Opinion1 6 O c t o b e r 1 7 , 2 0 1 2 • w w w . n i t . c o m . a uOpinion

By Gerry Georgatos, award winning investigative journalist, National Indigenous Times West Australian reporter

Part 2 of a four part series.To many supporters of genuine Aboriginal

land rights the Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation are transcending into inspiration, seen as fearless in the pursuit of what they understand as what is right and what is good. They stand arguing the collective interests of their peoples – increasingly they are seen as the modern day Vincent Lingiari and the Gurindji peoples verse the Vestey Corporation – and they stand on the Australian landscape largely unheralded today however tomorrow their formidable campaign, their tenacity and resilience may change Aboriginal land rights like few expected and enhance Native Title and Aboriginal legal rights in the ways many had aspired to before the High Court effectively watered down the much heralded and signifi cant Mabo decision and before Native Title rights were further eroded by Paul Keating’s Government and then completely buggered by John Howard’s Government.

The Yindjibarndi have a promise – “We will work to keep our Yindjibarndi spirit strong – to be true to our Elders and Country – we will stand strong for fair mining agreements that will give Yindjibarndi control of what is happening to our old people’s Ngurra – and bring some good benefi t to our people.”

The Yindjibarndi have been able to negotiate agreeably with multinational giant Rio Tinto – an organisation that has also dropped $150 million into wide ranging community programs in working to put behind a history of rapacious ventures. However, the Yindjibarndi and the Fortescue Metals Group (FMG) have endured a hostile divide that is now a feud and of bitter twists and turns which has landed both parties in the trespass of the Courts. The Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation (YAC) have stated their position, in that they will not sell out their people for less than what they believe they are nominally entitled to. They are after industry standard agreements and not standover agreements. Many of their peoples still sting impoverished having languished in the impost of various oppression and disenfranchisement for one generation after another – and it is their contemporaneous understanding that they should not have to settle for less than what is their due.

What is it that drives Fortescue to offer as little as it can to the Yindjibarndi peoples of the Pilbara? – remembering that the Pilbara is the heartland of Australia’s mining boom.

The Yindjibarndi peoples, and their spokesperson, Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation CEO Michael Woodley are beyond upset and the sheer anguish with FMG. They are prepared to stand up to the mining giant and they have been doing so like few others. The YAC, like those of the Goolarabooloo are standing solid in their belief that they to challenge Goliath is not forlorn. In many ways the Elders Phillip and Joseph Roe and Elder Richard Hunter of the Goolarabooloo, and Michael Woodley and the Yindjibarndi peoples are our contemporary Vincent Lingiari. The Vestey Corporation has been taken on once again and one must remember the 1966 Walk Off by Lingiari and his peoples eventually reached the highest offi ces in the nation.The issues that covet the ordeal between the YAC and the FMG are of such blight that it is likely that in time the highest offi ces in the nation may well have to speak up and then act –at this time it appears clear to those well versed in the issues that a genuinely independent inquiry is necessary – a Royal Commission. There are not many Aboriginal Organisations, or any organisations in general f or that matter which have stood their ground against as belligerently it would appear as the YAC have for what they perceive as outright wrongs, and demanded what is right is what should be done. However huge the drain on their fi nancial resources the YAC decided to follow the will of the majority of their people and fi ght for what is right.

Since the 8,100 words in the fi rst part of this feature - in edition 281 of September 12, 2012 - on the Yindjibarndi and the FMG divide more news has come to the light of day.

Mr Woodley said his peoples have been devastated that Yindjibarndi heritage has been smashed into oblivion by the FMG mining company. FMG has admitted to the destruction of the historical sites in the vicinity of the Solomon Hub mining project.

“Our Elders are devastated,” said Mr Woodley.

The YAC and the FMG have been tussling in a long bitter feud over land use agreements for mining rights on Yindjibarndi country. In late 2010 in a surprise twist by FMG in order to allegedly circumvent the long standing YAC altogether the FMG started dealing with the smaller breakaway group the Wirlu-murra who within a moment’s notice formed themselves into an organisation and called themselves the bugle of the people.

The Wirlu-murra have slipped the radar of most news media as journalists have instead focused on the divide between YAC and FMG rather than on the Wirlu-murra. I believe the focus should be on the Wirlu-murra, and a Royal Commission should focus a swathe of its objectives on how this organisation came into existence, and why and what is its state of affairs at this time.

It riles the YAC and many Yindjibarndi that the Wirlu-murra are referred to as ‘breakaway’ as if to impute even the fl icker of legitimacy.

The YAC have agreements with other miners and investors including Rio Tinto however FMG’s offers “short-changes the Yindjibarndi peoples when compared to Rio Tinto’s offers,” said Mr Woodley.

“Why does FMG want to offer the Yindjibarndi what is below the industry standard, below what everyone is offering?”

Nearly one year ago the YAC claimed that historical and sacred sites had been damaged however FMG refuted the claims – and even said the claims are “offensive.”

On November 7, FMG put out a press release stating,“Michael Woodley’s allegations that Fortescue has damaged sacred sites are untrue.” It went further, in that FMG “categorically rejects offensive claims that it is operating unlawfully regarding Aboriginal heritage sites at its Solomon Hub project.”

However Mr Woodley said the YAC had recently acquired documents under the Freedom of Information Act, evidencing that two heritage sites were destroyed and a third was damaged by earth moving equipment.

“These documents prove that all along FMG were in fact destroying and damaging sites,” he said. Documents released by the Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) reveal that the Aboriginal Cultural Materials Committee (ACMC) put in a request for a ground inspection at Solomon to resolve the issues around the sites. They came back with the discovery of two sites destroyed and another damaged and leaving DIA “with no possibility of further assessment” in terms of the heritage value of these sites.

Mr Woodley said the exposing of FMG was assisted by archaeologist Sue Singleton of Eureka Heritage who turned whistleblower and said FMG had coerced her into removing expert ethnographic information from a report that FMG “considered prejudicial.” This is reminiscent of Woodside caught out in recent weeks requesting of the WA Government to remove expert advice regarding heritage value

assessments at James Price Point – between both FMG and Woodside exposing that it is the mining companies who are making a mockery of the Aboriginal Heritage Act and Native Title.

“We have no doubt that many other sites have been destroyed or damaged, because the heritage protection system in WA is wide open to abuse,” said Mr Woodley.

Cornered, FMG admitted the events however said it had been provided permits on mistaken information.

FMG stated, “Fortescue does not deny that the impacting works were undertaken pursuant to, and in accordance with, permits issued by Fortescue. Those permits were issued on the basis of (incorrect) information provided by Rebecca Yit of Alpha Archaeology.”

“They should have admitted what they did in November last year when we said that the destruction had occurred,” said Mr Woodley.

“Despite their claims of mistaken information, FMG should be held to account.”

“At the end of the day, FMG is responsible for the requirements that the department gives them under these permits,” said Mr Woodley.

“They should not be afforded impunity and should also pursued on under reporting of our sites.”

He said these sites were important and “actually established the connection to Yindjibarndi peoples to their country.”

“What makes them sacred is that they are part of the Traditional Ceremonies that we do when we put our young people through initiation,” said Mr Woodley.

In a statement the FMG claimed that a consultant from the fi rm Alpha Archaeology “declassifi ed” the sites. However the Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) has also done little to ensure protections and has depended on dubious reporting. The consultant from Alpha is no longer with the fi rm.

Mr Woodley said his peoples are hurt by the destruction and what it took to expose it and corner FMG and the State Government agencies which are supposed to work as both check and balance. He said his peoples are worried that the push by FMG for a “low cost” Solomon Firetails project will bring on a “heritage holocaust as FMG scrambles for cash fl ow to weather the free-fall in iron ore prices.”

He said the YAC and his peoples are disappointed in the State Government and DIA and the ACMC who did not notify the YAC of the destruction once they had confi rmed it. Mr Woodley slammed Indigenous Affairs Minister Peter Collier, who he describes “as a self-professed friend of Andrew Forrest”in failing to protect the rightful interests of his peoples and the sacred sites and what they mean to cultural and historical identity.

“While it is not surprising that a maverick company like FMG is so contemptuous of

the Aboriginal Heritage Act, and in so much rush to push through its developments, it is a disgrace that a Minister of the Crown and a department head have abandoned our heritage to corporate greed.”

“They have betrayed the confi dence of the people of this State and shown themselves to be unfi t for offi ce,” said Mr Woodley.

“The Aboriginal people of Western Australia should be horrifi ed that Mr Collier is now in charge of reviewing the Aboriginal Heritage Act. On his performance to date we can expect the gutting of an already weak Act. It spells more heartbreak for our people.”

“What the YAC have sought from FMG, in line with what they are achieving from Rio Tinto and others, is a mere half a per cent of all future royalties from its mining on Yindjibarndi country to use for the provision of housing, education, employment of Yindjibarndi peoples – however the FMG have baulked at this.

“It is industry standards what we have asked. It is what the Rio Tintos of the world, the BHPs offer,” said Mr Woodley.

“This is our position on behalf of our people, and we are not going to settle for anything less.”

In respect to the destruction of the sites DIA stated it sought advice from the State Solicitor however surprise, surprise it was found “that it was not in the public interest to prosecute FMG.”

DIA concluded there was insuffi cient evidence to mount a successful prosecution because of the “confl icting heritage advice.”

The National Indigenous Times contacted FMG for their impression of the Yindjibarndi claims that sacred sites had been destroyed and foul play was it work in keeping it at bay.

A spokesperson responded, “Fortescue has 4,000 declared Aboriginal heritage sites across its operations, with varying degrees of heritage signifi cance. In addition to employing its own team of heritage professionals, Fortescue engages independent expert archaeological fi rms to assist the company meet its obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act.”

“During November 2011 contractors engaged in Fortescue mining operations disturbed areas that had been declassifi ed as Aboriginal sites by an independent expert archaeological fi rm.”

“While the disturbed areas have since been confi rmed to be sites of low archaeological signifi cance, Fortescue takes its obligations to protect Aboriginal heritage very seriously and has taken steps to minimise the risk of similar events occurring again.”

“This matter has been formally and comprehensively investigated by the Department of Indigenous Affairs, which advised Fortescue that no further action would be taken.”

The FMG spokesperson said of the

The story of David& Goliath: The Yindjibarndi and FMG

The late Yindjibarndi Elder Ned Mayabungu Cheedy seated with Michael Woodley at a meeting with FMG last year. File image

w w w . n i t . c o m . a u • O c t o b e r 1 7 , 2 0 1 2 1 7Opinion

Yindjibarndi claims, “(that) this another example of the Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation and Michael Woodley distorting the facts to suit their own agenda.”

“While Fortescue always works with Traditional Owners, including Yindjibarndi Elders, who have participated in heritage surveys, YAC continues to refuse to participate in Fortescue heritage identifi cation and protection processes.”

THE TANGLED WEBThe YAC argue the web weaved is one of

deceit, and what a tangled web that has been weaved. Capturing some of this even if only in snippets builds a window – Lawyer, Kerry Savas, who was with Corser & Corser, and worked closely with the Wirlu-murra group for 18 months, has made a sworn statement in which he says that an individual who had been closely associated with the FMG is directing the Wirlu-murra Aboriginal Corporation so that its decisions favour FMG rather than the Yindjibarndi people. A scanned copy of the affi davit is in the possession of The NIT.

In Part Three of this feature will be much more withheld from this contribution to our readers in order to allow all parties rights of reply and our readers context, and this is how all news media should function – with enough information, where permissible, for the readers to make up their minds, not to have their thinking made for them. Apparently the individual was a contracted consultant with the FMG and resigned immediately to assist the Wirlu-murra. Is this transfer of personnel, even if inadvertent, between companies not questionable and not improper? The call for a Royal Commission gains more validity with each unanswered question.

Mr Savas said that this individual told him “FMG always gets its land access agreements signed one way or another” – by using an“inside man” to work “hands-on” with claimant groups to “win their hearts and minds.” FMG has a right of reply to this and this will be included at length in the ensuing article.

Mr Savas said the individual told him he resigned from FMG and to work as a consultant with the Wirlu-murra, for the sake of appearances, so he could say he was not an FMG employee, and so that FMG would not be criticised for interfering in an Aboriginal group.” Whether this is true or not, it has been on the public record and therefore the aspersions need to be addressed for the public confi dence – and only a Royal Commission can secure adequate inquiry and the public confi dence.

Mr Savas said he heard and saw this individual communicating regularly by phone and email with FMG’s senior staff and claims the infl uential Wirlu-murra consultant took instructions from these FMG executives. Both the FMG and the Wirlu-murra will have rights of replies included in the ensuing feature. The National Indigenous Times has also spoken with an individual from the Wirlu-murra and confi dentially and we will protect the source where possible, who despite remaining supportive of the Wirlu-murra as a legitimate body in representing Yindjibarndi rights in negotiations with the FMG is nevertheless disturbed by what this individual describes as an extensive reach and infl uence by the FMG into the Wirlu-murra – however more of this shall be unfolded in the next part subsequent rights of reply from the Wirlu-murra and the FMG.

Mr Savas has made the powerful claim that he heard a certain individual within the Wirlu-murra tell the Wirlu-murra directors they should not try to reconcile with YAC “because you’re going to thump them in the Courts.”

Mr Woodley said that the FMG is trying to beat the Yindjibarndi “by using division, facilitating the fi ghting in our community with a pouring of money for lawyers. With this money that the Wirlu-murra are getting from FMG they are attacking and trying to break the YAC, and in both Courts; the Supreme Court and the Federal Court.”

In 2011, the Wirlu-murra lawyers commenced a legal action in the Supreme Court on behalf of Aileen Sandy, Sylvia Allen and Mavis Pat. Ms Pat would later recant and withdraw her membership from the Wirlu-murra and provide the Court with an affi davit that she did not know what she was signing when initially joining the Wirlu-murra. Ms Pat has called for peace and is in support of the YAC.

With this Supreme Court action the

Wirlu-murra accused the YAC of misusing Yindjibarndi monies. “This accusation about YAC was a lie,” said Mr Woodley.

“They told this lie because they wanted to shut down YAC, because YAC would not sign the lowest possible denominator agreement with the FMG.”

Mr Woodley said this accusation had already been investigated by the Offi ce of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC), who found that there was ‘no evidence of fraudulent transactions’.

The Federal Court course by the Wirlu-murra lawyers also sought to diminish the YAC – a section 66B action seeking to remove YAC claimants from the negotiation process with FMG. “Only because we would not agree to sign the FMG agreement,” said Mr Woodley. The action sought to remove the late Elder Ned Mayabungu Cheedy, Thomas Jacob, Allum Cheedy and Michael Woodley.

YAC said it has been left a legacy in its community that should belong to a bygone era. They describe FMG as the origin of discontent within the community, and in pitting Yindjibarndi against Yindjibarndi. “The personal, hands-on touch that (name deleted) brings to his work in Roebourne is in the style of (this individual’s) former associate and FMG boss, Andrew Forrest.”

“Mr Forrest’s dealings with A b o r i g i n a l peoples in the Goldfi elds ended in a Court dispute over allegedly unpaid royalties. G o l d f i e l d s woman, Maria M e r e d i t h , alleged Mr Forrest went out of his way to woo individual claim groups, i n c l u d i n g attending their church, learning their hymns and visiting people at home and in hospital.”

Ms Meredith said, “That man has a lot to answer for. Our community b e c a m e completely divided. We could have used Native Title to our advantage had we all stuck together.” The National Indigenous Times will provide a right of reply to all parties – the FMG will have a genuine opportunity to comment freely if it wants it.

THE WIRLU-MURRAThe National Indigenous Times in coming

editions will reveal various questions that are being posed to the Wirlu-murra and to FMG, and to Government. Nevertheless, it would be fair to write that the manifest of this organisation and its engagement with the whole negotiation process at the expense of the long standing YAC is without any doubt the whole story, one way or another.

The West Australian’s reporter, Steve Pennells, wrote in the Agenda section of the Weekend West on April 23-24 2011 of FMG’s attack on the Yindjibarndi peoples. “No-one in Roebourne likes to talk about the money, no least Fortescue, which refuses to say how much it has handed out since it began negotiations to mine the Yindjibarndi sites to expand its Solomon Hub project.”

“But Agenda has confi rmed that at least $80,000 of it went into a meeting last month, paying about 160 people $500 each to sit for 2 ½ hours and vote on the future of their land, a vote which swung,” wrote Mr Pennells.

“Critically though, tens of thousands of it is being used to prop up that meeting’s organisers – a sympathetic splinter group of locals – and bankroll their battle against the Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation, the group that was negotiating with Fortescue but is now trying to stall the miner’s efforts to dig up a 30km stretch of iron ore beneath Yindjibarndi land.”

“…the company turned its back on a hostile corporation and began to negotiate with, and fund, a splinter group of the Yindjibarndi called Wirlu-murra, pumping an initial $107,000 into the new group…today’s

revelation that $80,000 was paid to people who sat and voted clouds an issue which, on paper at least, had been going Fortescue’s way. The $500 payments made to the Wirlu-murra group to 160 people who voted – ostensibly for expenses but without any requirements for receipts – sit uneasily with Fortescue’s public statements that the company does not believe in handouts. When pushed on the money, Fortescue admits to giving $107,000 to Wirlu-murra, which was put in a trust fund administered by its lawyer and Native Title veteran, Ronald Bower, under the direction of Wirlu-murra,” wrote Mr Pennells.

“It was used by the group to pay the $500 ‘sitting fees’ at the March meeting and hire a bus to drive people from Carnarvon to attend. It is also used pay Bower’s fees, those of a second lawyer and the group’s anthropologist (name deleted), who was working for Fortescue until last year, when he quit to become a consultant. He was then hired by Wirlu-murra.” The anthropologist is accomplished and has made several strong contributions to his science and a short bio will be included in the ensuing feature article.

“The company says it has also given more to Wirlu-murra and expects future payments to be made, but will not say how much. It also defends sitting fees arguing they had

found to be ‘an effective way of generating e n g a g e m e n t with Aboriginal groups’. But it maintains that it has only provided funding to the fl edgling W i r l u - m u r r a group and that any decisions on how it is used, including sitting fees, is a decision for the Wirlu-murra.”

Mr Pennells also wrote, “The money has complicated an already very complex issue. Native Title legislation does not require a mining company to fund

any Aboriginal groups during negotiations but payments have become standard industry practice, blurring the line between what can be considered legitimate expenses and ‘incentive’.”

“There is no doubt that the relationship between Fortescue and Wirlu-murra is close. When Agenda arrived in Roebourne last week, Mr Bower and (name deleted) were sitting with Wirlu-murra’s leader Allery Sandy, watching a rough edit of the group’s response to Mr Woodley’s March 16 video, offering to show it to Agenda but then withdrawing the offer after Mr Gallagher called Fortescue to check with them.”

“And despite denials by Wirlu-murra, it was later revealed Fortescue had arranged, coordinated and managed the release of the group’s response.”

“Mr Bower was also taking regular calls from Fortescue and was briefed on details of an Agenda interview with Fortescue minutes after it took place.”

“It is this close relationship that Mr Woodley claims is proof Wirlu-murra is being used.”

Given time, and given the raising of awareness on the merit of some of the dividing issues, there is little doubt that legitimately demarcated inquiries will have to take place in the impost of relationships that are the Wirlu-murra and the FMG. It is of signifi cance to note, that (name deleted), the consulting anthropologist to the Wirlu-murra faction, which he/she helped establish in his/her previous role as FMG Aboriginal land access manager, is the spouse of a former State Manager of the National Title Tribunal, and who is the parent of an FMG heritage manager. Prior to any publication of names all parties will be allowed adequate time for rights of reply.

The unnamed consultant worked in-house for FMG for fi ve years. He/she was fi rst

employed in FMG’s heritage team as an anthropologist in 2005. He/she rose to the level of Aboriginal Access and Opportunity Manager in FMG’s Land Access Division. His/her job was to negotiate with Traditional Owners the signing off on Land Access agreements for FMG – and hence manage relations with Aboriginal stakeholders. Mr Woodley said that in mid-2010 at the time of YAC refusing to sign the agreement FMG was offering, the anthropologist/consultant was sent to Roebourne to set up an FMG offi ce to support the Wirlu-murra.

In December 2010, when FMG were no closer to securing an agreement with YAC, the unnamed person suddenly resigned from FMG and within a week was working for the newly born Wirlu-murra Aboriginal Corporation.

Mr Woodley often wonders, as do many others, ‘Why has the State Government not stepped in?’

WHAT THE YAC SAYS OF FMG’S DEALINGS AND DOUBLE-DEALINGS

Mr Woodley says that to have fairness for all that this must be preceded by a fair system in place, underlain by rules ensuring consistency and standards. YAC point out to a litany of ‘unhappy deals’involving FMG and Aboriginal peoples.

“An example of how FMG has caused trouble in other Traditional Owner groups happened when FMG pushed through an agreement covering 40,000 square kilometres of Nyiyaparli contry. A rush deal was signed in Perth in August 2005 without consultation with the broader Nyiyaparli claimant group. This deal was sealed by an immediate payment of $80,000 to two Elders who were fl own to Perth for the meeting, which was set up by their community administrator (name deleted)” Once again The National Indigenous Times is providing adequate opportunity to parties in question for rights of reply.

The individual is alleged to have later said, “There was some faults with FMG. They said ‘you can walk out with money or you can walk out with nothing.’”

The YAC say this is the exactly the same line FMG pushed in the Yindjibarndi community, by convincing some of the community that they will lose all entitlements to compensation if they did not take FMG’s offer.

“Just days after signing, Nyiyaparli Elders complained that they did not understand what they signed. They said the terms of the agreement were quite different from what they thought, and instructed the Land Council to stop the agreement.”

“Two weeks later a proper meeting of Nyiyaparli people wanted the FMG agreement documents torn up.”

“FMG’s strategy in their push to get their deal signed by the Nyiyarli, was to bring in another team of lawyers to go against the lawyers representing the Nyiyaparli people. The job of the FMG-paid laywers was to work through (name withheld) ‘who was on the company’s side’, to win across the ‘hearts and minds’ of Nyiyaparli people so that they sign off on the FMG agreement. This strategy of paying lawyers to support breakaway groups that support FMG is exactly what FMG has done with Yindjibarndi.”

“All Yindjibarndi should ask, what is the role of these lawyers that are working for Wirlu-murra and being paid for by FMG?”

“Whose interests are they serving?”“The role of (name withheld) with

Nyiyaparli, and his cosy ‘on-side’ relationship with FMG is a lesson for Yindjibarndi. (Name withheld) was fi nally sacked by Karlka Nyiyaparli Aboriginal Corporation in May 2011 following investigations that found he did not act in the best interests of Karlka and its members when using Karlka’s money.”

“After helping FMG with their ‘negotiations’ with the Nyiyaparli, it is no surprise that FMG paid (this individual’s) private business $80,000 for co-ordinating heritage surveys – instead of paying through the Karlka Nyiyaparli Aboriginal Corporation.”

Simon Hawkins, CEO of the Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation, said it was “very disappointing to hear that FMG is allegedly making this kind of special payments… It is contrary to all of the work that has been done over many years to establish transparent processes.”

The YAC also provide the example of the Jidi Jidi Aboriginal Corporation.

“The Jidi Jidi came to grief with FMG over

The story of David& Goliath: The Yindjibarndi and FMG

Andrew Forrest, FMG’s non-executive Chairman. File image

Opinion1 8 O c t o b e r 1 7 , 2 0 1 2 • w w w . n i t . c o m . a uOpinionthe terms of a heritage survey.”

Native Title holder and Jidi Jidi director Georgina Riley said, “We had just reached agreement on terms of access with Fortescue, when they came back to adding a whole lot of unacceptable terms that amount to a gun at our head… We are supportive of companies that want to use our land and that treat us with respect, but Mr Forrest’s company’s threats are causing concern that his people will just go out and smash our sacred places to fi nd their precious iron ore.”

The YAC says that FMG “want to strip huge wealth out of our ngurra – by mining resources that are not renewable, and can only be mined and sold once.”

“FMG say that they will never agree to an uncapped royalty to our people – a royalty like the one Rio Tinto offers – in return for what they take. They say it will not be ‘good for our community’. What they are saying is that Aboriginal people, unlike white people, cannot manage money and will waste it… In the mining business world anyone who pegs a piece of country with an exploration tenement is paid whatever the going rate of royalties is when they do a deal with a miner like Rio or BHP or FMG. That rate can be anything from one per cent to fi ve per cent – uncapped.” The FMG will be provided with adequate time to respond prior to the third part of this feature series.

“For example, Hancock and Wright got a 2.5 per cent share of the billions of dollars worth of iron ore sold from Rio Tinto’s Hamersely mines. Gina Rinehart still collects these royalty monies – many hundreds of millions of dollars over the years – which she has used to build her business empire.”

“Fortescue negotiated a mining deal with Kerry Stokes that includes $20 million upfront and a production royalty of two per cent to fi ve per cent. This is a hundred times better than what FMG is offering Yindjibarndi.”

In effect what they are pointing to here is racism, the type of racism that many non-Aboriginal Australians have become blind to, or don’t want to explore, the idea that Traditional Owners should not be entitled to these equivalencies, what non-Aboriginals are being entitled to, such as Hancock and Wright and Stokes, is absolutely sheer racism.

From their multi-billion dollar operations on FMG country, FMG offered the Yindjibarndi just $3 million a year, plus $1 million to Elders. According to the YAC this would barely run the Yindjibarndi PBC as a capable stand-alone organisation. FMG’s bare-minimum offer to the Yindjibarndi would never provide the resources to make any real difference for the Yindjibarndi peoples. “The deal from FMG keeps many of our peoples beggars in our own land.”

THE VOICES OF REMOTE AUSTRALIA

Recently the 98 page report “Fixing the Hole in Australia’s Heartland” was released – a report by Dr Bruce Walker, director of RemoteFOCUS, Dr Douglas Porter, Governance adviser to the World Bank and a Professor at the Australian National University, and by Professor Ian Marsh of the Australian Innovation Research Centre, and with other contributors and reviewers chaired by Fred Chaney AO.

This report set out to fathom the challenges of governance in remote Australia and advances a set of propositions and defi ning features of remote Australia and identifi es ways to improve governance. However when governance is cheated by the more powerful - by those who should be setting the example then what hope is there?

The report argues that Australia must reset its relationship with disempowered remote communities – and focuses heavily on the Pilbara and the Central Desert – who feel excluded from the Australian narrative because governance has failed. However the report must also accept that the Governments have failed these remote regions and their communities, and that have contributed to the failure of governance in these regions, and similarly to the failure to check the circumvention of governance of organisations engaging with these regions and communities. The failures are endemic and pernicious and have an origin in the corruption of governance, not its structural failure. Hence it is the checks and balances, the audit of governance that is askew and often bent by powerful cultures of favour dispensation and the exercise of power.

It is important achieve the best possible deals from land use agreements because as the ‘Fixing the hole in Australia’s heartland”report states that Government “funding and programs were inadequate or failing.”

In launching the report former Fraser Government Aboriginal Affairs minister Fred

Chaney said peoples in the Pilbara, Central Australia and outback Queensland feel removed from “the modern Australian story.”

“There is a hunger in remote communities for people to work with them, people want to have a say and to be involved,” said Mr Chaney.

The report calls for an outback commission to focus on remote Australia and ensure its development. The report’s Dr Walker said feedback from Aboriginal people had been positive because “for once they felt they were not being blamed for all the problems. If people see they are not to blame but part of the solution, engagement will fl ow easy.”

A copy of the report has been sent by the National Indigenous Times to various companies including the FMG and we await their response.

INDUSTRY STANDARDSMr Woodley said that Rio Tinto offered

a “growing mining royalty” as compared to FMG’s “never changing mining royalty”. Rio Tinto’s offer is 0.5 per cent of value of all iron ore mined, and not capped. FMG’s offer was $4 million per year capped for the life of all FMG mining projects.

In recent weeks FMG has reported $1.5 billion lost from its company because of the iron ore price drop however this strengthens YAC’s pursuit of a percentage, 0.5 per cent, as fair for all and which take into account the price of the ore. It is diffi cult to fathom where the Yindjibarndi are being unreasonable and hard to understand why FMG would not applaud a percentage uncapped of royalties as fair.

If Rio Tinto were mining Solomon at 60 million tonnes per year, the Yindjibarndi would received $42 million per year in royalties if at $140 per tonne. If iron ore prices rise or grow or the tonnage mined increased or decreases the returns rise or decrease. FMG’s offer is fi xed at $4 million no matter how high the iron price may grow and no matter how much iron is mined there will no increased dividend to the Yindjibarndi – which would mean more housing, and equity in health and education and community programs. Furthermore the FMG could continue to mine in perpetuity on Yindjibarndi country and nothing more will be returned to the Yindijbarndi other than $4 million per year. How is this fair? If just one mine produces 60 million tonnes of iron ore per year, at the Rio Tinto rate after four years of mining this would return $168 million to the Yindjibarndi compared to $16 million from FMG.

Over 20 years, where inter-generational changes to way of life could be seen, at the same rate the FMG would return $80 million to the Yindjibarndi compared to $840 million from Rio Tinto. That equates to a lot of lives saved.

Rio Tinto has made provision for rail payments for ore freighted through Yindjibarndi country – 1.5 cents per tonne for all ore freighted and the payments start when the agreement is signed. On current rail tonnages income from rail will be $3.4 million per year and increasing to $5.3 million per year by 2015. The FMG have offered zero rail payments. Today Rio Tinto freights about 225 million tonnes a year and by 2015 capacity will grow to 353 million tonnes a year, so within three years the rail tariff will grow by another third. $50.8 million from the rail tariff will be paid over ten years however FMG will pay zero.

YAC have already made a heritage agreement with Rio Tinto which they say works well however none exists between YAC and the FMG. Unlike the agreement between YAC and Rio Tinto, FMG will not allow Yindjibarndi peoples to record their own culture and heritage sites with videos according to YAC.

The YAC argue that the FMG agreement means “giving away control of half all Yindjibarndi Ngurra to just one mining company – FMG. If we sign with FMG we will be locking our children’s future rights into one of the worst agreements in the Pilbara. The FMG agreement will close the door for a better outcome on over half our country forever.”

“FMG’s contract states ‘this agreement survives any determination of Native Title in the Agreement Area.’ This means that, if FMG’s agreement is signed, even if Yindjibarndi won exclusive possession Native Title rights in the Yindjibarndi claim area, this would not count for anything – the FMG agreement would wipe out those rights before they have even had a chance to be heard and decided by the Federal Court.”

“FMG hold more tenements in Yindjibarndi country than any other mining country, by far.”

WHAT IS RIGHTThe Yindjibarndi explain the enormous

wealth of resource-rich country has not been shared in a fair way. They are forever fi ghting attitudes that dispute their rights as the fi rst people. They say they have to beg for every concession while neighbouring towns and industry have been given every advantage. They say that today they are still carrying the

burden of social problems and inequalities that have historically been thrust upon them – the lack of opportunity and respect, poverty, injustice, racism, unemployment, social dysfunction, early death, lack of medical attention, an education system that doesn’t cater for their own history and culture. In too many cases this weight has been more than they can bear.

They do not want their children to go down the same hard road past generations had to endure as choice had been stolen from them. The Yindjibarndi say it is time they are freed to set their own agendas rather than choking on what’s dished up. They say they can fi x the problems if they are allowed proper resources instead of mean hand-outs on a drip-feed basis.

The battle for rights to, and control of, traditional lands which are the foundation of their Law and culture, and which will give them a real chance for independence in the future, is a priority for them.

“I just want to bring these young people back to this land, I want to show them this land is still good for them to use. And young people when they come back, they might do a job in this place and learn in their way to handle a business. They might fi nd out happiness, happiness for their life, and see what good things are in this land.” – said the late respected Elder Yilbie Warrie

The late respected Elder Ned Cheedy Mayabungu said during the celebrations of the 105th year of his centurion plus life that he saw in every ceremony his brothers and sisters, his children, his cousins, his nephews and nieces, the spirit of those before him, and the spirit alive, he saw them dancing and singing, he saw them strong - he had seen the twentieth century from beginning to end and saw the birth of the twentieth fi rst century and in this passing of time he saw the Yindjibarndi true to Law and that the children come fi rst, that they and their happiness are what drive meaning and not what Lang Hancock’s misunderstanding of capitalism and greed teetered as driving forces.

Mr Woodley does lead a battle royale as the Yindjibarndi refuse to surrender to every win by Fortescue Metals Groups and Mr Woodley did describe it as David verse Goliath.

Once again as noted in part one of this feature it would be great if FMG and the Wirlu-murra sat with the YAC, with the coalescing of humanity, with Yindjibarndi whole and indeed everyone spoke from the heart. Once again, it is important to remind that David defeated Goliath.

The Yindjibarndi say that each of the Ngurra for each of the Galharra has its own spiritual energy, which is very powerful, and that each Ngurra holds the spirits of their ancestors who belong there. Yindjibarndi explain how these spirits looked after them but also how they can hurt them where there is a disrespect of the Ngurra. Yindjibarndi Lawmen explain the Yulbirirri Thurru ritual where the grandfather showed young men going through Birdarra Law to the spirits of their country, explaining to them how to show their face to the ‘face’ of the Gambulanha mountains where they can fi nd the true refl ection of Yindjibarndi-self and take in the Yindjibarndi knowledge that fl owed out of the Hamersley Ranges.

The Yulbirirri Thurru ritual makes the young man and the country one, so that he is accepted by all the elements of the country as a Binrri (man). Yindjibarndi Lawmen explain how the heart and spirit of Gambulanha sang and spoke its knowledge – cast its ‘eye’ over everything –opened its ear to the birds, plants, animals and the Ngurrarangarli. They said that Gambulanha was like a brain that reacted to all Yindjibarndi movements on country and triggered all sorts of powerful natural events.

The Yindjibarndi continue where Vincent Lingiari left off – they cannot and will not settle for less than what is right.

The Wirlu-murra and the FMG will be given the opportunity for extensive coverage of their comments, verbatim, in the next part of this feature.

The National Indigenous Times will continue to follow this David verse Goliath battle till as such time as all news media jumps on the crest of a looming cultural wave. A Royal Commission is warranted – not for revenge, however for remedy, for justice – so all people have the right to a fair shot at life. A Royal Commission can push for legislation to enable pro forma minimum standard agreements between mining companies in reference to land use agreements. The YAC should not have to be going through what they are –people should not have to live like this, not be treated like this – 0.5 per cent returned to the Yindjibarndi is the least. Having to accept less than what others are offered is 1) racism, 2) discrimination, 3) exploitation, 4) corrupt, 5) bull^&#*.

File image of Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation CEO Michael Woodley