AN EXPANDED ROLE FOR THE MINING SECTOR IN AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY? http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/rsj.2013.22.2.184

Thomas G Measham1,2 Fiona Haslam McKenzie3 Kieren Moffat 4 Daniel Franks 5

1Social and Economic Sciences Program CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Canberra

2Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra

3Curtin Graduate School of Business Curtin University, Perth

4 Resources in Society Stream Leader, Minerals Down Under Flagship, Brisbane

5Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, University of Queensland, Brisbane

Abstract

Questions over the role of mining in the Australian economy and society have gained increasing public scrutiny in recent years. In this paper we consider whether the role of mining in Australian society has changed with the recent mining boom. The paper draws attention to four key areas. The first is the economics of mining, where a rise in commodity values has made mining more profitable. Mining now dominates Australian exports more than in previous booms. The second area is the scale of mining operations, which have grown substantially, reflecting unprecedented investment. The third area is the degree to which the effects of resource extraction extend to surrounding areas and distant urban centres through long distance commuting. Finally, we consider the centrality of the mining sector in public life: attention to mining in the media and encroachment on other land uses, and we look for evidence of changes in public acceptance of the sector. In conclusion we argue that the role of the mining sector in Australian society and economy has indeed changed. The changes in terms of trade and the scale of mining have made the resource sector so important in Australia that increased impact in public life is unavoidable.

Keywords: mining boom, contested land use, Dutch disease, long distance commuting

Introduction

Mining has always played a significant role in the Australian economy, from 19th century gold rushes through to the current day (Hajkowicz et al., 2011). Throughout this history, the wealth of mining has flowed from the mines themselves to regional centres, then capital cities and eventually overseas, with increasing multiplier effects along the way. For this reason, the Victorian gold rushes in the 1850s and 1860s resulted in the development of towns such as Ballarat and Bendigo, with the total population of Victoria increasing seven fold from 76,000 in 1850 to 538,000 in 1860 (La Croix, 1992). During and following the gold rush, much of the wealth and population increase gravitated to the capital of the Colony, which earned the name ‘Marvellous Melbourne’ – a significant world city of this era, and by far the largest in Australia with a population of 206,780 by 1871 compared to nearest rival Sydney with 137,586 at the same time (Roe, 1974; Maddock and McClean, 1984).

More recently, popular debates on ‘the two speed economy’, the decline of the manufacturing sector and the mining super profits tax make it timely to consider the role of the mining sector in Australian economy and society (Schandl et al., 2008). Our focus in this paper is to consider whether the current mining boom simply echoes past experiences, or if there is something distinct that differentiates the current boom. For the purposes of this paper, the mining sector comprises mineral and energy extraction including metals, coal and gas, in line with the definition used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2011). Methods

The overarching disciplinary perspective presented in this paper is human geography. However, in line with this journal’s goal of including papers with multidisciplinary perspectives, and the aim of complementing the disciplinary papers published in this special issue, we draw on a wider suite of disciplines to complement human geography. The historical perspective presented in the introduction provides the context for considering contemporary trends (Greasley and Oxley, 1998). Furthermore, it is not possible to consider the impact of mining on the economy and society without some discussion of macroeconomic data and in particular the terms of trade (Harvie and van Hoa, 1994; Gregory, 2012). In the subsequent section we present a sectoral analysis focusing on the scale of production. The following sections returns to the overarching discipline of human geography. Section three considers displacement issues through long distance commuting, and the impacts this has for remote governance (Storey, 2001; Tonts, 2010). Finally, in section four we consider issues of how the mining sector is situated in public debates and consider the encroachment of the mining sector on other land uses.

Section 1: The terms of trade

Throughout history, mining has followed a clear boom and bust pattern, resulting in a roller coaster ride for the Australian economy and society. Mining booms have been defined as significant increases in mining investment and/or mining output, which trigger macroeconomic consequences in the form of increased GDP, balance of trade and most recently, higher currency exchange rates (Battellino, 2010). There have been five ‘major’ booms: the 1850s gold rush mentioned above, the late 19th century mineral boom, the 1960s to early 1970s minerals and energy boom, the late 1970s to early 1980s energy boom, and the early 21st century mineral and energy boom, active at the time of writing (Battellino, 2010). The boom pattern is evident in data showing mining as a proportion of total exports, for which we have consistent and accurate data from the 1970s (figure 1).

60

50

40

30

20 Mining share of exports (%)

10

0 1974-75 1979-80 1984-85 1989-90 1994-95 1999-00 2004-05 2009-10

Figure 1: Mining share of exports 1974-2010 (source: Reeson et al., 2012)

In considering the current mining boom, economists have observed a number of key features that distinguish this boom from previous ones. Since 2003, increasing demand for resources in the rapidly growing economies of China and India has raised commodity prices, with the effect that prices for basic metals and other resources increased between 250 and 350 per cent (Gregory, 2012). The recent boom is distinct from previous booms in that it has emanated from a sharp increase in prices, rather than volume. The increase has triggered greatly increased value in exports relative to the value of imports, which economists call ‘terms of trade’. The current mining boom has demonstrated a much greater increase in the terms of trade compared to all previous mining booms (Battellino, 2010).

This has been accompanied by an increase in the exchange rate, which poses particular challenges for other sectors (like manufacturing), which have to pay increased costs for finance and labour without the advantage of increased prices for the goods they produce (meanwhile, imported goods are more affordable due to the higher exchange rate). This phenomenon has been called ‘Dutch Disease’, after expansion of oil extraction in Holland placed pressure on the exchange rate, which damaged Dutch manufacturing (Cordon, 1984). Australian economists and social scientists have paid keen attention to understanding the benefits of the mining sector and how these are distributed. With some companies having dual listings on Australian and overseas stock exchanges, some theorists have queried the extent to which profits are exported (Richardson, 2009). In some locations the mining sector is a major employer (Reeson et al., 2012). However, nationally, direct employment in the sector is relatively low (around two per cent, ABS 2011), which raises the question of who actually benefits from the mining sector, and whether we see equivalents of Dutch Disease at the local or regional level (Brueckner et al., 2013).

The mining boom has brought gains to shareholders and mining employees, however in popular debates there is concern over the ‘two speed economy’ effect, representing the difference between those who directly benefit and those who do not (Richardson and Denniss, 2011). Research shows that these issues are more complex than what the notion of ‘two speed economy’ would imply, with different regions affected by the mining sector in different ways (Tonts et al., 2012). Some regions show a favourable link between income distribution and mining employment while others do not (Reeson et al., 2012). Part of the challenge of determining the economic benefits derived from mining stems from changes to the ways that mining workforces are managed and located, which are much more diffuse than those of previous booms (Rolfe et al., 2011). Expenditure by the mining sector (multiplier effect) tends to be lower in smaller communities and higher in regional centres, extending from inland areas to the coast where populations are denser (Rolfe et al., 2010).

A final distinction of the current mining boom has been higher than usual investment in mining as a share of GDP (Battellino, 2010). The importance of this increased mining investment and the potential for substantially increased mining volumes are discussed in the next section.

Section 2: the scale of production

The increased value of mineral resources in the recent boom has extended mine life and encouraged new investments for commodities such as coal, iron ore and natural gas. Production of iron ore increased 180% in the decade to 2011; black coal increased by 47%; and liquefied natural gas (LNG) increased by 148%. Other base metals like copper, nickel and zinc grew at more modest rates (20%, 15% and 6% respectively in the decade to 2011; ABARE, 2003; BREE, 2012). Even more dramatic is the quantum of planned investment. Ninety-eight mineral and energy projects were at an advanced stage of development in April 2012, representing capital expenditure of AUD$260.8 billion. Less advanced projects within the development pipeline represent a further AUD$243.3 billion in potential investment (295 projects; BREE, 2012). Easing commodity prices during 2012 resulted in revision of some of these investments, including BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam expansion.

The scale of overall production and number and size of individual mines is a key differentiator of the current boom. In the 2011 calendar year the largest producing coal mining complex in Queensland was Goonyella Riverside (14.9 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) raw coal) with the average coal mine in Queensland producing 5 mtpa (raw coal; 52 mines QME, 2012). In the Hunter coalfield of New South Wales raw coal production per mine also ranged up to a high of 14.5 mtpa and averaged 6.25 mtpa (figures for 2007–08; NDPI, 2009). A number of planned projects have the potential to mark a significant shift in the scale of coal mining in Australia. In Queensland's Galilee Basin the Alpha (30 mtpa; Hancock Coal), Carmichael (60 mtpa; Adani), Galilee Coal (40 mtpa; Waratah Coal), Kevin's Corner (30 mtpa; Hancock Coal), and South Galilee (15 mtpa; Alpha Coal) projects would all represent annual production that is larger or equivalent to Queensland's current largest coal mine (QDNRM, 2012). The opening up of coal mining in the Galilee Basin also requires rail infrastructure (around 500 km) for transportation of ore to the coast, and port upgrades. The Wandoan open cut thermal coal project in southern Queensland also has a 30 mtpa planned production (Xstrata Coal, 2011).

The same trend is apparent in iron ore mining in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Rio Tinto currently has production capacity in the Pilbara of around 230 mtpa from 14 mines. Advanced projects will bring this capacity to 283 mtpa by 2013, with plans for a further increase to 353 mtpa by 2015 (Rio Tinto, 2012). The increases in production are planned to come from individual mine expansions and the opening of the Hope Downs mine, representing a potential increase in average mine size from ~16 mtpa to ~23 mtpa. Mine expansions are accompanied by rail and port upgrades with the Pilbara also having experienced similar expansions in offshore petroleum (oil and natural gas).

New industries and mining technologies have compounded the expansions in the traditional commodities outlined above. Unconventional resources such as coal seam gas, underground coal gasification and shale oil have emerged in Australia in the past decade. In Queensland coal seam gas has grown from just ten wells in the 1990s to almost 600 in 2010–2011 (QDEEDI, 2012) with estimates of a further 20,000 to 40,000 to be drilled in coming decades given the scale of committed investment. Four thousand kilometres of gas transmission pipelines are already in place and three export LNG projects are under construction in the port city of Gladstone, with a further five proposals under consideration, representing a potential total capacity of 50 mtpa (QDEEDI, 2012).

The increased scale of mining and energy development has led to a range of complex interactions in the economic, social and environmental spheres. For commodities like lead, gold and copper where average ore grades have been in decline there are indications that the intensity of water, energy, waste rock, tailings and greenhouse gases have increased as a function of unit production in Australia (Mudd, 2010; ore grades for iron ore have in contrast been relatively stable). Rising waste rock to ore ratios have also been reported for black coal, associated with the trend toward more open cut mining (Mudd, 2010).

In mature mining regions such as the Hunter Valley (New South Wales), Pilbara (Western Australia) and Bowen Basin (Queensland) increased intensity of production has led to positive and negative impacts on the environment (e.g. salinity, greenhouse gas, and groundwater), amenity (e.g. noise, vibration, traffic, visual amenity), public health (e.g. dust), society (e.g. social infrastructure and services, workforce accommodation, housing) and economy (e.g. employment and business development). The cumulative impacts of multiple overlapping mining projects have become a particular challenge for traditional regulatory regimes that assess and manage mining projects on a mine by mine basis (Franks et al., 2010, 2011). Low unemployment and constrained capacity for further local business development in some established mining regions has created a situation where there may be little room to further capitalise on the positive cumulative impacts of mining at the local and regional scales, while greater mining simultaneously may represent intensified negative cumulative impacts at those scales.

For example, near the mining town of Moranbah, in the Bowen Basin of central Queensland, operating and planned coal mines now completely surround the town (operating mines include: Moranbah North, Isaac Plains, and little further to the north of Goonyella Riverside; advanced and planned projects include: Moranbah South, Grosvenor, Caval Ridge and also further north Broadmeadow and Broadlea North). The town expanded in the late 1970s to accommodate an expanded mining workforce and now is also home to a non-resident workforce. Reported issues in Moranbah range from elevated housing rents and property prices and the availability of workforce labour in non-mining sectors, to pressure on social services and community identity due to a very large non-resident workforce. There is concern that dust generated from the mines in the immediate proximity of the town may lead to health and amenity issues and this had led to the establishment of a multi-stakeholder committee, the Moranbah Cumulative Impacts Group (MCIG), to proactively address this issue (Porter et al., forthcoming). The MCIG is one of 30 multi-stakeholder collaborations in Australia identified by Porter et al. (forthcoming) that attempt to address cumulative impacts associated with mining.

Easing commodity prices could quickly shift the trajectory from growth to contraction, but state governments and local communities must prepare for the eventuality of planned projects or risk future pressures on existing services and infrastructure. This is a key challenge especially for state governments who need to balance service provision with royalty revenues. Impacts are experienced from the exploration and especially construction phases, but government returns through royalties only begin with production. Returns through taxation are also further delayed by the use of asset depreciation. The situation is further compounded by the long lead times for the realisation of government investments in mining communities and uncertainty over which projects will proceed to development. Therefore forward investment in services and infrastructure by state governments is important but also understandably difficult to implement. In the following section the indirect social and economic implications of these challenges for mining communities will be explored in more detail.

Section 3: The indirect impacts from mining

Mining development presents both opportunities and negative impacts to many local communities (Petkova et al., 2009; Pini et al., 2010). The current mining boom in Australia is remarkable for the changes it is driving in communities, even those where resources are not being extracted. One of the key factors driving economic and social transition is employee mobility and the proliferation of long distance commuting (LDC) which was established in the 1980s and has accelerated over the course of the recent mining boom (Houghton, 1993; Dawson and Ferguson, 2013; Haslam McKenzie, 2011). For a variety of reasons including the inability of small mining communities to cope with the scale of growth or the demand for infrastructure and accommodation, the lack of services, strong demand for skilled and experienced labour force, personal preferences of both the workforce and their families regarding where they live and the relative efficiencies, flexibility and low costs of air travel and enhanced communications, LDC has become a more attractive business and personal option for both mining management and many employees (Haslam McKenzie, 2011). Consequently, the places to which LDC workers travel to work, the host communities, are under pressure from the rapid and unprecedented scale of growth, while on the other hand, the communities where LDC workers leave from, the source communities, are also undergoing transition with many of their residents working away (Pini et al., 2012).

The increase in LDC has also led to changes in the governance of remote settlements. Roles which would otherwise be the mandate of state actors are being taken over by mining companies in host communities (Cheshire, 2010). Mining companies have become significant actors in areas that extend far beyond the mining process including supporting medical and dental services, road maintenance, entertainment, school facilities, local sports and providing recreational facilities such as playgrounds in host communities. Such support can be seen as an important way to fill the gaps in service delivery in remote locations. However, sociologists are cautious about how this may represent a shift in public-private relationships which may further reduce state assistance in these areas and foster dependency on mining companies with repercussions when mines eventually close (Petrova and Marinova, 2013; Cheshire, 2010). Furthermore, some authors are concerned that company concerns for visible displays of support may not always be consistent with community service priorities. These issues are further explored in a paper by Bice (2013) as part of this special issue.

Some communities are overwhelmed by a new population connected with mining, bringing with it a range of social and economic stresses and strains that small communities, in particular, struggle to cope with (Carrington and Pereira, 2011). Housing and the lack of accommodation is a persistent problem; high demand and speculative behaviour in some instances has driven up prices, often marginalising those in the host community who cannot afford the high rents (Rolfe et al., 2007). This is a particular problem for community leaders who are keen to nurture a functional community but struggle as key service workers (teachers, ancillary health workers, police, librarians etc.), those who work in the retail sector and any other labour force whose remuneration is unable to match that of the high-paying mining sector, are unable to compete for increasingly unaffordable accommodation and consequently emigrate (Haslam McKenzie et al., 2009).

A consequence of this scenario is that some communities and even regions, such as the Pilbara in Western Australia, are now virtually mono-economies. The lack of industry and community diversity makes these places vulnerable to ‘hollow economy’ and ‘fly-over’ effects, referring to the loss of local benefits due to labour forces and service centres being focused in capital cities (Storey, 2001), particularly when large mining companies do not make a commitment to purchase locally, or encourage their workforce to patronise businesses and services in the host communities, giving small and medium businesses another reason to close; a common example of cumulative impacts.

The impact of LDC is not limited to economic factors. LDC can transform the community identity of both host communities and source communities. Communities often complain that the local identity changes, that rapid change brings with it uncertainty and the push and pull factors often undermine residents’ commitment to social and cultural organisations but also to each other as local residents. There have been numerous studies undertaken (Beach, 1999; Sibbel 2001; Watts, 2004; Gallegos, 2005; Sibbel et al., 2006) that suggest that LDC has a damaging impact on families and that the long-term separation of mining industry workers from their family and friendship support networks has negative health impacts.

There is, however, a growing body of work that suggests LDC is not necessarily detrimental in and of itself (Cheshire et al., 2011). Rather, because of poor planning and/or a lack of responsiveness early enough to recognise signs that communities were not coping with rapid change, there have been negative impacts. Evidence given at the Affordable Housing Senate Inquiry (Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability in Australia, 2008) and more recently, the House of Representatives Inquiry into Fly-in/Fly-out showed that unwilling engagement or tardy planning by government to early signs of growing pains, and even market failure in the case of the housing market, were root causes of some of the issues (House of Representatives, 2012; Dawson and Ferguson, 2013). Government has eschewed demands for improved services and infrastructure to mining towns, claiming that the resource industries are prone to market ‘super-cycles’ and that in fact it was mining companies, in particular, which were creating the problem and it was their responsibility to address community growth demands. The mining companies, however, argued that they paid taxes and royalties and it was not their responsibility to provide services which are the responsibility of government. The initial lack of leadership, especially by government, created delays and poor planning outcomes but it would appear that, given the resources markets have been buoyant for so long and the national economic benefits have been so considerable, there is now investment in many of the larger mining towns to ensure they are able to function as communities and retain a population base that is not limited to the mining sector.

Further, there is now research to show that LDC is an effective strategy in some circumstances. LDC arrangements are likely to be the only practical arrangement for very remote sites and for operations with only short to medium time horizons. LDC arrangements are particularly relevant for construction, maintenance and shutdown phases and may be useful in containing impacts on local communities of episodic mining operational demands (Haslam McKenzie, et al., 2012). In other communities, particularly those in remote areas where housing and infrastructure are not able to meet the demands of burgeoning industry, LDC labour forces increasingly underpin a wide variety of industry sectors. Important changes to the current status quo that have the potential to make a significant difference to resource dominated communities would be to require that LDC accommodation is aesthetically attractive and potentially, has another ‘life’ in the community after it has serviced its current LDC purpose. Secondly, if LDC workers and the resources companies could be encouraged to interact and spend more income in the host community then small and medium businesses would be more likely to be viable, and hence the communities more functional.

Prescient planning, leadership, mutual respect between governments, resources companies, their employees and the local community, and open and ongoing communication are imperative if towns dominated by mining and the extractive industries are to build resilience, thus enabling them to successfully change and endure.

Section 4: The centrality in public life

The evidence for a change in the way that the mining sector is represented in public debates and media coverage is less straightforward. There are clear signs that the extractive industries are prominent in discourse across national, state and local scales in Australia (Mason et al., 2010; Zhu and McKenna, 2012; Bacon and Nash, 2012). The mining sector is recognised as being highly effective at presenting itself through the media. Australia’s ‘good fortune’ in exporting its mineral endowment to feed China’s strong growth has been portrayed as insulating the economy in a time of global economic uncertainty, and driving foreign investment in Australia (The Australian [editorial], 2012), but also as the cause of a ‘two speed economy’ and weakening of other industries such as manufacturing through export- driven appreciation of Australia’s currency (Komesaroff, 2012). The prominent reporting of BHP Billiton’s recent decision to cancel expansion plans for its Olympic Dam demonstrates the centrality of the extractive industries in Australia’s economic narrative with the decision portrayed as a sure sign the mining boom had ‘peaked’ (Ker and Yeates, 2012), was ‘over’ (Vasek and Packham, 2012), and as a ‘$30 billion blow to the state and federal economy’ (Kelton, 2012). In contrast, on the same day BHP Billiton’s plans were reported, a decision by Australia’s national airline QANTAS to cancel AUD$8.1 billion in purchases of new planes in the context of a AUD$224 million net loss for the year received much less attention and was not linked to Australia’s general economic health (O'Sullivan, 2012).

For most of its history, the mining sector has had a generally poor public image in Australia (along with many other countries) due to public concerns over environmental impacts and social disruption in various forms (Andrews, 1998). Since the start of the 20th century, the sector has attempted to redress these concerns through environmental and social disclosure statements to demonstrate corporate social responsibility to stakeholders including resource dependent communities and company shareholders (Peck and Sinding, 2003). Larger companies with prominent public profiles have instigated programs which go beyond regulatory needs in order to increase their public standing (Jenkins and Yakovleva, 2006). Some analysts have argued that the result of these efforts has been a turnaround in community acceptance, demonstrated by public support for mining companies during a high- profile dispute with the Australian Government over a ‘super profit tax’ (Allen, 2011). Other authors agree that there is an increased support for the mining sector, but rather it is due to short-term positioning instead of sustained commitments to corporate social responsibility (Richardson and Denniss, 2011). A national survey of 1370 Australian residents conducted shortly after a mining industry media campaign in opposition to a proposed increase in federal taxation of mining (the Resource Super Profits Tax) demonstrated an inflated perception of the sector’s contribution to both employment and GDP, which the authors attributed to deceptive advertising through misleading multiplier effects (Richardson and Denniss, 2011).

Much of the discourse in the media is concerned with contests between land uses, and in particular between agriculture and mining or extraction of coal seam gas. While much mining in Australia occurs in highly remote areas, other mines have been developed near to agricultural and urban areas, particularly in the Hunter Valley (McManus, 2008). Significant mining in the Hunter has existed for many decades, however it has experienced substantial expansion during the recent boom as described in section two of this paper, to the point that the number and size of mines surround and encroach on other land uses. For the purposes of this discussion, this encroachment provides evidence of a shift from co-existence to conflict, a theme which is explored in more detail in another paper presented as part of this special issue (McManus and Connor, 2013).

Outside of the Hunter Valley, the potential for conflict between agriculture and mining was recognised by the mining sector in the 1980s, focusing on two locations: the Liverpool Plains in NSW and the Darling Downs in Queensland (Langkamp, 1985; Duus, 2013). During the recent boom, this foreseen conflict has been realised in both locations (Measham et al., 2010; Schandl and Darbas, 2008). In the case of the latter, and the surrounding Surat Basin in general, coal seam gas poses a distinct case because it overlaps with agriculture on the same parcels of land (Greer et al., 2011). This can generate new types of conflicts, and potential benefits, such as equitable compensation, which have arisen in other circumstances where unconventional gas is co-located with pre-existing land uses (Kinnaman, 2011). Furthermore, the resulting contests between sectors are being played out closer to population centres, therefore they are represented more publicly on the roadside billboards, newspapers and radio stations of these and surrounding areas (McManus and Connor, 2013).

Discussion and conclusion The discussion above demonstrates a number of areas where a clear change can be observed from the start of the recent mining boom, summarised in Table 1. While various studies have considered these issues in isolation, there is value in considering them together as a set. For example, considering the increased scale of production, encroachment of agricultural land and the increase in long distance commuting together emphasises that the challenges for these locations include not only conflict over land use, but also potential for tension over different values held by a larger number of people from widely diverse backgrounds.

Table 1. Summary of changes and impacts over the recent mining boom

Evidence of changes Potential impacts and challenges

Increased economic importance Regional level ‘Dutch disease’

Extended role of companies into broader Dependency on mining operations which will governance in remote locations eventually close

Increased long distance commuting Retaining local benefits

Increased scale: bigger mines Cumulative social impacts

Encroachment on agricultural land Moving from co-existence to conflict

In conclusion, mining has always played a role in Australian society and economy. However, the role of mining in the economy has changed distinctly since the start of the most recent mining boom. The economic importance of mining is stronger than in previous mining booms, most visibly in the dominance of exports. This has led to unprecedented mining investment and the development of resource projects that are larger by an order of magnitude. These investments have not translated into substantially larger workforces, with mining employment remaining a small proportion of the national labour force. However, the workforce is more dispersed than in previous decades. Where once staff may have been restricted to nearby towns such as Ballarat, Bendigo, or more recently Roxby Downs and Mt Isa, the rise of long distance commuting draws staff from a range of urban and coastal locations. The host communities near to mine sites are increasingly governed by the companies themselves in terms of service delivery. Closer to urban centres, the mining sector has encroached on agricultural land, meeting resistance in such locations. What remains unclear, is how these changes will play out in the future with fluctuations in commodity prices which thus far have underpinned the economic importance of the sector, hence paying for services in host communities, and to support workforces to travel further to bigger mines, both in remote locations and those nearer urban centres.

Acknowledgements

This article is based on panel session at the Resource Extraction in Australia workshop in April 2012, funded by The Australian Sociological Association and the National Institute of Rural and Regional Australia. The authors received funding from CSIRO Minerals Down Under Flagship. Thanks to Karin Hosking and Shelley Rodriguez for assistance preparing this article. Thanks also to Peter Stone, Heinz Schandl, Bruce Taylor and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

References

Allen, G. (2011). Public affairs and mining in Australia – a rescued license to operate. Journal of Public Affairs, 11(4), 382-386.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011). Labour force, Australia, Detailed, Quarterly, May 2011. Cat no 6291.0.55.003.

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics. (2003). Australian Commodity Statistics 2002. Canberra: Australian Government.

Andrews, C. B. (1998). Emerging trends in mining industry partnerships. Natural Resources Forum, 22(2), 119-126.

Bacon, W., & Nash, C. (2012). Playing the media game. Journalism Studies, 13(2), 243-258.

Battellino, R. (2010). Mining Booms and the Australian Economy: Address to The Sydney Institute. Reserve Bank Bulletin, March Quarter, 63-69.

Beach, R. (1999). The impact of intense work schedules on family structure: A case study of a 4:1 fly-in/fly-out schedule. In M. Collis, L. Munro & S. Russell (Eds.), The Australian mining industry: Sociology for a new millennium: Challenges and Prospects (pp. 289-300). Churchill : CeLTS.

Bice, S. J. (2013). No more sun shades, please: good intentions, paternalism and redundancy in Australian mining companies’ corporate social responsibility. Rural Society, 22(2) (this issue).

Brueckner, M., Durey, A., Mayes, R., & Pforr, C. (2013). The mining boom and Western Australia’s changing landscape: towards sustainability or business as usual? Rural Society, 22(2) (this issue).

Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics. (2012). Mining Industry Major Projects – April 2012. Canberra: Australian Government.

Carrington, K., & Pereira, M. (2011). Assessing the social impacts of the resources boom on rural communities. Rural Society, 21(1), 2-20.

Cheshire, L. (2010). A corporate responsibility? The constitution of fly-in, fly-out mining companies as governance partners in remote, mine-affected localities. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(1), 12-20.

Cheshire, L., Everingham, J., & Pattenden, C. (2011). Examining Corporate-sector Involvement in the Governance of Selected Mining-intensive Regions in Australia. Australian Geographer, 42(2), 123-138.

Corden, W. M. (1984). Booming sector and Dutch Disease economics: survey and consolidation. Oxford Economic Papers, 36(3), 359-380.

Dawson, D., & Ferguson, S. A. (2013). Untangling the parliamentary inquiry into FIFO practices in Australia: An extra serving of the facts please and go easy on the rhetoric. Rural Society, 22(2) (this issue).

Duus, S. (2013). Coal Contestations: taking a long, broad view. Rural Society, 22(2) (this issue).

Franks, D. M., Brereton, D., & Moran, C. J. (2010). Managing the Cumulative Impacts of Coal Mining on Regional Communities and Environments in Australia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. Special Issue: Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management, 28(4), 299-312.

Franks, D. M., Brereton, D., & Moran, C. J. (2011). Cumulative social impacts. In F. Vanclay and A. M. Esteves (Eds.), New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Advances (pp. 202-220). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Gallegos, D. (2005). Aeroplanes always come back: Fly-in fly-out employment: managing the parenting transitions. Perth: CSCR Murdoch University.

Greasley, D., & Oxley, L. (1998). A Tale of Two Dominions: Comparing the Macroeconomic Records of Australia and Canada since 1870. The Economic History Review, 51(2), 294-318.

Gregory, R. G. (2012). Living standards, terms of trade and foreign ownership: reflections on the Australian mining boom. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 56(2), 171-200.

Greer, L., Tabert, S., & Lockie, S. (2011, December). Food, coal or gas? Community action, land-use conflict and procedural fairness in the Surat Basin, Queensland. Paper presented at the Agri-Food XVIII: Sustainabilities, justice and agriculture in the Asia-Pacific Region Conference, Australian National University, Canberra.

Harvie, C., & Van Hoa, T. (1994). Terms of trade shocks and macroeconomic adjustment in a resource exporting economy: The case of Australia. Resources Policy, 20(2), 101-112.

Hajkowicz, S. A., Heyenga, S., & Moffat, K. (2011). The relationship between mining and socio-economic well being in Australia's regions. Resources Policy, 36(1), 30-38.

Haslam McKenzie, F., Phillips, R., Rowley, S., Brereton, D., & Birdsall-Jones, C. (2009). Housing market dynamics in resource boom towns. Perth: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Haslam McKenzie, F. (2011). Fly-in fly-out: The challenges of transient populations in rural landscapes. In G. Luck, D. Race & R. Black (Eds.), Demographic Change in Rural Landscapes: What Does it Mean for Society and the Environment? (pp. 353-374). London: Springer (Landscape Series).

Haslam McKenzie, F., Rolfe, J., Hoath, A., Buckley, A., & Greer, L. (2012). Implications on regional development of long distance commuting associated with mining activities. Brisbane: CSIRO Minerals Down Under Flagship.

Houghton, D. S. (1993). Long-distance commuting: a new approach to mining in Australia. Geographical Journal, 159(3), 281-290.

House of Representatives (2012). Inquiry into the use of ‘fly-in, fly-out’ (FIFO) workforce practices in regional Australia. www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committe es?url=ra/fifodido/index.htm (Accessed 17 October 2012).

Jenkins, H., & Yakovleva, N. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry: Exploring trends in social and environmental disclosure. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(3-4), 271-284.

Kelton, G. (2012, 23 August). BHP Billiton's decision won't be covered by tax hike says SA Premier Jay Weatherill. Herald Sun. Retrieved from www.news.com.au.

Ker, P., & Yeates, C. (2012, 23 August). Olympic Dam on hold as boom peaks. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from www.smh.com.au.

Kinnaman, T. C. (2011). The economic impact of shale gas extraction: A review of existing studies. Ecological Economics, 70(7), 1243-1249.

Komesaroff, M. (2012, 25 May). One metal's mettle: the truth about our two-speed economy. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from www.smh.com.au.

La Croix, S. J. (1992). Property rights and institutional change during Australia's gold rush. Explorations in Economic History, 29(2), 204-227.

Langkamp, P. J. (1985). Potential conflict between the coal and arable land resources in Australia: a case for corporate responsiveness. Environmental Management, 9(1), 49-60.

Maddock, R., & McLean, I. (1984). Supply-Side Shocks: The Case of Australian Gold. The Journal of Economic History, 44(04), 1047-1067.

Mason, C., Paxton, G., Parr, J., & Boughen, N. (2010). Charting the territory: Exploring stakeholder reactions to the prospect of seafloor exploration and mining in Australia. Marine Policy, 34(6), 1374-1380.

McManus, P. (2008). Mines, Wines and Thoroughbreds: Towards Regional Sustainability in the Upper Hunter, Australia. Regional Studies, 42(9), 1275-1290.

McManus, P., & Connor, L. (2013). What's mine is mine(d): Contests over marginalisation of rural life in the Upper Hunter, NSW. Rural Society, 22(2) (this issue).

Measham, T. G., Jakku, E., & Williams, R. (2010) Tripartite dialogue in Gunnedah Basin and Liverpool Plains: report on findings from first interviews: Report prepared for Department of Premier and Cabinet. Canberra: CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences.

Mudd, G. M. (2010). The environmental sustainability of mining in Australia: key mega- trends and looming constraints. Resources Policy, 35, 98-115. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2009.12.001

O'Sullivan, M. (2012, 23 August). Qantas cancels jet orders as it posts first loss. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from www.smh.com.au.

New South Wales Department of Primary Industries. (2009). New South Wales Coal Industry Profile, Incorporating Coal Services Pty Limited. Sydney: Department of Primary Industries.

Peck, P., & Sinding, K. (2003). Environmental and social disclosure and data richness in the mining industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(3), 131-146.

Petkova, V., Lockie, S., Rolfe, J., & Ivanova, G. (2009). Mining developments and social impacts on communities: Bowen Basin case studies. Rural Society, 19(3), 211-228.

Petrova S., & Marinova, D. (2013). Social impacts of mining: changes within the local social landscape. Rural Society, 22(2) (this issue).

Pini, B., McDonald, P., & Mayes, R. (2012). Class Contestations and Australia’s Resource Boom: The Emergence of the ‘Cashed-up Bogan’. Sociology, 46(1), 142-158.

Pini, B., Mayes, R., & McDonald, P. (2010). The emotional geography of a mine closure: a study of the Ravensthorpe nickel mine in Western Australia. Social & Cultural Geography, 11(6), 559-574.

Porter, M., Franks, D. M., & Everingham, J. E. (forthcoming). Cultivating Collaboration: Lessons from initiatives to understand and manage cumulative impacts in Australian resource regions. Manuscript submitted to Resources Policy.

Queensland Department of Employment Economic Development and Innovation. (2012). Queensland’s Coal Seam Gas Overview. February. http://mines.industry.qld.gov.au/assets/coal-pdf/new_csg_cc.pdf

Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines. (2012). Queensland’s Coal – mines and advanced projects. Geological Survey of Queensland. July. http://mines.industry.qld.gov.au/assets/coal-pdf/new_coal_min_adv_proj.pdf

Queensland Mines and Energy. (2012). Annual Coal Statistics. 2011 calendar year. http://mines.industry.qld.gov.au/assets/coal-stats-pdf/cyr_2011.pdf

Reeson, A. F., Measham, T.G., & Hosking, K. (2012). Mining activity, income inequality and gender in regional Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 56(2), 302-313.

Richardson, D. (2009). The benefits of the mining boom: Where did they go? Technical Brief No. 3. Canberra: The Australia Institute.

Richardson, D., & Denniss, R. (2011). Mining the truth: The rhetoric and reality of the commodities boom. Canberra: The Australia Institute.

Rio Tinto. (2012). Growing Our Pilbara. Online Resource: http://www.riotintoironore.com/ENG/operations/2160_growing_our_pilbara_– _333_project.asp (Accessed 1 August 2012).

Roe, J. (1974). Marvellous Melbourne: The emergence of an Australian City. Sydney: Hicks Smith & Sons.

Rolfe, J., Miles, B., Lockie, S., & Ivanova, G. (2007). Lessons from the social and economic impacts of the mining boom in the Bowen Basin 2004–2006. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 13(2), 134-153.

Rolfe, J., Lawrence, D.G., Morrish, F., & Ivanova, G. (2010). Minerals and energy resources sector in Queensland economic impact study, report prepared for the Queensland Resources Council. Brisbane: Eidos Institute.

Rolfe, J., Gregg, D., Ivanova, G., Lawrence, R., & Rynne, D. (2011). The economic contribution of the resources sector by regional areas in Queensland. Economic Analysis and Policy, 41(1), 15-36.

Schandl, H., & Darbas, T. (2008). Surat Basin Scoping Study: Enhancing regional and community capacity for mining and energy driven regional economic development. Canberra: CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.

Schandl, H., Poldy, F., Turner, G. M., Measham, T. G., Walker, D. H., & Eisenmenger, N. (2008). Australia's Resource Use Trajectories. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12(5-6), 669- 685.

Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability in Australia. (2008). A good house is hard to find: Housing affordability in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Sibbel, A., Sibbel, J., & Goh, K. (2006). Fly-in, fly-out operations: Strategies for managing employee well-being. Paper presented at the International Mine Management Conference, Melbourne.

Sibbel, A. (2001). The psychosocial well-being of children from fly-in/fly-out mining families. (Unpublished honours thesis, Edith Cowan University, 2001).

Storey, K. (2001). Fly-in/Fly-out and Fly-over: Mining and regional development in Western Australia. Australian Geographer, 32(2), 133-148.

The Australian [editorial]. (2012, 2 June). China and mining boom crucial for future success. The Australian. Retrieved from www.theaustralian.com.au.

Tonts, M. (2010). Labour Market Dynamics in Resource Dependent Regions: an Examination of the Western Australian Goldfields. Geographical Research, 48(2), 148-165.

Tonts, M., Plummer, P., & Lawrie, M. (2012). Socio-economic well-being in Australian mining towns: A comparative analysis. Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 288-301.

Vasek, L., & Packham, B. (2012, 23 August). Julia Gillard says resources growth will continue: PM. The Australian. Retrieved from www.theaustralian.com.au.

Watts, J. (2004). Best of both worlds: seeking a sustainable regional employment solution to fly in – fly out operations in the Pilbara. Karratha: Pilbara Regional Council.

Xstrata Coal. (2011). About the Wandoan Coal Project. Fact Sheet. www.wandoancoal.com.au/EN/PublicationsandMedia/Fact%20sheets/Wandoan%20Coal%2 0Project%20fact%20sheets(2).pdf

Zhu, Y., & McKenna, B. (2012). Legitimating a Chinese takeover of an Australian iconic firm: Revisiting models of media discourse of legitimacy. Discourse & Society, 23(5), 525- 552.

View publication stats