Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. From the outset, I make it clear that the opposition will be supporting this bill because it's both noncontroversial and pragmatic. It resolves longstanding uncertainty and provides fairness to employers who have acted in good faith, and preserves the integrity of the coal long service leave scheme for the workers who rely on it.

It's quite straightforward. The legislation exists to facilitate employers who were advised previously they were not part of a scheme to now be part of a scheme and provide a pathway forward. I welcome the government's frankly pragmatic approach on this legislation as a consequence of a series of court decisions. It's also a reminder that good industrial relations legislation comes from cooperation, consultation and common sense, not mad ideology or confrontation.

The purpose of this bill is actually shockingly straightforward. It establishes a voluntary pathway for certain employers to repay historical levy debts owed under the coalmining industry long service leave scheme—debts which are legally payable, overdue and would be subject to penalties but which arose from a genuine uncertainty about coverage under the scheme. Under the bill, eligible employers may enter into repayment arrangements over six years once 80 per cent of the debt has been paid. The remaining 20 per cent associated with the LSL scheme is then waived owing to surplus funds available to it. Importantly, once an employer enters into such an arrangement, no further penalties or enforcement actions apply.

This is not a write-off. It's not an amnesty. It's a simple, structured, conditional and time-limited mechanism to deal with historic liabilities in a way that protects workers, that, hopefully, avoids business failures, that maintains confidence in the system, and that also gives a pathway forward. Despite the temptation, I'm really looking forward to the minister in question time railing that we were against this, even though I've made it very clear we're supporting it, because we support workers, and we support people working hard and hard work paying off.

The long service leave scheme has a proud history. It was established in 1949 and underpinned by a Commonwealth legislation since 1992. It provides a single national system of long service leave for black-coal miners, recognising the unique nature of work in the industry and the mobility of its workforce. In the context of Goldstein, we don't have many people, but I have spoken to lots of colleagues around the country, including those who have FIFO workers who deal with the realities of this scheme. The scheme is funded by a mandatory levy of 2.7 per cent on eligible wages paid to eligible employees. That levy is paid by employers, not deducted from workers' wages, and coal LSL manages the fund to ensure it can meet all the obligations and entitlements while withstanding market and industry fluctuations—something that present moments would remind us of. As of June 2025, the scheme holds more than 71 million hours of long service leave on behalf of 160,000 workers, including around 65,000 currently active employees. That is a significant trust for these critical workers and is one that this parliament has a responsibility to safeguard.

However, over recent years, serious uncertainty has emerged regarding the coverage of the scheme, particularly for employers providing specialised maintenance and services on coalmine sites. Companies have found themselves unexpectedly exposed to substantial historical levies and levy debts, going back many years following Federal Court decisions that clarified eligibility. It wasn't the companies doing the wrong thing—they were given one bit of advice and the courts have decided otherwise. It's now about how we get them to maintain and honour their obligations. Large miners will be able to do it, and for smaller miners it will be more challenging. It wasn't the companies doing the wrong thing. They were given one bit of advice. Courts have decided otherwise. It's now about how we get them to maintain and honour their obligations. Large miners will be able to do it. For smaller miners, it will be more challenging. They were not cases of deliberate noncompliance. They were cases where the law was unclear, the boundaries of coverage were contested and businesses structured their operations based on reasonable interpretations that were only resolved years later by litigation. The result was the real prospect of large, immediate liabilities that posed genuine risks to business viability, employment and investment.

The bill strikes the right balance because it upholds the principle that lawful levies must be paid. It ensures workers' entitlements are protected, and it recognises that imposing immediate full repayment of historical debts arising from legal uncertainty could cause disproportionate harm, including insolvencies and job losses. The staged repayment model ensures that employers contribute the overwhelming majority of what is owed, where the conditional waiver recognises the exceptional circumstances and incentivises compliance. Crucially, the fund itself will absorb any shortfall arising from the waiver, and advice before the parliament makes clear that, given the limited number of anticipated arrangements and the front-loaded nature of repayments, there is no material risk to the scheme's financial viability. This is not about shifting costs onto other coal producers or compliant employers. Their levy rates are unaffected. The integrity of the scheme remains intact.

Industry has worked closely with government to design these arrangements. The Australian Industry Group, which has been heavily involved, has been very clear that many businesses faced hardship or insolvency without some model of reform. That would impact, of course, thousands of jobs and needlessly put them at risk. The Minerals Council of Australia has also welcomed the bill as a positive step in resolving commercial and financial uncertainty, and I note the Mining and Energy Union has also expressed support. So there you go. You've got the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Mining and Energy Union, the Minerals Council, the Australian Industry Group and the government all in one big group hug in favour of workers. How about that?

See this speech in context