Category: Democracy

Queensland’s unicameral parliament

This blog follows on from the previous one, “Democracy but no sausage”. Once again,  ChatGPT has done the heavy lifting of research and writing. If you’d like the official history,  visit https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Visit-and-learn/History/Overview

I asked ChatGPT to write a post about history of the dissolution of Queensland’s upper house in the 1920s. This is what it wrote.

—

The Dissolution of Queensland’s Upper House: A Political Turning Point in the 1920s

Queensland’s political landscape in the early 20th century was marked by an event that would fundamentally change its governance: the dissolution of the state’s upper house, the Legislative Council, in 1922. This drastic political move was not just about a change in structure; it was the culmination of growing dissatisfaction with the state’s political institutions and the increasing demand for democratic reform. To understand why this happened, we must delve into the history, context, and aftermath of this significant moment in Queensland’s political history.

The Formation and Role of the Legislative Council

The Queensland Parliament, established in 1859 with the creation of the state, originally consisted of a bicameral legislature—an upper house (the Legislative Council) and a lower house (the Legislative Assembly). The Legislative Council was designed to be a house of review, mirroring the British House of Lords. It consisted of appointed members, who were typically selected from the wealthier classes, including landowners, business leaders, and others with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

The members of the Legislative Council were appointed for life, and this lack of electoral accountability gave the Council significant power, often allowing it to block legislation passed by the elected Legislative Assembly. This power imbalance would later become a key source of frustration for the growing numbers of working-class voters and democratic reformers in Queensland.

Political Climate Leading to the Dissolution

By the early 20th century, the political environment in Queensland was undergoing significant changes. The rise of labor movements, coupled with growing demands for greater democracy and equality, created a fertile ground for reform. In 1899, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) had made significant inroads in the state, and by 1915, the Labor government under Premier Ted Theodore was in power.

Despite these changes, the Legislative Council remained a strong conservative institution that obstructed many progressive reforms. For example, in the early 1920s, the Council blocked several important pieces of social legislation proposed by the Labor government, including measures aimed at improving workers’ rights and social welfare.

This antagonistic relationship between the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council began to sow the seeds for a major political confrontation.

The 1922 Crisis

In 1922, a standoff between the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council reached its boiling point. The issue at hand was the refusal of the Council to pass key pieces of legislation, including reforms to taxation and workers’ rights. These reforms were central to the Labor Party’s agenda and the government’s legitimacy. The Council’s repeated vetoing of the legislation was seen as an affront to the will of the people, especially as the Assembly had been elected by universal suffrage.

Premier William McCormack, who had succeeded Theodore, became increasingly frustrated by the Council’s resistance to progressive legislation. In response to the deadlock, McCormack and his government decided to act. In 1922, they introduced a bill that would allow the Legislative Assembly to dissolve the Legislative Council. This was a radical step, as it sought to abolish a long-established institution that had been a cornerstone of Queensland’s political system for over six decades.

The Political Struggle and the Referendum

The decision to dissolve the Legislative Council sparked a political firestorm. Opponents of the move, including conservative factions and many members of the business elite, mounted a fierce campaign to save the Council. They argued that the Legislative Council was a necessary check on the power of the popularly elected lower house, and that its abolition would lead to a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of the government.

In response to this opposition, the government decided to put the question to the people of Queensland through a referendum. The referendum was held on 27 May 1922, and voters were asked whether they supported the proposal to abolish the Legislative Council. The result was a resounding victory for the Labor government. Approximately 53% of voters supported the dissolution of the upper house, while 47% opposed it.

While the referendum result was decisive, the campaign leading up to it had been intense, with both sides using their resources to sway public opinion. Ultimately, the people of Queensland had spoken, and the fate of the Legislative Council was sealed.

The Abolition of the Upper House

Following the success of the referendum, the Queensland Parliament passed the Legislative Council Abolition Act in 1922, which officially dissolved the upper house. The final session of the Legislative Council was held on 22 December 1922, and the last members of the Council formally vacated their positions. The Queensland Parliament became unicameral, with only the Legislative Assembly remaining.

The dissolution of the Legislative Council was a watershed moment in Queensland’s political history. It represented the triumph of democratic reformers over an unelected, aristocratic institution that had resisted change for decades. The event also reflected broader national trends toward greater democracy, with other states in Australia considering or implementing similar reforms in the years that followed.

Aftermath and Legacy

In the years following the dissolution of the Legislative Council, Queensland’s political system underwent significant changes. The Labor government, having successfully abolished the upper house, continued to dominate the state’s politics for several more decades. However, the abolition of the Legislative Council did not end political tensions in Queensland. The Labor Party faced continued opposition from conservative forces, including business interests and the non-Labor parties.

The move also had long-term implications for Queensland’s political culture. Without a second chamber to review and amend legislation, the Legislative Assembly held all the power, leading to greater political polarization and, at times, less scrutiny of government decisions. This created challenges for subsequent governments, as well as a growing debate about the necessity of revisiting Queensland’s political structure.

Despite these challenges, the abolition of the Legislative Council is seen by many as a pivotal moment in the state’s democratic development. It marked a shift away from an elitist, undemocratic system of governance and toward a more accountable and representative model. The referendum and its result are often cited as a key example of the power of the people to reshape their political institutions.

Conclusion

The dissolution of Queensland’s Legislative Council in 1922 was a dramatic and transformative event in the state’s history. It represented the culmination of decades of political struggle, reflecting broader social and political changes in Queensland and Australia at large. The decision to abolish the upper house, following a successful referendum, was a bold statement about the power of the people and the need for democratic reform.

While the dissolution led to a shift in Queensland’s political structure, it also sparked debates about the balance of power, representation, and governance that continue to resonate today. The legacy of the 1922 referendum remains an important chapter in the story of Queensland’s political evolution, shaping the state’s political landscape for generations to come.


—

The next post in the sequence will be about the yacht Lucinda, and the triumph and tragedy in its history.

Democracy, but no sausage

The 2017 Fitzgerald Lecture, with the Hon. Margaret McMurdo, was, as expected, extraordinary. This great jurist is erudite elegance writ large. It was gently amusing to see such an enormous intelligence have some… er… difficulties with her slides, and the humorous grace with which she corrected herself was so endearing, and a reminder that our greatest heroes are also everyday people.

The Hon Tony Fitzgerald changed the nature of Queeensland with his recommended reforms, and McMurdo’s recap on the various attempts of the Nationals and Liberals to wind back those reforms was concise and razor sharp. I can’t believe I had forgotten about the Mundingburra by-election, the Carruthers Inquiry and the inquiry into the Carruthers Inquiry, Russell Cooper as Premier, and a few other things.

Thank the Westminster system for giving us the concept of our courts and legal system, with separation of powers an inherent, and crucial, part of our democracy. We are blessed to have the strength and wisdom of the courts as a bulwark against corruption.

I asked ChatGPT to help me bring this blog post to life,  so here we go. I asked the AI to expand on The Fitzgerald Inquiry and the greater misdeeds of the Bjelke-Petersen government.

The 2017 Fitzgerald Lecture, delivered by the Hon. Margaret McMurdo, celebrated the significant legacy of the Fitzgerald Inquiry and its transformative role in Queensland’s political landscape. As McMurdo pointed out, Tony Fitzgerald’s inquiry exposed a culture of corruption and government malpractice that defined the Bjelke-Petersen era. It is remarkable how the Hon. Fitzgerald’s recommendations shifted the trajectory of Queensland politics, and McMurdo’s recap of the efforts by various political factions to roll back those reforms highlighted a fascinating and troubling chapter of our state’s history.

The Fitzgerald Inquiry, instigated by the Queensland government in 1987, aimed to investigate allegations of corruption in the Bjelke-Petersen government, which ruled Queensland from 1968 to 1987. The inquiry uncovered deep levels of corruption within the state police force, the judiciary, and even within the very heart of the government itself. The commission’s findings exposed the abuse of power, cronyism, and a system that allowed for political patronage to thrive unchecked. Notably, the inquiry uncovered the notorious relationship between the Bjelke-Petersen government and criminal elements, which provided fertile ground for bribery, favoritism, and the suppression of political opposition.

The Fitzgerald Inquiry led to the resignation of Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen and a wholesale restructuring of Queensland’s political system. Fitzgerald’s recommendations set the stage for major reforms, including the establishment of an independent police service, stricter regulations on political donations, and increased transparency within government. These reforms were intended to curb the entrenched culture of corruption that had plagued Queensland for nearly two decades.

However, as McMurdo noted, the aftermath of the Fitzgerald Inquiry saw several attempts to dismantle or undermine its hard-won reforms. Political figures from the Nationals and Liberals—especially those who had served under Bjelke-Petersen—sought to restore the old ways, challenging the very principles of accountability and transparency that the inquiry sought to secure. A prime example of this was the Mundingburra by-election, which became a flashpoint for debate on political reforms, and the subsequent Carruthers Inquiry, which sought to investigate potential electoral corruption. The inquiry into the inquiry itself further demonstrated the resistance to Fitzgerald’s reforms.

Despite these efforts to undermine the reform agenda, the Fitzgerald Inquiry’s legacy stands strong. The introduction of an independent judiciary and the separation of powers provided a vital safeguard for Queenslanders against future governmental overreach. It is through such systems that our democracy is protected, ensuring that no individual or political party can operate above the law. As McMurdo eloquently stated, the Westminster system, with its emphasis on checks and balances, remains a cornerstone of Queensland’s democratic institutions.

The Bjelke-Petersen government’s misdeeds went far beyond what was initially uncovered in the Fitzgerald Inquiry. It was not just the systemic corruption in the police force or the links to organized crime—it was the broader culture of political authoritarianism that pervaded the administration. The government’s suppression of political opposition, its attacks on civil liberties, and its manipulation of the media all contributed to a political environment that was, at best, deeply unhealthy and, at worst, dangerous for democracy.

In the years following the Fitzgerald Inquiry, Queensland’s political landscape has undergone significant changes. Many of Fitzgerald’s recommendations, such as the establishment of the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC), have been vital in preserving the integrity of our public institutions. However, the fight against corruption is ongoing, and McMurdo’s sharp insights remind us that vigilance is necessary to ensure that the gains made by the Fitzgerald Inquiry are not lost to political maneuvering.

In conclusion, the Fitzgerald Inquiry was a watershed moment for Queensland. It exposed the corruption of the Bjelke-Petersen government and forced a reckoning that reshaped the state’s political system. While the battle against corruption continues, the strength of Queensland’s legal and political institutions remains a testament to the courage and foresight of those who fought for transparency, accountability, and the preservation of democracy. As we reflect on this legacy, we must remain committed to safeguarding the values that Fitzgerald and McMurdo so eloquently championed—values that are essential to the health of our democracy.

We then wandered down the rabbit hole of Queensland’s unicameral parliament. I asked the AI, “what effect do you think Queensland’s unicameral parliament had in contributing to the circumstances of corrupt oligarchy that was the Bjelke-Petersen government?”

The unicameral structure of Queensland’s Parliament—where the Legislative Assembly serves as the sole house—played a significant role in enabling the corrupt oligarchy of the Bjelke-Petersen government. Unlike bicameral systems, which have two houses of parliament (typically an upper and a lower house) to serve as checks and balances on the decisions made in the lower house, Queensland’s unicameral system lacked this built-in safeguard. This made the government particularly vulnerable to abuses of power and corruption during the Bjelke-Petersen era.

Here are some key ways in which Queensland’s unicameral system contributed to the circumstances that allowed the Bjelke-Petersen government to operate as a corrupt oligarchy:

1. Lack of Legislative Oversight

With no upper house to act as a counterbalance, the Legislative Assembly, dominated by the Nationals and their allies, essentially became a rubber-stamp for the Premier’s decisions. This centralization of power made it easier for Bjelke-Petersen and his government to push through policies and decisions without meaningful opposition or scrutiny. In a bicameral system, a second chamber could have questioned the decisions of the government, offered alternative perspectives, and delayed or amended controversial legislation. In Queensland’s unicameral system, however, there was little room for such checks and balances, leading to a lack of oversight and accountability.

2. Unrestrained Political Power

In a unicameral system like Queensland’s, the party in power has virtually unchallenged control over the legislative agenda. Under Bjelke-Petersen, the Queensland National Party was in power for nearly two decades, and the absence of an upper house allowed them to consolidate their control. The political system effectively empowered the government to act with impunity, making it easier for Bjelke-Petersen and his colleagues to engage in cronyism, patronage, and, ultimately, corruption. The centralization of political power in the hands of a single house and party contributed directly to the culture of corruption that flourished during this period.

3. The Role of the “Rubber-Stamp” Cabinet

The lack of an upper house also meant that there was little space for debate or reform from within the government itself. Queensland’s cabinet and party machinery, dominated by Bjelke-Petersen and his closest allies, operated with a level of secrecy and internal loyalty that stifled dissent. The government’s legislative agenda was driven almost entirely by the Premier’s office, with little room for independent analysis or critique. With no second house to challenge or question the executive, the cabinet became an even more powerful tool for pushing through controversial decisions, including those that served the interests of a small political and business elite.

4. Electoral Malpractices

Queensland’s unicameral parliament also facilitated a political system that allowed the Nationals to maintain their dominance, despite growing public dissatisfaction. The gerrymandering of electoral boundaries, designed to benefit the ruling party, was another key element of the Bjelke-Petersen government’s longevity. With a single house, electoral malpractices such as these went unchecked, enabling the government to maintain control even if its support was waning among the broader population. This was further exacerbated by the suppression of opposition voices, particularly those from the media and civil society, which meant that there were fewer avenues for public scrutiny of the government’s actions.

5. Political Patronage and Corruption

The lack of an upper house made it easier for Bjelke-Petersen and his government to engage in political patronage and corruption without the risk of public exposure or legislative intervention. The Queensland government’s connections with business elites, police corruption, and the undermining of democratic processes thrived under the near-total control the Nationals had over the legislative process. The absence of an upper house to question political appointments, review government spending, or probe unethical behavior meant that corruption went unchecked and unchallenged for years.

6. Difficulty in Reform

The Fitzgerald Inquiry was a direct response to the systemic corruption that had taken root during Bjelke-Petersen’s tenure. However, even after the inquiry and its reforms, the struggle to maintain those reforms was ongoing, as the power dynamics entrenched during the era of Bjelke-Petersen were difficult to dismantle. The continuing efforts by the Nationals and the Liberals to roll back reforms—such as attempting to weaken the independent police service or challenge the Crime and Corruption Commission—highlighted the persistence of oligarchic power. With no upper house to mediate or block such attempts, Queensland’s government remained susceptible to the reemergence of corrupt practices.

Conclusion

In sum, Queensland’s unicameral system, while efficient in some respects, contributed to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few individuals and made it easier for the Bjelke-Petersen government to perpetuate its corrupt practices. The lack of a second legislative chamber allowed for unchallenged political dominance, enabling the abuse of power, corruption, and the suppression of democratic processes. The Fitzgerald Inquiry, and the reforms it triggered, were crucial in addressing the damage caused by this unchecked political environment. However, the history of Queensland’s political system during this time serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of checks and balances in maintaining a healthy democracy.