Just Grounds Community

For Like minded people who like to see-

The Heiner Affair - how it got where it is today

With the Senate about to (hopefully) launch an inquiry into the Heiner Affair (otherwise known as “Shreddergate”) it might be worth putting up a brief summary of how it got to this point.

In the late 1980s there were serious allegations (including allegations of child abuse) at a Brisbane youth detention facility (the John Oxley Youth Centre (JOYC)). In 1989, the Liberal-National coalition government led by Russell Cooper set up an inquiry to look into the allegations. The inquiry was headed by retired magistrate Noel Heiner. A new Labor Government came to power soon after.

Because of the nature of the allegations, including those leveled at staff of the JOYC, some of the material could have been considered defamatory. Normally those giving evidence to an inquiry would be protected but it seems that the Goss Labor government was not sure whether the Heiner inquiry had been properly constituted and whether witnesses would be protected. Certainly, it seems reasonable to assume that the government knew what was contained in the inquiry documents. The Minister for Family Services in the Goss Government, the Hon. Anne Warner, certainly knew about the alleged abuse. It was Warner who had urged the Cooper Government to set up the inquiry (see The Sunday Sun, 1 October 1989, p.18). It is difficult to believe that this knowledge (and more) did not reach the Goss Cabinet before it took the decision to shred the inquiry documents on 5 March 1990. It is difficult also to believe that the Goss Cabinet did not know that there was a realistic possibility that the evidence gathered was relevant for future police or other Crown inquiries such as the Criminal Justice Commission (CJC). The CJC did look at the matter but – it would seem – not in any meaningful way.

The allegations certainly appear to have had substance, as the recent out of court settlement with one of the complainants seems to demonstrate. The case involved the alleged pack rape of a 14 year old girl while in the custody of the State. It is a sad story that will no doubt come out before the Senate. This payment was not something that just happened “out of the blue”. The girl may not have been in a position to pursue her rights at the time, but as a woman, she did. The Queensland Police apparently declined to investigate. But the Government nevertheless settled.

That the Heiner affair has not simply withered away is due largely to the efforts of Kevin Lindeberg, the former trade union officer who represented some staff of the JOYC. As a whistleblower, Lindeberg paid the price that most (all?) whistleblowers do. But Kevin Lindeberg took the Heiner case to places that few other whistleblowers have managed.

The matter has been considered by Senate inquiries more than once (and addressed in the Senate by Senator George Brandis and former Senator John Woodley). In August 2007, a number of superior court judges issued a public statement, The Heiner Affair: A Matter of Concern, calling on Queensland Premier Beattie to appoint an independent Special Prosecutor to investigate the matter. Beattie rejected their call. Significantly, the judges stated that, on the matter of the shredding:
"…This serious inconsistency in the administration of Queensland’s Criminal Code touching on the fundamental principle of respect for the administration of justice by proper preservation of evidence concerns us because this principle is found in all jurisdictions within the Commonwealth as it sustains the rule of law generally…The affair exposes an unacceptable application of the criminal law by prima facie double standards by Queensland law-enforcement authorities in initiating a successful proceedings against an Australian citizen, namely Mr Douglas Ensbey, but not against members of the Executive Government and certain civil servants for similar destruction-of-evidence conduct. Compelling evidence suggests that the erroneous interpretation of section 129 of the Criminal Code (Qld) used by those authorities to justify the shredding of the Heiner Inquiry documents may have knowingly advantaged Executive Government and certain civil servants."

Premier Beattie resigned some two weeks later and the judges’ letter was subsequently served on new Queensland Premier, the Hon. Anna Bligh. She refused to act claiming, among other things, that the Heiner Affair had been thoroughly investigated by the CJC. (It certainly had NOT been “thoroughly investigated”, but that is a common “out” used by the Queensland Government.)

The matter did not go away. On 14 February 2008, documents (the 9-Volume Rofe Audit, the Judges’ Statement, The Heiner Affair: A Matter of Concern, and a 55-page legal summary) were served by Lindeberg’s solicitors on the ‘bipartisan-by-law’ Queensland Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee (PCMC) requesting a review by an acting Parliamentary Commissioner into the CJC/CMC’s handling of Lindeberg’s complaint to the CJC in 1993. In his 2008 submission to the Tasmanian Joint Select Committee on Ethical Conduct, Lindeberg described the issues confronting the PCMC in its duty to reach a bipartisan decision (see Lindeberg’s article written for the Records Management Association of Australasia 2010 journal for a full discussion):
"In the opinion of senior counsel, the issues are very simple if the rule of law is to prevail. On the evidence supplied, there only needs to be found the low threshold of a suspicion of official misconduct to lead to the establishment of a full and an open inquiry to get to the truth. Such an inquiry, however, would not only rock Queensland to its foundations but the nation itself because it is known that the Prime Minister Rudd and Her Excellency Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, are adversely named in the audit. Amongst other things, six serving Queensland judicial officers are adversely named."

And therein lies the problem for the Bligh Labor Government.

If this matter had been dealt with properly years ago it would now be just a footnote in the history books. But few complaints that involve the public service or the Government are ever investigated properly in Queensland. The Labor Government seems to have a horror of possible loss of control, or that scrutiny of one thing can sometimes turn to scrutiny of other things that are best left unseen.

The sky will not fall if these things are opened to public scrutiny. Nor do those named have any special claim on protection. Future governments should take heed. The “no problems here” mentality of governments (of all persuasions) and public servants needs a radical overhaul. The open information systems of today’s society make accountability more difficult to avoid. More citizens should stand up (like Kevin Lindeberg and the woman in this case) and demand that governments and public servants be held accountable for their actions.

However, it can only be hoped that the girl (now a woman) who will be very much a focus of interest in the Senate inquiry, will not suffer all over again for the Queensland Government’s contempt for the law.

Tags: Bligh, Brandis, Bryce, Heiner, Lindeberg, Rudd, Woodley

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jeff Hutcho on March 25, 2012 at 8:36pm

Hi Ian M.Y.

That's good you have taken that action.

With the Labor government out of the way in Qld, it may allow the enquiry to continue until justice is done.

It would definitely be a travesty for the original victim not to see justice done.

Kevin Lindeberg has put a fair amount of his life into this case.

Cheers

Jeff H.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Courtney on March 26, 2012 at 9:53am

I found this site some time ago when I was discussing the Heiner Affair with someone - it's extremely worth looking into as it has a wealth of information. The sidebar allows you follow each topic very easily.

The legal opinions show just how crooked the entire episode was.

http://www.heineraffair.info/site_pages/legal_opinions.html

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff Hutcho on April 1, 2012 at 12:12am

Hi Beverley,

Good stuff there in that video.

If they can get a decision on the cover up offences and subsequent blocking of an inquiry, should get some justice.

Bet we won't see it in the Sunday papers though, I'd be very surprised.

Barnaby Joyce put a lot of work into trying to get some action on this debacle. I have read his speech in Hansard.

I wonder if he would like to make some impression on the Senate by renewing the Heiner Affair in the Senate before leaving to have a run at the Lower House?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on May 5, 2012 at 6:28pm

This is a promising turn of events-

http://sosnews.org/index.php?mact=youtubeplayer,cntnt01,default,0&a...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff Hutcho on July 3, 2012 at 10:05pm

Wonder if Ruddles heads for the hills (figuratively speaking) - in China?

No, he insulted the Chinese.

It's a wonder we haven't heard Barnaby Joyce on this item, as he put a lot of time into trying to get an inquiry started.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barbara lee on July 4, 2012 at 1:15am

Too many big wigs were involved the shredder must have been working overtime for sure. New paper work had been written out and put in front of everyone, and then went all quiet very quickly again. Hmm would be so good if that got re opened.

Barb

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Cox on July 4, 2012 at 6:00am

People we are aware are we not that documents in the Budget disclose the Gillard Government has spent a veritable fortune on Document schredders last financial year,Hopefully someone with a conscience exists within the Bureauocracy that will make sure not all imcriminating evidence gets schredded by these Bastards.

After all we need hard evidence to Cancel Gillard,Swan et al's pensions for Treason not just our own obvious daily experiences of such actions of Corrupt and Inept and Treacherous actions and policies by these Dingbats.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Courtney on July 4, 2012 at 3:57pm

http://www.heineraffair.info/site_pages/legal_opinions.html

The opinion of Sir Harry Gibbs (former Chief Justice High Court of Australia)

"There can now be no doubt that the advice given to the Queensland Government and the view accepted by the Criminal Justice Commission, that s.129 of the Queensland Criminal Code, read in the light of the definition of "Judicial Proceedings" in s.119 of the Code, applies only when the Judicial Proceeding has actually commenced, was erroneous. That was authoritatively recognized in 2004 by the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in R v. Ensbey. It follows that if the evidence establishes beyond doubt that the Queensland Cabinet on the 5th March, 1990 knew that legal proceedings were likely, and that the material which it ordered to be shredded might be required in evidence in those proceedings, there is at least a prima facie case that those members of the Cabinet who ordered the shredding were in breach of the law".

And still the Queensland Government refuses to take any action in this matter..........

READ ON .......http://www.heineraffair.info/site_pages/legal_opinions.html

...........We suggest that if the Heiner affair remains in its current unresolved state, it would give reasonable cause for ordinary citizens, especially Queenslanders, to believe that there is one law for them, and another for Executive Government and civil servants.

We find such a prospect unacceptable.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Peter Jesser on August 2, 2012 at 11:11pm

A little update for those interested in Heiner and the Carmody Commission. It appears that a major document (the Rofe audit) is too big to upload and can only be obtained direct from the CMC. At least by asking for it we will signal to these people that Queenslanders are interested in this inquiry. Anyway, for what its worth, here is the info:

The Heiner Affair Papers are on the Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry (QCPCI) webpage as of 30 July 2012 but NOT the Rofe Audit of the Heiner Affair.

The advice on the website states:

Attachment 2 to this exhibit [i.e. the Rofe Audit] is too large to upload. If you would like to request a copy of this attachment please contact the Commission.

http://www.childprotectioninquiry.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file...

Other material, particularly recusal submission against Commissioner Carmody should also be read carefully.

This is the transcript of the recusal Hearing on 24 July 2012:

http://www.childprotectioninquiry.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file...

This is the Commissioner's Ruling as to why he is not standing aside:

http://www.childprotectioninquiry.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file...

Special note should also be given to the abridged chronology of events (in the public material on the QCPCI webpage) to current politics and this nation's sound governnace.

A request for Attachment 2 may be secured by contacting the QCPCI at the following:

Phone Number 1300 505 903

info@childprotectioninquiry.qld.gov.au

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Courtney on August 3, 2012 at 9:04am

Maybe one of those crook PM's is going to have to face the music:

A long-ago financial scandal linked to the then-boyfriend of Prime Minister Julia Gillard has resurfaced, with the former union official and alleged bagman linked to the issue offering for the first time to give evidence to police and prosecutors in return for immunity from criminal prosecution, according to The Australian Financial Review.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Key-figure-in-AWU-scandal-offers-to-break-his-sile-pd20120802-WSQJE?OpenDocument&src=hp7