THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1989. Change in Queensland

Press, 6 December 1989, Page 22

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1989. Change in Queensland

The election of a Labour Government in Queensland showed a number of things but did not show that the Labour Government would be returned in the Federal election due next year. It showed that the Government can change in Queensland — after three decades out of office, Queensland Labour needed that point being made. It showed that even Queenslanders will take notice of a cataclysmic event such as the Fitzgerald Report findings of widespread Government corruption. It showed that the National Party in Queensland could not win without Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen — a point Sir Joh noted with relish. It showed that the divisions between the Liberal Party and the National Party in Queensland were so deep that co-operation was impossible. It showed that in spite of distrust of Labour in the past, Labour provided an acceptable alternative to the corruption of the National Party and the ineffectiveness of the Liberal Party. The National Party tried to run the type of campaign against the Labour Party that has worked so well in the past. The bogy of socialism was raised. Labour, it was alleged, would fill the state’s children with heroin and would cause the spread of A.I.D.S. by changing laws on homosexuality. Eventually it was realised that this type of campaign was not persuading the voters to turn in disgust from Labour and to continue to support the safety of the National Party, which has dominated Queensland politics for so long. Had the voters favoured the National Party, state politics would have been almost incurably corrupted. A number of former Government members are expected to face prosecution on matters arising out of the Fitzgerald Report; even if they are all eventually cleared, Queensland would have seemed a hopeless case had it deliberately embraced a Government with such a sorry stack of evidence against it. As it is, a large number of former Government Ministers seem to have lost their seats.

Even the Brisbane “Courier-Mail” argued in an editorial that “The Labour Party deserves the chance to show that it can make the necessary changes.” This comment was a surprise to many because the “Courier-Mail” has not, according to its own investigations, ever before suggested that Queenslanders should vote for Labour in a state election. It did urge voters to support Labour in the Federal election in 1984. The National Party took what comfort it could from this change of policy by making the point that the

sentence urging people to vote Labour came at the end of a very long editorial and that many voters would not have read as far as that.

Mr Goss, the Labour leader, is probably as far from a socialist ideologue as can be found within the ranks of the Labour Party. Outside Queensland much of Australia has grasped the tremendous changes the Australian Labour Party has undergone. Many would like to see the A.L.P. reminded of its roots, just as many in New Zealand would like to see the New Zealand Labour Party reminded of its roots. But inside Queensland the Bjelke-Petersen rhetoric against Labour, especially when Labour dominates in Canberra, cannot be dismissed as a force in politics. It is not a socialist revolution that many voters fear. Such concern as has been expressed is about whether the Labour Party, so long out of office, has the experience to govern. Mr Goss, however, managed to impose discipline on the Queensland Labour Party, and after that governing Queensland might be a minor exercise in political skill.

The Federal Australian Labour Party was much more worried about Labour losing power in South Australia in the previous week-end’s state election than it was about Labour losing again in Queensland. Labour feared that the high interest rates brought about by a tight monetary policy would produce a backlash against the Government. The Liberals in South Australia urged people to vote Liberal to send a message to Canberra. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, kept saying that South Australians were clever enough to distinguish between state and Federal politics (a distinction that was not helped by Mr Bannon, the state Premier, also being president of the A.L.P.). As it turned out, the popular and able Mr Bannon retained power in South Australia by one seat. The Queensland election was dominated almost totally by local issues, mainly the corruption issue. After the Labour victory, Mr Hawke thought the win improved the chances of Labour winning the Federal election next year. He .is probably clutching at straws. However, a sound Labour Government in Queensland between now and the Federal election might be held up as a shining example of what Labour can do to a tired and corrupt political system. At the moment the A.L.P. is in need of any inspiration it can get.