logo
King or crook?: the enduring legacy of Queensland's political strongman Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen

King or crook?: the enduring legacy of Queensland's political strongman Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen

The Guardian3 days ago

'Sir Joh will be remembered, and he will long be remembered. But not for what he wanted to be remembered for.'
This was my prediction when Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen died in 2005, heading up one of a number of obituaries.
Propelling my pen was a sense of obligation to do justice to the stunted opportunities and deliberate and casual cruelties inflicted on the state and many, many, Queenslanders under Australia's most blinkered, authoritarian and corrupt postwar regime.
The balance in the initial flood of obituaries was about two-thirds more adulation than condemnation.
Cranes on the skyline and huge holes in the ground carried more weight than stamping on civil liberties and corruption.
There is much better balance in newly minted television documentary Joh: Last King of Queensland, airing on Stan this weekend.
Its signature touch is having Sir Joh present as actor Richard Roxburgh delivering characteristic monologues to answer or more typically homily his way around any questions or criticisms of his conduct. Vignettes from family, friends, political luminaries, journalists, historians and opponents and a wealth of available footage keep the narrative going.
Back then, Joh's quite deliberate – even trained – incoherent rambling was all too frequently excessively tidied up by reporters and then judged by commentators as evidence of his political acumen.
Of course, it also opened up opportunities for us reporters. Once, on a slow news day when he was still speaking to me, I asked Joh whether he was contemplating sending the then Liberal leader, Sir Llew Edwards, off to a coveted London posting.
Nothing in his 'Well, you know Phil …' constituted a direct denial so yes, there was a story.
It is easy to caricature much of Bjelke-Petersen's reign. Presumably Sir Joh had a hand in the wording of the citation for his 1984 knighthood, which noted he was 'a strong believer in the concept of parliamentary democracy' who had made 'many improvements in the parliamentary process'.
This not long after the Liberals had abandoned the Coalition due to Joh's refusal to countenance parliamentary committees and while the legislative assembly continued to turn in new records for the brevity of its sitting sessions.
In truth, Sir Joh (1968-1987) was the last and second-longest lasting of a string of strongmen Australian state premiers – Robert Askin (New South Wales: 1965-1975), Henry Bolte (Victoria: 1955-1972), Sir Charles Court (Western Australia: 1974-1982) and Thomas Playford (South Australia: 1938-1965).
All were conservative and variously notorious for riding roughshod over Westminster traditions and disregard of civil liberties, abuse of the electoral system, and tolerance or participation in corruption.
Even considering Askin's organised crime associations, Bjelke-Petersen was to surpass them all. Of many biographies, my vote for both best and best titled goes to Evan Whitton's The Hillbilly Dictator.
That Queensland suffered for longer and graduated into such a relic of poor governance was, in Sir Joh's only valid defence, in part because a long string of Labor governments had demolished an inconvenient upper house and thoroughly gerrymandered the electorate.
The Coalition government which fell, somewhat surprised, into government in 1956 ignored the pungent smell of corruption around Frank Bischof and appointed him police commissioner.
In 1963, in the National Hotel royal commission, a future chief justice of the high court of Australia was successfully hoodwinked into a finding of negligible police corruption. Tony Fitzgerald, looking at many of the same names in much more senior positions 24 years later, found otherwise.
Sir Joh, initially an impassioned critic of Labor's gerrymander, went on to embrace the innovation of making islands of Aboriginal communities within other electorates.
Policing became political, increasingly aimed at opponents of the regime.
A notable shortage of real communists (Queensland police had nearly beaten Australia's only ever Communist member of parliament to death in 1948) did not deter the anti-communist rhetoric Joh aimed at the Labor party, unions, university students and Aboriginal activists.
Sir Joh long denied even the possibility of corruption in the police force, well beyond the optimum point to beat a hasty retreat to 'I knew nothing'. It is hard to reconcile this with the Fitzgerald inquiry's ability to acquire the records of any cabinet meeting of interest but one – the one that saw Terry Lewis appointed as commissioner of police.
All of this is relatively well canvassed in Last King. My only quibble is that it leaves the question of whether Sir Joh was personally corrupt unnecessarily unresolved.
When Sir Joh died, so did the defamation writ that he had issued years before for my publishing the details of the corruption charges that had been prepared against him in relation to brown paper bags of cash delivered to his office. True, he never faced these particular charges, but allegations of lying to Fitzgerald about the brown paper bags was the essence of the trial that brought him within a Young National juryperson of becoming the first Australian premier to be consigned to a term in prison.
The special prosecutor judged Sir Joh too old to face a second trial before a fresh jury – unfortunate for the sake of history, and also in that it would have deterred Sir Joh from launching a ludicrous $338m claim against Queensland and Queenslanders for personal damages arising from the Fitzgerald inquiry.
Other tribunals, however, were able to make definitive rulings.
An outstanding A Current Affair program in 1989 detailed the largesse given to Bjelke-Petersen by construction magnate Sir Leslie Thiess. Thiess immediately sued for defamation and lost, the jury finding that Sir Leslie had bribed Sir Joh on an extravagant scale, defrauding his own shareholders in the process.
Bjelke-Petersen's pioneering role in the bribe by way of defamation settlement racket was then highlighted by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. When Alan Bond let it slip that threats to his business were a feature of a 1986 $400,000 payment to Sir Joh in settlement of a 1983 defamation case, the tribunal delved deeper into whether Bond was a fit and proper enough person for a sizeable lump of the broadcast spectrum.
Backing up the tribunal, the high court outlined Bond's proposal to pay Bjelke- Petersen the $50,000 Channel Nine's lawyers thought was a reasonable or at least defensible sum, with the $350,000 balance to meet his demands to come as 'a payment overseas related to assets, a loan without obligation to repay or an excessive payment for the sale of property'.
But Bjelke-Petersen was too greedy and too needy – or too vengeful – for any of this, and the settlement made the television news and ultimately put Bond out of the television business.
Karma also seems to have intervened after Bjelke-Petersen cajoled a large loan out of a foreign bank, with the internal documentation showing this as a balance of inducements and menaces decision somewhat at variance to the applicable credit rating. But appreciation of the Swiss franc then brought the Bjelke-Petersen family enterprises close to penury.
Last King does note Bjelke-Petersen's deficient understanding of conflicts of interest, in his trying to put it over that it was perfectly OK for his wife, Florence, to hold the preferentially issued Comalco and Utah shares.
In essence, enough evidence with enough in the way of judicial proceedings was lying for Last King not to leave the question of Bjelke-Petersen's personal corruption hanging.
Last King deserves a notable place in the voluminous memorabilia around Sir Joh.
The life and times (and crimes) of Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen are indeed pertinent to the current state of the world and Last King should be wheeled out at regular intervals and be a curricula staple to remind us.
Phil Dickie is a Gold Walkley winner and author of bestselling book The Road To Fitzgerald: Revelations of Corruption Spanning Four Decades. His reporting on the Bjelke-Petersen government is credited, along with an ABC Four Corners program, with sparking the Fitzgerald corruption inquiry
Joh: Last King of Queensland premieres on Stan on 22 June

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump swears in outburst at Israel and Iran over ceasefire violations
Trump swears in outburst at Israel and Iran over ceasefire violations

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Trump swears in outburst at Israel and Iran over ceasefire violations

Donald Trump said that Israel had to 'calm down' after it and Iran violated a ceasefire he tried to broker. 'Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and they dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I've never seen before, the biggest load that we've seen,' he said. 'We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing'

Laura Loomer airs old texts with Tucker Carlson after he brands her ‘world's creepiest human'
Laura Loomer airs old texts with Tucker Carlson after he brands her ‘world's creepiest human'

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

Laura Loomer airs old texts with Tucker Carlson after he brands her ‘world's creepiest human'

Far-right activist Laura Loomer snapped back at Tucker Carlson after he deemed her the 'world's creepiest human,' sharing an old text he sent her before mocking him over his claims that he was 'physically mauled' in bed by a demon. Carlson took shots at Loomer and his former Fox colleague Mark Levin on the After Party podcast, claiming the latter was 'wearing the Trump skinsuit' because he thinks it helps his political cause. Levin and Loomer have both been vocal supporters of President Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran, whereas Carlson has firmly opposed the intervention. After claiming many of his former Fox colleagues 'hate Trump,' Carlson vented his frustrations over seeing people, like Levin and Loomer, excitedly defending president. 'Laura Loomer, the world's creepiest human, I don't even know where she came from or who she is exactly, but she's running around saying, 'I'm Donald Trump's defender.' It's bizarre,' Carlson said. Loomer was quick to accuse Carlson of lying about not knowing her, even sharing a screenshot of what she claimed was a text Carlson sent her in 2023 thanking her for her support after he was fired from Fox News. 'His cell is in my phone,' Loomer wrote on X. 'He also said I'm the 'world's creepiest human'. This coming from a grown man who claims he was attacked in his bed by a demon [and] left with bloody claw 'scars.'' Loomer taunted: 'We have never seen the 'scars.'' Last year in a YouTube video, Carlson claimed he was 'physically mauled' by a demon that left him bleeding with still-visible scars and 'claw marks.' He said he was asleep in his bed with his wife and four dogs at the time of the alleged attack. Carlson has recently made headlines as one of the most outspoken critics of Trump's decision to push the U.S. into Israel's war with Iran. Carlson, along with several other MAGA allies, have been unusually at odds with the president. In a recent spat, Carlson sparred with Texas Senator Ted Cruz, deriding the politician over his ignorance of the country he supported invading in a viral interview.

Israel, US and Iran all claim to have won the war, but who has really gained?
Israel, US and Iran all claim to have won the war, but who has really gained?

The Guardian

time2 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Israel, US and Iran all claim to have won the war, but who has really gained?

To the surprise of almost no one, all sides declared victory as they formally accepted Donald Trump's announcement of a ceasefire on Tuesday morning, but the long-term winners – if any – and losers will take some time to emerge. By midday in the Middle East, the dust had not even settled. More than two hours after the ceasefire was supposed to have started, at 05:00 GMT, Israel said it had intercepted at least two missiles coming from Iran heading for the north of the country. Iran denied having launched anything, but Israel vowed devastating retaliation. Waking up to the news, a furious Trump blamed both sides but reserved particular wrath for Israel, telling it to bring its pilots home and warning that if they dropped their bombs, it would be a 'major violation'. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was reported to be trying to calm the US president down. It is politically damaging for him to be on the wrong side of Trump, and the pressure on him will be intense to return to compliance with the ceasefire. For its part, Iran had couched the truce as something it had 'imposed on the enemy', an instantly suspect appraisal, given the very small number of its missiles that pierced its enemies' defensive shield and the very limited damage it managed to inflict. Even if Trump manages to get the ceasefire back on the rails, his bold claim overnight to have secured an enduring peace has been disproved with humiliating speed. 'I think the ceasefire is unlimited. It's going to go forever,' Trump told NBC News on Monday night. He had predicted that Israel and Iran would never 'be shooting at each other again.' The president's other sweeping assessment, that Iran's nuclear programme had been 'obliterated', never to be rebuilt, has been echoed by Netanyahu, albeit a little less emphatically. Acknowledging the ceasefire, Netanyahu's office issued a statement declaring it had removed 'a double existential threat, on both the nuclear issue and regarding ballistic missiles.' There is no question that the Israeli and US bombers achieved a huge amount of demolition work. Satellite imagery has circulated showing Iranian nuclear sites in ruins, and craters in the ground where underground facilities are presumed to be located. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed significant damage to above-ground and subterranean chambers at Iran's primary uranium enrichment plant in Natanz, and at the better protected plant in Fordow, which had been built into a mountain. The IAEA's director general, Rafael Grossi, pointed out that even if US bunker-busting bombs did not penetrate as far as the enrichment halls, they are expected to have caused 'very significant damage' given the 'the extreme vibration-sensitive nature of centrifuges'. A number of other facilities in a sprawling nuclear complex in Isfahan have also been left in ruins, and others around the country have been severely damaged. Grossi made clear, however, that the IAEA could no longer account for Iran's stockpile of 400kg of uranium enriched to 60% purity. This highly-enriched uranium (HEU) is one the crown jewels of the Iranian nuclear programme. If further enriched to 90%, it would be enough for about ten warheads. Before Israel's surprise attack, the IAEA had the material under remote surveillance in a storage site deep under the Isfahan complex. Since the attack, the agency has lost track of it. As the HEU can be stored and transported in containers the size of scuba tanks, they can easily be moved around the country in nondescript passenger cars. Iranian officials publicly suggested that the HEU hoard had been moved before the country came under attack. The US vice-president, JD Vance, admitted Washington did not know where the HEU was, promising ABC's This Week programme 'we are going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel'. 'That's one of the things that we're going to have conversations with the Iranians about,' he said. Ian Stewart, the executive director of the Washington office of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS), wrote on Bluesky: 'There are 10 nuclear weapons worth of material (60% HEU) out of control and the IAEA doesn't know where it is. It should be the major concern.' . James Acton, the co-director of the nuclear policy programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: 'It's difficult to overstate what a big deal this is … this war could prove a disaster for nonproliferation. 'Let me put it this way. If a nuclear deal had allowed Iran to keep several bombs worth of HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM out of IAEA safeguards, we'd say (correctly) that was a really bad deal,' he wrote on X. 'Yet, that's the outcome of military force.' Nuclear experts said that Iran could turn its 60% HEU stock into weapons-grade material relatively easily. Since Trump walked out of a multilateral nuclear deal in 2018, the IAEA has not been able to account for all Iran's centrifuge components. The final stage of enrichment could be performed at a second site in Natanz which Iran has been excavating under a mountain for some years, and which has not been bombed, or it could be done at some anonymous industrial building. Jeffrey Lewis, a CNS professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, said that if Iran did decide to make a dash for a bomb it would take about five months to make enough fissile material for a small nuclear arsenal. US intelligence agencies and the IAEA agree that before the Israeli attack, there was no sign that the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had ordered the construction of a warhead. The risk posed by the Israeli and US bombing campaign is that it could now change his mind, finally persuading him that only a nuclear weapon can deter Iran's enemies. If that decision were made, the other parts of the jigsaw could fall into a place. Construction of a workable nuclear warhead would probably take several months too, but it could be done in a small space. Israel has killed about 15 Iranian nuclear scientists, but after more than a quarter of a century the country's reservoir of nuclear knowhow is likely to be far deeper. About a half of Iran's ballistic missile arsenal, estimated at around 2,500 warheads, is unaccounted for. The former US secretary of state Antony Blinken said the Biden administration had conducted simulations of an attack on Iran's nuclear programme, but the war games had served to underline the danger that the regime would disperse and hide its assets, and then decide to 'sprint toward a bomb'. 'Thus, Mr Trump's strike has risked precipitating what we want to prevent,' he wrote in the New York Times. Israel and the US may be counting on their powerful intelligence capabilities and military dominance to destroy any nuclear work Iran tries to reconstitute, with repeated attacks in the years to come. But that is a much more violent and risky form of nonproliferation than a deal such as the one agreed Barack Obama's presidency, verified and monitored by the IAEA. There would be greater certainty if the current Iranian government were to be replaced by a more compliant alternative aligned with the west. Regime change was an increasingly overt war aim expressed by Trump and Netanyahu's government over the course of the war. So far, the Iranian theocratic establishment is bloodied, but shows no signs of internal fractures. It is detested by much of the population, but it retains the monopoly of violence that has kept it in power so far. For now at least, Iranian popular outrage at being bombed overshadows their disgust for their rulers. In fact, those who rallied to the cry of resistance of 'Woman, life, freedom' in recent years may be among the short-term losers. Over time, the regime's impotence in the face of external assault may prove to be a fatal crack in the whole edifice, but there is no sign of that so far. 'We ought to judge this strike by its real purpose, not the legal camouflage of preemptive self-defense,' Lewis said on X. 'If the strike leaves the current regime, or something very much like it, in power with a nuclear option then it will have been a strategic failure.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store