Talk:Jack Egerton

message: Why was such a fuss made about Egerton's knighthood given that Dorothy Tangney was made a dame in 1968 with only slight grumblings from the ALP?  Afaik, she never had her party membership stripped from her.  JackofOz 02:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Tangney precedent

message: I believe I may have possessed, for the last 30 odd years or so, the key that unlocks this riddle.
A key not uncovered, if I understand correctly, by either investigative reporter Chris Masters, or Royal Commissioner Tony Fitzgerald, in the course of their sterling efforts to expose the rancidity rife within the Queensland political system, and societal classes - parliament, the trade union movement, police, and so on, in the post-war period until that time, and likely long pre-dating that era as well. Nor uncovered since.
Approximately 30 years ago my natural father, a career criminal now deceased some 15 years, informed me he had been informed by a member of the extended Egerton family, someone who was an abiding and trusted associate of my father, whom he named to me but I shall refrain from naming here, as they may not yet have passed, that the reason was simply the most obvious and rational one, given all the circumstances known publicly at the time of Sir Jack's investiture, and has been hiding in plain sight ever since, as it were. A reason that could never be confessed, never acknowledged, given the opprobrium, the ignominy, its disclosure would inevitably elicit upon not only Sir Jack, but also necessarily very many other persons within the political classes of the time. Lips were sealed, the reason was to be carried to the grave by all who shared it.
Simply, Jack was bent. Had rolled. Gone off. Gone to the other side. Joined the "political joke."
The true magnitude and depravity of the corruption infecting the Queensland political system was neither discovered nor exposed by Messrs Masters or Fitzgerald. Corruption was not only rampant within the ranks of those who governed. Unknown to almost all, the cancer had long since metastasised, from within the ranks of those governing, to those who ostensibly aspired to govern, those who thereby buttress the political system's integrity, simply by being a viable alternative to the government of the day, should the will of the people so decide. It was that devastatingly simple. Not only was the government abjectly corrupted, root and branch, as was commonly known. Secretly, so too was Her Majesty's loyal [sic] opposition. And no less abjectly.
Corruption was so entrenched in the state, and for so very many years, doubtless since the colony's founding, that a consensus had evolved. An accord, if you will. It was apparent as government changed hands, more or less regularly, that very nearly all the players sharing in the graft continued in their roles regardless. For the most part anyway. Only the the principal conduits for the garnering and then distribution of the proceeds of graft changed. Those at the very top. An election may change the captains of the ships of the flotilla of state. But never the crews. As long as agreement could be secretly reached and upheld, and the status quo maintained, the system of graft safely sailed on, elections notwithstanding. Both principal party political machines had come to see the wisdom, economy and convenience of consensus. Like binary corporate operators colluding to fix aspects of their shared market to their mutual benefit, so Queensland's political parties also operated. The spoils would be shared, no matter who governed. This would most readily preserve, protect and perpetuate the system of graft for evermore, to the mutual benefit of all. And so it goes. In the event any justification were needed, one only had to point to the successive gerrymanders imposed on Queenslanders by both sides. Why fight entrenched electoral disadvantage? When it's practically impossible to do so and win? The alternative? "Run dead". Go through the motions of earnestly campaigning, but in reality minimise effort and resources expended to a face-saving extent at most. Win or lose, sharing the spoils will continue.
And so it was in mid-twentieth century Queensland. When The Bjelke-Petersen took the reins, the principle concern of outgoing Labour officials was negotiating and later upholding the terms of their capitulation. Namely, what share of the graft they'd continue to receive in opposition. Agreement was reached. Successive Labour oppositions meekly made little to no effort to supplant the Bjelke-Petersen government. Why would you? Even after considerable effort, and a fortuitous win, you stood to gain only a comparatively modest reward; the greater not lesser share of the spoils. Why bother? The Bjelke-Petersen government expressed it's gratitude in turn to the opposition with the distribution of "considerations". Drinks, on the house, now and then.
Who did, or did not, knowingly or unknowingly participate in the "system", the “political joke”, can never be known with any great certainty. But we can be confident of one leading Labour identity's position. Sir Jack had become one of them. Gone to the other side. Chosen to be an active and knowing participant. Seized the opportunity moving to opposition gave him. Negotiate for the best terms realistically achievable. And so it was. He accepted the baubles and lucre on offer. Betrayed his political allegiances. And hoped to take his dirty little [and very open] secret to his grave. Foolishly, he shared it with a trusted family member, and now all the world can know the truth of the matter [!]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepThroatDownUnder (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Sir Jack? Why not!