Greens want crackdown on overseas miners

AUSTRALIA'S GREENS PARTY will push for legislation to prevent Australian mining companies from engaging in environmental practices overseas that would be illegal in Australia.

This is a response to the recent legal decision in Papua New Guinea to allow the Chinese owned Ramu nickel mine to dump up to five million tonnes of toxic waste into Astrolabe and Basamuk bays off Madang.

The Greens Party holds the balance of power in Australia's Senate.

Party leader, Senator Bob Brown visited Madang recently to see the affected area and says Australia needs to take action because this legal decision is not just an internal matter for PNG.

“It's a global issue because all our oceans are interlinked,” Senator Brown said.  “The marine heritage, [including] some of the richest eco-systems in the world, belongs to everybody, as well as the unfortunate locals who have tried so hard in the courts to stop five million tonnes of toxic waste being dumped into the ocean eco-system.”

He said last week’s PNG national court decision “simply would not happen in an Australian court and one has to doubt it would happen in a Chinese court. It's a Chinese company of course working on the back of an Australian company which first opened up this venture.

“They're both very happy with the outcome, because they can see the profits coming from the development of the Ramu nickel mine. [But] it's an appalling indictment of modern technology being brought to PNG without the safeguards that you would get in the home countries against this sort of destruction….

“It points again to the need for Australian laws which require corporations from Australia to behave overseas in exactly the same way they would be required to if they were operating here in Australia under Australian law.”

Senator Brown said the Australian government should be legislating to prevent Australian companies operating overseas from treating the environment in other peoples countries in a way that would be illegal in Australia.

“What we have to do set a lead in Australia and not put ourselves at the back of the row and not act in a way which the modern world requires…. We should be setting the pace.”

Senator Brown said when he spoke to government officials in Port Moresby about this particular mine in May, “they seemed very relaxed about the fact that five million tonnes of toxic waste were going to be dumped into the sea canyon to the north of this mine as if somehow or other it was out of sight out of mind, but, of course, it's not going to be.”

Source: Radio Australia

Comments

[Paul Oates]

So what happens if we have to deal with 'national culpability'?

What if the potential poisoning of the ocean floor affects the availability of pelagic fish stocks in the Pacific Ocean (e.g. tuna) that many Pacific countries depend on for food.

The UN been proven to be a paper tiger and can only act if those who have the clout want it to act.

The whaling debate between Japan and Australia is a good example. Contrast that fracas with the pursuit of a boat that fished the rare stocks of Patagonian tooth fish in our part of the Southern Ocean.

Clearly its one law for those pariahs who are from smaller countries with no clout and another law for those larger nations who thumb their noses at us.

The essence of the debate must logically be resolved by those nations who are primarily affected.

Yet we all know that wont happen unless enough people generate enough national political pressure, if and when we have to deal with 'big brother'.

[Peter Kranz]

We rightly get all precious about an Australian having sex with a 16-year old in Vanuatu and hound the man from pillar to post, but turn a blind eye to dumping millions of tons of mine waste on a pristine tropical habitat which could impact the lives of thousands for generations.

Double standards?

[Peter Kranz]

I've just realised I'm a criminal. I paid 20 kina to a PNG cop at Hohola who otherwise wouldn't let me past a roadblock.

[Peter Kranz]

Craige - The Australian government official advice is -

"When you are overseas, be aware that local laws and penalties, including ones that appear harsh by Australian standards, do apply to you. Learn as much as you can about the laws of the countries you will visit."

And -

"Some Australian criminal laws, such as those relating to money laundering, bribery of foreign public officials, terrorism, child pornography, and child sex tourism, apply to Australians overseas. Australians who commit these offences while overseas may be prosecuted in Australia."

Seems to me Bob was simply extended these provisions to cover mining companies whose actions would be illegal in Australia. If bribing foreign officials overseas is illegal, why not dumping toxic mine waste?

[Craige Brown]

So where does individual country sovereignty start and stop and where does the responsibility of citizens of one country to adhere to the laws of another?

Should Australia be trying the Bali nine instead of Indonesia - after all drug trafficking is illegal in Austalia too, how about Palfreyman in Bulgaria convicted of murder?

As to starting a DSTP off Sydney, just try starting a tourist development in Tasmania - ask Dick Smith about his last experience there.

[Peter Kranz]

Many countries claim the right to legislate against the actions of their individuals and companies in other countries - whether this is good or bad is another issue.

E.g., you can't import Cuban cigars or Kinder Surprise toy eggs into the US. Moti was prosecuted in Australia for allegations made in another country.

In fact the jurisdiction of Australian law overseas is made clear on the front of your passport.

Union Carbide, now owned by Dow Chemicals, was ordered by the US Supreme Court to provide some assistance to the victims of the Bhopal disaster in India (sadly too little too late).

Extending this to mining companies is just a logical progression. Why can an Australian company breach environmental regulations that would apply in Australia just because it operates in another country?

Is this colonialism or the application of basic human rights to a global theatre?

I would say it is colonialism in the opposite direction - companies think they can get away with it, just because their operations are in another jurisdiction.

Such extra-territorial laws go back to the abolition of slavery and before.

Try starting a DSTP operation by a PNG mining company off the coast of Sydney!

[Craige Brown]

So to summarise Brown: PNG and its judical system is incapable of dealing with these issues so Austalia must pass laws to overide the lack of ability in PNG.

Isn't that a bit like colonialism used to work?