Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to talk about some ongoing issues for Aboriginal people in Western Australia. I will touch briefly on the first one, and that is stolen wages. The WA government announced earlier this year that they would provide reparations for those affected by stolen wages in Western Australia. Unfortunately, the time frame for applications for reparations for stolen wages under this process was considered inadequate by many people in the community. Although the Western Australian government did extend the time frame, there are many in the community who still feel that this time frame has not been extended enough. For example, deadlines for similar schemes in Queensland and New South Wales were four and five years respectively.

Making an application for issues around stolen wages, as I am sure people in this chamber are well aware, is not as easy as walking into an office and filling in a form. There are big challenges, particularly in a state like Western Australia, with its vast size and its language and communications difficulties, particularly for remote areas, not to mention the number of potential applicants that, we understand, are still probably unaware of the process. There are many people who we believe could rightfully make a claim for reparations but live in remote areas and, as I said, are not aware of the full details of the scheme.

We have very strong concerns that in fact, with the relatively early closure of the scheme compared to some of the other states, some people will miss out. I know that there have been representations made to the government to ask them to again extend the application date. I myself have written to the minister asking the government to reconsider the closure date. They have done the right thing. There are criticisms that the reparations are not enough, and I share those concerns, but at least they have gone through the step of opening reparations and acknowledging the issues around stolen wages in Western Australia. It is a pity to spoil that step by unnecessarily closing the application dates early and excluding people that, as we know, are growing older. We think they need to be able to be contacted and still be able to make applications.

The other issue I want to talk specifically about tonight has had a lot of attention in the media recently. It is an issue that I have raised in this chamber and written about to the federal minister for heritage. That is the Yindjibarndi story. This is the story of an Aboriginal organisation and an Aboriginal group that have been up against a mining giant, and we believe there have been some concerted efforts to undermine their capacity to engage with the mining proposals on their traditional lands.

I am talking about the story of the Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation and FMG, the Fortescue Metals Group.

It is hard to know where to start when talking about this issue. The reported interference of Fortescue Metals Group in the heritage assessment process, the destruction of sacred sites and the seeming support given to helping a rival group that would be more accommodating to FMG have had quite a lot of coverage in Western Australia and received some extensive coverage just last week. The Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation are the recognised native title holders of country in the Pilbara in Western Australia that includes FMG's Solomon Firetail mine site.

The Solomon Firetail area is home to burial caves, rock shelters and ceremonial artefacts. In 2008 the Native Title Tribunal accepted sworn evidence from Michael Woodley, the head of the Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation, or YAC, that the Yindjibarndi people had specific cultural connections to the land. Despite their status as the native title holder, there are serious concerns about the way that FMG have operated with regard to the Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation which we believe would be inconsistent with the concept of good-faith negotiations set out under the Native Title Act.

It has been reported that FMG have been keen to circumvent the rights of the Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation to participate in negotiations and have been closely associated with another group in the Pilbara, the Wirlu-murra Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation, or WMYAC. This is a breakaway group and it has been widely reported that it is supported by FMG. In fact, during a very controversial meeting in 2011, this rival group voted by a show of hands to support a proposal from FMG. It has also been widely reported that FMG were heavily involved in organising and supporting that meeting and in transporting people to the meeting. The WMYAC claim legitimacy in continuing to negotiate with FMG because of that vote by a show of hands.

We have a great deal of concern that what this process has done is split the community in Roebourne and the Pilbara. Kerry Savas, who until recently was a lawyer with WMYAC, said in an interview last week:

So, on the face of it this was an Aboriginal meeting. However, when you look at it closely, it wasn't. It was a meeting invited, well, set ... the table was set by FMG and they had prepared the menu as they wanted it. So they had prepared who the guests were going to be, they wanted to get enough people there to defeat the YAC, and they did. So it is unusual when it's a corporation involved and they want to control the meeting to that extent, and to pay fees to people that are voting at a meeting where the outcome of that vote is directly affected to the company. That in itself is very unusual.

I am deeply concerned that, by facilitating the breakaway group, FMG have sought to conduct business dealings with them rather than with the Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation, who are the recognised native title holder. This is having a destabilising effect in the community, causing tensions. I am also deeply concerned about the potential for long-term rifts in the community.

Despite early denials, there has been destruction of a number of the sites in the Solomon Firetail mine site. YAC says that FMG's conduct is a direct assault on the 40,000-year-old traditions and heritage of the Yindjibarndi people and contravenes the most fundamental international human rights covenants. Mr Woodley, the head of YAC, has said:

FMG has done this against all warnings and advice from the Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation, the authorised representative of the Yindjibarndi people. They were clearly advised by the minister that they should conduct heritage surveys with YAC but have failed to do so. Instead they have given misleading reports to the Aboriginal Cultural Materials Committee and the Department of Indigenous Affairs designed to confuse the regulatory process and to dismiss the religious, cultural and heritage importance of our sacred sites in the Firetail lease.

There is no doubt that some of the sites have been damaged or destroyed. What is of concern here is that the Fortescue Metals Group at first denied that sites had been damaged and then, when the Yindjibarndi finally got access to the sites that had been, they said that it was a mistake. However, it has been widely reported that they hired and then fired archaeological teams because they would not change a report, then they hired another team and when that team provided different evidence to the decision makers and the sites were destroyed, Fortescue blamed poor research by the second company. But that second company was then taken back on to do further work when it was finally acknowledged that those sites had been destroyed. It seems very curious that Fortescue would hire people to do archaeological work and when the report came in that they did not like they hired another mob. It is a completely inappropriate way to deal with these issues. (Time expired)

The remainder of the transcript will be available online on Wednesday, 28 November 2012.