Local government, mining companies and resource development in regional Australia

Meeting the governance challenge

FINAL REPORT

JULY 2012

Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute and The School of Social Science The University of Queensland, Australia [email protected] www.csrm.uq.edu.au

Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining

The Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining (CSRM) is a leading research centre, committed to improving the social performance of the resources industry globally.

We are part of the Sustainable Minerals Institute (SMI) at the University of Queensland, one of Australia’s premier universities. SMI has a long track record of working to understand and apply the principles of sustainable development within the global resources industry.

At CSRM, our focus is on the social, economic and political challenges that occur when change is brought about by resource extraction and development. We work with companies, communities and governments in mining regions all over the world to improve social performance and deliver better outcomes for companies and communities.

Since 2001, we’ve contributed significantly to industry change through our research, teaching and consulting. The bottom line: we help build capacity to manage change in more effective ways. This is our aim.

Director: Professor David Brereton

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 2

Research Team Role Researcher Section of UQ Chief Investigator Prof David Brereton CSRM Chief Investigator Prof Geoffrey Lawrence School of Social Science Chief Investigator Ass Prof Lynda Cheshire School of Social Science Chief Investigator Dr Cath Pattenden CSRM Post Doctoral Research Fellow Dr Jo-Anne Everingham CSRM Project Manager/ Researcher Ms Mary Anne Barclay CSRM Researcher Ms Joni Parmenter CSRM Researcher Ms Veronica Klimenko CSRM Researcher Ms Isabel Cane CSRM Researcher Ms Barbara Onate CSRM Researcher Ms Claire Chambers CSRM Researcher Ms Phoebe Tallent CSRM Report Authors Mary Anne Barclay Jo-Anne Everingham Lynda Cheshire David Brereton Cath Pattenden Geoffrey Lawrence Acknowledgements This research was conducted with funding from the Australian Research Council (Linkage Project No. 0989162) and seven industry partners (Queensland Resources Council; New South Wales Minerals Council; Rio Tinto; the BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA); Local Government Association of Queensland; NSW Association of Mining-related Councils; Local Government Association South Australia). We would like to thank our partners for making this project possible. We would also like to thank those who gave their time to participate in this research – either as interviewees or as providers of important background documentation.

Disclaimer This report has been prepared to inform future minerals industry policy, mining company practices and government policy to better address the social impacts of mining companies in resource intensive regions of Australia. While this document has been prepared with care, the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, School of Social Science and funding agencies accept no liability for any decisions or actions taken by individuals or organisations on the basis of this document. Funding support, research cooperation and information from the mining industry and local government do not imply their endorsement of, or influence on, the views expressed herein.

© CSRM 2012 Recommended citation Barclay, M.A., Everingham, J., Cheshire, L., Brereton, D., Pattenden, C. & Lawrence, G. (2012) Local government, mining companies and resource development in regional Australia; Meeting the governance challenge Final Report, CSRM: Brisbane

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 5 Introduction ...... 8 Background to the project ...... 8 Methodology ...... 9 Research findings ...... 10 Community concerns about resource development ...... 10 Economic impacts ...... 11 Social impacts ...... 11 Housing availability and affordability ...... 11 FIFO ...... 12 Environmental impacts ...... 13 Cumulative impacts ...... 14 Challenges for local government ...... 15 Role of local government ...... 15 Role of the state government ...... 19 State government approaches to managing mining development...... 19 South Australia ...... 20 Western Australia ...... 23 Queensland ...... 24 New South Wales ...... 25 Conclusions ...... 27 Building adaptive governance solutions ...... 27 The governance challenge ...... 27 Conventional response strategies ...... 27 Emerging response strategies ...... 29 Mechanisms of adaptive governance ...... 33 Recommendations ...... 34 Planning and regulation ...... 34 Development applications ...... 34 Council capacity ...... 35 Collaborative approaches ...... 35 References ...... 36 Appendix 1: Research outputs ...... 38

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 4

Executive Summary and the two-speed economy, which This report summarises the findings from resulted in uneven wealth creation. The a two-year research project into the main social impacts were housing governance challenges posed by large availability/ affordability and the scale resource development in mining- challenges in managing and intensive regions of Australia. accommodating a rapidly expanding fly-in fly-out (FIFO) workforce. Environmental Unlike the narrower term government, concerns were primarily related to conflicts governance applies in situations where between resource developers and other authority and responsibility for the tasks of rural residents over land use, and over governing – including planning, allocation water quality and supply. of resources, administration and service provision – are not vested only in the state The main challenges faced by local but are dispersed among actors from governments were: various levels of government, the private • changing expectations of their role, in sector and the community interacting in particular, the expectation that they joint networks, partnerships or would provide a greater range of collaborations. This research project services to expanding populations captures the perspectives of these • a narrow revenue base and difficulties different governance stakeholders. in attracting and retaining staff, and • legislative barriers that prevent them The project methodology involved: (1) a taking a more active role in planning desktop review of legislation, regulation for major resource projects. and policy from Australia’s four mining There was evidence of some local council intensive states: Queensland, New South authorities taking a more direct leadership Wales, South Australia and Western role to enable and coordinate the activities Australia; (2) telephone interviews with of different governance actors to better local council chief executives and mine meet these challenges. managers; and (3) in-depth case studies of five selected mining regions: the Pilbara State governments have most authority in WA, Gawler Craton in SA, Gunnedah with respect to mining and many Basin in NSW and the Bowen and Galilee responsibilities with respect to the well- Basins in QLD. being of mining-affected communities. There was a widespread perception Findings among research participants that state Three thematic areas emerged as key governments are failing to provide issues in the research: community adequate resources to assist local concerns around the adverse impacts of governments in meeting the challenges resource development, specific challenges created by rapid expansion in the faced by local governments in addressing resources sector. The key challenges those impacts, and the role of state faced by state governments in meeting governments. community expectations are: • responding flexibly and in a timely There were particular community manner to development applications concerns in relation to economic, social • ensuring equitable and prudent and environmental impacts. Adverse investment of royalties so that there is economic impacts most frequently a positive legacy from the current identified were: chronic skills shortages mining boom

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 5

• balancing a ‘top down’ regulatory R2: State governments provide additional approach with more participatory resources to councils to enable them to forms of governance, and prepare their responses to EISs and SIAs • coordinating and integrating complex in a timely manner. regulatory processes more effectively. R3: State governments give consideration Conclusions to strategic regional assessments, rather There have been three main responses to than having resource companies develop managing the social impacts of mining: environmental and social impact • A more stringent regulatory approach statements on a project-by-project basis. by state governments, which has led R4: State governments collect baseline to some improvements but, in general, data to build a common knowledge base is seen as reactive and lacking in that is accessible to all stakeholders. A flexibility. comprehensive baseline study, funded by • The emergence of regional planning project proponents and executed by local initiatives, which are showing early and state government in a given region promise. However, many challenges could become a resource to aid future remain, such as managing and planning. The formula for contributions responding to incomplete, out of date would need to be negotiated with all and contested data and coordinating parties. activities and plans successfully. • Finally, multi-sector, collaborative R5: State governments collect data on bodies are emerging at local and non-resident workforces. Other state regional levels. These bodies hold governments may wish to consider the promise for creating practical solutions approach currently adopted by the Office to the governance problems generated of Economic and Statistical Research by large-scale resource development. (OESR) in Queensland. However, there must be trust for collaborative groups to work together Council capacity Mining companies work with local effectively and this requires the ability R6: councils to develop housing and to accommodate conflicting values and accommodation policies that ensure being prepared to share information, resources, risks and responsibilities. availability of affordable housing and accommodation for council and other Recommendations essential services employees. This report concludes with specific R7: Companies support apprenticeships recommendations in relation to planning attached to local councils. and regulation, council capacity and collaborative approaches. We recommend R8: Companies provide funding to support that: particular roles within council.

Planning and regulation Collaborative approaches R1: Local council authorities are engaged R9: Mining companies, local councils and much earlier in information sharing and state government collaborate more at the decision-making processes by state regional level. governments and mining companies when new projects or major expansions are in R10: State governments take the pipeline. responsibility for identifying lead agencies

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 6

to manage collaboration at the regional level.

R11: Councils in mining-intensive regions may wish to consider the NSW Mining Related Councils model as one means of working together collaboratively to share information and leverage advantages. An alternative model is the Local Leadership Group in each Queensland resource region.

R12: Mining companies reassess their social spend and community engagement priorities and align them with Council community (development) and social infrastructure plans.

R13: Mining companies collaborate with each other and pool their social spend to support larger scale social programs that contribute to a lasting legacy for mining communities. This need not preclude ‘branding’ opportunities.

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 7

Introduction Background to the project The purpose of this report is to summarise Recent mining expansion has presented the findings of the two year research significant challenges and opportunities for project, Local government, mining regional communities throughout companies, and resources development in Australia. The purpose of this project has regional Australia: meeting the been to examine the capacity of local level governance challenge. This research was governance arrangements to deal undertaken by academics from the Centre effectively with the impacts of rapid, for Social Responsibility in Mining (CSRM) sustained, growth in the resources sector and the School of Social Science at The in key mining regions in Australia. Specific University of Queensland and funded by objectives of this project were to: the Australian Research Council (Linkage • Project No. 0989162) and seven Industry document the impacts (both positive partners: the Queensland Resources and negative) of intensive resources Council; New South Wales Minerals development on communities in Council; Rio Tinto; BMA; the Local mining-intensive regions in Australia Government Association of Queensland; • investigate and evaluate how these the NSW Association of Mining Related impacts have been managed at the Councils; and the Local Government local level, focusing particularly on the Association of South Australia. interface between local governments, mining companies, state governments The report begins with a discussion of the and regional bodies background to the project and its research • identify new governance arrangements objectives. Next, the project methodology – formal and/or informal – and their is described and major findings are effectiveness in managing change presented, with a particular focus on the • formulate research-based policy governance of resource development and recommendations to state and local its effects. The report concludes with governments and the mining industry some suggestions for building adaptive on the more effective management of governance systems. the regional and local impacts of rapid and sustained growth in the resources sector • advance the literature on corporate social responsibility, cross-sectoral collaboration and rural/regional governance.

.

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 8

capacities of local governments and the Methodology interactions between mining companies, This research project incorporates data local government and state governments. from Australia’s four mining intensive A breakdown of survey participants is states: Queensland, New South Wales, contained in Table 1.

South Australia and Western Australia. Table 1: Telephone survey participants There were three stages to the data collection across the states: State Mining Companies LGAs NSW 8 4 1) a desktop review of legislation, WA 5 4 regulation and policy SA 2 1 2) telephone interviews with local council chief executives and mine managers QLD 6 3 3) case studies of selected mining- TOTAL 21 12 affected local government areas. In stage three, the case studies, field trips Stage one, the desktop review, sourced to local government areas in five resource relevant legislation and government policy regions were undertaken. These were the documents to identify emerging trends and Pilbara in Western Australia, the Gawler ascertain how governance responsibilities Craton in South Australia, the Gunnedah were allocated, especially at the state Basin in New South Wales and the Bowen government level. Local Government Acts; and Galilee Basins in Queensland. A total Development and Planning Acts; of 87 interviews were conducted with Environmental Protection Acts and recent representatives from the mining industry, policy statements in each jurisdiction were local and state government and the reviewed. community sector in these regions (Table 2). The case studies also involved In stage two, structured telephone participant-observation, with researchers interviews were conducted with mine participating in some local and regional managers and council CEOs in mining- meetings relating to mining and its impacted regions. These thirty-three impacts. interviews explored the resources and

Table 2: Case study participants

Pilbara Bowen Basin Galilee Basin Gawler Gunnedah WA QLD QLD Craton Basin SA NSW Community 3 5 4 0 4 member/ organisation State 7 3 3 1 3 government Mining industry 4 6 4 5 9 Other private 0 4 2 1 0 sector Local 5 2 3 1 8 government TOTAL 19 20 16 8 24

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 9

conflict between miners, farmers and Research findings established residential communities and the cumulative impacts of multiple mining Community concerns about operations.

resource development While these impacts were apparent in

each state, there were more commonalities among comparable regions COMMUNITY CONCERNS than within states. For example, the A range of community concerns remote communities of Karratha in the about the impacts of resource Pilbara and Roxby Downs in the Gawler development were identified through Craton faced similar issues, with housing the research. These included: Economic and accommodation problems and the • Two-speed economy with management of the FIFO workforce being uneven wealth creation and job the major concerns, due to rapid, large- creation scale industry expansions in these • Skills shortages regions. In contrast, conflicts over land Social use were the most obvious manifestation

• Housing availability/ affordability of the challenges in managing resource • Managing a FIFO workforce development in emerging mining regions Environmental such as the Surat Basin in Queensland • Land use conflict and the Gunnedah Basin in NSW. • Water • Cumulative impacts of multiple For the established mining region of the mining operations Bowen Basin, the challenges were similar

to those of remote communities in terms of the pressures on housing and what was seen to be an excessive movement A range of economic, social, and towards FIFO operations, but framed in environmental impacts were identified as terms of the legacy of mining towns and resulting from the current resources boom community expectations of mining – both positive and negative. The most companies continuing to support a locally- frequently mentioned benefits were based mine workforce. The cumulative economic ones: the wealth generated by impacts of extensive resource the resources sector for Australia’s development in the area were also a economy and the jobs it created. matter of concern as in other established However, the rapid expansion of the and mining intensive regions such as the industry in recent years has also led to Hunter Valley in NSW. skills shortages in other industry sectors. The main social impacts that were of In short, understanding the regional concern to communities were: pressures context requires taking into account such on housing availability and affordability, as factors as: the remoteness of the mining well as on the quality of social operation, the level of population density, infrastructure, and changes associated the commodity being mined, the history of with the industry’s increasing reliance on a mining in the region, the expected life-of- fly-in fly-out (FIFO) workforce. The key mine, and the degree of community environmental impacts were also seen as familiarity with the mining industry. All of challenges and revolved around land use these issues have an important influence

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 10

on how individual regions respond to the Social impacts impacts of resource development. Housing availability and affordability Economic impacts Housing availability and affordability are major concerns in the Pilbara and the Two-speed economy Bowen Basin. In the case of the Pilbara, Major resource development has the combination of a rapidly increasing benefitted the national economy by demand for housing and a slow supply generating revenue and creating jobs. response (Haslam McKenzie et al, 2009) However, while mining companies means that residents of Karratha and Port emphasised this important contribution, Hedland pay among the highest real many local community members felt that estate prices and rentals in the country. they did not necessarily benefit directly Median housing prices are well above from the greater economic activity. those paid in the Perth metropolitan area Particular concerns were that FIFO or other regional areas of WA (Haslam workers used community services but McKenzie, 2011). spent their high incomes elsewhere, just as mining companies, in the quest for In Queensland’s Bowen Basin, housing economies of scale, bypassed local costs are similarly inflated with Dysart businesses in their supply chains reported in 2011 as having the highest perpetuating what has been called ‘the median rent in the state at $2000 per flyover effect’ (Storey, 2001). week. These effects are not confined to the mining towns themselves as distortion Skills shortages of real estate markets is also evident in Skills shortages were a major concern associated service and residential across the regions. Mining companies are communities such as Mackay and constantly struggling to find the skilled Gladstone in Queensland. This effect is workforce they need to meet increasing widespread, with all states reporting that production targets and to service new the challenge of affordable projects coming online. This has led to accommodation is magnified in mining poaching of workers from other industry communities. sectors, a problem that is particularly acute in small, regional workforces In Roxby Downs, housing shortages are because it leaves state and local not as severe, but the proposed Olympic government agencies, as well as other Dam expansion is expected to double the private sector employers then facing their town’s existing population, potentially own skills shortages. causing shortages as the town is already at capacity. Similarly the small town of The mining boom has leached many of the Alpha, in Central Western Queensland skilled workers and much of the support and with a population of only 400 people has people needed for the survival of the infrastructure of the town. Whether it is grader little capacity to prepare accommodation drivers abandoning their machines to drive at for an expansion of residents and the mines or nurses, also needed by the businesses and highlights the complex mining companies, or plumbers or carpenters connection of this to other issues such as (Local government, QLD). supply of land.

“Alpha is going to jump out of its skin when it's allowed to and there is no available land in

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 11

Alpha at the moment. It's all State • FIFO as a work practice is here to stay Government leases (Mining company, QLD). because it is the only way to attract workers to remote locations In summary, the limited supply and high • FIFO is the most effective way of cost of housing continues to create major managing a construction workforce problems in terms of accommodating the which is, by its, nature, short term and labour market in the aggressively itinerant expanding regions of the Pilbara, Bowen • Basin and the Gawler Craton. FIFO offers employees choice about where to live and work, and it is Social and community infrastructure important to offer choice to attract and Housing is not the only social retain workers at a time of skills infrastructure experiencing increased shortages. demand in resource communities. Social infrastructure includes a wide range of Views commonly expressed by community built facilities, services and networks of members were that FIFO work organisations catering for all community arrangements: • members or segments of the population place family relationships under stress such as young people or people from non- • place additional burdens on local English speaking backgrounds. infrastructure and services Participants highlighted the complex • fail to provide any economic benefit for positive and negative effects on both local community businesses ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ social infrastructure that • lead to various social ills (crime, the rapid population growth associated violence etc) with resources development has caused. It will be the death of us. When people reside For instance, many of these communities here, they add to the community. They buy are struggling to get the requisite numbers products from the town and they support other of police, teachers, health workers and industries. If BHP do 100 per cent fly-in fly-out youth workers allocated by the state there will be no more people coming to town, governments even as they welcome but they'll be taking our resources (Non-mining population numbers that help make their private sector, QLD). hospitals and schools viable and avoid the Local councils held differing views on the fate of the many regional communities impacts of FIFO. Generally speaking, experiencing the withdrawal of services. • As well, local governments face rising Councils in mining-impacted regions demand for child care, cultural and accepted the necessity of a FIFO recreational facilities as the population workforce for construction workers, but expands and national living standards and felt that their towns were negatively expectations rise. impacted by a FIFO workforce. • There were concerns that non-resident FIFO workers were not included in many The perceived impacts of a FIFO work- statistical counts and were assumed to force were a major issue across the place no extra demands on councils states. There were conflicting views as to feeding into local government funding the advantages and disadvantages of formulas. This exacerbated the FIFO/DIDO employment practices. Views significant deficit in available council commonly expressed by mining company revenue to fund the infrastructure and representatives were: services required to service resource industry activity.

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 12

with a wide constituency of concerned people in these locations mobilising

FIFO work practices politically. This indicates an erosion of The 2011-2012 Federal Government companies’ social license to operate as Inquiry into the use of ‘fly-in, fly-out’ well as a loss of confidence in the (FIFO) workforce practices in regional regulators’ safeguards to protect the public Australia provides some of the most up- interest. Although much of the concern to-date information available on the relates to coal-seam gas extraction, there impacts and opportunities of using a is little distinction made in the eyes of the

FIFO workforce. For updates, see: public and indeed some issues of concern, http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_B particularly in terms of social impacts, usiness/Committees/House_of_Repres apply to both industries. entatives_Committees?url=ra/fifodido/in

dex.htm

Environmental impacts

Land use conflict Land Use conflict on the Liverpool In all four states studied, we found Plains examples of conflicts over land use. There The Caroona Coal Action group were situations where the resource-rich provides an example of farmers and land in question had environmental values others in rural communities protesting or was close to urban areas. However about what they see as a proliferation of tension was particularly evident with coal and coal seam gas mining respect to energy or mineral resource activities in sensitive areas across NSW

deposits coinciding with agricultural land. and Queensland. This is the case in the Central Highlands The group identifies itself as and Darling Downs regions of representing a country community that Queensland, the Eyre and York is concerned about the potential Peninsulas of South Australia, the dangers that longwall mining poses for Margaret River and the Mid-West of the Liverpool Plains. NSW planning Western Australia and the Hunter Valley processes are widely distrusted within and Liverpool Plains of NSW. the Group and members believe that the government is more interested in These issues have prompted legislative gaining access to greater mining responses, particularly in Queensland and royalties than supporting farming NSW. Queensland introduced Strategic communities. CCAG is calling for “an Cropping Land legislation, and a ban on immediate moratorium on any kind of mining within a 2km radius of towns with a resource exploration on the Liverpool

population of at least 1000 to manage Plains” until an independent, catchment-wide water study can be some of these conflicts. In NSW, the undertaken to determine the impacts of O’Farrell government is in the process of coal-seam gas exploration on prime developing regional strategic land use agricultural lands (CCAG, 2009). plans. Community concerns about the (Continued p13) impacts of mining on the agricultural industry have been a major rallying point

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 13

Current legislative and regulatory Land Use conflict on the Liverpool initiatives by the NSW and Queensland Plains (cont’d) governments to manage impacts of mining were also viewed as reactive, and unable One of the well-publicised actions of the to keep pace with the level of mining group was their blockade of the activity. property ‘Rossmar Park’ for 630 days, protesting plans by mining companies The Infrastructure area is the big one but [the BHP Billiton and Shenhua Watermark, Departments of] Education and Communities to mine coal in the area. This has been and Health they’ve all got to get their acts followed by other blockades to prevent together and make sure that those ... and do mining or coal seam gas exploration or studies of the impacts on their areas and plan activity for the future. ...it seems to be they’re not doing strategic planning (Local government, The CCAG is one of more than a dozen QLD). different groups across north-west NSW that claim there has been a failure of There is also community frustration planning processes in NSW. Their around the perceived unwillingness of specific concerns relate to damage to underground aquifers and to productive relevant government departments to food-growing land, subsidence, health regulate or monitor the industry. Many risks, property rights, noise and stakeholders interviewed suggested that increased risk among other issues. there needed to be a more planned They draw attention to the approach to development approvals, environmental, tourism and farming whereby all applications are viewed in toto values of the land. not simply assessed on a ‘case by case’ basis. They also suggested that there needs to be greater consistency in regulations across all industries that Cumulative impacts contribute to cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts have been identified as a priority concern in regions having We’ve got to stop this fragmentation ... so we multiple operations and multiple have to do it so that when they [the companies especially where this has companies] meet they talk about the extended over some time such as the cumulative effects of the projects for the social impact. Not their particular impact but the Bowen Basin and the Hunter Valley. cumulative impact. ... You can see how that Opponents of resource development in would make a lot more sense. It is the these regions are concerned that industry cumulative effects that are our biggest problem expansion is occurring so rapidly and on and no-one’s looking at it. They mention it but such a large scale that there is not enough they definitely do not do it. ... In fact if anything attention being given to considering the they shouldn’t be looking at one project, they cumulative impacts. While some should be looking at the cumulative effect participants acknowledged that cumulative because if they did that they wouldn’t need to impacts are hard to measure, quantify and worry about each individual project. So it’s predict, they considered that more effort looking at the cumulative effect that is absolutely critical (Local Government, QLD). should be invested in improving measurement techniques before planning approval was given to new projects.

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 14

Challenges for local government Service/ management function In general, local councils were seen by research participants as performing CHALLENGES FOR LOCAL adequately the traditional business of local GOVERNMENT government.

The main challenges faced by local They’re effective at all the classic ones – governments were: roads, waste management, planning, • community planning they seem to do quite well Changing expectations of their role and ‘scope creep’ (Mining Company, WA) • A narrow revenue base and shortage of human resources This was particularly the view of • Legislative barriers that prevent companies in regions with FIFO them taking a more active role in workforces, or those that were very planning for major resource remote since mining companies in those projects situations were generally self-sufficient and had very low expectations of, and In spite of these challenges, there demands of local government. was evidence of some local councils Conversely, in more established mining taking a more direct leadership role regions expectations on local government to coordinate the activities of were higher, with some mines suggesting different governance actors. that local government should provide more infrastructure to service the expanding

mining workforce, especially housing.

However, the findings indicate that Role of local government councils face a number of problems in Local government is the level of meeting these expectations. First, government closest to our daily lives and Australian local government already has a its key role has traditionally been to ‘make backlog of infrastructure renewal works, our lives manageable’ (Douglas, 2005: particularly in the areas of community 232). Traditionally regarded as accessible infrastructure such as swimming pools, and relatively uncomplicated, local community centres and libraries (Dollery government nevertheless performs two and Mounter 2010: 218). In some cases it distinct functions – a service/ management appears that mining company role, where council staff are responsible contributions to the local region (through for the delivery of local services and the swimming pools, libraries and even jetties) collection of taxes (traditionally understood simply increase that backlog when they in terms of ‘roads, rates and rubbish’) and include infrastructure works that require a political/ representative role, where ongoing maintenance, even after mining democratically elected officials represent activity has ceased. One of the local the interests of their constituents at the councils in NSW, for example, estimated local level (Douglas, 2005). This section of an annual cost of $300-500k per year to the report looks at the effectiveness of maintain a now-defunct coal-loading jetty local government in carrying out these that was considered by the local functions when confronted by large scale community to have heritage value. In other mining developments. areas, councils and mining companies were moving away from one-off capital grants projects towards initiatives that

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 15

were driven by the council, not the mining council representative termed the ‘netball companies, which were financially more bib’ approach. sustainable in the long-term. While mining companies acknowledged We’ve got to be very careful because we don’t the resourcing and capacity problems want swimming pools that no-one’s going to faced by local councils, they felt that it was use and we’ve got to maintain for the next fifty properly the role of the state government years. We’re not interested in that (Local to address shortfalls, although the reality government, QLD). is often closer to a negotiated outcome in Second, while there is an expectation that which companies temporarily supplement local governments will provide a range of or support government services to bridge community services and facilities, their the gap between rapidly expanding powers and resources are severely community need and government circumscribed, making it difficult for them response. Contestation over who should to fund an acceptable level of service be responsible for infrastructure and provision to meet the needs of their services provision was particularly constituent communities. The use of State prevalent in remote parts of Queensland Agreements (in SA, WA and, to a lesser and Western Australia where government- extent, QLD) and rate pegging (NSW), for provided services are lacking, and in example, limits the capacity of local regions with company towns where mining governments to fund service provision. companies once accepted responsibility for service and infrastructure provision. In short, local councils are resource constrained, making it very difficult for Political/ Representative function them to respond to community and Local council was seen as performing well industry demands for better infrastructure in its representative function in most and services in the context of rapidly jurisdictions and its strong connection to expanding service delivery requirements. the community was often viewed as its Moreover, in all states except for WA, with core strength: its Royalties for Regions scheme, state Local Council has a very important role as the governments have shown reluctance to focus for the community - in many ways it is provide additional resources to local the funnel through which many questions are councils. As a consequence, councils are directed and resolved. And they’re a very good turning increasingly to the mining council with strong council leadership and companies themselves to fund additional competent administration and they’re infrastructure, with varying degrees of responsive and know what’s going on locally. success. So they can deal with that whereas state or federal government are more remote and can’t For their part, mining companies are deal with day to day issues (Mining company, unwilling to fill the gaps in community WA). services and are somewhat cynical about This connection with the local community being treated as a so-called ‘cash cow’ by was often viewed advantageously by local councils. Among councils, this was mining companies who used council as interpreted as mining companies having the ‘eyes and ears in the town’, providing no interest in providing core services information and advice on community (such as health), only in sponsoring sentiment and concerns. Local community events and groups, which one government was also seen as the appropriate vehicle for lobbying state and

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 16

Federal governments on behalf of the they were really starting to bash the council region, although it was felt that in order for (Community organisation, QLD). this to occur, it needed to work more In regions where land use conflict was collaboratively with other stakeholders high, particularly rural New South Wales through entities such as regional mayors’ (Gunnedah Basin, Liverpool Plains), there groups and regional organisations of was also evidence of conflict within councils. councils between pro and anti-mining I think they have to learn...to work with other attitudes, making it difficult for councils to councils to even get bigger advocacy bases for carry out their service delivery or those critical growth issues that they’re going representative functions effectively. to have to lobby state and Federal government and industry [to provide] (Mining company, This indicates a tension for councils in QLD). performing their representative functions in terms of whose interests they are seen Among some mining companies, however, to represent. In many cases, councils there was a feeling that councils should do managed to maintain this balance well and more in representing business interests, there were few signs of any problematic rather than simply those of the community, relationships between councils and mines and that local government could be more apart from one example in NSW. On the active in advocating on behalf of the whole, the relationship between the two regions’ economic interests (i.e. by was often described as ‘harmonious’, promoting the benefits of mining). While ‘close’ ‘civil’ or ‘robust’. Nevertheless, the companies interviewed felt that there was a general trend of better councils were rarely willing to play this role relations between mining companies and because it was considered ‘politically the administrative arm of local government unsafe’ to do so, we found little evidence than between mining companies and the of any active campaigning by councils elected officials, indicating a tension against the mining industry. between local government’s At the same time, we also found evidence representative role and its management of disillusionment among local community function. members about councils’ perceived failure Coordinating function to represent community interests vis-a-vis Both mining companies and local councils mining. This was particularly the case in spoke of the potential for local government the Bowen Basin, where there was a to adopt a strategic community leadership sense of disillusionment with council in not and coordination role (Cole, 2003), opposing vigorously enough the proposal particularly in the area of mining by mining company BMA to adopt a 100 governance. Councils already playing this percent FIFO workforce for its Caval role were viewed by mining companies as Ridge mine. being ‘proactive’. We’re about to have our fourth meeting so it This coordination role applied to two key was about 3 or 4 months ago. It’s all very dimensions of local governance. First, in recent… So that was the first meeting which I attended on behalf of [name of organisation] coordinating state government because they actually asked me to be there. departments at the local level: something And there were a couple of people saying that, in the opinion of both mine and ‘What are the council doing about this’ and council interviewees was severely lacking. In Queensland:

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 17

We would have liked to have thought it was • There is an enormous burden placed state government managing the impacts of on councils when responding to one or mining but basically it was left to local more EIS, especially for small councils government. When we had that mining boom • It is important to consider the about 3 or 4 years ago we actually coordinated cumulative impacts of mining, not just meetings with the government departments – education you name it – to say ‘what are you of individual project proposals. Current doing about it? You’ve got land here, they’re processes do not cater for this even in expanding, what are you doing?’ Basically they Queensland where the new Social were behind the eight ball (Local Impact Management plans (SIMPs) government, QLD). are meant to consider the whole system. The second aspect of coordination lies in a bringing together the range of different . stakeholders, including other councils, Local government: both for the purpose of coordinating A new ‘enabling authority’? activities but also to have a stronger voice in lobbying Federal and state government. The central Queensland town of In the Bowen Basin, this has led to the Moranbah is the administrative hub of establishment of a range of mining-related Isaac Regional Council (IRC) and is groups developed under the auspices of surrounded by coal mines. Confronted by increasing community disquiet local governments including the Isaac Regional Council, and Central Highlands about the nuisance, amenity and Regional Council. potential health impacts of dust given current and projected levels of industry The ability of councils to adopt a proactive activity, the IRC convened a workshop stance in coordinating the activities of a in 2009 to discuss how these impacts disparate range of mining stakeholders is could be managed. partly influenced by existing capacities The meeting was attended by and resources. It is generally accepted, for stakeholders from mining companies, example, that smaller councils often lack the community, and State and local this capacity. However, local councils also government. The outcome was the explained how constrained they were in formation of the Moranbah Cumulative this role, particularly at the stage of project Impacts Group – a multi-sector proposals, because of the absence of any collaboration which chose to operate formal/regulatory frameworks that as a sub-committee of council – to legitimised their role in this process or improve the monitoring and reporting provided them with the resources they of cumulative impacts on the town. This is an example of a local needed. Indeed, they spoke of the government playing a coordinating role difficulty of planning for themselves, let and facilitating collective action beyond alone facilitating the involvement of others the authority of any individual when it came to new mining stakeholder groups. developments. Beginning with the project proposal stage, they noted that:

• It is difficult to plan when councils are treated as ‘just another concerned citizen’ in relation to Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 18

Role of the state government issues were also raised. For instance the Queensland government was variously described as slow, reactive, inefficient and THE ROLE OF STATE GOVERNMENT uncoordinated: “various arms of government are just not talking to each

State governments have most other” (Mining company QLD). authority with respect to mining and

many responsibilities with respect to Our purpose in this section of the report is the well-being of mining-affected to identify what steps state governments communities. These include are taking to ensure mining-impacted provision of health, education, regions are provided with adequate police, housing and community services and facilities and the implications services and of associated of different approaches for local infrastructure as well as public works and main roads. government authorities and mining companies. Key challenges for state government: State governments, like all other governments, face competing priorities o Responding flexibly and in a timely fashion to the pace of when allocating funding. Moreover, there

change is always a conflict between delivering Equitable and prudent o resources equitably and delivering them investment of royalties for long efficiently. Therefore state governments term legacy adopt a range of direct and indirect actions o Balancing regulation and direct to balance these priorities. action with indirect ‘steering’ o Coordination of multiple actors Direct action refers to the extent to which and integration of many a government is prepared to commit direct considerations government expenditure and human resources to the provision of public goods and services. Indirect action refers to the State government approaches to strategies it adopts to encourage other managing mining development governance actors to pay for or provide In Australia, local government authority is these services. Direct action occurs on a derived from powers delegated to it by continuum from maximal intervention, state governments. Therefore, to whereby the state assumes extensive understand how the impacts of mining are responsibility for the provision of public managed at the local level, it is important goods and services (the welfare state), to to understand the relationship between minimal intervention where market forces state and local governments and how determine the level of service delivery. mining companies interact with them. The 1960s company towns, where the A recurring theme throughout this project mining industry assumed responsibility for has been criticism of state government constructing, funding and administering capacity. There is a widespread the physical and social infrastructure of perception that state governments are the town, is an example of the minimal failing to provide adequate resources to state. assist local governments in meeting the Indirect action includes a variety of challenges created by rapid expansion in intervention strategies designed to the resources sector. Other performance stimulate private sector participation in the

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 19

provision of goods and services. 2010). The Roxby Council operates with Governments act indirectly either by the powers, functions and duties of a local regulation or through the encouragement government authority in SA, but with some of collaborative initiatives such as public- notable exceptions. First, the Council runs private partnerships to fund the provision a deficit budget, which is funded equally of social and physical infrastructure. by the state government and BHP Billiton. This funding arrangement has ensured We investigated the extent to which the that Roxby Downs has infrastructure and prevailing politics, quality of public service provision that is the envy of most institutions, government policies, and other LGAs. Second, all decision-making financial allocations (purse strings) power is vested in an Administrator, rather influenced the delivery of public services than in a democratically elected council, in each state. The following discussion and the Administrator is a state details the approaches adopted by government appointee, answerable to the different states. A state-by-state Minister for Mineral Resources and comparison summarising the key actions Energy. in each jurisdiction is provided in Table 3. In an attempt to address the lack of South Australia democratic process implicit in the Roxby Downs, established in the 1980s, is centralisation of authority in the role of the the last purpose-built mining town in Administrator, various efforts have been Australia (Thomas et al. 2006) and its made to make the Roxby Council a more governance arrangements reflect the old inclusive and consultative body, but these company town model. Located in the have met with limited success. A Gawler Craton in South Australia and Community Board was established in created specifically to service the Olympic 2003, initially to develop a ten year Dam mine, Roxby Downs represents a Community Plan, and later to play a more unique governance situation. It is situated active management role. However, the in the Far North of the state, an Board operates via a series of volunteer unincorporated area without traditional committees and there have been local government administration. This difficulties in attracting and retaining function is carried out by the Outback members: Communities Authority, which covers nearly 625,000km2 or 65 percent of the As you can imagine in a mining community, we state of South Australia and must provide have a very high turnover population. People local government services to 31 stay two, three years and then they'll move on communities across the outback, where and while they're there they contribute significantly to committees, but they leave a just 3,900 people live. hole when they go...(Council employee). Under the terms of a State Agreement, the This lack of volunteers means that Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act community input into Council decision- 1982, the township of Roxby Downs is making processes is minimal and the governed by the Municipal Council of degree of power invested in the Roxby Downs (the Roxby Council). The Administrator’s role remains a source of council area, which includes the town of concern for some community members. Roxby Downs and the Olympic Dam mine, The Roxby Council operates in an covers an area of 110 km², and has an institutionally thin context, with all major estimated population of 4,478 (ABS,

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 20

Table 3: A comparison of state government approaches to enable the delivery of public services and infrastructure in mining-impacted regions

Politics Policies Public Institutions Purse strings • Northern Arid Lands NRM • Bipartisan support for Board Olympic Dam • Olympic Dam Expansion Act • Roxby Council funded via • Outback Communities South expansion • Environmental management plans 50/50 split between state Authority Australia • BHPB leveraging specific to Olympic Dam and BHPB • Roxby Council power to expedite • No other policies • Budgetary constraints • Roxby Downs Community approvals process Board • Liberal/ National • Pilbara Development alliance Commission • Royalties for Regions • Commitment to • Royalties for Regions Western • PICC • Pilbara Cities regional development • Pilbara Cities Australia • Pilbara Regional Council • Public/ private partnerships • Uneasy relationship • Browse Basin Strategic Review • RDA Pilbara with resource

companies over FIFO • Local Government Act (2009) • Sustainable Planning Act (2009) Multiple hybrid bodies at • Sustainable Resource Communities various levels – local, regional • Sustainable Resource • Land use conflicts Policy (and SIMPs) and state, including: Communities Policy Fund • Assertive local • Strategic Cropping Land Act 2011 • Sustainable Resource • Re-distribution of royalties governments (Bowen • Land Access Policy Amendments Queensland Communities Partnership away from resource regions Basin Mayors + LGAQ) 2010 • Local Leaderships Groups • Approval conditions specify • Community action • Major resource projects housing • RDAs company’s community groups (e.g. anti-FIFO) policy • Catchment authorities spending • Surat Basin Future Directions

Strategy • Regionalisation strategy • Repeal of Part 3A Environmental • Upper Hunter Air Quality • Mobilising industry funds Planning & Assessment Act 1979 Network (e.g. formula for Hunter Air • Change of government • Coal Seam Gas Moratorium Bill • Naomi Catchment Quality Monitoring network) New South • Land use conflict 2011 Management Authority • Some market instruments Wales • Cumulative impacts • Strategic Regional Land Use Plans • Liverpool Plains Land (e.g.) Salinity trading • Aquifer Interference Policy Management Committee scheme • Water Sharing Plans and Water • Northern Inland Regional • Capping of council rates Policy Development Board

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 21

decisions being made by the SA government and BHP Billiton. Therefore What is the future for Andamooka? the impacts of mining are managed via direct action by the state, with vigorous The proposed Olympic Dam expansion will have major social impacts on the contestation between the government and nearby town of Andamooka. With a total BHP Billiton over who will assume population of just 800, Andamooka is financial responsibility for the provision of one of the many outback communities a range of public goods and services. that lack local government representation. It is governed by the In spite of increased resource Outback Communities Authority (OCA), development activity in other areas of the with input from the Andamooka state, SA politics over the last twelve Progress and Opal Miners Association months have been dominated by planning (APOMA), which is a voluntary for the expansion of Olympic Dam, which organisation providing advice to the OCA, and management of a range of required the signing of a new Indenture local issues. Agreement. After intense and protracted negotiations, with both sides seeking Neither the OCA nor APOMA are particular concessions, the new equipped to manage the impacts of the Agreement was signed in late 2011. The proposed expansion of Olympic Dam, complete focus of government attention on which includes a proposal to build a construction camp designed to house expediting the Olympic Dam expansion up to 10,000 construction workers. This and increasing South Australia’s revenue camp, located half way between stream has left little opportunity for Andamooka and Roxby Downs, would addressing other aspects of resource effectively double the entire population development. There have been no new of the Far North of South Australia. This policy initiatives to guide the management raises enormous governance issues for of social impacts and there has been no the region. additional state funding allocated to Since the camp falls outside the address them. The state government is jurisdiction of the Roxby Council, BHP pursuing a cautious budgetary approach, Billiton has made it clear that it sees with government departments being given provision of the necessary infrastructure a directive to reduce proposed as a state responsibility and has expenditure in all areas (Roxby Council, indicated that Andamooka should be 2010). gazetted as a normal local government area as quickly as possible. The state The negotiations over the Olympic Dam government, for its part, has indicated it expansion demonstrate the persistence of thinks that BHP Billiton should be responsible for some of this the minimal state paradigm, with the infrastructure provision. The most government‘s key focus being on how it recent suggestion from the state is that can extract maximum royalties and an Administrator, along the lines of the employment opportunities for SA, with Roxby model should be appointed to minimal commitment of government manage the town’s governance. (House expenditure on social services and of Representatives, 2011) infrastructure.

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 22

Western Australia in the Pilbara with an approximate value of Western Australia best exemplifies the $4.2bn, all of which are being funded via evolution of company-state relationships partnerships between key stakeholders – from the old company town model to more different state government departments, indirect forms of governance. This shift individual mining companies, property has been precipitated by the formation of developers and local councils (Shire of a political alliance between the state Roebourne 2011). A number of interview Liberal and National Parties that enabled participants also confirmed that attempts the two parties to form a coalition to expedite planning and approvals government. In 2008, the Nationals processes were meeting with some campaigned on a ‘Royalties for Regions’ success. Landcorp, in particular, was platform and it is a commitment to nominated as having improved its implementing this policy that underpins the processes significantly. National-Liberal alliance. Through this agreement, the equivalent of 25% of WA’s While there is evidence that the variety of mining and petroleum royalty revenue (up policy initiatives, partnership to a maximum of $1billion per annum) is arrangements and administrative reforms being reinvested in regional Western adopted by the State have succeeded in Australia's infrastructure, services and channeling much-needed resources into community projects. the Pilbara region, some questions remain as to the longer-term effectiveness of the This direct policy response has had a state’s approach. Research participants major impact on the state’s mining expressed diverse opinions as to the value intensive regions, most notably the of the Royalties for Regions program, for Pilbara, which stands to gain example. Local government authorities approximately $1 billion over five years are, by and large, supportive of the from Royalties for Regions and the related program, particularly the Shire of Pilbara Cities initiative. Moreover, the Roebourne and the Town of Port Hedland, state has adopted a range of more indirect which are benefiting significantly from the and enabling initiatives to expedite funding boost. This is also a model that is infrastructure planning and development in very attractive to other Australian councils the Pilbara. in mining-impacted regions, with the NSW Association of Mining Related Councils First, the WA government has reviewed its and Local Government Association of own bureaucracy and made concerted Queensland, for example, advocating for a efforts to expedite planning and approvals similar scheme in those states. processes. Second, it has stimulated local government action, not just via additional Other research participants, however, funding through the Royalties for Regions were much more critical of the program, program but also through the local seeing it as inequitable and potentially government reform process. Third, it has divisive, engaged with the private sector to leverage additional funding. I call it Ransom for Regions. It's pork barrelling of the worst kind... most of the expenditure has There are indications that this mix of gone to the south west [region of WA] (Mining strategies is bearing fruit. For example, company executive, WA). there are currently nine major [It’s the] worst policy in years. It means you infrastructure projects under development have a certain proportion [of government

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 23

expenditure] fenced that you must spend in (OESR 2011). As a consequence, the specific regions (State government official, significant expansion of the mining WA). industry over recent decades has largely occurred in the vicinity of existing rural There are also concerns that, while the towns, leading to growing conflict over public-private partnership approach is land use. clearly delivering some new projects, the money provided so far falls well short of Three issues are currently dominating the the $3.8 billion required to meet the political discourse: competing claims for infrastructure needs of the region land and water by the resource sector on identified in the list of Pilbara Plan priority the one hand and agriculture and urban projects (RDA, 2010). settlements on the other; social impacts of changing conditions for the mining Finally, there are early indications that, workforce, with longer shifts and increased even when funding is available, other use of FIFO workers; and a conviction in capacity restraints prevent the delivery of many quarters that the distribution of the additional infrastructure and services. The costs and benefits of mining is inequitable. Nationals are currently in talks with the Federal Treasurer about handing over a Each of these issues has produced portion of the multi-billion-dollar Royalties heightened levels of community activism for Regions scheme for a future fund. and increasingly, different interest groups There is some anecdotal evidence to are working together to pressure the suggest that the Premier is investigating government. This pressure is being this approach because the state cannot exerted not just by formal opposition find suitable projects in which to invest parties but also by local governments quickly enough to meet the expenditure working together, industry advocacy commitments of the Royalties for Regions bodies and organised community funding arrangements. coalitions.

In summary, of all the states, Western The campaigning strategies adopted have Australia has been the most active in prompted the state to be quite responsive terms of financial commitments, its to political pressure, often changing strengthening of capacity within the public institutional arrangements or setting up service and local government, and in its new groups to address politically-charged ability to leverage additional funding from issues, for example, the formalisation of the private sector to provide infrastructure the Bowen Basin Mayors’ Group as the and services to support mining-impacted Bowen Basin Local Leadership Group. In communities. However, many challenges many cases, the state has responded to remain in managing the impacts of the political pressure with policy initiatives. resources boom. These include the 2011 Draft Regionalisation Strategy, the Strategic Queensland Cropping Land Policy, a Major Resource Mining regions in Queensland are very Projects Housing Policy, the Sustainable different from those in WA and SA. Resource Communities policy, the Surat Although the history of the Bowen Basin Basin Workforce Development Plan, a parallels that of WA, insofar as many policy to restrict mineral exploration within company towns were established there in a two km radius of town boundaries, and the 1960s, Queensland is more the introduction of a requirement for decentralised than the other States

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 24

SIMPs for each major development resources away from the regions. There proposal. are also indications that the state is actually cutting spending on essential The Queensland government has also services: embarked on a series of administrative reforms that adopt two different strategies [S]ince amalgamation... there's been a to reduce costs and improve efficiency, significant reduction in state subsidies to coordination and service quality: council to be able to cope. Road subsidies are restructuring the public service, and probably a prime example. ...They used to get a 40 percent subsidy. Now they don't (Non- reorganising regional administration along mining private sector, QLD). more collaborative lines. The attention to regional collaboration involves not just There is also evidence to support the state government actors but also joint widespread perception that the state efforts with other stakeholders from local government is trying to leverage funding government, and the private and from the private sector for social community sectors with some previous infrastructure and services. For example, functions of state government being the state is using the powers of the shifted to private organisations, Coordinator-General to specify private communities, not-for-profit groups, and spending attached to licenses of new partnerships or networks composed of a mining operations. Approval for one recent range of actors from the market, state and project was conditional on the proponent civil society. Such initiatives received participating in a collaborative group to some endorsement: manage cumulative impacts, and contributing information and $150,000 They’re on the right track [with] the Surat Basin funding to a study of cumulative social Future Directions – I’ve never ever seen so many different departments working together impacts of mining in the region over such a short space of time (Local (Coordinator-General 2010). Government, QLD). The Queensland government has Nevertheless, there is accompanying demonstrated a preference for addressing concern about a proliferation of less formal the impacts of mining primarily via a and enduring ‘hybrid’ institutional regulatory approach and using its powers arrangements that are neither public or to coerce the private sector into private – such as quasi-autonomous non- contributing more financially to address government organisations and public- the social impact of resource private partnerships in specific regions or development. Its efforts to stimulate more localities. collaboration have met with some success, notably in the formalisation of Moreover, while the state government has Local Leadership Groups in each major pursued administrative efficiency and resource region. However there is still encouraged collaboration between considerable fragmentation and remaining governance actors, it has been less problems of multiple plans, lack of forthcoming with funding to support coordination, and blurred authority. regional development. While mining royalties contribute around $4 billion a New South Wales year to state coffers, there is a strong The New South Wales situation is akin to perception that the state government that of Queensland, with mining expansion disproportionately distributes these occurring in more densely populated

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 25 regions of the state. As a consequence, groups, notably, the Caroona Coal Action regions such as the Hunter Valley and Group. Liverpool Plains are experiencing similar conflicts over land use to regions such as One initiative intended to address some of the Bowen and Surat Basins. The political these tensions is the commissioning of the response to this, however, has become Namoi Catchment Water Study. This study less predictable, due to the change of was initiated by Liverpool Plains Land government in March 2011. Management Inc, with UQ’s Centre for Water in the Minerals Industry and UNE The current state government providing the scientific credibility and an demonstrated a similar preference to evidence-based approach, at the same Queensland government, in adopting a time as the Caroona Coal Action Group regulatory approach to manage the provides the community mandate and impacts of mining. Initiatives include the pressure on the government from Repeal of Part 3A of the Environmental community action. This 18-month study Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the was initiated by the state government and Coal Seam Gas Moratorium Bill 2011 and funded by the Commonwealth the introduction of Strategic Regional Land Government and industry. Use Plans, an Aquifer Interference Policy and Water Sharing Plans and a Water A Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) Policy. Our interviews and the NSW case oversees the study. The SAG consists of study were conducted prior to the change representatives of landholders, the Namoi of government and the lack of trust in state Catchment Management Authority, the government agencies was a consistent petroleum and gas industry, the mining theme throughout the interviews. industry, local government, irrigators, Regional Development Australia and the At the same time, state government NSW Department of Mining. The intended participants indicated that they had little purpose of the collaborative study is to faith in the capacity of local governments determine where mining should best be to manage the impacts of mining. In recent carried out. It illustrates the NSW times, responsibility for mining government’s interest in appeasing development has been taken away from disaffected rural populations, seeking councils and now lies primarily in the collaborative solutions, gathering both hands of state government departments. scientific and lay data and mobilising resources from elsewhere to manage the Like their Queensland and South impacts of resource development. Australian counterparts, successive state governments in New South Wales have been unwilling to commit additional funding to address the impacts of mining. This resourcing shortfall, combined with lack of trust in the state government more generally, and perceptions of a lack of local government capacity has led to heightened levels of community activism, particularly in the Hunter and Liverpool Plains regions. This has, in turn, led to the mobilisation of some powerful lobby

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 26

Table 4: Examples of ‘Hybrid’, Multi- Wales impacts of multiple mines and operators, Conclusions on the other hand, are imperfectly understood, partly because they are Building adaptive governance experienced by different communities in solutions different ways. In the case of the Hunter This study into the governance challenges Valley and the Bowen Basin, for example, posed by large scale resource concerns over cumulative impacts on air development was initiated as a response and water quality have evolved over a to concerns that existing governance considerable period of time. In other arrangements were inadequate to manage cases, such the Gunnedah and Galilee effectively the demands of a rapidly Basins, these concerns have emerged expanding resources sector. Research largely in response to the rapid expansion findings confirm that current local level of the coal seam gas industry in regions governance arrangements are indeed that have had limited prior exposure to the struggling to keep pace with the demands resources sector. placed upon them in mining-intensive As the different case study examples in regions. New approaches to regulation this report illustrate, high levels of and policy making and different development activity, coupled with collaborative arrangements are required, expansion into new areas and new to minimise the negative socioeconomic commodities, have exposed companies impacts of resource development on local and communities to new risks and new communities. This final section of the conflicts, most notably around land and report summarises the key governance water use. These are complex and multi- challenges identified through the research dimensional issues, ‘wicked problems’ that project, identifies the limitations of impact on many stakeholders, often with conventional response strategies and conflicting priorities and values. provides examples of emergent strategies Developing appropriate governance that may lead to more effective responses to these problems requires governance models in the future. stakeholders to find new ways of thinking The governance challenge and working together. Two factors in particular are placing Conventional response strategies pressure on traditional models of A powerful reason to advocate for different governance. These are: governance processes is that, in the • the exponential growth over the last opinion of research participants, decade, particularly in the iron ore, conventional regulatory approaches are coal, petroleum and gas sectors, and failing to address adequately community • the emergence of cumulative impacts concerns. Through the course of this as a major governance challenge. project, local and state government The negative social impacts of rapid officials, community stakeholders and growth – lack of affordable housing, the mining company representatives alike growing reliance on a FIFO workforce to expressed frustration with the current address skills shortages and the regulatory environment, leading to the concomitant ‘fly-over effects’ experienced conclusion that current approaches to by certain local communities, are at least managing social impacts are structurally well recognised, even if conventional flawed. governance responses to them are proving to be inadequate. The cumulative

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 27

New resource projects and major incorporating different points of view, it is expansions are evaluated on a project-by- impossible to set clear goals, gain project, or site-by-site basis, rather than consensus or find trade-offs between on a regional basis. This limited focus is different priorities clearly inadequate to address the significant cumulative and regional Conventional linear response strategies impacts of multiple overlapping also fail to acknowledge the operations, proposals and development interconnection between social, economic applications. This narrow focus has been and environmental impacts, and local and adopted by mining companies and state regional contexts. It is important for governments alike. Regardless of whether governance actors to develop a better a company’s community investment understanding of social systems, so that programs (which are designed to mitigate systems thinking can be applied to the social impacts) or State government management of the impacts of resource approvals processes such as the current development. EIS regime are evaluated, the problem is This will be a challenging process. Not the same – a narrow focus on single site only are traditional approaches being or single company impacts within a limited questioned and found wanting, the geographical area. As the Bowen Basin, findings from this study confirm that there Gunnedah and Hunter Valley case studies is a lack of information on which to base illustrate, individual companies do not decision making around new processes. operate in isolation – their impacts are Many research participants pointed to the multiple, cumulative and extend beyond poorly-defined nature of many putative the limits of any single mining lease. This impacts and the incomplete and contested applies equally to positive and negative data that are often used to substantiate impacts. claims of negative social impacts. There Conventional responses also fail to take are many different kinds of knowledge and into account the reactions and interactions sources of information and, to date, there of the plethora of government, community are no processes in place that enable and private sector stakeholders, all of comparison between, or validation of, whom are impacted by resource these different data sources. Better ways development. These stakeholders include: of sharing, extracting and synthesising local community members who experience disparate sources of information are the impacts of resource development needed to gain an accurate picture of the directly, mining companies, state social impacts of resource development. government agencies, local government Finally, conventional governance authorities, infrastructure providers (often processes are inadequate because they partially or wholly corporatised as in the fail to take into account the dynamic and case of QR National, and water and power unpredictable environment in which mining providers), and market actors such as companies operate. The cyclical nature of housing and finance providers, developers resource sector activity, its ‘boom and and builders. Current governance models bust’ propensities, are well-documented. fail to take into account the different Yet current approvals processes enforced values systems of these distinct by state governments, which are focused stakeholder groups, or even to on up-front conditions and commitments, acknowledge their role in the governance fail to take into account the fact that process. Without acknowledging and

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 28 industry needs and social impacts will vary over the life of a project. There need to be mechanisms whereby the terms and conditions of project approvals can be revisited, when external circumstances Social Impact Management Plans change.

Late in 2009, the Queensland Emerging response strategies Government amended the terms of The regulatory environment reference for major resource The major response strategy to the development projects needing an Environmental Impact Statement to governance challenges posed by resource include an additional requirement for development that has been identified project approval. Proponents must now through this project has been the prepare a Social Impact Management propensity of state governments to resort Plan (SIMP) for each new or expanding to a more stringent regulatory resource extraction project. The purpose environment. Over the past five years of a SIMP is to establish ‘[t]he roles and there have been significant changes responsibilities of proponents, introduced, mainly in the area of planning governments, stakeholders and and development legislation. This is communities throughout the life of a particularly the case in NSW and project in mitigating and managing social impacts and opportunities during the Queensland, where many new regulations construction, operation and and policies have been introduced (table decommissioning of major resource 3). development projects’ (Department of Infrastructure and Planning 2010: 5). Despite some achievements, these responses have been largely reactive and Guidelines indicate a number of were generally criticised by research categories of impacts to be addressed in participants as increasing the bureaucratic a SIMP including housing and burden, without delivering better outcomes accommodation; community health, for companies or communities. Analysis of safety, wellbeing and amenity; and social these regulations suggests that they are infrastructure – both the voluntary sector unlikely to improve the quality of and public services such as health, governance in mining-impacted regions education, justice, childcare and transport. because they still focus on individual operations and limited geographical areas. It is currently envisaged that each mine There are still limited attempts to address will have its own SIMP. While site- cumulative impacts, no allowance is made specific, and developed by the for changing circumstances through the proponent, there are specifications that a life of a project and there are few SIMP is to be developed in collaboration opportunities for key stakeholders to with other stakeholders. For more collaborate in the governance process. information and SIMP guidelines, see: http://www.deedi.qld.gov.au/cg/resource s/guideline/simp-guideline.pdf

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 29

Regional planning Galilee Basin Economic and Social Impact A second general trend relates to Study. This independent study was widely evidence of greater government interest in viewed by interview participants as a planning at a regional level. Examples of successful initiative that failed to gain regional planning initiatives include: the traction with government. Its purpose was Browse Basin Strategic Review in to provide baseline and projected Western Australia, the Galilee Basin economic and social information on the Economic and Social Impacts Study and Galilee Basin and the research was the Surat Basin Future Directions funded jointly by DEEDI, the Barcaldine Statement in Queensland, and the Hunter Regional Council, Central Western Valley Cumulative Impacts Study in NSW. Queensland Remote Area Planning and Development Board and the Central There have also been moves to Highlands Development Corporation. coordinate regional planning initiatives There were criticisms of a lack of between different organisations, either via transparency within government and the regulation, improved planning, or through report has only been made publicly other measures. Examples in Western available relatively recently – and with a Australia include the Ravensthorpe- disclaimer from Minister Mulherin Hopetoun Coordination Group, which attached, citing concerns about ‘the coordinates planning efforts across state veracity of the data’ (Economic and private sectors in the region, and the Associates, 2010, p.1) Pilbara Industry Community Council (PICC), an industry-led initiative that coordinates activities across a number of Surat Basin Regional Planning Framework projects that reflect the shared priorities of member organisations, e.g. their This non-statutory document seeks Indigenous employment initiatives. In to provide an integrated framework to Queensland, the Gladstone Region Social shape and to link different types of Infrastructure Strategic Plan (SISP), plans (including economic launched in 2010, was developed jointly development, land use and by the Gladstone Regional Council, catchment management plans) and

Gladstone Economic and Industry different levels of planning (community, local, and statutory Development Board and the Queensland regional plans) and also Department of Infrastructure and Planning. Environmental Impact Statements for

This coordinated plan identified gaps in major projects in the region. existing social infrastructure, developed

priorities for future infrastructure provision, The document outlines eight strategic directions for the region. It indicates prepared detailed budges and proposed potential joint funding and management that cooperation among a broad range of stakeholders, diverse plans to deliver infrastructure provision. sources of information and Some of these initiatives have been knowledge and enhanced successful, others less so. Generally coordination are deemed essential ingredients of strategies to ensure speaking, most regional planning sustainable future growth for the initiatives are such recent developments region. and it is too early to say how effective they http://www.waytogrow.qld.gov.au/u/li will prove to be, as demonstrated by the b/planning-framework.pdf>

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 30

Multi-sector bodies each other’s capacity for mutual benefit Another response strategy that shows and to achieve a common goal. promise has been the emergence of ‘hybrid’ or multi-sector bodies to address Working within multi-sector organisations complex social issues. This development is challenging because collaborating and is particularly apparent at the regional dealing with conflicting values takes time, level, where there are a number of bodies trust and a commitment to breaking down seeking to address cumulative impacts. A ‘turf’ barriers. The evidence from this key feature of these organisations is that research is that some groups are taking they typically contain government, on this challenge and are beginning to find (federal, state and local), community and ways of working cooperatively together. industry representatives.

Regional Development Australia (RDA) committees are examples of multi-sector bodies involved in planning and resourcing Liverpool Plains Land Management in all regions of Australia. However, hybrid (LPLM) organisations are particularly a feature in Queensland and New South Wales, where The LPLM Committee was established in the early 1990s in response to multi-sectoral collaborations are resource management issues affecting increasingly being viewed as the most the economic viability and agricultural promising means of addressing land use sustainability of landholders in the conflict. Examples of these hybrid Namoi Valley. The committee organisations include the Moranbah comprises: eight landholder Cumulative Impacts Group, the Fitzroy representatives from associated Partnership for River Health, the Upper Landcare groups, representatives from Hunter Air Quality Monitoring Network and the NSW Farmers’ Association, heavy Clermont Preferred Futures. Table 4 industries, the local Aboriginal provides a comparison of some of these community, community interest groups and the NSW Departments of Primary collaborative organisations. Industries, and Water and Energy. While the purposes of these bodies may be very different, they do, in fact share a Agency personnel from the two state government departments provide input number of common features. First is a and assistance to the Committee and focus on multi-sector collaboration - the LPLM has a small staff. bringing together different levels of government, concerned citizens and LPM plans and implements a range of private sector representatives. For these projects that are consistent with their different interest groups to work together Catchment Investment Strategy utilising effectively, it is important for all members science-based approaches, strategic to agree on what is credible data to inform partnerships, and regular information their decision making, to have in place sharing and practical support to enable well-defined terms of reference and to landholders to create sustainable land management practices. have the capacity to stay focused on the task at hand. There also needs to be openness to exchanging information, changing behaviour, sharing resources, risks and responsibilities and enhancing

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 31

Table 4: Examples of ‘hybrid’, multi-sector bodies in Queensland and New South Wales

Liverpool Plains Land Surat Basin Engagement Fitzroy Partnership for River Clermont Preferred Futures Management Committee Committee Health

Sectors/ groups Landholder Representatives from Local government, Mining, agriculture, state Isaac Regional Council, Rio involved associated Landcare groups, landholder representatives, government, local government, Tinto Coal, Clermont representatives of the local agricultural and catchment energy companies, research Community and Business councils, NSW Farmers’ groups, state government organisations Group and community Association, intensive industries, departments, CSG representatives. the local Aboriginal community and companies, Qld Resources community interest groups and the Council and the Australian NSW Departments of Primary Petroleum Production and Industries, and Water and Energy. Exploration Association (APPEA) Scale Namoi Valley Resource region River catchment Local community Structural A catchment management Initiated by Queensland Auspiced by the Fitzroy Basin Hosted by Isaac Regional arrangements committee operating with state and government with an advisory Association Regional NRM Council with a paid project federal government support and role. It has a consultative group with seed funding from officer, a community steering with a small paid staff. Project sub-committee and a state government. Funding committee and a planning and planning and implementation role. scientific sub-committee. formula adopted for ongoing implementing role. resourcing. Serves a monitoring and implementing role. Purpose and Resource management to ensure Socio-economic An integrated monitoring Social infrastructure, focus economic viability and agricultural infrastructure, workforce and system for waterway health community development, sustainability of land in the Namoi skills, water, ecosystems lifestyle and liveability, and Valley. economic diversification Resources shared Scientific data, general information Community and scientific Information, technical Economic projections, and practical support. perspectives on impact expertise, monitoring data and aspirations and visions, assessments and forward equipment. feasibility studies, housing projections. strategy.

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 32

Mechanisms of adaptive governance Adaptive Governance of Cumulative Perhaps the most important finding from Impacts in the Hunter Valley (cont’d) this research project is that adaptive governance means turning away from the Decreasing air quality was one matter search for a perfect solution. While it is of concern. For example, Upper Hunter important to seek clarity and reduce ambient air quality monitoring data uncertainty, it does not follow that more showed coalmines making over sixty data, more money, better coordination and breaches of dust emission guidelines in a five year period. A second concern planning or even a clearer delineation of related to pressures on salinity levels in the respective roles of government and the Hunter catchment from coal mining industry, will resolve complex governance but also from agriculture and electricity problems. The timing and extent of generation. Successive studies have resource sector growth and contraction resulted in new management strategies cannot be predicted with any great degree for such problems. For instance the of certainty. Nor can impacts necessarily Upper Hunter Air Quality Monitoring be known in advance, due to complex Network is now funded by industry but interaction effects. The desire for operated by the NSW Office of absolutes inhibits the capacity for adaptive Environment and Heritage thus satisfying two criteria for managing governance solutions. cumulative impacts – the need for Adaptive governance mechanisms collective action and the value of an independent umpire. Real time acknowledge constraints and find ways of monitoring results can be viewed at negotiating contested terrain. They: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/AQ • disperse rather than centralise power MS/aqi.htm and support collaboration among diverse stakeholders In the case of water quality, market- based mechanisms have been adopted. • incorporate knowledge from multiple The Hunter River Salinity Trading sources Scheme characterises the total • address complexity and uncertainty in allowable discharges of salty water flexible ways within catchment thresholds as 1000 • consider and accommodate potentially ‘credits’ and stakeholders hold a licence conflicting values, and for a certain number of credits which • tolerate varied, partial, temporary and permits them to discharge salty water into a river under defined flow inelegant responses. conditions and when the salt concentration in the river is low. Credits Adaptive Governance of may be traded among stakeholders in Cumulative Impacts in the Hunter the marketplace (NSW EPA, 2003). As Valley in the case of the Air Quality Monitoring Network, the Hunter River Salinity There has been coal mining in the Trading Scheme involves diverse Hunter Region for over 150 years stakeholders, including companies and and today it is the largest coal- the regulator, and reports publicly. The producing region in NSW. By the mid ownership of credits, their price and the 2000s concerns were raised about volume and concentration of discharges the successive, incremental and are publicly reported to the community: combined impacts of the local coal http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/lice

mining operations. nsing/hrsts/success.htm

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 33

Recommendations The data for this research project suggest local council levels. The research findings that, overall, local governance suggest that more organic, local initiatives, arrangements are working quite well in rather than an overarching policy regions where resource development is framework is most likely to lead to occurring at a modest rate. As illustrated successful planning outcomes. While in the various case studies in this report, many participants advocated more there are many examples of individuals streamlined planning processes, and there and groups working successfully at the is much to be said for a cohesive local level to address specific impacts and regulatory framework, there was no to realise the economic benefits of mining consistent view as to how this might be in their communities. achieved. This is an example where greater collaboration around specific Our findings indicate, however, that regulatory problems may prove fruitful. mining-intensive regions, notably the Bowen Basin and the Pilbara, face Development applications significantly greater challenges. The scale One of the criticisms levelled at Councils of development activity and the rapidity is that there are often lengthy delays in with which new projects are coming on assessing and processing development line is placing enormous pressures on applications. In this context, there is scope affected communities, local and state for companies to reduce demands on local government authorities, and resource government by creating and supporting companies. Managing for change during a industry-led initiatives to facilitate period of rapid expansion is inherently development application and planning difficult – and the task becomes even processes. There is also a significant role more complex when the high levels of for state governments to play in expediting uncertainty that typically accompany large planning processes. We therefore scale resource development are factored recommend that: in. The cyclical nature of the demand for commodities and the variability of socio- R1: Local council authorities are engaged economic impacts through the different much earlier in information sharing and stages of the life cycle of a mining decision-making processes by state operation, lead to unpredictable outcomes governments and mining companies when for governance actors. new projects or major expansions are in the pipeline. The following recommendations are intended to provide guidance as to how R2: State governments provide additional different stakeholders may address some resources to councils to enable them to of the major challenges that emerged in prepare their responses to EISs and SIAs the research. They relate to the key issues in a timely manner. of planning and regulation, council R3: State governments give consideration capacity and collaborative approaches. to strategic regional assessments, rather than having resource companies develop Planning and regulation environmental and social impact Many project participants identified major statements on a project-by-project basis. shortcomings in current planning processes, particularly at the state and

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 34

R4: State governments collect baseline Collaborative approaches data to build a common knowledge base Finally, collaborative initiatives that build that is accessible to all stakeholders. A trust and encourage information sharing comprehensive baseline study, funded by can smooth administrative processes, project proponents and executed by local reduce duplication in effort and lead to the and state government in a given region better management of the social impacts could become a resource to aid future of resource development. Therefore, we planning. recommend that:

R5: State governments collect data on R9: Mining companies, local councils and non-resident workforces. Other state state government collaborate more at the governments may wish to consider the regional level. approach currently adopted by the office of economic and Statistical Research R10: State governments take (OESR) in Queensland responsibility for identifying lead agencies to manage collaboration at the regional Council capacity level. Another recurrent theme throughout the interviews was the capacity constraints R11: Councils in mining-intensive regions experienced by local councils; in may wish to consider the NSW Mining particular, the inability to attract and retain Related Councils model as one means of skilled employees. Mining companies working together collaboratively to share commonly ‘poach’ local government information and leverage advantages. An employees to staff their own operations alternative model is the Local Leadership and are able to attract them by offering Group in each Queensland resource higher wages and often subsidised region. accommodation. There is an opportunity R12: Mining companies reassess their for mining companies to redress the social spend and community engagement balance by providing assistance to priorities and align them with Council Councils through the following community (development) and social mechanisms: infrastructure plans. R6: Mining companies work with local R13: Mining companies collaborate with councils to develop housing and each other and pool their social spend to accommodation policies that ensure support larger scale social programs that availability of affordable housing and contribute to a lasting legacy for mining accommodation for council and other communities. This need not preclude essential services employees ‘branding’ opportunities Companies support apprenticeships R7: attached to local councils.

R8: Companies provide funding to support particular roles within council. There are examples of this working in Emerald and Dysart, for example, where positions for Community Development officers are funded by local mining companies.

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 35

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2010). "National Regional Profile: Roxby Downs (M) (Local Government Area)” from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Latestproducts/LGA46970Population/People12006- 2010?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=LGA46970&issue=2006-2010

Caroona Coal Action Group (CCAG) (2009) Mining and the Environment Briefing Paper No 6/09 from http://www.ccag.org.au/images/stories/pdfs/mining%20and%20the%20environment.pdf

Cole, Michael (2003) Local Government Reform in Britain 1997–2001: National Forces and International Trends. Government and Opposition, 38(2), 181–202

Coordinator General (2010). Bowen Basin Coal Growth Project: Caval Ridge Mine. Coordinator- General’s evaluation report for an environmental impact statement. Brisbane, Queensland Government

Dollery, B. and Mounters, S. (2010) ‘Local infrastructure investment, maintenance and renewal: a comparative analysis of contemporary Australian and New Zealand local government’, Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 16(2), 217-32.

Douglas, D. (2005) ‘The restructuring of local government in rural regions: a rural development perspective’, Journal of Rural Studies, 21(2), 231-46.

Economic Associates Pty Ltd (2010) Galilee Basin economic and social impact study from: http://www.deedi.qld.gov.au/documents/Corporate-Publications/Galilee-Basin-Economic-and-Social- Impact-Study-Final-Report-Full.pdf

Government of Western Australia and Pilbara Development Commission (2011) Pilbara Housing and Land Snapshot, Quarter ending March 2011, Pilbara Development Commission

Haslam McKenzie, F (2011) Resource boom times: building better towns and cities in remote places from: http://soac2011.com.au/files/papers/SOAC2011_0070_final.pdf

Haslam McKenzie, F, Phillips, R., Rowley, S., Brereton, D. & Birdsall-Jones,C. (2009). Housing market dynamics in resource boom towns. AHURI Final Report No. 135, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute; AHURI Western Australia Research Centre

Houghton, D.S. (1993) ‘Long-distance commuting: a new approach to mining in Australia’, The Geographical Journal, 159(3), 281-90.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia (2011) Fly in Fly-out work practices Witness statement by Mr Kym Winter-Dewhirst, Thursday, 8th December: Adelaide, from:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commrep/16560990-18d3-4aa1-a90a- cf6749f3249a/toc_pdf/Standing%20Committee%20on%20Regional%20Australia_2011_12_08_700_ Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/commrep/16560990-18d3-4aa1- a90a-cf6749f3249a/0000%22

New South Wales Department of Environment and Heritage (2003) “Scheme successes” from: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/licensing/hrsts/success.htm

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 36

Office of Economic and Statistical research (OESR) (2011) "Information Briefs." from http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/

Regional Development Australia (2010). Preliminary Pilbara Regional Plan

Rolfe, J., Petkova, V., Lockie, S. and Ivanova, G. (2007) Mining Impacts and the Development of the Moranbah Township, Research Report No. 7, ‘Impacts of the Coal Mining Expansion on Moranbah and Associated Community Series’, Centre for Environmental Management, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton.

Roxby Council (2010). 2009-2010 Annual Report Roxby Downs.

Shire of Roebourne (2011). "Strategic Infrastructure Projects." from http://www.roebourne.wa.gov.au/S_Projects_Home.aspx.

Storey, K. (2001) ‘Fly-in/Fly-out and Fly-over: mining and regional development in Western Australia’, Australian Geographer, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.133-148.

Thomas, L., D. Burnside, et al. (2006). 'Normalisation' in a non-normal environment - Issues in building Sustainable Mining Communities. SD06 – Operating for Enduring Value, Minerals Council of Australia.

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 37

Appendix 1: Research outputs

Journal Articles

1. Cheshire, L., Everingham, J. and Pattenden, C. (2011) ‘Corporate sector involvement in the governance of mining-intensive regions’ Australian Geographer Vol 42 (2): 123-138

2. Everingham, J.(In press) ‘Towards social sustainability of mining: The contribution of new directions in impact assessment and local governance’ C. Galea (Ed) Change management for sustainability: Celebrating our wins, learning from our failures (Greenleaf Publishing) (Accepted 28/4/2011)

3. Everingham, J. (In press) ‘Governance to Achieve Social Sustainability of Mining in Australia. A Case for Collaboration, Coexistence and Corporate Citizenship’ Greener Management International (Accepted 6/1/2012)

4. Everingham, J., Pattenden, C., Klimenko, V. and Parmenter, J. ‘Regulation of resource-based development: Emerging governance challenges to sustaining mining communities in Australia’ Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. (Reviewed and resubmitted)

5. Everingham, J. and Barclay M.A. ‘Varied forms of public organizing; lessons from the governance of mining regions in Australia’ Organization Studies. (Reviewed and resubmit in progress)

6. Everingham, J. and Pattenden C. and Barclay, M.A. ‘Prospects for rural development through a multifunctional mining industry?’ Journal of Rural Studies (Reviewed and resubmit in progress)

Presentations

1. Everingham, J. (2010) “Emerging governance arrangements for sustaining mining communities in the Australian context” Annual Conference of the Association of American Geographers, Washington, 14-18 April.

2. Pattenden, C (2010) ‘ARC Project’, Association of Mining Related Council’s joint session, Newcastle, February

3. Pattenden, C & Everingham, J. (2010) ARC Project, Mining and Community Research Forum Mackay

4. Pattenden, C & Everingham, J. (2010) ARC Linkage Project: Local government, mining companies and resources development in regional Australia: meeting the governance challenge Science Into Society Group CSIRO Pullenvale 2nd November

5. Everingham, J. (2011) ‘How are communities negotiating the social and economic impacts and benefits of resource developments?’ LGAQ Economic and Regional Development Conference, Gladstone, 18-20 May

6. Barclay, MA. & MacDonald-Hill, M. (2011) ‘Changing times, changing governance arrangements: New roles and responsibilities for resource companies, councils and communities’ NSW Minerals Council Environment and Community Conference, Wollongong 23-25 October

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 38

7. Pattenden, C. Everingham J. & Oñate-Santibáñez, B. (2011) ‘Cross-sectoral Governance: A comparison of international responses to mining and community impacts’ SRMINING. First International Seminar on Social Responsibility in Mining Santiago, Chile. 19-21 October. 8. Everingham, J. & Pattenden, C. (2011) Sustaining Resource Communities: A case for collaboration, coexistence and community considerations in mining affected regions of Australia. Sustainable Development in the Minerals Industry. Aachen, Germany. 14-17 June.

9. Everingham, J. (2011) “New Directions in Governance to Achieve Social Sustainability of Mining in Australia: Collaboration, Coexistence and Corporate Citizenship,” Sustainability 2011, 7th international conference on environmental, cultural, economic and social sustainability. University of Waikato, Hamilton NZ , January 5-7

10. Pattenden, C. & Everingham, J. (2011) ‘Governance in Mining Intensive Regions: Emerging Practice, Innovative Responses’ (ARC Linkage Project) CSIRO Mineral Futures Cluster Workshop, Brisbane 31st January

Local government, mining companies and resource development: Meeting the governance challenge – FINAL REPORT 39