Voting Behaviours and Indigenous Rights in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada

Last year, Wabanakwat (Wab) Kinew became the first First Nations person to be elected as premier of a Canadian province. While this was a historic event, it was the spread of anti-Indigenous misinformation and disinformation on Indigenous people in Manitoba’s political campaign, as well as those in Australia and New Zealand, that made this event internationally noteworthy.

On 3 October 2023, the provincial election in Manitoba, Canada made headlines around the globe as Wabanakwat (Wab) Kinew led the Manitoba New Democratic Party (NDP) to victory. Beyond being a “first,” his electoral victory is significant from a comparative perspective, given that both Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand went to the polls eleven days later. While they are three very different cases—with regular elections in New Zealand and Manitoba (a Canadian province) and a constitutional referendum in Australia—this was a shared moment among the three. Voters in three Anglo-settler nation states were asked to grapple with the colonial realities and histories of their nations, despite a lack of real understanding and a persistent unwillingness to do so, or what is sometimes described as settler amnesia. Beyond this shared historical moment, voters in all three polities confronted political campaigns that were dominated by division, anti-Indigenous racism, misinformation, and disinformation.

Before proceeding, it is important to correct the global headlines and clarify that Wab Kinew is not the first Indigenous premier in Canada. Kinew is not even Manitoba’s first Indigenous premier as that honour goes to Metis leader Louis Riel who was recently recognised as Manitoba’s founding premier. Kinew is the first First Nations provincial premier in Canada even though Indigenous premiers have previously been elected in two of three territories and three of ten provinces.

Some confusion is perhaps understandable. In Australia, territories are different to states or provinces and their governments do not have the same constitutional standing or jurisdictions. Further, there is no singular Indigenous peoples. They are categorised as either Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders by the State, and then further divided into their own pre-colonial political, cultural, and linguistic entities. Each nation is then characterised by complex relationalities of mobs, clans, language groups, and nations. Meanwhile, Canada constitutionally recognises Inuit, Metis, and Indian (First Nations) as constituting three categories of Indigenous Peoples—with First Nations encompassing a plethora of diverse nations, each with their own histories, cultures, languages and territories. Thus, while there have been Indigenous territorial premiers, this is a provincial first.

The real significance of his electoral victory is evidenced by the shared political moment between the three polities. Divided by eleven days and a gigantic ocean, the outcome of the provincial election in Manitoba could not have looked more different from results in the Aoteroa/New Zealand election or the constitutional referendum in Australia. But the outcomes were exceedingly different. At their core, these three polities have a shared history and reality as Anglo-settler societies, which continues to define  and shape politics and the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the state.  Thus, while these were three very different political contests – a provincial/sub national election with a conservative incumbent, a national election in a unitary state with a centre-left incumbent, and a national constitutional referendum—each was characterised by the dominance of anti-Indigenous racism and mis/disinformation.

For instance, in Manitoba, external conservative groups funded billboards and a texting blitz with ads which presented Kinew as a “convicted criminal” who would “distribute ‘free heroin and hard drugs for criminals’ and would defund the police if elected.” In New Zealand, the use of misinformation and disinformation on social media did not differ significantly from previous elections. However, right-wing evangelist Julian Batchelor went on a nation-wide tour in what most deemed an anti-Maori and anti-treaty campaign that re-activated and mobilised social networks, including COVID conspiracy and anti-vax communities, in the lead up to the election. Meanwhile, in Australia, the Guardian compared the prevalence of disinformation during the referendum to “Steve Bannon’s strategy of flooding the zone.” Social media and Murdoch’s news platforms were used to spread old fears like “the voice is going to steal your backyard,” only this time with the added benefit of “manipulated social media algorithms.”

While “disinformania” took over Australia during the referendum, Manitoba and New Zealand saw uncharacteristically negative campaigns that misled voters using half-truths and incomplete information, “targeting voters’ emotions through words or pictures.” The strategies are effective in “driving division and causing harm” to individuals, communities and social cohesion. Take, for instance, the plethora of ads which portrayed Kinew as a criminal. While these would likely be characterised as half-truths and not disinformation given that Kinew faced charges in his 20s, such misrepresentations of the facts trigger the same results given that they play to the same deep-seated emotions present in Anglo settler-society. Thus, while the differences between disinformation and incomplete information are significant, it is equally important to understand that each resulted in anti-Indigenous racism.

More importantly, the racism that transpired was likely experienced by individuals in similar ways despite the different political and historical contexts. This is because Indigenous people, particularly men, are—just as they have always been—portrayed, perceived and treated as threats to peaceful, “white,” civilised, society. Thus, the context is as important as the message in understanding the construction of Indigenous tropes—such as the “Imaginary Indian” or the “Imagined Indian” as “savage”—as a constant threat to whitestream or mainstream society, be that a Queensland backyard, a Winnipeg street corner or a Wellington boardroom.

While these Anglo-settler societies converged through the anti-Indigenous political campaigns that portrayed Indigenous people in all three polities as threats to settler nations and their democracies, it is important to understand that they diverged when the votes were counted. Manitoban voters were confronted with print and social media ads reminding them that they need not fear the judgement of others as casting a ballot is done privately and they are free to think what they want about Indigenous people.Australian voters were urged to wear “NO” and to stand proud as they defended the Australian “way of life” and values, from Aboriginal intelligentsia and others who would steal their lands and backyards. While New Zealanders were implored to unite together to “protect” New Zealand and vote to defend their democracy from Māori elites.

Australians were publicly thanked for voting no on the cover of Murdoch newspapers; New Zealand voters by contrast caught the globe by surprise with its “disillusioned and angry voters,” and the sudden shift from “kind politics” to a coalition of the far-right.Manitoba’s election made headlines around the world as it stood strong against anti-Indigenous politics, defended reconciliation, rejected American-styled negative, attack-ad politics, and voted in Kinew’s NDP government.

While Kinew continuously stated that he wants to be a premier for all Manitobans, and has built an incredibly inclusive and representative government, there is little doubt that his government will be different than every other Manitoba government. Kinew’s philosophy is grounded in an understanding of Manitoba’s colonial realities and an acknowledgement that the province needs to reconcile itself and its relationship with Indigenous nations, past, present and future. In many ways it seems as though Manitoba and New Zealand have traded their political stripes—exchanging right/left ideologically driven governments and exchanging compassionate, kind, inclusive leadership with divisive, “racial dog-whistling” leaders with a “nastier tone.” As this new reality of politics, particularly in the metaverse, is being played out in elections across the globe, attention needs to be given to more fully understanding the impact of racist, anti-Indigenist, anti-LGBTQ, anti-ethnic, anti-migrant messages on disillusioned voters as well as how they are being experienced by the targets themselves. Perhaps then we will have a better understanding of the true nature of the impact of disinformation and misinformation, not just at the ballot box, but more broadly and perhaps even as having a structuring effect on the lives of targeted groups, the societal amnesia being imagined, and the societies or systems being manipulated or fortified regardless of election results.

Kiera Ladner is the Canada Research Chair in Miyo We’citowin, Indigenous Governance & Digital Sovereignties & a Distinguished Professor in Political Studies at the University of Manitoba (Canada). Earlier in 2024, she was also the Vice-Chancellor’s ‘Australia & the World’ Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Licence and may be republished with attribution.