Keep the Zone Tax Offsets
All those great State Government initiatives put forward at the recent North West Minerals Province Summit were debased by the suggestion, made by the Productivity Commission and attacked by our Deputy Premier and Treasurer Jackie Trad that the Federal Government be asked to remove the Zone Tax Allowance (ZTO).
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
What do the members of this commission know about living in remote areas of Australia?
They obviously believe removing the ZTO from residents in remote areas will achieve other than a landscape devoid of human life.
The Importance of a ZTO is, and always has been, to attract people to remote regions and compensate them for living in the harsh conditions that do not exist in coastal regions.
The ZTO and its forerunners have been in place since post Second World War.
The Zones have changed very little since 1981.
The original purpose of the Allowance was to lessen the effects of isolation, extreme climate, the high cost of living away from the cities, and to grow the population in the remote areas of Australia.
However, the population of remote areas is declining as is the ZTO.
From memory, in 1973 the Zone Allowance as it was then called in Mount Isa, was worth around $500 (which was a lot of money in those days) for a single individual now it is now worth $338.
This decrease does not reflect inflation or provide incentive for people to move to and stay in remote areas.
Thus, the population in regional, rural and remote area is declining.
The decline in the ZTO signals the general malaise of government to recognise the greater burden placed on those living and working in remote areas.
It does not recognise the drain of isolation or excessive financial cost of living hidden in the cost of freight charges, electricity, water, travel for businesses or families visiting friends living in cities, holidaying or travelling for medical reasons.
Climate change has recently caused an upsurge in extreme weather events in remote areas which have caused flood, fire, famine and drought.
Ad hoc Government handouts in the aftermath of these kinds of events puts a band-aid only on the current disaster but does not seek to address the bigger ongoing picture of hardship that is never ceasing and is hardly an incentive to build the population in remote areas.
If you live in a city you are better off and if you are contemplating moving to a remote area you will not be better off.
Instead, you will be significantly disadvantaged.
Increasing the ZTO would go a long way to decreasing the problems caused by isolation and provide incentive to encourage further, sustainable population growth in remote areas by providing a consistent, valuable recognition of the work of those who live in remote areas and those who potentially would be prepared to relocate to live in a remote area.
Industry cannot be sustained without a concomitant population.
If a major purpose of government is to provide incentives for establishing and growing industry how far the Productivity Commission or anyone else in government think they will get if they start removing, rather than enhancing incentives to build population?
Government and community leaders can discuss mining and associated industry initiatives till the cows come home it is still necessary to have a viable population to run the industries even in this nascent technological age.
Let's get behind this excellent suggestion by Tony McGrady and speak with one voice and show what a united city can do once we take the petty politics out of this important debate.
Kendall Santillan,
Mount Isa