Where giants may tread, rumblings will follow
Opinon piece published in the Sydney Morning Herald
Date: Friday, November 2, 2001
The destructive - and dangerous - behaviour of Australian mining companies overseas should be controlled by law, writes Geoff Evans.
Australian corporate activities causing social and environmental harm in our Asia-Pacific neighbourhood don't just threaten affected communities. They also undermine Australia's international reputation, and regional security.
This is a key foreign affairs gap that should be addressed today when Laurie Brereton, the Opposition spokesman for foreign affairs, addresses an Australian Institute of International Affairs forum in Sydney.
Many Australian companies are aware that improving their environmental, labour and social performance is crucial to their reputation, but Australian mining companies are generally underperforming relative to their economic and political clout.
Witness BHP Billiton walking away from the Ok Tedi mine it developed in Papua New Guinea, a mine that each day dumps tonnes of waste into local rivers. In Indonesian West Papua, Rio Tinto's part-owned Freeport mine is causing even greater devastation. These mines will continue to threaten the livelihoods and food security of the local people for the next l00 years, potentially creating environmental refugees.
A number of Australian mining companies are pressing for the development of major nickel mines in New Caledonia and PNG which propose to dump heavy-metal-laced mine wastes into the sea, near pristine coral reefs. These practices belong to yesterday's value systems and industrial practices.
If, for example, the main experience of people in the Ok Tedi region is devastation brought on by the activities of an Australian company, then any Australian aid program may just be window dressing. Even worse, Australian overseas aid projects that clean up the mess arising from Ok Tedi-type disasters could be considered as corporate welfare, not genuine aid. Prevention is the key.
Local, national and international government agencies have a crucial role to play protecting people and the planet, including ensuring that multinational corporations actually implement a new sustainable agenda.
The Corporate Code of Conduct Bill 2000, introduced into Federal Parliament by the Democrats' Senator Vicki Bourne, was an opportunity for the Australian Government and corporations to pay their part in addressing this need. The bill called for the regulation of Australian companies operating overseas, establishing as a minimum Australian and UN environmental protection, human rights and labour standards in their overseas operations. It was sent to a parliamentary committee for inquiry.
Mining industry lobbyists presented a unified opinion in their submissions, with the Minerals Council of Australia, the WA and Victorian chambers of mines and BHP, along with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Institute of Company Directors, rejecting the bill in favour of "self-regulation". They asserted that the bill would undermine the sovereignty of host countries - yet, hypocritically, they actively lobby to relax environmental and labour laws to suit their bottom line.
Their submissions were in direct contrast to those of World Vision, Amnesty International, Australian Council For Overseas Aid, Australian Conservation Foundation, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and other community organisations. Oxfam Australia stated: "While multinational investment can be an important driver of economic growth and poverty reduction, it can also serve to undermine the basic rights of poor and marginalised people - such as rights to land, sustainable livelihoods and safe working conditions."
The committee's report was published in June this year. Labor endorsed the principles of improved behaviour of Australian companies overseas. However, it stopped short of compulsory regulation and recommended those Australian companies operating overseas "develop appropriate codes of conduct" and that these codes "be audited by a relevant government department". The Democrats reiterated community and NGO support for the bill and suggested technical amendments including addressing the issue of sub-contractors, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Australian Government incentives for better company performance.
The Government's outright rejection of the bill as "impracticable and unwarranted" was disappointing. Liberal Senator Grant Chapman added the rider that "the committee in no way endorses inappropriate behaviour on the part of Australian corporations". Yet 30,000 PNG landowners living downstream from the Ok Tedi mine have forced BHP back to court for its alleged failure to tackle the environmental impacts of the mine on the Fly River.
Corporate code of conduct legislation would ensure that Australian corporations use high standards abroad as well as in Australia. It would help prevent more Ok Tedis. It would enhance the reputation and competitiveness of Australian industry globally. It would mean the vital Australian aid program is not undermined by corporate double standards.
All parties should seize this vital tool to promote greater security for our region. In this climate can we afford any other attitude?
Geoff Evans is the director of the Mineral Policy Institute (www.mpi.org.au), a Sydney research and advocacy organisation which monitors the minerals industry in the Asia-Pacific region.
The destructive - and dangerous - behaviour of Australian mining companies overseas should be controlled by law, writes Geoff Evans.
Australian corporate activities causing social and environmental harm in our Asia-Pacific neighbourhood don't just threaten affected communities. They also undermine Australia's international reputation, and regional security.
This is a key foreign affairs gap that should be addressed today when Laurie Brereton, the Opposition spokesman for foreign affairs, addresses an Australian Institute of International Affairs forum in Sydney.
Many Australian companies are aware that improving their environmental, labour and social performance is crucial to their reputation, but Australian mining companies are generally underperforming relative to their economic and political clout.
Witness BHP Billiton walking away from the Ok Tedi mine it developed in Papua New Guinea, a mine that each day dumps tonnes of waste into local rivers. In Indonesian West Papua, Rio Tinto's part-owned Freeport mine is causing even greater devastation. These mines will continue to threaten the livelihoods and food security of the local people for the next l00 years, potentially creating environmental refugees.
A number of Australian mining companies are pressing for the development of major nickel mines in New Caledonia and PNG which propose to dump heavy-metal-laced mine wastes into the sea, near pristine coral reefs. These practices belong to yesterday's value systems and industrial practices.
If, for example, the main experience of people in the Ok Tedi region is devastation brought on by the activities of an Australian company, then any Australian aid program may just be window dressing. Even worse, Australian overseas aid projects that clean up the mess arising from Ok Tedi-type disasters could be considered as corporate welfare, not genuine aid. Prevention is the key.
Local, national and international government agencies have a crucial role to play protecting people and the planet, including ensuring that multinational corporations actually implement a new sustainable agenda.
The Corporate Code of Conduct Bill 2000, introduced into Federal Parliament by the Democrats' Senator Vicki Bourne, was an opportunity for the Australian Government and corporations to pay their part in addressing this need. The bill called for the regulation of Australian companies operating overseas, establishing as a minimum Australian and UN environmental protection, human rights and labour standards in their overseas operations. It was sent to a parliamentary committee for inquiry.
Mining industry lobbyists presented a unified opinion in their submissions, with the Minerals Council of Australia, the WA and Victorian chambers of mines and BHP, along with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Institute of Company Directors, rejecting the bill in favour of "self-regulation". They asserted that the bill would undermine the sovereignty of host countries - yet, hypocritically, they actively lobby to relax environmental and labour laws to suit their bottom line.
Their submissions were in direct contrast to those of World Vision, Amnesty International, Australian Council For Overseas Aid, Australian Conservation Foundation, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and other community organisations. Oxfam Australia stated: "While multinational investment can be an important driver of economic growth and poverty reduction, it can also serve to undermine the basic rights of poor and marginalised people - such as rights to land, sustainable livelihoods and safe working conditions."
The committee's report was published in June this year. Labor endorsed the principles of improved behaviour of Australian companies overseas. However, it stopped short of compulsory regulation and recommended those Australian companies operating overseas "develop appropriate codes of conduct" and that these codes "be audited by a relevant government department". The Democrats reiterated community and NGO support for the bill and suggested technical amendments including addressing the issue of sub-contractors, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Australian Government incentives for better company performance.
The Government's outright rejection of the bill as "impracticable and unwarranted" was disappointing. Liberal Senator Grant Chapman added the rider that "the committee in no way endorses inappropriate behaviour on the part of Australian corporations". Yet 30,000 PNG landowners living downstream from the Ok Tedi mine have forced BHP back to court for its alleged failure to tackle the environmental impacts of the mine on the Fly River.
Corporate code of conduct legislation would ensure that Australian corporations use high standards abroad as well as in Australia. It would help prevent more Ok Tedis. It would enhance the reputation and competitiveness of Australian industry globally. It would mean the vital Australian aid program is not undermined by corporate double standards.
All parties should seize this vital tool to promote greater security for our region. In this climate can we afford any other attitude?
Geoff Evans is the director of the Mineral Policy Institute (www.mpi.org.au), a Sydney research and advocacy organisation which monitors the minerals industry in the Asia-Pacific region.
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
