Final Scenario Report Assignment | Get Paper Help

All instructions attached
Can send resources given had troubles uploading, could probably be found online too

The social impacts of mining on local communities
in Australia
Alanna Sincovich, Tess Gregory, Ashleigh Wilson & Sally Brinkman
To cite this article: Alanna Sincovich, Tess Gregory, Ashleigh Wilson & Sally Brinkman (2018)
The social impacts of mining on local communities in Australia, Rural Society, 27:1, 18-34, DOI:
10.1080/10371656.2018.1443725
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10371656.2018.1443725
Published online: 27 Feb 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1345
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
The social impacts of mining on local communities in Australia
Alanna Sincovich, Tess Gregory, Ashleigh Wilson and Sally Brinkman
Telethon Kids Institute, Adelaide, SA, Australia
ABSTRACT
The mining industry forms an important pillar of the global
economy. While the economic impacts of mining have been
thoroughly explored and social impacts recently have received
growing attention, increasingly, mining developments are being
required to consider how they affect local communities and
implement strategies to minimise negative impacts they may be
causing. Research is limited, but growing, and studies have
identified how mining developments can affect nearby
communities and town residents. This article conducted a critical
literature review that synthesises contemporary Australian
research on the social impacts of mining on local communities. It
identified 68 studies organised into seven themes: adverse
impacts of increasing non-resident workforces; pressures on
infrastructure, housing and services; income inequality; poor child
development and education outcomes; pressures on families and
relationships; drug and alcohol abuse; and impacts on Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islanders. These themes discuss the breadth of
findings and critical knowledge gaps of existing research.
KEYWORDS
Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islanders; non-resident
workforces; resource curse;
child development; rural and
remote communities
Introduction
The mining industry forms an important pillar of economies across the globe, especially so
for the world’s leading minerals resources countries such as the United States, Canada,
Russia and Australia (U.S. Geological Survey, 2017), with the economic impacts of
mining widely documented (Black, McKinnish, & Sanders, 2005; Fleming, Measham, &
Paredes, 2015; Rolfe, Miles, Lockie, & Ivanova, 2007). While this article focuses on the
mining industry in Australia, many economic impacts and social challenges of the
mining boom are also seen in other resource rich countries. For example, mining has a
complex impact on local employment in countries with substantial mining investment
(Moritz, Ejdemo, Söderholm, & Wårell, 2017; Zeballos & Garry, 2010), and considerable
social and community infrastructure pressures are observed in mining communities internationally
(Haslam McKenzie, Brereton, Birdsall Jones, Phillips, & Rowley, 2008). While
the focus of this article remains upon contemporary Australian research, similarities in
mining developments worldwide, for example working hours, community demographics,
etc., are likely to mean the social impacts discussed may be relevant to other countries with
a strong mining sector. Hence, the present research offers a first step in identifying literature
gaps that may require further investigation, and actions required to address them.
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Alanna Sincovich alanna.sincovich@telethonkids.org.au
RURAL SOCIETY, 2018
VOL. 27, NO. 1, 18–34
https://doi.org/10.1080/10371656.2018.1443725
Literature review & theory
Australia has experienced a series of mining booms since the early 1800s. Increased
investment in mining, higher income from mining activities, increased tax and royalty
payments to the government, increases in Gross Domestic Profit (GDP), population
growth, as well as rapid increases in infrastructure and employment to service the
mines throughout these booms have all strengthened Australia’s economy and played
a key role in the country’s development (Battellino, 2010; Connolly & Orsmond, 2011;
Hajkowicz, Heyenga, & Moffat, 2011; McKay, Lambert, & Miyazaki, 2000; Pham,
Bailey, & Marshall, 2013). In 2013–2014, the mining sector accounted for 8% of Australia’s
GDP, minerals exports were valued at $164 billion, the government received $22
billion in taxes and royalties, and the sector employed 208,200 people directly (Minerals
Council of Australia, 2015). As reported by the Reserve Bank, the current mining boom
significantly improved Australian living standards; household incomes increased by 13%,
real wages grew by 6%, and an additional 150,000 jobs were created (Downes, Hanslow,
& Tulip, 2014).
The economic benefits of mining, however, are not evenly distributed. Patterns of
inequality between countries have been widely studied in the development literature
(Clark & Cook Clark, 1999; Galbraith, 2007), as well as disparities within countries,
across sectors and regions, and at the individual level. To illustrate, in Australia, the
vast majority of mining takes place in Western Australia and Queensland, which
account for nearly three quarters of the country’s total mining production value, although
less than half of the country’s population live and work in these states (Topp, Soames,
Parham, & Bloch, 2008). It is argued that, while local Australian mining towns bear the
cost of a mining development, they see little economic benefit due to increasing non-resident
workforces that encourage the flow of the financial benefits of mining to urban
centres, rather than the local community (Storey, 2001). Further, those who do not
benefit directly from mining in their community face a resource curse, disadvantaged
by lower incomes combined with inflated costs of living as a result of mining activity
(Langton, 2010). In addition to such inequality issues, problems associated with boom–
bust cycles and mining closures (Black et al., 2005; Mudd, 2007) have also been well
documented.
While the mining sector brings about economic benefit to some, with it also comes a
broad range of negative impacts, and these are not limited to economic factors. The negative
impacts of mining developments on the environment and employee and resident
health have also been researched substantially (see for example Castleden, Shearman,
Crisp, & Finch, 2011; Stephens & Ahern, 2001). Historically, mining developments have
placed less emphasis on the management of their impacts on surrounding communities
than on issues such as workplace health and safety and environmental impacts. The
social impacts of mining have received growing attention in recent years however, and
increasingly mining developments are being required to consider how they affect surrounding
communities and implement strategies to promote positive outcomes and minimise
negative impacts they may be inflicting (Brereton & Forbes, 2004). Though mining
developments can create job opportunities, infrastructure improvements, and revenue
flows for local communities, they can also introduce a number of social problems for
the people living in these towns.
RURAL SOCIETY 19
To better understand the impacts of mining on society more broadly, studies identify
how mining developments can affect local communities, from impacts on family relationships
to pressures on services and infrastructure, although a synthesis of these social
impacts has not yet been published. Reviews thus far have thoroughly explored the
impacts of mining on health in particular (Carney & Gushulak, 2016; Hendryx, 2015;
Mactaggart, McDermott, Tynan, & Gericke, 2016), while others have synthesised the
regional development impacts of mining and the notion of benefit-sharing across Australia,
China, Canada, Chile, and the United States Söderholm and Svahn (2015). Further, the
impact “fly-in, fly-out” (FIFO) work has on employees and their families has been adequately
reviewed elsewhere (Meredith, Rush, & Robinson, 2014).
Rather than concentrating on one area of impact, such as how a specific type of mining
development (e.g. coal mining) impacts surrounding communities, or the impact of
mining on mental health for example, this article provides a broader, more comprehensive
critical literature review of the social impacts of mining in Australia on local communities
and their residents, including adults and children. While this has been done at a smaller,
case-study level in Australia, by focusing on a particular town or mining region, the
present article contributes a national review examining social impacts, thereby making
a novel contribution to existing research.
In Australia, there are three types of mining towns. By providing a brief overview of
each, this review commences with a broader context to mining in Australia. Up until
the 1970s, governments issued mining leases based on the condition that companies
build or finance infrastructure for the mining operation, including railways, ports,
roads, houses, schools, hospitals, and recreation facilities (Carrington & Pereira, 2011a;
Houghton, 1993; McKay et al., 2000). Consequently, townships and mining development
went hand in hand and the country saw a proliferation of company built and operated
mining towns. Referred to as “purpose built towns”, they generally had a high population
turnover and average household income, as well as a gender imbalance, with men outnumbering
women and 25–35 year olds predominating (Petkova, Lockie, Rolfe, & Ivanova,
2009). Further, most of the population was associated with the mine through either
direct or indirect employment.
Where a new mine site was developed in the proximity of a previously established town,
often the town was expanded to service the mine. For example, many agricultural service
towns were expanded to service major coal developments (Petkova et al., 2009). For previously
established townships, often a smaller proportion of the population worked in the
mine and less gender imbalance was seen in purpose built mining towns, as well as lower
average incomes (Petkova et al., 2009). As the demand for commodities grew throughout
the 1970–1980s, so too did mining developments in areas remote from existing centres of
population. Traditional mining town patterns began to change with many companies progressively
adopting a FIFO workforce arrangement to service mines (Carrington &
Pereira, 2011a; Houghton, 1993; McKay et al., 2000; Rolfe et al., 2007). Rather than constructing
mining townships, companies set up permanent, self-contained camps in close
proximity to mine sites to temporarily house their workforce. Whilst some mines have
a FIFO workforce only, several traditional mining settings have adopted the FIFO
regime, with a proportion of their workforce flying into the site from urban centres, contributing
to a widespread increased trend of a non-resident mining workforce in mining
towns (Carrington & Pereira, 2011a).
20 A. SINCOVICH ET AL.
Research methods
A qualitative critical literature review was chosen as the best research method for synthesising
existing literature regarding the social impacts of mining in Australia due to the
diverse methodologies employed and themes discussed across the evidence available.
Qualitative critical literature reviews are by nature rigorous and reproducible, reducing
researcher bias in subsequent findings (Baumeister & Leary, 1997; Bryan, 2016). This
approach was therefore deemed appropriate for combining diverse evidence around
mining towns (Baumeister, 2013). As with all research methods, there are also limitations
associated with this approach. These include the researcher’s ability to subjectively assess
the search results and draw links between the findings (Garg, Hackam, & Marcello, 2008;
Mallett, Hagen-Zanker, Slater, & Duvendack, 2012). To mitigate these limitations, the
initial search and analysis was conducted by a researcher experienced in critical literature
reviews, and the search and analysis was then replicated by another researcher in order to
assure consistency.
A systematic search of social science, life science, and health databases was conducted
throughout September and October 2016. Databases searched included ProQuest, Web of
Science, Informit, Scopus and PubMed, and inclusion criteria was set to search for peerreviewed
articles based on mining in Australia, written in English, and published in or
after the year 2000. Search terms included: mining, mining towns and Australia. This
search initially yielded 32,087 articles, and due to the large number of results returned,
more specific search terms were added, informed by existing literature on the social
impacts of mining, and included: social impact, wellbeing, employment, substance
abuse, communities, relationships, children and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander.
Several terms were truncated to include related terms, and boolean operators were also
used to connect the relationship between terms. The specific search terms used are presented
in Table 1.
Using this search strategy, 2266 results were found and reviewed, as depicted in Figure 1.
To provide a review of the social impacts of Australian mining developments on local
communities and their residents, articles that did not explore or provide results specific to
this topic were excluded. Criteria for exclusion included: research conducted outside of
Australia, research conducted prior to the year 2000, articles focused on mining
impacts not of a social nature, for example impacts on a community’s environment,
studies specifically looking at impacts on FIFO workers and/or their families, as we all
as articles that focused solely on the health impacts of mining.
A grey literature search of theses, dissertations, conference papers, and reports was also
conducted to ensure pertinent unpublished or grey literature was obtained. Using the same
search terms listed in Table 1, 12,807 results were returned from ProQuest. This was
reduced to 341 articles by excluding irrelevant subjects (for example, wineries and soft
drink companies) and including relevant topics only (mining, employment, case
studies, and the mining industry). The results returned were predominantly company
reports (n = 336), with the remaining being conference presentations (n = 5). Additional
(n = 34) articles were included in the review process that were identified through the reference
lists of relevant articles.
These three search methods were reduced by removing duplicates (164 removed),
and articles were assessed for relevance based on their title (5347 removed). Next,
RURAL SOCIETY 21
abstracts were screened for relevance (417 removed). This left 96 articles to be
reviewed by full text, 68 of which were assessed to be relevant to the review as per
the exclusion criteria aforementioned. Many articles included in the review were
case studies drawing on qualitative and/or quantitative information on a particular
town or region of interest to explore local mining impacts; a small number of
studies examined the impacts of mining across Australian communities more
broadly; some studies examined specific impacts of mining; and finally also included
were government and national body scientific reports, conference proceedings, and
print media articles.
Findings
Findings are organised into seven key themes to demonstrate the social impacts mining
developments have on Australian communities and their residents.
Table 1. Keyword search methods.
Initial key search terms Additional refined search terms
Mining
Mining towns
Australia
Social impact
Social change
Wellbeing
Well-being
Health
Mental health
Employment
Housing
Affordability
Services
Economy
Infrastructure
Drug
Alcohol
Substance
Substance abuse
Communities
Residence characteristics
Famil*
Relationships
Child
Children
Education
Academic achievement
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Indigenous
Aboriginal
Search strings:
Mining OR Mines OR Mining town
AND
Australia
AND
Social impact or social change
AND
Wellbeing OR well-being OR health OR mental health OR employment OR housing OR affordability OR services OR
economy OR infrastructure OR drug OR alcohol OR substance OR substance abuse OR communities OR residence
characteristics OR famil* OR relationships OR child OR children
AND
education OR academic achievement OR Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander OR Indigenous OR Aboriginal
22 A. SINCOVICH ET AL.
1. Adverse impacts of increasing non-resident workforces
With increasing FIFO and “drive-in, drive-out” (DIDO) workplace arrangements comes
an increase in non-resident mining workforces. In Australia, it is not uncommon for
non-resident mining employees to outnumber resident workers. For example, in Boddington,
Western Australia, there are approximately 1500 gold mine employees, approximately
200 of which are local residents living within a 50 km radium of the mine (Petrova & Marinova,
2013). This rapid growth and demographic change can put towns under significant
pressure, and has been shown to adversely affect “host communities”. Indeed, the Mayor
Included Eligibility Screening Identification
Peer-reviewed articles identified through
database searching (inclusion criteria;
articles based on mining in Australia,
written in English, published after 2000)
(n = 2266)
Additional
articles identified
from grey
literature research
(n = 3724)
Additional
articles identified
from reference
lists
(n = 34)
Articles after duplicates removed
(n = 5860)
Removed
164
Papers included in literature review
(n = 68)
Papers included in literature review
(n = 6024)
Eligible articles after title screen
(n = 513)
Removed
5347
Eligible articles after abstract screen then
assessed via full text for eligibility
(n = 96)
Removed
417
Removed
28
Figure 1. Flow chart detailing literature selection, screening and eligibility process.
RURAL SOCIETY 23
of Kalgoorlie, a large urban centre in the Goldfields-Esperance region of Western Australia,
called the FIFO workplace practice a “cancer of the bush”, claiming it was eroding the
way of life in traditional mining communities (The Parliament of the Commonwealth of
Australia, 2013).
While residents in mining communities often express that mining has contributed significantly
to the economic development of their town (see for example Brereton, Moran,
McIlwain, McIntosh, & Parkinson, 2008), research exploring perceptions about how
mining sites reliant on a non-resident workforce are impacting mining communities
revealed the majority of respondents felt mining projects with non-resident workforces
had an overall adverse impact on their community (Carrington & Pereira, 2011a,
2011b). Specifically, participants believed this impacted negatively on housing availability
and affordability, local infrastructure and services, local employment opportunities, local
business and economy, crime and community safety, as well as wellbeing and lifestyle.
Further, as Carrington and Pereira (2011b) found, with an increased male non-resident
workforce came a general sense of decline in community safety, as reported by community
members across mining towns in Queensland; some explained their wives felt unsafe in
the community and some expressed concern for their children’s safety because of the atypical
demographic profile and gender imbalance of the population. Petkova et al. (2009)
also found the increasing non-resident workforce and shift work patterns in Queensland’s
Bowen Basin were associated with criminal and antisocial behaviour. Indeed, some mining
towns have been identified as communities where violence rates are higher than usual,
sometimes more than twice the state average (Carrington, Hogg, & McIntosh, 2011;
National Rural Health Alliance Inc, 2014). Further, crime statistics are likely to be
heavily underreported in mining towns due to the disincentives associated with reporting
violence and involvement in such incidents may lead to dismissal (Carrington et al., 2011).
Non-resident workforces have also been reported to have led to a decline in community
organisations, community integration, and residents’ sense of community identity and
cohesion (Brereton et al., 2008; Petkova et al., 2009; Petrova & Marinova, 2013). As
Watts (2004) found in the Pilbara mining region, many community residents believed
the transient workers in the community did not participate in community life or make
meaningful connections with the local community, and this has created distance between
locals and non-residents, leading to an “us” and “them” attitude which has adversely
affected community social capital (see also Petkova et al., 2009). Lack of social and cultural
capital also concerned community members in Middlemount, Queensland, particularly for
children and how this has influenced their learning (Mann, Akbar, & Greer, 2010).
The literature also reflects the notion that mining towns experience “fly over effects”
where the financial benefits of mining flow through to coastal and urban centres where
the FIFO and non-resident workforce reside, rather than benefiting the local community
(Hajkowicz et al., 2011; Rolfe & O’Dea, 2007; Storey, 2001). Local mining towns bear much
of the cost of a mining development, yet see little benefits from non-resident employment
(Langton, 2010). It is in these ways that Gallegos (2005) argues that FIFO and non-resident
workforces undermine sustainable community development. As Carrington et al.
(2011) discuss, these communities become unattractive places to live, and indeed, some
mining towns have experienced a “FIFO inversion” as families have relocated to a more
sustainable community, and former resident workers joined the non-resident workforce,
now travelling to this community for work only (Murray & Peetz, 2012).
24 A. SINCOVICH ET AL.
2. Pressures on infrastructure, housing and services
As a result of increased mining activity and population growth, many mining communities
have experienced critical housing shortages, as well as pressures on infrastructure
and services (Duncan, 2009). As Rolfe and O’Dea (2007) illustrate, mining workforces
and residents often outnumber the available housing in a mining town, and it is not
uncommon for hotels, motels, and caravan parks to be fully occupied. Consequently,
high demand and limited supply have increased housing and rental prices, and this is
widely recognised to be a negative impact of the mining boom (Haslam McKenzie
et al., 2008; Petkova et al., 2009; Rolfe et al., 2007). For some, especially those with
lower incomes or receiving government support, housing is not affordable and, consequently,
residents are either forced out of the community or become homeless
(Duncan, 2009; Hunter, Howlett, & Gray, 2014; Robertson, 2010; Yates, Randolph, & Holloway,
2006). For example, in Moranbah in Queensland’s Bowen Basin, rent can be as high
as $700 to $900 per week for a four bedroom house; the cost of housing here is said to be
95% more expensive than in Queensland’s capital city, Brisbane, where the median weekly
rent price is $360 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016; Office of Economic and Statistical
Research, 2006; Rolfe & O’Dea, 2007). Further, often several non-resident employees share
a house, enabling them to pay much higher rent than an individual family could afford,
further pressuring rental prices. As Haslam McKenzie et al. (2008) discuss, housing unavailability
and unaffordability can lead to high population turnover and subsequent lack of
community cohesion.
Mining developments have also been shown to put significant strain on a community’s
infrastructure and services. Often rapid population growth leaves a mining town with
insufficient infrastructure and services to meet new high demands (Carrington &
Pereira, 2011b; Rolfe et al., 2007; Watts, 2004). Health services in mining towns have
been shown to be overburdened, understaffed, and in some cases, particular services are
lacking altogether (Constantine & Battye, 2013). For example, in Middlemount, Queensland,
it was reported that services for children with a disability are scarce, with no physiotherapy
or occupational therapy available, putting these children at further
disadvantage (Mann et al., 2010).
3. Income inequality
Income inequality is a concern in areas where mining developments operate. Indeed,
Reeson and colleagues found a significant relationship between mining employment
and income inequality across regional Australia (Reeson, Measham, & Hosking, 2012).
Whilst mining industry employees enjoy large salaries, those employed in other areas,
or not at all, have a substantially lower income, yet must pay the same prices for
housing, food, and services that have increased as a result of mining activities in their community
(Langton, 2010; Storey, 2001). To illustrate, housing rent costs in mining areas are
considerably higher than in non-mining areas: rent is approximately 43% higher for
remote non-Aboriginal households in mining areas than in non-mining areas, and
about 37% higher for remote Aboriginal households (Hunter et al., 2014). Many Aboriginal
communities are located near mining developments, and as Langton (2010) describes,
Aboriginal populations in Western Australia, in particular, experience a “resource curse”,
RURAL SOCIETY 25
disadvantaged by lower incomes combined with inflated costs of living as a result of
mining activity. High living costs make many mining towns unaffordable for those who
do not directly benefit from the industry, creating an income and social divide between
mining and non-mining families and individuals, further increasing the gap between
the “haves” and the “have nots” (Brereton et al., 2008; Brereton & Forbes, 2004). These
pressures exist also for non-mining businesses and services. Many service providers
cannot afford to live in mining communities despite the demand for their service (Carrington
et al., 2011), and non-mining businesses struggle to keep afloat due to the high
living costs and the generous salaries required in order to attract staff (Petkova et al.,
2009). In this way, mining further stratifies communities.
4. Poor child development and education outcomes
Mining in Australia is reported to have a negative impact on children’s holistic development,
school readiness, and educational outcomes, with research arguing this is the result
of environmental contamination in mining communities. A recent review by Searle et al.
(2014) synthesised findings from the Port Pirie Cohort Study, a prospective cohort study
following participants from Port Pirie, South Australia, where the world’s largest primary
lead smelter operates, from birth into adulthood. Having collected 30 years of data to date,
they found childhood lead exposure in the region to be associated with poorer cognitive
and mental health outcomes spanning across childhood, early adolescence, and into
early adulthood (Searle et al., 2014). Impacts on children’s educational and developmental
outcomes have also been explored, with results showing that children in Australia’s major
lead mining communities Broken Hill in New South Wales, Mt Isa in Queensland and
Port Pirie in South Australia have higher levels of developmental vulnerability and, therefore,
poorer school readiness, as measured by the Australian Early Development Census
(AEDC), and have poorer educational outcomes as measured by the National Assessment
Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLaN), when compared with Australian national
averages (Dong, Taylor, Kristensen, & Zahran, 2015).
Further, mining appears to impact children’s schooling more broadly. In Queensland’s
Bowen Basin, Petkova et al. (2009) found there to be a high student turnover in towns with
large proportions of mine workers, particularly at junior levels, as mine workers followed
better jobs in new locations and took their families with them. This frequency of moving
and school transition likely negatively impact children’s wellbeing and development.
Community members in Middlemount, Queensland also expressed concerns that the
promise of earning a good salary in the mining sector is, for teenagers, a disincentive
for academic achievement and completing high school (Mann et al., 2010), raising concerns
about the long-term impacts low levels of education may have on both individuals
and communities.
5. Pressures on families and relationships
The mining block roster system, a continuous cycle of 12 h shifts alternating day and
night, has significant adverse impacts on employees and their families (Brereton &
Forbes, 2004; Carrington et al., 2011; Sharma, 2009). Long hours and shift work by
workers was among the most stressful of all working conditions (Cottle, 2013; Heiler,
26 A. SINCOVICH ET AL.
2002), with a study of working arrangements and wellbeing among mining and energy
workers across Australia showing the average mining employee worked 44 h per week
and half of those surveyed reported they worked more than they would prefer, even
after taking into account how this affected their income (Peetz, Murray, & Muurlink,
2012). Indeed, mining was ranked the second worst employment industry on a measure
of the degree of interference between work and family life (Peetz et al., 2012). For
example, most respondents agreed work prevented them from spending time with
family and friends and they were too tired after work to do what they wanted at home
(Peetz et al., 2012). Extended working hours adversely impacted the quantity and
quality of time mining employees spent with their family. As one respondent illustrated,
“long hours take you away from family activities, you don’t see your kids grow up,
weekend sports, etc.” (Peetz et al., 2012, p. 26). Similarly, as Pocock, van Wanrooy, Strazzari,
and Bridge (2001) found, mining workers and their partners agreed that, as fathers,
they largely missed out on being a parent by missing important events for their children.
However, as Sharma (2009) argues, there is a lack of evidence around the quality of father/
child relationships in mining communities and the impact mine work hours has on children’s
wellbeing over time. For these families, time for bonding and communication is
decreased, which over time can lead to family dysfunction and relationship breakdown
(Heiler, 2002; Sharma & Rees, 2007). In Pocock et al.’s (2001) study, each mining
family told stories of marital breakup in the town, with a perceived link between work
and the pressures this places on families.
Stress associated with mine work is often passed onto spouses, predominantly women;
mining negatively affects women more than men (Hewett, 2002; Sharma, 2010). Most
often women are required to undertake household tasks as well as childcare while their
partner is at work or recovering from a demanding shift (Peetz et al., 2012; Pocock
et al., 2001). Peetz et al. (2012) also found some spouses experienced anxiety about
their partner either being at work or travelling to and from work. Sharma and Rees
(2007) argue while there is no recent significant evidence of poor mental health among
women living in remote mining towns, there are indicators of significant psychological
stress, for example high divorce rates among those employed in mining and higher
rates of domestic violence in rural and remote communities. Finally, women’s experiences
of frequent relocation due to their partner’s mining employment found the biggest challenge
of this relocation culture was feeling like an outsider, and constantly building networks
and friendships in a new place (Julaine, 2011).
6. Drug and alcohol abuse
Drug and alcohol misuse is frequently identified as a key challenge in mining communities.
Of particular concern is the general acceptance of drug and alcohol, not only
among mining employees, but in the whole community, and the addictions and consequences
that follow (Mann et al., 2010). Evidence portrays a culture of binge drinking
and illicit drug consumption among mine workers. For example, in 2007 the highest
rates of heavy drinking were reported to be among workers in mining and construction
industries, and mining industry workers were more likely to drink alcohol at high risk
levels for short term harm (Smith, 2007). This is often attributed to pressures mining
employees experience, particularly fatigue, lack of available recreational activities and
RURAL SOCIETY 27
social isolation, high levels of disposable income, and the combined effects of workplace,
rural, and masculine cultures concentrated in one place (Duncan, 2009; Ennis & Finlayson,
2015). Almost 40% of respondents in a study investigating the wellbeing of mining
and energy workers admitted to using alcohol to help them sleep (Peetz et al., 2012).
These consumption patterns have adverse social and health effects, such as pre-existing
relationship issues being exacerbated by drug and alcohol problems (Duncan, 2009).
7. Impacts on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
Given the majority of mining developments in Australia are on, or in close proximity to,
Aboriginal land, there are concerns that growth in the mining industry has disproportionately
affected Aboriginal populations (Langton, 2010). Oxfam highlighted the impacts of
mining from the perspective of Pat Kopusar, an Aboriginal woman who lived and worked
across Aboriginal communities in Western Australia, particularly those located on or near
mining sites, for 35 years. She illustrated mining adversely impacted not only Aboriginal
Australians’ land and home, but also their health, poverty, homelessness, and the rights of
Aboriginal people. Sacred land has been excavated and desecrated, food is waning, there
are limited work opportunities, families are experiencing drug and alcohol abuse, violence,
racism, suicide, and there are fears for children’s spiritual wellbeing; mining created a restless
and confused environment (Kopusar, 2002).
Land has a fundamental social, cultural, spiritual, and economic importance to Aboriginal
societies. To maintain Aboriginal cultural heritage, access to Aboriginal land or
“country”, is fundamental, and mining inevitably has a negative impact on this through
significant land disruption and transformation (Behrendt & Strelein, 2001; Petkova
et al., 2009). For example, the traditional owners and custodians of the geographical
area that now contains the Ranger and Jabiluka mineral leases, the Mirrar, expressed
that, with mining development, comes an increased presence and pressure of non-Aboriginal
cultural practices, institutions, and economic values, entrenching the dominance of
non-Aboriginal interests (Behrendt & Strelein, 2001). They argue mining and its accompanying
social impacts bring cultural and spiritual threat, as well as increased social problems
including substance abuse, violence, health problems, poor education, and cyclical
and systemic poverty, all which profoundly transform traditions of living (Behrendt &
Strelein, 2001).
Since the recognition of Aboriginal rights to land in Australian courts in 1993, through
the Native Title Act, mining companies are increasingly being required to work in
cooperation with Aboriginal communities to allow for the maintenance of traditional
law and culture (McKay et al., 2000; Petkova et al., 2009). The Minerals Council of Australia
and the Australian Government have also developed Aboriginal Land Agreements,
voluntary agreements between a native title group and, for example, a mining company,
about the use of the land, consent for future developments, compensation, protection of
significant sites and culture, employment, economic opportunities for native title
groups, and so on (National Native Title Tribunal, 2014). As Buhr (2012) explains, in Australia,
there is scarce academic literature on Traditional Owner agreements with mining
companies compared with other mining countries. However, Petkova et al. (2009) demonstrated
that, despite the aforementioned actions, Native Title claimants, even with their
28 A. SINCOVICH ET AL.
status and legalised property rights, believed they negotiated agreements from a very low
power base, feeling powerless to stop mining developments on their land.
Issues relating to Aboriginal employment in the mining industry are also reflected in
the literature. Hunter et al. (2014) used census and geographical data to explore
changes in employment, income and housing for Aboriginal versus non-Aboriginal
people across mining and non-mining communities in Australia. The most direct
benefit a mine provides to a community is employment, although, historically, the
mining industry has employed very few Aboriginal Australians. The current mining
boom, however, has seen substantially higher numbers of Aboriginal people employed
by mining companies (Hunter et al., 2014). Currently the mining and minerals industry
is the largest industry employer of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders; approximately
3% of mining employees identify as Aboriginal and, particularly in remote locations,
Aboriginal workers account for as much as 20% of mining employees (Minerals
Council of Australia, 2011). In 2011 in remote areas, the Aboriginal population employed
was 4% higher in mining than in non-mining areas and the full-time employment rate was
5% higher (Hunter et al., 2014). These figures were even higher in non-remote areas, with
7% more Aboriginal people employed in mining areas, and 7% more employed full-time
(Hunter et al., 2014). Indeed, mining sites are increasingly adopting Aboriginal employment
targets to ensure the Aboriginal proportion of their workforce reflects that of the
Aboriginal people in the community (Tedesco, Fainstein, & Hogan, 2002). For example,
Western Australian Pilbara operations Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton have a target of 12–
15% Aboriginal employees, whereas in Western Australia’s East Kimberley, Rio Tinto’s
target is 40% (Calma, 2006). As well as employment targets, many mining companies
report to be engaging positively and responsibly with local Aboriginal communities
through scholarships, mining royalties, infrastructure development, education, and training
programmes (Calma, 2006; Meredith et al., 2014; Tiplady & Barclay, 2007).
Despite these efforts, it is often argued Aboriginal populations see few economic
benefits from mining and are largely under-represented in the industry (Brereton &
Forbes, 2004; Langton, 2010; Taylor & Scambary, 2005; Tiplady & Barclay, 2007), with
the majority working in semi-skilled, lower paid positions (Tedesco et al., 2002). Employment
barriers include a lack of education and training or exposure to mainstream workforces,
the challenge of balancing family and community demands with full-time
employment, poor health status, and difficulty in adhering to drug and alcohol testing
(Taylor & Scambary, 2005; Tiplady & Barclay, 2007). As Tiplady and Barclay (2007)
argue, unless the fundamental issues of education and health are improved, Aboriginal
people, particularly those in remote and rural areas, are likely to continue in unskilled
labour, unable to reap benefits of Australia’s mining sector boom.
Discussion & conclusions
It is well documented that although the mining industry brings economic benefits for
some, it also produces economic, environmental and health-related issues. While historically
not the focus of research into mining, the social impacts of the mining sector have
received growing

Dear members of the inquiry board,
There’s no denying that our region has been experiencing one hell of an economic battle in recent times. Between youth
unemployment, the decline of house prices, and drought, it’s been a tough slog. For that reason, we want to make a
strong statement in support of the Prospectus Mining Project (PMP).
All of us at the Gulp River Chamber of Commerce group are long standing residents of the region, with strong family ties,
businesses, and a history of volunteering in the local community. We know the big concerns facing the people in our
towns when it comes to mining.
In economic matters, the proposed Prospectus mine in the Gulp River basin would likely bring 16,000 jobs to the region.
PMP and the Mineral Council of Australia (MCA) suggest that similar projects in Northern Queensland have injected
around $22.5 million per year into the local economy, with around $7 million going directly in local wages. Imagine what
the Gulp River communities could do with this money. Imagine how these jobs and the growth of services in our towns
could change the lives and futures of our young people. Without jobs, and without an economic boost, we know that our
communities will simply fade away as our young people leave and the drought kills our farms. PMP would give our young
people a reason to stay, and a chance for our communities to thrive.
We know that people worry about the environmental impact of big mines, but from consulting with PMP, we also know
that we have less to worry about here than some green lobbyists from the big cities would have us all believe. The
proposed site of the PMP mine is fairly remote from the major towns of the Gulp River region, and so the direct physical
impact on our towns would be limited to the increase in Fly-In-Fly-Out accommodation for workers, and related services.
The mine itself would have almost no impact on our towns.
Other concerns raised have been the contribution to global warming from selling Gulp River coal to India and China.
However, as we know from the PMP and MCA research, our coal is far cleaner than that found in other parts of the world.
The main reason that PMP want to invest in our region is because Gulp River coal burns more efficiently and with less
carbon emissions than almost any other coal on the international market. Our valuable resource is part of PMPs vision for
a clean coal future, and by displacing dirtier fuel on the international market, we can actually contribute to a better
climate, not a worse one.
Finally, we want to emphasise that support for mining and the Australian coal industry is growing amongst the public. The
MCA have commissioned research from an independent group which shows that regardless of political persuasion, the
Australian public, just like the Gulp River Chamber of Commerce, can see the value that a well-supported mining industry
brings to our country. We beg of the inquiry board not to listen to powerful green lobbyists and their supporters in the
media. The ordinary people of Australia want this. The hard-working, battling local communities of Gulp River who are
doing it tough want this. Listen to the people and give the Prospectus Mining Project the green light.
Sincerely,
Ray Purchase – Chair of the Gulp River Chamber of Commerce
Statement of Support in Support of The
Prospectus Mining Project
Gulp River
Chamber of
Commerce
69 Plough Plaza
Gulp River, NSW 2020
Tel. 389-290-3982
Fax 389-892-9001
r.purchase@grcc.com.a