Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Hansard source

On the issue of flow-through shares, it has come to my notice that there was an article in the Australian Financial Review on 18 April 2006 which said that more than 50 coalition party members had signed a letter to the Treasurer supporting the introduction of tax-effective flow-through share schemes. Also, in the Australian on 2 May it was reported that the industry department had put forward a proposal seeking the introduction of a flow-through share scheme in this year’s budget. However, there is a problem in the difference between what the member for Canning wants and what members opposite want. The Labor Party policy on flow-through shares is restricted to smaller operators. They will be picked off. The problem highlighted by the member for Canning is that some of the smaller operators are set up with no other reason than pursuing tax deductions, not necessarily pursuing exploration opportunities. I agree with the member for Canning that the exploration is what it is all about.

As I said, one of the proposals by the industry for a permanent flow-through share scheme was providing shareholders with refundable tax offsets or tax credits equal to 150 per cent of the deductions that would be otherwise available to the explorer, or equivalent to 45c for each dollar of exploration expenditure. The reality is that these opportunities are important to Australia. I know that through Geoscience Australia there is more exploration, mapping and measuring being undertaken. In fact, the department has just put out more leases for further exploration.

One of the key factors that is required in all of this is the necessary investment. One of the things that also drives investment is tourism. The member for Canning asked about tourism. I note that 5.3 per cent of the workforce in his electorate, or around 3,000 people, work in the tourism industry. One of the messages that the member for Canning can take back to those who came from Mandurah today is that the Western Australian government is one of the few governments to continually increase tourism promotion for its state. In fact, this year it has committed some $52.3 million. Compare that to five years ago, when it was putting in about $31 million. That is a substantial increase and it is why tourism is going so well and why tourism employment numbers in electorates like Canning are particularly high. It is a pity that other state Labor governments, such as that in New South Wales, do not take heed of the message from the Western Australian government.

The other thing that the member asked was what were we going to do to help them. The reality is that there are opportunities at the moment. The tourism development grants package is available at the moment. That involves $50,000 to $5 million in grants, and I would encourage you to sit down with your mayors, your tourism operators and other people in your region and find the projects that will help grow tourism in your electorate. Then you can put forward an application. One of the differences between members on this side and members on the other side is that members on this side will work with people in their communities to pursue grants and other opportunities. Members on the other side just sit there and bitterly complain when they receive nothing. There is a simple rule in politics that the member for Canning knows only too well: if you don’t ask, you don’t get. Perhaps it is time that some of the members opposite put forward applications for their communities.

See this speech in context