Beattie misleads the House again...

The disrepute that the Beattie government has brought on the highest power in the State reflects the abysmal state and morals of the Labor Party in Queensland. In just one week (1st to 7th July 2005) the Minister of Health, Gordon Nuttal, admits to misleading the House after earlier lying openly when he said he had not over the serious Dr Death issue... and Beattie refused to sack him. The Speaker of the House, Ray Hollis, who apparently goes through an enormous consumption of tax-payer funded alcohol, gets off Scot-free beause the DPP could not gather enough evidence (ie no paper trail of how the thousands of dollars were spent by Hollis) and Beattie.... as you see below, misled the House again over Shreddergate.

Welcome to sunny Queensland!  

In the wake of an answer to Queensland's Parliament on 14 June 2004 concerning a Question on Notice put by Mrs Liz Cunningham MP to Queensland Premier Beattie in which she sought information about the long-overdue report requested by the Queensland Governor on the Heiner affair back in October 2003, and confirmation that the clearance for those involved in the shredding of the Heiner Inquiry documents was based on an erroneous interpretation of section 129 of the Criminal Code, and that the Governor and Premier Beattie were made aware of this in correspondence received from Mr Lindeberg, the man, Mr Doug Ensbey - since dismissed by the Baptist Church and now driving a truck for a living - who was convicted on a charge (of destroying evidence) for which senior public figures were excused in the Heiner case, has appealed to the Governor for pardon because of Premier Beattie's answer.

Mr Beattie claimed in his answer that Mr Lindeberg's interpretation of section 129 was "...misconceived." Mr Lindeberg's long-held interpretation of section 129 is the same endorsed by Queensland's highest judicial authority, the Queensland Court of Appeal, in R v Ensbey. In other words, if Mr Lindeberg's interpretation is "misconceived/wrong", as Mr Beattie has assured State Parliament, then Pastor Ensbey ought not have been convicted under section 129.

Of course, there may be another answer to Mr Beattie's answer to Mrs Cunningham's Question. Perhaps, he is misleading Parliament - and hopes that no one notices, let alone cares.

See full story on pages one and two of The Independent Monthly linked below.