Tasmania Redistribution: The Franklin Renaming Fiasco

In 1984 there was a proposal to rename the electorate that is now called Lyons (and was then called Wilmot) "Truganini".  For a little while this was being reported and discussed in papers, there was widespread opposition and the change was withdrawn.  Wilmot became Lyons instead.  I was twelve years old at the time and I remember this in broad outline.  But I wonder if the Augmented Electoral Commission's corporate memory goes back this far.  

Unfortunately we yet again have had a redistribution proposal for a Tasmanian electorate to have an Aboriginal name where that proposal has been supported out of pretty much nowhere and sparked significant opposition.  Last week's boundary announcement has seen 272 written submissions, most of them opposing the proposed replacement of the name Franklin with Tongerlongeter.

I want to contrast this with the process that led to the replacement of the name Denison with Clark.  By the time this change was made in the 2017 redistribution, there was a very well organised movement to change Denison to Clark.  This proposal had been active in the previous cycle and by the 2017 cycle its adherents included several prominent Tasmanians, judges, current and former politicians and there was even a petition supporting it.  It is true that the new name was not endorsed until the Augmented Electoral Commission stage but by that stage the proposal was so well known that anyone with anything to say had said it, and the change of name attracted only three further objections, I don't think any of them from Tasmanians.  People might have agreed or disagreed with the change but people knew why the change was being proposed, why Clark if there was a new name, and why there were objections to Denison.

Contrast this with debate about changing Franklin.  Redistribution processes always attract a certain level of commentary from redistribution buffs who live outside the state and who propose changes as a hobby, so the presence of a small number of suggestions that electorate names be changed doesn't necessarily mean anything.  In the 2017 cycle there were very few suggestions to rename Franklin (I counted two in the initial round of submissions).  

The present cycle was initially similar.  Only three submissions in the original round proposed retiring the name Franklin, two of these largely on the grounds of irrelevance and one citing only a match with an area and the policy to use Aboriginal names where possible.  All these were submissions that supported major redrawing and at least one, I believe two, were by non-Tasmanians.  So as of the start of this redistribution the support in submissions for retiring the name Franklin no matter what, within the Tasmanian community, basically did not exist.

Things got messy only once the Redistribution Committee proposed to radically redraw Franklin by giving that part south/west of the Derwent to Clark and adding in much of the east coast and Brighton LGA. The Committee wrote that while it found arguments for changing the name of Franklin persuasive "it was not persuaded that the names proposed or otherwise considered by the Committee to date demonstrated sufficient connection to the reconfigured electorate."  It then wrote "At this stage, the Committee proposes retaining the name Franklin, but encourages the public to provide further name ideas and feedback for consideration by the augmented Electoral Commission."

This then resulted in dozens of suggestions, but many of them read like the submitter was suggesting a name for the augmented EC to use in the event that it wanted to change the name, rather than making an argument for change.  Some submitters were under the false impression that a change of name was required given the scale of redrawing, and only about eight provided arguments for renaming Franklin (and these were typically skimpy and of the form that he was an irrelevant colonial white Pommy bloke).  Here I think the Augmented Commission has not quite grasped what has happened with its conclusion that "Most submissions proposed or supported a change to the name of Franklin."  Many were simply suggesting a name for consideration if one was wanted, because they had been asked to provide "name ideas".  The Augmented Commission has correctly noted that Franklin has been adequately commemorated elsewhere (and I add in Tasmania with his or his wife's name commemorated in  town, a river, a square and no fewer than sixteen Franklin Streets - just for starters) but aside from that provided few other reasons for retiring the name.  (Speaking of the river one of the submissions again thought it was in the old seat of Franklin - sigh, it in fact starts in Lyons and flows mostly through Braddon!)

The proposed new names were all over the place with several submitters having clearly not got the memo about ensuring connection to the electorate.  But nonetheless two did come up with one name that for sure appeared very well connected to a new electorate lacking famous people obviously connected to it, that ticked the box of being an Aboriginal name in a state that doesn't have any, and that was otherwise the name most guaranteed to ignite a public culture war: Tongerlongeter.

In weighed Tony Abbott with an op ed in which among other things he ridiculously claimed that there existed an electorate called Truganini in the ACT and that that name could be moved to Tasmania.  Far from taking proper responsibility for an incredible factual blunder he then wrote "I should thank readers for pointing out an inadvertent error in the original piece – my claim that there was already a seat of Truganini in the ACT – which shows why “information” should be triple checked."  Rather than accepting responsibility for a howler that was either a massive case of brain fade or an AI hallucination, Abbott (a former PM, current Liberal federal president and supposed published historian!) was here saying that since he had stuffed up nobody else's information should be trusted either.  

The AEC - as required by legislation - provided less than a week for written submissions on the proposed name, or the option that one can go along on July 31 and speak for just five minutes.  This process is unsatisfactory and must be changed for future cycles to allow more time for written submissions where there is a significant difference in proposals between the two stages.  That is especially so where a proposed namesake for an electorate is not well known to the general public and research is required to draw conclusions about them.  There should be a full JSCEM review of the redistribution process to ensure that there is more time for submissions when a name is proposed that was not canvassed in the previous stage and, ideally, to make it harder for the AEC to look foolish or engaged in politics.

In the time available there were still 272 submissions, far more than at previous stages.  By my count eleven are duplicates (including one where a submitter says basically the same thing in a personal and organisation capacity), just three solely concern boundaries, two were withdrawn and one was entirely blank.  Excluding all those I count 20 submissions in favour of Tongerlongeter, 234 against and one conditional, and the in favour submissions are more common early in the submission pile.  (This may reflect word taking time to spread among potential opponents but I also noted that in my informal twitter "polls" of my followers, support was much lower closer to the end of the process - presumably on account of awareness of complaints about lack of consultation with Aboriginal groups.)  Many submissions were anonymous or pseudonymous so there may have been some multiple submissions.

Questions have been raised about the extent of consultation with Aboriginal groups.  The Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (which opposes the change on grounds of inappropriateness and spelling) says it was not consulted.  It is not clear what Aboriginal groups were consulted or the subject of failed attempts and it would be interesting to know.  Outsiders and even some Tasmanians may assume that the TAC speaks monolithically for all the Palawa people but in fact Tasmanian Indigenous politics is way more complicated than that. (A good example was the Voice which both the TAC and the Circular Head Aboriginal Corporation opposed out of concern that it would give too much power to the other - in the TAC's case it considers the CHAC to be largely non-Aboriginal - while at least two high-profile elders supported the Yes case.).  Here I note submission 261 by the local (to neo-Franklin) Parrdarrama Pungenna Aboriginal Corporation, which supports and consents to the change and rejects the TAC's spelling concerns.  The TAC has raised some eyebrows by not making a submission themselves at any stage of the process, though for all I know they may be boycotting it or may appear in person at the final stage.  I have known them to appear at state electoral inquiries in person.  Only about eight of the submissions were by anyone claiming to actually be Palawa, in some cases unverifiably, and some of those were not supportive.  

The objections

Of the objections, about 33 provide no actual objection to the renaming, though I've included in that some that simply say there is no reason to change (without saying why not).

I've classed reasons provided by opponents into themes; there were many.  The most common theme (about 69 submissions) I've headed "murderer" - that Tongerlongeter and/or his fellow fighters killed settlers (who objectors describe as "civilians"), that these killings were in cases especially brutal, in some cases included women and children and included torture. 

The next commonest (about 29) I've headed "too long" - that the name is too long, hard to spell, hard to pronounce, and might even invite ridicule to the MP representing the seat.

About 22 said that Franklin was a good chap in various ways who should be commemorated, some of these laying it on a bit thick by turning him into a great scientist on the way.

About 20 objected to the lack of sufficient consultation regarding the name.

About 17 regarded the change as some kind of erasure (as I've pointed out above Franklin would be far from erased, he's very widely commemorated as it is).  Related to these a few suggested the change reflected anglophobia!

About 16 argued for preservation of Franklin on the grounds of it being a Federation electorate or a quasi-Federation electorate.  Many of these followed Tony Abbott in making false claims about this.  The seat of Franklin did not exist at the time of Federation as Tasmania elected its MHRs by a single Hare-Clark election held statewide since it had not passed legislation to divide the state into divisions.  I am unsure why it had not done so.  The most egregious submission here is sub 68, an extremely AI-smelly sub by an author purporting to have a PhD, which says Franklin was "established at Federation in 1903." Federation was in 1901.

(The best solution to this "Federation division" thing is to argue that the 1903 Tasmanian names do not have quite the status of the founding electorates but nonetheless deserve strong consideration for existing nearly as long.  The attempt to fudge them as Federation electorates based on them being created during the first term is just untenable - they did not exist and were not represented until the second election.)

About 15 submissions argued that the name change was simply divisive.  About 12 objected to it being a waste of public money with none of these providing the slightest evidence of having any idea what the cost would actually be.  About 11 argued that Tongerlongeter was an irrelevant figure to modern Australia, to European democratic traditions, to the parliamentary process and so on.  A similar number objected that changing the name at all would be confusing whatever it was changed to.

Less common objections in no particular order:

* that Tongerlongeter is too poorly known

* that Tongerlongeter would not have wanted this commemoration

* that the proposal lacked evidence of public support (some wanted truly daft levels of public support demonstration, worst of all submission 80 which wanted ... a referendum on all name or boundary changes!)

* that there are too many Indigenous names

* that this is political correctness or wokeness gone mad

* that Tongerlongeter fought against what is now Australia

* that he should be commended in another way

* that this is tokenism or pandering

* that there is simply no compelling case for change

* that a woman should be chosen instead

* opposition from the TAC / lack of consultation with Palawa (one raising this objection strangely thought the proposed namesake was a "she")

* that the renaming is political and compromises the neutrality of the AEC

* that a neutral name of a place, plant or animal should be used (if we do this can we please make it Pademelon?)

* a small number disputed Tongerlongeter's actual degree of connection to the electorate

* and worse of all, some suggested an alternative of Harradine.  (For all his skill in getting goodies for his state, I strongly disliked the way Brian Harradine also used his Senate power for unrelated anti-abortion politics, and am strongly against this proposal.)

Perhaps surprisingly, there were no nominations for Neil the Seal, whose connection with the electorate is well established, if a little bit forceful at some times.  

Harradine wasn't the only alternative suggestion that bugged me.  There was a rather cute suggestion to name the electorate Mathinna because she was the adopted child of Franklin, but the more I read about Mathinna the more I found the proposals for her or Truganini (who had little connection to the electorate) to be generally little more than saccharine white guilt.  Mathinna seems to have been adopted by the Franklins as Lady Jane's pet noble savage, then orphaned when Governor Franklin was recalled when she was eight, and to have then led a difficult life from then on, perishing at a tragically early age.  We should be naming electorates after contributors to our nation, not its victims; we should remember them in other ways.  

Few political figures have weighed in this time around.  Guy Barnett on behalf of the Tasmanian Government (162), the Tasmanian Liberals (216) and Tasmanian Labor (269) all opposed the proposal (at least in Labor's case for now).  The Government argues the name should not be changed without a compelling widely supported alternative following sufficient consultation.  The party submissions cover similar ground regarding lack of consultation and voter confusion.  

Franklin the baddie?

In the leadup to the renaming of Clark there was a strong campaign by supporters to depict Denison as unworthy of representing this great seat since he was in fact an anti-democrat.  One would expect similar for Franklin but there's not a lot of it in the submissions - though the tight time frame could be a reason for that.

A recent Mercury op ed by historians Nicholas Clements (co-author of the major book re Tongerlongeter) and Cassandra Pybus ridiculed Franklin as "an old fool who was such a glutton that he was said to eat two sheep for dinner each night".  They also argue that Franklin was a dud administrator and that he and his wife collected Aboriginal remains.  The Australian Dictionary of Biography entry has a different view, arguing that he had a tough time of things but was largely just naive at politics, getting set up by a real baddie, John Montagu.  Those entries however are dated and it would be good to see a real debate about the facts on this - one the public hasn't had because there has been no push to rename Franklin in the recent past.  What isn't in dispute is that Franklin was only even here for six years.  

Clements' submission (203) provides an eloquent argument that Tongerlongeter's resistance had no alternative to killing settlers and that conventional warfare simply isn't comparable, and also debunks Abbott's comparison to John Batman.  But his submission doesn't say much about Franklin.  Pybus (226) on the other hand declares "If the electorate continues to be named for this egregious couple I intend to be very public in ensuring that the electorate understand the terrible things they did to the original people of this place."  Well sure, but if that is so could you not have done that at an earlier stage of this process?  It might have helped?

Where to now

There will be a public hearing on July 31 prior to a final decision in August.  It's hard to see how the Tongerlongeter proposal can survive such a weight of submissions against it, and if it did the state could even come under pressure to decouple the state and federal names for the seat.  

Of the alternative names I have covered Mathinna above, and Woureddy would encounter some similar objections to Tongerlongeter (especially as Wikipedia claims that Woureddy at one point responded to his brother's killing by raping and killing his brother's ex-wife, a few submissions picked up on this, though I have no idea if that is accurate or not). That leaves Jessie Spink Rooke (suffrage and temperance campaigner) who was supported in some submissions.  But to pick Rooke at this point would seem an obvious decision to pick any white person quickly and without much scrutiny and I don't see that as a great idea either.  (Rooke also seems to have been most based in the north-west).

It took a long time to get Denison renamed to Clark.  I don't think it will do any harm if Franklin is left for another cycle to allow this debate to mature, and hopefully the new electorate to come up with its own answers.