Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Amendment Bill 2009. I say from the outset that the coalition does not oppose this bill. This bill will, if passed by both houses, ensure that the existing sector-specific long service leave arrangements for the coalmining industry can continue beyond 1 January next year. Currently, the sector-specific long service leave provisions to which this bill relates are contained in industry-specific awards. These awards require the payment of a levy to the relevant fund by an employer from which the employer may seek reimbursement where they have made a payment of long service leave to an eligible employee. This bill is necessary as from 1 January next year Labor’s system of so-called ‘modern awards’ will apply. These awards do not contain a provision for long service leave. It is the understanding of the opposition that the government intends that long service leave become one of its national employment standards.

We were told, during the debate on the Fair Work Bill and subsequent legislation, that the government, in conjunction with the particular department and state governments, will be developing standards provisions for long service leave entitlements around the country. On this point, a question that looms large in my mind is exactly how these standardised provisions for long service leave will apply. I ask this question as, when you take even a cursory glance at the various long service leave provisions around the country that are currently contained within state legislation, you can easily see that they contain different entitlements and different provisions with respect to the taking of long service leave. I want to list those differences to give the House some sort of idea about why this is a difficult process and why we have concerns that the government will handle it as badly as it has handled other national standardised policies, such as the ‘modern awards’ process, which has been completely botched and bungled from the very outset.

I will move firstly to the New South Wales situation. In that state the entitlement is for two months leave after 10 years of continuous service. Thereafter, there is one month of leave for each subsequent five years of continuous service. I note that the entitlement on termination in New South Wales is that if an employee terminates for any reason then they will receive a full payment of their entitlement after 10 years of service. A pro rata amount applies for the five-year period immediately after the 10-year service trigger. I also note that for between five and 10 years of service an employee might be eligible for pro rata long service leave on termination of employment if that termination occurs at the initiative of the employee—on account of illness, incapacity or domestic or other pressing necessity—or where an employer terminates an employee for any reason other than serious or wilful misconduct. And I note that in New South Wales, unless the employee has had five years of service, there is no obligation for an employer to pay any entitlement to long service leave.

In Victoria, the system is reasonably similar, but there are still some minor differences. For example, in Victoria there is no entitlement for long service leave for any employee that has had less than 10 years of service. For between 10 and 15 years of service, an employee can receive a payment for their accrued long service leave on termination for any cause and for any reason, other than if the employer terminates the employee for serious or wilful misconduct. And, after 15 years of service, an employee who terminates for any reason will receive the payment of long service leave.

In Queensland there are differences as well. In that state, the Queensland Industrial Relations Act provides that employees will receive over 8½ weeks—8.6667 weeks, to be precise—on completion of 10 years continuous service. Further leave is available for each additional five years of continuous service. On termination after 10 years, an employee is entitled to receive the payment of their long service leave entitlement for any cause. However, in relation to an employee who has completed less than 10 years of service but more than seven years of service, they may be eligible for pro rata leave should they be terminated by their employer for any reason other than the employee’s conduct, capacity and performance, or by death of the employee for whom the entitlement has accrued. However, where an employee has completed less than seven years of service there will be no entitlement. This is different to the Victorian and New South Wales systems.

In South Australia, the entitlements to long service leave are different. In my home state of Western Australia, there are also subsequent variations. The same goes for Tasmania, as it does in both of the territories. So in all of the eight jurisdictions around Australia there are slight differences in how an employee can accrue long service leave. I bring these differences to the attention of the House because, based on what we have seen about how Labor operates in government, we hold concerns, given this existing patchwork of legislation that currently exists throughout Australia, about how the government will go about standardising a system of long service leave.

In particular, the opposition is concerned about what guarantee the government will give in relation to either employers or employees going backwards with respect to long service leave entitlements and conditions. As I have detailed, there are substantial differences between the amounts of accrual, the circumstances upon which the entitlements can be paid out to workers and in particular the pro rata provisions applying in each state or territory. We are concerned that, if the government seeks to standardise long service leave arrangements across the country, it will result in a situation akin to the intentions and the promises made by Labor with respect to the bungled and botched modern award process.

I need not remind the House that, after introducing the fair work legislation into parliament, the minister gave us a promise that workers would not be worse off as a result of those changes. Subsequently we were given a promise, or the Australian people were given a promise, that the aims and intentions of the modern award system would include a requirement that no increase in labour costs would be borne by employers. There was a dual promise given to this House and to the Australian people, firstly, that no employee would be worse off as a result of the changes through the modern awards and, secondly, that no employer would face increases in their cost base.

We have seen, since these promises have been given, that they have been nothing more than hollow and false promises that the government has failed to deliver on. Australian workers and business have every right to feel ripped off as result of the award modernisation process and the outcomes it has delivered. We have seen business, particularly small business, very concerned about the increased labour costs they will be facing as a result of the award modernisation process. Retailers in New South Wales will have increased operating costs of up to 22 per cent per year. The pharmacy sector have indicated that they will have to curb trading hours for that sector, resulting in reduced services to the community and reduced service for people seeking access to medical assistance and the advice of a registered pharmacist.

The hotel sector in Western Australia is predicting that as a result of the modern award process it will lose, within that sector alone and within the one state of Western Australia, between 300 and 400 employees. The Queensland Newsagents Federation has stated that as a result of modern awards a newsagent employing just one casual employee will have a cost increase of over 31 per cent per year. I can continue to list these adverse results from the award modernisation process, but I have detailed those concerns extensively in the House before. However, I wanted to highlight them again in relation to the government’s desire to standardise long service leave arrangements around the country and to say that the opposition remains very concerned about how they are going to go about this. We remain very concerned that they will not go down the same path that they have adopted in relation to modernising the award system.

We would be very concerned, as an opposition, if the process of standardising long service leave entitlements resulted in further spin and further hollow promises about the effects that it will have on workplaces. We are very concerned on behalf of business, particularly small business, that their costs may increase as a result of seeking consistency regarding the application of long service leave. We would also be most distressed if Labor’s attempts to standardise these provisions resulted in workers being worse off. To this end we call for the government to make it clear to the Australian people, and everybody in Australian workplaces, exactly what their intentions are with respect to the standardisation of long service leave. We seek from the minister some guarantees and an undertaking that the botched and bungled approach that she has taken to modernising the awards system will not be repeated in relation to such an important entitlement as long service leave.

These concerns aside, I note that this bill continues the existing scheme applicable in the coalmining industry for workers and employers. Had this bill not received the support of the opposition, it would have resulted in a circumstance from the beginning of next year where employers and employees might not have been covered by an appropriate system of long service leave regulation. It is likely that they would have had to revert to their relevant state systems.

We are pleased that this bill is a result of discussion between industry representatives—the Minerals Council and the relevant mining unions. I am also pleased that other stakeholders potentially affected by this legislation, including the Australian Mines and Metals Association and the Australian Industry Group, have not indicated that they hold any concerns about this legislation. However, our position on this bill should not be taken to represent any future view that we have with respect to long service leave generally and, in particular, any system of portable long service leave. Whilst we do recognise that in this particular sector there have been longstanding arrangements and agreements between stakeholders about long service leave arrangements, they are specifically applicable to this industry and it is not the case for all other sectors. We will reserve our position in relation to any future development in that area. However, we will not be opposing this bill.

We do believe that it is necessary to reiterate the call to the government and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to make sure that when developing a standardised system of long service leave there is a degree of consultation and cooperation between stakeholders—including the opposition—at all levels. This is something the minister consistently fails to do. We see today she has run around expecting the opposition to make up for her inability to manage the government’s legislative program. There needs to be an underlying fundamental approach taken to this standardisation and it must be different from the bungled modern awards process. We do not want to hear more hollow rhetoric and spin from this minister. We do not want her to make promises to the Australian people that she cannot keep, and we will be watching very closely as her proposals to develop standardised long service leave arrangements are developed.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Amendment Bill 2009. This bill shows the Rudd Labor government’s continued commitment to the coalmining industry and, particularly, to those thousands of men and women, who are the backbone of the industry, working in coalmines and to the coalmining communities of the Bowen Basin in my electorate. The coal industry has a unique set of arrangements for the accrual and payment of long service leave entitlements, dating back to 1949. This bill will guarantee the continuation of the long service leave arrangements in the black coal mining industry. Specifically, the amendments will clarify that the long service leave entitlements that have been preserved within the Fair Work Act 2009 will be covered by the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Act 1992. This bill means that employees in the black coal mining industry can be secure in the knowledge that their long service leave entitlements remain unchanged. Employers know that they will continue to be reimbursed by the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Fund for long service leave payments that they make to individual employees.

The bill will establish definitions of ‘black coal mining industry’, ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ and also adjust the definition of ‘eligible employee’ in the funding act to ensure that the scheme applies universally in the black coal mining industry. As we have heard, in the coalmining industry employees are entitled to long service leave based on their time in the industry, not their time with an individual employer. Mobility of the workforce has always been a feature of the coalmining industry, and the ever-increasing demand for skilled miners will make it even more likely that miners will move from mine to mine and employer to employer as opportunities open up for them. The scheme was designed to accommodate this mobility as well as protect the entitlements of miners in the event of company insolvency. That is not such a problem these days, but it was a definite consideration in the original establishment of the scheme.

Funding for long service leave is maintained by an industry scheme created by the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Act 1992 and related legislation. Under this act, employers are reimbursed from the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Fund for any long service payments that are made to an employee. From January 2010 the current industry awards covering long service leave will be taken over by ‘modern awards’ under the Fair Work Act 2009. Modern awards will not include long service leave entitlements. Instead, existing award based entitlements will be preserved as a statutory entitlement under the National Employment Standards, pending development of national long service leave arrangements. Due to these changes, and as the funding act does not currently cover entitlements determined by the National Employment Standards, employers will not be entitled to reimbursement for the fund in respect of the long service payments they make to employees. This bill will ensure that this situation is rectified.

The amendments that this bill represents will ensure that as of 1 January 2010 employers will be entitled to reimbursement from the fund in respect of long service payments that they make to employees pursuant to the preserved entitlements in the Fair work Act. This is in addition to the current arrangements for reimbursement of entitlements paid under industrial instruments and contracts. The changes in this bill will not affect an employee’s long service leave or an employer’s long service leave fund obligations. It guarantees that employees will not lose their current long service leave entitlements.

This bill contains only minor technical amendments but, in doing so, provides certainty and security for employers and employees in the black coal industry. It recognises—and the government recognises—the unique history of the industry and its special significance to regions like Central Queensland. There can be no doubt that the government recognises the vital importance of the coal industry as our biggest exporter, a major employer and a driver of economic growth.

I remind the House that, contrary to the scare campaign mounted by the Australian Coal Association in recent months, the latest Treasury modelling shows the coal industry growing by at least 50 per cent by the year 2050. Consistent with that, we will see 10,000 new jobs created in the coal industry in the next 10 years. The ads paid for by the coal companies might be convincing if it were not for these and other independent predictions, and the evidence all around us in Central Queensland, that the industry is strong and is in fact gearing up for further growth.

As members know—and they know because I keep telling them—there have been some major announcements for the Central Queensland coal mining industry in the last few months. Only last week the Rudd Labor government granted major project facilitation status to Waratah Coal’s proposed northern export facility infrastructure project. This gives support to a $7.5 billion commitment to develop a new coalmine as well as associated rail and port facilities in the Galilee Basin, near Alpha, which is just west of my electorate of Capricornia. This mine will service the international export market for thermal coal. In addition to the mine, the project will involve construction of a railway potentially in excess of 400 kilometres long, depending upon the option chosen, to transport processed coal to an expanded facility at Abbot Point, near Bowen, or to a new export terminal to be established at Dudgeon Point. New major water and power supply infrastructure would be necessary to service the mine and port. The proposed open-cut mine is expected to be developed in stages and have an initial export capacity of 30 million tonnes per annum with a mine life in excess of 30 years. Initial exports are targeted for 2013. Construction of the mine will involve an estimated 6,000 jobs.

This is a massive investment in the mining industry in Central Queensland. Importantly, it is another example of the disconnect between the claims of the Coal Association and those opportunists who see political advantage in opposing the CPRS and the reality of what is happening in the coal industry, where companies are backing their belief in the future of the coal industry with substantial amounts of money. Talk in this debate is cheap—unless you are talking about the Coal Association’s ads—but the big-dollar investments going on all around us tell the real story.

Members who have heard me speak in the last few weeks will know that there is even more to the story. Just two weeks ago a new coalmining deal was announced between Stanwell, a power generator in my electorate, and Wesfarmers. This will see the Curragh mine, at Blackwater, expanded, creating up to 300 construction jobs. This agreement will also create 90 full-time positions in a long-term boost for the Central Queensland economy. The new deal allows coal from Stanwell’s excess reserves to be mined by Wesfarmers, with Stanwell to share in the revenue generated from the export of the coal.

There is also more to come for Central Queensland, with Xstrata accelerating its proposal to build Queensland’s fourth coal port, at Port Alma, along with its plans for a new billion-dollar harbour between Gladstone and Rockhampton. This would service the Wandoan Coal project, which has the potential to become Australia’s most productive coalmine. This terminal would provide 100 full-time jobs and could export up to 100 million tonnes of coal. Extensive environmental impact investigations have already been done on this area. If all goes well, work will commence as early as 2012 and Port Alma may be able to ship coal by 2014.

As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, there are great developments happening in the coalmining industry in Central Queensland that will create jobs and continue to boost our economy. We on this side of the House believe that coal has a strong future. We also want it to have a sustainable future. That is why the government is making huge investments in accelerating the development of clean coal technology through its support for carbon capture and storage. We are contributing millions of dollars towards carbon capture and storage projects and demonstrating international leadership through the establishment of the Global Carbon Institute.

The Rudd Labor government is committed to securing the future of the coal industry through these investments in research and development. All the evidence tells us that coal will continue to be a major source of energy for the world well into the future, but we cannot ignore the imperative to reduce carbon emissions. The future for Australia’s coal industry lies, therefore, in exporting not just coal but also the technology that will enable our overseas customers to generate low-emission energy.

The government’s support for the coal industry cannot be questioned. It was further confirmed today in the offer made to the opposition to amend the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to increase transitional assistance to coalmines. Overall, we are putting forward a total of $1.5 billion for the coal industry over the first five years of the scheme. As announced by the Minister for Climate Change and Water earlier today, there will be two components to this assistance—if it is agreed to by the opposition, of course. The Coal Sector Adjustment Scheme will provide free permits to the most emissions intensive mines. This will enable the fugitive emissions carbon liability for the most gassy mines to be reduced from around $20 per saleable tonne of coal to around $5 per tonne at a carbon price of $25 per tonne. I stress that this refers to the most gassy mines. We should not forget that many mines will face a carbon liability of less than $1 per tonne of saleable coal under the CPRS.

I noted in a speech last week—and, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think you were in the chair when I made the speech—that Macarthur Coal reported a drop in its profits. The losses were attributed to unexpected demurrage costs for ships waiting to load from Dalrymple Bay coal loading facility. They also referred to the impact of the strong Australian dollar. I mention that because it highlights the many factors that go into the profitability of coalmines and puts into perspective the additional cost that carbon permits represent for companies. It is less than $1 per tonne for some mines. When companies are selling coal for $65 or $80 per tonne, or even more, and are subject to many more costs—not to mention state government royalties—that does not sound like the end of the world for the majority of mines.

Of course, the CPRS has always included compensation targeted to the most gassy mines, and today’s announcement represents an offer to increase that targeted compensation. In addition, there will be a coalmining abatement fund within the Climate Change Action Fund. The coalmining abatement fund will be increased by $20 million to a total of $270 million. It will fund coalmine abatement projects and capital grants, with priority for waste coalmine gas electricity generation projects. Coal companies in my electorate have already entered into successful partnerships with waste coal gas generators such as Energy Development Ltd and Envirogen to use their fugitive emissions to generate electricity, thus abating fugitive emissions while also displacing emissions intensive coal fired power generation.

I welcome the measures put forward by the government to facilitate the expansion of such partnerships because I know there is real scope for that to create jobs and benefit communities in my electorate as well as making a significant contribution to reducing carbon emissions. Specifically, I support the possibility, announced today, of a review of the renewable energy target, through the COAG process, to consider whether new waste coalmine gas projects should be eligible under the renewable energy target.

On this the second anniversary of the election of the Rudd Labor government I want to assure all coalminers and their families, particularly the members of the CFMEU, that I have not forgotten the tremendous support you gave me in our fight against Work Choices. It was a mighty battle and a successful one. Work Choices is gone and the Labor government wants to provide to workers in the coalmining industry the security they deserve as they work hard to bring this country unprecedented prosperity. This bill adds to that security by preserving the coalmining industry long service leave arrangements that have served employers and employees in the coalmining industry well for so long. I commend the bill to the House and, by the way, I also commend to the House the government’s offer to amend the CPRS.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to support the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Amendment Bill 2009. I listened closely to what the member for Capricornia had to say. Some of it was not quite related to the bill, but that may give me some degree of licence in the Deputy Speaker’s mind.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that is up to me to determine, member for New England! Please proceed.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coal industry is on everybody’s lips at the moment, I guess, with the current debate in relation to emissions trading and other issues. The coal industry, as the member for Capricornia said, is a very important industry in a lot of our electorates. The coal industry has been active for well over 100 years in various parts of the electorate of New England and west of the electorate, more towards the Gunnedah Basin. There are a number of initiatives, some of which the government is looking to assist with. As most members would know, the electorate of New England—or the Boggabri, Gunnedah, Quirindi coal basin—is just over the Liverpool Range from the Hunter Valley, which is the member for Hunter’s electorate. That links our area with the Port of Newcastle. The Port of Newcastle has had quite massive expansion in coal loading capacity. From memory, with a third load, they will be able to handle something like 120 million to 130 million tonnes of coal annually, which will make it the biggest coal exporting port in the world, I am told. So the Hunter Valley, Newcastle and the lower part of New England in particular—although there is some exploration of coal reserves going on in the northern part of New England—will be very significant contributors to the export earnings of the state of New South Wales.

Currently there is a proposal before the Australian Rail Track Corporation. Minister Albanese is well aware of this. Some hundreds of millions of dollars were set aside in various infrastructure programs to rebuild a pathway through the Liverpool Range which will increase the capacity of the trains coming out of the New England area and down into the Hunter. Currently there is a range, which is at the top of the Murray-Darling system, which I will refer to in a moment, and a tunnel where trains have to be physically pushed and pulled. There have been a range of incidents there over the years. The capacity of those trains is quite restricted because of the height of the tunnel through the range. The Australian Rail Track Corporation have in train a number of feasibility arrangements to look at proposals—some above the ground and some below ground by way of a tunnel—which will increase the capacity. I would encourage the government—particularly the minister who made certain assurances in here that this would be part of the stimulus package—to make sure that this program goes ahead, not only for the coal industry and for the workers who will be receiving long service leave through this legislation but for the economy of Newcastle and other areas, as well as the nation.

The other issue that I would like to mention is the long-term future of the coal industry and where it locates. I am aware that in Queensland there are issues in some parts about the granting of exploration licences to coal companies in what some people would view as fairly sensitive lands. Some people in the chamber and those listening may well have watched the Four Corners program about two months ago that looked at exploration licences that were granted to BHP Billiton and a Chinese company called Shenhua that were proposing to explore for coal on what is called the Liverpool Plains. The Liverpool Plains are part of the flood plain that comes off the Liverpool Range that I talked about a moment ago where the new tunnel is being looked at. That particular range is at the top of the Murray-Darling system in that part of the world. The drainage system that comes off the Liverpool Range onto the Liverpool Plains—which, in fact, over hundreds of thousands of years has formed this magnificent flood plain, interspersed with a degree of sandy ridges—has magnificent soil, some of the best soil in the world. There is a current debate about the granting of the coal mining exploration licences to BHP and the Chinese company Shenhua. There is great concern about the impact of particularly longwall mining, which BHP proposed to put in place, but also of the open-cut mine that Shenhua is looking at. There is great concern about the impact that the mining plans could have on the underground water systems. There are quite large underground aquifers in that area that are currently used for irrigation in a sustainable way. A major adjustment process took place earlier this century.

The proposal to mine some of that land is of great concern to landholders in the immediate area who are normally affected by coalmining. I am not against coalmining. I live within a kilometre of a coalmine and I do not have any issues with them. In fact, as a state member I assisted them to develop in other parts of the electorate. The issue here really is not about whether or not coalmining is a good thing; it is about the impact of an activity such as coalmining, and maybe other activities, on the demeanour of the land form that may well be mined—in this case an alluvial flood plain underpinned with these massive groundwater resources. The critical point, and the question that is yet unanswered, is the need for an independent scientific water study to ascertain the relationship between the land and the water—the groundwater systems that are there—and how they are interconnected as well as their relationship with the Murray-Darling system through the Namoi River. That was the point that the Four Corners program took. We need to ascertain the science of these systems before a disturbance from an activity such as mining takes place; otherwise, the damage that we do could in fact be irreparable.

There are massive coal reserves in these two exploration sites—over a billion tonnes between the two sites and the two sites are only about 10 kilometres apart. It is massive, and it is massive dollars. The sites are massive groundwater systems and they have some of the best soils in the world. So we have this collision point that is going to occur in this place, even though the granting of mining licences is essentially a state issue. The collision point will be in this building rather than the state building because of the legislation that was passed last year on the Murray-Darling Basin arrangements, putting in place a process for the future whereby the basin is actually looked at as one rather than as part of four states.

There is great concern that, if mining proposals do go ahead before the science of the hydrology of the system—the hydraulics of the groundwater systems—is fully understood, there could be irreversible damage done to the connectivity of those systems, the quality of the water in those systems and part of the recharge area of the surface water system itself. In a sense it makes a mockery of the Murray-Darling Basin arrangements. I do not blame them for this—they have been given their riding instructions—but they are trying to put together a water audit with end-of-valley caps which will eventually end up with a plan for the basin whereby certain extraction activities can occur. Then the allocations et cetera will flow from there, and the environmental benefits will be gauged as one catchment. The Haystack Plain area on the Darling Downs is a similar area with slightly different problems but, nonetheless, is part of the Murray-Darling system.

If we allow these mining activities to occur in these very sensitive areas, it could have enormous implications for water quality, particularly given the much higher salt levels which could be extracted from that mining area even than the methane gas that is also there. We need to fully understand the science of the hydraulic nature of the Namoi system and the proposed coal activities. As I explained in another speech, the Liverpool Range provides the hydraulic push for the groundwater systems. Through this enormous valley, the surface water ends up going through a neck of land about six kilometres wide and then fans out again as it goes towards Gunnedah. You have about 150 kilometres of this system and we have very little knowledge of the groundwater and surface water issues.

Right at the worst possible point, we have a potential proposal from BHP Billiton to long-wall mine across this system. I have absolutely no idea of what that will do to the hydraulics of the system or the hydrology or the quality of the system. I know that if you long-wall a mine under a flat plain it falls in. That has a whole range of other issues as well which, under the Murray-Darling arrangements will probably not be allowed to occur. BHP is suggesting that they might just mine in the ridges and they fully do not understand—no-one does—the relationship between one side of the ridge and the other as to the groundwater that is being driven through that system.

I raise those issues just so that the parliament is aware that there is great concern out there. If we want people working in a sustainable farming system and a sustainable mining system into the future where people can access their long service leave for long periods of time into the future, we really need to look at these systems and the need, particularly within the Murray-Darling system, for what is called a bioregional assessment. The Commonwealth again might well have to provide a lead role here. The Commonwealth has taken the lead role in the Murray-Darling system itself and what we may need to do now is actually plan the activities, or risk assess the activities, which can and cannot occur within various parts of that catchment. I suggest that on the Liverpool Plains in particular, because of the sensitive nature and the relationships between water, soil and food production in one of the best food-producing areas in the nation, we should tread very lightly on this. If need be, we should not allow these activities to occur before we do a comprehensive and proper bioregional assessment of the assets that are there and the potential risk to those assets of certain other activities—in this case, mining.

The other issue that I will raise briefly is the failure of the planning system in New South Wales to really address issues such as mining in some of these sensitive areas. Currently, as most people are probably aware, part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is the trigger mechanism for allowing a mine plan to proceed from an exploration licence through to something that is real and focused. That legislation—and some of the other legislation that impacts on mining approval—does not mention water once. The word ‘water’ is not included in that process once. We really have not looked at how the state legislation and approval processes and the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the federal Water Act are going to react, if in fact they do run into each other in terms of legislative assessment. We need to do that.

Essentially what the state based planning process does is assess a mining application: look at the site, make sure that nothing can get away from that site and, if something goes wrong, it is held within that site, and look at the land immediately adjacent to the site. In some cases, the miner may have to buy that adjacent land so that the disturbances to neighbours et cetera are taken care of. It is a fairly simplistic process. But when you are dealing with an underground water system like the one that feeds the Murray-Darling system, the impacts may well occur hundreds of kilometres away from the mine. The argument is, ‘If something goes wrong, you just compensate the people around you—pay them some money or come to some arrangement.’ But that does not allow for the unknown nature of the science in terms of the push, the drive, on those systems from the Murrurundi range right through to Walgett, which is probably 350 kilometres—and it probably goes further that we do not even understand. You cannot have a state based process that only looks at the small area where the mining activity is going to occur, if it is in an area where you have these other systems.

I am pleased to see the Minister for Resources and Energy here. I am about to conclude. It is very difficult when we do not have a full understanding of the science of those groundwater systems. The minister would be aware of these issues, so I will not bore him with them, but the relationship between the state based mining approval processes and the Murray-Darling Basin arrangements really does need to be addressed. A possible solution for the mining companies, the farm organisations and the farmers themselves in the communities is an appropriate bioregional assessment of the assets—mine wise, food wise and water wise—in these regions so that we can assess them for the benefit of all into the future. I support the legislation.

Chris Trevor (Flynn, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to support the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Amendment Bill 2009, a bill that will ensure the unique long service leave arrangements that are already in place in the black coal mining industry will continue to operate as effectively as they have been. The bill will clarify that the existing long service leave entitlements preserved by the Fair Work Act 2009 will be covered by the funding act and will effectively preserve existing arrangements for hardworking employees in the black coal mining industry with respect to long service leave. The bill will also ensure employers that make long service leave payments to employees are reimbursed from the fund. Other changes include the introduction of definitions of ‘black coal mining industry’, ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ and the amendment of the definition of ‘eligible employee’ to make certain that the scheme applies universally in the black coal mining industry.

The bill is about providing certainty for the workers and employers of the black coal mining industry. It is about providing rock-solid legislation that will not only preserve the current security that is felt by the workers of the industry with regard to their long service leave entitlements and the reimbursement of employers in the industry for long service leave payments but also ensure its future longevity. This bill will update the laws to allow them to work cooperatively with the modernisation of the workplace relations systems and guarantee a secure, certain future for the employers and employees of the black coal mining industry in relation to long service leave.

Under the current legislation, long service leave entitlements are dictated by industrial instruments, namely awards and workplace agreements, and from contracts of employment. The important factor to note is that, unlike in many other industries, the eligibility of an employee in the black coal mining industry for long service leave entitlements is determined by their length of service in the industry, not their service with a particular employer. Their length of service with a particular employer has no impact on their eligibility for long service leave entitlements. It is determined independently by their length of service in the industry. Currently this is supported by an industry scheme established by the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Act 1992 and other related legislation, including the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Act 1992 and the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Collection Act 1992. The bill today is amending the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Act 1992 and the other legislation I have just mentioned.

The amendments in this bill aim at ensuring that the long service leave scheme applies universally in the black coal mining industry. This will be achieved by introducing a definition for ‘black coal mining industry’ in the funding act, which flows through to the other related legislation. This definition has been added to align the act’s definition with the definition in the coal award, which will effectively provide consistent coverage. In particular, this amendment will ensure that the reimbursement of employers from the fund for long service payments made to an eligible employee are matched over time by contributions into the fund with respect to that employee. It will also make sure that the long service leave entitlements of employees are portable.

The bill will also introduce definitions for ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ and will amend the definition of ‘eligible employee’. These definitions will be made more accurate by these changes to provide clarity as to their meaning and make certain that the scheme applies universally in the black coal mining industry.

Another change that this bill will bring that will assist further with the universal application of this long service leave scheme for all workers in the black coal mining industry pertains to the allocation of the Coal Mining Industry (Production and Engineering) Consolidated Award 1997 to be extended to all eligible employees who do not otherwise have long service leave entitlements derived from an award. This effectively means that all eligible employees who do not have an award-derived long service leave entitlement will be deemed to have such an entitlement by reference to the main industry award. This will ensure that the bill will apply to all workers in the black coal mining industry by providing scope for more people to have coverage for their long service leave entitlements, which will in turn ensure that more employees of the industry can receive their long service leave entitlements and all employers of these eligible workers can be reimbursed for the long service leave payments that they make to them.

These amendments and additions aim at ensuring that all employees in the black coal mining industry are granted the long service leave entitlements they deserve. Industry stakeholders have suggested to the government that these definitions and changes will provide greater certainty to the scope and definition of the existing scheme, which seems logical and sensible and is thus the reason they have been included.

Another of the major amendments in this bill aims at protecting employers within the black coal mining industry by ensuring they are reimbursed for any long service leave payments they make to eligible employees in respect of their long service leave entitlements. In the past, employers have been reimbursed for these payments from the Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave Fund, as stipulated in the funding act. The issue that has arisen with this particular aspect of the legislation is that once the present industry awards are superseded by the modern awards under the Fair Work Act 2009, which will not include long service leave entitlements, the funding act will not cover the reimbursement. This is because of the change in legislation covering long service leave entitlements. Existing award based entitlements will be preserved as a statutory entitlement under the National Employment Standards, pending of course on the development of national long service leave arrangements. As the funding act does not currently cover entitlements determined by the National Employment Standards, employers will not be entitled to the reimbursements.

Fortunately, the amendments in this bill will change this and prevent the situation from occurring. The changes ensure that employers will be entitled to reimbursement from the fund for any long service leave payments they make to employees pursuant to the preserved entitlements in the Fair Work Act 2009, which is in addition to the current arrangements for their reimbursement of entitlements paid under industrial instruments and contracts. Although this is a vital change, it will have absolutely no impact on employees’ long service leave entitlements or employers’ long service leave fund obligations; it is merely correcting a technicality.

The amendments in this bill will act to preserve the arrangements already in place for employees in the industry. For the people of Flynn, where numerous deposits of black coal are located, this is an extremely positive step towards maintaining the conditions they are currently operating under. It will ensure that the hardworking men and women of Flynn who are working in coal will continue to receive their long service leave entitlements and that many new workers in the black coal mining industry can accumulate and achieve their long service leave entitlements as well. It will mean that they will not miss out on their entitlements, and it will also mean that employers will continue to be reimbursed for the payments of these entitlements to eligible employees. Overall, this means more employees in the black coal mining industry will be covered in terms of long service leave and their employers will continue to be reimbursed by the fund for long service leave payments made to eligible employees. The black coal mining workers and employers not only in my home electorate of Flynn but across Australia will benefit from this bill. This is great news.

It seems obvious that passing this bill is a positive step towards retaining the current arrangements with regard to the long service leave entitlements for both the employers and the employees in the industry. It has the best interests of the men and women working for, and the employers of, the industry. The bill has the support of key stakeholders from the industry. By passing the bill, we can put in place measures to make certain that the scheme that is already in place continues to ensure these workers do not miss out on their entitlements, irrespective of how many different employers they work for in the industry. The government has considered the best interests of all the stakeholders involved with the issue and it has their support.

The changes in the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Amendment Bill 2009 are vital to ensure the preservation of long service leave entitlements for the workers of the black coal mining industry and the reimbursement of employers from the fund with respect to these payments to eligible employees. It is for all of these reasons that I commend this bill to the House.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Amendment Bill 2009. As always, I like to say that the Labor Party is the miners’ friend. It has always been and always will be the miners’ friend because it is the party that delivers for the mining industry.

In speaking in favour of this bill, we are here to make sure that workers’ rights and entitlements are protected—unlike those on the other side of this House. This bill will amend the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Act 1999—known as ‘the funding act’—and related legislation, including the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Act 1992 and the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Collection Act 1992.

This bill ensures the portability of long service leave entitlements for all employees in the black coal industry. The scheme applies universally to all workers in the black coal mining industry. Amendments made by the bill will commence on 1 January 2010. Employees in the coalmining industry are entitled to long service leave on the basis of service in the industry, rather than their service with a particular employer. Funding of long service leave entitlements is supported by an industry scheme established by the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Act 1999, the funding act, and related legislation, including the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Act 1992 and the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Collection Act 1992, as I previously mentioned.

Under the funding act employers are reimbursed from the Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave Fund for any long service payments they make to eligible employees in respect of their long service leave entitlements. Firstly, the amendments will clarify that the existing long service leave entitlements preserved by the Fair Work Act 2009 will be covered by the funding act. Secondly, the amendments also extend the current long service entitlements in the industry award to all eligible employees who do not otherwise have an award-derived long service leave entitlement. Thirdly, the bill will also introduce definitions of ‘black coal mining industry’, ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ and amend the definition of ‘eligible employee’ in the funding act to ensure that the scheme applies universally in the black coal mining industry. Fourthly, the bill has the support of key stakeholders in the coalmining industry, including employer and employee representative bodies.

If workers for whatever reason do not have an award-derived long serve leave entitlement, they will have one from next year. We are about providing for workers entitlements; we will never be about stripping them away. We will ensure that workers have their rights. Bills such as these are the kinds of protections that a Rudd Labor government is delivering for Dawson and for workers in the coal industry. I am proud that this government truly does look after workers, particularly workers in the mining industry which is so prominent in my electorate. The Rudd government firmly recognises the importance of the coal industry to our local economy and our local jobs.

The Rudd government believes in a coal industry with a future and is investing strongly in its future, for both the industry and the workers in the industry. I have listened to coal workers and their families. I meet them all from time to time on the street, at mobile offices, at markets and at schools. They email me and they call my office. They tell me very clearly that they want a coal industry with a future. They want what is best for their kids. They want job security and they want a government that delivers for their communities and will into the future.

As far as communities go, coal towns are relatively new communities but they are dynamic communities. The Bowen Basin coal fields have been producing coal and growing communities for over 30 years. Communities which border my electorate like Moranbah, Dysart, Middlemount, Nebo and Coppabella are mining towns with schools, hospitals, sporting clubs, pubs, small businesses and community groups. There are workers in those communities who have been there from day one. There are workers there who have only just been put on. All these workers will be protected by these new laws being debated today. These laws protect all workers in the black coal industry.

We on this side of the House will always stand up for workers in the coal industry. Unlike those opposite, we will never stick up the white flag of surrender on the industry and its workers in Australian coal fields, we are proud of this industry and proud of its workers.

We stand in this place to make laws that protect and provide a strong future for these workers. We make laws in consultation with and for the benefit of all stakeholders, including the workers’ representatives like the unions and the employers, through providing certainty and predictability. Unlike the Liberal and National parties, we are about protecting the rights of workers in the coal industry. Workers know that, unlike those opposite, we did not support Work Choices and AWA’s in the mining industry, Work Choices and AWAs which unashamedly stripped away workers’ rights. Workers know that in government we have delivered on our promises by abolishing AWA’s and Work Choices.

We support the coal industry’s existence because, unlike the Liberal and National parties, we do not support a nuclear future for Australia. Unlike some of those opposite, we do not want 50 nuclear power stations dotted across the continent—absolutely no way. That is the Howard government way and they made it clear that it had not ruled out a nuclear future for Australia; nor do the current members of the Liberal and National parties. They want a nuclear future. As little time ago as last week, we had the National Party’s Senator Joyce making it clear in the media yet again—Senator Joyce is the man who wants to mine for oil in Antarctica—rehashing his idea that shire councils should decide whether their communities should be home to nuclear plants. Can you imagine being a counsellor on a regional council in Mackay, in the Whitsundays, in the Burdekin or Townsville Regional Council going to your council chamber and saying, ‘I want a nuclear power station in my backyard and all that comes with it’? I do not think so. Barnaby Joyce has lost contact with his community, he has lost contact with the people he purports to represent in rural communities. I know we do not want a nuclear power station in Dawson and I do not want to see any nuclear power stations anyway around Australia. That is not the road we are going down. We are not going to go down the nuclear road; we are going to go down the renewable energy road, the sustainable energy road. That is the way forward for Australia.

To have a Leader of the Opposition who wants Australians to adopt the French attitude towards nuclear power in Australia is simply unbelievable. How out of touch can you get? By embracing a nuclear future for Australia, those opposite are saying that they are giving up on a future for coal. Look at the European experience, where nuclear power stations proliferate. There is virtually no coalmining industry left in the UK. There is virtually none in France or across the rest of Europe. Why? It is because of nuclear power. I tell you what: you may cut emissions but you will cut dead the coal industry if you go nuclear in Australia. The mineworkers know that very clearly. I do not see them campaigning—as Barnaby Joyce would want—their local shire councils and saying, ‘We want a nuclear power station in the backyard of Dawson.’ No way. It is not going to happen on my watch.

We reject a nuclear future for Australia and I support a future for coal that is clean—that is, a future for coal with a international market now and into the future. That is the way to go, to embrace clean coal technologies and export those technologies to developing countries so that they can continue to use coal fired power stations. We believe in new technologies and innovations for coal, like carbon capture and storage. In fact, the government has contributed $2 billion for carbon capture and storage technologies to help clean up the industry, to support other infrastructure projects and to help improve our export capacity. The difference between the Labor and the Liberal and National parties is that we know and understand that many of the workers in the industry are in it for the long haul. It is their career. Mining is their livelihood and their children’s livelihood, and we owe it to them to protect it, to grow it and to ensure there is a market for coal internationally and into the future.

Coal and its associated industries are a major driver not only for the Australian economy but also for the economies in my electorate of Dawson. Many of the working families in the mining sector live in Mackay, Bowen and the Whitsundays, and they want a government that will stand up for them now and stand up for them in the future. Mining communities know just how important coal is for Australia’s economy, for jobs and for the bottom line of the wealth of this nation. Workers and their families know that under a Labor government the coal industry will always continue to grow. Treasury modelling shows that the coal industry will continue to grow by 50 per cent by 2050. Workers know that under a Labor government we will always see a future for coal. It will be an optimistic, clean future for one of our national exports. We see a future for coal. That is why we have invested $14 million in the Mining Technology Innovation Centre, based in Mackay in my electorate of Dawson. I wish to commend Peter van Iersel, the Centre Director, for doing a fantastic job in helping firms from around the nation support the mining industry in cutting edge innovation and new, smart business practices.

In conclusion: mining communities in Central Queensland—in Dawson, in Capricornia and in Flynn—will not forget John Howard and his Work Choices laws. Workers will not forget the threat that these laws posed to workers’ entitlements such as long service leave. We are instead about delivering for workers, not taking away their rights. I fully and wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Amendment Bill 2009. The aim of the bill is to ensure that, from 1 January 2010, employers who make long service payments to employees can be reimbursed from the Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave Fund and to define the ‘black coal mining industry’ in the funding act and related legislation to align with the modern award and ensure that the scheme applies universally in the black coal mining industry. In particular, this amendment will ensure that the reimbursements of employers from the fund for long serve leave payments to an eligible employee are matched over time by contributions into the fund in respect of that employee. It will also ensure the portability of entitlements for employees. The bill provides that the Coal Mining Industry (Production and Engineering) Consolidated Award 1997, which is the main industry award, applies to all eligible employees who do not otherwise have an award-derived long service leave entitlement. From 1 January 2010 this will become an applicable award-derived long service leave term for the purpose of section 113 of the Fair Work Act. In effect, all eligible employees who do not have an award-derived long serve leave entitlement will be deemed to have such an entitlement by reference to the main industry award. Amendments made by this bill will commence on 1 January 2010.

I will endeavour shortly to look with some detail into what exactly this bill does, but first I would like to examine the background of this bill—that is, long service leave generally. Long service leave is an almost uniquely Australian product. For a history of the scheme I looked at a research paper from the Labour Ministers Council. It said that long service leave was a period of paid leave granted to employees after a period of continuous employment with the one employer. In certain industries, such as construction, stevedoring and coalmining, policymakers in the past have allowed the entitlement to vest after a period of continuous service in that industry, regardless of the number of employers. Hence its portability between employers. The entitlement has its origins in the 19th century Victorian and South Australian civil service acts. These provided for civil service officers who had completed at least 10 years of service to be granted leave of absence with pay for periods of six to 12 months. The purpose of the leave was to reward those who had performed long and faithful service in the colonies by providing an opportunity for them to return to the United Kingdom. All state and Commonwealth public servants were subsequently granted the entitlement. It was then gradually extended to other public sector employees.

Long service leave began to be included in federal awards by consent in the late 1940s. It did not become a standard employment condition for all employees until the passage in the 1950s of long service leave legislation in all states. The purpose of such legislation, according to parliamentary debates prior to the introduction of the Long Service Leave Act 1955 in New South Wales, was to reduce labour turnover, provide a reward for long, faithful service and enable employees halfway through their working lives to recover their energies and return to work renewed, refreshed and reinvigorated.

In 1964 the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission arbitrated its first long service leave award to provide what has become the standard provision for non-Public Service employees—that is, 13 weeks leave after 15 years service, with a pro rata payment in lieu on termination of employment after 10 years. State legislation and existing awards were amended to provide the same entitlement. South Australia later introduced a 10-year qualifying period for the full 13-week entitlement, but this has not been followed by other states. Public sector employees generally have more long service leave entitlements. Whilst long service leave entitlements are currently predominantly provided for under state laws, the Commonwealth makes legislative provision for long service leave entitlements for those employed in the Commonwealth Public Service.

You can see that there is quite a long history of this particular provision in Australia, and the next stage in the evolution of this almost uniquely Australian entitlement of long service leave is being developed now. We are developing a national employment standard in long service leave. This next step will apply to all employers covered by the Fair Work Act. Long service leave is one of the 10 national standards to be introduced by this government. The others will be a standard 38-hour week, annual leave, parental leave, flexible work for parents, sick leave, community service leave, public holidays, information in the workplace, notice of termination and redundancy pay.

Of course, talking about coalmining and long service leave in one breath was unheard of back in the days of early coalmining. As a reflection, a recent report published by the University of Queensland on the Australian coal industry said:

Work in early Australian coal mines was hard. In convict times, being sent to Newcastle was a punishment, above and beyond ordinary transportation, and the early Newcastle mines were dangerous places, with poor ventilation and inadequate drainage.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s true.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I acknowledge the member for Newcastle, who is in the chamber at the moment. Workplace conditions today, of course, have improved dramatically, and we must always be looking to improve conditions even more, especially in places such as underground coalmines, with the inherent difficulties and dangers that they have.

I now turn back to the bill we are debating today, which is about coalmining industry workers—and which, I might add, has the support of key stakeholders in the industry. Employees in the coalmining industry are entitled to long service leave on the basis of service in the industry rather than service with a particular employer. Funding of long service leave entitlements is supported by an industry scheme established by the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Act 1992 and related legislation, including the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Act 1992 and the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Collection Act 1992. Under the funding act, employers are reimbursed from the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Fund for any long service payments they make to eligible employees in respect of their long service leave entitlements.

From 1 January, the present industry awards prescribing long service leave will be superseded by modern awards under the Fair Work Act 2009. Modern awards will not include long service leave entitlements. Rather, existing award based entitlements will be preserved as a statutory entitlement under the National Employment Standards pending the development of national long service leave arrangements. As a consequence of these changes, because the funding act does not currently cover entitlements determined by the National Employment Standards, employers will not be eligible for reimbursement from the fund in respect of the long service payments they make to their employees.

The amendments contained in this bill address this situation. The amendments ensure that from 1 January 2010 employers will be entitled to reimbursement from the fund in respect of long service payments they make to employees pursuant to the preserved entitlements in the Fair Work Act, in addition to the current arrangements for reimbursement of entitlements paid under industrial instruments and contracts. This is a technical amendment which will not affect employees’ long service leave entitlements or employers’ long service leave fund obligations.

The current long service leave entitlements in the Coal Mining Industry (Production and Engineering) Consolidated Award 1997 will be extended to all eligible employees who do not otherwise have an award-derived long service leave entitlement. The bill also aligns the definition of ‘black coal mining industry’ in the funding act with the definition in the coal award, amends the definition of ‘eligible employee’ and introduces definitions of ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ to ensure that the scheme applies universally in the black coal mining industry.

Let us not forget what employees in the coalmining industry faced back in the bad old days of Work Choices—and those bad old days were not all that long ago. In a newsletter to its members in June 2006, APESMA, the union covering engineers, scientists and the like, had a question and answer article about long service leave, which I will just take a few quotes from to show how they saw the effects of Work Choices on long service leave. The first question was:

What happens if my employer is not bound by the Award, or if I move to a new mine site?

Answer: WorkChoices means that to access the all-important legally enforceable entitlement of Long Service Leave staff at any new mine site not bound by the Award as at 27 March 2006 do not have access to an Award Long Service Leave entitlement. Instead staff must rebargain for the Coal Mining Industry standard Long Service Leave in an enterprise agreement.

The next question was:

I have an entitlement to long service leave in my contract—isn’t this enough?

Answer: Should there be a disagreement about bridging your service between one employer to another, or deeming your service, then your common law contract doesn’t provide the answer. This is because the only way a Tribunal can determine bridging or deeming if there is no agreement, is if the legal power to determine the dispute is given to them via the Award or enterprise agreement.

The third question was:

My employer is paying into the Long Service Leave Fund anyway, so why should I have a problem in getting my long service leave?

Answer: All employers in the Coal Mining Industry are bound to pay into the Long Service Leave Fund pursuant to the Long Service Leave Funding Act. That Act puts the responsibility on the employer to make contributions to the fund. Unfortunately, that Act does not provide employees with a legally forcible entitlement, and a way to solve disputes where there is disagreement about bridging or deeming.

You can see that there were all sorts of issues that were being faced by coalmining industry employees under Work Choices in relation to their long service leave. In fact, what they were being faced with, quite simply, was the possibility that their entitlement was going to be much diminished. The issue of portability, which is so crucial in this industry, was very much under threat. Yet there are still many of those opposite who would not hesitate to bring back Work Choices if they could.

We saw in this chamber only last week the debate on legislation to bring about a national workplace relations system. That is something that the previous government said they believed in, but we faced the incredible situation of those opposite opposing this position even though they said it was one of the key motivations behind Work Choices. In fact, they went to the High Court in relation to the corporations power to have a national system, and they said that that was fundamental. But what we found here was that there was a more overriding principle that has always lurked beneath the opposition’s psyche and that was that they actually still believe in Work Choices more than the philosophy of a national system. That is why they voted against the national system. The opposition spokesperson made it clear that one of the two reasons they did not want the legislation that was here before this place last week and that the opposition voted against was they did not like the fact that the new system did not have many of the principles of Work Choices.

Between the member for Stirling and the member for O’Connor, they listed the three key issues that they thought should be in a national industrial relations system before they would support it. The first was the reintroduction of AWAs, and employees in the coal industry in particular were subject to more AWAs than almost any other industry. They wanted those to be returned. The member for O’Connor said that he did not believe in penalty rates and if there were penalty rates in any system then he could not support it. Then the issue of flexibility of hours generally was also raised by the member for O’Connor. The position of the opposition spokesperson on workplace relations, the member for Stirling, was that any system that provided unfair dismissal rights was a system that he could not support.

They are three fundamental issues that the Australian people voted on in the last election, and they voted overwhelmingly to support this side of parliament’s position in terms of the type of industrial relations system they wanted—making sure that there was fair access to unfair dismissals, making sure that individual contracts were no longer part of the system and making sure that penalty rates were not stripped away. These three issues are fundamentally the issues that those opposite want to see returned to any industrial relations system and that caused them to make the extraordinary decision to oppose a national industrial relations system in legislation that was there before.

It is little wonder that it is this side of the House that is left to make sure that the long service leave entitlements of those working in the coal industry are protected, because we know quite clearly, from the actions of those opposite in the past and the actions of those opposite only last week, that they would be looking at ways in which they could strip back entitlements from workers in all industries but in particular in relation to this industry. We need to make sure that we are protecting those long service leave entitlements for those who work in the coalmining industry.

The coalmining industry will remain important in this country for many years to come. To give you an idea of just how significant an employment role the industry continues to play, projections are that demand for skilled labour in coalmining, even based on various assumptions about energy use, will remain very high over the longer term. The government’s energy white paper released earlier this year stated that the projected demand for skilled labour in the coalmining industry will rise from over 35,000 in 2008 to about 55,000 in the year 2020. This is an increase of 19,000 or 53 per cent. These projections are based on mineral output projections for Australia’s current major mining commodities to 2020 and they take full account of global market conditions and domestic market conditions such as the proposed emissions trading scheme that is obviously plaguing the opposition’s party room right through all of today.

There are strong partnerships in place to improve the industry’s safety and efficiency. In November 2007, to specifically address the domestic energy supply industry and the demand for skilled labour, the Australian government committed to work with the state and territory governments in the energy sector to improve the consistency of state based regulations such as occupational health and safety requirements that apply to the energy sector. In June 2008 the Ministerial Council on Energy agreed to establish the Energy Technical and Safety Leaders Group to develop a plan to harmonise state and territory electricity and gas supply industry technical and safety regulations. Harmonisation would facilitate greater labour mobility and swifter emergency response in the energy supply industry especially in the context of skilled labour shortages. The leaders group is shortly due to deliver its final plan to the ministerial council. So you can see that the coal industry remains important to Australia, and this government recognises that.

To sum up, the effect of the bill is to preserve existing arrangements for employees in the black coal mining industry with respect to long service leave and also to ensure the reimbursement of employers from the fund with respect to long service leave payments they make to eligible employees. The government considers that this is a desirable measure that recognises the unique historical circumstances surrounding long service leave in the black coal mining industry. This government is about making sure that workers’ rights are preserved. This stands in stark contrast to those opposite, who look at every opportunity they can to strip back and take away employees’ rights. I commend the bill to the House.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise today to support the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Amendment Bill 2009. The coalmining industry is intrinsically tied to my electorate of Newcastle and to the Greater Hunter region. I am the granddaughter of a coalminer and, although we are now a dynamic and diversified city, I think you may still struggle to find any Novocastrian who is not linked to somebody involved in the coal industry in one way or another. Just as coal originally laced the beds of the Hunter River, coal is in the bloodstream of our region, and that is the case for many regions around this country. That is something that this government recognises, and the government and I will always make sure we legislate for the benefit of this great industry, of those who work in it and of those who depend upon it.

This legislative amendment looks at improving and streamlining the long service leave funding agreement in the national coal industry and preserving the continued operation of existing unique long service leave arrangements in the black coal industry. To quote from the legislation:

Employees in the coal mining industry are entitled to long service leave on the basis of service in the industry, rather than their service with a particular employee. Funding of long service leave entitlements is supported by an industry scheme established by the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Act 1999 (the Funding Act) and related legislation, including the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Act 1992 and the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Collection Act 1992.

In the black coal industry formerly, long service leave was always portable, moving with the individual miner. That has been the case since 1949, as recognition that often miners work between one mine and another, depending on the scaling up or scaling down. The legislation continues:

Under the Funding Act employers are reimbursed from the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Fund (the Fund) for any long service payments they make to eligible employees in respect of their long service leave entitlements.

However, from 1 January next year the present industry awards prescribing this long service leave are set to be superseded by more modern awards in line with the Australian government’s Fair Work Act 2009. These awards are not permitted to include long service leave entitlements. Rather, existing award based entitlements will be preserved as a statutory entitlement under the National Employment Standards pending development of national long service leave arrangements. Our movements towards some harmonisation have been very well received. But, because the funding act does not currently cover entitlements determined by the National Employment Standards, employers will not be entitled to reimbursements from the fund in respect of the long service payments that they make to employees. This is obviously not a desired outcome for coal industry employees.

The amendments contained in this bill address this situation. They ensure that from 1 January 2010 employers will be entitled to reimbursement from the fund in respect of long service payments they make to employees pursuant to the preserved entitlements in the Fair Work Act in addition to the current arrangements for reimbursement of entitlements paid under industrial instruments and contracts. This is a technical amendment which will not affect employees’ long service leave entitlements or employers’ long service leave fund obligations. The bill also aligns the definition of ‘black coal mining industry’ in the funding act, which flows through to related legislation, with the definition in the coal award. It amends the definition of ‘eligible employee’ and introduces definitions of ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ to ensure that the scheme applies universally in the black coal industry.

I wish to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the Rudd government for recognising the unique historical circumstances surrounding long service leave in the black coal mining industry and ensuring through this amendment that existing arrangements are present and preserved for employees and that employers are reimbursed from the fund in respect of the long service leave payments that they make to eligible employees. I would also like to put on the record my appreciation to Graham Kelly, the secretary of the United Mineworkers Federation northern district, for his strong advocacy on this issue on behalf of coalminers in the Hunter Valley.

We are all aware of the importance of a coal industry to our local, state and national economy. The mining of black coal is one of Australia’s most important industries, creating significant employment in regional Australia, providing fuel for low-cost electricity generation and steel making, and creating vital export income. Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter and black coal is Australia’s largest export. The coal industry in Newcastle is thriving. The Rudd government contributed $580 million to improving the coal chain between the Hunter Valley and the port of Newcastle, one of the most important arterial lines in the country. The construction at the port of the third coal terminal, the NCIG terminal, is almost complete, and there are plans for a fourth terminal with Port Waratah Coal Services. There has been significant private investment, with $1.4 billion for the expansion of coalmines under way as well as rolling stock and export infrastructure, and negotiations are happening now around a further $5 billion expansion.

Some recent articles from the Miningcoal website shed further light on the bright outlook for the coal industry in Newcastle. The website reported in September that coalmining companies that use the port of Newcastle say they are confident of doubling exports within seven years—that is, going from the current 100 million tonnes to 200 million tonnes. There are also longer term plans to triple coal exports to 300 million tonnes. The news came following the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s re-approval of the port’s coal export quota system. A further report in October said that coal exports from Australia’s Newcastle port have jumped 35 per cent as mining shipments with Japanese utilities increase.

There has of course been a scaremongering campaign coming from some within the coalmining industry regarding the impact an emissions trading scheme would have on the industry. I have talked about it in the House before, so I will not go into all that again; however, when you note the developments and expansion that the industry is planning for in Newcastle—$1.4 billion now and a further $5 billion over the next decade—then you can see that coal and the coalmining industry are strong and sustainable in the Hunter region. One need only turn to perhaps the real representatives of the coal industry, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, to see that much of what has been said about the ETS by the business end of the industry is unfounded. In an article that appeared in the Australian newspaper last month written by Matthew Stevens, CFMEU president, Tony Maher, accused the Australian Coal Association of running a deceptive scare campaign. Maher said the coal industry would continue to grow with an ETS, even if not as quickly.

Today I congratulate the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Climate Change and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change in releasing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in its now revised form—in particular, its support for the coal sector. A total of $1.5 billion in transitional assistance will be provided to the coal sector over five years. This is an increase from the $750 million previously—so a doubling—and the government will commit $270 million to the coalmine abatement fund through the Climate Change Action Fund to assist gassy coalmines reduce their emissions. In addition, the current COAG renewable energy target review process will consider whether the new waste coalmine gas project should be eligible. This is a considerable investment into the future of people like those in Newcastle, the coalminers of the Hunter Valley. It is very welcomed and it gives us great confidence.

Resistance to the ETS—and it has been considerable—is something that I am amazed at. I represent the city of Newcastle and we just commemorated the 10-year anniversary of the closure of the BHP steelworks. At that time it was said that we were ruined—our economy would be ruined. It was said that the loss of jobs would be staggering and that we would never recover. At that time, state and federal governments provided some adjustment funds. I now point to our economy which shows 4.4 per cent unemployment during a global financial crisis; I point to the productivity and growth within Newcastle and the fact that its greatest employment sectors and growth sectors are knowledge based.

We have nothing to fear from an ETS and much to embrace. It will be the catalyst for wonderful change. It will be the catalyst for new investment, and it is something in our region that we have been preparing for for some time. In valuing our coal industry while also appreciating that there will be pressures on energy provision, we have invested—as has this government—into the clean energy sector and the renewables sector. We are preparing. We know what it is like to be resilient. It is now that an ETS will provide that adjustment catalyst for industry to make those adjustments, to diversify, to enrich their economy, to enrich their activities and to remain totally productive and to potentially create greater industries around the country.

I have to say to the many people who have feared for the loss of their job, because of the Australian Coal Association’s campaign, that I do not think we have anything to fear from our adapting to this changing world environment and to change that is supported so strongly through our ETS and, in this case, with particularly strong support for the coal industry. This bill, though, is further demonstration of the commitment by the Rudd government to supporting not just the coal industry but the jobs and employment rights of people around this country. It is recognition of the importance of the coal industry to our nation’s economy and to my region’s economy. It will provide invaluable support and assistance to those involved in the industry and it will give them comfort that their entitlements—ones that they have been committed to since 1949—will be protected and that their long service leave provisions will not be diminished in any way. I commend the bill to the House.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members for their contribution to the debate on the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Amendment Bill 2009. This bill implements a series of measures that have been agreed to by the coalmining industry working party, which consists of both employer and employee stakeholders. The measures in the bill will apply portable long service leave entitlements and the supporting funding arrangements universally in the black coal mining industry from 1 January 2010.

The black coal mining industry has a long-standing, unique arrangement whereby employees have accessed portable long service leave entitlements under the terms of federal awards since 1949. The long service leave entitlement set out in the Coal Mining Industry (Production and Engineering) Consolidated Award 1997—13 weeks after eight years continuous service in the industry—was established in 1966. The funding arrangements administered by the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation have been in place since 1993. Given these historical circumstances and the joint representations made by industry and unions to government requesting that the existing long service leave entitlement arrangements for the industry are maintained and administered consistently throughout the entire industry, the government is pleased to put forward this legislation. I am glad to see that it has the support of all members of this place, and I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.