Opinion: Newman exposes naked truth about LNP’s policy depth

By taking the small-target strategy to the extreme, Queensland’s LNP is taking voters for mugs, writes Paul Williams.

This week, Campbell Newman ruffled some proud LNP feathers.

In criticising the Queensland LNP for rolling itself into one of the smallest policy balls Australia has ever seen, the ex-LNP premier described his former party as undeserving to win the coming state election. More on that later.

For now, Newman’s principal gripe is with the LNP’s support for a Labor pledge to reduce carbon emissions by 75 per cent by 2035. Newman claims – probably quite correctly – the LNP rank and file is cranky at what appears to be an LNP lurch to the Left.

But let’s remember Newman is hardly a neutral observer. The former ­premier was a 2022 senate candidate for the libertarian Liberal Democrat Party, inevitably hostile to any number of government interventions.

The LDP, with Newman as lead candidate, attracted just 2.5 per cent of the Senate vote in Queensland.

For David Crisafulli and his environment spokesman Sam O’Connor, supporting Labor’s carbon emissions target is simple electoral arithmetic.

According to a 2022 Lowy poll, 60 per cent of Australians support carbon reduction targets “even if this involves significant costs”. Put simply, the LNP must match Labor’s emission targets to remain even remotely credible.

But will such a policy drive LNP votes to One Nation, Katter’s Australian Party and the LDP? Perhaps.

But that support will easily return to the LNP via second preferences.

Back to Newman’s claim the LNP has become a too-small target. Is it supported? Well, a visit to the LNP’s website will see prospective voters struggle to find anything resembling a policy bank.

Since federal Labor leader Bill Shorten’s disastrous 2019 campaign that proudly paraded a policy target so big it could be seen from space – including a ham-fisted franking credits tax reform the Coalition deceitfully described as a retirement tax – no Australian opposition has risked sticking its head too far above the policy parapet.

Of course, it’s every opposition’s right to play the “small” game to avoid government and media scrutiny.

But the Queensland LNP has taken this to a new extreme. And, in doing so, it’s taking the state’s swinging voters – tired of Labor and looking for a change – for something like mugs.

David Crisafulli (front) with Campbell Newman when in government in 2012

Yes, the LNP website boasts a tab to download the “Right Priorities for Queensland’s Future” brochure – one seen under every shadow minister’s arm during television news sound bites – but on opening, readers appear no better informed. Yes, there are headings addressing Labor’s core weaknesses – crime, health, housing, and the cost of living – but readers are brushed off with vague, feel-good sentiments.

These include “restoring consequences for action at the heart of the Youth Justice Act”, “Empowering local decision-making in health”, and “Delivering better services and infrastructure”.

They’re worthy aspirations, but what will actually be legislated? Who will be hired (or fired), and what will be built? When, and what cost?

I’m hearing complaints about a lack of LNP policy not just from Labor and Green voters – each of these parties has a “policy” tab on its website – but also from others curious to know LNP plans for the public service, coal royalties, and even recently passed abortion and euthanasia laws.

That’s why I will always respect Newman’s decision to seek a mandate for his asset privatisation program (at the 2015 election) before selling a single stick of state infrastructure.

In that election, Queenslanders were asked to deliberate on the LNP’s widely advertised privatisation policy. The government advanced its arguments and the opposition theirs, with pressure groups and individual voters having months to weigh the pros and cons.

The fact Newman’s proposal was rejected in a 14 per cent swing shows just how powerful a transparent deliberative democracy can be.

Sadly, Labor’s Anna Bligh did not seek a mandate for her own privatisation program before the 2009 election, and she paid a heavy price.

Compare Bligh to Labor’s Wayne Goss, who campaigning in 1988 and 1989 after revelations of corruption at the Fitzgerald inquiry, offered policies – in easy-to-read, colour-coded pamphlets – on every conceivable issue.

That’s proof “big-target” strategies can win campaigns if, and only if, an ­opposition has the goods to back it up.

There’s no longer any doubt the LNP will form majority government at the October election. Labor can do virtually nothing to halt the LNP juggernaut.

That’s why it’s the LNP’s democratic duty to become a significantly larger policy target before claiming any legitimate mandate. If the LNP genuinely wants a new approach to politics, that approach starts here.

Dr Paul Williams is an associate professor at Griffith University