The defection of three indigenous MPs from the Northern Territory’s ruling Country Liberals to the Palmer United Party caps one tragic story, of missed opportunity, and begins another of blind hope and miracle-seeking. In a grotesque triumph of personal ambition over common sense played out by several members of the government across almost two years, the neediest have again come last. The risk now is that blame-shifting and infighting will entrench a failing system. When the Country Liberals took power in 2012 they had the talent, opportunity and ideas to change the Territory for the better. Now senior figures muse on whether the party is irretrievably broken, and ministers wonder if they will complete their first term. Much of the blame has been heaped on Alison Anderson, a controversial indigenous politician described by Tony Abbott recently as a “very, very fine” advocate for her people, but personally blamed by Chief Minister Adam Giles for the Third World conditions in her electorate. The difference reflects the spectrum of opinion on her role. Whatever criticism may be due to Anderson, who led the defection of herself, Francis Xavier Kurrupuwu and Larisa Lee to the PUP, the CLP cannot claim it did not know who it was taking in. The party courted Anderson after she tried unsuccessfully to cripple a Labor government in 2009. She was then, as now, a potent force with an extraordinary ability to bridge the gap between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal worlds, a skill essential to closing the gap in living standards. Anderson quit Labor because, she says, it would have been morally reprehensible of her to remain part of a government that was mismanaging indigenous housing. She, Lee and Kurrupuwu joined the CLP because they thought the party would give indigenous people a real voice in changes affecting them. All three say they walked out 18 months later because that did not happen. Instead, they claim, they were marginalised and bullied, which they say made it morally impossible to remain. The trio accuse Giles and his deputy, David Tollner, of striking “backroom” deals with federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion, another CLP member, to deprive indigenous people of their land, rights and resources. Giles and Tollner have not responded. A spokesman for Scullion called the claims nonsense. Anderson has been accused, probably correctly, of being disruptive, sometimes temperamental and inclined to weigh politics above policy. However, she has also been persecuted by sections of the media that do not stop to imagine what it might be like to participate in governments distributing indigenous funding ineffectually, and to witness the consequences of that failure in the lives of immediate family. Those media are spurred on by urban audiences who recognise only the size of the indigenous money pot and the scale of Aboriginal inactivity, not the fact most of that money is spent in the non-Aboriginal economy of which they are part. Among the reasons cited by Anderson, Lee and Kurrupuwu for quitting the CLP was their government’s decision to scrap an audit of remote expenditure designed to identify waste. The audit responded to a 2012 report that found agencies “appear indifferent” to their responsibility to evaluate performance. Analysis for The Australian has shown the pattern, established under Labor, of diverting commonwealth funds intended to benefit Aborigines to programs mainly of interest to people in towns, continued under the CLP. A plan to tie federal revenue, recommended by the Abbott government’s commission of audit, has already been rejected by Tollner on the grounds it would limit autonomous spending. Giles has not responded to invitations from The Australian to address specific concerns raised by Anderson and her colleagues. Anderson knows that by quitting another party she has disadvantaged her electorate. She and her two colleagues argue it makes no difference because they were unable to influence the direction of government anyway. Most ministers dispute this, claiming the three marginalised themselves and passed up numerous opportunities to participate. Who was most responsible for the breakdown in relations is now largely immaterial. What cannot be overlooked is that the votes of disadvantaged Aborigines, who switched their support overwhelmingly to conservatives for the first time in 2012, failed to deliver the representation desired. When Giles deposed the CLP’s elected leader Terry Mills, on grounds as simple as that he wanted the job and thought he could do it better, he assumed responsibility for holding his team together. Nothing shows failure in that regard better than the determined departure of Kurrupuwu, who lacks Anderson’s disputatious instincts. The defection of two senior CLP executives to PUP is also cause for headaches. Mewling by Giles about the difficulty of leading under threat from internal strife overlooks the lengths he and his allies went to, to unseat Mills. Speaker Kezia Purick was recently revealed to have leaked secret cabinet information to the opposition during that period, in an attempt apparently coordinated with then minister Giles to undermine her own government. She still holds her job. Many people who supported Anderson’s defence of the bush were less than enthused when she quit the CLP and, in some cases, were downright furious when she joined the PUP. By attaching herself, as a symbol of Australia’s fight against indigenous disadvantage, to Clive Palmer’s Punch and Judy show, Anderson may have limited her ability to manoeuvre in a policy area dominated by the intelligentsia. It remains to be seen how the interests of Australia’s poorest people will fare amid the PUP’s jousting with the Coalition in the Senate, and whether Palmer’s catch-all party of malcontents can accommodate so many different interests once it gets a taste of power. Anderson and her two colleagues say they joined the PUP for a chance to develop their own indigenous policy. But if they succeed and win the balance of power in the next parliament, what next? To date, Anderson has been unable to work productively with either side of politics. It will take a great deal of contrition for that to change. Territory politics need realignment so indigenous voices are properly heard. In the meantime, the government stumbles on. Morale is low and policy development inchoate. For months bureaucrats have been muttering about bent rules, cut corners and a general absence of direction. Staff in the housing portfolio, which has caused the Territory so much strife in the past, speak of having “no minister”. Housing Minister Matt Conlan appears more devoted to his other portfolios of sport, recreation and tourism. Giles has embarked on feverish promotion of his northern development dream, appointing himself as de facto foreign minister, a role that takes him away from governing. His campaign at once overlaps with and attempts to usurp Canberra’s northern development plans. The case that Aborigines have not done enough to help themselves easily can be made, but Australians have accepted that indigenous disadvantage is a national problem. If society were to wash its hands of the issue, the policy landscape and, who knows, perhaps even the outcomes would be radically different. For years Anderson has spearheaded part of that national campaign, but her reputation and her legacy are on the line. If she fails, those invested in the present broken system will have another chance to excuse themselves by blaming her. Australia’s poorest people deserve better from politicians all around.
Posted on: Sun, 04 May 2014 01:40:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015