[A subbed version of this article will appear at Green Left Weekly. The figures will need to be updated in some seats, as counting is expected to continue until Monday September 3 - Emma]
by Emma Murphy
Aboriginal voters in remote Northern
Territory put themselves decisively onto the political agenda in the August 25
territory election.
Indeed, as commentators have noted, it was
probably the first time in Australia’s history when this otherwise marginalized
(by mainstream parties) section of the population decided an election.
For only the second time in its short
voting history, the Territory changed its ruling party. After 11 years of
Labor, voters in remote and rural areas opted for change, and – in very
significant numbers – voted for minor parties, independents, and the Country
Liberal Party (CLP).
In a 25-seat parliament, Labor had just 12
seats, forming government with the support of independent Gerry Woods. And
while bookies had picked the CLP as winning, the results still surprised many.
It was assumed that the key seats to watch were in Darwin’s northern suburbs,
which is where Labor put much of its energy.
But, in a remarkable twist, Labor retained
all its urban seats. The rural areas, however, were a different story. Writing
on The Conversation on August 27, Ken Parish said: “The picture in remote
Aboriginal community-based seats could scarcely have been more different.
The ALP vote was decimated, with a general anti-Labor swing of around 16%.” http://theconversation.edu.au/arrogant-indigenous-policies-that-toppled-nt-labor-is-a-lesson-for-feds-9037
It looks likely the CLP will win 15 seats
and Labor will be reduced to nine.
In the remote northern electorates of
Arnhem and Daly, there were swings to the CLP of 30.7% and 14.2%, respectively.
In the key northern seat of Arafura, with just over half the votes counted, the
CLP’s Francis Maralampuwi Xavier leads Labor’s Dean Rioli 51.2% to 48.8% (at
time of writing), and in the outback seat of Stuart, also with just 56% of
votes counted, Bess Nungarrayi Price from the CLP is slightly ahead of Labor’s
Karl Hampton, at 50.8% to 49.2% (after preferences). There was a 26.5% swing
against Hampton.
So where did this massive swing against
Labor come from, and why did it take so many by surprise?
Perhaps it should have been predicted,
given federal and Territory Labor’s complete disregard for Aboriginal people.
Aboriginal people in the NT have had a lot
to be angry about over the last few years. The Coalition’s introduction of the
widely hated NT intervention in 2007 was very quickly taken over by federal
Kevin Rudd’s Labor when the party won the November election. Julia Gillard’s
Labor recently extended the divisive policy for another decade, under the
cruelly mis-named “Stronger Futures” legislation.
Meanwhile, in 2008, Territory Labor
completely disempowered local Aboriginal leaderships by replacing 52 small
community councils with seven “super shires” – some with headquarters not even
located within the shire boundaries.
Through the dismantling of their councils,
and the whitewashed “Stronger Futures consultations” in 2011, when articulate,
angry voices fell on a federal government’s deaf ears, Aboriginal people got
the message loud and clear: Labor wasn’t listening.
Unfortunately for Labor, Aboriginal people
make up a large percentage of the NT population outside of urban areas, and on
August 25, they found a way to fight back.
In many ways, the opposition CLP had an
easy job in the bush: slam the bungled super shire policy (no need to give too
much detail about how you would change it); spend time listening to the people
– something Labor has consistently failed (listening is easy – no need to
commit to anything beyond that).
There were also many impressive, strong
Aboriginal candidates, who lived in the remote communities that would elect
them. This was the case in all parties, and a look at the minor parties, and
the preferences they directed, tells a slightly more complex story than a
simple swing to the CLP – although that was also clearly the case.
In Hampton’s seat of Stuart, Maurie Japarta
Ryan stood for the newly registered First Nations Party (FNP). He received an
impressive 17.2% of the vote. Ryan, a fiery anti-intervention campaigner
preferenced Price - a woman he’s described as “the face of the intervention”.
When asked about this on Radio National’s Bush
Telegraph on August 27, he explained: “I don’t support Bess Price … I gave
my preferences to whichever political party … would remove the shires.”
While Price has been an outspoken supporter
of the intervention, other CLP members have been careful to distance themselves
from their federal counterparts’ support for Stronger Futures. Incumbent CLP MP
Alison Anderson told Bush Telegraph: “The
CLP’s position is that, even though our federal politicians supported it, we’ve
already listened to Aboriginal people, and we will take the voice of the
Aboriginal people back.” She accused federal Aboriginal affairs minister Jenny
Macklin of not listening to Aboriginal people: a sentiment that would have rung
true for many.
Labor’s Hampton was also careful to state
his opposition to the intervention while campaigner – indicating that Territory
Labor is also aware of the damage this has done to the Labor brand.
In the key seat of Arafura, Greens’ George
Pascoe received 14% of the votes, with just 55.8% counted.
The CLP’s “listening tour” of remote
communities, where it tapped into anti-shire sentiment and concern for
homelands and housing, certainly worked as a campaign strategy. But now, in
office, will it deliver? What can the people who voted for it expect from a CLP
government?
There are certainly a few areas to watch.
To start with, the CLP will have a number of strong Aboriginal candidates, who
ran because they believed that was the party listening to their people. Hopes
have been raised about changes to the unpopular shires policy, and about more
support for homelands.
But while the CLP has been quick to tap
into anger at the shires, details about what it proposes to do about them are
scant. It’s “Shire reform” paper, released before the election, pledges to
establish “regional councils” (it is careful not to promise a return to
community councils” – but these regional councils will only be established
where modeling shows “financial sustainability”. The document speaks of “Shires
and Regional Councils”, indicating the shires may still remain.
Similarly, the CLP Homelands policy says
the party supports the Federal Government initiative to invest in homelands
services” – but doesn’t mention any investment at a Territory level.
How the CLP will balance this against the
strong concerns of its Aboriginal MPs – some of whom will surely become
ministers – remains to be seen. Will they be sidelined? Were they deceived
during the election campaign? Or will some MPs (such as Alison Anderson)
history of crossing to the other side if their concerns are ignored force the
CLP to positions it may not otherwise support?
Another area of concern will be the
perceived differences/divisions between remote Aboriginal communities and urban
Aboriginal populations, especially those living in town communities and the
long grass.
In the lead-up to the election, CLP member
for Fong Lim David Tollner angered Bagot community residents by promising to
“normalize” Bagot by turning it into “Darwin’s newest suburb”. Similarly, the
CLP has promised the predictable “crackdown on crime”, saying “drunks will be
taken off the streets” and Darwin’s parklands “cleaned up” – blatant
dog-whistling to drum up fear and racism against Aboriginal people living in
the long grass.
So it was with surprise that I noted Chief
Minister-elect Terry Mills’ tribute to Aboriginal people in his victory speech
on August 25. And then, with apprehension, I noticed his persistent use of the
word “traditional” to describe them.
“I'm saying tonight, traditional people, we
respect you, and we will work with you”, he said. He vowed to visit remote
communities, saying, "My first
trip will be to demonstrate to traditional people that we will work with you.”
Will we see a playing out of the “good black, bad black”
politics of the likes of Price, who recently described Rodney Dillon, an
Aboriginal activist and Amnesty campaigner as “a physically white
English-speaking Tasmanian”, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/amnesty-a-racist-organisation-says-bess-price/story-fn9hm1pm-1226446316271.
It is fairly safe to assume there will be
no “listening tours” of the long grass in Darwin, or the Alice Springs
Riverbed. It’s much more likely to be the 100 extra police visiting those
areas. And Bagot, or other town communities, will probably respond to any
visiting CLP MPs with extreme caution, given Tollner’s election promise.
The CLP has a lot of bad policy and
offensive comments to explain if it is to show it can really listen, and take
direction from, Aboriginal people. It has been more than a decade since the
party had to really show its true colours to Territorians, but the missing
details in its policies and its “law-and-order” focus in urban areas don’t bode
well.
But one thing was certain on August 25:
like two federal elections since the intervention was announced, Aboriginal
people voted in strong numbers against the incumbents, in protest against their
racist policies and their refusal to genuinely engage with Aboriginal people. We
can only hope they won’t be so easily ignored or taken for granted in the
future.
