Urban Land Development Authority - Department of Innovation ...

Submission to
National Resource Sector
Employment Taskforce
April 2010

Submitted by:
Urban Land Development Authority
Level 4, 229 Elizabeth Street, Brisbane QLD 4000
GPO Box 2202, Brisbane QLD 4001
Contact:
Michael Kane - Principal Advisor
michael.kane@ulda.qld.gov.au
07 3024 4183
0419 199 684

Executive summary
The Urban Land Development Authority (ULDA) was
established by the Queensland Government to help
make housing more affordable and to deliver a range
of housing options for the changing needs of the
community.
The ULDA works within Queensland with local and
state government, community, local landholders and
development industry representatives and has authority
under its own Act in defined Urban Development Areas
(UDAs) to:
»»
be the planning and development assessment
agency
»»
facilitate and build urban infrastructure
»»
develop urban land.
The Queensland Government has initiated a series of
actions to improve the sustainability and quality of life
in Queensland's resource communities. Key actions that
seek to address housing affordability and liveability in
Queensland's resource communities include:
»»
the Sustainable Resource Communities Partnership
»»
Surat Basin Future Directions Strategy
»»
Urban Land Development Authority Resource Town
Strategy.
The ULDA has concluded that residential location is
one of the key issues that impacts on attraction and
retention in the resource sector. This is in part because
the relative lack of attraction of resource communities,
as compared to major urban areas, reduces the appeal
of resource industry employment for many people.
Further it encourages a 'short term' mentality in terms
of worker commitment to the industry (and use of FIFO)
therefore encouraging worker turnover.
The ULDA submits that a key part of the solution must
be maximising the accommodation choices for resource
workers. As some workers prefer FIFO while others
prefer them and their families to be locally based, it
cannot be a one size fits all solution. It is also clear from
the research (and from anecdotal information provided
to the ULDA from a number of resource companies) that
worker preference is partly determined by where in their
life cycle the worker is at: this is particularly so with
workers with young families, where preference tends to
be for locally based accommodation.
If affordable housing, schools and other community
services are provided for workers and their families,
supporting industries could be encouraged to locate
long term support service bases for a region in one or
more resource communities, thereby supporting both
economic and population growth.
Addressing liveability and affordable accommodation
issues will improve the capacity of communities to
attract and retain the skilled workforce needed to
support the resources sector and its supply chain
industries over the long term. Improved liveability and
growth of permanent resident populations will in turn
support the sustainability of resource communities.
ULDA recommendations
1. Commonwealth should establish regional
development funding priorities for key resource
communities with the aim of increasing attraction
and retention of resource workers and their families.
2. Commonwealth regional development funding
for resource communities should be developed
and implemented to compliment State and Local
government resource community strategies
3. The focus of Commonwealth regional development
funding for resource communities should be on:
a. improving economic diversity in resource
communities
b. improving the liveability of resource communities
c. supporting affordable housing initiatives of state
and local government
d. improving town infrastructure upgrades.
As the resource industry expands, there will be a
corresponding expansion in industries that support the
sector. This would include industries such as supply
chain and maintenance services for a large and wide
variety of machinery and equipment.
- 1 -

Who is the ULDA
The Urban Land Development Authority (ULDA) was
established in November 2007 by the Queensland
Government to help make housing more affordable and
to deliver a range of housing options for the changing
needs of the community. The ULDA is a key part of the
Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy.
The ULDA works within Queensland with local and
state government, community, local landholders and
development industry representatives to help deliver
commercially viable developments that include diverse,
affordable, sustainable housing, and best-practice urban
design.
ULDA Act empowers the ULDA in defined areas (Urban
Development Areas) to:
»»
be the planning and development assessment
agency
»»
facilitate and build urban infrastructure
»»
develop urban land.
Actions being taken by Queensland
Government
The Queensland Government has initiated a series of
actions to improve the sustainability and quality of life
in Queensland's resource communities. Key actions that
seek to address housing affordability and liveability in
Queensland's resource communities include:
»»
the Sustainable Resource Communities Partnership
»»
Surat Basin Future Directions Strategy
»»
Urban Land Development Authority Resource Town
Strategy.
Sustainable Resource Communities
Partnership
In August 2008, Queensland Government, the Local
Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) and
Queensland Resources Council (QRC) signed the
Sustainable Resource Communities (SRC) Agreement.
The policy is initially focused on resource communities,
where rapid development brought about by the
resources boom is having significant impacts on
community infrastructure and services as well as the
social structure of local and regional communities that
support the new or expanded mining and petroleum
developments. Resource communities are those local or
regional communities that depend on, or are affected by
mineral extraction and associated activities, including
petroleum and gas proposals.
The SRC agreement, being rolled out across the Bowen
and Surat basins and North-West minerals province,
commits the parties to work in partnership to build and
maintain prosperous regions, and sustainable, liveable
resource communities. The Agreement is based on the
formation of a Partnership Group comprising the QRC,
LGAQ, relevant local government CEOs and mayors, and
the State Government represented by the Department
of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation
(including Mines and Energy) and the Department of
Infrastructure and Planning.
The Partnership Group is supported at a local level
by local leadership groups. The broad role of these
groups is to provide an avenue for communication
with companies, contribute to regional planning, and
consider solutions to address local and cumulative
issues.
- 2 -

Surat Basin Future Directions Statement
The Queensland Government in March 2010 released
a Surat Basin Future Directions Statement to manage
growth with the emergence of the $40 billion LNG
industry in the Surat Basin. In announcing the plan,
Queensland Premier Anna Bligh stated:
"the only way that will work is if we manage
growth well in these regions to make sure we
retain and improve levels of livability. Our boom
areas need to be places were people want to live
and raise a family."
The Surat Basin Future Directions Statement covers
the local government areas of Toowoomba, Western
Downs and Maranoa. The Surat Basin Future Directions
Statement commits the Queensland Government to
work with local government and industry to produce
comprehensive plans which manage future growth in the
region. These include a:
»»
Preferred settlement pattern for the Surat Basin
Region - to guide regional planning and service
delivery by October 2010
»»
Regional planning framework to be developed by
October 2010
»»
Regional transport investigation - covering
various transport modes as well as alternative or
complementary non-infrastructure solutions to
transport issues by December 2010
»»
Resource town housing affordability strategy - to
improve availability of quality affordable land and
housing by December 2010
»»
Social impact management plans to better
understand social infrastructure requirements and
respond to local needs by July 2010
»»
Economic strategy for the Surat Basin region by
December 2010
»»
Framework to manage strategic cropping land to
protect some of the best farming land in Australia
by December 2010
» » Workforce development plan to address skills and
labour needs for the region by December 2010.
The Urban Land Development Authority
Resource Town Housing Affordability Strategy
The ULDA has been asked by Queensland Government to
work with the relevant local governments, state agencies
and industry to identify in the Bowen and Surat Basins,
and the North-West minerals province:
»»
levels of housing demand
»»
planning and land development constraints
»»
solutions to increase land and housing supply.
The ULDA, as a planning authority and urban land
developer, has powers under its own Act to deliver:
»»
faster planning approvals
»»
faster development of land and housing that can
add to supply in a timely manner
»»
housing diversity
»»
affordable 'key worker' housing.
Three outcomes for land and housing delivery will
be addressed in the ULDA's Resource Town Housing
Affordability Strategy:
»»
ensuring adequate supply of housing for resource
sector workers
»»
facilitating community housing (at less than market
rate) for non-resource sector key workers
»»
providing land on the open market for people to buy
their own homes or for investors.
The segment with the most acute affordable housing
and accommodation demand is those key workers on
low-to-middle incomes of between $40,000 and $80,000
a year, who undertake many of the jobs essential for
the operation of any community, but are not eligible
for housing assistance. This key worker segment is
excluded from the private market due to the high prices
for rent or purchase.
The ULDA's strategies must address affordable housing
and liveability in Queensland’s resource communities
both directly and indirectly. Direct delivery within UDAs
will be by:
»»
master planning growth areas and town centre
rejuvenations
»»
developing projects that deliver diversity
»»
facilitating private development in areas under
ULDA planning control
»»
constructing affordable key non-resource worker
housing.
- 3 -

Indirect delivery outside UDAs will be by:
»»
building capacity within local government
»»
building capacity with support for private
developers and builders
»»
supporting town centre master planning to increase
liveability
»»
assisting with town infrastructure coordination
»»
facilitating affordable key worker housing.
Improving attraction and retention in
the resource sector
The National Resources Sector Employment Taskforce
(the Taskforce) is seeking submissions on Australian
resource industry's need to meet the skill and labour
demand for the next five years.
The Taskforce has noted part of the solution to increase
the supply of labour includes:
»»
encouraging local people to participate
»»
enticing skilled an unskilled people to move
from other locations, including areas of high
unemployment
»»
improving the retention of existing employees.
The ULDA's submission addresses the impact on
skills and labour of accommodation and liveability
issues in regional and resource towns. By addressing
accommodation and liveability issues there is potential
to:
»»
increase the retention of labour in the resource
sector by addressing particular attrition issues
»»
increase the supply of workers not usually attracted
to, or excluded from, the resource sector.
FIFO - Attrition and turnover
The Taskforce's 'Resourcing the Future; National
Resources Sector Employment Taskforce Discussion
Paper March 2010' (the Discussion Paper) noted that
labour demand is partly driven by high attrition rates in
the resource sector. Anecdotally turnover is said to be
high due to a range of interrelated issues including:
»»
the difficulty of working in remote locations
»»
fly in fly out (FIFO)
»»
lack of amenity and affordable housing in resource
communities
»»
high number of working hours and operation of 12
hour shifts
»»
difficult roster patterns.
A 2003 study by the Centre for Social Responsibility in
Mining (CSRM) at the University of Queensland found
there were examples of high and low turnover in both
FIFO and locally based workforces (CSRM, 2003). As the
Taskforce noted, the CSRM study revealed considerable
variation in employee turnover at FIFO operations in
Australia. The CSRM study included two town based
operations for comparison, but was unable to draw any
conclusions about the differences between town and
FIFO operations.
- 4 -

The conclusion that can be reached from this study is
that there are range of factors influencing turnover of
which accommodation and residential status form part.
Other research suggests that both FIFO and relative lack
of liveability and housing affordability of some resource
towns are negative factors in terms of attraction and
turnover in the resource sector. Gent (2004) has found
that there has been increasing concern regarding the
impact of FIFO on both the home and working life of
commuters (Brereton & Venables, 2002; Collinson,
1998). However, there is little empirical research that
examines the social impact of this type of work situation
from the perspective of the worker and their families
(Heiler, Pickersgill & Briggs, 2000; Shrimpton & Storey,
2001) and this largely remains the case. Gent (2004)
also found, in comparison with established norms
for married and cohabitating couples, FIFO workers
reported significantly lower overall scores on the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale (Spanier,1989) for dyadic consensus,
satisfaction, and total DAS. Data related to domestic
violence, drug abuse, loneliness, stress and depression
are also well documented (Watts 2005; Storey 2001;
Stone & Hughes 2001). Long distance commuting has
been documented in the media and academic research
as placing stress on families through regular parental
absence, family disruption and social support issues
(Watts, 2004).
Haslam MacKenzie (2007) has found there is conflicting
evidence regarding the sustainability of communities
where FIFO arrangements dominate, but there is
considerable research (Chamber of Minerals and Energy
WA 2005; Watts 2005) suggesting that FIFO does
compromise the retention of staff in remote areas. Colley
(2005) and others (Cheney, Lovel & Solomon 2002)
suggest there is a significant level of discontent within
the mining workforce as indicated by high turnover rates
and the increasing undesirability of mining as a lifelong
occupation. In Beach and Cliff's (2004) study it was
reported by professional workers that FIFO made it more
difficult to retain and attract employees, although this
'was not so much that employees disliked FIFO, rather
it wore them out.' One interviewee summed it up when
they referred to FIFO as being measured in dog years
and that most people got 'really tired of it after a while'.
FIFO can pose particular challenges for employees with
young families and workers who are single parents. As
the Taskforce accepted, FIFO is generally incompatible
with starting a family and caring for young children.
Gent (2004) found that FIFO workers with children less
than five years of age scored lower on relationship
satisfaction and affectional expression than those with a
child aged between 6-12 years and over 18 years of age.
Dissatisfaction with FIFO was related to the presence of
children and the age of those children. The younger the
child (0-5yrs) the more likely you are to be dissatisfied
with FIFO.
The WA Chamber of Mineral and Energy (2005) research
also identified that FIFO mothers perceived higher levels
of family dysfunction than non-FIFO mothers.
However other research has found a strong preference
among some workers for FIFO (WA Chamber of Mineral
and Energy 2005). Watts (2005) found that some
workers enjoy FIFO and that their family and friends
are able to positively adapt to the often peripatetic
arrangements. Further a study on the effects of FIFO
commuting arrangements found that while FIFO and
extended hours had a negative impact on an employee's
work satisfaction and lifestyle it did not necessarily
lead to high stress levels or poor health (Clifford,
2009). Clifford's (2009) study found that while FIFO and
extended working hours had weak negative impacts on
employees and their partners, there was no significant
difference in terms of a range of health and stress
measures between the FIFO sample and locally based
workers and the wider community. Clifford (2009) did
however note there was a proportion of FIFO workers
and their partners (between 3% to 21%) that found FIFO
and extended working hours particularly stressful. It may
be that these workers and their families would be better
suited to being locally based in a resource community
rather than undertaking FIFO.
There is clear evidence of underlying latent demand for
local residential choice among some FIFO workers in
QLD. Vale's Ellensfield Coal Mine Project Social Impact
Statement (2007) noted that although it was unknown
whether prospective employees would be FIFO, drive-in,
drive-out (DIDO) or move to the area, it was anticipated
that it would be a mixture based on previous experience
in mining and the study area in particular.
That view is consistent with anecdotal information
provided to the ULDA from a Bowen Basin mining
operations that 20% of a FIFO workforce eventually
resided locally. Similarly Rolfe (2007) has indicated that
surveys of work camp residents in Nebo and Moranbah
suggest that more than 20% would consider moving to
mining towns, (based on 3,122 non-resident workers
in Moranbah, Nebo and Coppabella at June 30, 2007.)
A later study by Petkova, Lockie Rolfe and Ivanova
(2009) found even with limited availability of permanent
housing and associated inflation in the purchase and
rental cost of that housing, FIFO/DIDO workers surveys
indicated that 11% of Moranbah and 12% of Nebo work
camp residents were interested in moving permanently
to these towns.
The trend to FIFO by resource companies and the
preference for FIFO by some workers can be partly
explained by the quality and cost of housing and the
general liveability of resource towns compared to larger
major and coastal urban centres.
- 5 -

A study by Zheng, Rolfe and Di Milia has found the
reason for the increased use of FIFO by resource
companies in the Bowen Basin was the lack of suitable
and affordable accommodation close to the worksites,
resulting in many workers locating to the coastal
districts.
Petkova, Lockie Rolfe and Ivanova (2009) found
that about 85% of Springsure/Rolleston and 94% of
Moranbah householders indicated that affordable
housing and rentals would encourage them or
other families to stay longer in the area. Rising
accommodation costs were seen to generate several
negative impacts including: financial hardship for
low income earners and one-income families; reports
of workers camping or sleeping in their cars as even
temporary accommodation facilities filled up; difficulties
attracting or retaining employees in businesses unable
to compete with the wages paid by mines; and an
acceleration of the trends noted above to increasingly
atypical demographic structures and high population
turnover.
One of the significant barriers to relocating people is
the supply of housing. In many locations in Western
Australia and Queensland, housing availability is
very limited, and the land available for new housing
developments is also limited. McKenzie, Philips, Rowley,
Brereton and Birdsall-Jones (2009) found that housing,
or the lack of affordable and climatically appropriate
housing, is a common reason for people not wanting
to live in remote locations. Throughout the WA and
Queensland towns visited by their research team,
housing was often in short supply, expensive, and not
well maintained due to a paucity of tradespeople. An
inadequate supply of permanent accommodation in
all these towns contributed to rapidly rising rental and
purchase prices.
Land supply for housing has been a key issue across
Australian resource regions. Housing is an essential
component of the social and physical infrastructure
underpinning not only the resources industry but the
local towns and regional centres. McKenzie et al (2009)
have argued that where the resource town housing
market is still relatively affordable, it contributes to
a diverse and sustainable economy and community.
Where the house prices rapidly increase, extreme stress
is created threatening the sustainability and economic
viability of communities. The failure to provide an
adequate supply of affordable housing results not only
in failed communities but higher rates of FIFO and DIDO.
FIFO and DIDO negatively impacts, not only on workers
and their families, but also on the local, regional and
(with potential for FIFO from the southern states) on the
state economy through loss of expenditure from workers
and their families.
The lack of an on-going housing supply can result in the
under-supply of an operational workforce (and increased
FIFO and DIDO). A lack of available labour within
resource industries has a direct impact on the ability
of resource companies to maximise productivity. FIFO
workers for example have a greater potential to change
jobs (partly because being city based for part of the time
they have more choices and a change in job location
does not impact on housing or other activities).
Housing is an important and integral factor in
responding to these challenges and is arguably a critical
component of social and economic infrastructure such as
hospitals, schools, roads, railways, ports and essential
service utilities. Housing is an essential component of
the social and physical infrastructure underpinning,
not only the resource industry, but the local towns and
regional centres.
Many resource communities experience median house
prices and rents as high, or higher, than metropolitan
markets. Increased housing demand combined with
accommodation shortages have driven up house prices
and rents to levels which have contributed to a variety of
social and economic dysfunctions (Piper 2005; Bureau
of Transport and Regional Economics 2006; Haslam
McKenzie 2007).
As Mackenzie et al state:
While towns are vulnerable to the resources
super-cycle, their future is tenuous. If an effort
was made to plan and design towns to enhance
liveability and attractiveness, there is a greater
likelihood of increased private investment in
businesses and the community. Broadening the
demographic and economic diversity of resource
boom towns is essential if these communities are
to achieve some measure of sustainability. This
includes government responsibility to ensure
that economically disadvantaged people living
in resource regions are not forced out, or kept
out, due to a lack of affordable housing and/or
infrastructure
Importance of liveability
Unlike in WA where there are not the strong regional
settlement patterns that are found in Queensland,
a significant proportion of resource workers in the
Bowen Basin DIDO from coastal cities and towns such
as Mackay, Rockhampton, Yeppoon and Airlie Beach,
demonstrating that liveability is also a major determiner
of residence for Queensland resource workers.
The attraction of major towns for resource workers is
that they provide a number of benefits. By locating their
permanent residence in a large centre and commuting to
the mine site, mine employees and their families are less
vulnerable to mine closures or changes in employer that
- 6 -

would result in forced relocation from single-enterprise
mining towns (Newton & Robinson, 1987; Robinson &
Newton, 1988). There are also greater levels of urban
amenity in terms of health, education and retail offerings
which families in particular value highly.
Australia is a highly urbanised country with
approximately 89 per cent of the population living in
towns of 1000 people or more and over half of Australia’s
population lives in five large coastal cities. Added to
this is the fact that Australia has a relatively mobile
population and labour force with about 17 per cent of the
population moving on average each year. The result of
this, and a preference for living in urban centres, has led
to a significant migration away from regional and remote
areas. The WA Chamber of Mineral and Energy “CME”
(2005) research noted that since 1986, there has been a
marked movement of population to coastal regions and
a general decline in regional population. Remote regions
have experienced a net migration loss, amounting to
eight per cent of the population in 1991.
Larger more diverse resource communities therefore
hold an advantage in terms of attraction. Petkova,
Lockie Rolfe and Ivanova (2009) referred to one of the
key informants to their study of Bowen Basin towns
who said 'Moranbah is like a mini-city'. Blackwater, by
contrast, had developed in a more haphazard fashion
since the 1960s leading to, according to Sharma (1983,
p.158), 'a somewhat bleak looking result'. The town still
lacks a clear centre or identity and has limited shops
and services. A point also made by Petkova, Lockie Rolfe
and Ivanova who identified that the largely unplanned
expansions of Nebo, Coppabella and Blackwater are
resulting in the loss of population. They also concluded
that 'community spirit' plays an important role in these
townships and the lack of it has been associated with
the loss of women and families from Coppabella and
Blackwater. By contrast the benefits of the planning for
Moranbah 'so as to feel like an established community
back in the 1970s appeared to have had lasting benefits
in terms of the ability of the town to generate a sense
of community and to attract service industries and
permanent residents.'
MacKenzie et al have argued that the overriding problem
is to both attract and retain workers in sustainable
settlements that are accessible to mining operations.
Mine sites are rarely now developed near towns, and
will usually close when it is no longer viable to mine
at that site. Inevitably, it is not economic to provide a
permanent town site, and so mine camps with FIFO or
DIDO facilities are developed. This is a classic problem
of social needs conflicting with economic demands,
and achieving a compromise is problematic for both
the companies and the employees. This means there is
a need to focus actions on delivering liveability within
larger resource communities that can provide a wider
range of health, education or retail offerings, economic
activity beyond resources (or at least wider than one
or two resource companies), and accessibility by air
to capital or regional cities. This is demonstrated by
the relative attraction of Moranbah as a resource town
compared to other towns in the region (though housing
affordability and the lack of land supply has so far
limited Moranbah's growth).
Increasing the supply of workers not usually
attracted to or exluded from the resource
sector
The Taskforce examined the extent of underemployment
in locations near proposed resource operations and
in other locations to determine whether there are
opportunities to increase the supply of labour by
targeting underemployed people. Groups that are
underrepresented in resource sector employment are
often also the groups most vulnerable to escalating
prices and the lack of housing in resource regions,
including young people and women.
Young people
The Taskforce indicated that it may be that school
leavers are not considered suitable for entry level
positions because of the dangerous and remote nature
of the work and the need for employees with maturity
and experience in living away from home and family.
MacKenzie (2005) refers to research that shows youth
is the single largest group most likely to leave remote
areas and that once they leave, they are unlikely to
return. In communities, particularly those dominated by
mining, young people are a potential resource but due
to a variety of problems, including inadequate training,
accommodation shortages, high cost of living and a
dearth of youth-oriented entertainment, young people
are not easily lured to stay in remote communities in the
longer term.
While it is acknowledged that the youth cohort is highly
mobile regardless of their location MacKenzie 2005 (and
others: Haslam McKenzie and James 2002; Forth 2001,
Eversole 2001; Cameron and Milstein 1998) found that
young people in rural, regional and remote Australia
would like to have more control over where they are
located in order to pursue higher education and work
options. Many would welcome the option to stay closer
to home immediately after finishing secondary school
rather than having to go to capital cities to develop skills
and get work.
- 7 -

Women
The Taskforce noted that women only represented just
over three per cent of all employees at mine sites and
minerals processing operations. The Taskforce also
recognised that FIFO can pose particular challenges for
employees with young families and workers who are
single parents. It is generally incompatible with starting
a family and caring for young children. On the other hand
it can create opportunities for young women to start
their careers as well as for mature-age women who wish
to re-enter the workforce after raising children (Costa,
Silva, Hui, 2006).
In a study of twenty WA women working in the resource
industry FIFO was not seen as a long term option for
most women, especially for those who wanted children
and or develop a sense of home or community (Pirotta
2009). Similarly Lord and Preston (2003) report 'Women
and FIFO: Take it or leave it?' found tertiary students
in resource industry professions, based on their work
experience, saw FIFO as being:
»»
short term
»»
having a high costs with impacts on family, friends
and relationships
»»
having some benefits (free food and lodging, ability
to earn high salary)
»»
impossible to combine with motherhood.
The conclusion that can be reached is that FIFO can
be particularly unsuitable for women and parents with
young children. This means that improving resource
communities requires particular focus on addressing the
needs for women and young families.
- 8 -

Conclusion
The ULDA submits that residential location is one of
the key issues that impact on attraction and retention
in the resource sector. This is in part because the
relative lack of attraction of resource communities, as
compared to major urban areas, reduces the appeal of
resource industry employment for many people. Further
it encourages a 'short term' mentality in terms of worker
commitment to the industry (and use of FIFO) therefore
encouraging turnover.
The ULDA submission is essentially that a key part of
the solution is to maximise the accommodation choices
for resource workers. What is clear from the research
is that many workers prefer FIFO while other workers
and their families prefer being locally based. It is not a
matter of a one size fits all approach. It is also clear from
the research (and from anecdotal information provided
to the ULDA from a number of resource companies) that
worker preference is partly determined by where they
are in their life cycle: this is particularly so for workers
with young families where family preference tends to be
for being locally based.
The Taskforce has recognised the linkage between
having strong resource communities and attraction and
retention:
"it is important to recognise that while resources
projects present opportunities for local people,
they also present significant problems for
some communities, including high costs of
housing, food and other costs, and wage and
labour pressures on other local businesses and
industries. Thriving local communities with
abundant social infrastructure, including good
schools, access to high quality tertiary education
and training, child care, health facilities, sports
and recreational facilities may form an important
part of the response to the workforce challenges
that will confront the resources sector over the
next five to ten years."
While the Taskforce rightly recognised the role
'for regional and state governments to coordinate
with mining operations and local communities to
deliver better outcomes' is also a role for the Federal
Government. The ULDA submits that the Federal
Government can support the range of initiatives
undertaken by the Queensland Government (and similar
initiatives of the WA Government with Karratha 2020)
to increase liveability and affordable housing supply in
major resource towns.
The high rates of turnover and barriers to entry into the
resource sector are due to a complex range of factors.
This would suggest targeted solutions and strategies
will be required rather than a broad brush approach. As
per the Regional Development Australia Core Principle of
having a 'more integrated and aligned arrangements for
regional engagement and economic development', there
is an opportunity for all tiers of government to have
strategies to deliver increased levels of economic and
social sustainability for resource communities.
The Queensland Government's moves to strengthen
regional planning and growth management capacity,
as well as introduce sustainability policies for resource
communities, provide the policies and structures to
support local governments. Through the ULDA, local
planning and land development in major Queensland
resource communities will be given support and priority.
The opportunity for the Commonwealth is for funding
support through targeting regional development
programs or policies toward delivering sustainable
resource communities.
ULDA recommendations
1. Commonwealth should establish regional
development funding priorities for key resource
communities with the aim of increasing attraction
and retention of resource workers and their families.
2. Commonwealth regional development funding
for resource communities should be developed
and implemented to compliment State and Local
government resource community strategies
3. The focus of Commonwealth regional development
funding for resource communities should be on:
a. improving economic diversity in resource
communities
b. improving the liveability of resource communities
c. supporting affordable housing initiatives of state
and local government
d. improving town infrastructure upgrades.
- 9 -

References
Beach, R. Brereton, D. Cliff, D. (2003)
Workforce turnover in FIFO mining operations in Australia: an exploratory study, CSRM and MISHC University of
Queensland
Beach, R. And Cliff, D. (2003)
Turnover and FIFO operations: some facts, opinions and theories AusIMM Bulletin Sept/Oct 2003 (5) 64-65
Clifford, S (2009)
The effects of Fly In Fly Out commute arrangements and extended working hours on the stress, lifestyle, relationship
and health characteristics of Western Australian mining employees and their partners: Preliminary report of research
findings, UWA
Gent, V. (2004)
The Impact of Fly In / Fly Out Work on Well Being and Work-Life Satisfaction, Honours thesis
Haslam McKenzie, F. (2007)
Attracting and retaining skilled and professional staff in remote locations, DKCRC Report 21
Mackenzie, F. Phillips, R. Rowley, S, Brereton, D. and Birdsall-Jones, C (2009)
Housing market dynamics in resource boom towns, AHURI Final Report No 135
Petkova, V. Lockie, S Rolfe, J. and Ivanova, G. (2009)
Mining developments and social impacts on communities: Bowen Basin case studies, Rural Society Vol 19 Number 3
October 2009
Pirotta, J (2009)
An exploration of the experiences of women who FIFO The Australian Community Psychological Society Ltd Vol 21 No2
December 2009
Rolfe, J., (2007)
Growth in the Coal Industry and Economic and Social Consequences. Accessed online on October 16, 2008 at: http://
www.bowenbasin.cqu.edu.au/Mackay%20Forum%202007/John%20Rolfe.ppt#317,31
Rolfe, J, Ivanova, G, Lockie, S (2007)
Assessing the social and economic impacts of coal mining on communities in the Bowen Basin: Summary and
recommendations, Research Report No. 11, Socio-economic impact assessment and community engagement to reduce
conflict over mine operations research reports March 2006
Zheng, C. Rolfe, R and Di Milia, L, (2007)
Strategic Human Resource Management (HRM) and Business Performance of the Regional Coal Mining Industry in
Central Queensland, Central Queensland University
- 10 -