Have mining job figures been inflated to justify reef destruction?

MINING job figures being spruiked to justify new developments that put the Great Barrier Reef at risk have been referred to the ACCC.

A worker climbs a ladder to enter the cab of a large ore moving truck at the Telfer Mine in the Pilbara region of Western Aus...

ONE of the biggest selling points driving the development of Australia’s largest coal mine is under attack, with the ACCC being asked to investigate whether the project will actually create the number of jobs it says it will.

The Australia Institute has looked into the estimated job creation figures for four mines proposed in the Galilee Basin, including the controversial Carmichael mine, which require the expansion of the port at Abbot Point and could impact the Great Barrier Reef.

Its report suggests only a third of the extra 27,000 jobs that have been spruiked by the Queensland Government, could be on offer in 2030. This is because when it comes to direct jobs, mining companies estimate that only 9,280 jobs will be created.

The Australia Institute, a left-leaning think tank based in Canberra, says the higher figure is based on a “disputed” model that does not include the loss of jobs in other industries such as manufacturing.

“The whole justification for this project has been job creation claims, but Queensland politicans are using the claims regardless, backed by TV ads repeating the false figures,” Australia Institute executive director Dr Richard Denniss said.

The report has prompted activist group GetUp! and Environmental Justice Australia to lodge a complaint with the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) that Adani, the company behind the Carmichael development, and the Newman Government have misled the public and investors about the employment benefits of the proposed mine.

The job benefits of the mining project have been widely promoted, including in a November 17 statement from state Planning Minister Jeff Seeney, announcing that the government would be prepared to invest in building rail, port and other infrastructure needed to open up the Galilee Basin. It noted: “Premier Campbell Newman said that the State Government would work with resource companies to make strategic investments that could create up to 28,000 new Queensland jobs.”

A spokeswoman for the Newman Government said job figures had been drawn from the Environment Impact Statements for approved mines.

In its statement Adani has predicted that its project alone would create about 10,000 new jobs in Queensland. However, only 3,500 of these would be direct jobs.

A spokesman for Adani told news.com.au that he thought the ACCC complaint was a “desperate” act.

“This is an increasingly desperate and hysterical activist-driven attempt to deny our state the significant and lasting benefits that projects like Adani’s bring to Queensland,” the Adani spokesman said.

“Three days out from an election, we’ve got southerners who aren’t on the ballot paper running an anti-jobs, anti-mining and anti-facts scare campaign for the Greens.

“These activists in Canberra and Sydney will say and do anything to prevent the 10,000 jobs, and $22 billion in taxes and royalties our projects will deliver into frontline services in our state from going ahead.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLlPwFUdR0w

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE FIGURES?

While the Institute’s report looked at four mines including Alpha, Kevin’s Corner and China First, the ACCC complaint is limited to Carmichael mine, which features the biggest gap between direct jobs and those created indirectly in other industries.

Report author Rob Campbell told news.com.au that each mine used different modelling to calculate the benefits to Queensland employment, but generally each result was based on the amount of money spent on the project.

The input/output model used by all of the mines except China First, has been criticised as “biased” by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, “abused” by the Productivity Commission and “deficient” by the NSW Land and Environment Court.

This is because the model always overstates employment impacts.

For example, the model usually predicts a large increase in manufacturing jobs due to increased mining spending on machinery and equipment but ABS data shows these increases don’t occur.

In Queensland, despite unprecedented levels of mining investment since 2008, the number of manufacturing jobs have barely changed, if anything it has trended downwards. Agriculture has seen a decline of 28 per cent, with 21,000 jobs lost since 2010.

“The reason manufacturing employment has not changed with mining investment is that while some parts of the manufacturing industry benefit from mining spending, others are negatively affected,” the report notes.

As manufacturers compete for workers, wages also rise. Workers will then move from negatively impacted areas of the industry to the more thriving areas.

“The negatively affected parts may take on new staff, or they might reduce employment, close down or delay their operations. The data shows that few new staff have entered the sector,” the report states.

Dr Denniss also pointed to other pressures which meant new coal projects couldn’t be guaranteed.

“We’ve recently seen a drop in coal prices and a Galilee Basin proponent going into administration.

“Even as a commercial investment this project is risky, with Macquarie Bank describing the development of the Galilee Basin as ‘ignoring conventional economics’.”

Dr Denniss said both Labor and the LNP had claimed to support the Queensland agriculture and tourism industries, which are both bigger employers than the mining sector.

“The Galilee Basin projects directly conflict with farmers’ interests and risk irreversible damage to the state’s environmental assets,” he said.

According to the Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report, in 2011-12, the reef contributed an estimated $5.6 million to the Australian economy and supported the jobs of 69,000 people. However, the total economic value has not yet been calculated as most ecosystem services of the reef have not been determined.

Originally published as Have mining job figures been inflated to justify reef destruction?