Senator BARTLETT (10:35 AM) —This condolence motion on Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen that has been moved by Senator Boswell presents me with quite a dilemma. I recognise that there is a time and a place for certain comments and that certain environments and contexts are not ideal to raise various issues. I did not oppose the decision of the state Premier, Mr Beattie, to grant a state funeral to Sir Joh, despite the very strong criticisms I was making at the time about his record as Premier. I have publicly stated that I thought plans to picket his funeral were plain stupid.

However, I also note that in a few key respects it is, if not unprecedented, certainly very rare to have a formal debate on a condolence motion for a former state Premier in the same way as we have been having other condolence motions in the last day or two. To use a fairly recent example: after the death of Jim Bacon in Tasmania—who did not die in office but fairly soon after leaving it—we simply had people making speeches noting his life in an adjournment debate rather than speaking to a formal condolence motion. It is that aspect that gives me concern. I have made strong comments on the record about the negative aspects of Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s legacy to democracy and the rule of law in Queensland and the impact of that legacy around Australia. Passing an unprecedented motion of condolence for a state Premier, when we have not done the same thing for many others, is something that concerns me in the message it sends.

I am quite prepared to, and indeed will in a minute, speak about the positive contributions of Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the interesting aspects of his life which I think are worth looking at, because he was certainly an extraordinary man in many respects. Senator Boswell touched on some of those things. But a person’s legacy—certainly when he has been Premier, like Joh Bjelke-Petersen was—is wider than just his individual life; it is the legacy his government leaves and, in particular, the legacy it leaves to our system of democracy. I do not believe it is helpful for the future health of democracy to be seen to be giving an extra level of endorsement to that aspect of the legacy of Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s government.

As I said in my previous contribution on Al Grassby, I do believe it is appropriate, within reason, not to be simply unstintingly praising of people and looking at all the good bits and just whitewashing all the negatives out of people’s lives. I am sure people can point to plenty of negatives in each of our contributions in debates like this. Obviously it is appropriate to emphasise the positive, but I suppose, particularly because of being a senator for Queensland, having lived my whole life in Queensland and having lived through all of the Bjelke-Petersen era when he was Premier, I feel I have an obligation to put some things on the record from the other side of things, from the negative aspects of his legacy. That is not a personal issue with Joh Bjelke-Petersen, whom I never actually met; I believe it is important because, if we do not express strong views about those negatives—because they were so extreme—then we really run the risk of giving tacit approval to their being repeated.

As Senator Boswell pointed out, quite rightly, it is one of the myths of the Bjelke-Petersen era that the so-called gerrymander kept Labor out of office and kept him in. I think it is pretty clear that the gerrymander, or malapportionment, or a bit of a combination of both, disadvantaged the Liberal Party in Queensland in a way that they still have not recovered from, but at no stage did Labor get even near the 50 per cent of the primary vote that could enable them to complain about being robbed. That does not mean that it was a fair electoral system, but I think the point should be made by critics of the Bjelke-Petersen era that Labor simply did not get sufficient primary votes to get into government and people should not assume that it was just because of the gerrymander or the malapportionment that that happened.

There is also no doubt that, over time, and particularly in his last two elections, Joh Bjelke-Petersen got more popular with Queenslanders—a source of immense frustration to those of us with whom he was immensely unpopular. But he did get that support. It still was not majority support. When he did get majority government, it was on the basis of a primary vote that was, I think, 39 per cent, which was about the level that I think Mr Hawke got elected with once—perhaps in the 1990 election. Certainly it was not majority support, but it was not outside the realms of examples in other states. I say that not to excuse the electoral system, which was totally unacceptable and has thankfully been changed—although not in the way I would have liked—but simply to say that people should not overstate the suggestion that he was kept in by some dodgy system and for no other reason. In looking at his record, it is appropriate for those of us who were opposed to key aspects of what he did to acknowledge he did have significant public support and ask ourselves why. When looking at the negative aspects of his legacy, we should take such questions into account and try to ensure that the same things do not happen again.

There is no doubt that Joh Bjelke-Petersen contributed significantly to Queensland’s economic prosperity, and that is an important thing. There is no doubt that, in doing that, he brought about a fair bit of environmental damage, but he was certainly not unusual for people of his era, from all states, in the way he went about opening up agricultural areas, building a great number of dams and doing large-scale land-clearing. That caused a lot of damage, but it certainly was not something that was out of character for the times. It was interesting reading an interview in the Weekend Australian Magazine the weekend before last where Joh Bjelke-Petersen was speaking to somebody about his early years on properties around Kingaroy. It was quite an extraordinary lifestyle that he lived—years of basically living on his own on a property, just clearing the land, tree by tree, with axes, saws and horses. It is a lifestyle that I do not think many of us could imagine, in an area which now seems close to Brisbane but which, at the time, would have been seen to be a long way from the city.

That gives an idea of the different era and also the extreme determination and particular character that Joh Bjelke-Petersen had as a person, and I guess his single-mindedness. With all of us, single-mindedness in certain contexts can be a very desirable quality and in others it can be very undesirable. It depends on what you are being single-minded about. I think those aspects of his life and his character are ones that are worth noting and making ourselves aware of. We benefit from studying the pros and cons of historical figures that have had significant impacts on the political systems in all states.

As I said at the time, I think the key issue for me, when looking at the legacy of Joh Bjelke-Petersen and his governments, is that economic prosperity happened—there is no doubt about that. There are one or two things I would specifically say that I was concerned about at the time, not the least being Expo 88 because of its potential impact on the surrounding communities—which I lived in at the time, around West End. Nonetheless, that did have a very significant positive impact in opening up Brisbane and modernising it. That is something which, I now concede quite willingly, was a good move for Brisbane. My fears, broadly speaking, did not bear fruit.

The fact is you can have economic prosperity without subverting the rule of law, without subverting democracy and without subverting the proper operation of the police force. That subversion did happen and it happened in a very extreme way. I suggest that he was not the only state Premier of Queensland or the only state Premier around Australia who had aspects of his administration which, if looked back on now, would be heavily criticised. But I do believe there were some specific aspects, certainly in the Queensland context from my knowledge, that were sufficiently extreme that they should always be mentioned in contexts like this to guard against them happening again. They were beyond the dodgy electoral system and beyond even cops on the take from prostitution and gambling. Sadly, they are not uncommon aspects of Australian history. However, it was the utilisation of the police force for political purposes, the willingness of the police force to be bent and to be used literally as a political arm of the government, that has had an immensely traumatic effect on many Queenslanders. I do believe I have a duty to them to put that on the record now.

It was very different in those days. As I said, I lived through the Bjelke-Petersen era. I was four, I think, when he became Premier, I was 23 when he stopped being Premier and I was 25 when the Country Party finally ceased being in office. That had an immense impact on me and on many of the people in the circles in which I moved at that time. There are obviously plenty of other people for whom the era had a positive impact, and it is appropriate for that to be acknowledged as well. But the intimidation, violence and harassment of people who were seen as political enemies of the government by the police—the special branch and the like—was very real and very deep. It did have a very big impact on people and it was completely inappropriate. That has to be put on the record.

I point people to a very good article written by Liz Willis, whom I knew from that time and know now, which was published in the Sydney Morning Herald a few days after Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s death. That article was about Joh’s unintended positive artistic legacy. Perhaps the artistic legacy of Joh Bjelke-Petersen is not something that people would immediately think of. The oppositional culture, if you like, that was generated by different groups in the community that felt oppressed, opposed or concerned by the Bjelke-Petersen government brought them together in quite a significant way that has not happened since. I am not recommending that style of government to generate more artistic frisson. Nonetheless, I think it should be marked; it was a key part of Brisbane’s cultural development over that era—through music, theatre, the arts, media, comedy and satire.

It also had an effect on politics. Many Queenslanders, from all sides of politics I think, were driven to become more interested and engaged with politics, not just in political parties but by being involved in political issues. For better or for worse, they were made aware that politics was important, it could affect people’s lives and you should stand up and be counted. That aspect of Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s impact, I would also say, was a positive as well as a negative. He did say what he thought. He was very black and white. He would continue to push something that he was convinced about, and that perhaps also helped engender some extra determination in those who were opposed to him.

I was heavily involved through much of the eighties in community radio station 4ZZZ FM, which was very active in getting and supporting political involvement for those who were opposed to aspects of the government of that time and a lot of marginalised groups in the community. Sure they were minorities, but minorities have rights as well, and that was what people were concerned about. The ability of that radio station to broadcast views and information to people in the notorious, now closed-down, Boggo Road prison, for example, was a very valuable role. I think perhaps, if anything, the most significant aspect that that radio station was able to generate from that era was the involvement of the Murri people, the Aboriginal people, and the Torres Strait Islander people from Queensland. It gave them a voice through radio and the media and it gave them empowerment at a time when many of them felt strongly oppressed.

I note Senator Boswell’s comments about Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s experiences with and attitudes towards Indigenous people. I do not know about that because I do not have those experiences, but I do know of situations such as the continual fight against Johnny Koowarta in the cape to prevent him from taking over a pastoral lease. That fight went all the way to the High Court. Eventually that land was turned into a national park to prevent Johnny Koowarta and the Aboriginal people from getting hold of it. I think moving people around Arukun and the New Mapoon area so their homes could be used for a mine was very inappropriate. There were certainly different sides to this, but I do accept that it is appropriate to put all the sides and not just put a totally black or a totally white view on it.

Concern amongst many of the Indigenous communities in Brisbane at the time was very strong and there is still a legacy there today. That legacy is not just pinned solely on that era, of course; there is a legacy that goes back centuries in relation to the continual feeling of disadvantage and disenfranchisement of Aboriginal people in Queensland. However, the Bjelke-Petersen era played a part in that and it still has echoes in some of the terrible things we are seeing on Palm Island.

The ability of the Murri people in Brisbane to have a voice through 4ZZZ radio—which started off as just one hour then went on to have more time and which has eventually become radio station 4AAA, which I am sure has more listeners than 4ZZZ did—has provided a really valuable legacy. It is an inadvertent one but one nonetheless generated by that time. It is an example of some of the richer aspects and some of the less-recognised aspects of the impacts of the approaches in that era.

Issues like the demolition of the Bellevue Hotel and Cloudland in particular are ones that will always leave a mark on me. I can look out my back window every night at where Cloudland was. I think it is an absolute tragedy that that was lost. That was perhaps also a sign of the way things were done at the time, but that is not going to stop me criticising it as being the wrong thing to do.

I come back to the fact that we are clearly talking about a unique person who certainly had an indelible impact on people of my generation and older. If you are a Queenslander, you talk about people who lived through the Joh era and people who have come since. It was a very different place then. Not all of the changes are for the good, and I certainly do not suggest that we do not have political favouritism and nepotism in Queensland or at government levels around the country now. In some respects Joh was just more blatant about it and did not bother with the slick veneer of trying to pretend that that sort of favouritism was not happening.

People not feeling able to express their views and speak out is something that is still there. It is not something that was unique to the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era. It is a danger that occurs with any government that is in place for a long time. His government was in place for a long time. It is a danger for and a criticism I have made of this government—the longer they are in there, the more blase they get about rewarding their friends, attacking critics and being dismissive of differences of opinion. It is something we must always guard against.

But, in the same way that there was something special about Joh Bjelke-Petersen in his determination, his single-mindedness and his enormous strength and energy, there is also something unique about the negative aspects of his government. I do believe it is essential to put that on the record, because I believe it is important to make that point strongly. More than anything else, above any individual policies, my involvement in politics has been about giving support as a democrat in the true sense of the word—with a commitment to democracy and participation. I believe that anything that so strongly works against that should have a bell put on it to make sure that we do not repeat those mistakes or see them as just unfortunate consequences of the way things happen sometimes. It is because of the unique aspect of the motion that I have problems supporting it.

I do give my condolences to the family. I unequivocally acknowledge the strong role of Flo Bjelke-Petersen, someone I have heard very few criticisms of from my Democrat colleagues who were here when she was in this chamber. She was clearly a fine person. Clearly Joh Bjelke-Petersen was loved by his family. (Time expired)