❓ The Treasurer outlines the Liberal-National government's proposal to reset and index the zone tax rebate to address skilled labour shortages in WA's rural and remote areas, highlighting the erosion of the rebate's value since 1945 and advocating for its adjustment to incentivize workers.
AnsweredQoN 76Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
INCOME ZONE TAX REBATE — ADJUSTMENT
The Liberal–National government has made a submission to reset and index the zone tax rebate. Could the Treasurer please outline what this proposal would mean for rural and remote workers in my electorate and throughout Western Australia? Mr C.C. PORTER
The Liberal–National government has made a submission to reset and index the zone tax rebate. Could the Treasurer please outline what this proposal would mean for rural and remote workers in my electorate and throughout Western Australia? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. During the arduous process of taking on a new portfolio and reading the many, many briefings that come across my desk, some things stand out more than others. This was one that struck me as being an absolutely critical change that this government can work towards for the betterment of the state. Clearly, there is broad agreement in this place that one of the challenges that Western Australia will face going forward is the attraction and retention of skilled labour. I note that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia review suggested a 210 000 worker shortfall until 2020. That figure is necessarily speculative, and I suspect it is slightly on the high side; nevertheless, it is a very important issue to come to grips with. The CCI highlighted problems with the national immigration policy and it also commented on training in Western Australia, land use, planning, and economic and social infrastructure. Obviously a great deal has been done by members on this side of the house to build cities in the north and to make those places attractive places for workers to live. One issue, though, will affect Western Australia more than any other issue going forward; that is, labour mobility Australia-wide. A portion of an article in The Australian , titled “Stressed labour market forced to adapt as mining boom goes on and on”, states — The renewed investment rush into the mining sector, worth at least $150 billion, is blamed for intensifying the current skills shortage and dragging workers to the dominant resources states. It is a small thing, but that sort of language, which I see again and again in eastern states’ papers, appears to intonate that it is a terrible thing that workers are actually moving to Western Australia to do work that desperately needs to be done in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is the resentment of the rust-bucket states! Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree, and it is language that should be very much lobbied against. That brings me to the question of the income tax zone rebate. Although I knew about it, I was not particularly coded about what it was. For the information of members, the system is as follows. Zone A rebate, which includes the northern part of Western Australia, is currently set at $338 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. Zone B rebate, which includes central and southern parts of Western Australia, is currently set at $57 plus 20 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. The special area, or zone A and zone B rebate, which is for particularly isolated areas 250 kilometres or more from a population centre of 2 500 or more, is $1 173 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. During the arduous process of taking on a new portfolio and reading the many, many briefings that come across my desk, some things stand out more than others. This was one that struck me as being an absolutely critical change that this government can work towards for the betterment of the state. Clearly, there is broad agreement in this place that one of the challenges that Western Australia will face going forward is the attraction and retention of skilled labour. I note that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia review suggested a 210 000 worker shortfall until 2020. That figure is necessarily speculative, and I suspect it is slightly on the high side; nevertheless, it is a very important issue to come to grips with. The CCI highlighted problems with the national immigration policy and it also commented on training in Western Australia, land use, planning, and economic and social infrastructure. Obviously a great deal has been done by members on this side of the house to build cities in the north and to make those places attractive places for workers to live. One issue, though, will affect Western Australia more than any other issue going forward; that is, labour mobility Australia-wide. A portion of an article in The Australian , titled “Stressed labour market forced to adapt as mining boom goes on and on”, states — The renewed investment rush into the mining sector, worth at least $150 billion, is blamed for intensifying the current skills shortage and dragging workers to the dominant resources states. It is a small thing, but that sort of language, which I see again and again in eastern states’ papers, appears to intonate that it is a terrible thing that workers are actually moving to Western Australia to do work that desperately needs to be done in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is the resentment of the rust-bucket states! Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree, and it is language that should be very much lobbied against. That brings me to the question of the income tax zone rebate. Although I knew about it, I was not particularly coded about what it was. For the information of members, the system is as follows. Zone A rebate, which includes the northern part of Western Australia, is currently set at $338 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. Zone B rebate, which includes central and southern parts of Western Australia, is currently set at $57 plus 20 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. The special area, or zone A and zone B rebate, which is for particularly isolated areas 250 kilometres or more from a population centre of 2 500 or more, is $1 173 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
I thank the member for his question. During the arduous process of taking on a new portfolio and reading the many, many briefings that come across my desk, some things stand out more than others. This was one that struck me as being an absolutely critical change that this government can work towards for the betterment of the state. Clearly, there is broad agreement in this place that one of the challenges that Western Australia will face going forward is the attraction and retention of skilled labour. I note that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia review suggested a 210 000 worker shortfall until 2020. That figure is necessarily speculative, and I suspect it is slightly on the high side; nevertheless, it is a very important issue to come to grips with. The CCI highlighted problems with the national immigration policy and it also commented on training in Western Australia, land use, planning, and economic and social infrastructure. Obviously a great deal has been done by members on this side of the house to build cities in the north and to make those places attractive places for workers to live. One issue, though, will affect Western Australia more than any other issue going forward; that is, labour mobility Australia-wide. A portion of an article in The Australian , titled “Stressed labour market forced to adapt as mining boom goes on and on”, states — The renewed investment rush into the mining sector, worth at least $150 billion, is blamed for intensifying the current skills shortage and dragging workers to the dominant resources states. It is a small thing, but that sort of language, which I see again and again in eastern states’ papers, appears to intonate that it is a terrible thing that workers are actually moving to Western Australia to do work that desperately needs to be done in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is the resentment of the rust-bucket states! Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree, and it is language that should be very much lobbied against. That brings me to the question of the income tax zone rebate. Although I knew about it, I was not particularly coded about what it was. For the information of members, the system is as follows. Zone A rebate, which includes the northern part of Western Australia, is currently set at $338 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. Zone B rebate, which includes central and southern parts of Western Australia, is currently set at $57 plus 20 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. The special area, or zone A and zone B rebate, which is for particularly isolated areas 250 kilometres or more from a population centre of 2 500 or more, is $1 173 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
During the arduous process of taking on a new portfolio and reading the many, many briefings that come across my desk, some things stand out more than others. This was one that struck me as being an absolutely critical change that this government can work towards for the betterment of the state. Clearly, there is broad agreement in this place that one of the challenges that Western Australia will face going forward is the attraction and retention of skilled labour. I note that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia review suggested a 210 000 worker shortfall until 2020. That figure is necessarily speculative, and I suspect it is slightly on the high side; nevertheless, it is a very important issue to come to grips with. The CCI highlighted problems with the national immigration policy and it also commented on training in Western Australia, land use, planning, and economic and social infrastructure. Obviously a great deal has been done by members on this side of the house to build cities in the north and to make those places attractive places for workers to live. One issue, though, will affect Western Australia more than any other issue going forward; that is, labour mobility Australia-wide. A portion of an article in The Australian , titled “Stressed labour market forced to adapt as mining boom goes on and on”, states — The renewed investment rush into the mining sector, worth at least $150 billion, is blamed for intensifying the current skills shortage and dragging workers to the dominant resources states. It is a small thing, but that sort of language, which I see again and again in eastern states’ papers, appears to intonate that it is a terrible thing that workers are actually moving to Western Australia to do work that desperately needs to be done in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is the resentment of the rust-bucket states! Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree, and it is language that should be very much lobbied against. That brings me to the question of the income tax zone rebate. Although I knew about it, I was not particularly coded about what it was. For the information of members, the system is as follows. Zone A rebate, which includes the northern part of Western Australia, is currently set at $338 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. Zone B rebate, which includes central and southern parts of Western Australia, is currently set at $57 plus 20 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. The special area, or zone A and zone B rebate, which is for particularly isolated areas 250 kilometres or more from a population centre of 2 500 or more, is $1 173 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Clearly, there is broad agreement in this place that one of the challenges that Western Australia will face going forward is the attraction and retention of skilled labour. I note that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia review suggested a 210 000 worker shortfall until 2020. That figure is necessarily speculative, and I suspect it is slightly on the high side; nevertheless, it is a very important issue to come to grips with. The CCI highlighted problems with the national immigration policy and it also commented on training in Western Australia, land use, planning, and economic and social infrastructure. Obviously a great deal has been done by members on this side of the house to build cities in the north and to make those places attractive places for workers to live. One issue, though, will affect Western Australia more than any other issue going forward; that is, labour mobility Australia-wide. A portion of an article in The Australian , titled “Stressed labour market forced to adapt as mining boom goes on and on”, states — The renewed investment rush into the mining sector, worth at least $150 billion, is blamed for intensifying the current skills shortage and dragging workers to the dominant resources states. It is a small thing, but that sort of language, which I see again and again in eastern states’ papers, appears to intonate that it is a terrible thing that workers are actually moving to Western Australia to do work that desperately needs to be done in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is the resentment of the rust-bucket states! Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree, and it is language that should be very much lobbied against. That brings me to the question of the income tax zone rebate. Although I knew about it, I was not particularly coded about what it was. For the information of members, the system is as follows. Zone A rebate, which includes the northern part of Western Australia, is currently set at $338 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. Zone B rebate, which includes central and southern parts of Western Australia, is currently set at $57 plus 20 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. The special area, or zone A and zone B rebate, which is for particularly isolated areas 250 kilometres or more from a population centre of 2 500 or more, is $1 173 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
One issue, though, will affect Western Australia more than any other issue going forward; that is, labour mobility Australia-wide. A portion of an article in The Australian , titled “Stressed labour market forced to adapt as mining boom goes on and on”, states — The renewed investment rush into the mining sector, worth at least $150 billion, is blamed for intensifying the current skills shortage and dragging workers to the dominant resources states. It is a small thing, but that sort of language, which I see again and again in eastern states’ papers, appears to intonate that it is a terrible thing that workers are actually moving to Western Australia to do work that desperately needs to be done in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is the resentment of the rust-bucket states! Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree, and it is language that should be very much lobbied against. That brings me to the question of the income tax zone rebate. Although I knew about it, I was not particularly coded about what it was. For the information of members, the system is as follows. Zone A rebate, which includes the northern part of Western Australia, is currently set at $338 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. Zone B rebate, which includes central and southern parts of Western Australia, is currently set at $57 plus 20 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. The special area, or zone A and zone B rebate, which is for particularly isolated areas 250 kilometres or more from a population centre of 2 500 or more, is $1 173 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr E.S. Ripper : This is the resentment of the rust-bucket states! Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree, and it is language that should be very much lobbied against. That brings me to the question of the income tax zone rebate. Although I knew about it, I was not particularly coded about what it was. For the information of members, the system is as follows. Zone A rebate, which includes the northern part of Western Australia, is currently set at $338 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. Zone B rebate, which includes central and southern parts of Western Australia, is currently set at $57 plus 20 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. The special area, or zone A and zone B rebate, which is for particularly isolated areas 250 kilometres or more from a population centre of 2 500 or more, is $1 173 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree, and it is language that should be very much lobbied against. That brings me to the question of the income tax zone rebate. Although I knew about it, I was not particularly coded about what it was. For the information of members, the system is as follows. Zone A rebate, which includes the northern part of Western Australia, is currently set at $338 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. Zone B rebate, which includes central and southern parts of Western Australia, is currently set at $57 plus 20 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. The special area, or zone A and zone B rebate, which is for particularly isolated areas 250 kilometres or more from a population centre of 2 500 or more, is $1 173 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
That brings me to the question of the income tax zone rebate. Although I knew about it, I was not particularly coded about what it was. For the information of members, the system is as follows. Zone A rebate, which includes the northern part of Western Australia, is currently set at $338 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. Zone B rebate, which includes central and southern parts of Western Australia, is currently set at $57 plus 20 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. The special area, or zone A and zone B rebate, which is for particularly isolated areas 250 kilometres or more from a population centre of 2 500 or more, is $1 173 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. During the arduous process of taking on a new portfolio and reading the many, many briefings that come across my desk, some things stand out more than others. This was one that struck me as being an absolutely critical change that this government can work towards for the betterment of the state. Clearly, there is broad agreement in this place that one of the challenges that Western Australia will face going forward is the attraction and retention of skilled labour. I note that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia review suggested a 210 000 worker shortfall until 2020. That figure is necessarily speculative, and I suspect it is slightly on the high side; nevertheless, it is a very important issue to come to grips with. The CCI highlighted problems with the national immigration policy and it also commented on training in Western Australia, land use, planning, and economic and social infrastructure. Obviously a great deal has been done by members on this side of the house to build cities in the north and to make those places attractive places for workers to live. One issue, though, will affect Western Australia more than any other issue going forward; that is, labour mobility Australia-wide. A portion of an article in The Australian , titled “Stressed labour market forced to adapt as mining boom goes on and on”, states — The renewed investment rush into the mining sector, worth at least $150 billion, is blamed for intensifying the current skills shortage and dragging workers to the dominant resources states. It is a small thing, but that sort of language, which I see again and again in eastern states’ papers, appears to intonate that it is a terrible thing that workers are actually moving to Western Australia to do work that desperately needs to be done in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is the resentment of the rust-bucket states! Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree, and it is language that should be very much lobbied against. That brings me to the question of the income tax zone rebate. Although I knew about it, I was not particularly coded about what it was. For the information of members, the system is as follows. Zone A rebate, which includes the northern part of Western Australia, is currently set at $338 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. Zone B rebate, which includes central and southern parts of Western Australia, is currently set at $57 plus 20 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. The special area, or zone A and zone B rebate, which is for particularly isolated areas 250 kilometres or more from a population centre of 2 500 or more, is $1 173 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
I thank the member for his question. During the arduous process of taking on a new portfolio and reading the many, many briefings that come across my desk, some things stand out more than others. This was one that struck me as being an absolutely critical change that this government can work towards for the betterment of the state. Clearly, there is broad agreement in this place that one of the challenges that Western Australia will face going forward is the attraction and retention of skilled labour. I note that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia review suggested a 210 000 worker shortfall until 2020. That figure is necessarily speculative, and I suspect it is slightly on the high side; nevertheless, it is a very important issue to come to grips with. The CCI highlighted problems with the national immigration policy and it also commented on training in Western Australia, land use, planning, and economic and social infrastructure. Obviously a great deal has been done by members on this side of the house to build cities in the north and to make those places attractive places for workers to live. One issue, though, will affect Western Australia more than any other issue going forward; that is, labour mobility Australia-wide. A portion of an article in The Australian , titled “Stressed labour market forced to adapt as mining boom goes on and on”, states — The renewed investment rush into the mining sector, worth at least $150 billion, is blamed for intensifying the current skills shortage and dragging workers to the dominant resources states. It is a small thing, but that sort of language, which I see again and again in eastern states’ papers, appears to intonate that it is a terrible thing that workers are actually moving to Western Australia to do work that desperately needs to be done in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is the resentment of the rust-bucket states! Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree, and it is language that should be very much lobbied against. That brings me to the question of the income tax zone rebate. Although I knew about it, I was not particularly coded about what it was. For the information of members, the system is as follows. Zone A rebate, which includes the northern part of Western Australia, is currently set at $338 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. Zone B rebate, which includes central and southern parts of Western Australia, is currently set at $57 plus 20 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. The special area, or zone A and zone B rebate, which is for particularly isolated areas 250 kilometres or more from a population centre of 2 500 or more, is $1 173 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
During the arduous process of taking on a new portfolio and reading the many, many briefings that come across my desk, some things stand out more than others. This was one that struck me as being an absolutely critical change that this government can work towards for the betterment of the state. Clearly, there is broad agreement in this place that one of the challenges that Western Australia will face going forward is the attraction and retention of skilled labour. I note that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia review suggested a 210 000 worker shortfall until 2020. That figure is necessarily speculative, and I suspect it is slightly on the high side; nevertheless, it is a very important issue to come to grips with. The CCI highlighted problems with the national immigration policy and it also commented on training in Western Australia, land use, planning, and economic and social infrastructure. Obviously a great deal has been done by members on this side of the house to build cities in the north and to make those places attractive places for workers to live. One issue, though, will affect Western Australia more than any other issue going forward; that is, labour mobility Australia-wide. A portion of an article in The Australian , titled “Stressed labour market forced to adapt as mining boom goes on and on”, states — The renewed investment rush into the mining sector, worth at least $150 billion, is blamed for intensifying the current skills shortage and dragging workers to the dominant resources states. It is a small thing, but that sort of language, which I see again and again in eastern states’ papers, appears to intonate that it is a terrible thing that workers are actually moving to Western Australia to do work that desperately needs to be done in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is the resentment of the rust-bucket states! Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree, and it is language that should be very much lobbied against. That brings me to the question of the income tax zone rebate. Although I knew about it, I was not particularly coded about what it was. For the information of members, the system is as follows. Zone A rebate, which includes the northern part of Western Australia, is currently set at $338 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. Zone B rebate, which includes central and southern parts of Western Australia, is currently set at $57 plus 20 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. The special area, or zone A and zone B rebate, which is for particularly isolated areas 250 kilometres or more from a population centre of 2 500 or more, is $1 173 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Clearly, there is broad agreement in this place that one of the challenges that Western Australia will face going forward is the attraction and retention of skilled labour. I note that the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia review suggested a 210 000 worker shortfall until 2020. That figure is necessarily speculative, and I suspect it is slightly on the high side; nevertheless, it is a very important issue to come to grips with. The CCI highlighted problems with the national immigration policy and it also commented on training in Western Australia, land use, planning, and economic and social infrastructure. Obviously a great deal has been done by members on this side of the house to build cities in the north and to make those places attractive places for workers to live. One issue, though, will affect Western Australia more than any other issue going forward; that is, labour mobility Australia-wide. A portion of an article in The Australian , titled “Stressed labour market forced to adapt as mining boom goes on and on”, states — The renewed investment rush into the mining sector, worth at least $150 billion, is blamed for intensifying the current skills shortage and dragging workers to the dominant resources states. It is a small thing, but that sort of language, which I see again and again in eastern states’ papers, appears to intonate that it is a terrible thing that workers are actually moving to Western Australia to do work that desperately needs to be done in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is the resentment of the rust-bucket states! Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree, and it is language that should be very much lobbied against. That brings me to the question of the income tax zone rebate. Although I knew about it, I was not particularly coded about what it was. For the information of members, the system is as follows. Zone A rebate, which includes the northern part of Western Australia, is currently set at $338 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. Zone B rebate, which includes central and southern parts of Western Australia, is currently set at $57 plus 20 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. The special area, or zone A and zone B rebate, which is for particularly isolated areas 250 kilometres or more from a population centre of 2 500 or more, is $1 173 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
One issue, though, will affect Western Australia more than any other issue going forward; that is, labour mobility Australia-wide. A portion of an article in The Australian , titled “Stressed labour market forced to adapt as mining boom goes on and on”, states — The renewed investment rush into the mining sector, worth at least $150 billion, is blamed for intensifying the current skills shortage and dragging workers to the dominant resources states. It is a small thing, but that sort of language, which I see again and again in eastern states’ papers, appears to intonate that it is a terrible thing that workers are actually moving to Western Australia to do work that desperately needs to be done in this state. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is the resentment of the rust-bucket states! Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree, and it is language that should be very much lobbied against. That brings me to the question of the income tax zone rebate. Although I knew about it, I was not particularly coded about what it was. For the information of members, the system is as follows. Zone A rebate, which includes the northern part of Western Australia, is currently set at $338 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. Zone B rebate, which includes central and southern parts of Western Australia, is currently set at $57 plus 20 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. The special area, or zone A and zone B rebate, which is for particularly isolated areas 250 kilometres or more from a population centre of 2 500 or more, is $1 173 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr E.S. Ripper : This is the resentment of the rust-bucket states! Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree, and it is language that should be very much lobbied against. That brings me to the question of the income tax zone rebate. Although I knew about it, I was not particularly coded about what it was. For the information of members, the system is as follows. Zone A rebate, which includes the northern part of Western Australia, is currently set at $338 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. Zone B rebate, which includes central and southern parts of Western Australia, is currently set at $57 plus 20 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. The special area, or zone A and zone B rebate, which is for particularly isolated areas 250 kilometres or more from a population centre of 2 500 or more, is $1 173 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree, and it is language that should be very much lobbied against. That brings me to the question of the income tax zone rebate. Although I knew about it, I was not particularly coded about what it was. For the information of members, the system is as follows. Zone A rebate, which includes the northern part of Western Australia, is currently set at $338 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. Zone B rebate, which includes central and southern parts of Western Australia, is currently set at $57 plus 20 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. The special area, or zone A and zone B rebate, which is for particularly isolated areas 250 kilometres or more from a population centre of 2 500 or more, is $1 173 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
That brings me to the question of the income tax zone rebate. Although I knew about it, I was not particularly coded about what it was. For the information of members, the system is as follows. Zone A rebate, which includes the northern part of Western Australia, is currently set at $338 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. Zone B rebate, which includes central and southern parts of Western Australia, is currently set at $57 plus 20 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. The special area, or zone A and zone B rebate, which is for particularly isolated areas 250 kilometres or more from a population centre of 2 500 or more, is $1 173 plus 50 per cent of any other rebate entitlement. That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
That all sounds very good. Let us look, though, at the differential and how those zone rebates have been in effect eroded since they were established in 1945. In 1945 the rebate for an employee in zone A equalled 4.6 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.25 of a week’s wage. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Why don’t you run on your own tax policy, not Tony Abbott’s? You don’t dare defend your own tax policy. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr C.C. PORTER : We have to first of all encourage Tony Abbott to take up this tax policy, as we encourage the present government, and that is the whole point of this. In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
In 1945 the rebate in zone B was 2.3 weeks’ wages, and it is now 0.04 of a week’s wage. In the special zone the rebate is now 0.87 of a week’s wage. The rebate amount, for instance, in Port Hedland is $338; the same for Broome and Carnarvon. In Kalgoorlie and in the electorate of Eyre, it is $57. Whereas, had the rebates been properly indexed, they would be $6 178 for those original areas, and $3 089 in the member’s region. That actually would be some form of incentive. Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr E.S. Ripper : The member for Midland will go with you to Canberra to argue this case. Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I would take up that offer. It would be a lovely trip! I think we would have a very convivial time! Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Several members interjected. Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr T.G. Stephens : Before you go, why don’t you fix up the district allowances for your own employees? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! I am sure many members would like to give the Treasurer advice. Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Mr C.C. PORTER : From both sides of the house, Mr Speaker! Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
Members can see how those rebates have been eroded from what was a real incentive post war for people to live in places where it was thought there were both strategic and economic advantages to populate. The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
The other very interesting issue is that the zone rebate can presently be claimed by fly in, fly out workers. We might think that a reasonable submission would be that it is better to concentrate the rebate and give a larger rebate to people who choose to live permanently in the areas where we are trying to fuel the population base. Evidently people who fly in, fly out already find that there is a significant economic incentive to do precisely what they are doing. We have therefore submitted to the commonwealth in this area. I will certainly make it a priority and I look forward to all the assistance I can get from the member for Midland in this area. However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
However, if we are actually serious about having resident populations in cities in the north and other places in Western Australia that will help fire and fuel the economic boom, having a system like this that rebates someone 0.4 of a week’s wage is not even worth the transaction cost the commonwealth government would spend on it. That this situation has gone on, notwithstanding our own submission and the fact that the relevant commonwealth department has itself recommended to successive commonwealth governments that they fix the situation, is really quite ridiculous.
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.