Nine federal electorates at the 2016 census were each home to more than 1000 workers in the coal industry. Four of these are Hunter-based and they are Labor electorates: Hunter (with 5882 workers), Paterson (2589), Newcastle (1072) and Shortland (1028).

The remainder of the 1000+ electorates are held by the National Party (or the Liberal National Party). Two are in the central west of NSW: Calare (2076 workers) and Parkes (1003). The other three electorates are in central Queensland: Capricornia (7344 workers), Dawson (4709) and Flynn (4880).

Let's concentrate on the politics of the coal tag in the big five coal mining electorates: Hunter, Paterson, Capricornia, Dawson and Flynn. In each of these electorates there was a huge swing to the National Party (two-party preferred) at last year's federal election. As well, each of these electorates recorded very high primary votes for the One Nation Party. In Hunter, sitting Labor MP, Joel Fitzgibbon, came within a whisker of losing his seat following a 21.6 per cent primary vote for One Nation candidate Stuart Bonds, the highest One Nation turnout in any electorate nationwide.

Labor analysts see their party's poor Queensland performance as a major reason why Labor didn't win government last year. The argument goes that voter support for the Nationals and One Nation in the coal regions came on the back of Labor's climate change policies. A vote for Labor was seen as a vote against a job in coal mining.

Yet how significant is the coal workforce in the big five coal mining electorates? Certainly, coal mining is the number one industry sector in each of the big five. But when expressed as a proportion of the total workforce, coal's importance diminishes. At the 2016 census, the coal industry employed only 9 per cent of all workers in the Hunter electorate. In Capricornia coal employed 11 per cent , Dawson 6.5 per cent and Flynn 7.2 per cent . Certainly, industry advocates argue that multiplier effects from the coal industry generate multiple jobs across other sectors in the coal regions, which is true.

What is disputable is the size of these multiplier effects. Two things are clear. First, the multiplier effects have never been as bountiful as those promised by mining investors, as the Hunter knows well. Second, multiplier effects are dwindling as multinational miners dismantle local supply chains and bleed local income streams through back-office payments to offshore associates.

So the relationship between coal mining and other economic sectors in a coal region is complex, something I'll write about in a future column. For now, it is surely reasonable to accept that so-called coal regions are much more diverse and much less coal dependent than the coal tag implicates.

Sadly, the MPs for the big five are saying little about this diversity. Labor's Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter) seems proud to wear the 'Coal Fitzgibbon' badge on social media, with neighbour MP Meryl Swanson (Paterson) an obliging supporter of Mr Fitzgibbon's aggressive public stance in favour of the industry.

But there are major image problems for the Hunter as a consequence of this stance. By being lumped into the coal regions category, Hunter electorates are projected in national media as homes to pro-coal, anti-climate-science folk eager to protect generous incomes. By being seen to side with the pro-coal overtures of the political rabble in the Nationals, our Labor representatives erode the opportunity to advance genuine solutions to the very real economic, social and environmental problems confronting our region.

The word crisis is oft used at the moment. Sure, we have climate change crisis, and we could add for our region a health crisis and an education crisis. Yet none of these can be broached without resolution of our political crisis. And central to this crisis are our Labor MPs.