NT Elections: Aboriginal voters get Labor where it hurts

[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.