The Saturday West Australian newspaper had a great little opinion piece this weekend by Andrew Forrest, Managing Director of Fortescue Metals Group, telling us all of his grand vision to free indigenous people from their dependence on government welfare. It was a gratuitous piece of self-agrandisement, and every claim he made is at odds with the accounts I have seen on video and heard from someone who was there. So I wrote a short note to every member of the Western Australian Parliament today. Here is your copy:
In our current climate it seems sacrilegious to speak critically of anyone involved in promoting the resources base of our economy, and especially one of our local heroes. Indeed in yesterday’s West Australian Andrew Forrest makes the claim that “Fortescue Metals Group is passionate about working together with people and communities to improve their lives and livelihoods. In aboriginal communities this means real engagement and not simply replacing government welfare with mining welfare. Writing a cheque is easy.” (p.66)
I was recently made aware of a meeting between the Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corp. and Fortescue Metals Group on 16th March in which the behaviour of Andrew Forrest and FMG seems to be very much at odds with this statement.
Please take some time to watch this video – it takes about half an hour – and you will see what I mean. It was posted by the Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corp. only a few days ago and it portrays quite clearly the tactics used by Andrew Forrest to secure unfettered access to the lands of the Yindjibarndi people.
Ostensibly the meeting was called between the Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation and FMG to mediate difficulties the parties were having in coming to a resolution in their discussions. Each party had their legal representatives and the meeting was supposed to be chaired by an independent legal mediator, Mr Graham Castledine.
However, his role as mediator was compromised by the determination of the lawyer representing FMG to take over the meeting and he withdrew from the meeting, leaving it in the hands of one party in the debate.
FMG had some very carefully prepared resolutions and had bussed in enough outsiders who claimed to belong to the Yindjibarndi people to win the day whenever the resolutions were put to the meeting. When the real Yindjibarndi people realised they were being stitched up they took no further part in the meeting. None of the bussed-in people spoke to any of the resolutions, yet by those resolutions they were given the power, previously vested in the Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corp., to make decisions about the Yindjibarndi native title claims. All this challenges Andrew Forrest’s assertion in the article mentioned above, that through this meeting the strong and independent Yindjibarndi people voted overwhelmingly in support of FMG’s proposals, thus regaining control of their destinies through the power of democracy.
I wonder if you can answer me a few questions about this.
Firstly, do you think this meeting and the resolutions passed at it would be regarded as legitimate by the relevant authorities in consideration of the Native Title rights of the Yindjibarndi people? I hate the thought that it might be, and every reasonable bone in my body says it shouldn’t be, but somehow I feel that the FMG lawyer has decided this is the way to get what they want.
Secondly, if you think that FMG has achieved its objectives in this way, what is your view of the probity of FMG’s behaviour in this situation?
Finally, does this incident change you views about the integrity of Andrew Forrest and FMG, particularly in regard to his often stated passion for the welfare of indigenous people?
If you feel as badly about this as I do, I would ask you to do whatever is in your power to draw attention to these matters, and protect the interests of the Yindjibarndi and other aboriginal people when they come into conflict with big mining companies that think that if they promise them a few million dollars a year they will sign away all the sacred rights they have to their country.
As I write, two MPs have already replied, The Member for Ocean Reef doesn't know much about it and thinks I should take it up directly with FMG, and the Member for Cockburn said that there has been a lot of discussion about this within his party already and he awaits developments.
