Desmond F O'Neill
69 Hutton Road
FERNY HILLS Q 4055
Hon. Mr Peter Beattie
Unit 2, Hill House
541 Boundary Street
BRISBANE Q 4000
2nd June 1999
Dear Mr Beattie,
SUBJECT: SHREDDING OF THE HEINER DOCUMENTS AND RELATED MATTERS
I wish to draw to your attention several matters which have remained unresolved for an inappropriate length of time and in particular one very serious matter which has only recently (late January 1999) come to my notice.
You may recall that I spoke to you about the Heiner Document shredding and the inappropriate operations of the joint QPOA (Queensland Professional Officers Association Union of Employees) and Queensland Professional Credit Union superannuation fund in February 1993. The occasion was Mr. Denis Bailey's fortieth birthday. At the time I spoke to you I pointed out that I knew the March 1990 Cabinet was involved in the Heiner Document shredding, as Mr. Stuart Tate, the then Acting Secretary to Cabinet, replied to queries from the CJC in its initial investigation.
You may also recall, during that conversation, that you advised me that you considered that it was a disgrace that Mr. Stuart Tate wasn't charged with ten counts of misappropriation, following a CJC investigation. You added that it (the results of the CJC Investigation) went to the DPP (Mr. Royce Miller QC) and the whole thing was dropped.
You then advised me that you had done all you could for me, and that "Goss has an awful lot of skeletons in his closet". Some more of these skeletons have only recently come to light.
At the time, I was generally aware of the CJC Investigation of Mr. Stuart Tate's luncheon expenses, but had no idea of the number of charges which were proposed until you disclosed the details to me. As I knew the Director of Public Prosecutions would most likely examine the results of any investigations into the Heiner Document shredding and other related matters, I decided to make further inquiries regarding your statement.
You may recall that the reason put forward by the DPP's office, for not proceeding with charges against Mr. Tate, was the fact that he had resigned form the Public Service. Since when do misappropriation charges fall over when someone resigns their employment?
My own inquiries into the Tate incident revealed the following:-
. At the time in late 1992, Mr. Tate expressed great confidence that the investigation into his activities would not result in charges.
. A political journalist advised me that "Tate had put the word around" that if he were to be charged he would "spill the beans on others" (allegedly Mr. Kevin Rudd and Mr. Eric Finger) who Mr. Tate alleged, had done the same as he had done.
. A departmental contact also advised me that it was known that Mr. Kevin Rudd had his assistant go through all his expense vouchers for the last two years (prior to 1992) and "cock them up".
The obvious implication is that the DPP can be leaned on to come up with the desired result. I believe the Connolly/Ryan Inquiry put Mr. Miller's actions, in regard to this matter, under extreme scrutiny.
The University of Queensland's newspaper, The Weekend Independent, report of "The Great Train Robbery" is an example the DPP's Office other extreme. These apparent inconsistencies, in the administration of the Queensland criminal justice system, must by explained and resolved.
I wish to point out, that I did not put Mr. Miller's name on the original document, which became known as the "Public Service Hit List" in February 1996. His name was already on the list. I did, however, agree with the sentiments expressed against Mr. Miller's name on the list.
I will come back to the "hit list" subject later.
First of all, I wish to recall to you my interest in the Heiner Document shredding and the QPOA Superannuation case.
I was an Executive Member of the Queensland State Service Union which later amalgamated with the Queensland Professional Officers' Association Union on January 1993, to become the State Public Service Federation (Q) Union of Employees, from August 1986 until April 1994.
In February 1991, I became aware of the Heiner Document shredding and the misuse of the QPOA union superannuation fund and the Kevin Lindeberg sacking circumstances. I, as well one other Executive Member of the QSSU, wanted the matters resolved prior to the formal amalgamation of the two unions. In February 1991 a meeting was held with Mr. Kevin Lindeberg attended by other interested parties and myself. Mr. Lindeberg advised that he was unaware of the QPOA superannuation fund rorting, even though he had been a fund member. In late March 1991, I received an unsolicited phone call from Mr. Alan MacSporran, an Investigating Barrister for the Cooke Inquiry. Mr. MacSporran requested that others and I meet with him. A meeting took place with him in early April 1991.
The Heiner Document shredding and QPOA Superannuation Fund rorting was discussed. Mr MacSporran advised that the timeframe for a thorough investigation was tight, as pressure was being put on Mr. Cooke QC, by the Goss government, to wind up the inquiry. Mr. MacSporran advised that he intended to write to National Mutual, the QPOA Superannuation Fund manager, and request details of certain withdrawals. I pointed out to Mr. MacSporran, that as we were dealing with a financial institution (joint union/credit union fund), the matter had to be handled with a great deal of sensitivity. I recalled to him the mid-1970's run on the Queensland Permanent Building Society following adverse publicity. Mr. MacSporran thanked me for my advice in this matter and said he would "keep this in mind".
Mr. MacSporran was also very interested in a memorandum issued by the then Premier, Mr. Goss, addressed to all government departments, on the 11 March 1991. The memorandum was in relation to the destruction of documents and made reference to The Libraries and Archives Act, 1988. I was given certain feedback that Mr. Kevin Lindeberg was mentioned in a Cabinet meeting in late February 1991. It was obvious to others and myself, at the time, the Queensland Cabinet was involved in the Heiner Document shredding.
In July 1991, Mr. Cooke QC produced his report and made a particular reference to the QPOA case. He recommended that The Criminal Justice Act, 1989 should be amended to allow the CJC to investigate trade unions and once that amendment was made all evidence regarding the QPOA case should be handed over to the CJC.
The Goss government (Cabinet) refused to implement Mr Cooke's recommendation. The recommendation, if adopted, would have resulted in a criminal investigation of that Cabinet's own activities.
In March 1991, the appointment of Ms Jane Macdonnel, the then Executive Director of the Office of State Revenue, was mentioned in the State House by Mr. Santo Santoro as being a crony appointment, with connections to the Association of Labor Lawyers. As a result of this incident Ms. Macdonnel carried out what can be only be described as a witch-hunt throughout the department, in order to identify Mr. Santoro's source. At least two members of the office staff approached me and stated that "she was asking questions about you" and that "I'd better be careful". At the time I considered confronting Ms. Macdonnel regarding this incident, however, after further discussions with other staff regarding Ms. Macdonnel's nature I decided to let the matter lie.
Some months later, I had occasion to meet Mr. Santoro (for the first time) and I raised the issue of Ms. Macdonnel's witch-hunt throughout the department with him. He advised me that his source on he had been outside the Queensland public service.
This witch-hunt incident borders on Abuse of Office (Section 92 of The Criminal Code of Queensland)
I can only assume that Ms. Macdonnel targeted me, as a result of my position, as an Executive Member of the QSSU.
In the latter half of 1991, the Audit Director for Treasury, with whom I had previously discussed the QPOA superannuation fund and sought his advice on this matter, approached me. He was previously a QSSU union councilor. He advised me that he was to be on the selection panel (PSMC representative) for the Directors' positions in my department. He later made a specific approach to me with details of a selection process which I regarded as highly irregular. My initial reaction was to advise him to "send a separate report to the PSMC". I revised this view in retrospect, when I realized who would have received the report. The Director of Human Resources of the PSMC at that time was Ms.Roslyn Kinder. A short time earlier, I had made representations to the QSSU Union President and Deputy Chairman of the PSMC, Mr. Barry Dittmer, regarding a proposal to have Mr. Don Martindale and Ms. Roslyn Kinder sit on each others' selection panel for their respective positions, in the Department of Health and PSMC respectively. Mr. Martindale and Ms. Kinder, until the end of 1989, held positions of General Secretary and Assistant General Secretary of the QPOA and were the subjects of investigation by the Cooke Inquiry in its investigation of the QPOA. Another QPOA individual under investigation was Mr. Des Boyland.
At least two staff members of the Office of State Revenue who were applicants for the Directors' positions made approaches to me regarding what they saw as a rigged selection process and requested the assistance of the union. I duly passed their concerns on to the Union General Secretary, Mr. Laurie Gillespie, who personally knew one of the individuals who had complained.
I was extremely concerned by this incident as it highlighted the effect of the compromised PSMC as a result of the Ms. Kinder appointment. After all, it was the PSMC, which was supposed to set the standards for the rest of the Public Service.
Mr. Beattie, you will recall that in 1991 and 1992 you attended meetings with the QSSU union Executive and had additional informal contacts with a number those executive members. You conceded that cronyism in job appointments was a major issue for the Public Service.
In May 1993, the union Executive met with the then Education Minister, Mr.Pat Comben, regarding several appointments and abuse within the Gender Equity Unit of the Department of Education. Shortly afterwards this unit was disbanded.
In March 1992, EARC announced that it intended to review cronyism in the Public Service. A prominent newspaper article was published. (REFER to ATTACHMENT A) As a result of this article, I contacted the then Chairman of EARC, Professor Colin Hughes, regarding the issue of cronyism and what I considered to be criminal activity, as a result of the evidence and closure of the Cooke Inquiry QPOA investigations.
I subsequently submitted my submission in May 1992. As I believed the submission also contained details of criminal activity, I sent a copy to the CJC.
To my horror, I received a letter of acknowledgement to my EARC submission from the husband of one of the individuals I had mentioned in my EARC submission. I immediately phoned Professor Hughes and complained. He stated that he had spoken to the individual involved. There was no apology or any other advice. This further heightened my anxiety as a result of my compromised position.
I was also contacted by an officer (Mr. Guttridge) of the CJC who thought the Martindale/Kinder selection process was a "bit rich" and he asked what I wanted done with the submission. I requested that it be matched with one from Mr. Kevin Lindeberg and that they should go from there. I had no knowledge of the detailed contents of Mr. Kevin Lindeberg's submission although, I was aware of the subject matter. There was no collusion between Mr. Kevin Lindeberg and myself in the construction of our respective submissions.
Shortly after these incidents the QSSU Union President, Mr. Barry Dittmer, called me to the union office and advised me that I had come to the attention of "some influential individuals" (presumably Mr. Goss and his advisors). I took this as an implied threat to "lay off ".
Following these incidents, I made a conscious decision to pursue the Superannuation and Shredding issues as strongly as possible. I also believed that I had no option than to build up a public profile to avoid being targeted by Mr. Goss and his thug advisors.
In September 1992, I decided to stand for election as an independent candidate in the state seat of Ferny Grove. I did this in order to gain a public profile and make it more difficult for retribution by Mr. Goss. This action, I believe was a very wise decision with recent knowledge, which has only recently come to light.
Another matter, which also concerned me greatly, was the appointment of Mr. Noel Nunan by the CJC, in August 1992, to investigate the Heiner Document shredding. (REFER TO ATTACHMENT B).
Through my contacts I was advised that there was a strong connection between Mr. Goss and Mr. Nunan. This was confirmed some months later, when I searched the Corporate Affairs records for The Caxton Legal Centre.
I was also advised that there was a strong Labor Lawyer presence (other than Mr. Barnes) at the CJC.
My worst fears were realized, when I spoke to Mr. Peter Coyne after his interview at the CJC. Peter advised me that Mr. Nunan had declared to him upon arrival at the CJC - "There will be no solace in this for you and Lindeberg. You realize that your complaint is against the Cabinet".
After Mr. Kevin Lindeberg's interview on 11 August 1992, I asked Kevin if Mr. Nunan had mentioned my submission to him. Mr. Kevin Lindeberg advised me that my submission was mentioned during the course of a taped interview and that Mr. Nunan said the following words with respect to my submission - "He paints a grand conspiracy. If I had to choose between a cock-up and a conspiracy, I'd choose a cock-up every time".
At this stage, I was still unaware that I wasn't to be interviewed. To be honest, I was glad I wasn't with knowledge of the above information.
Mr. Nunan has acknowledged that these words or similar (on the Lindeberg taped interview) were spoken. Mr. Nunan claims they were said at the end of the taped interview, after the taped record had finished. The transcript, however, tells a different story. When Mr. Kevin Lindeberg examined a copy of his taped record of interview, he found a blank passage where the words "He paints a grand conspiracy etc" were spoken. The blank starts at the end of a sentence and the tape commences again at the beginning of a new one. When the tape starts again, Mr. Kevin Lindeberg specifically mentions the words "grand conspiracy". It is not difficult to determine who is telling the truth. It is certainly not Mr. Nunan. In order to relieve the pressure on Mr. Nunan, he was appointed as a magistrate in 1995.
Professor Miles Moody, of the QUT, examined the tape of the Lindeberg record of interview. He determined that the chance of the "tampered tape" being an equipment failure was 2500 times to 1 against. He bases this assumption on the fact that the equipment unexpectedly failed to operate and then commenced to operate again at the end of a sentence and the beginning of a new one. This fact does not take into account the incidence of what appears to be "road traffic noise" and several "unexplained clicks" on the relevant section of the tape. The clicks are obviously the result of rewinding the tape several times and then over-recording to ensure erasure of the complete sentence. The road noise on the tape indicates that this tampering was performed outside the offices of the CJC, or at least in a part of the building subject to traffic noise. The CJC's interview rooms are soundproof rooms and this noise further proves tampering. The tampering could have only been performed by a person (or persons) at the CJC itself. The tampering of a taped record of interview represents the tampering of evidence and is a serious criminal offence. For the CJC to just pass off this incident as an unfortunate glitch is just pathetic and corrupt.
At this point, I decided that the CJC was a waste of time. Yet I still wished the QPOA superannuation matter, at least, cleared up prior to the amalgamation of the two unions. In August 1992, I became aware of The Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and sought out one of the Senate Committee members Senator Cheryl Kernot. Ms. Cheryl Kernot was contacted recently by one media source and she conceded the QPOA Superannuation case "was a very serious matter".
Senator Cheryl Kernot advised me to write to the Secretary of the Senate Committee, which I subsequently did. The Senate Select Committee on Superannuation held public hearings in Brisbane in April and May 1993.
At the end of August 1993, the Senate Committee produced its eighth report. The report concluded the following:-
. It established several instances of breach of trust by the trustees in the administration of the fund.
. Found it strange that critical documents (ie. benefit request forms) could not be located.
. These forms went missing from the National Mutual records and the Cooke Inquiry archived documents.
. The Senate Committee was critical of and recommended the Queensland Government review its archiving procedures (To this day this matter has not been addressed).
. Found it strange that given the large number of documents made available to the Committee, it was the (National Mutual) benefit request forms, which could not be located.
. Further concluded that location of these forms was critical as they may contain evidence of fraudulent activity.
In evidence to the Senate Inquiry, a National Mutual representative stated that "their staff recall that they believed the benefit request forms were signed by Ms Roslyn Kinder and that a box leaving the service was ticked as the reason for withdrawal of the superannuation funds". The withdrawal of the monies was contrary to the terms of the superannuation fund trust deed.
The individuals who withdrew their funds were:- Mr. Donald Martindale (General Secretary of the QPOA), Ms. Roslyn Kinder (Assistant General Secretary of the QPOA) and Mr. Gordon Rutherford (General Manager of the Queensland Professional Credit Union) and Mr. Kerry Daly (Financial Controller of the Queensland Professional Credit Union and now General Manager of the Rock Building Society).
In additional to the above individuals, a former Industrial Officer, Mr. Neil Buchanan was paid additional employers' benefit to that allowed by the trust deed. It should also be noted that the Towers Perrin Report (superannuation consultants engaged by the QPOA) as did the Senate Committee, only examined two years of operation of the fund and there were other "extraordinary" benefits paid out by the fund's trustees. When I queried Mr. Sean Curley, the former QPOA President and joint SPSF(Q) President in early 1994 regarding the issue of any other individuals who had received any additional "extraordinary" benefit from the fund, Mr. Curley conceded that Ms. Glenys Fisher, a former QPOA Industrial Officer and later appointed to the Bench of the Queensland Industrial Commission, had received 100% of her employer's benefit from the fund, whereas she was only entitled to a lesser amount (between 75-80%), under the terms of the trust deed. The favoring of certain individuals over others in the administration of a superannuation fund represents a serious breach of trust by the trustees and also raises the quite legitimate question as to why those additional benefits were paid to those individuals and the positions some held.
The superannuation fund in question commenced operation of 1 July 1986, following the winding up of the previous one. It is known that only the accrued benefits (ie. 100% of the employers benefit and employees contributions of the current (in July 1986) members together with interest on employers and contributors benefits) was transferred across to the new fund. The excess funds are unaccounted for in the QPOA's financial records.
I know of one former member, who received an unexplained extraordinary payment in July/August, 1986, which I believe was the result of the disbursement of some of these excess funds. This individual was the General Secretary of the QPOA, some years earlier. He was initially appointed as a Public Service Board Commissioner, then to the State Industrial Commission, following the abolition of the Public Service Board and recalled from the Industrial Commission to become Director General of DEVITIR, during the critical period of the Cooke Inquiry. Regular meetings took place between this individual and Mr. Donald Martindale, during recesses of the Cooke Inquiry hearings. This was highly inappropriate as the Director General of DEVITIR had responsibility for carriage of the Cooke Inquiry recommendations.
In early September 1993, on the basis of the Senate Report, the then Attorney General, Mr. Dean Wells, referred the matter of the Police Commissioner for investigation. The Police Commissioner then referred the investigation to the Fraud Squad. The Police interviewed me on 17 August 1994.
On 31 May 1994, Ms Roslyn Kinder, by an Executive Minute, was appointed as a government trustee, representing The Q-Super and State Superannuation Boards. This was done whilst she was under investigation by the Police Fraud Squad over the QPOA issue. The police investigation was not completed until mid-1995.
The claim the police investigation was a joke was a gross understatement. It should also be remembered that it was the Attorney General, Mr. Wells, who referred the matter for investigation on the basis of a Senate Committee Report, not Mr. Lindeberg or myself.
What can I say, "how pathetic, how corrupt"!
I believe a southern based current affairs team is currently researching this matter.
There is even more to this matter and I will come back to this subject later.
In August 1993, I opened a deposit account with The Queensland Professional Credit Union. I fulfilled all the membership requirements. A few weeks later my membership was declined by the credit union Board and my deposit returned. I made no secret of the fact that I wanted the QPOA superannuation matter settled and misappropriated monies recovered.
After The Senate Select Committee on Superannuation produced its eighth report at the end of August 1993, I gave the Office of State Revenue Welfare Committee a briefing on the Senate report. I also reported on the involvement of two politicians, Senator Cheryl Kernot and Mr. Santo Santoro and their assistance in having the QPOA superannuation matters raised in both the State and Federal parliaments. The QPOA supperannuation case would have been resolved had the Cooke Inquiry been allowed to complete its task.
The Office of State Revenue Welfare Committee was an official body set up under the rules of the SPSF(Q). At the committee meeting in early September 1993, I attempted to have the committee members endorse a motion to the SPSF(Q) Union Council, recommending recovery of the misappropriated superannuation monies. The then President of the Welfare Committee, Mr. Arthur Bush, expressed extreme opposition to my proposal and I decided to let the matter lie, in that forum at least.
It was only in May 1994, when I was to discover the true extent of the management style (management by intimidation and toadyism) of the then Executive Director of the Office of State Revenue, Ms. Jane Macdonnel.
I am aware that your government has recently recycled her as your Director General Department of Justice. I will mention more of this, later and some of the skeletons which have only recently come to light.
I will now come back to the issue of the Queensland Professional Credit Union refusing my membership. Following this incident, I lodged a complaint with The Office of Financial Supervision. This body is next to useless and a gross waste of public monies.
I followed up my complaint (refusal of credit union membership) further with The Senate Committee of Privileges. After over twelve months of correspondence with that committee the credit union Chairman, Mr. Cec Lee, finally admitted that Mr. Lindeberg's and my credit union accounts were closed (by a decision of the credit union Board) because, in the board's view "I went to the Cooke Inquiry with mischief and malice aforethought in relation to the superannuation matter".
There are laws in this State, which are supposed to protect witnesses who appear or give evidence to lawfully established commissions of inquiry. There are also bodies (in this case the CJC) which are supposed to enforce these laws. The credit union Board members were in August 1993 and still are, in the main serving State Public Servants.
If the Crown is not prepared or unable to enforce these laws to protect witnesses from such detriment, then I believe that all individuals who give evidence to Commissions of Inquiry, to the Police and the Courts should be made aware of this fact. I believe this is fair, don't you?
To claim I waited for an unsolicited phone call from Mr. Alan MacSporran so that I could go to the Cooke Inquiry with mischief and malice aforethought is simply outrageous. I believe Mr. Lindeberg was summonsed to the Cooke Inquiry.
I believe that some of the responsibilities for the supervision of Credit Unions have been recently transferred to the Federal jurisdiction under ASIC legislation. I will explore this area further.
I will now recall to you some of the excesses of your recycled Director General, Ms. Jane Macdonnel. The excesses of this woman are almost indescribable and, in my view, amount to a serious case of abuse of office. She carried considerable baggage with her from the Commonwealth Departments of Social Security and The Australian Taxation Office, as several of the staff will verify. It was in this area where the term "Fang" originated. I know that you have had feedback on her management style some years ago, independent of myself. There was even some negative feedback from Clayton Utz, where she was outsourced by the Commonwealth department, immediately prior to her appointment as Executive Director of the OSR. This feedback was:- "she was only paid staff, very aggressive and goes off half cocked". I was also given some concerning feedback in relation to the appointment process, as Executive Director of the Office of State Revenue.
I have already covered some of Ms. Macdonnel's excesses involving Mr. Santoro and the witch-hunt. Well, its gets worse and worse as you will see.
I will now recall a disgraceful incident, which occurred in May 1994. Ms. Macdonnel, true to her form in performing departmental witch-hunts, carried out another one of these missions following an article in The Courier Mail on the results of a staff survey.
It seems that I was targeted as the source of The Courier Mail, by Ms. Macdonnel, on the basis of my so called political activity and the fact that I had a day recreation leave on the day between the release of the staff survey and The Courier Mail article.
If Ms. Macdonnel had managed to clear her prejudiced mind for just one moment, she could have easily determined the fact that I made application for the leave prior to the release of the survey to the staff of the OSR. She mentioned the fact of my recreation leave in her memorandum to Mr. Smerdon.
On the day of the release of the survey to the staff, I did have contact with the then Opposition Leader Mr. Rob Borbidge's Office. At approximately 9.15am I phoned and confirmed a prearranged appointment, following the receipt from Cairns that day of information supporting retention of Public Service locality allowances. This was prior to the distribution of the staff survey in the department section, if Ms. Macdonnel had bothered to check.
I was later informed by opposition staff that no fewer than four copies, of the staff survey, had been faxed or mailed to them. In any case, there was no confidential document. It was, after all, distributed to over 350 staff, as promised, after an agreement was reached with the SPSF(Q) in September 1992. When I arrived at the Opposition Leader's office, later that day, there was already a copy there.
But it gets worse. You see in the memorandum to the then Under Treasurer, Mr. Smerdon, Ms. Macdonnel claimed that "I had made known my preparedness to leak information to the Opposition, particularly Mr. Santoro, if it suits his purpose to do so".
Remember Mr. Arthur Bush, the Welfare Committee President and a Ms. Macdonnel toady, well it is apparent that Ms. Macdonnel added her own special flavor to my briefing of the OSR Welfare Committee on the QPOA superannuation fund rorting, which was simply none of Ms. Macdonnel's business. By the way Ms. Macdonnel appointed Mr. Bush, as a Manager in the OSR, as a reward for all his groveling. It certainly wasn't as a result of his management qualities as the current OSR staff will attest. A number of the OSR staff wanted his name added to the "hit list". I refused their requests.
Ms. Macdonnel just couldn't help herself when she wished to intrude into the QPOA Superannuation fund. She stated in a memorandum to Mr. Smerdon that "I seemed to hold some type of grudge against Ms. Kinder" when I disclosed the seriousness of the matters, upon which she was intruding. It was the Goss government Attorney General, Mr. Dean Wells, who referred the superannuation matter to the Police Commissioner for investigation wasn't it? I have since been advised that Ms. Macdonnel and Ms. Kinder knew each other from their university days. I have yet to explore this fact further.
Ms. Macdonnel was determined to make an example of me so she trumped up some issues and was supported by two Under Treasurers who can best described as acting like wimps. Ms. Macdonnel was known to be dealing directly with Mr. DeLacy.
Among the matters I was originally investigated over was my opposition to a supposedly negotiated enterprise bargaining agreement to which the union (and I as a member of the union) was opposed to at that stage of the negotiations. This is simply outrageous and represents further abuse. I represents a "thought police mentality".
No honorary union official can operate under such circumstances. Under these circumstances, I do not believe the term wimpish is not to too harsh to describe Messrs Smerdon's and Bradley's actions. I believe it would be appropriate to contact the Federal Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr. Reith, and inform him of the precedence set by the Goss Labor administration.
I see you have also recycled Mr. Gerard Bradley as the Under Treasurer.
Mr. Bradley proceeded with an investigation that I supposedly made baseless allegations of cronyism in relation to the Directors' position appointments in the OSR. After this process (which amounted to the intimidation of an honorary carrying out his lawful duties) I sent an email to Mr. Bradley stating expressing my disgust at his decision. (REFER to ATTACHMENT C)
I then proceeded to gather evidence in support of my situation with the intention of taking the matter further as preempted in my email message. This involved the taping of certain conversations, in support of my case, to be later used as evidence.
During this process, I received a further threatening letter from Bradley, (REFER to ATTACHMENT D) dated 3 August 1995, which in part stated :-
"He had written statements from Treasury officers indicating that you have recorded conversations with a concealed device and you have made verbal allegations against other Treasury Officers".
"This advice is to formally place you on notice that your ongoing conduct is inappropriate and improper and, if you persist in making allegations without substantiation, I will initiate further disciplinary or other action against you".
There are some relevant matters I wish to address:-
I do have tape recordings of several conversations relating to the matters raised by Mr. Bergin.
The recording of conversations (including telephone) to which I am a party is legitimate and within the law. The condition attached to telephone conversations is that I do not interfere with the telephone equipment. I did not, and it is therefore admissible as evidence.
The recorded conversations were allegations made to me not by me and confirm the facts of a rorted selection process as relayed to me by Mr. Bergin in 1991. In a conversation with Mr. Bergin, he admitted he spoke to me of a selection process and the irregularities.
I regard the Bradley letter as a threatening and intimidatory letter as an (successful) attempt to prevent me from exercising my legitimate legal rights in the pursuit of my matters further.
Mr. Beattie you may recall that I wrote to you (and Messrs Comben and Santoro) regarding the Treasury Department investigation matter and I am aware that you had contact with the CJC.
By his intimidatory action, Mr. Bradley, has I believe breached several sections of The Criminal Justice Act, 1989 and The Criminal Code of Queensland, Section 140 - Attempting to Pervert Justice.
I would also like to add that Mr. Bradley did not provide me with a copy of the reports from the "unnamed" Treasury Officers and did not even seek my views on the matter. He had prejudged the circumstances and the situation.
Mr. Bradley should also be made aware of the provisions of the Public Service Act, 1996 (Public Service Management and Employment Act, 1988 at the time in 1994-5) and the Regulations in relation to detrimental reports of an officer. You should also refer to the Solicitor General's opinion of 30/6/1989 in the Cooke Inquiry Report.
Hasn't he heard of the principle of "natural justice"? Still what else could you expect from him, with the form of his previous behavior.
This fact will also be established in a later incident, which I would regard as quite extraordinary and really demonstrates Ms. Macdonnel's nature.
In February 1996, I became aware of the existence of a list of names of public servants who were targeted for investigation on the change of government. At this stage I would like to point out that the whole idea grew from the fact that the Goss administration had managed to contain an investigation of the Heiner Document shredding and how politicized the Public Service had become. In other words, it was evident that a fair number of public servants had pledged their loyalty to a political party rather than the Crown. This can be evidenced by their active involvement in covering up the shredding.
I requested and was given a copy of the list, which has become known as the "hit list".
My first action was to have my department's union industrial officer have a look at it. He approved of it generally and advised he had reported its existence to the SPSF(Q) General Secretary, Mr. Gordon Rennie, in February 1996. Mr. Rennie only made noises concerning this document in August 1996, some six months later.
My next action was establishing its correctness. To say the response was overwhelming is an understatement. As you are no doubt aware, as a former Union Executive member, I had a good network of departmental contacts.
The persistent trend, which came to light in the feedback, was criminality.
In fact, one of my informants on this issue was the Vice President of the Labor Unity Faction of the ALP. I am sure you know this individual well.
Others included union delegates, executive members and former delegates and executive members of the SPSF(Q), the QSSU and the QPOA.
Whilst I will not relive this list, however, the extent the corruption can be gauged by the following examples:-
. A senior officer contacted me regarding the circumstance, whereby a senior SES officer, following a detrimental internal audit report on overseas travel expenses, skited that the auditor would be "hit" (sacked) as a result of his report on her activities. The auditor was subsequently made redundant on 28 June 1996.
. A SES officer who had been convicted for drink driving, twice, started to use departmental taxi vouchers to travel to and from work. The same officer had his SES car keys taken from his desk by two acquaintances, whom had visited him at work. The government owned SES vehicle was taken from the car park (Health Department Building) and found at Morningside two days later up on blocks with the wheels missing and the radio stolen. There was no investigation and the matter was covered up.
. An officer at Director General level instructed a departmental director, to appoint a failed ALP candidate in the July, 1995 State Election, to a senior departmental position, even prior to the holding of interviews for the positions. I believe it was at the request of the Minister. This Minister is a minister in your current government.
. A rigged computer tendering process. Kickbacks to senior public servants from a travel agent.
. Two senior public servants would only accept relocation from interstate if their wives were also given senior positions in the Public Service. One of the wives was quite open and skited about the arrangement. ( refer Section 118 of The Criminal Code of Queensland )
. There was widespread abuse of government car expenses and overtime. One of my contacts (SES officer) had a tyre replaced on his SES vehicle. The government supplier stated "you're good with tyres" - the implication was that new tyres were removed from government vehicles and placed on their own private vehicles. There was even one instance of a SES vehicle being filled with ULP and five minutes later (on the credit card) approximately 50 liters of diesel being charged. Diesel doesn't fit into the government falcon.
. One individual, who made a lot of noise on her dismissal, was known to own a limousine license (in her name only). Her husband drove the limo. Her SES vehicle had an extraordinary high fuel consumption. In fact, staff were instructed to fill a jerry can and the car each Friday. Every Monday the car and jerry can came back empty. The mileage didn't tally with the fuel consumption.
I contacted the Premiers Department and was told to fax the information through. I ensured the fax was secure and most information was passed on. Not all the information was passed on as I did not wish to compromise my sources. It was intended that these matters were to be investigated by the Office of the Public Service.
A disturbing trend began to emerge was the relatively high percentage of SES appointees who appeared to be rorting the system. This does not set a good example for the rest of the Public Service and promotes an image that they are untouchable.
This is borne out by the fact that public servants came forward with what I can only describe only as a "mountain of information" yet they didn't have the confidence to report these matters to the CJC, despite an obligation to do so under the CJC Act, 1988.
This is another reason why scant information was provided in the list. A detailed background could be given on all of the names.
One of your current Ministers, Mr. Gibbs, was obviously also made aware of suspected travel rorts in the DPI (and received similar feedback to me) and hence the question to the then Minister, Mr. Perrett, in September 1996. (REFER to ATTACHMENT E).
A copy of the list was taken from Mr. Russell Cooper's Office, by a Mr. Pat O'Connor and given to Mr. Elder, and then found its way to The Courier Mail.
At the end of August 1996, I was interviewed by two Carruthers Inquiry investigators. They were in the process of investigating the Police Union MOU and the "hit list". I am still at a loss, to this day, as to why they incorporated the investigation of this list into their inquiry.
One thing was quite clear, however, they were only interested in investigating the actual drafting of the list and not the contents of the same. On two occasions I have offered to provide full details, in August 1996 and again on 6 October 1998.
It was at this stage (August 1996) that I had to seek legal advice on the progress of the CJC's investigation at a cost to me of some $3,000.
My advice is that the leaking of this information is a gross breach of trust (again - remember EARC).
Believe me, the CJC has not heard the last of this, and neither have you.
I will now come back to the issue of Mr. Bradley and Ms. Macdonnel.
When it came to my own department, I was very cautious indeed. A number of the Office staff insisted that several individuals be placed on the list. I refused most of their requests, however, I was provided a copy of a document which I can only describe as extraordinary. You had to be a staff member of the OSR to appreciate its true significance. (REFER to ATTACHMENT F).
You see, it was a copy of a memo to the Under Treasurer, Mr. Bradley, written by Ms. Macdonnel on 11 May 1995. Ms. Macdonnel was requesting a restructure of a division of the OSR and the stripping of most of the duties and responsibilities from that Director. You must realize that that particular director was Ms. Imelda Bradley, Mr. Gerard Bradley's wife.
It was known, to OSR staff , that the relationship between Mr. Bradley and Ms. Macdonnel was at an all time low, at this time. Ms. Macdonnel was known to dealing directly with the Minister (Mr. De Lacy) and bypassing Mr. Bradley, as Under Treasurer and departmental head. This is significant, as you will see later.
But it goes further, as you will see, Ms. Macdonnel, in the memo, is asking Mr. Bradley to approve the advertising of a temporary position of a Director and then she gives the profile on an individual who she regards as a prospective candidate. This candidate was also one of Ms. Macdonnel's university lecturers for her degree course.
It was no surprise who was appointed.
What did Mr. Bradley do ????
A week prior to the last State election, a public servant who was involved in the "hit list" construction was summonsed to Mr. Tom Fenwick's office. Present were Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Jim Varghese and a solicitor from DNR Mr. Barry O'Conner and the public servant.
The Courier Mail had been recently pursuing the issue of a computer tenders and alleged kickbacks from a travel agency. I am sure you can recall Courier Mail articles in relation to free travel in the latter half of last year. In fact they had lodged numerous FOI requests with the DPI, DNR and Department of Main Roads.
Mr. Fenwick queried the public servant regarding the list and made several implied threats against this individual and myself.
It would appear that we were being targeted as The Courier Mail's source. Mr. Fenwick was in fact way off course.
Mr. Fenwick was found to be reading from a document of approximately fifteen pages. Part of this document were the details of a record, of interview of this individual, with the CJC in August 1996.
Mr. Fenwick was immediately challenged where he got hold of the document and the interview was soon terminated.
On 6 October 1998, I visited the CJC and complained about the leaking of the CJC documents (as well as other matters). Following an investigation, I was advised that the document provided to Mr. Varghese (and passed on to Mr. Fenwick) was normal CJC feedback to complainants. (REFER to ATTACHMENT G). At the time of my complaint to the CJC in October 1998, I was unaware that the document held by Messrs Varghese and Fenwick was in fact given out by the CJC. Since when is a record of interview normal feedback? I did not get such extensive feedback as a result of my complaints. I will let the legal profession know of the CJC's changed policy.
While I am on this point, the CJC decided to investigate Messrs Fenwick and Varghese, over their operations, following my interview with them on 6 October 1998. In a letter of feedback (no records in interview were enclosed) from the CJC it is confirmed that they couldn't even get the department right.
To top it all off, they carried out their investigations in the Department of Main Roads, rather than DPI. (REFER to ATTACHMENT H). There is simply no hope for this organization. The CJC appears to be a mix of Dads' Army and Nazi Storm Troopers.
On the 8 September 1997, I was summonsed to appear before the Anti Discrimination Commission Hearing, in relation to the Jacki Byrne case. (REFER to ATTACHMENT I)
Ms. Byrne's solicitor, Mr. Peter Carne, asked if I would be willing to speak to him prior to the giving of evidence.
I explained to Mr. Carne the facts behind the construction of the "hit list" and stated that numerous criminal offences came to light as a result of this exercise. Mr. Carne mentioned Mr. Royce Miller's name as an example and queried my knowledge of Mr. Miller's activities. I challenged Mr. Carne to ask that question in the witness stand. He never did take up this challenge. I thought at the time that he may have unauthorized access to confidential CJC information and made the decision to load him up with "a mountain" of information and he accepted a bundle of documents from me on the Heiner Document shredding case and a Connolly/Ryan submission.
Shortly after my interview was finished at approximately 11.00 am on 8 September 1997, I saw Mr. Carne perusing the documents, with which I had provided him, and on his mobile phone. There is one point, which I find even more interesting. During the course of the interview Mr. Carne asked me if Mr. Paul Clauson was involved in the construction of the list. I replied "not to my knowledge".
I recently queried the individual who gave me the original list if Mr. Clauson did in fact have any involvement to the list. The answer was "no". I then asked a further question "did Mr. Clauson have any contact with your office (Real Estate Agency at Birkdale and Alexandra Hills)". The answer came back "yes - in March and April, 1996 on a couple of occasions - but on another matter".
It is known that the Carruthers Inquiry Investigators obtained CCR (call charge records) of certain telephone accounts (including the Real Estate Offices) during their investigations. The fact that Mr. Carne asked the question regarding Mr. Clauson is a strong indication that he had unauthorized access confidential CJC records. There is no other way Mr. Clauson's name could have been linked to the making of the list.
This matter could be taken up with the Federal authorities, as a breach of a Commonwealth Act, in dealing with confidential information. CCR records of Mr. Carne's mobile phone, on 8 September 1997, would be very interesting indeed.
The last issue I wish to raise is Mr. Goss's most recent skeleton, which has recently come to light (late January 1999).
Following Mr. Fenwick's aggressive actions, The Courier Mail decided to revisit the "hit list" and decided to investigate the reference to Mr. Kevin Rudd and the PPR claim against the name of Ms. Jane Macdonnel.
I was put in a very difficult situation in August 1994, when I learnt of the situation whereby Mr. Kevin Rudd and his wife Ms. Therese Rein are alleged to have made a false stamp duty PPR claim in relation to a residence at 41 Dilkera Street, Hawthorne.
The Opposition were aware of the situation (I believe their source was a solicitor who I believe also made contact with Mr. Rudd about the matter shortly after he purchased the property) and there was likelihood that the matter would be raised in the House. At the time I knew the OSR was approximately three months behind in its investigations. I was mindful of Ms. Macdonnel's propensity to carry out departmental witch-hunts, if the matter were to be raised in the House.
I decided to get in first. The Rudds purchased the property in May 1994. I waited until the six months period (I was also aware that the Rudd had the house on the market and a contract was about to be signed) was almost up and reported the case through the OSR's dob-in system.
In late October 1994, I reported the circumstances to the Intelligence Officer within the Compliance Audit Branch of the OSR and requested that an investigation file be created.
I also made sure Ms. Jane Macdonnel knew of the circumstances of my report through one of her toadies.
Some time after this event there were persistent rumors of the "killing" of a PPR investigation and the "disappearance" of the file.
The Courier Mail decided to carry out its own investigations and established the following:-
. Mr. Kevin Rudd and Ms. Therese Rein had a property at 62 Philip Street, Hawthorne, which they sold on 10/4/94 (contract date) and immediately signed a lease to rent back the property (confirmed by a real estate agency).
. In May 1994 Mr. Rudd and Ms. Rein purchased a property at 41 Dilkera Street, Hawthorne from a Mr. Tom Allen for $240,000. The solicitors were Goss Downy & Carne and the stamp duty of $2,400 returned on a solicitor's return stamping (as confirmed by a copy of the stamped transfer document from DNR).
. In November 1994 the Rudds entered into a contract with a Ms. Nicole Noble and the property was settled at the end of January 1995 for $280,000.
. A check with the neighbors confirmed that the Rudds had never occupied the premises. The neighbors were reportedly not impressed by the Rudds.
. The house had a room air-conditioner, which was left running 24 hours per day, even though the house was unoccupied.
. Neighbors complained about the noise from the air conditioning unit running 24 hours per day.
. Mr. Rudd approached the original owner Mr. Tom Allen regarding instructions on how to operate the air-conditioning time clock.
Armed with this information Mr. Rudd was then queried by The Courier Mail, regarding the stamp duty claim:-
. At first Mr. Rudd claimed that he lived in the house and met the PPR qualifications.
. On further contact by The Courier Mail, Mr. Rudd claimed he had contact with an officer of the OSR regarding the non-supply of a signed form "Q" (stamp duty PPR exemption form) and quoted dates, telephone conversations and correspondence with an officer named Noel ***** of the OSR.
. When pursed further regarding the matter Mr. Rudd finally admitted that he did not qualify for the PPR claim and paid the additional stamp duty (about $4500) on 4/11/94 and quoted a receipt number.
This was about two weeks after I reported the matter to the OSR and under the Office guidelines a penalty should have been imposed. In fact the facts are not dissimilar to cases prosecuted through the magistrates courts. (REFER to ATTACHMENT J). Mr. Rudd should have reported his changed circumstances (from the date of the leaseback of his original house) within 28 days of those changed circumstances.
. During further conversations Mr. Rudd finally stated or words to the effect that "Goss had told him that this disgruntled cunt from the Revenue Office had dobbed him in".
These comments are on tape (I have not listened to the tape, however it would be available under discovery) and cannot be withdrawn by Mr. Rudd, The Courier Mail has been told that the tape represents evidence and must not be destroyed. The tape has been transcribed.
There is another fact, which I should point out. The OSR in 1994 and 1995 was carrying out a computer data matching process with SEQEB electricity records. The records were crossmatched to ensure that the owner of the premises actually occupied them and that the SEQEB account was not just for a minimum charge. It is apparent that Mr. Rudd was made aware of this process and this is the reason why the air-conditioning unit was left on 24 hours a day. It seems to demonstrate intent.
Whilst he did not name me in person, Mr. Rudd was certainly given the details of my OSR dob-in report. The question then exists as to who passed on the information to Mr. Goss. There is not a great choice of suspects.
The normal chain of reporting matters would by via the Under Treasurer. Whist I don't hold Mr. Bradley in high regard, I don't think he is that stupid either. Ms. Macdonnel, on the other hand, just can't contain herself, as I have demonstrated. There are additional facts, which support this view, which I cannot disclose to you.
The fact that the Dilkera Street Property was not owner occupied and sold for a $40,000 profit after being owned for six months also raises the question of capital gains tax.
As you can see, the Heiner case just keeps going on and on and gets worse and worse.
You stated in parliament (27 May, 1999) that "Kevin Lindeberg should let the matter drop and get on with his life". I can't speak for Kevin Lindeberg, however, I will put my position to you.
I will let the matter drop only when justice has been served and Kevin Lindeberg and myself have been adequately compensated for the detriments our families and we have suffered.
You should also realize that several of the issues involve both State and Federal jurisdictions.
I also believe that more than one Senator is greatly concerned by the fact that a document provided to the Senators during the process of the Senate hearing of The Unresolved Whistleblower Cases, by the Queensland Government for viewing by the Senators on a confidential basis was doctored. By this I mean the document appeared to be a report on Mr. Coyne's activities at the JOYC, whereas it was actually a memorandum written by Mr. Coyne himself (to a Mr Peers) to his departmental manager. The top and bottom parts of the document were missing.
I believe the Senators were misled by this document. There is a huge difference in the way it was presented ie. A report from Mr. Coyne into the problems he faced at the centre, and actions (handcuffing etc) he was forced (in Mr. Coyne's view) to carry out and the tacit approval given to his actions by the department is quite different to a report on Mr. Coyne's activities. I am sure we will all hear more of this matter after the Forde Inquiry recommendations are published.
This doctored document has become known as document number thirteen. It was supplied to the Senate, in 1995, in its doctored form by Dr Glen Davis, yet another one of your recycled Directors' General.
There is one final, quite separate matter, which I wish to take up with you. I took my duties as a Union Executive member very seriously and can recall an incident in the latter half of 1993 when the then union treasurer, Mr. Denis Bailey, presented a case to the union that an additional staff member be employed. The staff member involved was Mr. Liam McKay. He was supposedly employed on the basis that his duties were to be that of a recruitment officer and the additional union membership gained would easily pay his salary. I, as a then Executive Member, approved of the proposal. It was only much later that I learnt of the real reason for his employment, as provided by one of the union staff, who was advised by Mr. McKay himself. Mr. McKay was a former research officer for a Federal Member (Labor Unity Faction) who, it is alleged, had been more than slack in checking overtime claims to the tune of $72,000. It is alleged that Mr. McKay had a drug habit and used this money to satisfy his needs.
It was further alleged that Mr. McKay had to be quickly and quietly removed from the Federal MP's Office, so it was arranged, that he be employed by the union.
I doubt if he ever recruited one member. Mr. McKay was later sacked by Mr. Gordon Rennie and is now with a government department.
Senator Colston's mere $10,000 or so, pales into insignificance, when compared to the $72,000 doesn't it?
Mr. Beattie all these matters represent systemic corruption. In attempting to resolve these matters, I have been highly compromised and intimidated by the Crown and some of its senior employees.
I am in the process of considering my legal options.
I also believe that you have indicated to the State House that the Heiner Document shredding has been investigated by a large number of bodies eg. CJC, Senate, Senate Privileges, Connolly/Ryan etc. The fact is that the Heiner issue has never been investigated properly, it has been simply covered up.
The CJC, the Police and Government Departments have acknowledged the seriousness of the situation, as detailed in the leaked Cabinet Submission in February 1995, (Refer to Cabinet Document tabled by Mr. Santoro on 21 February 1995) yet the matters have never been properly investigated. As I have detailed, I was never interviewed by the CJC. Mr. Barnes gave evidence to a Senate that the Heiner issue had been investigated to the "n'th degree". The CJC's position in this case has been hopelessly compromised and they cannot complete the task.
Mr. Beattie, I believe you misled the House recently, when you told the House, that the March 1990 Cabinet in ordering the destruction of the Heiner documents, was acting in accordance with legal advice. This is not true. There was no legal advice supporting the destruction of the Heiner Documents under the circumstances which existed in February 1990. In fact legal advice exists to the contrary. You should refer to The Solicitor General's opinion (a higher authority than simply Crown Law advice) of 30/6/1989 to the Department of Family Services (how appropriate) in relation to the rights of an officer of the Public Service to access certain files and records. You will find a copy of this advice in the Cooke Inquiry Report into the QPOA (again how appropriate). The legal advice given by Mr. Ken O'Shea in January and February 1990 does not take into account the fact that Mr. Coyne had placed certain legal demands of the Heiner Documents. One this notice had been given, it was up to the court to decide the outcome of Mr. Coyne's access demands. The writ does not have to be issued. Notice or knowledge of possible legal proceedings is sufficient. There is ample legal advice to support this fact, to top if off a High Court case. (The Queen v. Rogerson (1992) 174 CLR 268 F.C. 92/021 (1992) 60 A Crim R 429). What makes the situation worse is the fact that Mr. Coyne, in notifying the Crown of his intended legal proceedings, was attempting to ensure the Crown complied with the law as it existed at that time. (ie. Regulations 46 and 65 of The Public Service Management and Employment Act, 1988). Since when does legal advice over-ride the decision of a court? Mr Beattie you are a solicitor and have knowledge of the law, be truthful.
Archivists the world over have condemned the March 1990 Cabinet's decision, to destroy the Heiner Documents, and in addition one of their own, the Queensland Archivist, for her role in this illegal act (refer to The Internet search on Shreddergate).
What makes the situation even worse, however, is the fact that the Heiner Documents contained evidence of suspected child abuse as revealed recently in a Channel 9 SUNDAY PROGRAM. Knowledge of this fact was denied by Minister Warner, but confirmed by Mr. Pat Comben. Mr. Comben later retracted from his statement, however, a SUNDAY SUN article in late 1989 verifies the fact that Mr. Comben got it right first time around (REFER to ATTACHMENT K). CCR (Call Charge Records) of Mr. Comben's telephone around this time (SUNDAY PROGRAM screening) would be very interesting indeed.
On the 27 April 1999, you told the House that you have made all the relevant Cabinet documents available (Refer Hansard 27 April 1999 page 1285). This is also not true. The Cabinet Attendance Register for the Cabinet Meetings on 12 February, 19 February and 5 March 1990 is one document which has not been made available to the House. Such a register is required in order to proceed with a "Private Prosecution" against the "fatal five". The tabling in the House of this document has been previously requested (refer to Hansard 25 August 1998 pages 1877 to 1881)
I also believe that one of your Ministers (Ms. Bligh) has indicated her intent that you eat certain Cabinet records (ie. a Cabinet Attendance Register) (refer to Hansard 25 August 1998 pages 1877 to 1881). This proposed action may prove to be very unpalatable indeed, especially in view of the fact that such register represents evidence to be used in the prosecution of the March, 1990 Cabinet for the unauthorized destruction of evidence (Section 129 of The Criminal Code of Queensland). I believe that such arrogance towards the law (and Criminal Law at that) is unprecedented in any Westminster parliament.
Whilst I am on this point, I am aware that the Heiner Shredding has received extensive coverage in overseas forums. I know that in Canada it has received coverage and also in the USA (a book is being written) as well as Britain. You should check the Internet yourself in relation to the number of sites which cover this issue. Search on "Shreddergate". It will simply, not go away. It is like a cruise missile, its course has been set and it out Mr. Kevin Lindeberg's or my control, with the impact only a matter of time. The Internet is a very powerful tool indeed. Could you imagine the impact of "net surfers" being able to listen for themselves the relevant section of the tampered CJC tape, or view for themselves documents such as the "gazette" appointing Ms. Kinder to the Q-Super and State Super Boards, or view for themselves the relevant "legal opinion", or your and Ms. Bligh's performance in the House on this issue? As a Queenslander, born and bred, I am proud of my State, however, our system of public administration and justice leaves much to be desired despite the so called "Fitzgerald Reforms".
You say you are interested in jobs. How can you expect to attract overseas investment in this State with the system of public administration and our administration of justice (and criminal at that) in such a mess. With the coverage "Shreddergate" has already been given, our system must be seen a joke by overseas countries. In Canada there was a similar case, where public records were destroyed, in order to frustrate the rights of individuals who wished to bring an action against the Canadian Red Cross Blood Bank, over contaminated blood. A number of individuals had made FOI requests and the documents were promptly destroyed. Canada has a criminal code similar to ours. Following a commission of inquiry, The Krevers Inquiry and an investigation by the Canadian Information Commissioner, Mr. Grace, the matter of the destruction of the records was referred to the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) for investigation. I believe the matter is still under investigation. The Morris/Howard Report is one of those documents currently being examined by the RCMP for guidance. The Heiner Document shredding is more clear-cut that the Canadian case, as the March 1990 Cabinet was aware that legal demands had been placed on the documents (not just FOI requests).
You may recall the legal opinion provided by Mr. Ian Callinan QC and tabled to the 1995 Senate Inquiry into Unresolved Whistleblower Cases which stated in short that Section 129 of The Criminal Code of Queensland is relevant in relation to the Heiner Document shredding.
Another criminal barrister, Mr. Robert Greenwood QC is of the same opinion as Mr. Callinan QC.
The next step is up to you, are you going to become an accessory or the honest one who helped clean up this corrupt mess? You promised open and accountable government in June 1998. I can see no evidence of that to date. The Canadian government cleaned up its mess, why can't you?
I have simply have had enough of being compromised, threatened, intimidated and portrayed as "SOME DISGRUNTLED CUNT" (Mr. Rudd's words attributed to Mr. Goss).
I will give you two weeks, form receipt of this letter, to convey to me what you propose to do in order to resolve the issues, which I have covered in this letter. I believe a comprehensive Royal Commission would be the most appropriate course of action. You should note that the "Morris/Howard Report" recommended such a course of action. As Premier, you have certain responsibilities in relation to all the issues I have covered.
As you no doubt aware, much of the information contained in this letter is from public records and is in evidence to the Senate, speeches to various Houses including the Senate and the State House and Commissions of Inquiry. The Crown has also leaked some of the information to public forums. As such, I do not have control over the flow of most of the information contained in this letter.
c.c. Mr Brendan Butler, Chairman of the CJC.
c.c Ms Julie Dick, Parliamentary Commissioner for the PCJes
Scribbles Global Web Builders
Strachan and Co
Woman to Woman