Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bert James was the member for Hunter between 1960 and 1980. Sadly, as the House noted on Monday, Bert passed away on 30 September at the ripe old age of 92—so he had a pretty good innings. Bert James was known as a frank, fearless and uncompromising representative and advocate. People may find cause to disagree with his politics and at times his methods, but his commitment to his beliefs and to his constituents could never be questioned or challenged.

His maiden speech in this place was almost entirely devoted to his dedication to improving the living standards of those who lived in a local economy too dependent on the fortunes of the coalmining industry and the whims of the local coal barons. Bert had many interests, including a sharp focus on international affairs. He stridently opposed conscription and Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War. But his key focus was the wealth that went to the local coal barons at the expense of those who won the coal—in dark, dangerous and dirty conditions—and their families. He was unswerving in his determination that they should receive a better deal.

While we all remain diligent in our dealings with the coal companies today, it is fair to argue that, despite the Prime Minister’s best efforts, the main threat to the Hunter’s coalminers and their families may now not be the coal companies but indeed those who take an extreme view of the impact of coalmining on the local environment. If Bert James were making his maiden speech today, he would likely feel the need to devote as much time to this question of the environment and mining as he would to workers’ rights. Public debate over these important issues is crucial to achieving the right balance between our economic wellbeing and our real lifeblood, our natural environment.

Bert James knew that the parties to any negotiation are rarely equal. When they are, the outcomes tend to be better. When one party is weaker, the result is too often unfair. In these circumstances, government should move to protect the weaker party. Industrial relations provides one clear example. Traditionally, we have allowed workers to bargain collectively to address the power imbalance and have funded an independent umpire to settle disputes. Bert must have spent his last months in a distressed state pondering over the Howard government’s changes to workplace relations laws.

In the past, Hunter communities have been the weaker party to the bargain when dealing with the development applications of coal companies. We have been a relatively poor community with a narrow economic base and skills set. In days gone by, coal offered too much economic promise for us to provide too much resistance or to place too many demands or conditions on mining applications. But things have changed. Our local economy is fast becoming more economically diverse, our population is achieving higher levels of education and training and our average standard of living is rising. While coal remains one of the most important industries in the valley and a significant provider of jobs, we can now afford to be a little bit more circumspect in our dealing with the companies that seek to profit from our abundant coal reserves. To put it more succinctly, we are now a stronger negotiating party.

This new strength should not only be exercised with regard to environmental concerns. We should also be working harder and more conscientiously to avoid the planning mistakes of the past. Too often, we have allowed urban development to grow off the back of industries which have a limited life. This inevitably results in grief as industries die, workers are retrenched and community income plummets. The consequences of past mistakes are too horrible to allow them to be repeated. Further, government must work harder at returning more of the wealth our coalmining industry creates back to the local region, both to make the industry more economically sustainable and to better prepare us for future periods when demand for our coal may not be so great nor prices so high.

But for people who describe themselves as environmentalists to argue that no new mines should be developed in the Hunter as a means of addressing concerns about global warming is just plain silly. Australia’s share of the world’s carbon output is just 1.5 per cent and if the Anvil Hill mine is not developed the company’s customers will secure their coal elsewhere—probably from the expansion of an older mine with less stringent environmental controls. Tackling global warming will require a coordinated global effort to promote greater investment in the further development of clean coal and renewables technologies and ultimately, a carbon price signal that treats every carbon-emitting country equally. In the meantime, the coal industry is too important to the Hunter’s economy to sacrifice it at the alter of a flawed faith in Australia’s ability to reverse the greenhouse effect all on its own.