Stockists

Avid Reader, Boundary Street, West End.

Rocking Horse Records, 245 Albert St, Brisbane City

Sonic Sherpa, 12/360 Logan Road, Stones Corner

Mary Ryan, 85 Merthyr Road, New Farm

State Library Bookshop, South Brisbane

Gleebooks, Glebe, Sydney

Peanuts At The Bar

The completely unedited text by Tony Kneipp, former newsroom co-ordinator for 4ZZZ, and author of the song Pig City. For the somewhat trimmer final version, see the printed Cane Toad Times.

It’s Friday morning and I’m sitting in the public gallery of District Court 28 in George Street. This is not your run of the mill armed robbery or fraud. No, it is day ten of the trial of Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen.

Joh is in the dock, but I can’t see him. The dock is immediately below the public gallery. One of his supporters, the Friends of Joh, has laughingly remarked earlier that Joh refers to the dock as the calf pen. I can see the witness box. The witness is Sir Robert Sparkes.

A tape recording is playing – the ghost of another witness box. It is a familiar voice, the voice of Sir Joh himself, giving evidence at the Fitzgerald Inquiry. A familiar style, ducking and weaving as politicians normally do when asked difficult questions, but in that peculiar manner that is Joh’s and Joh’s alone. Some of the members of the gallery can’t help chuckling audibly at some of the best bits of Joh-speak.

The tape ends. Style is about to become a matter of substance. Bob Greenwood QC, the counsel for the defence, stands and asks Sir Robert whether his manner of speaking on the tape is typical of Sir Joh. Prosecutor Nicholas Cowdery shoots to his feet. Objection, your Honour. He knows where this is heading, and he’s not having a bar of it. The tape is the central piece of evidence. It is for the jury to decide what Sir Joh means on tape. He should not be asked as a witness to express his opinion on the very matter the jury must decide. Mr Greenwood persists. Was Sir Joh deliberately prevaricating or just talking the way he does? Cowdery’s not having a bar of it. This time Greenwood hardly finishes his sentence before he’s objecting. Your Honour, the substance of our objection remains the same. That is for the jury to decide.

After due debate by the learned counsel on both sides, and after a brief deliberation, Judge Helman upholds the objection. For a moment it looked like the defence might get away with the argument; not guilty by virtue of Joh-speak.

We are back now at the first day of evidence at the trial, Wednesday the twenty-fifth of September 1991. The trial has started two days earlier, but legal arguments from both the prosecution and the defence have meant that it has taken this long to get to the first witness. The same tape is being played to the court for the first time. After the tape is played, Mr Robert Sng is called to the stand. He is the first and star witness for the prosecution. He is there to tell the court that he paid $100,000 in cash to Sir Joh, and another $100,000 to Sir Robert. Mr Sng is able to remember certain details of meetings with Sir Joh, but some details elude him, such as exact dates of meetings and exactly who else was present. He tells the court that he has made entries of some details in his personal diaries, but he does not have those diaries in court with him. Mr Sng is asked by the judge to bring those diaries with him to court on the following day.

With the aid of Sng’s diaries the prosecution is able to establish that Sng had met Joh some 8 or 9 times before giving him the donation on 17/9/86. On the first couple of occasions Mr Sng met Joh, he was just another face in the crowd. The first time was at the official opening of the Raby Bay development in November 1984. Sng was working for the developer, the Chang group of companies. Later meetings were much more specific. The prosecution homed in on two particular meetings. The first of these was on 26/2/86 at Parliament House. This was a small dinner party by invitation of Sir Joh. It was set up at Sng’s request by Mrs Betty Goleby, the widow of former Minister John Goleby. Sng had met her through his involvement with the Raby Bay development. The prosecution made a big show of submitting two photographs of this particular meeting between Sng and Joh.

The second meeting, the following day, was at Brisbane airport. Joh asked Sng to accompany him to the airport to meet a Mr Adrian Zecha, a senior executive in Regent Hotels, a Hong Kong based company with international hotel interests. Mr Sng was attempting to involve Regent Hotels in his development, and Adrian Zecha was well known to him personally. Zecha was passing through Brisbane on his way to Sydney, and was only in Brisbane for less than an hour between flights. Joh wanted to attract Regent to Brisbane. He was keen to talk to Zecha, and contacted Sng to come with him to the airport to introduce him. They met Zecha and spoke to him for half an hour.

Sng was a bit vague about certain details. But there was one thing he remembered very clearly. That was the meeting where he gave Joh the $100,000 in cash. Carrying around and parting with $100,000 in cash is the sort of thing that would tend to sharpen the memory. Sng met Anne Garms, a prominent restauranteur and a major player within the National Party, and went with her to Parliament House on 17/9/86. Garms went and found Joh in his office. She then came back and ushered Sng into Joh’s office. Sng handed the manilla envelope containing the money to Joh. He told Joh, “This is our donation to the campaign for Joh for PM. I would like to wish you well and I hope you win.” A few more words were exchanged, and he left. The meeting was very brief, perhaps less than a minute.

The following day, again accompanied by Garms, Sng paid a visit to National Party headquarters where he gave Sir Robert Sparkes an identical manilla envelope containing $100,000 in cash. According to Sng, he also told Sparkes the donation was for the Joh for PM campaign. Sng tells the court he did not get a receipt for the money either from Sir Joh or Sir Robert, although they both offered him one. “I like to deal anonymously. I'd rather stay out of politics. I'm a businessman.”

It is important to point out here that Sir Joh is never charged in this case with receiving bribes. The case begins with legal debate on which precise charges Joh will face. Outside the court building before the start of proceedings about 50 members of the Friends of Joh jostle for space with an equally strong media contingent. Sir Joh turns up, arm in arm with Lady Flo, looking calm and unfazed, with a smile on his face. He is wearing a pin-stripe grey suit. His blue tie bears the motto of the Queensland coat of arms, “Audax et Fidelis”, Bold and Faithful. Flo is wearing a watermelon-pink suit, with black open-toed shoes. Their son John follows immediately behind them, wearing an identical suit to Joh. In all, there are nine immediate family members there, including three grandchildren. Sir Joh thanks both groups for coming. "The chooks aren't starving today, Sir Joh", one of his supporters yells out. Joh tells everyone “I am not permitted to say anything before I go upstairs, but I can tell you the day will come when I will have got a lot to say”.

The original indictment is for two charges of perjury and one charge of official corruption. A deal is struck that the prosecution will drop the charge of official corruption and one charge of perjury in return for being able to present all the evidence obtained in determining the one remaining charge of perjury. Cowdery tells the court that the Crown has great concern that three charges could not be heard in one trial for technical reasons, and the result could have been overturned on appeal.

With the matter of the charge settled, a jury is empanelled, and the trial proper begins on day three, the Wednesday. The charge remaining before the court is that Joh lied to the Fitzgerald Inquiry about the political donation of $100,000 in cash paid directly to Joh by Sng. In the dock, Sir Joh sits perched down one end of his pew, as close to Flo as he can get. Behind him sit three generations of Bjelke-Petersens. Rather than looking glum or grim, the clan exudes an air of well-scrubbed Lutheren jollity, the women in neat, sensible frocks, the men in their sober but elegant suits. They chat among themselves as they wait for proceedings to commence. Every now and then one of them leans forward and clasps Sir Joh's shoulder and tells him something to make him smile.

After a brief final debate over which evidence will be admitted, the jury is led in and Cowdery launches the prosecution case with a lengthy opening submission. Cowdery says that all allegations of improper dealing will be aired in court despite the dropping of the corruption charge. Evidence in the perjury charge remaining would include "evidence of some improper dealings which are at the heart of official corruption". Moments earlier, Joh had stood in the dock and proclaimed loudly and firmly "I am not guilty". A strong media contingent is limited to two rows of seats in the public gallery.

The essence of the prosecution’s case is that Joh told the Fitzgerald Inquiry that he had been introduced to the donor of the $100,000 at the time of the donation. In fact he had met the donor on a number of prior occasions. In evidence to the inquiry about the donor’s business activities in Queensland, Sir Joh said he thought at the time the donor wanted to get into the hotel business at some time when the opportunity presented itself. In fact at the time of the donation he had already had a number of meetings with the donor to discuss a specific hotel proposal. The crown would also seek to demonstrate to the jury that Sir Joh had acted in favour of the donor or as Mr Cowdery put it “had engaged in what might be described as masterly inactivity”. A lie by Sir Joh to the Fitzgerald Inquiry might have been to avoid linking a development application to a $200,000 gift to the National Party. The cash given to Sparkes went into party accounts and the cash that was handed to Sir Joh went into a company called Kaldeal controlled by Sir Edward Lyons.

A number of documents were tendered by the prosecution, in particular a letter from a firm of solicitors on behalf of a property development company, Historic Holdings, to Sir Roderick Proctor, as a trustee for the National Party. Mr Cowdery also went to great pains in his opening address to instruct the jury to leave all previously formed opinions on the accused outside the courtroom, and to decide the charges only on the evidence presented before them in court. The last days of the Bjelke-Petersen government were not on trial, he said. Nor was the accused on charge for his actions in general. It was a case of one man, one charge, one offence.

Then the tape of Sir Joh’s evidence to the Fitzgerald Inquiry was introduced for the first time. First the formalities of establishing the tape’s credentials had to be gone through. A great deal of the court’s time has been taken up with evidence of this kind. Then the tape is played to the court. After the tape is played, that is when Mr Robert Sng is called to the stand.

At the end of the day's proceedings, Sir Joh and Senator Lady Florence Bjelke-Petersen appear relaxed as they leave the court complex. “It's in the hands of the court, so that's OK”, Joh says. “It will come around eventually and it's no good worrying about it”, Flo adds.

Moving forward again to day ten of the trial and Sir Robert Sparkes does eventually get a word in on the way Joh speaks. Sir Joh was not very articulate, and he overcame this by being forceful, he said. "One would have to concede that speaking impromptu wasn't one of Joh's strong points - his fluency fluctuated". Sparkes told Greenwood Joh "had a habit of changing subjects probably because he had so many things on his mind". He said Joh had a style of speaking all his own - "he had Joh-style which is being parodied by certain people".

Sparkes has a completely different version of events to Sng. Sparkes knew nothing about Sng in September 1986 except that he was a Malaysian businessman who was interested in investing in Queensland. He is asked “Did Roderick Proctor tell you about that donation at that time”. “I have no recollection of it. I should point out that donations were flowing into the party for campaigns and elections year in and year out – there was nothing unusual about it”. He’s asked about a letter from Roderick Proctor drawing Sparkes’s attention to the donation. Sir Robert denies having any memory of it. When he is asked about receiving such a large donation in cash, Sparkes responds that cash was more confidential than a cheque, and that there was always a concern about industrial action or other forms of retaliation if the donor’s identity became known.

Sparkes denies the allegation that Sng had given the two lots of $100,000 to Sparkes and to Joh as a political donation in exchange for development rights to the Port Office site. He says the $100,000 was delivered to party headquarters. Mr Sng told him he was making the donation because he was a supporter of the free enterprise system. No mention was made of the Joh for PM campaign, and he would have been concerned if it was. “If it had got out at that stage that the Premier was contemplating seeking being Prime Minister, it would have been detrimental to the state election campaign.” He tells the court that when he learnt of Kaldeal's existence, he told Sir Joh there should only be one official party fund, but Sir Joh “insisted his point of view was right.” Sparkes also says that he has fallen out with Joh over his ill-fated bid for Prime Minister in 1987, and that he tried to persuade him to resign as Premier. He says that he has no animosity towards Joh, but that he was telling the truth. He does not greet or acknowledge Joh when he enters or leaves the witness box, unlike most of the other witnesses. Instead he shuffles past, silent and stony-faced.

Giving evidence on the same day as Sparkes, Sir Edward Lyons tells Greenwood there was $889,000 in total in donations to Kaldeal. Campaign committees in 1986 received $208,000 of this. At Sir Joh's insistence, $300,000 was paid to Sparkes, because the party was desperate to pay the 1986 TV advertising bill. Not a cent from Kaldeal went into Joh's pocket, he says. He says he warned Sir Joh not to hold on to the $100,000 cash donation. He told Sir Joh “Whatever happens, get rid of it” after Joh had revealed to him that the money had been left in his office. He says that Sir Joh used to get upset that official party funds were going to administrative purposes rather than candidates. “Whenever he asked for money, he was always told it wasn't there.” He says he had solicited donations for Kaldeal, but always insisted that they were paid by cheque. “I didn't want to handle cash.”

Then it is the turn of Sergeant Robert Carter of Special Branch. On oath in the witness box he tells the court he has been with Special Branch and has been Joh’s personal security officer between 1978 and 1988. He gives evidence that he has been asked to transport money twice. He had gone to Joh’s secretaries’ offices where he had been handed a package which he had then taken to the offices of Flower and Hart, a firm of solicitors, where he handed it to Mr Max Lockhart. He then accompanied Lockhart across to an ANZ bank where he watched an employee count the money. On one occasion it was $100,000, on another occasion it was $110,000. “Did you go alone?”. “Yes”. “You walked there?”. “Yes.” “What was the nature of the package.” “It was wrapped in tape. I believe there was a tear in the corner of one and you could see it was wads of money.” He confirms to Cowdery that two Kaldeal bank slips for $100,000 on 19/9/86 and $110,000 on 16/10/86 corresponded to those two packages. Carter said he was armed at all times with a revolver and it was not unusual for him to convey cash from one end of the city to the other. He told Greenwood he had been given one packet by Joh's principal private secretary Walsh and one by another private secretary Peter Anemaat. He couldn't remember which package came from which.

After that, we hear from Mr Adrian Zecha, Sng's former business partner. He tells the court that he's met Sir Joh several times but Sir Joh had never suggested waiving conditions or Cabinet imposed time limits. He had been a founder and partner in the Regent hotel group. In February 1986, Sir Joh had met him at Brisbane airport and mentioned plans to offer the Port Office site. Joh told him he held Regent Hotels in high regard and Brisbane was ready for a Regent hotel. Zecha said he sold his holdings in Regent in July 1986 but in August he was asked to come to Brisbane to help with some problems with Sng's bid. He told the court that he had also made a donation to Sir Joh, but somewhat later than when Sng had been urging him to, after the Joh for PM campaign had already failed.

Former Works Department officer Mr Ron Redman was asked if Sir Joh had ever expressed a preference for any of the development proposals. Mr Redman replied “Never.” Mr Gundelach, the counsel assisting Greenwood, put to him, “No-one suggested that you should bend the rules, cut corners or whatever to push this proposal through?” “No.”

At this point in the story, it’s hard to make sense of the case without knowing what Sng’s development plans were. Towards the end of 1985, Sng became interested in the old Port Office site as a potential site for a luxury hotel development. It was Crown land, but Sng was advised by the Works Minister, Wharton, to look for a call for expressions of interest in the site to be publicly advertised in the papers in the near future. A shelf company, Teleman, was bought by Sng some time in October. In December the company’s name was changed to Historic Holdings. In April a call for expressions of interest in the Port Office site was publicly advertised. Between 50 to 100 expressions of interest in the site were received. This narrowed down to eleven firm proposals for the site, which were evaluated by a review committee formed by the Works Department, and chaired by Mr Redman. Four of those were short listed. One fell by the wayside because of finance problems. That left three serious bids – one by Historic Holdings, one by Kern Corporation and one by Agenti Architects in conjunction with Ramada Hotels.

The committee submitted a report to Cabinet, ranking the Kern proposal as the best. Kern’s proposal was not for a hotel, but for a mix of retail, tourism and dining at ground level, with prestige offices above. The committee rated the Agenti-Ramada proposal ahead of the Historic Holdings one. They felt it made better use of the historic site. The Historic Holdings proposal was seen to require major modification and was generally seen by Mr Redman’s committee as presenting more problems.

The committee’s report, signed by the Minister Claude Wharton, is dated 11/7/86. Four days later, Cabinet decided that Historic Holdings be selected as the preferred developer. This was not the end of the matter. Historic Holdings still had to go through the lengthy process of progressing to the status of selected developer, and following this, to the actual signing of contracts.

Historic Holdings was designated selected developer on 17/11/86, subject to certain conditions, one of which was that it had 21 days in which to provide satisfactory details of the financing of the project. In fact it took three months, until 16/2/87 for Cabinet to grant Historic full status as selected developer. Some two weeks later, contracts were signed on 3/3/87. That period of some three months was referred to by Mr Cowdery as a period of “masterly inactivity” on the part of Joh. Sng said he felt under considerable pressure to donate. When he was asked where that pressure came from he said mostly Mrs Anne Garms. She was on to him practically every day in person or by phone saying “Have you got it?”. He also said that he thought that the Port Office project was facing its final hurdle and “it looked like we had to do something to show support”.

Sng was asked whose idea the donations were. This takes us back to the letter that the prosecutor Mr Cowdery had mentioned in his opening address. It was dated 27/2/86 and it was written by Mr Mark McCluskey, who was Sng's solicitor at the time. The letter was to Sir Roderick Proctor, a trustee of the National Party. It was accompanied by a cheque for a $15,000 donation. The letter, which referred to this donation, went on to promise a further $200,000 at some later stage. The letter finished by saying "Could you please let Sir Robert Sparkes and Sir Joh know about this letter as Robert (Sng) is quite friendly with the Premier".

Whose idea was this donation and this letter? Whose idea was the mention of a further $200,000? Sng seemed to remember the idea had come from McCluskey, and perhaps also from Garms. He said at the time of the first donation he had asked McCluskey if it was normal procedure. He was assured that it was. Sng asked McCluskey if the donation was in any way criminal or illegal. McCluskey said no, not if it's done properly. Sng told McCluskey, well if that's the way of life around here, you do what you have to do. McCluskey remembered it differently when he was on the stand. It was all Sng's idea, he said.

In his evidence McCluskey said the idea for political donations had come from Sng. It was on Sng's instruction he added the paragraph asking Proctor “would you let Sir Robert Sparkes and Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen know as Robert (Sng) is quite friendly with the Premier”. Asked by Greenwood whether Sir Roderick Proctor had ever said he had passed on the message, McCluskey said “Sir Roderick certainly never mentioned it to me”. He said Joh had thought the hotel was a good idea.

Sng said he was under such pressure to make a big donation he had borrowed $300,000 from a finance company. He said McCluskey had told him back in 1984 that since he was getting into business in Queensland "we should give some political donations to the National Party" as it was normal business practice in the state.

He said it was Garms who told him that Joh needed the money for the campaign to be PM. He had given Joh an inexpensive Rolex watch as a thank-you gift. He had flown to Sydney and had a friend put up stocks and shares as collateral on a loan for $300,000. The excess $100,000 was used for expenses. Sng tells the court Sir Joh had never asked him for money.

McCluskey is the link with Garms. They were both members of the National Trust. Garms told McCluskey about her plans to set up a hospitality school at the old Port Office building. McCluskey introduced Garms to Sng, and this hospitality school was incorporated into the Historic Holdings project. Other than Joh, Garms has been the witness who has been most conspicuous by her absence. At no stage was she called upon to give evidence before the trial.

In fact at that time the Historic Holdings project was in some difficulty. Not only were they having problems meeting the requirements of the Works Department review committee, but also Regent Hotels were pulling out of the deal. There had been some disagreement between the partners in Regent, and two of them, including Mr Adrian Zecha, had sold out to the third partner, a Mr Robert Burns. Through his connection with Zecha, Sng was able to stitch up a deal which brought in another hotel group, Beaufort. But all this took time.

After the contracts were signed in March 1987, Sng sold out his interests in the project to Zecha. During 1987, Sng introduced Joh to another Asian businessman, Lee Ming Tee, who was the head of Hastings Deering, who were based in Sydney and Hong Kong. Towards the end of November, Joh's career as Premier was on the skids. One of Joh's staff members, Wendy Armstrong, rang Sng and asked if Sng could do her a favour, could he find a job for Joh. Sng went to Bethany, Joh's farm near Kingaroy, to discuss the matter.

On 1/12/87, Joh resigned. Within five minutes of his resignation being announced publicly, Joh rang Sng to tell him about it. A week and a half later, Sng flew with Joh to Hong Kong, and accompanied him to the offices of Hastings Deering. Hastings Deering is an Australian Caterpillar dealer network that supplies earthmoving and mining equipment, engines and power systems. It has been operating since 1932, and also operates in PNG, the Solomons, and New Caledonia. During this trip he saw and dined with Joh every day for a week. The prosecution tendered half a dozen photographs documenting that week.

Halfway through the trial a glass of water becomes a serious point of contention. A bailiff refuses to give Joh a glass to drink his water from, providing him with a paper cup instead. The bailiff had taken the glass because in the past some accused had thrown their glass around the court. For that reason, there are rules in place. Mr Greenwood wants to know if this is really necessary, or could an exception be made. He's not asking for Waterford crystal, just an ordinary glass would be fine. Judge Helman says yes.

The trial is getting towards the end. It’s lunchtime, and we’re spilling out into what is like a foyer area leading to the public gallery. Suddenly Joh and Flo are both there, pressing the flesh and thanking their supporters for coming out in solidarity. Flo comes up to me and asks me, “And what made you decide to come here today?” Clearly my decision to dress in as straight and respectable a way as possible means that I pass muster. I smile and tell her, “I’m here to cover the trial for 4ZZZ.” She keeps smiling too, but moves on to less stony ground. Sitting in the gallery day after day has inevitably meant that I have been rubbing elbows with the most rabid of Joh supporters. Among the regulars in the gallery was former assistant commissioner of police Tony Murphy.

On Tuesday the prosecutor calls Joh’s two private secretaries. One of them, John Walsh, tells the court that he had made an appointment for a Mr Yokoyama from Daikyo, who had said he wanted to make a political donation. He was there when Mr Yokoyama turned up, but he didn’t see or handle the money himself. Mr Walsh said that before appearing at the Fitzgerald inquiry, Joh had rung him to discuss the incident, saying that he couldn’t remember it happening. Mr Walsh insists that it had happened the way he remembered it, but if Joh really couldn’t remember, then perhaps that’s what he should say. Mr Yokoyama’s name clearly occurs in Joh’s appointments diary. He said Sir Joh didn't have an excellent memory in 1980 when he joined him and it progressively got worse. For his first 18 months on the job Sir Joh was prone to calling him "Stan", the name of his previous private secretary. He could always remember the names of his Ministers, but sometimes had to have a list of their portfolios so he could get them right. His other private secretary Peter Anamaat said Sir Joh could get mixed up and forgetful with names and that his staff had to prompt him with names from time to time to prevent embarrassment.

Late on Tuesday afternoon at 4.20 pm, after the evidence by the two private secretaries, the prosecution catches the defence on the wrong foot somewhat by closing their case by not calling any further witnesses. Greenwood immediately objects, demanding the prosecution call at least another 24 witnesses for cross-examination. He declares that failure to do so would amount to an unfair trial and asks for a stay of proceedings. Cowdery tells Judge Helman Mr Greenwood's speech is "highly offensive and gratuitous". "The Crown does not need to be reminded, certainly not by our learned friend, about its duty in a fair trial. The Crown has closed its case." The following morning the defence drops its call for a stay of proceedings but wants to debate whether other witnesses should be called by the prosecution. In the end, no more witnesses are called. It takes all morning, in the absence of the jury, to reach this point.

Judge Helman then asks the defence whether they intend calling any witnesses. Mr Greenwood says no, the defence will be by final submission. This has been the defence strategy from the beginning – to let the prosecution stand or fall on its own merits. By not calling witnesses, the defence has the last say before the judge sums up and the jury retires to consider its verdict. Had the defence called even a single witness, it would have been the prosecution submission which ended the trial prior to the judge’s summing up. Joh himself is never called as a witness in this trial.

The chief prosecutor Nicholas Cowdery QC begins his final address to the jury on Wednesday afternoon 9/10/1991. Joh had not “held a gun” on Cabinet members but had used great subtlety in his corrupt dealings, he says. Several witnesses had denied any undue influence by Sir Joh and “it would be a pretty stupid, ham-fisted Premier who acted in that way.” If there was some improper, corrupt dealing in the Historic Holdings application “those involved would not be so stupid as to obviously and openly influence public servants or Ministers of the Crown”. Sir Joh had rejected the advice of senior public servants and allowed deadlines for the project to be ignored and overridden. At every turn, under pressure from the Premier, Cabinet “folded and bent” in favour of Mr Sng's company.

Common sense would reject any suggestion that in his later years in office, Sir Joh walked around in a blurred confusion of faces, not knowing who he was talking to or where he was. When Sir Joh gave evidence to the Fitzgerald Inquiry he knew where he was, what he was saying, what he was talking about, and the ramifications of what he said. He said it was an extraordinary co-incidence that the first deposit in Kaldeal was the $100,000 cash from Sng. When he spoke of the money being for Sir Joh's benefit he did not mean the money went into his pocket or bank account. Sir Joh could distribute the money as he saw fit and could distribute money to people over whom he would then be able to exert power.

Sng gave the $100,000 to Sir Joh at Parliament House. How could the money have got to the Executive Building if not carried there by Sir Joh? In his evidence to the Fitzgerald Inquiry, Sir Joh had said he had not touched the money, it was all handled by his secretaries. The Crown said Sir Joh's activities were such that he would never forget Sng unless he had dementia. After all, Sng gave him $100,000 in cash and this didn't happen very often. And you don't forget the man who gave you a job when you retired, or the man you phone five minutes after retiring, or the man you go to Hong Kong with for a week.

Cowdery lists 23 separate events that link Sng and Sir Joh and more than 20 direct contacts between them. Sir Joh's conduct at the Fitzgerald inquiry was that of a schemer, he says. In his final words to the jury, he tells the seven men and five women that according to the evidence there is only one verdict open to them: GUILTY!

Before the jurors are released for the weekend, Judge Helman accepts a submission from Mr Greenwood that they should be warned to “keep an open mind”.

The prosecutor has now finished his final address to the jury. One of the really fascinating aspects of this trial is the way in which we have been invited to look into the dealings not only of the former Premier, but also of Cabinet, of the upper echelons of the public service, of rich international businessmen, and of the National Party and its supporters. At times this trial has taken on a dimension of “Yes, Minister”, as various senior politicians and top-ranking public servants have been paraded through the witness box. These have included two former Cabinet Ministers, Ivan Gibbs and Martin Tenni, four knights, Sir Robert Sparkes, Sir Edward Lyons, Sir Sydney Schubert and Sir Leo Hilscher, Mr Redman from the Works Department review committee, and Mr Walsh and Mr Anamat, Sir Joh’s private secretaries. We heard from rich international businessmen such as Mr Robert Sng and Mr Adrian Zecha, who as well as his hotel interests was into publishing in Hong Kong, Japan, and Singapore. We also heard from Sergeant Carter, the Special Branch policeman who was Joh’s bodyguard. He carried the $100,000 donations on foot to the bank, where they were deposited in a bank account in the name of Kaldeal. Kaldeal, like Historic Holdings, was a shelf company. Essentially it was Joh’s private slush fund, set up with the assistance of Sir Edward Lyons.

The defence begins its final submission on Monday. After seven days of evidence at the Fitzgerald inquiry, all that could be levelled at Sir Joh was “one miserable charge of perjury”. Mr Greenwood QC begins. “The charge was only supported by half-baked evidence of corruption to do with our friend Mr Robert Sng. There is only one verdict available on the evidence, he says, “not guilty, and I make no bones about that”. He was the only thing that stood between the jury and a guilty verdict which would be “the last possible kick in the teeth” that Queensland would give Sir Joh. He said Sir Joh would have run “a very grave risk of contempt charges” if he had told the Fitzgerald Inquiry what he knew about Sng and revealed the identity of a confidential witness. His obligation not to disclose the identity of the witness had put Sir Joh “between a rock and a hard place”. In relation to political donations Sir Joh had done nothing improper whatsoever. There was nothing sinister, evil, or wrong about a company making a donation to a political party.

“The challenge for the Australian legal system is whether you twelve people are going to be able to judge this man for what he is supposed to have done, as opposed to who he is. Joh Bjelke-Petersen is, among all of the public figures in the recent history of this country, the man who would be most well-known to twelve people in the Queensland community.” It would be fair to say Bjelke-Petersen had been “a divisive sort of character”. Whether they loved or hated Sir Joh they had to agree he had done a lot of good for Queensland. His task was not to convert the jury to the Sir Joh fan club. He only asked that they remember “that everybody has a right to a fair go”. This left the “unanswerable proposition that he must be acquitted”.

Pointing to Sir Joh in the dock, Mr Greenwood declaims in a dramatic tone of voice, “After years and years of allegations that that man there is a crook, all they can come up with is this. Goldilocks could knock this over.”

Mr Greenwood says comedians wearing corks on their hats have made fun of Sir Joh for years. Trials in the media had alleged corruption, union bashing, favouring the country over the city, buying shares for his own benefit and “some nonsense about a bridge over some river to benefit his family”. The Crown case was that Cabinet was conned and yet only two Ministers were called. His last words to the jury are to implore them to keep Sir Joh in the criminal dock “for not one minute more than was necessary”. He had been there long enough, and they should find him not guilty “not as a favour, but as a matter of right”. In his summing up, Judge Helman rejects Mr Greenwood's proposition that there was no prima facie case to answer. “This matter must proceed. I do not believe the case could be described as tenuous. The law is a matter for me, the facts of the matter are for you to judge, although I might comment on them from time to time. The accused comes before you clothed in a presumption of innocence. Each and every element of the offence charged must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The verdict must be unanimous, and it must be based solely on the evidence placed before you. The speeches by counsel are not evidence. Questions put to the witnesses are only evidence when they are agreed to by the witnesses. You should not let any prejudices colour your decision.”

He tells the jury they must decide whether Sir Joh's evidence at the Fitzgerald Inquiry was an attempt to conceal the donation and the development approval, or his part in political donations more generally, or whether he just wanted to put public life behind him. He reminds the jury that Sir Joh was not on trial for corruption. At the same time, it was not necessary for the Crown to prove motive. Judge Helman tells the jury “reasonable doubt” is “an ordinary English phrase and it means what it says”.

He then goes into a lengthy summing up of the technicalities of the laws relating to perjury. The accused had to knowingly give false testimony on a matter material to the proceedings while that evidence was given on oath. “Now the time has arrived when you must decide the matter”, he tells the jury. The jury leaves the court at 1.05 pm.

So now the jury has retired to consider its verdict. Any result is possible, including a hung jury. Even if he is acquitted, Joh’s reputation will certainly have suffered. If he is found guilty, that will truly be a sensation. It would mark an amazing fall from grace by the former Premier who seemed so totally in control in that period immediately before and after the 1986 elections.

How did it ever come to this? The chooks, specifically Four Corners, must to some extent be said to be responsible. The chooks is Joh’s pet term for the media. In private, he always referred to media conferences as “feeding the chooks”. But Joh himself had been known to say things privately such as you should never hold an inquiry unless you already know the result. A fair bit more media pressure than usual would not have tended to cloud the then Premier’s mind on this issue.

The Fitzgerald Inquiry was called by Deputy Premier Bill Gunn when Joh was out of the country. To that extent it must be seen as a stab in Joh’s back. There was increasing disenchantment with Joh’s leadership at the time, spilling over into some pretty substantial party infighting. For some members of the government the inquiry may have seemed to be a necessary public relations exercise in the face of the media pressure. But for some of them it must have also looked like a good chance to destabilise the old regime and open the way for their own leadership ambitions.

There was supposed to be just enough mud flying, but not too much. The inquiry was supposed to go for a nice safe four to five weeks, safely presided over by Judge Pratt. Instead, it blew up in their faces. Joh must choke every time he thinks of Gunn calling the inquiry while he was out of the country. It would never have happened if Joh had been around to have any say in the matter. And why not wait until he had returned before doing anything precipitate? That points clearly to the stab in the back.

Ultimately this trial is about doing favours. Doing favours is a basic fact of political life. When Joh was a young MP in opposition, he stated publicly that he was shocked at the way in which the then Labor Party government looked after their own and did nothing for electorates that returned non-Labor candidates. The style that Joh attributed to the then Labor government is almost certainly true, but that’s way before my time. But as a description, it certainly fits Joh’s government. The perceived blatant pork barrelling, with plum projects going to certain electorates and so on, was often remarked on as another feature in Joh’s pragmatic and bloody-minded approach to political power.

In that connection it is worth considering once again Mr Sng’s testimony on the subject of whose idea the donation was. That was the way of life around here. The cronyism and the favours too freely done were certainly at the fore of people’s minds when the whole issue of corruption was raised at the Fitzgerald Inquiry. It is up to the jury now to decide whether the favours the Premier did for Robert Sng and that Sng did for Joh have gone beyond the realm of mere favours into the realm of criminal action.

After retiring to consider their verdict, the jury deliberates for nine hours before being locked up for the night. Meanwhile, the Friends of Joh hold a prayer vigil outside the court complex. Support for Sir Joh also comes in the form of strawberries and carrot cake. At 3 pm the following day the jury foreman tells the reconvened court that the jury was “well on the way” to reaching a verdict and did not require further assistance from His Honour. Three hours later the court reconvenes, and Judge Helman approves a request for the jury to be supplied with two dictionaries. The following day Judge Helman asks “Mr Foreman, I wonder if you can tell me if there's any prospect of a verdict in the near future?”. The foreman replies, “There is a prospect, Your Honour.” In another callback of the jury later in the day, he tells the jury that if they want to hear any of the transcript read, his clerk is available to do so.

The trial ends as sensationally as it began and as it proceeded through the revelations from the various witnesses. Late on Saturday night, the jury files back into the court one last time. After they have deliberated for sixty-one hours over five days and have still failed to reach a verdict, Judge Helman dismisses the jury. Shortly after, Queensland's Special Prosecutor, Mr Doug Drummond QC, tells the assembled media that he will immediately hold meetings with government lawyers to try to determine if the charge should be dropped or if a fresh trial should be held. Not long after, we learn that the foreman of the jury, Mr Luke Shaw, and one of the women are the ones who have refused to convict. Outside the court Sir Joh claims that never before “had anything like this happened in the history of Australia”. “Why?” he asks the throng of supporters crowding around him. “Well, you work it out for yourself.” About a retrial, he says “If they want to take it further, let them take it further. As I said, they tried for four years. Do they want twenty years? I will be about a hundred by then.”

Late on Friday, Mr Drummond's office is contacted by a former National Party member, a Mr Stephen Reddy. Mr Reddy claims in a statement that was later tendered to the court that Shaw was closely associated with the Friends of Joh. Documents that are then subpoenaed from the National Party reveal that Mr Shaw, who is twenty, was secretary of the Young Nationals Brisbane Central branch the previous year. The minutes of a branch meeting in January record Mr Shaw's apology for being absent, along with a note that says if anybody is interested in supporting the Friends of Joh, they should contact him..The following is taken from an interview with one of the other jurors:“The first day of deliberations was a wasted day. There was lots of bickering and arguing. I don’t think we started on the right note. But we started going over the evidence by trying to form a structure about how we’d go about establishing the elements of the charge. By the second day we didn’t have any real opinions. We tried to go over all the evidence without any agreement. Halfway through the third day, ten of us had come to a position. There were only two people who thought we should return a not guilty verdict, the foreman and another person. The foreman refused to accept any part of the elements of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. None of us knew until after who he was. But some of us suspected it. We knew pretty much from the start that he might be difficult. So by the third day, we had our first vote on the verdict and it came down to ten to two – the foreman and another person. We all thought it all came down to one big issue, whether he was knowingly lying.

The foreman said that if we brought down a guilty verdict, we would have to answer to God. We didn’t think he was biased but he kept disagreeing with the most basic things. Everything had to be beyond reasonable doubt. His only other supporter kept raising irrelevant things like “think of all the wonderful things he has done for Queensland”. So now the foreman wanted to change our minds and have us return a not guilty verdict. He didn’t want a hung jury, he tried to argue us out of it. He wanted us to go over each element of the case and he would refute it. Everything had to be beyond what he thought was reasonable doubt. The other ten of us realised that it would be a hung jury. But he kept persisting. But towards the end of the day, he gave up on that. The rest of the time it was the other juror who supported him. She wanted to keep going over everything.

Neither of them would discuss what we thought was the main issue. But nothing was beyond reasonable doubt for either of them. She was the one who wanted all the dictionaries brought in. They wouldn’t agree that there were falsehoods uttered at the commission, or that he knew who Sng was back then or now. He wasn’t even a proper spokesman for us. He didn’t always say what we wanted him to say. He said that there was a prospect of a verdict when there wasn’t. He added a couple of questions to requests for redirections. He wanted to cooperate with the other juror. Only she wanted the judge to define common sense and that sort of thing. They pretty much stuck together. He used his powers as foreman by always letting her have her points discussed or asking for redirections. No-one else was really out for Joh’s blood. No-one wanted to send him to jail or anything. Actually, I have a healthy respect for him, even after the trial.

The foreman was the only juror the defence didn’t challenge. He changed his appearance. He came to the first day to be selected in jeans and a T-shirt and long hair. The defence knew his age and that he was a student. He was the sort of person the defence would be least likely to select. The next day he came back with neat short hair and wearing suits every day. It was the first time anyone on our panel had seen him. It was the third week of the sittings, but we thought it must have been the first time he came in.”

Nearly all of my friends are suitably outraged that Joh has managed to get off the charge in such a dodgy way when the evidence is so damning. Down in the heart of West End, in Emma’s Bookshop, I talk to my old mate Brian Laver about it. As usual, Brian is swimming against the tide. “I’m glad this happened”, he says. “If he’d been convicted it would have turned him into a martyr, and Joh the martyr is the last thing I need. And he wasn’t found not guilty. That would have been a bit hard to stomach. As it is, his reputation is in tatters, and he’s not a martyr. I think it’s just about the best possible outcome”.

Nearly thirty-two years have passed since all of this happened. So much has changed. Most of the people at the centre of these events are now dead, including Joh and Flo. Even in death Joh was a divisive figure. When he died in April 2005, Brian Laver declared that he was going to picket the state funeral, along with Bernie Neville, Gary MacLennon, Sam Watson and Dan O'Neill, all of whom were key figures in the many struggles against the Bjelke-Petersen government. It led to a very public appeal by Joh's grandson Justin Noack begging them not to. His letter to Brian was printed on page 2 of the Courier-Mail, 28/04/2005, next to a large article headlined "Laver vows he won't be silenced on Joh protest". The letter begins "Dear Mr Laver. It's come to my attention that you may be planning to interrupt Joh Bjelke-Petersen's funeral and stand in the way of well-wishers who intend to join us at the funeral. Speaking as a grandson, I respectfully appeal to your sense of goodwill and compassion in asking you to forego such plans and allow myself, my family, friends and well-wishers to mourn my grandfather peacefully and with dignity." In the end, nothing happened.

Historic Holdings sold the Port Office site back to the Queensland Government in 1989 for $25 million. The heritage listed Port Office building is still there. It has been fully restored, even following the original plans by its architect to restore the end balconies and decorative cast iron. It is now a restaurant, bar and function venue. It is part of the Stamford Plaza Hotel complex, with the hotel sitting between the old Port Office and the river. This should not be confused with the Port Office Hotel, which sits on a different site. Both are on the corner of Edward and Margaret Streets. The Port Office Hotel is on the other side of Edward, directly opposite the old Port Office building.

Luke Shaw was the campaign manager for Bob Katter’s Australia Party in 2011 and 2012. In July 2011, he said "Joh polarised people, either they were for him or against him, but . . . people knew where they stood with him. Not everything was golden back then, but we had an outstanding health system that worked, and we had a lot of state assets that were not being sold off." He was in the news in 2012 when Bob Katter’s gay half-brother Carl launched a very public attack on one of the party’s campaign ads which targeted Queensland LNP leader Campbell Newman for supporting gay marriage.

Shaw rejected claims the advertisement was homophobic. Shaw, who authorised the ad going to air, said the ad was designed to highlight Campbell Newman's hypocrisy. "I can't believe anyone would think it's homophobic," he said. "I've got gay friends and for me people's sexuality is just not an issue. This is about an aspect of society, not sexuality or gender identity." Shaw said he would be disappointed if anyone asked him to pull the ad.

In 2020 Luke Shaw was mentioned as being a former director of Shine Energy, a company that was pushing for a new coal-fired power station in Collinsville. The power station idea was being promoted by Senator Matt Canavan. Canavan is a member of the LNP and sits with the National Party in the Senate. He is a former Minister for Resources. Shine Energy has no record whatsoever as a supplier of power. Its main credentials are its political connections to people within the LNP, the National Party, and Katter's Australia Party. Shine's proponents have repeatedly stressed that the venture was not looking for taxpayer finance, but instead sought indemnity from any future form of carbon pricing. In February 2020, Queensland Energy and Resources Minister Anthony Lynham wrote to his federal counterpart, Angus Taylor, detailing his concerns about the grant given to pursue a feasibility study for the proposed plant, and the potential impacts the plant could have on the Queensland energy system and on jobs at existing generators.

It is interesting to see the parallels to this whole drama being played out on an even much bigger stage. Donald Trump is now scheduled to appear in court on charges related to the classified documents in September this year. Other charges are pending. Despite what happened in the civil case in New York, is it really at all likely that a jury will convict him of a criminal charge? And do we really want to see Trump become a martyr to the cause? Be careful what you wish for. 

 

CTT Torsoshirts Are Here!

Genuine CTT Torso shirts ARE HERE NOW AND READY TO SHIP!

A limited run of genuine CTT Torsoshirts are available in time for present giving at any time of the year, from the CTT website NOW for only $35 (plus postage)!

Shop Torsoshirts

 

 

© 2025 Cane Toad Times Terms and Conditions of Use Privacy Policy A Smartspace Website by Website WizLog In