Annastacia Palaszczuk had an extraordinary victory at the Queensland election. While the (very few) polls suggested Labor might cling on to government for an unlikely third consecutive term, she managed not only to win seats but increase Labor’s primary vote by about 5 per cent for its highest primary vote since 2009.
With just over 40 per cent of the primary vote, a Labor victory was inevitable. In Palaszczuk’s previous victories, the primary vote had been 37.5 per cent (in 2015) and 35.4 per cent (in 2017).
Labor’s increased vote came at the expense of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, which lost half its support from the previous election – down from 13.7 to 6.9 per cent. But this wasn’t a straight transfer of votes from One Nation to Labor. The LNP was the true source of much of the One Nation vote at the previous three elections and it probably benefited at least as much as Labor from One Nation’s disintegration.
What this election demonstrates is that a significant proportion of Queensland voters – probably more than elsewhere in Australia – is not committed to one party or another on a continuing basis. Voters switch from one party to another with relative ease. And this happens at each level of government – federal, state and local.
For example. The Brisbane City Council elections were held in March this year. Unlike most capital cities in Australia, the BCC covers virtually the whole of the geographic area of the city. At the mayoral election, Labor managed just 30 per cent of the vote. Yet at this state election Labor secured about twice that percentage of the vote in the same area. Federally, last year it secured about half-way in between.
Or look at Labor’s primary vote in the past six state elections, beginning in 2006: 46.7 per cent, 42.3 per cent, 26.7 per cent, 37.5 per cent, 35.4 per cent and now 40.3 per cent.
There could be an argument that Queensland voters are a quite discerning bunch, happy to make judgments about the merits of contesting political parties and candidates and to switch allegiances accordingly. Of course they make mistakes from time to time – they fell for Campbell Newman, for example, who used his successful stint as Lord Mayor of Brisbane to take over the leadership of the LNP and lead it to an extraordinary victory in 2012 (when Labor was reduced to just 7 seats in the then 89-member Parliament). But his reign was judged unacceptable by voters at the following election when he and his government were removed in a reverse landslide.
Frequently, as John Ford and Roger Scott demonstrated in their articles in Pearls and Irritations in recent weeks, the way Queenslanders vote is significantly affected by regional issues and personalities. But this election was different. Regional variations were far less important than the state-wide importance of Ms Palaszczuk’s leadership – and the equivocation of the Opposition Leader – during the corona virus crisis.
Acting on the advice of the State’s Chief Health Officer, Dr Jeannette Young, the Premier closed the borders more than six months ago, and despite the demands of the federal government, the NSW government and many in the tourist industry, kept most of them closed until election day.
Ms Palaszczuk’s insistence that the borders remain shut to ‘keep Queenslanders safe’ was made more credible by the fact that Dr Young was herself seen as an independent expert and that she was a familiar figure for many Queenslanders, having held her position for 15 years and made many appearances in the media during health emergencies through that period.
Months into the shut-down the Opposition Leader, Deb Frecklington, joined the critics of the government and urged the reopening of the borders. She later recanted, saving her criticism for the implementation of the closures, but lost credibility on the issue. If anything, she was further undermined when the Prime Minister joined her election campaign – his presence a reminder that the only guarantee the borders would remain closed (if necessary) was the re-election of the Palaszczuk government.
As the elections in the Northern Territory, the ACT and New Zealand showed, voters approved a policy that was sold to them as keeping them safe from the virus. It may be that the policy was particularly appealing to older voters. But the Queensland results suggest that despite the damage the policy undoubtedly inflicted on the tourist industry, there was no significant voter backlash in relevant electorates.
There was another policy issue that didn’t get much publicity, but was widely canvassed in many electorates and may have had some impact. This was a promise by the Premier to introduce voluntary assisted dying legislation (permitting euthanasia) into the parliament, and to personally vote for it. The Opposition Leader would not commit to the legislation proceeding. A similar legislative proposal for euthanasia has just been approved in a referendum in New Zealand by almost two-thirds of those who voted.
And on the subject of publicity it is noteworthy that the Murdoch press once again (unsuccessfully) devoted its resources to trying to defeat the Palaszczuk government. The Townsville Bulletin, for example, gave a full front page to pictures of the LNP candidates for the crucial marginal seats in its area – Townsville, Mundingburra and Thuringowa – under the headings, ‘LNP trio slap down plan criticism’ ‘CURFEW CRUSADERS’. This was to support the LNP policy of imposing an 8pm curfew on young people under the age of 14, and 10pm on those 15-17, in Townsville and Cairns. (Labor held or increased its majority in each seat.)
And despite the desperate efforts of the Courier-Mail in Brisbane to champion the LNP on news as well as opinion pages, Labor’s vote generally increased there more than that of the LNP. The one scalp the paper might claim was that of former Deputy Premier Jackie Trad, who lost her seat to the Greens. But this happened only because the LNP switched its preferences from Labor to the Greens.
David Solomon is a former legal and political correspondent. He has degrees in Arts and Law and a Doctorate of Letters. He was Queensland Integrity Commissioner 2009-2014.
Comments
8 responses to “Queenslanders are different”
The Murdoch media have damaged their own credibility by their contemptuous attitude to the public’s fear of death by COVID, not only for themselves but for others. Most people are grateful to governments that protect the public from COVID, and reject, outright, organisations that promote behaviour that exposes people to it.
The inner city electorates going from Labour to Green has been apparent for some time, think Adam Bandt replacing Lindsay Tanner federally. It just happens that those seats are/were held by senior Labour figures, Lindsay Tanner, Tanya Plibersek, Albo, Anna Bligh and Jackie Trad. Those seats will continue to change to Green, irrespective of other factors. What will Labour do?
On another point relevant to Labour in Queensland, when will the Labour leadership (state and federal) bite the bullet and venture into ‘coal’ country, demonstrate that coal has at best 20 years left and propose a just transition to other forms of employment over that time?
A smart Labor government would start putting into place a transition program to assist coal workers out of the industry. And the unions need to get on board with this, and make sure their workers are looked after.
https://theconversation.com/labor-politicians-need-not-fear-queenslanders-are-no-more-attached-to-coal-than-the-rest-of-australia-148993#comment_2376185
Dr Solomon: thanks for that and congratulations to the returned Government.
There is one matter I continue to be curious about. Any help clarifying would be appreciated.
The post, and many including the Prime Minister, Premier and (former?) Opposition leader keep inferring the Premier made or directed the border closure e.g ‘..Ms Palaszczuk’s insistence that the borders remain shut’.
I agree such a decision – if legally possible – should be made directly by the political process.
However, the closure instrument says: ‘…l, Dr Jeannette Young, Chief Health Officer, reasonably believe it is necessary to give the following direction pursuant to the powers under s 362B of the Public Health Act 2005 …… A person must not enter Queensland unless: the person….has not been in a COVID-19 hotspot…’
For the ‘Covid emergency’ s.362B, gives powers of direction only to the Chief Health Officer – they cannot be delegated (362FA). Directions must be revoked ‘as soon as reasonably practicable after the chief health officer is satisfied the direction is no longer necessary to assist in containing, or to respond to, the spread of COVID-19 within the community’. (362E)
Leaving aside questions like whether:
a. an end of the month review by the Premier? is as soon as reasonably practicable;
b. containing or responding to COVID within the Qld community includes negating the probability of its
entry from without
there remains the question: on what basis do people say the border closure decisions are made by the Premier?
The question is significant:
• the Qld ‘responsibility’ situation appears similar to Vic. where confusion about it is likely to have
contributed to major problems in the Covid ‘emergency’;
• there are serious propositions for the Prime Minister to unilaterally declare national emergencies and
presumably for that office or its officials to make ‘directions’;
• the NSW Anti-Corruption Commissioner provided a submission to an inquiry into the Berejiklian
Government’s pre-election grants scandal which reportedly included: “if the minister is not the appointed
decision-maker, directing or urging a public servant to make a decision preferred by the minister” could
be considered corrupt conduct”.
Thanks again
Whoever’s idea it was for the Libs to run social conservatives in urban seats, is presumably now looking for a job.
The problem is they don’t have anybody in their locker except “social conservatives”. The hard right, dubbed “Christian Soldiers” are seeking to oust any moderate conservatives from the Liberal Party, beginning with John Howard’s purges and continuing in every state to this day. The rash of Christian Colleges all over the country is grooming a whole generation of young minds and recruiting them to the cause.
A bit disturbing that appeals to provincialism seems to have played a significant part – the raised finger to interfering Southerners going down well with many Qld voters. That it aligned with medical advice and they have (so far) avoided Covid outbreaks helped but I am reluctant to assign Labor’s victory to voters having a better understanding and appreciation and preference for Labor policy.
Mr Fabian; apologies for the delay. Given the absence of comment on my question in this thread, it might be more accurate to say ‘it aligned with decisions of – not advice from – the Chief Health Officer’.
On the raised finger, this also was the case within States notably NSW encouraged by the Deputy Premier and Minister Constance. Fact, rather than excuse. In my observation there are more than traces of resentment within the affected communities.
I regard with contempt politicians relying on or encouraging social division and raised fingers to gather votes. And note their attempted emulation of what is condemned, often hypocritically by them, in the United States – a divided society. In that case the ends – their election – does not justify the means let alone the all too predictable effects.
And for those rapt in matters US, didn’t the raised finger of ‘the south’ to interfering northerners contribute to things like the Civil War and later the Klan. Great examples to follow. Yes we are a long way from that, but why set out on that path.
Regards
to the when I