Bartlett, Sen Andrew

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (16:00): I'd like to speak to this motion as well. It is perhaps apt, as I spoke in this place in May 2005 on the condolence motion for Flo Bjelke-Petersen's husband, Joh—a motion, I should note, that was not moved by the government at the time but by an individual senator. Lady Flo died last month in December 2017, which also marked the 30th anniversary of the end of the Bjelke-Petersen premiership in Queensland. I would like to note the positive comments people have made in regard to Flo Bjelke-Petersen's time as a senator in this chamber. I certainly, in a condolence motion, would join in sending best wishes to Flo Bjelke-Petersen's family in what is always a difficult period. No matter how old somebody lives to, and 98 is a good innings, it is still always hard when a parent or a family member passes away. Flo Bjelke-Petersen's time in this chamber coincided a little bit with my time as a staffer for Democrats senator Cheryl Kernot and Democrats senator John Woodley, who spent a lot of time around rural Queensland. It is certainly fair to say that Flo Bjelke-Petersen's work as a senator in this place, on behalf of her constituents and the party she represented, was such that people had a lot of positive things to say about her, which are consistent with the sorts of comments that have already been made. As has been clear from the comments that have also already been made, her work as a senator can't be disconnected from her role as one half of the Bjelke-Petersen couple that ruled over Queensland for so long and had such a massive impact on Queensland for so long. Some people, understandably, in the context of this debate, want to point to the positives of that partnership. I feel it is very important to put on the record, as politely as I can in the context of a condolence debate, the very deep and destructive negatives of their role in Queensland. I speak as a lifelong Queenslander. I was three or four years old when Joh Bjelke-Petersen became Premier and was about 23 when he finally was kicked out by his own party under a massive cloud. Regarding the Bjelke-Petersen partnership, it is worth noting that in her final interview to the media before her passing Flo Bjelke-Petersen wanted to emphasise again her desire to restore the reputation of her husband. I can understand that. That's good to see such loyalty. But I think it is important for the many, many people whose lives were destroyed—deliberately—by her husband that his legacy is not whitewashed. I think it is important to correct the record in regards to the statements of the Prime Minister, who put out a tweet at the time of Flo Bjelke-Petersen's passing. Again, of course, one should express acknowledgement for the contribution people make and express condolences for their family, but to go on and then say that Queensland's 'success and dynamism owes so much to their vision and leadership' is an attempt to whitewash history. If people are going to use somebody's passing to whitewash history, a legacy of corruption and the deliberate destroying of people's lives, then it is necessary to correct the record. Otherwise, there is a great risk of the enormous injustices of that era being revisited. Of course, good was done but a lot of harm was done. We've had some positive comments with regard to actions regarding Aboriginal people but we have many examples, which I will not detail here, of quite destructive actions towards many Aboriginal people. To use just one example of the stockman, Johnny Koowarta, whose own land in Cape York— The PRESIDENT: Please resume your seat for a moment, Senator Bartlett. Senator Hanson, are you rising on a point of order? Senator Hanson: This is a condolence motion for Lady Flo. It's not to talk about the politics of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Queensland and going over this issue. I'm sorry, this is not respectful to Lady Flo. The PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, there is no point of order. Given it is a condolence motion, I'd remind all senators there are many forums in the chamber where political issues can be raised, but I'm afraid there's no point of order to be raised there, Senator Hanson. Senator Bartlett. Senator BARTLETT: Thank you, Mr President. As I say, it is appropriate when people use somebody's death to whitewash history to at least put a small component on the record of the negatives of that person's record when it caused so much harm and so much damage to so many people's lives. I would draw attention to an article in the Courier Mail by journalist Paul Syvret at the end of December with regard to this issue and simply say that the legacy of this era is not something for commemorating. Condolences to a family regarding an individual is appropriate but to use that to commemorate an era that caused so much harm and damage is not appropriate. It must, rather, serve as a reminder that we must never, ever repeat that. When we have a Prime Minister saying that somebody's vision and leadership was so pivotal to the success and dynamism of the state when it was actually a barrier to it, then it is necessary to put that on the record. I'm sorry but I just know far too many people. Thirty years later the hurt is still so deep and so strong as is the damage done to the institution of government. There has never been any attempt on the part of those who were responsible to accept or recognise that. If that is not done, then it is up to others to point that out. Otherwise, we run a much greater risk of repeating the injustices and the deep corruption of that era, the major shredding of civil liberties and human rights abuses that occurred and the politicisation of the police force that was all justified and continued to be justified many years subsequently.