Queensland has always been a bit of an outlier when it comes to Westminster conventions. Perhaps Joh Bjelke-Petersen was treated a bit unfairly when he was put under pressure to answer questions about the separation of powers in the wake of the Fitzgerald Enquiry. Political interference with the judiciary and the use of the police as an arm of the state were, after all, just the way things had always been done around here whether the government was a Labor one protected by a gerrymander (from 1948) or a National Party fiefdom. Mechanisms of accountability, parliamentary or otherwise, were notoriously attenuated, and populist bossism the order of every day.
It was to the credit of elements within the Liberal Party of the 70s and early 80s that they resisted incorporation into Joh’s power machine and tried to make parliament meaningful. The sin against the holy ghost that split the Coalition in 1983 (and initiated a sequence of events which led to Joh’s governing in his own right) was support for a Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise executive government.
The Nationals have obviously learnt nothing – they’ve now bullied the Liberals into accepting that they will provide the Premier no matter what the voters might decide. Libs have more seats? No problem. Stuff the people’s will – the squattocracy will govern. Nothing much more could have been expected from Opposition Leader Jeff Seeney. But the Libs’ supine caving into a fundamentally undemocratic arrangement which makes a nonsense of Westminster democracy is the real disgrace.
Elsewhere: More at Ambit Gambit.
Hey Mark,
Yes I thought it sounded pretty strange when I read that Seeney would be Premier in a coalition government regardless of the actual election result. It’d be interesting in the Coalition party room if Seeney was indeed Premier and there were more Liberal MPs than National MPs, as the Libs could outvote the Nats on any issue they wanted! I can imagine the Nats stomping their feet and saying, “No, we won’t be part of a coalition unless we supply the Premier”. The thing is, the Libs could just tell the Nats to bugger off and form a minority govt – there’s no way the Nats would support an ALP minority govt.
So, when Labor win, Seeney becomes Premier?
How do they figure that will work?
If I had more confidence in the Qld Libs I’d say that they were given Seeney enough rope. After this he’ll treat them like doormats.
Any word on Anna Bligh rolling Beattie?
That’s scuttlebut, I believe.
Mark, predictable outcome; Flegg is fighting above his weight division, no wonder Seeney won the title, bigger boy his reach, all the better for jabbing.
Any stats on height, weight, reach available?
A commitment like this seems guaranteed to make the Liberals even more on the nose to voters in Queensland state elections than currently. “The Nationals have obviously learnt nothing”, clearly, but what possessed the Liberals to agree to this? It’s suicidal!
What do people up in Qld think is the max number of seats the Nats could realistically expect to win (barring a landslide win) ?
Andrew E: I would say you have a point, except the Liberal Party in Qld has always been total wann kerrs, I think you give them too much credit.
We don’t have to worry anytime soon about Jeff Seeney being premier, as “anybody else” will get more votes than a party/coalition led by him. He is too much of a prick.
However, Seeney as Premier would at least not be punching above his weight division. Unlike Flegg, (acknowledgement to tictoc) who can’t handle deputy leader of the opposition.
Really. This would be extraordinary and IMHO will not happen. The party heavyweights, not members of the parliamentary parties, will decide which party contests what seats. Seeney and Flegg are in some sort of parallel universe.
As for Anna Bligh challenging Beattie at this stage is highly unlikely. You have to have the numbers.
It’s so mad they can’t possibly believe the agreement will stick, can they? Running in equal numbers of seats! That’s 49 apiece. There’s 38 in ‘Brisbane’ so I assume the Nats will take 4 of the 15 seats on the gold and sunshine coasts and every seat everywhere else.
Did Flegg negotiate this agreement or the Qld Lib office?
Darryl, the Nats could easily run in a couple of “Brisbane” seats – eg the three Ipswich seats. If I were a coalition strategist I would probably run Lib candidates in some of the provincial cities eg Cairns and Townsville, and maybe Whitsunday too if its tourism industry was relatively large enough.
For reasons which I and others have pointed out previously, this sort of agreement will render itself moot by ensuring that the Coalition loses the next election.
The best metaphor I can think of for Liberal/National argy-bargy over which of them will provide the next Queensland Premier is that of Peter Garrett and Angry Anderson fighting over a comb.
The more I think about it the more it becomes apparent that Flegg has signed his own death warrant. This ‘agreement’ won’t damage Seeney but Flegg’s stance suggests he will have to be replaced before the next election campaign.
This nonsense agreement is a ‘personal’ one. There is an easy way out of this embarrassment.
At least Flegg is consistent. Clueless.
Yes, I think it shows that Flegg has been bullied by Seeney.
I agree that this is an incredibly stupid decision for the Libs. However, I don’t agree with calling it “fundamentally undemocratic”.
Just because one party has more seats in a coalition does not mean it should supply the Premier. Theoretically if the most skilled experienced etc person came from the smaller party then there is no reason why they shouldn’t lead the coalition, and become premier if they win.
Indeed, I suspect the only hope for the conservative parties is that one day the Libs will have someone who is so clearly the better candidate that they will be accepted as leader of a coalition even while the Nationals have the numbers in opposition. Once such a person is found they will probably lead the combined parties to victory over a very tired ALP, a victory in which the Libs will almost certainly have the numbers.
Otherwise the Libs and Nats will simply have to wait for the day when the libs outnumber the Nats even in safe seats, and so a Lib becomes leader of the coalition pre-election.
Going into an election saying “whoever gets more seats will supply the leader” is as much electoral death as saying “someone who is electoral poison in most marginal seats will be leader no matter what happens”, which is what they have done.
It’s undemocratic for the reasons you identify, Stephen, in the last para – lots of Liberal voters don’t want a Nationals Premier and vice versa. That’s the rub which you also correctly pinpoint – because the images of the parties are so distinct and the “coalition” so loose they can’t win whichever way they play it. It’s exacerbated by Seeney’s leadership – Springborg was more acceptable to urban voters.
Sacha, I used the ECQ groupings (http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/profiles/mapsDistricts.html) which only includes Ipswich as a ‘Brisbane – South’ seat. Ip West and Lockyer are “SEQ – Balance’. I guess you could ‘safely’ run a Nat in, Woodridge and seats like that. (Like the Nats would agree to that!)
All silly speculation, ’cause it’s so far away and there’s a redistribution starting in October.
d
It appears that whatever they put in the water at the Opposition’s love-in down the coast this week has had some amazing results on the relationship between Flegg and Seeney.
According to their chief spindoctor everything is sweet, new, and the most wonderful thing since St Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus.
Therefore we will not be surprised when in parliament next week, Seeney and his Nat cohorts join with the Libs to demand more wild rivers legislation be introduced to benefit the environment, demand that vegitation Management controls be beefed up throughout Queensland immediately to cut out loss of biodiversity, demand an immediate introduction of Daylight saving, that farmers begin paying commercial rates for water as of today and that tougher gun control be introduced now. This can only be a good thing because guns don’t kill people but idiots with guns do!
When I see all this ,I will believe that the leopard has indeed changed his spots and the two have become one but I won’t be holding my breathe for any improvement in the Nats Policy position.