the course of their Honours' joint judgment they cited with approval the following passage from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in
Mayor of Wellington v Mayor of Lower Hutt [1904] AC 773 at p. 775-776, a case concerning the matter of financial contribution by adjacent districts in relation to the construction of bridges by municipal councils:

```Adjacent' is not a word to which a precise and uniform meaning is attached by ordinary usage. It is not confined to places adjoining, and it includes places close to or near. What degree of proximity would justify the application of the word is entirely a question of circumstances...''

84. Toohey and Lockhart JJ then proceeded to acknowledge that where a word, such as ``adjacent'', is not defined in the statute the first task is to consider the ordinary meaning and ``then see if that meaning needs to be displaced or qualified in some way by the context in which it appears'' (p. 4413). They reflected on synonyms such as ``neighbouring'', ``adjoining'' and ``contiguous'' and observed that each of these suggests a degree of connection whereas ``adjacent'' is a word capable of a broad connotation.

85. In two customs duty cases decided together by this Tribunal,
Re: Westrail and Collector of Customs (1994) 36 ALD 158 and Re: Alcoa of Australia Ltd and Collector of Customs ([unreported] AAT 7764) the word ``adjacent'' was considered in relation to whether certain activities remote from the beneficiating process for alumina were connected to and adjacent to the mining operations. The cases resulted in a finding that the operations were connected to the mining and beneficiation of the ore and were adjacent. In the Alcoa case it was decided that the conveyor belt system used to transport the crushed ore, which extended about 14 kilometres from the point of mining to the processing plant, was connected with the mining and processing operations at a place adjacent to the area in which mining occurred. In the Westrail case it was decided that the dedicated railway line from the port to the refinery, used to transport caustic soda (an important ingredient in the processing operation), from a wharf more than 40 kilometres away to the processing plant, was connected with and adjacent to mining operations. Adjacency in those cases was found, therefore, by reason of an integrated activity.

86. That is not the case here. Paragraphs (iv), (v), (vi) and (viii) of the findings of fact above indicate that a considerable part of each journey, other than from the St Ives group of mines to the Kambalda nickel smelter, is over public roads. The distances travelled over public roads predicates that the various mine sites and processing plants are not adjacent. These mines are all in a district containing main public roads. The townships of Kalgoorlie and Kambalda, spatially, lie between Ora Banda and Mt Burgess on the one hand and Blair, the Widgie Dome mines and the St Ives mines on the other. Also, the townsite of Widgiemooltha lies between the Widgie Dome the St Ives group of tenements and the township of Ora Banda is in close proximity to Newcrest's processing plant there.

87. Therefore, at best, only some of the use of the vehicles in question is within premises controlled by the principals or in going between adjacent premises controlled by the principals. This is insufficient to meet the requirements of subitems 1(3)(b) and 28(3)(b) and therefore

ATC 274

Item 36 such that the parts in question are exempt from sales tax.

Conclusions

(1) The applicant's use of the relevant general purpose road vehicles is not exclusively for mining and prospecting operations carried on by the principals. Therefore, the requirements of Item 36 of Schedule 1 to the Exemptions Act are not met and the parts in question are not exempt from sales tax.

(2) In any event, the use of the relevant general purpose road vehicles, insofar as that use relates to contracts for the principals, is neither within premises controlled by those principals nor in going between adjacent premises.

(3) In finding that the various mine sites are not all adjacent to each other nor all adjacent to their respective processing plants, the Tribunal simply notes that, if the evidence had been that dedicated vehicles were used exclusively hauling ore from the St Ives group of mines to the Kambalda nickel smelter, then such vehicles (and hence parts for their repair) would qualify under Item 36 of Schedule 1 to the Exemptions Act, because the St Ives group of mines and the Kambalda nickel smelter are within premises controlled by the respective principal.

Decision

88. For the above reasons the objection decisions under review are affirmed.

Footnotes

[1] These are references to Exhibits A1 and A7. The prefix ``M'' and ``ML'' refer to mineral leases, the latter signifying that it is held under a State Agreement Act. The prefix ``P'' indicates a prospecting licence, ``E'' an exploration licence and ``L'' a miscellaneous licence.
[2] Besides Ex. A5, three schedules were tendered (Ex. R1), also prepared by the applicant, depicting the time each of the three vehicles spent on mineral leases, exploration or prospecting licences or miscellaneous licence as compared with time spent on public roads. The schedules show the time, in hours and as a percentage of the total, for each vehicle by month for the calendar years 1991 to 1994 inclusively.
[3] These distance percentages have been calculated from the information provided in Ex. A7. The percentages are based on the proportion of the journey on public roads not traversing mineral leases belonging to Newcrest and WMC respectively.
[4] However, clearly, whether the conditions of subitem 36(3)(a) are met is contentious and is discussed later in these reasons in relation to the evidence.
[5] It is assumed, for argument's sake, that the requirement relating to transport on premises controlled by the principals is met.
[6] It is noted that the amended provisions of the 1992 Exemptions Act are embodied in Sub-Chapter 1.2: Manufacturing and industrial etc , in particular, for the present purposes, Item 18, subitem (3)(b) (supra) .

 

Disclaimer and notice of copyright applicable to materials provided by CCH Australia Limited

CCH Australia Limited ("CCH") believes that all information which it has provided in this site is accurate and reliable, but gives no warranty of accuracy or reliability of such information to the reader or any third party. The information provided by CCH is not legal or professional advice. To the extent permitted by law, no responsibility for damages or loss arising in any way out of or in connection with or incidental to any errors or omissions in any information provided is accepted by CCH or by persons involved in the preparation and provision of the information, whether arising from negligence or otherwise, from the use of or results obtained from information supplied by CCH.

The information provided by CCH includes history notes and other value-added features which are subject to CCH copyright. No CCH material may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy for your personal use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices. In particular, the reproduction of any part of the information for sale or incorporation in any product intended for sale is prohibited without CCH's prior consent.