In the Queensland parliament in May, Annastacia Palaszczuk spoke bluntly about “uncomfortable truths”.
“Each generation is called to make its mark on its age,” Palaszczuk said. “A treaty with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is ours.
“We have not faltered in our commitment.”
On Thursday, Queensland’s Path to Treaty appeared to reach a dead end. The Liberal National party withdrew bipartisan support, claiming – without a deliberate attempt at irony – that the process “will lead to greater division”.
Then Palaszczuk faltered in her commitment.
She deflected questions about the treaty by saying it was “a long way off” and would require opposition support.
“We need unity in this state and we need to be talking about the issues that really matter out there amongst Queenslanders. It is cost of living.
“For a treaty process you would need bipartisan support. You’d need to go and ask the leader of the opposition today about why he is not standing by what he said in parliament.”
LNP move backs Palaszczuk government into a corner
Palaszczuk, of course, is not to blame for the LNP’s cold political calculation after the failed voice to parliament referendum.
It’s a simple enough tactic. The frontline of next year’s state election contest will be fought in Townsville, Cairns, regional centres and the city fringes where Labor holds a tenuous grip on several seats. Those places voted overwhelmingly against the voice.
Pollsters have cautioned against reading too much into the political implications of the referendum, but the last thing Labor would want ahead of the October 2024 poll is to see the same scare campaigns unleashed.
The opportunism in opposition leader David Crisafulli’s manoeuvre is plain to see. He might as well have dared Palaszczuk to make treaty an election issue.
Crisafulli said on Thursday that the LNP will repeal legislation enabling a path to treaty – which his party voted for in May – if they win government.
“I’m not prepared to do what the prime minister did and just continue strongly without listening,” he said.
“Going down the same path for another bruising six months, 12 months, several years, in my mind would not advance anything. It would regress the situation.”
The LNP has consistently lost ground to minor rightwing parties in regional Queensland at recent elections and the treaty backflip might have been executed with half an eye on those contests. The conservative party cannot win an election with a primary vote in the mid-30s and without winning seats in north Queensland.
However, those sorts of calculations always have a flipside in Queensland. The party holds only four seats in greater Brisbane and has previously been seen as subservient to the hard right. The party could lose Clayfield – which voted yes at the referendum – to Labor or the Greens.
The LNP position has backed the government into a corner, some Labor MPs said. The way they see it, Palaszczuk has been left with two options: softly back away from treaty while blaming the LNP for the failure; or progress the work quietly, while trying to keep the issue away from the election.
“It’s probably too early to say which way it will go,” one MP said.
Palaszczuk’s concessions embolden conservatives
Whatever the decision, the situation exposes a government that appears to be limping towards the next election, consistently unable to control its own agenda.
Palaszczuk’s last election victory was built on her intractability during the Covid pandemic. It seemed no amount of media pressure or political attacks could sway her on border closures and restrictions.
And yet in the time since, Palaszczuk’s government has given pretty clear signals that it is not up for a serious political fight. It has bowed to pressure on youth crime, modest land tax reforms, and housing standards.
When the going gets tough, the premier’s office has one tactic – try to get the issue off the agenda.
The problem is that the neutralisation strategy rarely appears to work. Each concession to a Courier Mail campaign only emboldens the newspaper to come back harder next time. Each policy backflip on youth crime has only amplified the hysteria at the next serious incident.
Pollsters understand there are layers to political strategy. Taking decisions because of the votes you might win, or lose, is just the skin of the onion.
Voting is an emotional decision. Most people walk into polling stations having wrestled with their feelings, rather than weighed policy outcomes or tried to align their values to political parties. One thing they won’t abide is politicians who don’t come across as genuine.
If Palaszczuk is to win next year, she needs voters to believe she is willing to fight for something – anything – in the face of political pressure. And that might mean facing up to some uncomfortable truths.
