Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I was and am a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, and the member for Dawson is quite right—we worked very well together, both the members of the Labor opposition and the members of the government. I'd like to commend the member for New England on his chairing of this committee through this process. I think we were all dealt with very fairly. We all got to have our say and, indeed, make a very solid contribution to the recommendations. I think it was a very collegial process, and I think, as he mentioned in his speech or in his foreword, there are probably more examples of how the parliament works well in this way than people often think. People see in question time the vaudeville and the antics, but they don't get to see how the sausage is made behind the scenes, which is a bit of a shame sometimes.

I just want to quickly go through some of the recommendations. There has been a lot of attention on the issue of the recommendation to review casualisation and replace casual with permanent workers, which, of course, I support very strongly. But I just want to go to recommendation 1—and there is probably a reason why it's recommendation 1 and not further down—which is: what became clear through the inquiry is that there is an information vacuum. It was very difficult for mining companies, local communities, mayors and councils to really give any concrete answers as to what sort of information is out there, in any meaningful way. So the first recommendation is an important one, which is: let's find a way to collect the data in a meaningful way. It will have very big implications, if that is done, in terms of where dollars get spent—and we are talking about big public dollars when it comes to infrastructure and to social services in the regions. Knowing this sort of information is critical. I find it, frankly, quite surprising that it hasn't been done before. So I would certainly urge the government to take a very strong look at that first recommendation and find a way to make sure that that is implemented as government policy.

As to recommendation 2, the Nationals, I must say, were very keen to see this get in—and, indeed, those of us on the Labor side have seen how Royalties for Regions works in WA, and it has been kept by the WA Labor government because they recognise that it does work. It has been tweaked. There were some problems with the Royalties for Regions scheme in WA in its original genesis. A few too many gold-plated kerbs and roundabouts were built in some towns. I think the Mark McGowan-led government now in WA has a more sensible approach to how the Royalties for Regions scheme should be better implemented.

This is an important recommendation. It goes to the title of the report, Keep it in the regions, which is really about this: as the member for Dawson referred to, let's keep more of the money where the mines are dug; let's not truck it all out. We had a number of witnesses come forward to the committee saying that it broke their hearts sometimes to see the amount of wealth that was being trucked or railed out of their local communities to head to the big cities.

We've got recommendations here about true local procurement. This was a very big issue, with local suppliers feeling locked out of the supply chain. Importantly, we're not just talking about the big mining companies that are the principal operators. We're also talking about the second- and third-tier companies that get subcontracted to do this work on behalf of the big mining companies. We want to make sure they also have policies on local procurement. If the government can find its way to implementing these recommendations, and to talking to whoever they need to talk to, to make these things happen, I think that will go a long way to alleviating some of the concerns in the local regions.

We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars that could be poured back into local communities, simply by mining companies and their second- and third-tier contractors employing local firms to do their work. Don't fly in operators from France or other places. Don't bring in the big engineering companies from overseas. Contract it out to local suppliers. I think what that will do, of course, is increase economic activity in those local towns. Men and women will see that there's work available, not just on the sites themselves but in supplying those sites. That will increase the impetus for population growth in those areas, and not just in the short term but in an ongoing way. So this is a very important recommendation.

I'll go through more if I have time, but I just wanted to say: I think this is a really good report. I was very proud to be part of this process. The member for Dawson has probably stolen some of my best lines! But this report has made a difference already. Whether or not this ends up sitting on a shelf in the minister's office and not getting acted on—which would be a great shame—it has made a difference already.

We have had the mining companies come to us and, as a direct result of the hearings of this committee in places like Mackay, Rockhampton, Port Hedland and elsewhere, and as a direct result of the evidence about long payment terms to suppliers, they have changed their policies. We heard evidence that people were being blown out with their payment terms by 60 to 120 days. How a small supplier can manage that is just beyond the pale. In some cases, we're talking about millions of dollars outstanding. Men and women employees obviously have to continue to be paid by the local engineering firms and whatnot, and of course the owner of a firm would be waiting on the money from the company, but, if it hasn't come in, he's still got to pay the wages. A simple change like this means nothing to these big companies—to simply to pay their suppliers earlier—but it would have a massive effect. This is the testimony we heard: it would have a huge effect on local communities and local economies; it would give local suppliers confidence, it would give them certainty, and also, frankly, it would make them more willing to contract for the work. We heard evidence that some people can't afford to not tender for the work, but we also heard evidence that some suppliers said, 'I'm not going to tender for those mining contracts. It's just not worth waiting so long for the payment.' Of course, that depresses economic activity.

I strongly suggest that the government takes that very seriously—true local procurement and the payment terms—because, if we can get payment terms down to 30 days as a matter of course, not just for mining companies but across the board, and find some way, in terms of national policy, that big firms have to pay their local suppliers within 30 days, I think we're going to see a very significant economic improvement for small businesses. And same to you, Deputy Speaker Laundy, with Christmas coming! So there are a number of recommendations that I'm very proud of.

The other one that people touched on was the housing provision. We heard evidence about the FIFOs and the deleterious effect that the FIFOs have on communities—not just the communities but the workers themselves. We also heard evidence about how it distorts the market by having the workers fly in and fly out. There are recommendations about how we can best deal with that. We need to make sure that housing is looked after, not just for the workforce but for the local communities.

Principally, this is all about making sure that more wealth is kept in the regions. Being a member of parliament for the seat of Lyons in Tasmania, big on my agenda is keeping more money in the regions, more employment in the regions, more jobs in the regions and more services in the regions. That's what we need to do and that's what this report seeks to achieve.

I'm happy to say that we worked very well together with government members and I hope that we continue to do so, even when the next inquiry is announced for this committee. With only 10 sitting days of this parliament scheduled before the middle of next year, I'm not sure how much work will be done if an inquiry is announced before then, but we will take our chances.

It's not my role to commend this to the House, of course—that's up to the chair and the deputy chair, and they've done that—but I'm very proud to be part of this report. Frankly, no matter who forms government after the next election, I think there's a lot of really good reading in the report, and I think the country will be a lot better off if it takes into account the recommendations made by the committee. Thank you.

See this speech in context