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 Guardian21-06-2025
'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

2000 Meters to Andriivka review – war in Ukraine as an eerie, pin-sharp waking nightmare
2000 Meters to Andriivka review – war in Ukraine as an eerie, pin-sharp waking nightmare

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

2000 Meters to Andriivka review – war in Ukraine as an eerie, pin-sharp waking nightmare

Two years ago, the Ukrainian photojournalist and film-maker Mstyslav Chernov stunned us with his eyewitness documentary 20 Days in Mariupol, about Russia's brutal assault on the southern Ukrainian port city. His new film is if anything more visceral, with waking-nightmare images captured in pin-sharp 4K digital clarity. It is a moment-by-moment account of his experience embedded with Ukraine's 3rd Assault Brigade in 2023 (one of them appears to be a Brit) during Zelenskyy's highly anticipated counteroffensive, making a gruelling journey along what amounts to a two-kilometre corridor of 'forest'. In fact, it is scrubland offering no real cover – but it is free of Russian mines, unlike the areas of farmland either side. The forces brutally fight every metre of the way, heading for the symbolic liberation of the largely ruined village of Andriivka in north-eastern Ukraine. They are carrying a precious Ukrainian flag, and it is their mission to fix this to any broken bit of wall they can find, to proclaim their national spirit is not dead. They are in a wasteland, as one says: 'It's like landing on a planet where everyone is trying to kill you. But it's the middle of Europe.' Chernov is armed only with a camera, to the astonishment of many soldiers he encounters, and the film was constructed by editing his footage together with that of solders' helmet cameras and drone material. Chernov shows us how drones are now utterly ubiquitous in war, delivering both the pictures and the assaults. That is the ultra-modern, even postmodern aspect of this film, but it coexists with an eerie resemblance to the eastern front of the first world war. Chernov, in one of his murmuringly subdued voiceovers, comments: 'The smell of death, explosives and freshly cut trees.' The wrecked landscape does indeed look like 1916, and Chernov does not scruple to show us real dead bodies (but spares us the ultimate horror of the corpses' faces). When the intertitles flash up the grim advances – 1,000 meters to go, 300 metres to go – it is like the cricket-style scoreboard for the Battle of the Somme in Richard Attenborough's film of Oh! What a Lovely War: 'Ground gained: nil.' The most heart-wrenching moments come when Chernov interviews soldiers in a quiet moment, their twentysomething faces alive with intelligence – and in a sombre voiceover tells us how they were killed four or five months later. It is a (repeated) flourish that might be considered on the verge of bad taste, but Chernov manages it with such unflinching conviction. Since the events of this film, Russia has counter-counterattacked and retaken Andriivka; though now we hear Trump has soured on Putin. A Ukrainian soldier surveys the wreck of Andriivka and says: 'Everything will grow back.' 2000 Meters to Andriivka is in UK and Irish cinemas from 1 August.

What the Australian under-16 YouTube ban means
What the Australian under-16 YouTube ban means

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

What the Australian under-16 YouTube ban means

Australia has announced it will include YouTube in its ban on social media access for teenagers, reversing an earlier exemption. The ban, set to commence in December, aims to protect minors from harmful content and algorithm-driven exposure, following a survey indicating high rates of harmful content on YouTube. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese affirmed the government 's commitment to child safety online, stating they would not be swayed by threats from social media companies. YouTube maintains it is a video-sharing platform, not social media, and has urged the Australian government to reconsider its decision. The move reflects increasing concerns over AI-driven misinformation and the unchecked power of large technology firms, with the Federal Communications Minister vowing not to be intimidated by legal challenges.

Australia to ban YouTube accounts for under-16s
Australia to ban YouTube accounts for under-16s

Times

time2 hours ago

  • Times

Australia to ban YouTube accounts for under-16s

Australia will add YouTube to the nation's world-first social media ban for under-16s, reversing an earlier decision to exempt the video platform. Alphabet, the company that owns YouTube, previously warned it would consider legal action if it was added to the list of platforms affected by the ban, including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X and Snapchat. The ban will come into force on December 10 after Canberra passed legislation late last year, aimed at preventing anyone aged 16 or under from registering with certain sites. Under the upcoming regulation, teenagers would still be able to view YouTube videos but would not be permitted to have an account, which is required for uploading content or interacting on the platform. The government reversed course after receiving a report on children's engagement with the platform from Julie Inman Grant, the eSafety Commissioner, Australia's social media watchdog. Grant's report revealed nearly four in ten children reported their most recent online harm occurring on YouTube, making it the most frequently cited platform in the eSafety Commissioner's research. The survey of 2,600 children aged 10 to 15 found that 96 per cent of them used at least one social media platform, and about 70 per cent had encountered harmful content, including exposure to misogynistic or hateful material, violent fight videos as well as content that promoted eating disorders. Four in 10 children reported being exposed to harmful content on YouTube. Alphabet had argued YouTube should remain accessible to children as the platform 'offers benefit and value to younger Australians'. YouTube said on Wednesday: 'Our position remains clear: YouTube is a video sharing platform with a library of free, high-quality content, increasingly viewed on TV screens. It's not social media.' The video-sharing platform and the second largest search engine is accessed by more than 2.7 billion people per month and accounts for about 25 per cent of global mobile traffic. It is used by nearly three-quarters of Australians aged 13 to 15, the company has said. • How will Australia's social media ban for children work? On Sunday, Anthony Albanese, the Australian prime minister, dismissed Google's threat to sue if Australia restricted children's access to YouTube, saying: 'I say to them that social media has a social responsibility. There is no doubt that young people are being impacted adversely in their mental health by some of the engagement with social media and that is why the government has acted.' YouTube Kids, which Google said was created to give children 'a more contained environment' online, will escape the social media ban, but the main platform will be included.

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