…from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger
The Heiner Affair should not be left alone. Apologists for the Labor misrule say let the sleeping dogs lie, as with the worst will in the world they can not come up with any rational, not to mention a legal, excuse. Let’s hope that Premier Newman and his cabinet pass this litmus test. So far they have not shown much integrity and their only redeeming point that they are slightly less pink than the other mob.
From Piers Akerman: –
After years of obfuscation and denial by a spectacular array of senior Labor figures and associates, I believe that Kevvie from Brizzie can no longer avoid questioning about his role in the long-running Heiner Affair.
I do not think that Mr Akerman expects the questioning by ‘their’ ABC, nor, for that matter, by the either thoroughly cowed or blatantly Left main stream media.
When Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry head Tim Carmody SC handed down his finding into the origins of the notorious matter on July 1, he stated in his 144-page report that all members of the March 5, 1990, Goss cabinet were open to a criminal charge under section 129 of the Criminal Code for destroying evidence known to be required for a “realistically possible” future judicial proceeding.
Kevin Rudd was cabinet secretary at the time.
The Heiner Affair began with an inquiry into the management practices of the John Oxley Youth Centre in late 1989 and early 1990 conducted by retired magistrate Noel Heiner in the last days of the Cooper National Party government under public service law by the Families Department. Trade union interests were involved.
The inquiry generated the controversially shredded evidence.
Whistleblower Kevin Lindeberg, a former union organiser sacked while trying to preserve the records to uphold his members’ legal rights, maintained to the Criminal Justice Commission in 1990 that section 129 had prima facie been breached.
He was ridiculed by the ALP, the CJC and most in the media. But two unions and lawyers for the then-centre manager and his deputy had placed the Queensland government on notice via the department and warned them not to shred and warned them of court action to access the documents if necessary.
As Lindeberg persisted, he became aware of child abuse being in the documents (which the Carmody Inquiry has now proven conclusively), and potential evidence of child sexual abuse, in particular the rape of a young Aboriginal girl.
The girl was raped by other inmates during a supervised bush outing in May, 1988. One of the excursion supervisors told Carmody that it was unfortunate but “shit happens.” The way it was handled caused great angst amongst certain staff with records showing that at least one person said that a cover-up was taking place.
Lindeberg took this matter to Carmody when he was the head of Queensland Crime Commission in late 2001. Carmody’s Commission confirmed in writing to Lindeberg that, at law, it was an incident of potential “criminal paedophilia” which Carmody had a standing reference to investigate. Despite the commission being on the brink of closing, Lindeberg wanted it investigated immediately, or, at the very least, to be given a reference number. He got neither. (Emphasis Antisthenes)
Lindeberg gained the support of some of this nation’s leading jurists, including the former Chief Justice of the High Court Sir Harry Gibbs, who upheld his view on the illegal shredding of evidence and his call for a full inquiry into the scandal.
When the Newman government honoured its pre-election promise to review the Heiner Affair – largely due to a series of reports which had appeared in The Sunday Telegraph – and appointed Carmody, it ignored his earlier involvement.
Included in the evidence received by the commission is a 10-volume report covering the 17-year history of the alleged cover-up period prepared by senior Sydney QC David Rofe and running to 2693 pages. It is publicly available as a privileged document.
The thrust of the Rofe audit is that the shredding was an alleged prima facie crime under sections 129 and/or 132, conspiracy to defeat justice.
Last July, Lindeberg sought to have Carmody recuse himself on the grounds he had a conflict of interest.
Carmody declined on the basis that “government” meant “the political executive” instead of “whole of government” saying, inter alia, that otherwise he may have to investigate himself. Early this year, Carmody amended the terms of reference, strictly confining the review period from January 1, 1988, to December 31, 1990.
That way, unless I am misreading something, Mr Carmody neatly avoided the almost inevitable necessity of having to investigate himself. Perhaps another commission will be needed to examine the involvement of his Crime Commission in the, by now, indubitable cover up.
… In mid-2010, the rape victim was paid $140,000 by the Bligh government and ordered to remain silent. She immediately described the payout as “dirty, yucky money” to keep her “hush, hush”.
In 2004, Queensland Baptist pastor Doug Ensbey was found guilty under section 129 in unrelated proceedings, when he destroyed the diary of a girl who had kept a record of abuse by a parishioner.
Though the destruction occurred six years before legal action commenced, the Queensland Appeal Court (in accord with District Court jury) ruled he should have known at the time, being a reasonable person, that the diary might be required as evidence for a “realistically possible” future judicial proceeding.
The diary wasn’t even adduced in evidence when the abuser stood trial six years later having admitted to his crime, but the pastor’s act was seen to be an attempt to obstruct justice and could not be tolerated.
The Beattie government appealed the leniency of his sentence because of the gravity of the pastor’s crime. It wanted him jailed as a warning to others despite his spotless reputation and having nothing to gain in his shredding act.
Unless the Newman government believes there should be one law for Baptist pastors and another for members of the Goss cabinet, in my view it must take this matter further. (Emphasis Antisthenes)
As Carmody ominously pointed out in his report: “The case against the cabinet ministers is arguably stronger than that faced by Mr Ensbey.” Now Kevin’s back, he needs to finish the Heiner AffairPiers Akerman – Saturday, July 13, 2013 (11:55pm)
Gillard, Thomson, Slipper and other Labor heroes are awaiting their turn in the slow criminal justice mills. As the saying goes, ‘every dog has his day’ – or more elegantly in Latin – hodie tibi, cras mihi – Labor had their days for far too long. Now it should be the day of the victims. Hopefully, not only Newman, but also the Australian public shakes off its docility and passes the litmus test.