Multinational miners: magnanimous or malevolent?

It is little wonder that last year the Commission for Independent Research and Information about Radiation and EARTHLIFE Namibia raised concerns about uranium concentrates found in underground water sources and sediments in areas where Rossing and the Langer Heinrich mines are found. Concerns included radioactive tailings of the mines not being covered, dust particles from the tailings accumulating on bushes and slopes, and preliminary monitoring showing high readings of Radon gas, a heavy gaseous radioactive chemical which causes lung cancer.

In 2009 Uranium workers in Namibia expressed fear for their health and lifestyle due to the environmental impact of uranium mining to the authors of the report ‘Uranium mining in Namibia – the mystery behind low-level radiation’ published by the Namibian research Institute LaRRI.

What have interested Australian companies, or the Australian government, done to address these concerns?

Conclusion

The Australian government has often come under fire for using aid funds to support the expansion of Australian mining interests overseas, its justification being that our overseas development program must be in line with national interests. The Gillard Government’s $127 million Mining for Development Initiative allegedly was designed to help developing countries use their natural resources to improve their economies in a sustainable manner, but where is any evidence of that objective being achieved?

The OECD’s Phase 3 Report on Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in Australia highlighted its serious concerns that Australia’s overall enforcement of the foreign bribery offence to date was extremely low, that the Australian Federal Police require more training and resources, that the facilitation payments defence is problematic and that there is a need to protect whistleblowers.

Late last year Foreign Minister Carr announced that Australia would join ‘The Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights’, an organisation which provides practical guidance to mining, oil and gas companies on managing security while respecting human rights and preventing conflict. But the Government can only encourage, rather than ensure, compliance with the voluntary framework, and its effectiveness must be questionable.

Rio Tinto has participated in the Voluntary Principles since the initial drafting stage, which commenced in March 2000. The process was aimed at developing specific guidelines for companies on ways they should handle their security arrangements that would be consistent with international standards on human rights. The non-binding principles were to be voluntary and would address the criteria that companies take into account: the risk to human rights in their security arrangements, their relationships with state security forces, both military and police, and company relations with private security forces.

Perhaps the allegation that Rio Tinto provided vehicles and helicopters to transport troops and played a role in instituting a military blockade at the Panguna Mine, Bougainville, Papua New Guinea resulting in the deaths of 10,000 people between 1990 and 1997 prompted its interest in the development of the Voluntary Principles?

And what should we make of Australian Defence Force chief General David Hurley’s alarming indication that there might be a role for the ADF in protecting “Australian interests” in Africa?

To the extent that the miners’ commercial interests or Australia’s ‘national interests’ may in reality be inconsistent with our international humanitarian, environmental and anti-corruption obligations, it’s pretty obvious which are likely to prevail.