‘Dangerous and short-sighted’: Cloud over treaties after LNP drops support

The news

Queensland’s human rights boss has called for political leaders to stop walking back First Nations treaty commitments amid “sweeping assumptions” about the cause and meaning of the failed Voice referendum result in the state.

The LNP opposition dropped its support for the previously bipartisan Path to Treaty program on Thursday with News Corp opinion pieces in which leader David Crisafulli leaned into a key plank of the No campaign led by his federal colleagues.

David Crisafulli held a defensive press conference in Brisbane on the LNP’s backflip, which has cast a cloud over the state’s previously bipartisan First Nations policy approach.Credit: Matt Dennien

“In the days since the referendum as I have travelled throughout the state, it has become clear to me the Path to Treaty will only create further division,” Crisafulli wrote. “The LNP can no longer support a Path to Treaty and will not pursue one if elected to government.”

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk labelled Crisafulli “someone who you cannot trust” for backtracking on the laws he and his party supported through parliament in May, and backed as recently as Sunday.

She suggested a truth-telling inquiry as part of the separate state treaty pathway would still begin next year, but cast doubt beyond that.

“That’s a long way off,” she said of potential treaties, which she doubted would include reparation payments. “And that would require bipartisan support.”

Why it matters

While 69 per cent of Queensland voters said No to the Voice, some electorates around Brisbane leaned Yes, along with many regions where most residents are Indigenous.

Polling for this masthead found the claim pushed by the federal LNP that the proposal would divide the country by race was the most convincing reason to vote No.

Work on the state Path to Treaty had been largely under the radar since the bipartisan passage of laws in May, despite some reported internal LNP frustration, and the weekend referendum result.

The new stance from Crisafulli, who voted No but did not actively campaign or stop his MPs from doing so for either side, has now thrust the topic and new policy rift with Palaszczuk’s government back into public view as Labor lags in the polls before an election next October.

Labor MPs called an unscheduled caucus meeting on Thursday afternoon, with Left faction members reportedly seeking assurances about Palaszczuk’s commitment to treaties. LNP’s shadow cabinet unanimously supported the change.

What they said

In a statement, Human Rights Commissioner Scott McDouggall said Queenslanders had rejected what was a specific model of Indigenous constitutional recognition and representation but “sweeping assumptions” were being made because of this.

“Now is not the time for rash decision-making, but rather a time for proper reflection, for consultation,” he said.

“Racing to interpret the referendum results as an overall rejection of reconciliation and treaty is dangerous and short-sighted.

“Treaties are, by definition, agreements between parties. It seems nonsensical to suggest that the pursuit of an agreement could be described as divisive.”

In a defensive press conference, Crisafulli repeatedly tried to conflate the “bruising” Voice campaign and result with the separate state treaty path, saying he had to make the call to avoid “another six months of what we’ve seen”.

Crisafulli floated alternatives including issue-based targets and accountability for ministers. He did not explain how this would be different to current approaches.

While insisting he “consulted widely” on the issue, Crisafulli confirmed he did not flag the decision with any Indigenous leaders before announcing it.

Mick Gooda, a Gangulu man and a key figure in the lengthy Path to Treaty process so far, earlier this week said treaties negotiated by individual First Nations groups would be a “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity.

What’s next

Under the Path to Treaty, the “non-adversarial” inquiry to begin in 2024 would hear about historical and contemporary Indigenous issues across three years, though this could be extended.

A First Nations Treaty Institute would then help communities prepare for, and enter, treaty negotiations with government.

Sean Parnell sends an exclusive newsletter to subscribers each week. Sign up to receive his Note from the Editor.