Research Brief Index

Research Brief no. 3 2006–07

Queensland Election 2006

Scott Bennett
Politics and Public Administration Section

Stephen Barber
Statistics and Mapping Section
16 November 2006

Contents

Executive summary
Introduction
An election is called

The Government’s travails
The Coalition
Might the Government be defeated?

Over before it started?
Party prospects

The Coalition parties
The Government

Campaigning

The Government
The Opposition

The minors

The Greens
Family First

Explaining the result

The economy
Beattie’s leadership
The poor Coalition campaign
The Flegg issue
Federal factors

Seats of note

Bundaberg
Chatsworth, Gaven and Redcliffe
Clayfield
Gladstone
Gympie
Nanango
Noosa
Tablelands

The minor parties
The future for the Coalition?
In conclusion
Endnotes

Appendix Tables

Symbols and abbreviations
‘Exhausted’ votes
Appendix Table 1 Legislative Assembly: state summary
Appendix Table 2a Legislative Assembly: first preference votes, district summary
Appendix Table 2b Legislative Assembly: first preference votes, district summary
Appendix Table 3 Legislative Assembly: district details
Appendix Table 4 Legislative Assembly: two candidate preferred vote
Appendix Table 5 Legislative Assembly: electoral pendulum
Appendix Table 6 Legislative Assembly By-elections, 2004–2006
Appendix Table 7 Legislative Assembly Elections 1950–2006

Executive summary

When an Australian state or territory government is defeated, it is likely that this has been due to a drop in public confidence in their administrative performance. There is no doubt that the deteriorating quality of government services was central to much of the discussion throughout the Queensland campaign. The Government was beset with many serious problems related to its administrative performance, and opinion polls were indicating that the standing of the Premier had fallen to its lowest point since he came to office in 1998. Half-way through its three-year term, Labor’s opinion poll ranking was at about the same level as its Coalition opponents. Despite this, at the time of the election announcement the Government’s poll lead was similar to that of its winning margin in 2004. The campaign seems not to have impacted greatly on the parties’ chances, and as they fought out the days to polling day, so it became increasingly likely that the Government would be returned with little change in its vote—and few seats lost.

It seems clear that the long-standing differences between the Nationals and the Liberal Party persuaded many voters to remain with the Government, despite their concerns about Beattie and his team. The major factors seem to have been:

• the unsuccessful efforts during 2005–06 to achieve a long-standing coalition arrangement
• the preference of the Nationals leader for a merger of the two non-Labor parties
• the sudden announcement of a merger in May 2006, pushed aside within a few days
• the unexpected removal of the Liberal leader, Bob Quinn, by Bruce Flegg in August 2006
• a series of blunders by Flegg during the campaign, and
• the lack of any carefully-prepared, long-argued, set of Coalition policies.

Throughout the campaign opinion polls indicated a widespread frustration that the Nationals and Liberals were not taking the opportunity of Labor’s fall in popularity:

• once the election was announced the gap between Labor and Coalition settled at about 10 per cent in favour of the former
• Beattie’s standing was consistently higher than either Springborg or Flegg
• the Premier was given credit for his clearer ‘vision’ than either of his opponents
• although a majority of respondents would have preferred to see the end of the Beattie Government, even more believed that the Coalition did not deserve to win office.

Labor retained office with only four seats fewer than in 2004, though the Coalition parties’ increased share of the vote puts them significantly closer to Labor for the next election.

Introduction

The standard of state-provided services will always be central to an Australian state or territory election. If a government appears to be in control of events and is able to convince enough voters of its competence, it is likely to retain office—many have been able to enjoy extended periods in office. When such a government falls it is likely that this has been due to a drop in public confidence in their performance, most often due to a growing list of administrative problems and a perception of governmental incompetence.

The Queensland election of 9 September 2006 called into question such accepted wisdom. There is no doubt that the deteriorating quality of government services was central to much of the discussion throughout the campaign. Opinion polls were indicating that the standing of Premier Peter Beattie had tumbled to its lowest point since he came to office in 1998. Yet, as the campaign developed, it became increasingly likely that the Government would be returned with little change in its vote since its previous election victory in 2004. It seems clear that the long-standing differences between the Nationals and the Liberal Party persuaded many voters to remain with the Government, despite their unhappiness with the Beattie team. For many voters it was a case of ‘a plague o’ both your houses!’

An election is called

Despite Peter Beattie stating his intention that his government would remain in office for its full term⁽¹⁾, on 15 August 2006 the Queensland Premier confirmed the media rumour that the election would in fact be held on 9 September. This was two years and seven months after the previous election, and six months earlier than was required by the Queensland Constitution.⁽²⁾ During the campaign, the Nationals leader, Lawrence Springborg, promised that if elected to power, his government would go full term, setting 12 September 2009 as the date for the next election.

At the time of the election Labor held 60 seats, the Nationals held 16 seats, the Liberal total was 7 seats, there were 5 Independents and a single One Nation MP.

The Government’s travails

In power since 1998, Labor held a comfortable majority in the Legislative Assembly, holding 60 of the 89 seats. Despite this, however, the Beattie Government appeared vulnerable, having lost all three by-elections since the 2004 election, and with a mounting list of administrative and policy problems.

Some of the Labor Government’s problems were serious; some were relatively trivial. Administrative and policy problems included:

• years of alleged underspending on services and infrastructure, which was said to be catching up with a government described as ‘lurching between lethargy and crisis’⁽³⁾
• a number of electricity blackouts had revealed serious inadequacies in the electricity grid, with more serious problems predicted
• a pending water crisis was blamed on a lack of government infrastructure planning—it was later speculated that a key reason for the Premier’s decision to go early was the pending introduction of Level 4 water restrictions for Brisbane residents⁽⁴⁾
• the Crime and Misconduct Commission inquiry into events at Bundaberg Hospital involving so-called ‘Dr Death’, Jayant Patel, who was accused of causing death or injury to many patients. The inquiry was later accused by the Government of ‘ostensible bias’ and was closed down, but another inquiry was established a few days later, following a public outcry
• the report of this second inquiry, handed down in December 2005, was critical of both bureaucrats and ministers, and suggested that politics played a major part in the running of the health service
• a proposed cruise ship terminal at the Southport Spit had produced a large public outcry in south-eastern Queensland.

Controversies involving prominent government individuals included:

• the 2004 embarrassment of the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, Liddy Clark, being accused of taking liquor into a ‘dry’ indigenous settlement, and also of using government funds for air tickets for non-official individuals; the minister later resigned
• controversies relating to Energex electricity corporation officials, including the suicide of the chief executive
• the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Ray Hollis, being investigated in relation to entertainment and travel expenses; he later retired from Parliament
• the unexpected retirement from Parliament of the Deputy Premier and Treasurer, Terry Mackenroth in July 2005
• after Minister for Health, Gordon Nuttall, had been accused of lying to a parliamentary hearing, he was shifted to another portfolio; the Leader of the Opposition called for him to be prosecuted for lying to Parliament
• the so-called ‘absentee MP’, Labor’s Bob Poole, resigned the seat of Gaven after being criticised for spending too much time in Thailand rather than in Queensland
• the Labor MP for Noosa, Cate Molloy, was disendorsed after criticising the Government decision to build a dam on the Mary River at Traveston Crossing
• since the previous election there had been six ministerial reshuffles as a result of government controversies and resignations.

That such a run of events was not well-received by voters seemed to be borne out by opinion polls and the loss of seats in three by-elections.

When Nita Cunningham, Labor member for Bundaberg, and defender of ‘Dr Death’, announced she would be resigning her seat for reasons of ill-health, Beattie took the occasion to announce an early election, noting that his party was likely to lose Bundaberg were a by-election to be held. Any suggestion that this was a sudden decision by the Premier was soon dismissed, for it was shown that the Labor Party had mailed out letters, talking of the election having been called, even before Beattie had been to the Governor to give that advice. Labor was accused by the Liberal Party of having broken the electoral law, a claim that was denied by Electoral Commission Queensland.⁽⁵⁾

The Coalition

Queensland is the state in which the relationship between Coalition partners has been the most volatile, due largely to Liberal frustrations over the continued status of the Nationals as the major conservative party. Despite this, the two parties had worked reasonably harmoniously in the previous election, most notably in avoiding three-cornered contests. Since the introduction of Optional Preferential Voting in 1992 such electorate contests, wherein the two parties each nominated a candidate, had hurt the two parties’ efforts to regain office.⁽⁶⁾

On the day after the 2004 election, Nationals leader, Lawrence Springborg, went further than many colleagues would have preferred when he called for the amalgamation of the National and Liberal parties, a comment he was to repeat on a number of occasions in the days following:

I’ve always supported the ultimate objective of having one strong, focused conservative party, not only within Queensland but also Australia-wide.⁽⁷⁾

Soon after the election Springborg travelled to Canada, to speak to those involved in the December 2003 merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party. He was reported to have returned with a blueprint for a new conservative Queensland party.⁽⁸⁾ Nothing came of this, not least because of a lack of Liberal interest. In fact, for much of the time after the 2004 election the National-Liberal alliance existed in name only; there were, however, reports of Liberal MLAs being threatened with disendorsement were they to support any Springborg merger proposal.⁽⁹⁾

With Springborg’s merger ideas apparently put aside, coalition-forming efforts were pushed strongly, and in March 2005 a ‘peace summit’ was held between the two parties with Prime Minister Howard and Deputy Prime Minister Anderson present. The aim was to establish a formal coalition. The meeting was far from amicable, influenced by continuing poor relations between the parties. This was due in part to Queensland Liberal leader, Bob Quinn, having spoken of a plan to persuade Queensland Nationals to contest the next election as Liberal Party candidates. In addition, Deputy Liberal leader, Bruce Flegg, dismissed Springborg as ‘a farmer from the Darling Downs’, who would not attract Brisbane voters. This comment was rejected by Springborg as typical of ‘certain attitudes’ from some members of the Liberal Party. The meeting closed with the two parties apparently still far apart.⁽¹⁰⁾ A month later it was reported that the Prime Minister had abandoned any idea of brokering a peace deal between the Queensland leaders.⁽¹¹⁾

Despite this, in September 2005 the parties established the ‘Coalition of equal partners’, designed to indicate to voters that the parties were working together to defeat the Government, and to work towards the running of ‘complementary’ election campaigns. There was no formal agreement at this stage. As it was unclear which party would gain the Premiership were the Government to be defeated, it was referred to by journalists as ‘a wait-and-see arrangement’, confirmed by Springborg:

In a coalition, if the Nationals have got the numbers, I will be premier.  If the Liberals have the numbers, a Liberal will be premier.⁽¹²⁾

Despite this move towards forming a formal coalition, the Nationals’ pair of Springborg and deputy leader Jeff Seeney retained the positions of Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The question of three-cornered contests was resolved, with none to be tolerated in the forthcoming election, though there was still argument over this in May 2006, in relation to four seats in which both parties had nominated candidates.⁽¹³⁾

In November 2005 Quinn was accused of offering independent MLA for Gympie, Elisa Roberts, money for her next election campaign if she joined the Liberal Party. Roberts claimed that the Liberal leader’s offer included $50 000 for her next election campaign and $10 000 for polling. Springborg apparently used this development as grounds for urging Quinn to resign the Liberal leadership.⁽¹⁴⁾

On 29 May 2006 all of this seemed irrelevant, for Springborg and Quinn unexpectedly tossed into the political ring, ‘like a skunk at a wedding shower’,⁽¹⁵⁾ an announcement of a merger of the two Queensland conservative parties. As Springborg put it:

The Coalition has listened to the overwhelming voice of Queenslanders who want a single, strong, united alternative to the Labor Government, and the two parties have today determined to work towards that goal … The great winner from this will be the people of Queensland, who will have a single, united non-Labor party to address their issues.⁽¹⁶⁾

Within two days the plan had been scotched, largely at the behest of the federal sections of the two parties. In a foretaste of Labor words heard later in the election campaign, the Premier asserted that the event ‘proved the political maxim if you cannot govern yourselves you cannot govern Queensland’.⁽¹⁷⁾ Almost lost in the controversy was the announcement a few days later that the Nationals would not contest seats on the Gold Coast, in return for which the Liberals pulled out of Hervey Bay and Redlands, ensuring that no Coalition three-cornered contests would occur in the forthcoming election.

Nine dramatic days in August concluded this period of Coalition uncertainty and disagreement. On 7 August Bruce Flegg moved against Quinn, replacing him as Liberal leader; four days later Quinn announced he would not re-contest his Gold Coast seat of Robina; and on 15 August the election was announced. With opinion polls suggesting a tight race, the Coalition appeared to have a chance of defeating the Government.

Might the Government be defeated?

The general prediction of the media, including the ABC’s analyst Antony Green, was that although the coalition parties would win seats from Labor, it was unlikely that they would win office.⁽¹⁸⁾ By contrast, John Black and Graham Young’s online polling survey work suggested the possibility of defeat for the Government. Their analysis of the Chatsworth and Redcliffe by-election results had foreshadowed a Labor loss of at least six seats in the south-east.⁽¹⁹⁾ In the aftermath of the Gaven by-election contest, however, their polling showed the Coalition ahead on issues of health, water, infrastructure, roads, road and rail transport, crime, the economy, population growth and urban planning. Black and Young were prepared—making the assumption that public opinions of the Government and Opposition remained unchanged by polling day—to speculate about Labor’s winning a tally of seats in the 2006 election ‘in the mid 30s’, with the Coalition winning about 47 seats and six being picked up by independents.⁽²⁰⁾ Such an analysis put the 2006 campaign in a different light from the consensus view expressed in the media that the Beattie Government was certain of re-election.

Over before it started?

As noted above, the Labor Government’s many difficulties since the previous election seemed to be reflected in opinion polls. In an August-September 2005 poll the Coalition held the narrow advantage, 42–41 per cent, a position that was maintained through the next three polls.⁽²¹⁾ In an April–June 2006 poll Labor was again in the lead, but by only two points. All of this suggested that the election that was due within twelve months was likely to be close (Table 1).

There was apparent confirmation of this fall in support in the three by-election losses incurred by the Government. In August 2005, Labor’s first preference vote fell by 13.8 per cent in Terry Mackenroth’s seat of Chatsworth. On the same day in Redcliffe, the seat of Speaker Hollis, the fall was 10.4 per cent. Five months later Labor’s vote fell 10.6 in Gavan, seat of the so-called ‘absentee MP’.

Table 1: Party standings (%)

* less than 0.5%

Source: Newspoll, http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl, last accessed on 12 September 2006.

However, during the period of political turmoil that produced the National and Liberal tensions referred to above, the next Newspoll (July–August 2006) revealed Labor to be within two points of its 2004 election figure, and its first preference lead back to seven points. Labor’s chances thus appeared to have revived, possibly because of public reaction to the instability in Coalition ranks, and possibly because of the Coalition’s early campaign mistakes, particularly by Bruce Flegg. With no significant alteration in the respective party standings by the time of the election, it can be argued that most of the campaign activity was irrelevant to the final result.

Party prospects

The Coalition parties

The Nationals (16 seats held) nominated for 40 seats, and the Liberals (7 seats ) for 49 seats. A uniform gain of 8.9 per cent in the 22 most marginal seats would give victory to the Coalition. The marginals were spread around the state—four were in Brisbane, two were on the edge of the capital city, three on the Gold Coast, three in the Sunshine Coast region, six were in North Queensland, three in Central Queensland and one in the south. An analysis of these seats indicated the load that the Liberal Party had to bear, for 14 of the 22 were being contested by that party. The Coalition also needed to protect their 10 seats that could be lost on a uniform swing of 4.4 per cent; the three most marginal were held by the Liberals. Six of these 10 were in Brisbane and the southeast.

The focus of the Liberal Party was therefore upon Brisbane seats like Clayfield, Indooroopilly and Aspley. On the Gold Coast the crucial seats included Mudgeeraba, Broadwater and Burleigh, while the Sunshine Coast seats of Kawana, Pumicestone  and Noosa were also on the Liberals’ must-win list. The Nationals seemed to have their best chances in Keppel, Hervey Bay and Bundaberg.

The Government

A danger for the Coalition was the possibility that Labor could actually win some seats. Labor’s three by-election losses, Chatsworth, Redcliffe and Gavan, as well as the Gold Coast seat of Currumbin lost in 2004 by controversial former minister, Merri Rose, were all possible gains. Chatsworth and Redcliffe had both been won by Labor on first preferences in the 2004 election. Even if Labor were to pick up only these two, that would add substantially to the mountain the Coalition had to climb. However, as opinion polls indicated a return to a healthy level of support for the Government, observers began to speculate on the party winning extra seats including Caloundra, Burnett, Charters Towers and Currumbin.

Campaigning

The Government

The Labor campaign focused on the Premier, though Beattie often had deputy Premier, Anna Bligh, at his side. There was speculation that this was due to Bligh’s positive image with female voters in the 20–40 age range,⁽²²⁾ although Nationals’ Senator Barnaby Joyce claimed that it was because of the need to lift Bligh’s profile before Beattie abandoned state politics for the House of Representatives.⁽²³⁾

Overall, Labor asserted that it offered ‘strong stable government’, solid leadership, clear policies and a government whose direction was known. This contrasted with the Coalition which was ‘just not ready’ to govern, or as an ALP advertisement put it: ‘Years of infighting’, ‘Policies on the run’, ‘Can’t govern themselves. Can’t govern Queensland’.⁽²⁴⁾ A change of government was described as risking reforms in the problem areas of electricity, health and water: ‘Don’t risk the changes already under way—important steps in the right direction’. The Premier acknowledged weaknesses in his government’s performance, but blamed infrastructure problems on the fact that the Government had to cope with the strains brought about by having 1500 people settling every week in Queensland: ‘success itself brings new challenges’.⁽²⁵⁾

Among the truisms of Australian elections it has become accepted that a party must, as far as possible:

• persuade the electorate that it is the ‘underdog’ in the forthcoming campaign
• not ‘peak too early’ in its campaign
• nor ‘get too ahead of itself’ (become too ‘cocky’) in anticipating a likely victory.

The Australian Labor Party conformed to these guidelines throughout the 2006 Queensland campaign. On many occasions the Premier reminded his listeners of the unexpected near-defeat of the Goss Labor Government in 1995, explaining how Goss had projected an assumption that his government was certain of re-election. Despite the fact that Newspoll and the Galaxy poll showed negligible movement in support for either party during the 2006 campaign, the media carried many stories of polling done for the Government which suggested that voters were wavering in their support for Labor, or that the Coalition vote was ‘strengthening’—even as other polls were confirming the wide margin enjoyed by the Government. In the end, there was no sign that many voters had altered their minds during the entire campaign, despite the Premier stating that the election was going ‘down to the wire’.⁽²⁶⁾

The Opposition

Criticising the Coalition parties’ effort as ‘the worst campaign ever’, Professor Dean Jaensch outlined what he believed the Liberal parties must do to regain office at the state and territory level. As soon as an election is lost, he said, a determined effort must be made to produce an integrated set of policies which distinguish the Liberal Party from its Labor government opponent. Once these are in place, the Liberals (or Coalition where relevant) must then work hard at ‘justifying and pushing’ their policies consistently throughout the period to the next election. A major weakness for the state opposition parties has been that the period between elections tends to have focussed on criticism of government decisions and failures. Such criticism must be made, but there is a tendency to forget the need to push positive, forward-looking, long-term alternatives:

Oppositions have to sell themselves and their policies, not simply hope that the majority of the voters will become tired of Labor.⁽²⁷⁾

This is not to say that the Queensland Coalition did not have policies. Each day, at least one new policy would be announced, the most significant of which was a promise that within five years the stamp duty payable on residential sales would be phased out. As many observers noted, however, there was no sign that any effort had been made to present this promise as part of a well-thought-out, co-ordinated set of policies developed over time. Former Liberal Party Federal Director, Brian Loughnane, put the problem colourfully: ‘You can’t expect to fatten the pig on market day’.⁽²⁸⁾

Another difficulty was the time taken for the Coalition to shake the appearance that it was unprepared for the election. There were many examples, highlighted relentlessly by the media, that suggested an unreadiness, despite the certainty that Beattie would go to the polls early. Symbolic of this lack of preparation was the early reluctance of Springborg and Flegg to say who would be Premier were the Liberals to win a majority of Legislative Assembly seats. Journalists saw this slip as symbolic of the Coalition’s lack of preparation for the campaign. Although Springborg described the Nationals and the Liberals as being ‘united like never before’, the media saw them as ‘the fumble twins’.⁽²⁹⁾ Even the stamp duty policy, referred to above, which was potentially of great benefit to many Queenslanders, was dismissed as being policy made on the run, and as potentially risky, with media claims of a government funding shortfall were it to be introduced.⁽³⁰⁾

There was some Coalition uneasiness over a decision to refer to deaths being caused by maladministration within the health system.⁽³¹⁾ Late in the campaign the Coalition ran a television advertisement in which a woman blamed the Premier for the death of her brother after waiting 70 days for a defibrillator. It was claimed that this should not have taken more than 30 days. The advertisement concluded with the woman stating, ‘Now he is dead, and I blame Peter Beattie’. The Labor Party may have been nervous about the impact of such an advertisement, but there is no public evidence that it changed any votes.

For the first time, the parties called for just a single vote from their supporters, a decision which upset Family First who had imagined they would be negotiating for preferences with the Coalition. Election analyst, Antony Green, was puzzled by the decision, noting that if Labor’s first preference vote had been lower, preference deals between the Coalition and minor parties might have presented problems for the Government.⁽³²⁾

The minors

With both the Government and Opposition unattractive for many voters, it might have been supposed that this would have produced an increase in the minor party vote.

The Greens

The Greens sought to make a strong impact by contesting 75 of the 89 seats. They criticised the Government over the Mary River dam, a lack of enforcement of tree-clearing laws and the proposed development of the Southport Spit. On the other hand, they were concerned that a Coalition government would reverse hard-won environmental gains in regard to land-clearing and protection of wild rivers. After early stories that suggested the Greens might not preference any parties, it was later reported that they were planning to preference Labor candidates in marginals that the Coalition had a chance of winning or reclaiming. These included Chatsworth, Clayfield, Indooroopilly, Maroochydore, Keppel, Cairns and Hervey Bay.⁽³³⁾

Family First

In mid-2005 the Family First Party was reported as developing a plan to contest the next Queensland election. Its immediate aims were a membership of 10 000 members, and to contest every seat. By the beginning of the campaign the party had trimmed this to ‘about’ 40 seats, but eventually ran just 26 candidates, with its state director admitting that the party was caught unprepared by the announcement of the early election.

During the campaign, Family First spoke of social issues such as zero tolerance for drivers having consumed alcohol, but also attempted to introduce some controversial aspects of the political system into the public debate: the restoration of the Legislative Council, a return to compulsory preferential voting, the appointment of independent Speakers in the Legislative Assembly, and making public service directors-general answerable to Parliament.⁽³⁴⁾

Family First chose to preference the Government in some seats (e.g. Burdekin, Glasshouse, Mudgeeraba, Logan and Ipswich West) and the Opposition parties in others (Gympie, Ferny Grove, Sandgate, Toowoomba North, Toowoomba South, Cunningham and Lockyer). In Nanango, it gave its preferences to the independent sitting member.⁽³⁵⁾

Explaining the result

Peter Beattie’s fourth election victory (1998, 2001, 2004, 2006) matched the earlier ALP successes of William Forgan Smith in the four elections (1932, 1935, 1938, 1941) that began Labor’s run of office which ended in 1957. Beattie is the second-longest serving Labor Premier behind Forgan Smith, and will equal his term on 24 September 2008. Only Joh Bjelke-Petersen has served longer than the Labor pair. The last non-Labor election victory occurred in November 1986.⁽³⁶⁾

The last three elections have produced little change in party strengths in the Legislative Assembly (Table 2):

Table 2: Party strengths, Legislative Assembly, 2001–2006

Source: Electoral Commission Queensland

How is this comfortable victory to be explained?

The economy

Governments are always likely to claim credit when economic times are good. In recent years Queensland’s economy has been very healthy, with its rapid population increase, its resources development and its increasing share of GST receipts. The Queensland economy has been growing at about twice the pace of the rest of Australia. In 2004–05 more than a third of all new jobs created in Australia were to be found in the northern state. More than two million Queenslanders are now in employment, while its unemployment rate is its lowest in many decades.

Although economic improvements also reflect many developments outside a state, the Premiers are never slow in gaining credit for these whenever an election is looming. Peter Beattie is no exception, and some commentators observed that voters had concluded that a vote against Labor was most likely to threaten the economic good times: ‘Beattie’s trump card, aside from the quality of his opponents, was an economy ticking along very nicely’.⁽³⁷⁾ Journalists wondered if voters might have been worried about the possible deleterious impact of a new administration upon the economic good fortune and therefore preferred Labor remaining in power—they believed that the Premier had ‘a sure pair of hands’.⁽³⁸⁾

Beattie’s leadership

Although he could not match the high opinion poll standing of his earlier years, throughout this campaign Peter Beattie’s standing remained solid with Queensland voters, and certainly well ahead of his two opponents. There were five Newspoll surveys taken during 2006 where voters were asked to rate the leaders’ performance (Table 3). In all polls about as many voters were satisfied with Beattie’s performance as were dissatisfied. The first three polls indicated a similar reaction to Springborg’s efforts. However, about a quarter of respondents were uncommitted, probably because of unfamiliarity with the Leader of the Opposition, a common-enough finding in Australian state-level polling.

Table 3: Leaders’ performance

Source: Newspoll, http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl, last accessed on 15 September 2006

With polling day almost upon the voters, the dissatisfaction rating for Springborg had shifted 10 percentage points higher than earlier, probably in response to Coalition campaigning problems. Springborg and Flegg’s dissatisfaction ratings were very similar. There is no indication here of the Coalition leaders gaining traction due to public dissatisfaction with the Premier. The likelihood that the campaign period actually hurt the challengers is suggested in responses to Newspoll asking voters who would make the better Premier (Table 4):

Table 4: Better Premier?

Source: Newspoll, http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl, last accessed
on 15 September 2006

Despite the weaknesses of the Beattie administration, it seemed clear that there were insufficient voters prepared to risk voting for the Coalition, something that caused disappointment among observers:

People would love to vote against Beattie, but they seem unconvinced that the Springborg-Flegg team would be an improvement.⁽³⁹⁾

A Galaxy poll taken in four marginal seats confirmed voter dissatisfaction with the Coalition leadership, when 57 per cent supported the statement that Queensland was ‘going in the right direction’—contrasting with 32 per cent who judged the state’s direction to be the ‘wrong’ one.⁽⁴⁰⁾ A week before polling day, Newspoll indicated that 81 per cent agreed with the statement that Beattie had ‘a vision’ for Queensland, and that 80 per cent saw the Labor leader as ‘decisive and strong’.⁽⁴¹⁾

The poor Coalition campaign

As stated earlier, the election may have been lost for the Opposition by the time the election was announced. The focus group work by Graham Young and John Black indicated that Beattie’s ‘smart state’ voters—people who vote for Howard Liberals and Beattie Labor—had flirted with returning to the Coalition, but changed their minds:

These voters have now come home and while it’s not exactly happy families, they’ve stopped thinking about divorce.⁽⁴²⁾

The Opposition probably was hindered by its lack of detailed policies. At the time of the ‘Coalition of equal partners’ announced in September 2005, Queensland academic, Scott Prasser, pinpointed what he saw as a major Coalition weakness, namely ‘the policy problem’. He believed the idea of entering a campaign without agreement in key policy areas, but with just a plan of working things out once in office, sounded ‘more like a dispute resolution committee than political parties seeking to win government with a clear vision for Queensland’. He believed that voters would find this unacceptable—because what was needed was an agenda for reform, which gave voters a real choice between a government that had made many mistakes, and an alternative that was able to offer policies to remedy those mistakes.⁽⁴³⁾

The validity of this view was suggested during the campaign, for the two parties did nothing more than issue daily promises in many areas of policy, with no apparent planning of the whole package. The Courier-Mail dismissed Opposition policies as ‘little more than thought bubbles packaged up with some appearance of gravity’.⁽⁴⁴⁾ One rural newspaper expressed its frustration in the crucial area of health, where surely the Coalition should have a clearly-enunciated, carefully-costed counter to the ‘disaster’ of the recent few years of Labor mismanagement:

… although we have little faith in Peter, it is starting to look like we’ve got a lot less in Lawrence.⁽⁴⁵⁾

One of the most revealing opinion polls of the election was that conducted by Galaxy, and published on the day before polling day. It showed that although a majority of respondents would have preferred to see the end of the Beattie Government, even more believed that the Coalition did not deserve to win office (Table 5):

Table 5: Who deserves to govern?

Source: Courier-Mail, 8 September 2006

As observed by the Sunday Mail’s Tony Koch:

Had there been even a semblance of attractiveness about the Opposition, Labor would have been thrown out.⁽⁴⁶⁾

The Flegg issue

Although there was some media criticism of Lawrence Springborg, the Nationals leader was generally portrayed as a solid performer. The situation was very different in regard to the campaigning efforts of Bruce Flegg. From the Courier-Mail’s tough heading on the morning after the removal of Bob Quinn, ‘Et tu, Bruce?’,⁽⁴⁷⁾ accounts of the Liberal leader’s difficulties in the 34 days between then and polling day were a constant feature of campaign coverage, usually reinforced by each day’s television pictures.⁽⁴⁸⁾ Examples included:

• when Springborg was asked about Flegg remaining as Liberal leader after the election, the Nationals leader chose to state that Flegg would be ‘a great health minister’, a comment that journalists interpreted as a vote of no confidence in the Liberal leader⁽⁴⁹⁾
• a female Flegg staffer was reported to be annoyed by Flegg’s explaining away of errors as him having a ‘blonde moment’⁽⁵⁰⁾
• Flegg was ordered out of a shopping centre for failing to get permission to campaign in it⁽⁵¹⁾
• although he was shadow health spokesperson, Flegg could not remember details of the Coalition’s policy in regard to hospital bed numbers⁽⁵²⁾
• the media ridiculed Flegg’s campaign team being joined by what a journalist described as, a ‘Canberra-based ministerial adviser implicated in a federal funding scandal’, to act as his ‘minder’ during the campaign⁽⁵³⁾
• Flegg was mocked for his ‘follicular foolishness’ in using an adviser from the deportment and grooming company, June Dally-Watkins⁽⁵⁴⁾
• Flegg’s receipt of a military disability allowance was criticised—‘a wealthy man double-dipping on his entitlements’⁽⁵⁵⁾—forcing his former wife to come to his defence⁽⁵⁶⁾
• Flegg was often used as an important factor in the likely election defeat—for example, in a report of a Galaxy poll indicating an easy win for the Government, it was Flegg’s efforts, specifically, that were said to have put the Liberals under threat in several marginal seats.⁽⁵⁷⁾

Overall, then, the Coalition was probably hurt by the late change of Liberal leader, partly because of his poor campaign skills, but also because of media criticism. At least one journalist was sympathetic to Flegg’s position, noting that television had minimised his obvious decency and magnified his defects.⁽⁵⁸⁾ The Queensland Times was critical of the media treatment of him:

Such a shallow form of debate favours incumbency and places the trickery of media tarts above the earnestness of policy formulation and response to public concerns.⁽⁵⁹⁾

Federal factors

State party leaders will attempt to bring federal issues into the campaign in an effort to gain mileage from local opposition to Commonwealth action (or inaction). A typical example seen in the Queensland election was Premier Beattie blaming the shortage of doctors upon the Commonwealth’s failure to train enough doctors.⁽⁶⁰⁾ Labor also used the importation of Vietnamese frozen banana pulp to claim that Prime Minister Howard had broken a promise in regard to keeping banana imports out of Australia, while the Queensland industry recovered from Cyclone Larry.⁽⁶¹⁾ The Commonwealth was also attacked over the rumours of the abolition of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, with Beattie asserting that North Queensland voters should be told if these were true.⁽⁶²⁾ Some observers stated that the Commonwealth’s introduction of Work Choices was an issue that was likely to hurt the Coalition—the federal Opposition leader travelled to Queensland to campaign on this issue. It is inherently difficult to establish the impact on voters of such matters, and in Queensland in 2006 the situation was no different.

Seats of note

The three major parties each lost and won seats. Labor won three (Chatsworth, Gaven, Redcliffe) and lost four (Bundaberg, Clayfield, Kawana, Noosa), the Liberals won three (Clayfield, Kawana, Noosa) and lost two (Chatsworth, Redcliffe), and the Nationals won two (Bundaberg, Gympie) and lost one (Gaven). Gympie was lost by its independent sitting member to the Nationals. Significant seats are discussed here. The relevant figures for each seat are included in the Appendix tables below.

Bundaberg

It was Bundaberg Hospital which had been the location for the so-called ‘Doctor Death’ events.⁽⁶³⁾ The seat had been held by the ALP for most of its history, most recently by Nita Cunningham, who was resigning from the seat. Bundaberg was the focus of much attention, for it seemed inconceivable that the Government could retain the seat in the wake of the revelation of the poor health service in the local hospital—it was the ‘epicentre of neglect’.⁽⁶⁴⁾ Labor’s Sonja Cleary saw her party’s vote fall by 6.5 per cent, producing a near-dead heat with the National vote, and she lost narrowly on preferences. No doubt the poor recent history of the local hospital hurt Labor, but the independent candidacy of a former Labor Party member, who gained 6.8 per cent of the vote may have proved the difference between Cleary’s retaining or losing the seat.

Chatsworth, Gaven and Redcliffe

If the opinion polls were accurate, Chatsworth and Redcliffe, so recently lost in by-elections were likely to be regained by the Government; Gaven was less certain. In fact all three were retained. In Gaven and Redcliffe Labor’s 2004 vote was restored, and the seats were regained with ease. Chatsworth had been won by former Liberal state president and local government councillor, Michael Caltabiano, and despite his vote being 11.1 per cent higher than the Liberal vote in 2004, he lost the seat on Green preferences to former radio personality, Chris Bombolas.  

Clayfield

As noted above, Liddy Clark had embarrassed the Beattie Government on various occasions since 2004 election, eventually resigning from her ministerial office. Her seat of Clayfield had been retained narrowly in 2004 after a first preferences near-dead heat between Clark and her Liberal opponent. Voter reaction to her political problems was probably sufficient explanation for her defeat in this election. The combination of her vote falling 5.5 per cent and of the Liberal vote climbing 1.1 per cent was sufficient for her to lose after preferences.

Gladstone

As member for Gladstone since 1995, Liz Cunningham has been one of several independents to have entrenched themselves in the Queensland Parliament in the last decade. It was Mrs Cunningham’s announcement that she would support the Coalition on money bills and confidence motions, that helped bring down the Goss Government in February 1996. She had held her seat in the years since, winning on first preferences in the last two elections (55.3 per cent in 2004). Gladstone gained publicity in the 2006 election due to a union-led campaign to make an issue of Commonwealth industrial relations changes. The city had been the location of a march in June 2005, a protest against a visit by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in March 2006, and a 2006 May Day rally which highlighted the changes. Might Labor’s vote rise as a consequence?

In a three-cornered repeat of 2004 (Independent, ALP, NP) Cunningham’s first preference vote fell by 7.9 per cent, Labor increased its vote by 9.1 per cent, and the Nationals’ vote fell by 1.2 per cent. Cunningham therefore had a nervous wait before her re-election was confirmed. Her margin after preferences was barely 1000 votes. Cunningham blamed Labor’s stripping her of so many votes to the industrial relations issue, but as five other seats saw bigger swings to the Government, this is speculative, at best.⁽⁶⁵⁾

Gympie

In 2001 Elisa Roberts had won Gympie as a One Nation candidate with a quarter of the first preference votes, and in 2004 had retained the seat as an independent with the first preference vote of 33 per cent. In 2006 she drew much criticism for saying on several occasions that she would not re-contest the seat, only to decide within a short time that she would. Voters evidently lost patience with her, for her vote of 8.4 per cent was an extraordinary fall of 25 per cent, leaving her sixth in a field of seven candidates. The Nationals won the seat comfortably.

Nanango

Dolly Pratt entered Parliament in 1998 as the One Nation Member for Barambah. After a redistribution which abolished her seat, she won Nanango in 2001 as an independent and retained the seat in 2004. In 2006 she was opposed by John Bjelke-Petersen, whose father had held a seat with the same name for one term, 1947–50. Although Bjelke-Petersen raised the Nationals vote to 39.8 per cent (+12.3 per cent), Pratt’s vote fell only marginally, and she won the seat with 54.2 per cent after the distribution of preferences, the beneficiary, it seems, of the work she had done in the electorate since becoming an MLA.⁽⁶⁶⁾

Noosa

Within three years of winning this Sunshine Coast seat in 2001, Cate Molloy seemingly had turned Noosa into a relatively safe Labor seat. Molloy was disendorsed as Labor candidate over her uncertainty about the Traveston dam proposal. Subsequently, she chose to contest as an independent, resigning from the ALP on the day she nominated. Although the combined ALP/Molloy vote was 47.2 per cent, enough preferences flowed to the Liberal Party’s Glen Elmes (38.2 per cent) for him to win the seat comfortably after preferences. Labor was also hurt by a combined Green and Family First vote in excess of 13 per cent.

An electoral law footnote: Molloy was initially prevented from voting when wearing a T-shirt with ‘Vote for Cate’ printed on it. An Electoral Commission Queensland representative explained that campaign material was not allowed within six metres of the polling booth. Molloy was allowed to vote when wearing a coat over her T-shirt.⁽⁶⁷⁾

Tablelands

Despite her uncertainty after the previous election as to whether she would remain a One Nation MP, Rosa Lee Long contested the election for her party in 2006. Her first preference vote of 50.1 per cent was an increase of 3.1 per cent, the second consecutive increase, and 14.1 per cent higher than five years before. For the first time she gained more than half of first preferences. She remains the only One Nation MP.

The minor parties

The Queensland result confirmed that the state is not one in which the Greens have performed well—they increased their vote marginally to 8 per cent state-wide (9.2 per cent per contested seat), but were effectively locked out of the debate by the presidential style of the campaign. They remain much stronger in the south-east than elsewhere in the state. As in New South Wales and Victoria, their best seats are in the capital city—Mt Coot-tha (21.7 per cent), South Brisbane (21.5 per cent) and Brisbane Central (18.3 per cent). As elsewhere, they continue to find it difficult to gain traction in the bush.

The Family First Party failed to attract the large number of candidates spoken of early in the piece, but they did manage to gain 6.7 per cent of the vote in the seats they contested. This compares with the 6.1 per cent in the seats they contested in the South Australian election in March 2006.

The future for the Coalition?

Despite its failure to make up significant parliamentary ground on the Government, in the short term the Coalition is much better placed to assume office than formerly. This is not only due to the steady increase in the proportion of the vote it has secured, but it also is due to the growth in the total number of supporting voters. Queensland’s population is growing rapidly, something that is showing up much more in Coalition than in Labor totals. In 2001 the Coalition partners averaged 6 174 votes for each of their 95 candidates; in 2006 this had jumped to an average of 9 377 votes in the 89 contests in which they participated. In the same elections the Labor Government’s average vote climbed from 11 322 votes per candidate to 11 602 votes, a rise of only 280 votes. At the moment the Government has plateaued, and the next election will show whether the Coalition rate of increase can continue to the point where it can win office.

Looking at matters over a longer timeframe, Griffith University academic, Paul Williams, believes the ongoing influx of people from the southern states into Queensland has begun to alter the nature of Queensland electoral politics. The newcomers bring their voting preferences with them: ‘They are bringing with them a Labor-Liberal dichotomy, not a Labor-National dichotomy’. The major political consequence of this is likely to be the continued decline of the Nationals, meaning that for a Coalition government to be formed in the future, the Liberals would have to win most of the seats needed to control the Legislative Assembly. Williams also says that it is unlikely that any future Coalition government would have more than 20 National MLAs.⁽⁶⁸⁾

Williams’ prediction is given force by the alteration in the pattern of migration detected by the Redistribution Committee appointed to redistribute House of Representatives seats following the 2004 Commonwealth election. The redistribution was brought about by the need to give Queensland an extra seat due to the continuing increase in population—its fifth new seat in 25 years. As well as noting that there will almost certainly be a sixth seat added after the 2007 election, the Redistribution Committee spoke of where in the State the new population growth was particularly obvious. The previous redistribution (2003) had been very much affected by a significant increase in population and enrolment in the State’s south-eastern corner, which resulted in the creation of the division of Bonner south of the Brisbane River. By contrast, the 2006 Redistribution Committee noted that much of the future population growth is expected to occur in the coastal strip running from the Sunshine Coast to Cairns. Significant growth also is anticipated in isolated pockets in southern areas, such as southwest Brisbane and Ipswich:

… these dispersed patterns of projected enrolment growth reflect Queensland’s contemporary population and demographic changes, with movement to major coastal areas becoming increasingly evident.⁽⁶⁹⁾

Such a development will undoubtedly be reflected in the redistribution of Legislative Assembly divisions that is due to be conducted before the next state election. The losers in this are likely to be the Nationals, a view held by some Liberal Commonwealth MPs. Peter Lindsay is one who believes population growth will soon guarantee majority Liberal status, while Michael Johnson has described the National Party as collapsing: ‘I think within the next 10 or 15 years they’ll be a dodo’.⁽⁷⁰⁾ The implication of Johnson’s view is that it might not be many years before a conservative party victory would see the Liberals able to govern alone after gaining a majority of Legislative Assembly seats. Certainly the proportion of Nationals occupying Queensland House of Representatives or Legislative Assembly seats has steadily declined since 1980 (Table 6):

Table 6: National seats, Queensland

Source: Australian Electoral Commission; Electoral Commission Queensland

As the population continues to grow in the south-east and along the coast to the north, so it is probable that the number of rural divisions that the Nationals have a realistic chance of winning will also fall. An important further problem for the Nationals may be whether they manage to keep Liberal candidates from challenging in seats they consider their own. Perhaps not surprisingly, one outcome of the 2006 election was the emergence of familiar calls for the two parties to amalgamate.⁽⁷¹⁾

In conclusion

For one disillusioned observer, the 2006 Queensland election was ‘The Election No One Deserves To Win’.⁽⁷²⁾ It certainly was an election that illustrated the impact over time of the way the Australian party system has developed. It is generally recognised that parties can no longer count on the strong loyalty of most voters which formerly was regarded as the major feature of voting behaviour in Australia, and that the combined major party vote has declined. In the 2001 Queensland election, 22.6 per cent of voters shunned the three major parties. However, the puzzle for the minor parties is how to improve their performance so as to attract and retain enough voters to challenge the dominance of the majors in each legislature. Even in an election where, by common consent, the major parties were unattractive, the 2006 major party vote in Queensland (84.8 per cent) was 7.4 percentage points higher than in 2001. If ever there was a State election in which the minor party vote should have soared, Queensland 2006 was the election.

Endnotes

1. Paul Daley and Patrick Carlyon, ‘Running on water’, Bulletin, 15 August 2006.
2. An election must be held no later than three years from the day appointed for the return of the electoral writs. In 2004 this was 20 February, so the next election had to be held no later than 17 February 2007.
3. ‘Boom state needs more than smiles’, editorial, The Australian, 16 August 2006.
4. Steven Wardill, ‘Early poll fixed from the start’, Courier-Mail, 16 August 2006.
5. Renée Viellaris and Jamie Walker, ‘Coalition cries foul over pre-poll mailout’, Courier-Mail, 16 August 2006.
6. Scott Bennett and Gerard Newman, ‘Queensland election 2004’, Research Brief, no. 8, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2003–04, p. 7.
7. Stephen Wisenthal, ‘Springborg revives talk of a merger with Libs’, Australian Financial Review, 9 February 2004.
8. Sean Parnell, ‘Is Springborg game?’, Courier-Mail, 26 June 2004.
9. Matthew Franklin and Lachlan Heywood, ‘Libs “threat” over merger’, Courier-Mail, 20 November 2004.
10. Matthew Franklin, Malcolm Cole and Lachlan Heywood, ‘Liberal demands set to sink talks’, Courier-Mail, 21 March 2005; S. Parnell, ‘Coalition split lingers’, Courier-Mail, 22 March 2005.
11. Malcolm Cole and Lachlan Heywood, ‘Howard ducks talks on coalition’, Courier-Mail, 17 May 2005.
12. Malcolm Cole, Rosemary Odgers and Renee Viellaris, ‘Coalition revived to tackle Beattie’, Courier-Mail, 27 September 2005.
13. Scott Prasser, ‘The first small step’, Courier-Mail, 28 September 2005; Sean Parnell, ‘No one backing down in three-corner seats’, Courier-Mail, 31 May 2006.
14. ‘Quinn denies offering bribe to Gympie MP’, Fraser Coast Chronicle (Maryborough), 25 November 2005; Malcolm Cole, Rosemary Odgers and Emma Chalmers, ‘Nats tell Quinn to go’, Courier-Mail, 25 November 2005.
15. Terry Sweetman, ‘Where fools rush in’, Courier-Mail, 2 June 2006.
16. Tony Koch and Michael McKenna, ‘Libs, Nats defy PM on merger’, The Australian, 30 May 2006.
17. Steven Wardill, Jamie Walker and Matthew Franklin, ‘It’s all over’, Courier-Mail, 1 June 2006.
18. Tony Koch, ‘Passion a plus, but time not on his side’, Courier-Mail, 8 August 2006; ‘Queensland 2006 State Election’, http://www.abc.com.au/elections/qld/2006/, last accessed on 22 August 2006.
19. ‘Peter Beattie’s big chill’, On Line Opinion, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/print.asp?article=179, last accessed on 22 August 2006.
20. J. Black, ‘Gaven review’, On Line Opinion, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/print.asp?article=4361, last accessed on 22 August 2006.
21. For these and other Newspoll figures, see http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl, last accessed on 22 August 2006.
22. Graham Young, ‘Apologetic Beattie still looks a winner’, Sunday Mail, 20 August 2006; see also Andrew Fraser, ‘Woman on the verge’, The Australian 4 September 2006.
23. Bob Riley, ‘Senator stirs the pot’, Daily News (Warwick), 5 September 2006.
24. ALP advertisement, Courier-Mail, 8 September 2006.
25. Michael McKenna, ‘Don’t risk reforms, pleads Beattie’, The Australian, 1 September 2006.
26. For examples of such stories, see Denis Atkins, ‘Croc Hunter tragedy chokes Coalition hopes’, Courier-Mail, 6 September 2006; Steven Wardill, ‘Vote fight turns nasty’, Courier-Mail, 7 September 2006.
27. Dean Jaensch, ‘ Conservative tactics stuck in a ’60s groove’, Advertiser, 13 September 2006.
28. Tony Koch and Michael McKenna, ‘Coalition reels after Beattie win’, The Australian, 11 September 2006.
29. Headline, Gold Coast Bulletin, 16 August 2006.
30. ‘Stamp duty pledge is risky policy’, Courier-Mail, 5 September 2006.
31. Gold Coast Bulletin, 2 September 2006.
32. Greg Roberts and Matthew Franklin, ‘Preferences snub costly for Coalition’, The Australian, 11 September 2006.
33. Steven Wardill, ‘Nothing sticks’, Rosanne Barrett and Janelle Miles, ‘ALP given Green light’, Courier-Mail, 2 September 2006.
34. Rosanne Barrett, ‘Family First attacks the seven sins’, Courier-Mail, 26 August 2006.
35. Rosanne Barrett, ‘Family First puts Labor second’, Courier-Mail, 28 August 2006.
36. The Borbidge Government (1996–98) came to power when the Goss Government lost control of the Legislative Assembly in February 1996, and was narrowly defeated in the June 1998 election.
37. Michael Gordon, ‘Beattie’s big win a rocket under opposition leaders’, Age, 11 September 2006.
38. Graham Young, ‘Yet another Opposition haircut’, Sunday Mail, 27 August 2006.
39. Tony Koch, ‘Coalition still in the race just…’, The Australian, 22 August 2006.
40. Steven Wardill, ‘Marginals swing Beattie’s way again’, Courier-Mail, 2 September 2006.
41. Paul Williams, ‘Ballot box defies logic’, Courier-Mail, 2 September 2006.
42. Young, ‘Yet another Opposition haircut’, op. cit.
43. Scott Prasser, ‘The first small step’, Courier-Mail, 28 September 2005.
44. ‘Election offers hope for the future’, Courier-Mail, 16 August 2006.
45. Naomi Joy, ‘Election campaign centres on health’, Daily Mercury (Mackay), 21 August 2006.
46. Tony Koch, ‘Lessons for ALP in win by default’, Sunday Mail, 10 September 2006.
47. Rosemary Odgers, ‘Et tu, Bruce?’, Courier-Mail, 8 August 2006.
48. Dennis Atkins, ‘Party games: same old, same old’, Courier-Mail, 9 September 2006.
49. Darrell Giles, ‘Flegg faced “blonde” moment’, Sunday Mail, 27 August 2006.
50. Ibid.
51. Courier-Mail, 19 August 2006.
52. Greg Roberts and Tony Koch, ‘Stumbling Flegg fails health test’, The Australian, 1 September 2006.
53. Rosanne Barrett, ‘Spin doctor to the rescue’, Courier-Mail, 29 August 2006.
54. Terry Sweetman, ‘Liberals head for blood-letting’, Sunday Mail, 27 August 2006.
55. Ibid.
56. Des Houghton, ‘An alm and a Flegg’, Courier-Mail, 2 September 2006.
57. Steven Wardill, ‘Libs hand poll lead to a surging Labor’, Courier-Mail, 26 August 2006.
58. Houghton, op. cit.
59. Editorial, Queensland Times (Ipswich), 30 August 2006; see also Senator Ian Macdonald, Senate, Debates, 5 September 2006.
60. Peter Beattie, ‘Why Queensland has a doctor shortage’, advertisement, Courier-Mail,
    4–5 February 2006.
61. ‘Labor attacks banana imports’, Cairns Post, 7 September 2006.
62. ‘Come clean on reef authority plan, says ALP’, ABC News Online—Regional, 7 September 2006.
63. Hedley Thomas, ‘Dr Death’s long shadow’, The Australian, 16 August 2006.
64. Ainsley Pavey and Kate Patterson, ‘Knives come out in seat at flashpoint’, Sunday Mail, 10 September 2006.
65. Roseanne Barrett, ‘ Three seats still too close to call’, Courier-Mail, 12 September 2006.
66. John Birmingham, ‘Going nuts’, Bulletin, 12 September 2006, p. 27.
67. Lou Robson, ‘Strife for rebel Cate over T-shirt’, Sunday Mail, 10 September 2006.
68. Matthew Franklin, ‘Nationals on “last legs” after the loss’, The Australian, 12 September 2006.
69. Australian Electoral Commission, Proposed Redistribution of Queensland into 29 Electoral Divisions, Report of the Redistribution Committee, 2006, http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/why/redistributions/2005/qld/report/proposed_qld_redistribution06_sec.pdf, last accessed on 12 September 2006.
70. Franklin, op. cit.
71. Mike Steketee, ‘Sunshine state losers blighted by uncertainty’, The Australian, 14 September 2006, John Quiggin, ‘The party of no return’, Australian Financial Review, 14 September 2006.
72. S. Gray, ‘Comment’, Queensland Times (Ipswich), 16 August 2006.
    

Appendix Tables

Symbols and abbreviations

‘Exhausted’ votes

‘Exhausted’ votes are referred to in several tables below. These refer to ballot papers which are removed from the count due to a voter choosing not to allocate any more preferences, a common feature when Optional Preferential Voting is used.

Appendix Table 1 Legislative Assembly: state summary

Appendix Table 4 Legislative Assembly: two candidate preferred vote

Appendix Table 4 Legislative Assembly: two candidate preferred vote continued

(a) Exhausted votes as a percentage of formal votes.

Appendix Table 5 Legislative Assembly: electoral pendulum (a)

(a) Two Candidate Preferred swing to lose.
(b) ONP won Tablelands, all other districts are held by Independents.

Appendix Table 6 Legislative Assembly By-elections, 2004–2006