tip off

Marcia Langton defends non-disclosure on mining cash before Boyers

The academic background to last year’s Boyer Lectures was funded by global miners Rio Tinto and Woodside. But the audience was none the wiser. Should she and the ABC have disclosed?

Indigenous leader Marcia Langton and the ABC have defended a lack of disclosure over last year’s Boyer Lectures, despite tens of thousands of dollars in cash for Langton’s academic research being sourced from resources giants Rio Tinto, Woodside and Santos.

The series of five Boyers, titled “The Quiet Revolution: Indigenous People and the Resources Boom”, were delivered late last year by Langton at the ABC’s Brisbane studios and beamed around the country on Radio National.

They argued the boom had substantively benefited indigenous communities, with Langton lauding the work of a number of corporate behemoths — notably Rio — in providing job opportunities and friendly chop-outs. One lecture featured a full frontal attack on the “conceit” of anti-mining greenies.

But what listeners weren’t aware of was that two of the companies Langton praised were also bankrolling her.

The Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, where Langton serves as chairperson of Australian Indigenous Studies, documents in its 2010 annual report that $480,000 in funding had been secured over four years for Langton’s joint Australian Research Council project ”Poverty in the Midst of Plenty: Economic Empowerment, Wealth Creation and Industrial Reform for Sustainable Indigenous and Local Communities”. The cash was provided by the federal government, corporate partners Woodside, Rio and Santos, and the Marnda Mia Central Negotiating Committee, a company that represents traditional owners in deals with Rio management.

According to a project outline, the study aimed to “promote economic empowerment for sustainable indigenous and local communities” by, among other things, removing the barriers to indigenous participation in large-scale resources projects. While a funding breakdown is not provided, Woodside confirmed it had provided $30,000 over three years. The project ran from 2009 until 2012.

Crikey asked Langton, the University of Melbourne and the ABC to explain the lack of disclosure. The university referred all queries to Langton. In an emailed statement, Langton told Crikey she had delivered the Boyers in a “private capacity”:

I and the other members of the research team have complied with the university’s and ARC requirements for publications. The Boyer Lectures, however, are not subject to the university statutes.”

She says full details of the grant are available on an indigenous website, www.atns.net.au.

University of Melbourne researchers are required, under an official code of conduct, to ensure all:

… publications must include information on the sources of financial support for the research and must include a disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest.”

The ABC’s Editorial Policies require the national broadcaster to:

… ensure appropriate disclosure of any external funding arrangement … where the arrangement or acceptance, if it were not disclosed but later became public, may reasonably be perceived to distort the editorial content or otherwise undermine the ABC’s independence or integrity.”

In its statement, the ABC said that “in previewing the lectures, the ABC referred to Professor Langton’s position as chair of indigenous studies at the University of Melbourne”:

The university has its own rules on funding disclosure. The treatment of Professor Langton was no different to that applied to other respected Boyer lecturers, including … Rupert Murdoch, General Peter Cosgrove, former prime minister Bob Hawke and author Geraldine Brooks.”

The Boyers continue to feature prominently in audio and transcript form on the ABC website and were also republished last year — without disclosure — as opinion pieces in the Fairfax press.

In her first lecture called “Changing the paradigm: Mining Companies, Native Title and Aboriginal Australians”, Langton fondly recalled her experience dealing with a sympathetic manager at a Rio-owned Argyle Diamond Mine in Western Australia in the early 2000s. She said the manager:

… became a champion for the Aboriginal people of the east Kimberley. He revolutionised the culture of the Argyle Diamond Mine by opening the doors to Aboriginal people. Today, the rate of Aboriginal employment at that mine stands at 25% of the total workforce.”

Despite the industry’s historical intransigence, Langton said Rio and Woodside had recently done stellar work in the outback, offering indigenous entrepreneurs “unprecedented opportunities to tender for contracts”:

In the last decade, mining companies and ancillary services have employed Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders in larger numbers than ever before in Australian history. Some mining companies, for example Rio Tinto Ltd, Fortescue Metals Group and BHP Billiton, have developed recruitment and other labour force strategies in the last few years that have contributed to creating the largest Australian Indigenous industrial workforce ever …

Mid last year, in the Pilbara alone, Rio Tinto Iron Ore had over 1000 indigenous employees and Fortescue more than 300. As proportions of the total workforce in both these companies, about 8% of the employees are indigenous. Nationally, Rio Tinto had about 1500 indigenous employees and is the largest private sector employer of indigenous people …

Rio Tinto Iron Ore has provided literacy and numeracy programs, family and community support programs and mentoring of indigenous employees. These have all been critical to increasing indigenous employment.”

In her third Boyer, titled “Old barriers and new models: The private sector, government and the economic empowerment of Aboriginal Australians”, Langton explains how former Rio chairman Leon Davis “made a headland speech that shifted the industry’s paradigm” to break with the approach of Western Mining’s Hugh Morgan:

Davis’ acceptance of native title and tilt towards respect for traditional owners enraged Morgan and other industry leaders but led to the sophistication in agreement making that we witness today.”

Rio’s landmark 2011 Gove Mining Agreement with the Yolngu people provided “outstanding long-term financial terms and opportunities to tap in to the regional economy created by the mine”, Langton said.

A fourth lecture, “The conceit of wilderness ideology”, took aim at leading environmentalist and climate change commissioner Tim Flannery. Langton wondered aloud whether Flannery was “racist” because he had argued in Quarterly Essay that a Bligh government decision to hand back a part of a national park to its traditional owners for mining may have trumped the interests of nature:

For 40 years this racist assumption in the green movement about Aboriginal people being the enemies of the wilderness is a leitmotif of deals between conservation groups and state governments to deny Aboriginal people their rights as landowners and citizens of Australia.”

Simon Longstaff from the St James Ethics Centre told Crikey that although Langton had long held views similar to those expressed in the Boyers, she — and the ABC — should have disclosed the funding because of the specific and ongoing nature of the tie-up.

If you’re going to mention specific organisations, either to endorse them or to criticise them, and if there’s a financial relationship of support, then it’s just a matter of prudence to advise those who might be broadcasting or publishing those views that that forms part of the background to your thinking,” he said.

If there’s a direct and ongoing monetary relationship it’s a wise thing to disclose that so the public is aware.”

Rio, which did not respond to requests for comment, is also involved in Langton-linked projects elsewhere at the University of Melbourne — it is the foundation corporate partner of the Murrup Barak Melbourne Institute for Indigenous Development, at which Langton is a graduate course co-ordinator.

An interview for a 2011 Monthly feature on Langton penned by Peter Robb was conducted at Rio Tinto’s Australian head office in Collins Street.

24
  • 1
    Jenny Haines
    Posted Friday, 22 February 2013 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    This explains a lot about Marcia’s recent media statements.

  • 2
    mikeb
    Posted Friday, 22 February 2013 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    What did the ABC have to disclose? They did not receive any funding. Where would you draw the line if the ABC had to disclose who contibutes what to any speaker that is broadcast.

  • 3
    mikeb
    Posted Friday, 22 February 2013 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    That being said the speaker should certainly have acknowledged that information as a matter of maintaining credibility.

  • 4
    Posted Friday, 22 February 2013 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    Thanx for this report. I agree that Langton should have disclosed the funding and conflict of interest. The University of Melbourne’s (and prolly other universities’) policies are too weak either in substance or in implementation.

  • 5
    michael crook
    Posted Friday, 22 February 2013 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    Greenwashing

  • 6
    mattsui
    Posted Friday, 22 February 2013 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    An aboriginal person makes a series of speaches about how the mining industry is helping indigenous folk but fails to mention her own name amoung the list of beneficiaries.
    Could have been an oversight?
    Said speaker then goes on to play the racism card against the mining industries’ natural enemies (Flannery, hippies et al). Could be a coincidence?
    Somebody at the ABC didn’t do a thorough “due diligence” job prior to broadcasting said speeches. Almost certainly.
    Outcome; damaged credibility for all.
    Matt.

  • 7
    CML
    Posted Friday, 22 February 2013 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Andrew for this article.
    I listened to the first Boyer lecture, decided that Langton was in cahoots with the mining industry, and that her ramblings were totally inappropriate. Didn’t bother with the remainder.
    Can’t believe that the ABC did not check her research funding before allowing these lectures to go to air.
    Is there no morality or ethics left in ANY part of the media? Shame ABC, shame!

  • 8
    botanista
    Posted Friday, 22 February 2013 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for this article. This explains a lot to me about the strangely toxic taste Ms Langton’s Boyer lectures left in my mouth.

  • 9
    Roberto Tedesco
    Posted Friday, 22 February 2013 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    Check out also Marcia Langton’s contributions to the recent SBS series Dirty Business: how mining made Australia. They make so much more sense in the light of this information.

  • 10
    SD
    Posted Friday, 22 February 2013 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    Langton has been very shy about disclosing her connections with the mining industry which seems strange given her view that this connection is an ethical one. In his book “Minefield”, Paul Cleary writes that she joined the board of Andrew Forrest’s “Australian Employment Covenant” in 2007 and accompanied Forrest when he addressed the National Press Club in 2012. Asked by Cleary if she was a consultant for FMG, she stated that, “I am not directly contracted by FMG”. Whatever the truth behind these weasel words, these connections should have been disclosed by the ABC before they gave Langton a very big megaphone to bag environmentalists.Incidentally she has been very aggressive on Twitter when any suggestion has been made that she is compromised and in one tweet claimed that she was only a volunteer at FMG - not quite what she said to Paul Cleary.

  • 11
    Iskandar
    Posted Friday, 22 February 2013 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    Speaking to a colleague in Tennant Creek last year, I asked why he thought the ALP lost the state election to the CLP. Being very familiar with aboriginal communities at grass roots level, his opinion was that the electorates had very small populations, and everybody knew everybody else. Voting therefore tended to be for the man (or woman) and not for the party. By grooming a locally popular individual as candidate, a party can wins seats on the basis of personality, and not policy. This seemed a straight-forward and simple explanation, and therefore most likely to be correct. Soon thereafter Marcia Langton’s article in The Monthly appeared in which she credited the CLP victory to a tectonic shift in aboriginal opinion in favour of big mining and economic development. Somehow, the grass-roots explanation seems the most credible. And I agree with CML that Langton’s Boyer lectures were sh*t boring, not worth a toss, and her paymasters should have been acknowledged by the ABC. This seems part of the ABC’s lurch to the right which includes Amanda Vanstone’s equally sh*t boring punditries on RN.

  • 12
    minnamurra
    Posted Friday, 22 February 2013 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

    The empress has no clothes.

  • 13
    puddleduck
    Posted Saturday, 23 February 2013 at 2:50 am | Permalink

    I’m with CML on this one. Didn’t listen to the lectures after the first one, as Langton sounded so… what’s the word, biased?

    I haven’t done the research, but do I recall rightly some years ago, when a group of Indigenous traditional land owners was divided over whether to agree to particular deal, it turned out that the money the mining companies were offering was a pittance over the life of the agreement, and the employment opportunities feeble at best.

    I thought her statements about greenies, hippies, whatever she called them, and the supposed contempt Indigenous people feel for them, were bizarre.

    If the Boyer lectures are to occupy the lofty position the ABC wants for them (and Australia should have such things), it’s in the ABC’s interest to ensure issues like this are dealt with. Though I don’t imagine Prof. Langton is easily told anything.

  • 14
    Russell
    Posted Saturday, 23 February 2013 at 6:10 am | Permalink

    I wondered how long it would be before someone had a go at her after she took on Flannery. Non acceptable views should never be on “our ABC”!

    But anyone who comments here should first (1) disclose if they are a public servant, pensioners or recipient of any tax rebates (hence a recipient of mining income), and (2) check their superannuation account or retirement fund for all its sources of income. This would include any property which has increased in value due to the mining boom. Otherwise, keep quiet. For me its (2) and (1 – “mature aged worker rebate”)

  • 15
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted Saturday, 23 February 2013 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    It’s funny that Langton seems to think the crumbs handed out like trinkets of old have been good for the aboriginal people in mining areas when programs about FIFO show that they have not benefitted one jot.

  • 16
    jamie shaw
    Posted Sunday, 24 February 2013 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    sour grapes russel? as a conservationist and green i was dismayed at langtons 1st lecture. i have known many people and experienced many campaigns that have fought for both aboriginal rights and environmental values. her proposition, rather vitriolic, that greens have undermined aboriginal rights was suspect rhetoric at best but now… tut tut marcia… and the ABs

  • 17
    shepherdmarilyn
    Posted Sunday, 24 February 2013 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    Russell, that is just plain silly, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

    I happen to find Langton’s strange rants about people who want to protect the country to be bizarre in the extreme.

    It is only the Greens working with the owners of the land to prevent the rape of it.,

  • 18
    Ian
    Posted Sunday, 24 February 2013 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

    I think this says it all about the ABC. I gave up watching them some time ago and although I may have missed one or two worthwhile, informative broadcasts as a result I am pretty sure I have avoided being subjected to a lot of biased or unsubstantiated rubbish.

  • 19
    Ian
    Posted Monday, 25 February 2013 at 12:14 am | Permalink

    A week ago there was a 50 000 strong rally outside the White-house in Washington DC calling for Obama to disallow the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. How much cover did the ABC give to this big event, I wonder? I Googled and couldn’t find anything from ABC reporting it. At about the same time the news about the Pistorius murder case broke. That certainly was covered by the ABC and the rest of the so-called mainstream news in Australia.

    Now if the Pistorius case is important news surely then so is the massive protest conducted in freezing conditions in Washington because this latter event has a very real bearing on the future of our civilization, threatened as it is by runaway climate change.

    So it’s not only the Marcia Langton thing that discredits the ABC it’s basically everything.

    What we have in Australia may not be censorship of the dictatorial type as in say, China but it’s censorship nonetheless. Corporate censorship you could call it.

  • 20
    Liz45
    Posted Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    @botanista - Me too! I was very confused by her ‘love in’ with mining giants. A real problem re credibility! Find it very sad and don’t believe it was an ‘oversight’? She’s too smart for that! No naive ‘youngster’!

  • 21
    Mr. Sandfly
    Posted Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    The 2012 Boyer lectures were given by a public intellectual who happens to be a Professor of the UoM doing research into agreements and treaties between mining companies and Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who’s research partner organisations are mining companies (and one gov dept), as it clearly states at the bottom of the website http://www.atns.net.au … Here’s the point. It seems all of you missed it.

  • 22
    Sonic
    Posted Wednesday, 27 February 2013 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    I thought those lectures were strange in focus and tone, and now this information says it all.

  • 23
    Bob the builder
    Posted Wednesday, 27 February 2013 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    I also didn’t listen to the Boyer lectures. Langton is always polemic and vitriolic and the bits I caught on the hop confirmed that. Then again, past lecturers include Rupert Murdoch and Peter Jensen, ideologues of the right rather than intellectuals, public or otherwise. While I agree Langton has a very particular worldview, and I don’t agree with her analysis of Aboriginal people’s views re: greenies, etc., I wonder if there were similar questions about the integrity of previous lecturers and the ABC. I’d take Langton over Jensen or Murdoch any day … although it’s a bit academic as I wouldn’t listen to any of them for more than one lecture, based on past performance!

  • 24
    Paddy Mohan
    Posted Sunday, 17 March 2013 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    Indigenous leader Marcia Langton - hang on! How many Indigenous people have accepted her as a leader??

    She is well educated, and articulates her perspectives well, but does that make her a leader? Media, please stop making “leaders”, its for the people to say.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...