InACTing takes Indigenous rights seriously and as we each consider the options, the sheer number of candidates in the Senate feels a bit overwhelming. Rather than wilt at the thought, we’ve taken a critical look at the human pyramid that is the political parties standing for a seat.
Researching the options, it’s disappointing to note the sparse commentary on Indigenous issues by many parties. Australia has one of the highest rates of Indigenous incarceration in the world. Rhematic fever, eye disease and deafness due to preventable illnesses that are virtually unheard of in the non-Indigenous population, remain persistent challenges. Diabetes with all its subsequent consequences is rife and the average life expectancy remains 8-9 years less than non-Indigenous people. We fail the most marginalised people in this country daily. Our ancestors brought this despair and the non-Indigenous people from first settlers to new immigrants, reinforce that disadvantage with each vote in which we fail to consider who will speak up and fight for Indigenous people.
The following summaries are by no means an exhaustive list and readers are advised to go to each party’s site for further details. The list does not delve into ungrouped candidates, many of whom have little more than a stub on a website. Readers are advised that a full list of candidates for their state or Territory including those ungrouped is available from ABC News. That said, this list does endeavour to provide an overview of matters than may interest those who place Indigenous welfare high on their list of priorities, in hopes that it assists in narrowing down personal research when considering how to cast your vote.
Despite efforts to keep comments on each party brief, this post has still become voluminous. Hence, it has been broken into two parts to be published over two consecutive days. We hope in breaking this up, it provides time to mull over and review the first tranche of parties before moving onto the rest.
Animal Justice Party
With the emblem of this nation, the koala, on track to be extinct within the next 25 years, it’s no surprise that the Animal Justice Party has generated sufficient support to gain a seat in each the Victorian and News South Wales parliaments. The party provides a helpful statement of the difference between its policies and positions, a sensible acknowledgement that voters need to know how the party may respond to matters beyond those relating to animals. The page is set out alphabetically, with First Nations about halfway down opening onto a short statement about the unconscionable treatment of Aboriginal people since settlement and asserting the need to rectify injustice. Acknowledgement of the land management strategies of the Indigenous people in noted on that page and also on the page regarding Fire Management. The party defends the protection of all animals, including marine life. Every page finishes with an acknowledgement of First Nations people are the traditional custodians of the land, a significant note of respect. The balance between Indigenous culture, food sources and this party’s values may be the only point of cognitive challenge with this party’s otherwise well-prepared list of statements.
Australian Christians
Defender so life and freedom, Australian Christians are rooted in their commitment to the word of God and the Christian Bible. The policies page has numerous sections, including First Nations, with whom they wish to engage to improve health, education and address trauma, including through criminal sentencing of children.
Asserting Judeo-Christian values, the party is pro-life, anti-assisted dying, anti-gender reassignment. Notably they recognise the problems with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and their position on “coercive vaccine mandates” suggests that they do not support mandatory vaccine programs.
With the exception that they acknowledge and seek to uplift Indigenous people, Australian Christinas are not much dissimilar to Family First in their aims.
Australian Citizen’s Party
The Citizen’s Party, the party has been around since 1988 and asserts that it has prompted no fewer than nine federal Senate inquiries since its inception, all without an actual senate seat. They have a strong focus on the banking sector and have pursued legislative change through MP Bob Katter and Senator Malcom Roberts. Those allegiances indicate a conservative ethos and whilst they do note the lack of bank branches in regional areas that affect First Nations people, there is little on this party’s website outlining its position regarding Indigenous people. Whilst the program for their national conference outlines sessions about Australia’s sovereignty and Gaza, the majority of it is about the banking industry.
Australian Democrats
Once the party that “Kept the bastards honest”, the Democrats now badge themselves as the Senate’s watchdog. With four main platforms expressing their vision, they present an image of collaboration to do what their founder once promised.
The Democrats support an increase in income support and rent assistance, address falling educational standards as benchmarked against international measures, and increase funding for the arts, a neglected aspect of budgets for many years.
Having supported the disappointing referendum for the Voice to Parliament, the Democrats note the ongoing failures in addressing the disadvantages suffered by Indigenous people and the interminable delays in closing the gap. They recognise the racism driving family disruption, juvenile and adult incarceration and negative media tropes.
The most interesting thing about the Democrats is that they provide not only a plan for each policy, but the evidence to back their intentions. Each piece of evidence is clearly set out for each policy and they include Indigenous materials in that list. It’s a different approach to campaigning, giving the voters the material to assess the plans for themselves and one that sets the apart in its clarity.
Australia First Alliance – Libertarians, People First, HEART
Fronted by Craig Kelly in NSW, the Libertarians’ are carrying through with the same policies endorsed for the 2022 election. Policies include small business incentives, freedom of speech and choice (including vaccinations), voluntary superannuation and a flat tax rate of 20% only for people who earn over $40,000. Pro-nuclear, they are keen to see this country’s uranium mined for local use. Their policies regarding medical freedom include deregulation medical practitioners and the Therapeutic Good Administration. Similarly, they wish to deregulate the education system to allow parents to choose how and what their children are taught. They would abolish higher education supports such a Austudy or Abstudy, privatise tertiary institutions and charge tuition loans. We’re sure that won’t impact upon the marginalised, Indigenous people across the country … well, not much. The scant reference to First Nations people is negative.
Lower, income tax and voluntary superannuation hit high on the key polices for People First, led by Gerard Rennick . They are concerned about the length of time taken for HECS debts to be paid. Unfortunately their proposal for debtors to get a 20% discount for paying upfront, would require one to have the funds in the first place. supporting all forms of energy production, including nuclear, they also want to cut the excise on beer (wouldn’t that be a winner!), protect whistleblowers through the and promote media diversity.
People First does have an Aboriginal Affairs page, but it’s hardly supportive of Indigenous people. The party wants to do away with the Welcome to Country ceremonies, as do the LNP and Trumpet of Patriots parties. They also wish to eliminate Acknowledgement of Country and all references to both. They are at pains to reverse the protections of Native Title. This is not a party that supports Indigenous rights.
Australian Labor Party
Go through the annals of BlakandBlack and there can be no illusions of the ALP’s approach to Indigenous whistleblowers. Matters in the Australian Capital Territory notwithstanding, the national party continued The Intervention, accepts the politicisation of the Australian Federal Police and is expanding the cashless welfare card from the current 20,000 people about which 96% have no choice. The NDIS is replete with nightmares – just this week, Marc Facer died due to the lack of oxygen which his provider refused to continue to pay. The most concerning point is that Marc had been an advocate for disability rights. The removal of his NDIS support is seen as punishment for the advocacy. In Marc’s words “This is the new Robo-debt”. We all know, with Labor, it doesn’t pay to speak out.
Albanese’s past advocacy via Friends of Palestine is long forgotten and with it, the belief of many in his government’s genuine commitment to international human rights, reinforced by the abstentions on votes at the United Nations and the driving force of Senator Payman’s objections.
The AUKUS deal owned by Dutton, Albanese has willingly engaged advancing the agreement even in the pending crisis of the United States presidential election in which Trump was a fore-runner. Past performance should have been a warning here. If ever there was an example of liberal-light, Labor’s position with regard to AUKUS is it.
Australia’s Voice
Established by the former Labor party member Fatima Payman, Australia’s Voice has a legitimate origin in her former party colleagues refusal to speak up for the rights of Palestinians. Her decision to cross the floor in support of the recognition of Palestinian statehood saw her become a pariah within the Labor Party leaving her with no option but to depart. The ongoing attacks by Pauline Hanson regarding her dual citizenship with Afghanistan, which she cannot renounce and which her former party had been sought and satisfied itself about before nominating her for the 2021 election, has elevated her profile as representative of the marginalisation and racism within Australian leadership. So it with some disappointment, that we find the Australia’s Voice party website is entirely silent about all matter Indigenous. Indeed some Indigenous leaders have taken offence to the choice of party name, reminiscent of the failed Voice referendum and seemingly obliterating the plight of First Nations people in favour of other political matters. Payman’s comments that use of the word” voice” was not prohibited by any trademark was taken as immediate indication of her disregard for Aboriginal sensibilities, regardless of the crossed Palestine-Aboriginal flag she wore on her lapel at the launch of her new party.
Country Liberal
A party for Territorians, they acknowledge that they also have accountabilities to the other states. They see themselves as working on concert with the Commonwealth to build a stronger Northern Territory. There appears to be no specific Federal manifesto, so one can only refer to the three main policies clearly set for the Territory – to reduce crime, rebuild the economy and restore lifestyle.
The CLP realises the importance of working with First Nations mentors to address the causes of unsafe environments for youth and families. They want to see educational standards improve and will take tough measures to ensure children attend school. Some of those measures may prove problematic, such as fines for parents who do not ensure their child attends school and referral to commonwealth-imposed income management is noted as a consequence for children not afforded an education. Income management can be considered to be a paternalistic form of punishment, but the suitability of this approach needs to very carefully considered by those first Nations advisors familiar with the individual circumstances.
Aware that the gas reserves could employ many people, they intend to grow the existing industry and ensure support for domestic use not only in the Northern Territory but to the eastern states. The party also sees its proximity to Asia as a trading gateway for Australia and will pursue improvements in roads and freights in its region. They are keen to attract people to work in health and education, improve health care and maximise the lifestyle benefits that come with living in some of country’s most popular ecological playgrounds for the benefit of both locals and tourists.
David Pocock
The party named for the former rugby union player may be small, but has made its voice heard at the Federal level through active engagement in review of legislation and advocating for his constituents. Pocock has delivered a degree of independence to the Australian Capital Territory through earning the right to legislate for itself on voluntary assisted dying, a choice every individual should be able to make for themselves.
InACTing’s concerns lie not in Pocock, but the pervasive mismanagement, corruption and racism endemic in the ACT Public Service. The ACT’s historic housing debt for which Pocock seeks Commonwealth forgiveness, is directly attributable to the missing money identified and investigated by the Indigenous Commissioner for ACT Revenue and acknowledged by another former rugby player, Angel Marina in a letter dated 9 May 2002.
Pocock also advocates for a pay increase for the Australian Federal Police. InACTing contest that when the AFP do their job properly, when they investigate and charge the true criminals rather than fitting-up an Indigenous man who whipped their rears in court 16-0, a pay rise may be justified.
Family First
Strongly aligned with families and the rights of parents, Family First is against gender re-assignment, trans-sexual rights and pornography. They are pro-nuclear, pro-gas, pro-gun, anti-abortion and anti-surrogacy, including banning sperm and egg donations. They support benefits for families, particularly larger ones, including splitting incomes between parents to lower tax burdens.
The intent to provide safety sleeping arrangements and supports for those on the streets, as well as a suitable “safety net” is laudable, if somewhat vague. They are supportive of stronger ties with the United States and want to see the abolition of the Australian Human Rights Commission. Notably they assert that multi-culturalism has failed. It is perhaps needless to say that their website makes no statements about Indigenous people whatsoever.
The Fusion Party
The Fusion Party is just that – an amalgamation of smaller parties commencing in 2021. Curiously, the name of the secretary is redacted on their “Our Party” page. One would think that a party heading into an election and including transparency in its mission statement would not withhold the names of key executives, particularly as Wikipedia indicates that Amanda van Keimpema currently holds the position.
The website seems to have morphed from a Science Party origin with several statements using that name. They are against data retention, but support voluntary assisted dying, whistleblower protections and individual freedom. There’s a synergy here with the Legalise Cannabis Party, until you realise the proposal for a “sin tax” covering such items as tobacco, gambling and alcohol. Individual freedoms versus a “sin tax”. The disjuncture between freedom and moralistic control is difficult to reconcile.
Advocating for a republic and significant constitutional reform to alter the process of selection of representatives to both houses of parliament is unrealistic. Referendums and the Australian people are close to immiscible.
The party notes under its Law and Order policy the high representation of Aboriginal people in prison and deaths in custody, noting the need to correct the situation should be a priority. Highlighting the lack of impetus in addressing these issues and advocating for an increase Jobseeker (referred to as Newstart), they are a party driven by what appears to be well educated individuals. Nevertheless, for all the volumes of material on their website it appears outdated and their policies lack coherence.
Great Australian Party (with Lib/PFP)
Asserting that The Commonwealth of Australia has been subverted by a series of events commencing in 1952, the party seeks to align with the United States and the Trump administration to restore what they see as the undermined Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 (UK). GAP invokes the “laws of England” advocating for reduced migration and review of the visa system. Judicial reform is also on their agenda, with the inference that all trials would be heard by a jury. Currently, for criminal offences heard at District Court level on higher, an accused may choose to be heard by either judge or a jury with agreement of the judge. Stripping away this option would reduce an individual’s freedom choice. Naming juvenile offenders would breach human rights conventions and would have a disproportionate impact on Indigenous youth. Oddly they wish to introduce legislation to enforce the Nuremberg Code, principles developed post World War II in response to the unconscionable experimentation on people in concentration camps. This appears to be a response to mandatory vaccinations.
GAP is supportive of a National & Islander Council to review land rights legislation, protect birth rights to land (one would assume for non-Indigenous people as well as Indigenous) and some form of recompense for the effects of colonisation. Their concepts are unorthodox and one wonders with what authority Gunham Badi Jakamarra signed a Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation with GAP.
Come back tomorrow for Part Two!