• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Ethical obligations of the Beaconsfield miners

by Simon Longstaff

No amount of money is ever likely to compensate for the terrors endured by the rescued Beaconsfield miners, Todd Russell and Brant Webb. However, their story of improbable survival has, for the time being, become a commodity of considerable value. The result is that Todd and Brant are now blessed (or perhaps cursed) with a brief burst of celebrity and an unexpected wad of cash. Few, if any, will begrudge them the windfall.

That said, some people (no doubt including the rescued pair themselves) have been turning their mind to the question of whether or not the rescued miners have any obligation to share their new fortune with their rescuers or the widow and family of their dead comrade, Larry Knight.

It should be stated that, in most circumstances, talk of an obligation to share would be quite inappropriate. For example, while it is true that Russell and Webb only have a story to tell as a result of the brave deeds of the mine rescue team, those rescuers employed their skills for a host of reasons that had nothing to do with the possibility of reward. To link money to their achievement would be to miss the point, insult the men and cheapen the significance of their contribution. The rescuers performed their role out of affection for their colleagues and in line with a code of reciprocal obligation in which each miner works to guarantee and preserve the safety of all.

The situation is the same with the Knight family. The tragic death of Larry was caused by the same rock fall that trapped Russell and Webb. None of the men had a hand in causing the accident – and pure luck determined who survived or perished. In a different time and a different place, the survivors would have been lucky to escape with their lives and the shirts on their back. In those days, rescued miners were forced straight back to work just to keep the food on the family table and therefore had no personal capacity to help others affected by the accident.

Again, the mining community has recognised that there is a collective, mutual obligation to honour the dead by caring for the living. That is the significance of the Beaconsfield Miners Family Support Fund which has money that could be used to assist the Knight family long after the compensation monies run out.

So, in normal cases, it would be quite unfair of anyone to suggest that Brant Webb and Todd Russell have any obligation to share money that has come to them as a consequence of their ordeal. Some might think it a noble thing to do – but that would be an act of altruism rather than obligation.

What complicates this particular case is the fact that the rescued miners made certain commitments when they appeared on The Footy Show soon after their return to the surface. For example, Todd said, “If we can do anything Jacquie, you will not go without”. This was a generous and heartfelt offer that did not need to be made. However, it was – and in that instant a new obligation was created in the same way any promise gives rise to an obligation. On the other hand, we should not discount the possibility that the promise was made in an unguarded moment of deep emotion by men who were in no steady state of mind.

If that was the context in which the very public promise was made, then it would be hardly fair to hold Todd and Brant accountable. If, on the other hand, they really meant what they said, then it could be argued that they need to hold at least part of their money in trust for the benefit of Jacquie Knight and her family – if ever they need assistance.

In summary, Russell and Webb have no obligations other than those they freely create for themselves. To share some of the unexpected benefits arising from their ordeal would be, for their part, a pure act of generosity.

discuss this article

---