Queensland election: Might as well be 93 by-elections as localism grips parties

There are nine precious days left in the Queensland election campaign. There is still no sign of anything like a statewide campaign from any of the prominent parties, major or minor. Paralysis seems more evident at the heart of the campaign while localism reigns supreme in individual seats.

Make no mistake, this is an ­atomised campaign of refracted messages, appealing to local sentiments, fixing local irritants, ­promising modest “pork-barrel” commitments that have almost no resonance outside the particular electorate in which they were given. We could be forgiven for thinking this election is one of 93 by-elections held on the same day.

There is no great appetite for a “big debate” between the party leaders, and one intended debate at the Queensland Media Club was cancelled because of arguments over its timing. Paradoxically the start of the Ashes at the Gabba, beginning on Thursday of the final week, was a major factor, the opposition wanting it held before the cricket began and the Premier wanting it once the distraction of the cricket had started.

A scaled-down head-to-head Q&A session called the “people’s forum” will take place in the Broncos League Club and run on Sky News this week but, so far as I can tell, will not be broadcast free-to-air. No other head-to-head has been agreed. These “TV leader debates” just don’t cut the mustard any more.

So what are the tectonic forces shifting this regionalised election? The state’s historic dependence on mining has become a divisive issue overshadowing the campaign and it is compromising messages from the government side and to some extent from the opposition too. But the contortionist issue is not playing out exactly as some would expect.

Support for the $16.5 billion Adani Galilee Basin coalmine project is strong in seats around Mac­kay, Rockhampton, Gladstone and even Bundaberg — all hoping to secure jobs as mining gets under way. Yet most of these coastal seats are Labor-held (some quite marginal such as Bundaberg, Burdekin, Mirani and Keppel) ­despite the fact Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and her deputy have indicated a reluctance for the project to proceed (and some local ALP candidates, such as Ali King standing in ­Maiwar, telling a journalist Adani would not go ahead because it did not stack up).

Mid-north regional communities, powerful unions such as the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union and local councillors have campaigned strongly for the project to begin. Unions are the Labor Party in these regional centres and provide foot soldiers for the election. Farther south, in the leafy Brisbane suburbs, Adani has become a leitmotiv issue for the inner-city Greens wealthy enough not to be affected by the outcome. But for the first time in a long while, metropolitan Brisbane has not been the centre of attention in terms of determining the outcome.

West of Brisbane, local communities (and the CFMEU) affected by the delay in the New Acland mine near Oakey have mounted a spirited defence of the project, but so far this has been a far less prominent issue because few seats are at stake in two-party terms.

However One Nation, which opposes the mine’s expansion, could make gains in this corridor with farming communities (including in the tight contest for Lockyer and also in Condamine, Southern Downs and Nanango — three of the LNP’s safest seats on paper).

Besides the mining miasma, the big issues incline towards household concerns and local frustrations; namely, the cost of electricity bills and traffic congestion. These are significant hip-pocket issues, fuelled by static wage movement, declining household in­comes and endless waiting times stuck in daily motorway gridlock. In outer-metropolitan and regional centres, unemployment, youth crime and drug use appear to vie for equal attention. The Liberal National Party believes this is a strong card for it.

As punters across the state contemplate the composition of the next parliament, many are asking if it may be yet another hung parliament (as happened in 1996, 1998 and in 2015). The main protagonists pretend to be oblivious to the prospect of a wrecking result. Yet Queensland could be on the verge of removing two one-term governments in short succession — something not seen since the early 1900s.

The Premier repeatedly has refused to confirm that she would seek to call another election in the new year to sort out the mess, preferring simply to state that she intends to win. But depending on the result and the composition of the assembly, the call may not be hers to make. If Labor falls short of a majority, any assemblage of MPs that can claim the confidence of the house can approach the Governor to form government. Constitutionally, the Premier would be obliged to resign if she were unable to command a majority on her own and could not countenance an arrangement or alliance with crossbenchers, the Greens or even One Nation.

Already one courageous retiring member, Ian Rickuss, the former Nationals MP for Lockyer who cut his teeth standing against One Nation, has ventured publicly that both major parties must deal with whichever other parties are elected to the new parliament.

This week we have seen vigorous disputes over game-­playing with preferences and accusations of breaking ranks at the individual electoral level. In the Senate this week Labor and LNP senators traded allegations that the parties regionally were not following their formal preference positions. Labor senators such as Anthony Chisholm accused the LNP and One Nation of hatching a cosy deal to exchange preferences and “running dead” in Townsville seats such as Thuringowa, thereby threatening Labor-held seats. Similar claims have been made about local LNP branches around central Brisbane advocating a preference flow to the Greens’ candidates to unseat Labor members.

LNP senator Ian Macdonald, from Townsville, countered by claiming local unions were publicly countermanding Labor’s edict always to put One Nation last and instead advocating “put the LNP last”. These are not simply grubby tricks but life-and-death decisions in local seats where rival protagonists feel it necessary to go their own way. Viewing this rank opportunistic behaviour, the question we may ask is: are these rats leaving a sinking ship or rats hoping to save a lifeboat or two?

John Wanna is professor of politics at the Australian National University and Griffith University.