Abstract: There is considerable literature documenting the peripatetic preferences of Australians for leisure, lifestyle and work purposes, and the paucity of reliable data that would provide insights to why people have multiple bases and the impact on local markets and service delivery (McKenzie et al. 2008 p. 4; Nicholas and Welters 2017; Nicholas and Welters 2016). There have been numerous requests and submissions to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Productivity Commission 2014; Productivity Commission 2019; ABS 2007; McKenzie et al. 2008) to systematically record population mobility, and to not limit the Place of Usual Residence to just one location in the quinquennial census. To date, these have been unsuccessful. This paper focuses specifically on long distance commuting (LDC) for work purposes in rural, regional and remote areas, but the principles and benefits of recording labour force mobility (requiring multiple nights away from the place of usual residence), apply equally for other forms of population mobility such as for education, lifestyle and other seasonal vacation work. Specifically, this paper shows how the lack of data about workforce mobility undermines prescient planning and informed regional economic development for local government authorities whose capacity to raise revenue is limited. This is particularly the case in mining regions where local governments and other planning authorities are constrained by State Agreements which absolve large multinational mining companies from paying local government rates and other taxes for local infrastructure and services (Horsley 2013).