| This is the Oath of Office Mr Peter Beattie
MLA publicly swore before His Excellency the Governor when taking on the
position of Premier of Queensland in mid-1998.
The Lindeberg petition has unequivocally put that Oath to the test. It
is now Premier Beattie himself who is faced with evidence of a profound
undermining of the Office of Cabinet, Executive Council, our public
administration and system of justice in Queensland which he swore to impartially
uphold.
In his Oath of Office he said:
"I PETER DOUGLAS BEATTIE, do swear that I will,
according to the best of my ability, skill, and knowledge, well and faithfully
execute the Office and Trust of PREMIER of the State of Queensland in the
Commonwealth of Australia, and that I will in all things honestly, zealously,
and impartially discharge and exercise the duties, powers and authorities
appertaining to me in the said Office."
After reading the petition, you might reasonably ask yourself this: Was
it a sacred unconditional Oath meant to assure each and every one of us that
abuse of power would never occur while he held the Office of Premier; or
was it just a meaningless set of words that had to be mouthed in order to
grab the levers of power which would then be abused to our individual or
collective detriment when the purpose politically suited?
Mr Beattie is faced with certain choices. He may decide to do nothing,
or to close his eyes, look the other way, throw his head back and laugh,
and hope the issues contained in the petition will disappear. The plain fact
is that they will not. In his heart, he knows that. Shreddergate is a cancer
in the bones of the body-politic of Queensland. At a political level, his
choices are all quite iunpleasant - but high level political and administrative
corruption, if ignored or covered up, is never pleasant. Inevitably it reaps
a bitter political harvest when the truth is revealed. Former Deputy Premier
of Queensland Bill Gunn knew that. One need only now ask former German Chancellor
Helmut Kohl and the now-disintergrating once unbeatable Christian Democrats
on that score too.
Abuse of power is a terrible thing. The world is now closely watching
as the truth gathers speed in Queensland on Shreddergate. |
 Beattie
fobs off the petition (see Hansard 29/2/2000) (Search "Lindeberg"
in year 2000)
Image right Peter Beattie refuses to address Balson's
questions about the Lindeberg Petition while Balson faces arrest over
exposing a Labor paedophile
MP....
PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS
23 DEC 1999
Mr Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
ALEXANDRA HILLS QLD 4161
Dear Mr Lindeberg
I refer to your petition, addressed to the Honourable the Speaker and Members
of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland, drawing the attention of the House
to the Heiner Inquiry documents.
I believe that the issues raised in your petition have been the subject of
exhaustive investigations, and I do not intend to take any further action.
If you wish to raise this matter with His Excellency the Governor of Queensland,
I suggest that you write directly to the Governor's Official Secretary.
The Lindeberg Petition
(tabled in Qld Parliament by Alan Grice MLA on 27 Oct 1999):
Queensland Legislative Assembly
PETITION
TO: The Honourable The Speaker
And
Members of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland
FROM
PETITIONER: Mr Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
ALEXANDRA HILLS QLD 4161
13 September 1999
Tabled in the Queensland Legislative Assembly: Wednesday 27 October 1999:
Tabled Papers Register 2596
PETITION
TO: The Honourable
the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland
The petition of KEVIN LINDEBERG, a resident of Queensland, draws to
the attention of the House:
PREAMBLE
The rights of the Parliament of Queensland, and of the sovereign
people of Queensland who empower it, have been abused by a disregard of the
laws of its Parliament. Disregard of law by executive branches of governments
in any nation or state, when and where it may occur, amounts to tyranny and
a mockery of democracy.
This Petition sets forth the facts of this case, and the petitioner thereby
seeks justice in this particular matter and seeks to proclaim through it
the fundamental right of your Parliament to have Ministers act accountably
in a democracy.
The claim has been put by successive governments and agencies over many years
that the decision of the Executive Government of Queensland on 5 March 1990
to shred public records - the Heiner Inquiry documents - was a perfectly
legal and ethical thing to do. It was purportedly done to prevent their use
as evidence in defamation proceedings against Youth Workers by an adolescent
youth detention centre manager over their disclosures about his management
of the centre. The facts and the law, however, reveal a very different story.
The facts below (some publicly concealed for nearly a decade and freshly
revealed) were known to the Queensland Government at the time
of its decision, and therefore, by implication, a shredding of public records
has been declared legal while a government had such a state of
knowledge. It represents, at the very least, a reasonable suspicion
that your Parliament's laws have been violated, and therefore, may be an
act of contempt towards the Parliament by the Executive, and thus a matter
for parliamentary privilege.
……………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
This petition shows double standards and hypocrisy at work.
In reality, the facts have never been properly considered or investigated.
This Petition provides the reason why. It is this: When the collective facts
and the law are correctly stated, they undermine entirely the assertions
of those governments, and underline a serious abuse of privilege, thwarting
of public accountability essential in a democracy, and an unacceptable
interference in the administration of justice by Executive Government.
Within the circumstances revealed in this Petition surrounding the shredding
of the Heiner Inquiry Documents and related Matters the Executive Government,
the Office of Crown Law and senior public officials knew that:
-
(a) the records contained evidence of suspected criminal child abuse ordered
by the centre manager;
(b) the Youth Workers had a legal obligation to report the suspected illegal
conduct;
(c) the Youth Workers enjoyed qualified privilege against actions for defamation
for any such report of abuse they diligently filed or reported on specific
invitation from the Crown;
(d) the Crown's legal liability policy obliged it to defend its Youth Workers
in any action brought against them as a consequence of their public interest
disclosures of such abuse;
(e) the Crown was obliged by law to investigate the suspected criminal conduct;
(f) the Crown must not engage in conduct to cover up suspected criminal conduct
by shredding evidence in its possession and control of that conduct, or the
Crown itself facilitates crime, and undermines the rule of parliamentary
law that it is sworn to uphold as its primary duty;
(g) no government of the day, in a free society, could claim exclusive legal
ownership of those public records because it held them in public trust as
"the people's records";
………………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
-
(h) no government of the day, in a free society, may destroy any public record
save through the explicit authorisation of its archivist when the record
is no longer needed for daily operational or legal reasons, and has no continuing
historical or cultural value to the State. The archivist's authorisation
for destruction of non-historical records must be based on all known facts,
and such destruction occurs only when there is no legal or other operational
claim on the records;
(i) no government of the day, in a free society, had a right to deny or obstruct
any prospective litigant from exercising the right to sue for defamation
or proceeding to orderly judicial review by the shredding of relevant public
records, irrespective of whether or not it considered that a citizen, in
a matter of defamation or access to those public records, had a cause for
action; for, if doing so, it undertakes criminal conduct on its part, and
violates its Oath of Office to uphold parliamentary law and the administration
of justice.
Accordingly, the petitioner respectfully says:
-
Unacceptable ministerial conduct occurred on 5 March 1990 when
Ministers of the Executive Government knowingly ordered the destruction of
the Heiner Inquiry documents (public records); and that this conduct brings
disrepute on the Parliament by attempting to place the Executive branch of
the Queensland Government beyond the reach of the law and jeopardises Queensland
citizens' and children's rights under the law, and may give rise to a reasonable
suspicion of official misconduct;
-
That such decision was taken by the Executive of the Queensland
Government with knowledge (plainly set out in Cabinet Submission 00160 Decision
No. 00162- tabled in the Queensland Parliament on Friday morning 31 July
1998 by Queensland Premier the Hon Peter Douglas Beattie MLA - See State
Hansard 30 July 1998 p1484) that the material was being legally sought
for litigation against
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
the Crown by solicitors for Mr Peter William Coyne, public servant in then
Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs (DFSAIA);
-
The Cabinet decision was taken for the express purpose of stopping
lawful access to these records through legal and orderly processes by Mr
Coyne;
-
The decision was taken by Ministers of State Cabinet, after
swearing their Oaths or Affirmations of Office, in prima facie
contravention of the following sections of the Criminal Code
(Qld):
(a) Section 129 - Destruction of evidence - provides for:
"Any person who, knowing that any book, document, or other thing of
any kind, is or may be required in evidence in a judicial proceeding, wilfully
destroys it or renders it illegible or undecipherable or incapable of
identification, with intent thereby to prevent it from being used in evidence,
is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment with hard labour
for three years";
(b) Section 132 - Conspiring
to defeat justice - provides for:
"Any person who conspires with another to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or
defeat the course of justice is guilty of a crime, and liable to imprisonment
for 7 years."
(c ) Section 140 - Attempting
to pervert justice - provides for:
"Any person who attempts, in any way not specifically defined in this code,
to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat, the course of justice is guilty
of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for two years."
(d) Section 92(1) - Abuse of
Office - provides for:
"Any person, who, being employed in the public service, does or directs to
be done, in abuse of the authority of the person’s office, any arbitrary
act prejudicial to the rights of another is guilty of a misdemeanour, and
is liable to imprisonment for 2 years."
-
That the decision to shred was taken by the Ministers on Monday
5 March 1990 with the knowledge of at least one Minister, namely the Hon
Anne Warner MLA Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander
Affairs, that the Heiner Inquiry documents to be destroyed contained
evidence
…………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
of suspected criminal conduct of child abuse by Crown employees on children
in the care and protection of the Crown at a State institution, the John
Oxley Youth Detention Centre (JOYC) Wacol, and may therefore give rise to
a reasonable suspicion of official misconduct;
-
And that the Hon Anne Warner MLA while Opposition Shadow Minister
confirmed in The Sunday Sun newspaper of 1 October 1989 (p18) that
she was aware that children at the JOYC were being handcuffed
to outside fences overnight and sedated with drugs usually reserved for
psychotics after she had been told by Centre staff of this conduct, and she
called for a review of the Centre to address such matters;
-
And that the members of the Goss Cabinet were aware that evidence
of that suspected child abuse was contained in the Heiner Inquiry documents
before the shredding as it was publicly revealed by former
Goss Cabinet Minister the Hon Patrick Comben, in the Nine Network's current
affairs programme Sunday cover story "Queensland's Secret Shame,"
screened nationally on Sunday 21 February 1999 after this suspected abuse
had been concealed for over more than nine years;
-
And that with this knowledge the Goss Cabinet Ministers - being
a "unit of public administration" within the meaning of section 3 of the
Criminal Justice
Act 1989 - may have breached their lawful obligation pursuant to then section
2.28 [now section 37(2)] of the said Act by failing to report such suspected
official misconduct to the Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) or other body
(eg police), and that all members of the Goss Cabinet by ordering the shredding
to prevent exposure, may have obstructed justice for certain Queensland citizens,
including the children concerned; and may have engaged in suspected official
misconduct;
-
And that in January/February 1991 certain public officials,
in collusion with certain trade union officials of the Queensland Professional
Officers' Association, Union of Employees, illegally disbursed public monies
in the sum of $27,190.00 for the purpose of buying the silence of public
official Mr
…………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
Peter William Coyne, knowing that he had no lawful entitlement to such monies
and that full documentation to justify said payment did not
exist;
-
And that such monies were disbursed under threat made by those
union officials on Thursday 10 January 1991 to certain public officials in
the then Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs
that unless payment was made the "entire saga of the John Oxley Youth
Centre" would be reported to the CJC when those parties, in particular
Her Majesty's State public officials, had knowledge that any suspected official
misconduct associated with the JOYC Wacol (ie child abuse), was required
by law (then section 2.28 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989) to be
referred to either the CJC or police for examination;
-
And that on Thursday 7 February 1991, the Executive Government
of Queensland at Governor-in-Council meeting, allowed His Excellency the
Governor The Hon Sir Walter Campbell, AC, QC to (unwittingly) authorise the
involuntary severance Minute pertaining to Mr Peter William Coyne which was
known by certain departmental public officials not to be in accord with the
retrenchment provisions of section 28 of the Public Service Management
and Employment Act 1988, and may therefore have compromised the integrity
of the Office of Executive Council;
-
And that in so terminating Mr Coyne's public service employment
by involuntary retrenchment thereby attracting a lower taxation on his
retrenchment package, the Queensland Government may have knowingly defrauded
the Commonwealth Government of taxation revenue thereby prima facie
breaching the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and other associated
laws;
-
And that on 30 May 1990 my six-year employment as senior organiser
with the Queensland Professional Officers' Association, Union of Employees,
(QPOA) was suddenly terminated by its General Secretary Mr Donald Martindale.
He cited as a reason my handling of the "Coyne Case" claiming that
Minister Warner had lodged a complaint against me over my
"inappro-
…………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
priate and over-confrontationalist" handling of the case. I rejected this
assertion. In early March 1990 Minister Warner had me removed from the case
immediately after I learnt through her Private Secretary of the Government's
secret plans to shred the material and challenged the action. Mr Martindale
took carriage of the case (before the documents were shredded)
with full knowledge that the Heiner documents were being sought by law by
the QPOA and Mr Coyne. He did nothing to prevent their destruction;
-
And that following a conditional reinstatement on 4 June 1990,
agreeing to undergo independent arbitration by a mutually agreed arbitrator
between Mr Martindale and myself, my sacking was upheld on 2 August 1990.
An arbitrator was imposed on me by the union President Mr William Yarrow
against my will and the concerns of industrial staff of the arbitrator being
biased against employees and anti-unionist. The arbitrator could not sustain
the charges against me. He upheld the dismissal on Mr Martindale's claim
that an irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship existed between
us. I refused to accept the findings. I took the matter for ratification
on 7 August 1990 to the Association's governing Council, where the dismissal
was upheld 38-28 by the use of proxy votes. It was later discovered that
Mr Yarrow, who was ordered by Council to act with integrity by remaining
independent in oversighting the process, actively solicited proxy votes to
uphold the dismissal;
-
And that it was later discovered also that Mr Yarrow had meetings
with the Department during June-July 1990 on the "Coyne Case" with
knowledge that the Heiner Inquiry documents had been illegally shredded when
being sought by his trade union and Mr Coyne. The existence of these meetings
(known of by Mr Martindale) was withheld from me during the same time that
I was having to defend my livelihood and family's wellbeing before the arbitrator
when having been sacked because of my objection to the illegal
shredding;
-
And that on 14 December 1990 I put the circumstances
surrounding my dismissal to the CJC in writing. It also involved an alleged
rorted September 1989 ballot to the Board of the Directors of the Queensland
Professional Credit
…………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
Union Limited which I reported to the Queensland Police Service on 23 March
1990 (the same day as the shredding) having concern, as a scrutineer, that
the ballot papers were about to be shredded without a proper police examination
of prima facie multiple voting by one or more persons contrary to
the Criminal Code (Qld). - ie Ballot Stuffing. The CJC told me that
it only had jurisdiction to investigate the circumstances surrounding the
Heiner document shredding because it involved potential official misconduct
concerning public officials in a "unit of public administration." That being
the CJC's position, more evidence relating to the shredding over subsequent
months was provided to the CJC as and when it came to hand.
CORE BACKGROUND FACTS TO THE HEINER INQUIRY, THE SHREDDING AND RELATED MATTERS
-
That on 9 October 1989 an official record-of-incident was created
by then John Oxley Youth Detention Centre (JOYC) Manager Mr Peter William
Coyne. He reported on the circumstances surrounding and leading to his
instructions to handcuff to a fence railing in an open-air space for eleven
(11) hours overnight on 26 September 1989 three children (two girls aged
12 and 16 and a boy aged 14) who were in the care and protection of the Crown
while under lawful custody. He addressed his report to his immediate departmental
superior officer Mr Ian Peers and attached the records of each child to said
report as was confirmed by Mr Peers in evidence to the Forde Commission of
Inquiry into the Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions which took
sworn public evidence on the incident in February 1999;
-
That two days after the aforesaid incident on 28 September 1989,
then Department of Family Services Director-General Mr Alan C Pettigrew (now
deceased) visited JOYC at Wacol and announced to staff his intention to establish
an investigation into management problems at the Centre;
………………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
-
That on Tuesday 10 October 1989 through Queensland State Service
Union (QSSU) official Ms Janine Walker, written complaints from various JOYC
Youth Workers were handed to Mr Pettigrew (thereby becoming "public records"
within the meaning of section 5(2) of the Libraries and Archives Act
1988 and accessible pursuant to Public Service Management and Employment
Regulation 65) setting out staff concerns over management practices with
one "unsigned" complaint (in summary) stating:
"report of use of handcuffs as restraints - chains used to attach a child
to a bed - handcuffed to permanent fixtures - medication to subdue violent
behaviour - resident child attached to swimming pool fence for a whole night
- all inappropriate management."
-
That on Monday 23 October 1989 then Minister for Family Services
the Hon Beryce Ann Nelson MLA confirmed the establishment of a departmental
Inquiry, and on 2 November 1989 appointed retired Stipendiary Magistrate
Noel Oscar Heiner to carry out the task and report back to her. Terms of
reference were established. His appointment (confirmed by the Office of Crown
Law) was lawful in accordance section 12 of the Public Service Management
and Employment Act 1988. The Inquiry was to investigate, inter alia,
the suspected abuse of children both physical, psychological and sexual while
in lawful custody or under the care and protection of the Crown in the State
of Queensland, and the security of and physical improvements to the building
(eg eradication of hanging points);
-
That the Heiner Inquiry took taped and written evidence from
Centre staff on the abuse and other management practices, security related
and training matters. The Inquiry was officially closed on 12 February 1990,
upon the desire of then Departmental Acting Director-General Ms Ruth Matchett.
Its Centre Manager Mr Coyne was immediately seconded to special duties away
from the Centre (See Queensland Government Gazette No.55 3/3/90 p1088). Its
records/evidence was secretly shredded on 23 March 1990. The original complaints
reporting the abuse disposed of on 22 and 23 May 1990, leaving the unresolved
suspected criminal abuse hidden for nearly a decade;
…………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
-
That, after almost a decade of concealment, in a signed statement
dated 15 May 1998, witnessed by former Queensland Police Commissioner Noel
Newnham, and tabled in State Parliament on Tuesday 25 August 1998 (See State
Hansard p1872), Mrs Nelson confirmed that after taking Crown Law advice
in respect of establishing an inquiry she anticipated the following known
and/or suspected concerns would be investigated by Mr Heiner:
"that some boys and girls were being forced into sexual activity against
their wishes, for the benefit of others; that illicit drugs and prescribed
medications were being brought into the Centre, sometimes by staff and sometimes
by detainees who had simply walked out and returned apparently without any
permission; that some staff were physically and sexually abusing children
in their care…"
-
That Mr Frederick John Feige, JOYC Youth Worker who witnessed
the handcuffing incident (and other alleged abuses), from 1994 onwards contacted
the CJC by phone on several occasions requesting, without success, that it
investigate the suspected abuses left unresolved upon the sudden closure
of the Heiner Inquiry. On 9 October 1997 he put his complaints in writing
to the CJC requesting an investigation. His pleas were rejected again;
-
That on 3 November 1997 the CJC informed Mr Feige that
"…Given the serious nature of the matters raised by you, officers
of the Commission have given careful consideration to the practicalities
of undertaking any further investigation of these issues. It is noted that
the victims of the alleged conduct (in terms of examples of mistreatment
and the like) were juvenile offenders. I anticipate that it would now be
difficult to locate many of those persons, some of whom might now reasonably
be expected to show some reluctance towards
assisting with the inquiries of any investigative body." And that
"…Having regard to all the circumstances, while the allegations raised
by you are serious, in view of the length of time which has transpired since
the incidents in question and the change of Departmental responsibilities
since those incid-
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
ents, the Commission is of the view that it could not now justify expending
the resources which would be associated with any investigation directed towards
resolving the matters you have raised." (See Points 75 & 118);
-
That following the May 1998 Newnham investigation into what
the Heiner Inquiry was about by talking to Mr Heiner, witnesses and other
relevant people, and coverage by The Courier-Mail of his findings
and new evidence showing abuse of children at the Centre (May/June 1998 articles
and editorials), the CJC decided, on 25 May 1998, to conduct an investigation.
The CJC claimed in its media release that it had no knowledge of the child
abuse during its investigation into the shredding. (See Point 116,118, &
158). Its belated interest and action were condemned by me and others leading
to the Beattie Government (along with evidence of child abuse in other
institutions) establishing the Forde Commission of Inquiry into the Abuse
of Children in Queensland Institutions. The Forde Inquiry was only permitted,
through the Queensland Government's imposition of its Terms of Reference
(or through the Inquiry's odd restricted interpretation of them) to examine
the specific incidents of suspected abuse at the Centre but not the shredding
of evidence of the suspected abuse ordered nine years earlier by the Queensland
Government to cover it up;
-
That on 8 June 1999 the Forde Inquiry Report tabled in the
Queensland Parliament found this about the abuse of children at the Centre
at page 172-173:
"That on the order of Mr Peter Coyne, three residents of the John Oxley Youth
Detention Centre were handcuffed on the evening of 26 September 1989. Those
residents were X, Y and Z. Daniel Alderton was not one of these three residents.
That both the act of handcuffing and then the length of time that X and Y
were handcuffed constituted a possible breach by Mr Coyne of section 69(1)
of the Children's Services Act 1965 in that such conduct may have
amounted to ill-treatment, neglect or exposure of a child in a manner likely
to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to the physical or mental health
of
…………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
the child involved.
That as more than 12 months have elapsed since the date of the commiss- sion
of the offence, no prosecution for any such breach can now be made.
In light of the evidence heard by the Inquiry, such handcuffing and more
particularly the duration of it, could not be regarded as reasonable punishment,
nor was it reasonably necessary in order to dissuade the residents from behaving
in a recalcitrant or mutinous manner. As such, in the Inquiry's view, Mr
Coyne was not afforded the protection of section 69(5) of the Children's
Services Act 1965, nor of Regulation 23(10) of the Children's Services
Regulations 1966."
-
That in the Foreword of Commissioner Forde's Report, she
said:
"I urge all Queenslanders to contemplate the experiences of children in
institutions, how it came to pass that many of them were abused and
mistreated, and why it has taken so long for their stories to be told.
It was society that failed those children. In acknowledging that, we must
ensure that the same wrongs are not repeated, and that this Inquiry has a
positive outcome." (Underlining added)
-
That it is now beyond dispute that the Goss Cabinet of 5 March
1990 (with five Ministers still serving in Her Majesty's Queensland Government
which set up the Forde Inquiry and restricted its Terms of Reference to afford
themselves protection from being held accountable) not only shredded evidence
known to be required for court but shredded evidence of suspected official
misconduct for the express purpose of covering up suspected abuse of children
in the care of the Crown known at the time and ever since.
THE COVER UP AND ABUSE OF OFFICE BY VARIOUS ARMS OF HER MAJESTY'S QUEENSLAND
GOVERNMENT
-
The following matters highlight significant occasions pertaining
to each body
…………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
and/or agency when either abuse of office, official misconduct, obstruction,
unreasonable delay or dissembling may have occurred surrounding - or was
subsequently associated with - the illegal shredding and related matters.
They allowed the offences to remain unresolved, covered up and/or compounded
for almost a decade.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
-
That on 7 February 1991, at Governor in Council meeting,
His Excellency then Governor of Queensland Sir Walter Campbell AC QC
signed a Departmental Executive Government Minute with explanatory notes
involuntarily retrenching Mr Peter Coyne's career purportedly in accordance
with the provisions of section 28 of the Public Service Management and
Employment Act 1988;
-
That the content of the Minute and explanatory notes was either
questionable or contrived and not in accord with the law became evident,
when, on 7 February 1997, Solicitors and Notary John Katahanas & Company,
First Floor, Vulture Street West End Queensland 4101, acting for Mr Coyne,
lodged a Writ (No 1130 of 1997) in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The solicitor
claimed against the State of Queensland: (a) damages for breach of contract,
(b) damages for wrongful termination of employment, (c) damages for breach
of statutory duty, (d) damages for deceit, and (e) damages for negligence;
and against Ms Ruth L Matchett: (a) damages for inducing breach of contract,
(b) damages for breach of statutory duty, (c) damages for malfeasance in
public office, (d) damages for termination of employment, (e) damages for
deceit; and against both Defendants: (a) interest on the moneys claimed in
paragraphs (1) and (2) hereof pursuant to the provisions of section 47 of
the Supreme Court Act 1965, (b) costs, (c) such further and other
orders as may be just in the circumstances; (See Flower & Hart (a
firm) v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 773 (11 June 1999);
Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509). (See Point 196);
………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
-
That while knowing section 28 of the Public Service Management
and Employment Act 1998 was not complied with and the Minute and explanatory
notes were deceitful revealing a possible crime or fraud, the Minute was
put to His Excellency the Governor at Governor in Council in order to involuntary
retrench Mr Coyne by the DFSAIA. At the same time, his (Coyne's) Departmental
Minister the Hon Anne Warner (let alone all members of Cabinet) and DFSAIA
Director-General Ms Ruth Matchett knew about his suspected
maltreatment of children in his care when JOYC manager (notwithstanding whatever
defences Mr Coyne may have for such suspected illegal conduct) and presumably
failed to inform His Excellency the Governor;
-
That it may raise a reasonable suspicion among Honourable Members
that abuse of the integrity and authority of Executive Council was engaged
in by those public officials (elected and appointed), who possessed that
state of knowledge, for the improper purpose of covering up suspected official
misconduct by the (unwitting) signature of Her Majesty's representative of
Governor in the State of Queensland to fraudulently and forcibly remove Mr
Coyne from the public service instead of being held to account for his conduct
as the law required;
-
That on 4 February 1991 Ministers of State Cabinet (by later
public admission by then Environment and Heritage Minister the Hon Pat Comben
MLA on Nine Network's Sunday programme "Queensland's Secret
Shame" screened nationwide on 21 February 1999) were aware, when signing
the Executive Council Minute involuntarily terminating Mr Coyne's career,
that he (Mr Coyne) was the same public official who instructed JOYC staff
to engage in suspected maltreatment of children when the Centre Manager
(notwithstanding whatever defences Mr Coyne may have for such suspected illegal
conduct) which they, in turn, actively covered up in their order of 5 March
1990 to shred the Heiner Inquiry evidence, thereby leaving themselves open
to a reasonable suspicion of having engaged in official misconduct.
………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT - CABINET
-
That on 12 February 1990 the Executive Government sought advice
from then Crown Solicitor (Mr Kenneth M O'Shea) on whether (the Heiner Inquiry)
documents coming before Cabinet could be exempt once a Writ had been issued.
On 16 February 1990 Mr O'Shea advised Cabinet that the documents: (a) could
not attract "Cabinet/Crown privilege" as they were not brought
into being for a Cabinet purpose; (b) were "public records" within the meaning
of section 5(2) of the Libraries and Archives Act 1988; (c)
could not be withheld from disclosure once a Writ was served;
(d) were not Mr Heiner's personal property as he incorrectly
advised on 23 January 1990; and (e) could not be destroyed without
prior approval from the State Archivist;
-
That on 23 February 1990 the Acting Cabinet Secretary Mr Stuart
Tait sought urgent approval from the State Archivist to destroy
the Heiner Inquiry documents on the known false pretext that they weren't
required, as Cabinet Submission of 19 February 1990 (No 00117 - Decision
00118) [Tabled in Parliament by the Hon the Premier Peter Beattie MLA- See
State Hansard 30 July 1998 p1484] told Cabinet that solicitors were
actively seeking access to them (by law) at the time. This knowledge
was withheld from the archivist;
-
That on 5 March 1990 the Cabinet Ministers ordered the destruction
of the Heiner Inquiry documents with a state of knowledge that (a) they were
being sought by solicitors by law; (b) they were evidence for foreshadowed
court proceedings; (c) they could not be withheld from discovery once a Writ
was served; (d) they contained evidence of suspected child abuse: and did
so to: (e) prevent lawful access; (f) prevent their use in court; (g) protect
the careers of the public officials who gave evidence to Mr Heiner, thereby
covering up the suspected abuse of children, and any child abusers;
-
That the highest recent view of the High Court of Australia
in addressing obstruction of justice elements in R v Rogerson and Ors
(1992) 66 ALJR 500 Mason CJ at p.502 said: "...it is enough that an act
has a tendency to deflect or
…………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
frustrate a prosecution or disciplinary proceedings before a judicial tribunal
which the accused contemplates may possibly be implemented."
-
That in the same case Brennan and Toohey JJ at p.503 said:"
A conspiracy to pervert the course of justice may be entered into though
no proceedings before a Court or before any other competent judicial authority
are pending (See R v Sharpe [1938] 1All E.R.48 at 51] or are
even contemplated by anyone other than the conspirators"
-
That on 22 March 1990 the Acting Cabinet Secretary requested
of the State Archivist that the material be collected from the Office of
Cabinet and destroyed. He failed to mention Cabinet's real
purpose (while Cabinet knew about the child abuse and impending
litigation) for the shredding was:
(i) the inquiry had ceased and no report would be produced, therefore there
was no further need for the material;
(ii) all parties involved in the inquiry would be assured that any material
gathered would not be used in future deliberations or decisions. This applied
to Mr Coyne as well as to all other staff;
(iii) disposal of the material reduced the risk of legal action against any
party involved such as Mr Heiner and Youth Workers employed in caring for
children at John Oxley Youth Centre; (State Hansard 18 May 1993)
-
That in relation to associated matters known to be connected
with my attempts to have the truth revealed which, had full co-operation
and/or authority been allowed or forthcoming by Goss and Beattie Governments
of Queensland (and when in Opposition 1996-98) at the material time, this
cover up may have been shortened instead of being extended and
continued:-
A. The Goss Government curtailed funding in May 1991 to the Cooke Commission
of Inquiry into the Activities of Particular Queensland Unions at a time
when Commissioner Marshall Cooke QC was investigating the circumstances
surrounding my dismissal which involved the shredding. Its
………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
premature closure occurred at a time when justice had not been served. It
occurred around the same time, when, on 8 May 1991, DFSAIA Director-General
Ms Ruth Matchett and the Hon Minister Warner MLA sought "confidential" advice
from Crown Law regarding representation by independent senior counsel from
the Bar (specifically declining normal Crown Law representation) for their
anticipated subpoena to and/or appearance before the Inquiry (a) about my
dismissal; (b) the shredding and the "Coyne case" , and having been advised
by Crown Law on 9 May 1991 that, as a matter of precedent, should adverse
findings be made against them, their costs could not be covered by the Crown;
B. The Goss Government declined to implement the Cooke Inquiry recommendations
relevant to my case that official misconduct in certain Queensland unions
be brought under the jurisdiction of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 (Qld)
and that all evidence and exhibits pertaining to my hearing be referred to
the CJC for consideration, when it would have known that any prospective
examination would involve the Government itself;
C. The Goss Government appointed, pursuant to the provisions of the
Superannuation (Government and Other Employees) Act 1988, as the
representative of the Government of Queensland Ms Roslyn Mary Kinder to the
Board of Trustees of the Government Officers' Superannuation Scheme (1
June 1994 up to and including 31 May 1997 - Queensland Government Gazette
No 43 27 May 1994 p690). At the time it was known that she
was subject to a police investigation (Police File MS93/25262 - commenced
on 3 September 1993 by referral from then Queensland's Attorney-General the
Hon Dean Wells MLA to Police Commissioner Jim O'Sullivan) concerning possible
misappropriation of monies from the QPOASF involving the (odd) disappearance
of four National Mutual Life (NML) benefit withdrawal documents as covered
in 8th Report of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation
(August 1993);
D. Then Queensland Attorney-General the Hon Dean Wells MLA on or about
16 July 1994 appointed Mr Noel Francis Nunan as a Stipendiary
…………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
Magistrate to the central Brisbane region at a time when allegations were
with the police pointing towards his possible involvement, when previously
as a barrister, in a possible conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
(as well as possibly tampering with evidence [ie the CJC tape recording of
the Lindeberg/Nunan interview at CJC Headquarters on 11 August 1992 - See
Point 195] when reviewing the shredding while under contract by the CJC).
The Queensland Justices of the Peace Association (QJA) attempted to
delay his appointment out of respect for the Magistrate's Bench by writing
to then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland His Honour John
Macrossan AC but without success, being told that the appointment discretion
rested solely with Queensland's Attorney-General;
E. The Goss Government refused to review my case in September 1994 upon the
all-party unanimous recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on Public
Interest Whistleblowing (Point 1.13 p5);
F. The Goss Government declined to cooperate with the Senate Select Committee
on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases in respect of its investigation into the
Heiner shredding, including the non-cooperation of the Queensland Police
Service in a hitherto secret "whole-of-government" agreement revealed
when the Hon Santo Santoro MLA tabled the leaked Cabinet-in-confidence submission
in Parliament on 21 February 1995;
G. The Goss Government provided important evidence (Document 13) to the Senate
Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases on 31 July 1995. In the
part released, it revealed (in part) child abuse at the Centre under Mr Coyne's
management. It withheld critical evidence (on the entire memorandum dated
7 October 1989) showing that Mr Coyne was informing his superiors about
handcuffing children to fences overnight and still enjoying their confidence.
That modus operandi by the Goss Government brings into focus, for
the first time, one of the real motives behind the shredding (notwithstanding
union pressure from party
……………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
(ALP) contacts on the Goss Government to destroy the material to protect
the careers of the public officials concerned and to remove Mr Coyne). It
was "to destroy evidence of State authorised abuse of children
held in the care of the State and that Mr Coyne was to be the scapegoat for
the Goss Government irrespective of his legal rights";
H. The Beattie Opposition on 20 May 1996 refused to provide relevant Cabinet
submissions and documents relating to the shredding for independent examination
by barristers Messrs Morris QC and Howard, appointed by the Borbidge Government
on 7 May 1996 to investigate evidence held "on the papers" and to
determine whether or not a public inquiry should be held into this matter;
I. The Beattie Government refused to table in Parliament the Cabinet Attendance
Register, denying access to who attended the 5 March 1990 Cabinet
Meeting (needed before possible criminal charges could be laid);
J. The Beattie Government in August 1998 drafted the Terms of Reference of
the Forde Commission of Inquiry into the Abuse of Children in Queensland
Institutions, preventing any investigation into the shredding of the Heiner
Inquiry documents containing evidence of suspected child abuse, when sitting
in Cabinet were five Ministers who ordered the shredding on 5 March 1990
to cover up the suspected child abuse;
K. The Beattie Government (ie Queensland Premier the Hon Peter Beattie MLA)
misled Parliament on 4 March 1999 to amend and defeat (44-40) an Opposition
motion which sought to establish a commission of inquiry to investigate the
circumstances surrounding the shredding and possible ministerial impropriety
of five Ministers (ie the Hon Messrs Hamill, Braddy, Gibbs, Mackenroth, and
Wells) in possible criminal conduct;
L. The Beattie Government on 10 June 1999 used its numbers (43-42) to prevent
any examination of Premier Beattie's misleading statements to Parliament
(re Points K above & 191) by the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges
Committee.
…………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
-
That, the Morris/Howard Report tabled in Parliament on 10 October
1996, found serious "open to conclude" criminal offences (sections
129, 132 and/or 140, 92(1) and 204 of the Criminal Code (Qld) and
official misconduct sections 31 and 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989)
"on the papers." The offences invited jail sentences ranging from
one to seven years, and prima facie affected the Hon Minister Warner
MLA, certain DFSAIA senior officials (and potentially Her Majesty's an entire
Executive Government of 5 March 1990). It recommended an immediate commission
of inquiry to get to the whole truth on my complaints. The new Borbidge
Government failed to establish one. After taking advice from Mr Royce Miller
QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Borbidge Government let
the matter die when the DPP purportedly advised (in absence of seeing his
actual advice) that it was not in the public interest to pursue the matter
any further despite the delay having been brought about by a systemic cover
up and the statute of limitations having no application in these "open
to conclude" criminal offences.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
-
That on 5 March 1990 then Queensland Attorney-General the Hon
Dean Wells MLA (the first law officer in the State of Queensland and guardian
of the public interest) - in the absence of any contrary evidence as per
the Cabinet Attendance Register - participated in the illegal shredding decision
for the express purpose of deliberately denying a citizen his lawful rights,
(notwithstanding covering up suspected child abuse) and thereafter participated
in Cabinet discussions to defend the decision during its cover up lasting
years; (See Points 190 & 193);
-
That, as the Crown acts in perpetuity as the Fountain of Justice,
a heavy duty may rest on any prospective procedural consideration of this
Petition by the Office of the Attorney-General. The petitioner and public
are aware that the current Queensland Attorney-General the Hon Matt Foley
MLA participated in the debate on 4 March 1999 on this matter defeating
an Opposition motion calling for a commission of inquiry. It was his undoubted
right to speak and publicly put his considered view. However, having put
his view against holding an inquiry in Parliament while holding Her Majesty's
Queensland public office of Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, it
might now be reasonably put that when performing his statutory role in any
consideration of this Petition, (as Her Majesty's first law officer in the
State of Queensland) that he may already be tainted or predisposed to a certain
outcome. Accordingly, in the eyes of any reasonable person with knowledge
of the facts, he may now find himself labouring under an unfortunate,
unavoidable, but unacceptable, perception of bias in a matter (seen at its
very least) of suspected official misconduct affecting the administration
of justice in Queensland. To proceed under such circumstances may not serve
the interests of justice, instill public confidence in the impartial
administration of justice, or restore public confidence in our system of
government, and therefore, with great respect to Her Majesty's Queensland
Attorney-General the Hon Matt Foley MLA, he may have to disqualify himself
from this matter and recommend and/or seek consideration of the Petition
elsewhere. [See Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association [1983] 151
CLR 288 per Mason, Murphy, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ at 294-294; and Lord
Denning in Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd. v. Lannon (1969)
1 QB 577 at p599]. Under these unusual circumstances, it therefore gives
sound cause, in the interests of justice and transparency in public office,
for Parliament itself to appoint an independent Special Prosecutor (the person
agreed to by the respective parties after consultation) who could act with
full power and authority from outside the boundaries and constraints of the
public administration of Queensland with sufficient resources to publicly
examine, execute prosecutions where warranted and make findings and
recommendations on the content of this Petition and related matters in order
to finally resolve the Heiner Affair and to restore public confidence in
the administration of justice in Queensland.
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES AND ABORIGINAL AND ISLANDER AFFAIRS
-
Throughout the life of the Heiner Affair, certain DFSAIA public
officials, by weight of evidence, appear to have assiduously corrupted due
process and abused their public office for their own purposes and that of
the Executive Government of Queensland to obstruct known rights of citizens
and abused children, and then to engage in a concerted cover up. That such
prima facie corrupt conduct should have gone unchecked for so long
means that it could not have existed or survived without systemic corruption
being present, with its ultimate patronage residing in the Executive branch
of the Queensland Government while being assisted in that enterprise by the
Office of Crown Law and other Crown agencies;
-
That other core elements showing suspected abuse of office by
certain DFSAIA public officials have been set out in my earlier Petition,
tabled in the Queensland Parliament by the Independent Member for Gladstone
Mrs Liz Cunningham MLA on 17 November 1995 (Notice of Business No 565), in
which I sought leave to appear before the Bar of Parliament. While not seeking
to limit the comprehensiveness of this Petition, Honourable Members may wish
to read both in conjunction to better appreciate the unfolding landscape
of this matter since November 1995;
-
That on 2 January 1990 DFSAIA Acting Director-General Ms Ruth
Matchett was made aware by Deputy Director-General Mr Ian Peers that a
departmental file existed containing the Heiner Inquiry Terms of Reference
and the original (Heiner Inquiry) complaints against Mr Coyne's management
(including a complaint on matters of suspected child abuse) and yet she wilfully
misled to him (Mr Coyne) about their alleged non-existence on 17 January,
16 February, and 22 May 1990 thereby obstructing his legal rights;
-
That on 16 February and 19 March 1990 DFSAIA Director-General
Ms Matchett misled Mr Coyne and his solicitor into falsely believing that
the
…………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
Government's position regarding access to (a) parts of the Heiner Inquiry
transcripts relating to Mr Coyne; and (b) the original complaints, was
"interim" and that once final Crown Law advice was received,
they would be informed. Through the agency of that official assurance based
on deceit and abuse of office, the service of the Writ was forestalled until
all the evidence had been secretly destroyed;
-
That on 14 February 1990, Mr Coyne's solicitor, acting on his
client's instruction, phoned Mr Trevor Walsh, DFSAIA Executive Officer to
Ms Ruth Matchett, and told him not to destroy anything pertaining to Mr Coyne
legal claim on relevant documents [ie (i) parts of the Heiner Inquiry transcripts
relating to Mr Coyne; and (ii) the original complaints]. Mr Walsh recorded
this unequivocal notice of impending court proceedings conveyed in their
phone conversation in his memorandum written on the same day: In part it
said:
"Mr Berry made it quite clear that there is still an intention to proceed
to attempt to gain access to the Heiner documents and any departmental documents
relating to the allegations against Mr Coyne and that they have every intention
to pursue the matter through the courts."
-
That on 15 February 1990 Mr Coyne's solicitor put in writing
to DFSAIA Acting Director-General Ms Ruth Matchett confirmation of having
served due notice on the Crown of impending court proceedings in which the
Heiner Inquiry documents (and original complaints) were the central item
of evidence said over the phone on the previous day;
-
That on 23 February 1990 a meeting was held between DFSAIA Acting
Director-General Ms Ruth Matchett and myself (witnessed by DFSAIA Senior
Industrial Relations Officer Ms Sue Crook) at which Mr Coyne's impending
court proceedings were discussed. It concerned access to (i) parts of the
Heiner Inquiry transcripts relating to Mr Coyne; and (ii) the original
complaints. Ms Matchett did not (a) express any ignorance of the court
proceedings under discussion; (b) say that she already had "final" advice
(ie 23 January 1990) that the Heiner Inquiry documents could be shredded
"…providing no legal action
…………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
had commenced requiring the production of the material"; and (c) say that
the documents under active discuss for court action were, on that same day,
with the State Archivist from the Cabinet Secretariat seeking her
urgent approval to be destroyed on the (known false) pretext
that they "…weren't required or pertinent to the public record."
She assured me that the documents were safe with the Office of Crown
Law, and that she was still waiting for advice;
-
That knowledge of Cabinet's decision to shred the Heiner Inquiry
documents was withheld from Mr Coyne, his solicitors and unions by DFSAIA
Acting Director-General Ms Ruth Matchett up to and until it was too late
for those interested parties to seek injunctive relief to preserve the evidence
so that justice could be served;
-
That on 18 April 1990 DFSAIA Acting Director-General Ms Ruth
Matchett was advised by Crown Law that Mr Coyne did enjoy a legal right to
access the original complaints pursuant to Public Service Management and
Employment Regulation 65 but with intent obstructed his rights by failing
to tell him or his solicitors immediately (or ever) that the Crown had
acknowledged his claim was correct according to law;
-
That on 8 May 1990 DFSAIA Acting Director-General Ms Ruth Matchett
and her Principal Liaison Officer Mr Donald A C Smith sought assistance from
the Office of Crown Law to avoid complying with Mr Coyne's legal rights as
set out in earlier advice of 18 April 1990; and that on 18 May 1990, Crown
Law provided advice "…in line with your instructions…" in
accordance with Ms Matchett's "…expressed intention" (and attached
draft letters) assisting in the unlawful disposal of the original complaints.
Crown Law advised that before the records were disposed of, approval from
the State Archivist was required;
-
That in providing its advice of 18 May 1990, the Office of Crown
Law knew, by having seen the complaints, that they contained
unresolved evidence of suspected child abuse from an "unsigned" JOYC Youth
Worker (See Point 19), and knew that (a) Mr Coyne had a legal
right of access; (b) Mr Coyne was seeking to exercise his right of access
from as early as 8 February 1990; (c) the records were required for court;
and (d) the law required such misconduct
…………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
evident "on the papers" of maltreatment of children to be reported
to the CJC or police for examination;
-
That on 22 May 1990, DFSAIA Acting Director-General Ms Ruth
Matchett altered the wording of the draft letters supplied by the Office
of Crown Law (to be sent to the parties concerned) to eliminate Crown Law's
acknowledgement contained in them that Public Service Management and
Employment Regulation 65 had applicability, and sent letters to Mr Coyne,
his solicitors and other parties falsifying that no records being sought
by them remained in the Government's possession and control, when in fact
she knew that she still possessed photocopies of the original
complaints which had been returned to her by the Office of Crown Law attached
to the advice of 18 April 1990;
-
That on 22 May 1990, in specific contravention of what the law
demanded as stated in Crown Law advice to her, DFSAIA Acting Director-General
Ms Ruth Matchett unlawfully disposed of the original complaints (defined
as "public records" under section 5(2) of the Libraries and Archives Act
1988) without prior approval from the State Archivist [required under
section 55(1) of the Libraries and Archives Act 1988]. She unlawfully
returned them to Ms Janine Walker, Industrial Services Director of the Queensland
State Services Union. In so doing, she acted contrary to her legal obligations
and obstructed justice for Mr Coyne and the abused children concerned, and
may have engaged in suspected official misconduct;
-
That on 23 May 1990 DFSAIA Principal Liaison Officer Mr Donald
A C Smith unlawfully shredded the photocopies (defined as "public records"
under section 5(2) of the Libraries and Archives Act 1988) without
prior approval from the State Archivist [required under section 55(1) of
the Libraries and Archives Act 1988]. Afterwards he recorded his unlawful
act by personal notation on the DFSAIA/Crown Solicitor's advice of 18 April
1990, by which act he obstructed justice for Mr Coyne and the abused children
concerned;
-
That on 1 November 1990 at a confidential meeting between Ms
Ruth Matchett and Mr Coyne (witnessed and recorded by senior DFSAIA public
official Mr Leigh Carpenter), Mr Coyne discussed his concerns about staff
………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
putting their complaints to Mr Heiner about the handcuffing children at the
Centre. In the memorandum it recorded that "…Ms Matchett stated that
no one had suggested that he had done anything wrong"; (Note Point 26)
-
That on 10 January 1991 a meeting occurred between certain senior
DFSAIA public officials and certain QPOA officials who threatened to take
the department to the CJC over the "entire saga of the John Oxley
Youth Centre" unless money was paid to Mr Coyne (to which there was no
legal entitlement and/or basis for claim). After the threat was made, DFSAIA
Director-General Ms Ruth Matchett and senior DFSAIA officials (together with
certain QPOA officials) concocted an ex gratia/special payment in
the sum of $27,190.00 to be paid over and above Mr Coyne's normal retrenchment
entitlements. It was known that the CJC's jurisdiction under the Criminal
Justice Act 1989 pertained solely to matters of suspected official misconduct
and corruption, not industrial dispute matters, and therefore, [under then
section 2.28 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989] whatever "suspected
official misconduct" the QPOA officials had in mind, it should have been
reported immediately to the CJC by Ms Ruth Matchett as the Principal Officer
of "a unit of public administration" instead of concealing it through a
prima facie extortion exercise against taxpayers' money;
-
That on 7 February 1991 then DFSAIA Minister the Hon Anne Warner
MLA authorised the payment of $27,190.00 in breach of the Financial
Administration and Audit Act 1977 being outside her known spending-limit
entitlement;
-
That payment was entered into when DFSAIA Director-General Ms
Ruth Matchett's state of knowledge consisted of (a) DFSAIA had obstructed
Mr Coyne's rights through the shredding, thereby preventing access to (i)
the Heiner Inquiry documents; (ii) the original complaints; (iii) photocopies
of the original complaints; and (b) believing that Mr Coyne had unlawfully
and/or inappropriately maltreated (handcuffed and isolated) children in the
care of the
…………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
State for excessive periods (notwithstanding whatever defences Mr Coyne may
have for such suspected illegal conduct) [See Point 26] and removing him
from
the Centre; and (c) her decision not to reappoint him to the position of
Centre manager;
-
That, together with the Office of Crown Law and DFSAIA
Director-General Ms Ruth Matchett (both possessing awareness of (a) and (b)
above), the Crown Deed of Settlement terms were settled on 12 February 1991.
It stated that as a condition of being paid public money it would be agreed
(amongst other things) between the parties (the State of Queensland and Mr
Coyne) that:
"…2. The Claimant (Mr Coyne) will not canvass the issues surrounding
his relocation from John Oxley Youth Centre, Wacol to Brisbane or the events
leading up to and surrounding his relocation with any officer of the Department
of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs or in the press or
otherwise in public and will forbear to take any action in any forum whatsoever
which may have jurisdiction in respect of any of such issues and events;
3. The terms of this Agreement will not be disclosed by either party without
written consent of the other first being obtained;
…5. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing provisions the
Claimant shall not permit or allow the events leading up to and surrounding
his relocation to Brisbane to be the subject of any autobiography, biography
or any published article. (Underlining added)
-
That the aforesaid Deed of Settlement was signed on 12 February
1991 on behalf of the State of Queensland by DFSAIA Director-General Ms Ruth
L Matchett; the Claimant Mr Peter Coyne; and witnessed by DFSAIA Director
of Finance and Organisational Services Mr Gary Clarke;
-
That on 8 May 1991 DFSAIA Director-General Ms Ruth Matchett,
with concurrence of DFSAIA Minister the Hon Anne Warner MLA wrote to the
…………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
Crown Solicitor indicating that the circumstances surrounding my dismissal
(which included my handling of the "Coyne case" [ie the Heiner Inquiry, the
shredding and related matters]) were to come under investigation by the
Cooke Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of Certain Queensland
Unions. Both she and her Minister, were seeking representation "…at
an early stage in any proceedings" and it (their legal representation)
"…be briefed out to a private solicitor and the private bar"
to an experienced Queen's Counsel. In so seeking representation away
from Crown Law, Ms Ruth Matchett knew (but Crown Law
didn't) that she had wilfully acted contrary to Crown Law instructions on
22 and 23 May 1990 by disposing of the original complaints (and photocopies)
without first obtaining approval from the State Archivist pursuant to section
55(1) of the Libraries and Archives Act 1988 whose breach was still
within the statute of limitations until 22 and 23 May 1991 respectively;
-
That on 9 May 1991 the Crown Solicitor advised DFSAIA
Director-General Ms Ruth Matchett (and Minister the Hon Anne Warner MLA)
that while he had "…no objection" to representation for them
by a private solicitor and counsel at the private bar, DFSAIA Minister the
Hon Anne Warner MLA may need (a) to make a submission to Cabinet on the subject;
(b) first talk with her colleague Queensland Attorney-General the Hon Dean
Wells MLA; but (c) that if any party was found to have engaged in illegal
conduct, Crown funding would be withdrawn by precedent. Within days, the
Goss Government refused further funding to the Cooke Inquiry preventing it
from fully examining the circumstances surrounding my dismissal and before
either Ms Ruth Matchett or Minister the Hon Anne Warner MLA could be called
to the witness box by either counsel for the Inquiry, or my counsel to be
cross-examined over the shredding and related matters;
-
That on 30 November 1992 DFSAIA Director-General Ms Ruth Matchett
withheld important evidence of Mr Coyne's legal action in her response to
the CJC concerning the legality payment of $27,190.00 in spite of and after
her Principal Liaison Officer Mr Donald A C Smith had assured Crown Law Legal
Officer Mr John Tate on 25 November 1992 that it would be mentioned in her
…………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
response to the CJC;
-
That on 18 May 1993, in a statement responding to a Question
on Notice from
then Deputy Opposition Leader the Hon Kevin R Lingard MLA on the circumstances
surrounding the shredding, then DFSAIA Minister the Hon Anne Warner MLA misled
Parliament by withholding relevant facts;
-
That on 12 October 1994, after the Queensland Police Service
had interviewed me on three separate occasions on the alleged criminality
surrounding the Heiner Inquiry documents shredding, then DFSAIA Minister
the Hon Anne Warner MLA, DFSAIA Director-General Ms Matchett and her Executive
team met at departmental facility "Yungaba" [Kangaroo Point, Brisbane]
and discussed containing strategies on "Issues Politically Damaging" which
inter alia included "Heiner/Coyne/Lindenberg [sic];"
-
That, in absence of any contrary evidence, DFSAIA Director-General
Ms Ruth Matchett, DFSAIA Freedom of Information (FOI) Manager Ms Sue Horton
and other public officials attached to the DFSAIA/FOI Division, did not object
to Mr Donald A C Smith conducting the internal review process under the
Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) on my June 1994 FOI application
in December 1994, while knowing that he had a conflict of interest in the
matter when deciding to withhold relevant public records from me;
-
That in late-1994/early-1995 DFSAIA Director-General Ms Ruth
Matchett approved of at least one visit to her Department by Mr Michael Barnes,
CJC Chief Complaints Officer, and gave him access to the "Heiner
Documents" files held under the control of Ms Carmel Finn DFSAIA Director
of Information Management; and that his visit/s remained undisclosed until
12 March 1999 when Mr Barnes was obliged, by unexpected and unavoidable
circumstances over more than four years later, to admit to FOI Commissioner
Fred Albietz that a visit/s occurred before he gave evidence
to the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases. During
his visit/s, Mr Barnes read "…memoranda between Ms Matchett and Minister
Warner…" which, according to him, inculpated all members of State
Cabinet in criminal
…………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
conduct (applying legal argument used by Messrs Morris QC and Howard). While
being lawfully bound to act impartially [pursuant to section 22 of the
Criminal Justice Act 1989], Mr Barnes purportedly saw nothing "on
the papers" to cause him any concern about the existence of suspected
official misconduct associated with the shredding; but during his undisclosed
visit/s he did become aware of the unresolved child abuse on the files. Mr
Barnes refused to act on the maltreatment of children held in the care of
the Crown claiming that the incidents were more than two years old. (See
The Courier-Mail 24 August 1999 Letters to the Editor). The CJC withheld
its knowledge of child abuse from the Australian Senate in 1995 and 1996,
and the Connolly/Ryan Judicial Review into the Effectiveness of the CJC in
1997, and only acknowledged its true state of knowledge following an article
written by journalist Mr Bruce Grundy in The Courier-Mail on 18 August
1999;
-
That in mid-May 1996, some 18 months after
Mr Barnes had inspected the same material, barristers Messrs Morris QC
and Howard had this to say concerning the impact the evidence "on the
papers" had on them when conducting their examination of the files. At
page 19 of their Report its says:
"…At a particular stage in the course of our investigations, it became
apparent to us that there appeared to be considerable substance in Mr Lindeberg's
allegations, particularly as regards the destruction of the Heiner documents.
When we examined this aspect of the matter more closely, we formed the
view that - for reasons now set out in Part II of this Report -
substantial grounds exist for suspecting that serious criminal offences
were committed in connection with the destruction of the Heiner
documentations.." (Underlining added)
-
That during hearings by the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved
Whistleblower Cases in 1995 on the Heiner shredding matter, DFSAIA
Director-General Ms Ruth Matchett (on behalf of or under the instructions
of the Goss Government): (a) withheld certain [incriminating] Crown Solicitor's
…………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
advices of 18 April and 18 May 1990 relevant to the Senate Committee's
commission; and (b) tampered with Document 13 [sent to the Senate on 31 July
1995] by not providing the document intact along with attachments pertaining
to the handcuffing incident of 26 September 1989 (which had the effect and/or
intent of scapegoating and publicly discrediting Mr Coyne) when the entire
document showed that he was informing his immediate DFSAIA superior officer
Mr Ian Peers and still enjoying his confidence;
-
That on 29 October 1996 DFSAIA public officials Messrs Donald
A C Smith, Trevor Walsh and Gary Clarke (all facing possible criminal charges
flowing out of the findings of the Morris/Howard Report) wrote to then Department
of Families, Youth and Community Care (DFYCC) Director-General The Revd Allan
C Male seeking an interview with "…an independent person" in
the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions so that "…some
of the areas raised may well be able to be resolved very simply which may
result in saving certain costs associated with an inquiry"; and that
on 22 November 1996, a copy of that letter and a departmental memorandum
prepared by Ms Carmel Finn, DFSAIA Director of the Information Services Division,
commenting on the Morris/Howard Report findings, were sent to Mr Royce Miller
QC, DPP, by Revd Male;
-
That on 28 December 1998, a 16 year-old aboriginal boy Mr Bobbie
Yarrie committed suicide around midnight on a hanging point in his Lawson
House cell at the Centre. The hanging points had been identified as an area
of improvement in the building design to the Heiner Inquiry by JOYC staff
but were ignored after the Inquiry's closure and the shredding by those in
authority for nearly a decade until the boy's death. The same boy, who was
known to be troubled with a suicide ideation, had attempted suicide by hanging
before at the Centre. He had been previously orally raped by older inmates
while a detainee at the Centre as reported by a former Youth Worker on Nine
Network's Sunday programme screened nationwide on 28 March 1999 "Neglect
and Cover Ups" as a follow up to "Queensland's Secret Shame."
…………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
OFFICE OF CROWN LAW
"No power ought to be above the laws."
Cicero, de domo sua, 57 B.C.
-
The proper functioning of the Office of Crown Law in government
under a Constitutional Monarchy is central to all precepts and norms that
Her Majesty's citizens are all equal before the law. The people are entitled
to be confident that Her Majesty's Law officers (and, who, at one and same
time, being duly sworn officers of the court to uphold the law), in performing
their public duty, will always respect the administration of justice, ascertain
the law and ensure that it is complied with faithfully, timely and equally
once it is known by all public administration parties from Ministers of the
Crown, Departmental Directors-General to base-grade public servants;
-
The failure of the Office of Crown Law to properly and impartially
state the law and to comply with it at relevant times in this matter assisted
and exacerbated the corruption which lies at the heart of the shredding;
and by being and/or having a perception of being so compromised in this matter,
the Office of Crown Law can no longer offer Parliament requisite impartial
advice relevant to this Petition (as might normally occur) or to any final
resolution of the matter, as its own conduct cannot reasonably escape public
scrutiny; (See Point 193);
-
That under equality before the law in our system of justice,
the bringing of criminal charges against any person found to have broken
the law when found or claimed to have been acting on legal advice is not
stayed or prevented by the comfort or existence of such advice but may, upon
the subsequent charging and conviction of said person in a court of law,
go towards mitigation in sentencing;
-
That on 23 January 1990, while (incorrectly) believing that
the Heiner Inquiry documents (transcripts, submissions, tapes, computers
disks and notes) were Mr Heiner's "private property," Crown Law advised DFSAIA
Acting Director-General Ms Matchett that the material could be shredded as
long as "…no legal
…………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
action has been commenced which requires the production of those files" but
the destruction did not occur at that stage whereuponafter legal circumstances
changed and the Crown Solicitor subsequently reached "…the better
view" on 16 February 1990 that the Heiner Inquiry documents always
belonged to the Crown and were therefore "public records" within the
meaning of section 5(2) of the Libraries and Archives Act 1988;
-
That on 26 February 1990, fully cognisant of the legal demands
on (a) the Heiner Inquiry documents; and (b) the original complaints, the
Crown Solicitor advised Ms Matchett that the matter (ie Mr Coyne's legal
demand for access by law) "…cannot advance further from the Department's
point of view until Cabinet makes a decision"; and allowed the Executive
Government of Queensland to order the destruction of the Heiner Inquiry documents
on 5 March 1990 to prevent their use in court without protest (then or
afterwards) in order to respect and protect the administration of justice
and the Crown's paramount duty of being "the model litigant;"
-
That as from 19 March 1990, having been supplied with photocopies
of the original complaints (one of which gave prima facie evidence
of child abuse)
by Ms Matchett, as an agent of the Queensland Government legally bound to
care for children held in the control of the Crown, the Office of Crown Law
assisted in the concealment of unresolved suspected child abuse conduct in
contravention of Article 1 of the United Nations International Torture
Convention which defines the term "torture" as:
"…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,
is intentionally inflicted on a person for such a purpose as obtaining from
him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act
he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on
discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering, is inflicted by
or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official or other person acting in an
…………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising from, inherent
in or incidental to lawful sanctions..."
-
That on 19 March 1990, DFSAIA Acting Director-General Ms Ruth
Matchett informed Crown Law of Cabinet's 5 March 1990 decision to destroy
the Heiner Inquiry documents without any reaction from Crown Law [notwithstanding
its overriding duty to the courts and the administration of justice] to preserve
the records from actual destruction (which took place four (4) days
later on 23 March 1990) when Crown Law knew it was evidence
for court;
-
That on 19 March 1990, DFSAIA Acting Director-General Ms Ruth
Matchett, already aware of (a) Cabinet's 5 March 1990 decision to destroy
the Heiner Inquiry documents; and (b) a legal claim dated 8 February 1990
on parts of the Heiner Inquiry transcripts relating to Mr Coyne by his
solicitors, wrote to the solicitors that she was seeking on-going legal advice
(re his legal claims on the material without any qualification [ie (i) the
Heiner
Inquiry document; (ii) the original complaints]) and would inform them once
she had the final advice. She failed to inform the solicitors that (a) the
evidence being sought by them was about to be shredded to prevent its use
in court; and (b) she already had the so-called "final" advice of
23 January 1990 - which would be used
retrospectively (by the Goss Cabinet, Ms Ruth Matchett and
the CJC) as justification to shred and an exculpatory shield to criminal
charges because it advised that the material could be shredded providing
"…no legal action had commence" without any consideration as
to whether it was (i) wrong at law; (ii) based on incomplete evidence; (iii)
based on a false premise over the true legal status of the material, (iv)
redundant within days because of changed legal circumstances - all of
which applied. According to the CJC, its mere existence was enough to
clear everyone associated with the Heiner document shredding of official
misconduct. Acting in good faith - even on bad advice - became superior to
the law;
-
That on 19 March 1990, DFSAIA Acting Director-General Ms Ruth
Matchett sought Crown Law advice on the disposal of the original
com-
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
plaints. She enclosed photocopies of them thereby providing the Office of
Crown Law with firsthand knowledge that allegations of suspected
child abuse rested at the heart of activities at JOYC; and that they (the
allegations) remained unresolved by Ms Ruth Matchett's decision to terminate
the Heiner Inquiry. Crown Law must have known (or by the
application of constructive knowledge under its duty of care and obligation
to uphold the law), that supporting evidence of that suspected abuse against
children was contained in the Heiner Inquiry documents about to be shredded,
having been so ordered by the Goss Government Cabinet on 5 March 1990 to
(a) prevent its use in court; and (b) to protect the careers of the public
officials concerned. The Office of Crown Law failed to intervene to preserve
the evidence of suspected criminal conduct when a clear opportunity existed
and legal obligation required it;
-
That on 18 April 1990, Crown Law advised DFSAIA Director-General
Ms Ruth Matchett that Mr Coyne enjoyed a legal right of access to the original
complaints under Public Service Management and Employment Regulation 65.
Crown Law advised that it would be artificial to contend that, even though
they were not on his personal file, that they were not departmental records
held on Mr Coyne and therefore not accessible. Crown Law advised that
Public Service Management and Employment Regulation 65 was applicable
as Mr Coyne's solicitor and his union always said it was.
The photocopies ("public records" within the meaning of section 5(2) of the
Libraries and Archives Act 1988) were physically returned to the
department with the 18 April 1990 advice, being mentioned in the final paragraph
of the said advice;
-
That on 18 May 1990, with knowledge that Mr Coyne had a right
to access the original complaints (which he was wishing to exercise) and
that they were evidence for impending court proceedings, and acting in response
to DFSAIA Acting Director-General Ms Ruth Matchett's brief of not wanting
to
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
comply with the law (as known and defined on 18 April 1990 between solicitor
and client), the Office of Crown Law provided (a) compliant advice; and (b)
deceitful draft letters to achieve that illegal purpose; and has thereby
undermined its public trust, integrity and advice ever since in this matter
by becoming party to an unlawful act. At the very least, it gives rise to
the existence of a reasonable suspicion of official misconduct in this matter;
-
That on 21 March 1995 in response to a submission by my counsel
(now High Court of Australia Justice) Mr Ian Callinan QC on 23 February 1995
to the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases, Mr O'Shea,
the Crown Solicitor, composed a memorandum to then Attorney-General and Minister
for the Arts the Hon Dean Wells MLA addressing various legal points made
by Mr Ian Callinan QC in his criticism of the shredding and the CJC's submission
and handling of the matter. In addressing the shredding and the State Archivist's
role, Mr O'Shea said:
"…The Libraries and Archives Act 1988 reposes a wide discretion
in the Chief Archivist to authorize destruction of "Public records" (which
is what the Crown's ownership of the Heiner Documents made them). Cabinet
clearly had the right to seek their destruction and, although I did not advise
her on the question, the Chief Archivist was clearly within her rights in
authorizing their destruction. In a free society, a person (and this includes
the Crown) does not need to find an enabling law to enable that person to
destroy his or her own property.
In a free society a person (which, as I said, includes the Crown) may do
what he likes with his property, including destroying it, unless there is
some positive law preventing its destruction.
Had the Heiner Documents been the property of Mr Heiner, and not the Crown's,
he could have destroyed them without the Chief
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
Archivist's permission but, because we ultimately came to the conclusion
that the property in them was in the Crown, the Chief Archivist's permission
was necessary and, in my opinion, she was quite entitled in the circumstances
to grant this permission."
-
That in offering his defence to Mr Callinan QC's submission,
Mr O'Shea, the Crown Solicitor, failed to address the deception
embodied in the information supplied by the Goss Cabinet on 23 February 1990
to the State Archivist upon which she approved the destruction. He failed
to address the fact that section 55(1) of the Libraries and Archives Act
1988 does not and was never meant to override section 129 of the
Criminal Code (Qld) - Destruction of evidence - and legally
permit evidence which "is or may be required in a judicial proceeding"
to be wilfully destroyed to prevent its use in court, up to the very moment
a of Writ being lodged or served when the party in the possession of the
relevant records has been already properly informed by a solicitor (an officer
of the court) that the records in question should not be destroyed and will
be required as evidence in impending court proceedings; (See Morris/Howard
Report pp96-106 & Point 195)
-
That in offering his defence to Mr Callinan QC's submission,
and having been previously made aware on no later than 19 March 1990, if
not as early as October 1989, that the accusations against Mr Coyne involved
suspected criminal conduct of child abuse, Mr O'Shea, the Crown Solicitor,
said this in respect of granting access to the Heiner Inquiry
documents:
"…whilst the 37 witnesses who gave their evidence to Mr Heiner (many
of whom, as I said, would doubtless have seen themselves as Whistleblowers)
would certainly have been protected by such retrospective legislation against
Defamation proceedings, it would not have protected Mr Coyne (for whom Mr
Lindeberg was acting) and others from the odium of whatever accusations
were made against them, and these may have been quite defamatory.
……………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
In short, Mr Callinan's submission was that the incoming Government should
have adopted a course which was in my submission impractical and, in fact,
had it been followed, could have led to considerable injustice."
(Underlining added)
-
That on 21 March 1995, the Crown Solicitor - a central agent
in upholding the Crown's duty to be the perpetual Fountain of Justice - defended,
in a statement tabled in the Queensland Parliament on 30 March 1995 by then
Attorney-General the Hon Dean Wells MLA, the shredding of "…odious
accusations" which the Office of Crown Law knew, from the
earliest time, involved suspected child abuse. The odious accusations, more
than nine years later, were found to be criminal conduct by Mr Peter
Coyne in the report the Forde Commission of Inquiry into the Abuse of Children
in Queensland Institutions (pp172-174) but the passage of time prevented
prosecution;
-
That in another statement on 23 May 1995 in response to a submission
by my then junior counsel Mr Roland D Peterson to the Senate Select Committee
on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases in Parliament House Brisbane on 5 May 1995,
Mr O'Shea, the Crown Solicitor, with the aforesaid state of knowledge, informed
then Attorney-General the Hon Dean Wells MLA that:
"…Had the Heiner Documents not been destroyed, it would probably
have been a very different story and, quite apart from the need to keep faith
with retired Magistrate, Mr Heiner and the other witnesses, I can hardly
believe Mr Coyne would have wanted them published.
I don't propose to go over again my arguments for saying that the destruction
of the Heiner Documents was lawful, I would simply say that my advice was
proper
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
and ethical, and involved no departure from proper democratic principles."
(Underlining added)
-
That in failing to apply the law impartially "…a very
different story" was concealed for nearly a decade by the active involvement
of Her Majesty's Queensland Office of Crown Law and, at the very least, a
reasonable suspicion must now exist that official misconduct was engaged
in by it which cannot be dismissed or overlooked. Had Her Majesty's Queensland
Office of Crown Law acted otherwise, it would have shown obstruction of justice,
destruction of evidence, unaddressed abuse of children in a Crown Institution,
illegal use of public monies to buy the silence of a public official found
to have engaged in criminal conduct (notwithstanding whatever defences Mr
Coyne may have for his conduct), inappropriate use of Crown Deeds of Settlement,
and abuse of office touching all the major arms in Queensland's public
administration to cover up that "…very different story."
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION
-
The Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) operates as an independent
statutory law enforcement authority. It acts as standing commission of inquiry
under the Criminal Justice Act 1989. It holds a position of great
public trust. It has authority, under certain circumstances, to use
coercive powers to adduce incriminating evidence from persons not ascribed
to normal policing/investigative processes. It is accountable to Parliament
(and the people) through the all-party Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee
(PCJC), and required to regularly report to that Committee and be subject
to questioning. In order to prevent any abuse of its power, Parliament required
pursuant to section 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 that:
"The commission must at all times act independently, impartially, fairly
and in the public interest."
-
The CJC's handling of my complaints which alleged suspected
official
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
misconduct reaching as high as Her Majesty's Executive Government, a Minister
of the Crown, senior public officials and others has not been in accord with
its lawful duty as required under section 22 of the Criminal Justice Act
1989 and may give rise to a reasonable suspicion of official misconduct
within the CJC itself. The prime reason for this Petition and its respectful
requests of Honourable Members of the Queensland Parliament finds its origins
in that breach of trust and its paralyzing effect on other arms in our system
of government. The statutory obligation to act independently and impartially
cast on other accountability agencies appears not to have been honoured
faithfully thereby allowing the CJC's flawed findings in this matter to go
unchallenged over the years to the advantage of certain public officials
involved. The administration of justice has not been served because of their
failure in not acting independently and impartially according to law in this
matter;
-
That my CJC complaint (lodged on 14 December 1990) in respect
to the "Coyne case" - ie the Shredding - encompassed possible misconduct,
either collectively or singularly, by (a) senior DFSAIA public officials;
(b) a Minister of the Crown; (c) the Executive Government of Queensland;
and (d) others (ie QPOA union officials), when destroying the Heiner Report
(ie (e) parts of the Heiner Inquiry transcript - documents - pertaining to
Mr Peter Coyne; and (f) the original complaints). It was unknown by me until
the tabling of the Morris/Howard Report on 10 October 1996 in Parliament
that my CJC complaint actually involved three (3) unlawful disposals, not
just the one ordered by the Queensland Cabinet on 5 March 1990;
-
That my misconduct complaint was more serious than I understood
it to be when first lodged with the CJC, was (or should have been) always
plainly obvious "on the papers" held by the DFSAIA to any investigating
public official whose duty permitted or gave access to relevant "Heiner Inquiry"
public records, and who was obliged to act "…independently, impartially,
fairly and in the public interest" (eg CJC officials and police). That
is in the
………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
nature of whistleblowing when a suspicion of wrongdoing exists. The full
extent of the misconduct was (or should have been) always
plainly obvious to any public official who was made aware of them
(the relevant DFSAIA "Heiner Inquiry" public records) through my use of normal
administrative processes (eg the FOI Commissioner), and who was obliged to
act in accordance with section 37(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989
to report all suspected official misconduct once becoming aware
of it;
-
That on 31 May 1991 the CJC dismissed my complaint. Its
investigation consisted of writing just one letter to the Cabinet
Secretary on 12 April 1991 seeking information on the shredding. It accepted,
without question, his response of 29 April 1991 which indicated that the
shredding had occurred following Cabinet receiving approval from the State
Archivist to shred. [NB. A copy of the letter to the CJC was sent
to DFSAIA Director-General Ruth Matchett by the Cabinet Secretary which
(intentionally or otherwise) had the effect of forewarning her to the existence
of a complaint over the shredding];
-
That on 27 June 1991 I challenged the accuracy and thoroughness
of the CJC's investigation. A series of nine (9) relevant questions was put
concerning (a) accounting for Mr Coyne's legal action continuum; (b) the
role of the State Archivist and what she was told; (c) Public Service
Management and Employment Regulation 65's interpretation; and (d) the
additional payment of $27,190.00 and its purpose. I said the matter could
not be closed until those questions were satisfactorily answered;
-
That on 23 August 1991 the CJC informed me that Cabinet had
informed the State Archivist that the documents "…weren't required"
and following her approval, they were shredded. In response I asked the CJC
on 29 August 1991 another series of relevant questions declaring that until
they had been properly addressed the matter could not be considered closed.
The CJC did not respond for months. Over six (6) years later when I accessed
my personal CJC file at the Connolly/Ryan Inquiry in early July 1997, I
discovered that CJC/lawyer investigating officer Mr Richard Pointing (obliged
by law to comply with the provisions of section 22 of the Criminal Justice
Act 1989)
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
placed this notation on my letter:
"…This man is irrational and nothing which this Commission can do or
say will satisfy him. I recommend that no reply to this letter be sent as
it will only encourage further unnecessary correspondence with him."
-
That on 26 March 1992 being dissatisfied with the CJC's thoroughness
in handling my complaints, I lodged a complaint with then PCJC Chairman Mr
Peter Beattie MLA expressing no confidence in the CJC and its "..pseudo
investigation." The PCJC requested a report from the CJC. On 14 April
1992 then CJC Chairman Sir Max Bingham QC provided a report compiled by Mr
Pointing. The Report contained (a) misrepresentation of the facts; (b)
mis-stating of the chronology; and (c) omission of facts. On 13 and 26 May
1992, the PCJC was supplied with comprehensive submissions from me addressing
the untruths in the CJC's Report. Instead of all PCJC members being permitted
to examine my concerns, Mr Beattie sent my material back to the CJC for a
response;
-
That around the beginning of August 1992 the CJC, purportedly
"…purely by chance," contracted then barrister at the private
Bar Mr Noel Francis Nunan to review my complaint. It was unknown to me at
the time - but known by others in the legal fraternity - that he was (a)
a (former) known activist in the Australian Labor Party (ALP); (b) former
member of Labor Lawyers; and (c) former committee associate, both as lawyers,
of then Queensland Premier the Hon Wayne K Goss MLA at the Caxton Street
Legal Service some years earlier. Despite a prima facie conflict of
interest in respect of a perception of bias and the necessity of Justice
not only "…being done but being seen to be done " in a matter
that had the potential to produce a major constitutional crisis in Queensland's
Government if substance were to be found in my complaint, neither did the
CJC withdraw his commission nor did Mr Nunan, as a barrister at the private
Bar, declare to me (or Mr Coyne) his former close association with the same
political party under his examin-
……………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
ation which formed the then Queensland (ALP) Government after being out of
office for 32 years;
-
That on 12 August 1992 an interview at CJC Headquarters occurred
between Mr Nunan and myself. It was not witnessed by anyone else but
tape-recorded except for some 20 minutes of conversation which occurred after
the tape ran out. Mr Coyne had been interviewed the previous day (11 August
1992) by Mr Nunan who, according to Mr Coyne, said immediately upon their
meeting in the CJC foyer:
"…There will be absolutely no solace in this matter for you or Mr Lindeberg.
This is a complaint against the Cabinet." (See Senate Select
Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases Hansard p548 5 May
1995)
-
That during our interview Mr Nunan made the following statement,
in respect of his having read a submission by Mr Desmond O'Neill in the CJC's
possession which covered the shredding and related matters involving political
cronyism and prima facie misappropriation of monies from the Queensland
Professional Officers' Association Superannuation Fund [QPOASF]: "…He
(ie Mr O'Neill) paints a grand conspiracy. If I had to choose between a cock-up
and a conspiracy, I'd choose a cock-up every time." After the tape recorder
stopped, when presented with certain facts concerning Mr Coyne's (and the
unions') legal action regarding seeking access to the documents in question
in court, Mr Nunan said:
"…What do you want me to do, charge the entire Cabinet with criminal
conspiracy for perverting the course of justice?"
-
That on or about 28 August 1992, having requested a copy of
the interview tape of Mr Nunan and obtaining his consent on 12 August 1992
but not taking it before leaving the CJC - and after overcoming subsequent
objection from Mr Michael Barnes, CJC's Chief Complaints Officer, Official
Misconduct Division, to supply it - I collected it (File No 502/03/01/016)
…………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
from the CJC. I discovered that someone had tampered with it. The following
words spoken by Mr Nunan had been erased:
"…He (ie Mr O'Neill) 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 that point my trust in the CJC's obligation to act honestly and impartially
pursuant to section 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 was thrown
into doubt; (See Point 194);
-
That on 16 November 1992 the Electoral and Administrative Review
Commission (EARC) then Chairman Mr David Solomon was informed in my
submission on "Archives Legislation" of certain matters arising from
my CJC interview on the Heiner shredding. He was told that if it (the shredding)
were found to be "improper rather than illegal" then it would have
grave implications on the Queensland public service and community generally.
It was suggested that an unacceptable precedent may be established rendering
EARC’s work and position meaningless;
-
That on 20 January 1993 the CJC found no official misconduct
in (a) the shredding; or (b) the additional payment of $27,190.00. In making
its findings, the CJC: (i) fabricated evidence concerning Mr Coyne's retrenchment
allegedly (but totally inaccurately) being based on stress related ill health;
(ii) misquoted and misinterpreted Public Service Management and Employment
Regulation 65; (iii) mis-stated section 129 of the Criminal Code
(Qld); (iv) misrepresented the role of the State Archivist; (v) failed
to apply the law comprehensively; (vi) failed to interview other key witnesses;
and (vii) failed to obtain records held by the department;
-
That on 26 January 1993 Mr Barnes was asked by me following
receipt of the CJC findings: (a) who was the officer who carried out and
wrote up the CJC’s investigation of 20 January 1993; (b) who briefed
him; (c) who selected him; and (d) who was the CJC officer responsible for
the first CJC report of 14 April 1992. On 29 January 1993 Mr Barnes refused
to release
………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
any information on the request, save in exceptional circumstances. He wanted
to know why I wanted the information so that he could consider the matter
further. I refused to tell him why, and pursued different channels to get
to the truth;
-
That on 7 April 1993 I informed the PCJC that I rejected totally
the CJC's 20 January 1993 findings but was unable to respond until certain
administrative processes, over which I had no control (ie freedom of
information), had been completed. The public record shows that my freedom
of information processes did not conclude until 30 May 1997. During that
prolonged FOI process I experienced suspected unlawful conduct and dissembling
despite my determined effort to access relevant public records disclosing
illegal conduct "on the papers" affecting the administration of
Queensland; (See Morris/Howard Report pp216-217);
-
That on 11 September 1993 Mr Nunan, when a barrister at the
private Bar, made an unsolicited phone call to my home. He instantly called
me "a pathetic bastard" three times. He then went on to threaten me
with defamation action if I continued to claim that he did not act impartially.
He described the shredding as "a political decision." The intimidating
call was reported to the CJC the following day, in the form of a statutory
declaration, but the CJC rejected my concerns on 24 September 1993 saying
that (i) Mr Nunan "is not and has never been" a CJC officer; and (ii)
it was a private phone call;
-
That in 1994 and 1995 the CJC defended its investigation into
my complaints before the Senate Select Committee on Public Interest
Whistleblowing and the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower
Cases respectively when the Senate was working on the formulation of Commonwealth
whistleblower protective legislation. The CJC claimed that its investigation
had been done to the "…nth degree";
-
That in 1995, before the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved
Whistleblower Cases when commenting on my concern (and that of others)
………………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
about Mr Nunan's appointment, the CJC said in its February 1995 submission
(pp38-39):
"…This appointment has been criticised by Lindeberg and others on the
basis of Nunan's alleged political allegiance. Such an allegation smacks
of McCarthyism. In a democratic, pluralist society, the Commission finds
such criticism abhorrent. The Commission is unconcerned with a person's political
preferences; it is only concerned with his or her integrity and professional
competence"; [Note Point 106];
-
That in June 1996 Mr Coyne and I lodged a grievance with the
Senate alleging that the CJC had misled the Senate Select Committee into
Unresolved Whistleblower Cases when it assured the Committee that all the
relevant documents pertaining to Mr Coyne's solicitors letters of 8 and 15
February 1990 had been provided. In mid-May 1996, FOI Commissioner Albietz
(with agreement by the Departments (a) DFSAIA; and (b) Justice and
Attorney-General) released records to me held on files pertaining to the
Heiner Inquiry and Mr Coyne's legal claims which had been withheld for years.
The sudden release occurred within days of the Queensland Government appointing
Messrs Morris QC and Howard to examine my complaints "on the papers"
held by various departments. The documents contained incriminating evidence
"on the papers." Given that CJC had assured the Senate that it had
investigated my complaints to the "nth degree", it was reasonably held that
the CJC must have seen these relevant documents but withheld them in evidence
to the Senate, thereby misleading it;
-
That on 17 August 1996 the CJC assured the Senate Committee
of Privileges that a state of ignorance existed concerning its knowledge
about the existence of documents provided by me (and Mr Coyne) to the Senate
Committee of Privileges as examples of misleading the Senate Select Committee
on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases. The CJC claimed:
"…The letters to which he (ie Lindeberg) refers have
………………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
never been seen by the Commission, have never been in
the possession of the Commission, are not now in the possession of the Commission
and the Commission has been unaware of their existence until their existence
was revealed by the contents of your letter under reply…"
-
That on the basis of that assurance, and in the absence of any
contrary evidence, the Senate Committee of Privilege in its 63rd
Report found the CJC not in contempt of the Senate;
-
That in July 1997 in evidence before the Connolly/Ryan Judicial
Review into the Effectiveness of the CJC, in response to a submission by
counsel Roland D Peterson, on behalf of Mr Coyne and myself [Exhibit 394],
the CJC made the following admissions at page 16 in its submission:
"In paragraph 5.6, the submission expresses concern that relevant documents
held by the Department of Family Services were not accessed by the Commission
in early 1991. The Commission accepts that, in hindsight, it could have
investigated the matter more extensively and could have gained access to
documents which may have
led it to come to a different conclusion about certain aspects of this whole
affair. In view of the huge number of hours expended by Commission staff
and other public
officials in dealing with this matter since, it would clearly have been
preferable for this course to have been adopted"; (Underlining
added)
-
That on 12 March 1999, Mr Barnes admitted, in a signed statement
to FOI Commissioner Albietz, that before giving evidence to
the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases in 1995 (that
is, around late December 1994 or early January 1995) he visited DFSAIA and
examined the "Heiner Documents" files. He found no misconduct. His
visit had never been disclosed before. It is understood that the Heiner
files were kept under lock
…………………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
and key in DFSAIA Director-General's Office, overseen by Mr Donald A C Smith.
They were the same files examined by Messrs Morris QC and Howard 18 months
later in mid-1996. They found "open to conclude" criminal conduct
against those two senior public officials;
-
That at page 19 in the Morris/Howard Report, when viewing the
files held by DFSAIA, the barristers said:
"…At a particular stage in the course of our investigation, it became
apparent to us that there appeared to be considerable substance in Mr
Lindeberg’s allegations, particularly as regards the destruction of
the Heiner documents. When we examined this aspect of the matter more closely,
we formed the view that – for the reasons now set out in Part II of
this Report – substantial grounds exist for suspecting that serious
criminal offences were committed in connection with the destruction of the
Heiner documents…."
-
That it therefore remains open as to what Mr Barnes actually
saw and what he was looking for because he has subsequently told The
Courier-Mail (18 August 1999 p12 Journalist Mr Bruce Grundy) that he
did not see incriminating evidence, but did see matters of
suspected child abuse on which the CJC did not act because the incidents
were more than two (2) years old when discovered. Mr Barnes has now publicly
admitted examining the DFSAIA/Heiner Inquiry files which the CJC assured
the Senate Committee of Privileges in 1996 and the Connolly/Ryan Judicial
Inquiry in 1997 that it had never seen or
examined, therefore:
(A) What did Mr Barnes see, and what was he looking for?
(B) How many visits actually occurred, when and who did he tell, and were
they authorised by the Commission?
(C) Why didn't he discover the illegal disposal of the original complaints
and their photocopies on 22 and 23 May 1990 respectively?
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
(D) Why didn't he see the deceit engaged in by (i) DFSAIA Director-General
Ms Ruth Matchett; (ii) Mr Donald Smith; and (iii) the Office of Crown Law?
(E) Why didn't he react to a senior public official deliberately misleading
a solicitor in a matter of legal rights;
(F) Were the files culled before he was shown them if he saw nothing illegal
when 18 months later Messrs Morris QC and Howard found "open to conclude"
criminality almost immediately when examining the same files?
(G) Why didn't the Commission, as a law enforcement agency, on the unresolved
evidence of suspected child abuse found on the files act in early 1995 instead
of it having to wait until 1999 for the Forde Inquiry to examine it fully?
(H) Why did the CJC claim publicly on 25 May 1998 in the media release that
it knew nothing about the child abuse during its investigation
into the shredding when it did know as early as late 1994/early 1995 through
Mr Barnes' visits?
(I) Why did it take over five years to publicly disclose his visit/s, and
why doesn't the CJC/Lindeberg file [provided to the Connolly/Ryan Inquiry
in July 1997] record any such visit/s?
(J) Did the CJC deliberately mislead (a) the Senate Committee of Privileges
in August 1996; and (b) the Connolly/Ryan Inquiry in July 1997, or was Mr
Barnes failing to inform his accountable officers in the CJC about his real
state of knowledge and visits?
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
-
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions prosecutes
criminal offences for the State of Queensland. The Office is independent
of government. It is not an investigative law enforcement agency. Prosecuting
officers hold a public position of great trust, and are obliged by law to
act impartially and in the public interest;
……………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
-
That in November 1996 the Borbidge Queensland Government sought
advice from Mr Royce Miller QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, regarding
the findings of the Morris/Howard Report, which by the Terms of Reference
under which the barristers carried out their commission, being limited to
an "on the papers" investigation, was a "preliminary" examination
and not a exhaustive examination of matters associated with my allegations.
It was therefore not a "completed" brief in any sense of the word upon which
the advancement or otherwise of a normal criminal prosecution could be
evaluated;
-
That on 22 November 1996, then Department of Families, Youth
and Community Care Director-General The Revd Allan Male forwarded (a) the
letter from departmental officials Messrs Donald Smith, Trevor Walsh and
Gary Clarke seeking a meeting with a DPP official; and (b) the memorandum
from the Director of Information Services Division Ms Carmel Finn which,
amongst other matters, revealed the existence of the Crown Solicitor's advice
of 18 May 1990 which Messrs Morris QC and Howard described as the "smoking
gun" [pp74-76] and were unable to find during their work; (See Points
54 & 86)
-
That this communication with the DPP was unknown to the petitioner
and his counsel until 1 April 1999 when access was granted to further records
held by the Department of Families, Youth and Community Care following a
fresh FOI application. The petitioner is unaware as to whether or not a meeting
with the DPP occurred;
-
That on 11 June 1997 then Queensland Premier the Hon Rob Borbidge
MLA, while in Indonesia, issued a media release stating that the DPP had
advised: (i) against charges being laid against any person under sections
132 and 140 of the Criminal Code (Qld); (ii) time limitation for the
commencement of charges for breaches of the Libraries and Archives Act
1988 had lapsed; (iii) "theoretically" charges could be laid under section
………………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
92(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld) but it wasn't in the public interest
to do so; (iv) as"…Very considerable time has been expended by a
good many people in the pursuit of the truth regarding the Heiner matter.
One has to wonder whether the public interest requires further exploration
or whether it is now time to put the matter to rest once and for all."
The Borbidge Government accepted the advice (but did not release it publicly);
-
That it is a matter of public record I asserted that double
standards and hypocrisy were at work. The passage of time had occurred because
of the cover up, and that a great many people had been hiding the truth,
not pursuing it as the DPP must have known in reading the
Morris/Howard Report;
-
That in his (reported) advice, the DPP appeared not to have
addressed the applicability of section 129 of the Criminal Code (Qld)
which was the central offence in the Morris/Howard Report;
-
That it is a matter of record - by way of contrast concerning
protection of the public interest - that on 10 June 1997, (See The Weekend
Independent July 1997) in the District Court of Queensland before His
Honour Judge Manus Boyce, the DPP prosecuted a railway employee for receiving
of and stealing. He was only days off retirement. The charge related to him
allegedly stealing and/or receiving soap, litter bags, 72 sample bottles
of moisturiser, hair shampoo sachets over a period in excess of twenty (20)
years. It was drawn out by the Crown Prosecutor from a prosecution witness
in evidence that the defendant may have come by the items legally. After
a recess, the prosecutor sought the indictment's return for the purpose of
endorsing it with a nolle prosequi. His Honour Judge Boyce concurred.
……………………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
-
The police are required under the provisions of the Police
Service Administration Act 1990 and their Oath of Office to investigate
all allegations of criminal conduct without fear or favour, and malice to
no one. The impartiality of the police constable in applying the law equally
is a foundation policing principle in the maintenance of law and order in
any free democratic society;
-
That in order to fully investigate complaints of criminality,
societies governed by the rule of law have given their police (all sworn
to solemnly uphold and abide by the law) conditional authority to seek evidence
(when and if necessary) by use of search warrants [eg section 10 of the
Crimes Act 1914 (Cwth)], and other powers obtained under due process,
on private and government property and persons. They are restrained in using
such powers by judicial review should a party contest any such search from
being applied, particularly in respect of legal professional privilege
exempt documents. (See Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52; Jacobsen v
Rogers (1995) 182 CLR 572; Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427 and other
cases). Having been given the significant power by Parliament to protect
the people from harm and illegal conduct by any quarter, impartial policing
is and must remain a high legal obligation. The undoubted enemy of equal
justice is the double standard, and therefore, if policing is abused, biased
or corrupted, it invites the law, its enforcement agencies and officials
to be brought into contempt;
-
That such a principle, extended from the police constable to
government itself, is well settled in law. In civilised societies in the
world, it finds an expression over seventy (70) years ago
by Mr
Justice Louis D Brandeis, of the United States Supreme Court in Dissenting
in Olmstead v United States, 277 U.S. 438, 475 (1928):
"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall
be subject to the same rules of
………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence
of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill,
it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the
government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
-
That on 7 April, 24 May and 14 September 1994, CIB detectives
from the Queensland Police Service (QPS) interviewed me. The interviews were
taped. The QPS was informed of possible criminal conduct pertaining to (a)
the shredding involving potentially (i) a Departmental Director-General and
senior public officials; (ii) a Minister of the Crown; (iii) an entire Cabinet;
(b) the subsequent cover up which included possible criminal conduct by certain
high ranking CJC officers assisting in that cover up. A separate matter (which
brought the police to me in the first place on 7 April 1994) of prima
facie misappropriation of funds from the Queensland Professional Officers
Association Superannuation Fund [QPOASF] by former fund members Messrs Donald
Martindale, Kerry Daly, Gordon Rutherford and Ms Roslyn Kinder who (via her
hand as the designated officer entitled to sign a document) pretended to
resign their employment [ie ticked "leaving the service" box on the
relevant National Mutual Life form] in order to access QPOASF contributions
[as required under the QPOASF Trust Deed] was referred to the police on 3
September 1993. The referral came from then Attorney-General the Hon Dean
Wells MLA acting on Crown Law advice regarding Recommendation 2 of the
8th Report [p62] of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation
made up police file (MS93/25262) commenced on 3 September 1993;
-
That compelling evidence and leads were provided to the police
on those aforesaid occasions directing their investigations to records held
by and into officials in Executive Government, Department of Family
Services
…………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, State Archives, CJC and by normal
policing/investigative processes to other places ie the Office of Crown Law,
State Public Services Federation Queensland, Queensland Professional Credit
Union Limited (QPCU), and the Rock Building Society in Rockhampton;
-
That on 16 November 1993, Mr Cec A Lee, then QPCU Board Chairman,
informed me that the Board had reviewed my membership (commenced in June
1984) and decided that it did not comply with the QPCU's Rules. He enclosed
a resignation form and said that any failure on my part to terminate my
membership would result in an automatic termination in 14 days. I refused
to resign knowing that I was eligible under the Rules holding the same membership
status as many other QPCU shareholders, including some Board Directors;
-
That on 20 November 1993 I lodged a grievance with the Senate.
I alleged a discrimination against myself (and my wife) as a consequence
of providing evidence to a Senate hearing. Following a further
"interim" investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation
which found a prima facie case existed, the grievance was on-forwarded
to then Senate President the Hon Senator Kerry Sibraa who made a referral
to the Senate Committee of Privileges for examination of possible contempt
to the Senate pursuant to the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 on
the matter (See Senate Hansard p4931 17 December 1993 & Point
192);
-
That on 8 April 1994 QPCU General Manager Mr Gordon Rutherford
and the QPCU Board, through solicitors, demanded that I sign prepared statements
retracting statements alleged to have been said by me at the QPCU 1993 Annual
General Meeting, held on 28 October 1993, that the police were investigating
evidence given to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation involving
Mr Rutherford's withdrawal from the QPOASF which breached the Trust Deed.
The solicitors claimed that "…There was not then, and is not now,
any Fraud Squad investigation into
……………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
Mr Rutherford or the credit union or the payment." Unless I signed the
retraction, both parties would institute defamation proceedings against me.
I refused to sign. It was an untruthful statement, let alone having been
approached and interviewed by the police the previous day about the very
matter;
-
That on 27 April 1994 Mr Rutherford lodged and served a Writ
for Defamation in the Supreme Court of Queensland (No 579 of 1994) but the
QPCU Board withheld its hand. He failed to serve a Statement of Claim for
over a year. On 21 June 1995 my counsel rebutted every aspect to his claim
at which point the matter has rested ever since, leaving it "open to
conclude" that it was a "Stopper Writ" and possible abuse of process.
The serving of the Writ disallowed the matter from being debated at QPCU
Annual General Meetings;
-
That the QPCU's and Mr Rutherford's conduct was brought to the
attention of the credit union statutory watchdog agency, the Queensland Office
of Financial Supervision, by personal meeting (31 July 1995) and letter
(13 August 1995) with its Chief Executive Officer Mr Stephen Maitland as
a prima facie breach of the credit union's rules and Australian Financial
Institutions Code, but without effect;
-
That on 14 September 1994, when assisting the police (Fraud
Squad) in their investigation, the police were told of Mr Rutherford's legal
action against me for defamation. They were told that it was predicated on
the premise that no such police investigation existed, which plainly had
no foundation in truth. The detectives were told that the Writ was having
the effect of intimidating a witness, namely myself. The senior detective
indicated that he could not interfere with his legal rights without infringing
the law. It was then suggested by me in return that, as any intrusion or
interference with the rights of another person in his or her legal action
(however distasteful and lacking in cause for action it may be in defamation
or judicial review) infringed the law, then he (the senior detective) had,
out of his own mouth, admitted criminality on the part of the Goss Cabinet's
shredding decision because it purposefully infringed
………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
Mr Coyne's rights to his day in court in respect of a judicial review regarding
access to the Heiner Inquiry documents by shredding them when he (Coyne)
had a known lawful claim on them;
-
That on 22 November 1994 Police Commissioner O'Sullivan was
supplied by me (acting on legal advice) with a copy of Crown Law advice of
16 February 1990 (having been just released to me by the FOI Commissioner)
as I was led to believe its release was done because I had provided sufficient
prima facie evidence of a crime pertaining to it [as was previously
stipulated on 9 November 1993 by the FOI Commissioner
before he could overturn its exemption under section 43(1)
of the FOI Act re "legal professional privilege"] (See Point
148);
-
That on 24 November 1994 the police informed me that the CJC
was the appropriate body to investigate the shredding, and that as the CJC
was satisfied, the police investigation would discontinue. On 29 December
1994 (after taking into account my letter of 22 November 1994 and attachment
of Crown Law advice of 16 February 1990 which crossed in the mail), the police
informed me that my criminal complaint pertaining to the shredding had been
referred back to the CJC. My police file was sent to the same high ranking
CJC officials against whom I was making serious criminal allegations of failing
to act impartially by not properly investigating the shredding;
-
That on 7 January 1995 Police Commissioner O'Sullivan was informed
by me that it was totally inappropriate to transfer my criminal complaints
back to the CJC and to the same officers against whom misconduct was being
alleged which involved: (a) failure to interview key witnesses; (b) fabricating
evidence; (c) tampering with evidence; (d) attempting to intimidate me; (e)
misquoting and misinterpreting a key statute (ie Public Service Management
and Employment Regulation 65); (f) omitting evidence; (g) giving false
and misleading evidence to the Senate Select Committee on Public Interest
Whistleblowing. He was told that the recently established Senate Select Committee
on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases was about to examine the matter;
………………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
-
That on 25 January 1995 Assistant Police Commissioner Graham
Williams - State Crime Operations Command - informed me that the appropriate
body to investigate my matter (ie suspected official misconduct and criminal
conduct in the State of Queensland) was the aforesaid Commonwealth Senate
Committee (which has no authority under the Australian Constitution to
investigate allegations of criminal conduct done in Her Majesty's Sovereign
State of Queensland). He stated that the police would be "…happy
to address any matter which remains for investigation upon the report of
the senate inquiry."
-
That on 21 February 1995, when the Cabinet-in-Confidence submission
was unexpectedly tabled in the Queensland Parliament by the Hon Santo Santoro
MLA (having been leaked to him from an unknown high level source in the
Queensland Government), it revealed that the QPS, along with other relevant
Queensland Government departments, had agreed with a "political
decision" not to cooperate with the Senate. In evidence to that Senate
Committee, then CJC Director of the Official Misconduct Division Mr Mark
Le Grand related a phone conversation between himself and Assistant Commissioner
Williams which revealed that:
"… He (Williams) indicated during the course of that conversation
that they did not propose to investigate the Lindeberg complaint until the
results of the inquiry were known." (Senate Select Committee
on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases Hansard 23 February 1995 p128).
-
That on 16 January 1996 Police Commissioner O'Sullivan was informed
by me that fresh admissions had been made during hearings before the Senate
Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases. He was told that senior
counsel (now High Court of Australia Justice Mr Ian Callinan QC) had specifically
addressed its relevance to certain sections of the Criminal Code (Qld)
in a special submission to the Committee on 7 August 1995. The Police
Commissioner was asked:
"What do you now propose to do to resolve this matter affecting due process
involving the admitted deliberate des-
………………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
truction of known and foreseeable evidence to stop a
citizen from accessing the material in foreshadowed litigation?"
-
That on 15 February 1996 the police informed me that its
investigation "…concerning the shredding of the Heiner Inquiry documents
and related matters…" was closed. The police referred me to its
earlier letter dated 31 August 1995 which I had not received. I requested
a copy, and discovered that the police had closed my criminal complaint
into the shredding on the findings of a totally separate
complaint concerning possible misappropriation of monies from the
QPOASF by certain parties in which they found insufficient evidence to charge
anyone.
-
That the QPS, at its highest level, had evidence (and clear
leads) of prima facie criminal conduct involving the Executive Government
of Queensland and high ranking CJC officials. Despite (a) taking evidence
from me on three separate occasions and being given concrete leads; (b) giving
me assurances that its investigation was "on-going" on several occasions;
(c) having sworn an Oath to uphold its public duty pursuant to the Police
Service Administration Act 1990 without fear, favour or ill will to none,
and to investigate all complaints of suspected criminal conduct; the police
officers concerned did nothing to carry out their legal obligations
in a matter which corrupted the administration of justice in the State of
Queensland to its very core.
OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
-
Under the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) the Freedom
of Information (FOI) Commissioner has authority under the external review
process to order the release of public records being sought under the FOI
Act when access may have been refused during a departmental (agency)
internal review process under certain exemption provisions. Equally the FOI
Commissioner may uphold an agency's decision to refuse access. The FOI
………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
Commissioner is obliged to act impartially and abide by laws relevant to
his public office which also includes section 37(2) of the Criminal Justice
Act 1989 which obliges him as a "principal officer of a unit of public
administration" to report all suspected official
misconduct to a proper authority (eg CJC or police);
-
That the process I embarked on in January 1993 - seen as a continuum
- under the FOI Act to gain access to relevant documents associated
with the shredding and related matters (subsequently revealed by barristers
Messrs Morris QC and Howard in their October 1996 Report to contain evidence
of serious criminal conduct "on the papers") took over four (4) years
to complete. It involved probable dissembling, unreasonable delay, failure
of public duty. It remains unfinished business on a matter of prima
facie bias involving a reasonable suspicion of official misconduct and
possible criminal abuse of office affecting senior officers in the Office
of the Information Commissioner. The conduct of those officers in this matter
warrants public scrutiny by a Special Prosecutor;
-
That on 9 November 1993 FOI Commissioner Frederick Albietz confirmed
his awareness that I was alleging that a conspiracy to obstruct justice was
present "on the papers" in my 1993 FOI application against State Archives
commenced in January 1993. He (with the aforesaid awareness shared by Deputy
FOI Commissioner Greg Sorensen) placed an onus on me from "outside the
system" [Re: Viscount Finlay in O'Rourke v Darbshire [1920] AC
581at p604] to provide some "prima facie evidence" in "clear and definite
terms" concerning a Crown Solicitor's advice (16 February 1990) - known by
him as being only one part of Mr Coyne's legal action continuum - to overturn
its "legal professional privilege" exemption status. My allegation
was that it assisted and/or provided evidence of a crime or fraud, and therefore,
at all material time thereafter, FOI Commissioner Albietz (with a state of
mind knowing of possible misconduct being associated with my FOI application
on the shredding and Mr Coyne's legal action continuum) had such evidence
in front of him (or could seek it) as a public official operating from
"inside the system;"
………………………..
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
-
That from 19 November 1993 I believed that I provided FOI
Commissioner Albietz (notwithstanding my limitations from being "outside
the system") with sufficient "prima facie evidence" in "clear
and definite terms" to sustain my claim (later upheld in the findings of
the Morris/Howard Report). He failed to comply with his obligation under
section 37(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 to report the existence
of demonstrable "suspected" official misconduct thereby leaving himself
open to probable and/or a perception of bias and a possible charge of obstructing
justice;
-
That on 26 June 1994 I commenced a comprehensive FOI application
to access the "Heiner Documents" files held by DFSAIA and on 8 August
1994 a complementary one against the Department of Justice and Attorney-General;
-
That on 6 September 1994 following the tabling in Parliament
of Cabinet's letter to the State Archivist of 23 February 1990 by DFSAIA
Minister the Hon Anne Warner MLA showing evidence of deceit against the State
Archivist, FOI Commissioner Albietz was told by me that he held prima
facie evidence of obstruction of justice. I called on him to comply with
his obligations under the Criminal Justice Act 1989 to report it to
a proper authority, which, in absence of any contrary evidence, he failed
to do;
-
That on 27 December 1994 I placed an external FOI/DFSAIA application
with FOI Commissioner Albietz following the refusal of DFSAIA FOI Internal
Reviewing Officer Mr Donald A C Smith to grant access to records held on
the departmental "Heiner Documents" files. Mr Smith refused any
confirmation of the existence of records known to exist, and
went so far as to refuse to disclose the "dates" on incriminating Crown Law
advices, claiming that a "date" was exempt matter under legal professional
privilege.
-
That on 27 December 1994 DFSAIA FOI Internal Reviewing Officer
Mr Donald A C Smith performed this public function, which in later evidence
during the 1996 Morris QC investigation discovered that he: (a) was directly
criminally involved [See Morris/Howard Report pp 203-205]; (b) had
know-
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
ingly engaged in a conflict of interest by reviewing my FOI/DFSAIA application
while having a vested interest in the decision; (c) had a personal interest
in concealing the records being sought; (d) breached section 96 of the
Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) and departmental Code of Conduct;
(e) engaged in abuse of office pursuant to section 92(1) of the Criminal
Code (Qld); (f) and breached sections 31 and 32 of the Criminal Justice
Act 1989;
-
That the aforesaid suspected official misconduct would have
been plain on the records held and read by FOI Commissioner Albietz operating
from "inside the system" (but unknown by me at the time always
operating from "outside the system") from no later than 27 November
1994 is compelling. In absence of any contrary evidence, he failed
to report to a proper authority such "suspected" official misconduct
pursuant to his obligation under section 37(2) of the Criminal Justice
Act 1989;
-
That in Re Lindeberg & Department of Families, Youth
and Community Care Decision No 97008 30 May 1997 Application S190/94,
the FOI Commissioner refused me access to the 7 February 1991 Executive Council
Minute and explanatory memoranda pertaining to Mr Coyne's involuntary
retrenchment. Despite my claim that in the material was evidence of a possible
fraud against Members of Cabinet and His Excellency the Governor and that
Parliament had not (and could not constitutionally) amended the FOI Act
in March 1995 to exempt from public access evidence of a crime or fraud contained
in Cabinet and Executive Council submissions and related material) [See Point
31], FOI Commissioner Albietz ruled that:
"…Where an exemption provision in the FOI Act contains a public interest
balancing test, evidence that disclosure of matter in issue would expose
a crime or fraud would be likely to give rise to one or more public interest
considerations favouring disclosure of the matter in issue, notwithstanding
that it is claimed by an agency to be exempt under that exemption provision.
However, as I have explained at paragraph 13 above,
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
neither s.36(1) nor s.37(1) incorporates a public interest balancing test.
I can see nothing in the terms of those provisions which would justify
the implication of a public interest exception. Even if the documents in
issue were to contain evidence of a crime or fraud (and I do not suggest
that they do), I would still be obliged to find that they satisfy the relevant
tests for exemption laid down by Parliament in the terms of s.37 of the FOI
Act." (Underlining added)
-
That on 26 January 1998 the above
ruling was challenged by me when it was alleged to then Queensland Parliament's
Speaker the Hon Neil Turner MLA that FOI Commissioner Albietz had provided
a possible false and misleading report to State Parliament when he cited
my case in his 5th Annual Report 1996/97 to Parliament. The
20th Report of the Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges
Committee found him not to be in contempt of misleading Parliament. The Report
did not address (a) whether his interpretation of sections 36 and 37 (as
retrospectively amended in March 1995 by the Goss Government) of the Freedom
of Information Act 1992 (Qld) breached the law as Parliament intended
it; (b) whether he may have concealed or not reported suspected corruption
contrary to section 37(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989; and
(c) whether he had failed to fulfil his obligations under the Public
Sector Ethics Act 1994 and the Criminal Code (Qld) because the
Committee claimed that such matters fell outside its jurisdiction.(See Page
8 Points 8.0 and 8.1 of the aforesaid 20th Report);
-
That on 28 September 1998 an FOI application was made by me
on the CJC seeking records believed to be held by that agency including certain
identified memoranda "…between Ms Matchett and Minister Warner"
having been earlier read by Mr Michael Barnes, CJC Chief Complaints Officer.
The existence of the memoranda was revealed in a "highly confidential" internal
memorandum written by Mr Barnes on 11 November 1996 to then CJC Director
of the Official Misconduct Division Mr Mark Le Grand in which he
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
commented on the findings of the Morris/Howard Report. The memoranda's content
according to him (based on the legal argument used by barristers Morris QC
and Howard), "…strongly suggested" that it was sufficient
to inculpate all members of Her Majesty's Cabinet of 5 March 1990 in criminal
conduct. After the CJC claimed in the internal FOI review process that it
did not have those records in its possession or control, an external application
was placed before FOI Commissioner Albietz by me on 17 December 1998;
-
That on 16 March 1999 following FOI Commissioner Albietz directing
the CJC to conduct a further search of its files under the "sufficiency
of search" provisions of the FOI Act 1992, Mr Barnes revealed
for the first time, in a signed statement dated 12 March 1999, that in later
1994/early 1995 he had visited DFSAIA and perused the "Heiner Documents"
files before giving evidence to the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved
Whistleblower Cases (whereas in August 1996 in evidence to the Senate Committee
of Privileges and in July 1997 before the Connolly/Ryan Judicial Review into
the Effectiveness of the CJC, the CJC claimed that a state of ignorance existed
concerning its knowledge about the existence of certain incriminating
DFSAIA/Heiner Inquiry documents always held on DFSAIA files). During that
visit he purportedly read the (incriminating) memoranda between then DFSAIA
Minister Warner and Ms Matchett; and the FOI Commissioner indicated that
he was prepared to accept that the CJC did not now (or ever) possess or control
the relevant memoranda;
-
That on 25 April 1999 I informed FOI Commissioner Albietz that
I believed that a "reasonable apprehension of bias" existed inside
the CJC against my interests and that the CJC could not be relied on to
impartially inspect its own
files for records which may tend to incriminate itself. At the same time,
I asserted that I had a similar apprehension against the Office of the
Information Commissioner in the matter. On 29 April 1999, in response to
my concern, FOI Commissioner Albietz challenged me to provide grounds to
support my claim of bias in order that he could consider whether or not he
was biased and,
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
if necessary, to stand aside;
-
That on 12 May 1999, FOI Commissioner Albietz was provided with
compelling grounds showing the existence of possible bias on his part by
his apparent failure to act pursuant to section 37(2) of the Criminal
Justice Act 1989 and section 96 of the Freedom of Information Act
1992 (Qld) when considering my earlier related FOI applications. It was
pointed out that he may have a vested interest in his decision-making process
of whether bias existed because in finding bias, he may tend to incriminate
himself in the offences of misconduct and obstruction of justice thereby
causing him not to be able to come to the matter in an unbiased manner. [See
Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association [1983] 151 CLR 288 per Mason,
Murphy, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ at 294-294; and Lord Denning in
Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd. v. Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577 at
p599];
-
That at the time of lodging this petition, (notwithstanding
the seriousness of the matter under consideration by and for him, namely
that he may not be able to declare himself to be biased because of legal
consequences), FOI Commissioner Albietz has not provided a statement of reasons
setting out why he could not see and did not report one scintilla of suspected
official misconduct in the grounds provided despite his having a reasonable
period of time (over four months) to respond; and that it may therefore be
reasonable to suggest that a suspicion of official misconduct exists in his
conduct, and that FOI Commissioner Albeitz may be acting in this matter contrary
to the spirit and intent of the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld)
and public trust in his Office.
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
OFFICE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS
- THE OMBUDSMAN
-
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations
(Ombudsman) finds his authority under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act
1974. He is obliged to investigate and review "administrative actions"
taken by Her Majesty's State Government departments, statutory authorities
and Local Government Authoritative to which the Act applies;
-
The key accountability positions in Queensland's public
administration of Ombudsman and the FOI Commissioner are performed, at one
and the same time, by the same public official, namely Mr Frederick N Albietz.
Under section 107 of the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld), Ombudsman
Albietz has no jurisdiction over FOI Commissioner Albietz (Queensland's first
and current FOI Commissioner) or his decisions; while at the same time, both
the Office of Ombudsman and Office of the Information Commissioner are "units
of public administration" within the meaning of Part 1 section 3 of the
Criminal Justice Act 1989 thereby making both Ombudsman Albietz and
FOI Commissioner Albietz obliged to carry out the "administrative
action" of reporting all suspected official misconduct duty pursuant
to section 37(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 when he becomes
aware of it in the performance of either public function;
-
That one person should perform both accountability functions
of Ombudsman and Information Commissioner at one and same time in Queensland's
system of public administration appears to be inappropriate. This petition,
amongst others things, highlights that administrative abnormality and
respectfully suggests to Honourable Members the need from urgent legislative
reform to completely separate both functions;
-
That on 12 February 1997 I lodged a complaint with Ombudsman
Albietz over the apparent failure of FOI Commissioner Albietz to act in
accordance with "…his public and lawful duty" to report (real/or
suspected) official mis-
………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
conduct present in my FOI applications against (a) Department of Families,
Youth and Community Care [S190/94] and (b) Department of Justice and
Attorney-General [S170/94]. This followed a request on 14 January 1997 to
immediately release the (incriminating) Crown Solicitor's advice of 18 May
1990 because legal professional privilege could not be attached to
it as it prima facie assisted in the commission of an offence. The
advice assisted in (i) unlawfully avoiding a statutory obligation; (ii)
unlawfully returning public records to a private citizen; (iii) providing
false and misleading official correspondence to a private citizen; (iv)
obstructing justice;
-
That on 6 March 1997 Deputy Ombudsman Frank King responded on
6 March 1997 indicating that section 107 of the Freedom of Information
Act gave the Ombudsman no jurisdiction in relation to the FOI Commissioner
or decisions. He asserted that the FOI Commissioner was "a body exercising
judicial powers and therefore conceptually is not in the category of
administrative bodies that normally fall within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction."
He suggested that as the Morris/Howard Report was before Cabinet, I
might wish to (a) write to the Premier; or (b) write to the CJC and advise,
that in my view, "…the Information Commissioner has in his possession
a document emanating from the Crown Solicitor which establishes or provides
evidence to establish that "official misconduct" as defined by the Criminal
Justice Act has occurred." He stated that as he had not looked into
the matter in depth, it was speculation on his part. He invited a submission
as to whether the Ombudsman's Office had any jurisdiction in relation to
"..any administration actions in this matter" but foreshadowed that action
may not occur because of (a) 12 month time limit; and (b) possible duplication
of work already done by other parties (ie Messrs Morris QC and Howard);
-
That on 16 April 1997 I informed Deputy Ombudsman King that
the Ombudsman's "firm policy" that he (Deputy Ombudsman King) "…can
and should investigate him (ie Ombudsman Albietz), your accountable
officer, is complete nonsense. It is contrary to procedural fairness and
the public interest." He was told that (a) failing to report suspected
official misconduct
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
pursuant to section 37(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 was an
"…administrative function."; and (b) Messrs Morris QC and Howard
did not consider the Crown Solicitor's advice of 18 May 1990.
He was informed that "…any attempt to wash your hands of this
matter" gave further weight to comments made by Messrs Morris QC and
Howard at page 215 of their Report:
"...Whilst we are of the view that the events which occurred between January
1990 and February 1991 involve very grave and serious matters, we are even
more concerned that
those matters have remained successfully covered up for so many years. In
what is commonly referred to as the "post-Fitzgerald era", there are many
people in our community who feel a measure of confidence that serious misconduct
by senior public officials cannot go undetected. Even the Criminal Justice
Commission’s strongest supporters, like Mr. Clair and Mr. Beattie, must
now have cause to reconsider their confidence in the exhaustiveness - to
say nothing as to the independence - of the Commission’s investigation
into this matter.
If a public inquiry achieves nothing else, we would hope and expect that
a public inquiry would recommend steps and procedures to ensure that allegations
of the seriousness of those made by Mr Lindeberg are, in the future, adequately
scrutinised and dealt with."
-
That on 30 April 1997, Deputy Ombudsman King informed me that
(a) he was prevented from acting because of section 107 of the Freedom
of Information Act 1992 and therefore the Ombudsman was not required
to investigate himself; (b) he had to inform himself of possible corruption,
and any complainant's allegation in itself was not enough to form a reasonable
suspicion of official misconduct on his part; (c) if what I was alleging
against
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
the FOI Commissioner and his staff were true, it would be a matter for the
CJC, not the Ombudsman's Office to investigate; and (d) the reporting of
the allegations rested primarily with me because he could not see the evidence
to form an opinion;
-
That on 26 May 1997 Ombudsman Albietz and FOI Commissioner Albietz
were asked the same four (4) questions: (1) Is the Ombudsman (FOI Commissioner)
a unit of public administration within the meaning of the Criminal Justice
Act 1989? (2) In respect of section 37(2)(b) of the Criminal
Justice Act 1989 does the duty contained therein apply to the Ombudsman (FOI
Commissioner)? (3) In respect of section 37(2)(b) of the Criminal Justice
Act 1989 does the duty therein also apply to the Deputy Ombudsman (Deputy
FOI Commissioner), and if not, why not? (4) In respect of sections 31 and
32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 which describes official misconduct,
when and how do you reach the view that "suspected" official misconduct exists?
-
That on 2 June 1997 FOI Commissioner Albietz said that he was
not prepared to enter into correspondence or debate on matters raised in
my letter of 26 May 1997 which did not concern an issue for his determination
in a current review under Part 5 of the Freedom of Information Act 1992
Qld in which I was a participant; and on 6 June 1997, Deputy Ombudsman
King responded saying that (a) my first three questions "…involve
matters of statutory interpretation and you should obtain your own legal
advice"; (b) to form a view that "suspected" official misconduct existed
was a matter of evidence in a particular case and no greater explanation
could be given; (c) if I felt some public official (such as himself) was
not complying with a particular provision of the Criminal Justice Act
1989, nothing was stopping me from reporting the matter to the CJC. He
said that he did not have time to continue to debate the point with me.
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
QUEENSLAND AUDIT OFFICE
-
That on 29 January 1993 the Queensland Audit Office (QAO) was
officially informed by me of the circumstances surrounding the ex
gratia/special payment of $27,190.00 immediately after the CJC declared
it legal in its 20 January 1993 findings. It was shown to then Assistant
Auditor-General Mr Len Dudman that
the payment's purpose and make-up were illegal being presumably designed
to buy the silence of Mr Coyne over matters associated with the Heiner Inquiry,
especially the shredding. The QAO was informed that Mr Coyne had no
legal entitlement to the money, and that DFSAIA officials, together
with QPOA officials, fraudulently concocted it while knowing that there was
no legal basis for the claim and that documentation did not
exist to justify the amount;
-
That the QAO found that DFSAIA Minister the Hon Anne Warner
MLA had breached the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 when
approving the payment outside her authorised spending limits. It described
the payment as "technically unauthorised" and recoverable. DFSAIA
Director-General Ms Ruth Matchett, as the accountable officer, then declared
the payment as a "loss" under the Financial Administration and Audit Act
1977 and wrote the money off without any attempt to recover it. It was
subsequently found in October 1996 by barristers Messrs Morris QC and Howard
as being "illegal" and an "open to conclude" breach of section 204
of the Criminal Code (Qld);
-
That, in absence of any contrary evidence, the QAO failed
to act impartially by accessing all relevant departmental
documents (showing incidents of child abuse at JOYC) pursuant to the provisions
of the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 including a DFSAIA
memorandum dated 18 January 1991 by Mr Gary Clarke Director of Finance and
Organisational Services to his accountable officer DFSAIA Director-General
Ms Ruth Matchett. The memorandum reported on the 10 January 1991 meeting
at which QPOA officials threatened himself and senior Departmental official
Mr Leigh Carpenter that unless money was paid "…the whole saga in
relation to the
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
John Oxley Youth Centre" would be put into the hands of the CJC (which only
has jurisdiction to consider matters of suspected and/or known official
misconduct, not industrial relations). Ms Ruth Matchett read the memorandum.
She then participated in paying unauthorised money involving DFSAIA Minister
the Hon Anne Warner MLA, while knowing about the unresolved suspected child
abuse and the illegal shredding/s; and failed to comply with her legal obligation
under then section 2.28 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 to report
all suspected official misconduct to the CJC;
-
That on 7 January 1997 following the tabling of the Morris/Howard
Report which found the payment of $27,190,00 to be illegal and "open to
conclude" a breach of section 204 of Criminal Code (Qld) and sections
31 and 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989, then Auditor-General Mr
Barrie Rollason was informed by me of the findings (reiterating that the
QAO had known of the illegality since January 1993), and asked whether the
QAO still stood by its initial 1993 findings;
-
That on 19 February 1997 Mr Rollason accepted Ms Matchett's
actions as giving effect "…to the purposes of the Deed of Settlement
dated 12 February 1991 (See aforesaid Office of Crown Law section in
this Petition & Points 60-64) between the Crown and Mr Coyne"
and was within "…the prescriptions of the Financial Administration
and Audit Act 1977."
QUEENSLAND STATE ARCHIVES
-
The State Archivist, under section 55(1) the Libraries and
Archives Act 1988 (Qld), has the authority and duty to appraise all public
records and sentence them to either retention (temporarily or permanently)
or destruction by the application of certain values; and in so doing is duty
bound to act impartially, in the public interest while upholding the profession's
universal code of conduct;
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
-
That in failing to act impartially by not taking into account
Mr Coyne's rights, the State Archivist may have breached the
International Council on Archives (ICA) Code of Ethics which may invite
censure on from the international archives community on the State of
Queensland:
Point 1. Archivists should protect the integrity of archival material
and thus guarantee that it continues to be reliable evidence of the past.
The primary duty of archivists is to maintain the integrity of the records
in their care and custody. In the accomplishment of this duty they must have
regard to the legitimate, but sometimes conflicting, rights and interests
of employers, owners, data subjects and users, past, present and future.
The objectivity and impartiality of archivists is the measure of their
professionalism.
They should resist pressure from any source to manipulate evidence so as
to conceal or distort facts."
Point 8. Archivists should use the special trust given to them in the
general interest and avoid using their position to unfairly benefit themselves
or others.
Archivists must refrain from activities which might prejudice their professional
integrity, objectivity and impartiality. They should not benefit financially
or otherwise personally to the detriment of institutions, users and
colleagues...."
-
Under section 37(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989
Ms Lee McGregor, the State Archivist, is obliged to report all
suspected official misconduct to a proper authority. As the statutory
recordkeeper, she is entitled to be fully informed of all known relevant
matter associated with records under disposal appraisal. Unless fully informed,
any archivist cannot act impartially and in the public interest. If misled
or thought to have been misled, she is duty bound to ensure by reference
to a proper authority, or other appropriate means, that this position of
great public trust, central in any accountable democracy, has not been wilfully
abused by public officials (elected or appointed) for nefarious or
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
personally desirable purposes which may have, in turn, obstructed the rights
of another person to access such public records, being the "people's records";
-
That on 17 May 1990, Ms Lee McGregor, the State Archivist, was
informed by Mr Coyne that the Heiner Inquiry documents, which she approved
to be destroyed on 23 February 1990 (unbeknownst to him) on deceitful incomplete
information supplied to her by the Queensland Cabinet that they weren't required,
were in fact required as evidence for court by him and that nothing should
be destroyed;
-
That on 18 May 1990, after becoming aware of the documents'
true legal status ,and instead of acting impartially pursuant to the
Libraries and Archives Act 1988 to establish whether or not she had
been deliberately misled and had her statutory office abused, the State Archivist
phoned and took instructions from Mr Trevor Walsh, Ms Ruth Matchett's DFSAIA
Executive Officer, to tell Mr Coyne nothing pertaining to the shredding,
when she, as a statutory officer, had no legal obligation under the
Libraries and Archives Act 1988 to follow his instructions. Her
obligation was to remain impartial;
-
That on 8 September 1994 the State Archivist, (while having
a state of knowledge gained via Mr Coyne's May 1990 contact that, on 23 February
1990, she had approved the shredding of public records required (a) as evidence
in court; and (b) for access pursuant to a legally enforceable statute, but
had not been told by the Goss Cabinet, to which her Minister for Administrative
Services the Hon Glen Milliner MLA was party) was contacted by her Minister
for assistance in composing a ministerial statement to Parliament. It placed
her in an ethical, professional and legal predicament. The statement was
in response to an Matter of Public Interest (MPI) delivered by the Hon Santo
Santoro MLA in which the shredding and her role in it were criticised pursuant
to relevant law. By the content of the statement, she assisted the Hon Glen
Milliner MLA in defending the shredding. (See State Hansard 8 September
1994 p9417);
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
-
That it is beyond dispute that the State Archivist is aware
that the CJC publicly misrepresented her proper role before the Australian
Senate in February 1995 as part of the process of finding of no official
misconduct against Cabinet Ministers of 5 March 1990. It has claimed that
her sole discretion during the retention/disposal appraisal process of public
records is their "historical value" and that it is none of her
professional business to consider whether records are required for court
or the subject of a legally enforceable access statute when appraising them
for retention or disposal;
-
That on 15 March 1996 Mr Chris Hurley, former State Archivist
for Victoria (and former Australian representative on the International Council
on Archives, founded out of UNESCO in Paris, and current New Zealand
Archives Business General Manager) analysed evidence given to the Australian
Senate in 1995 concerning the role of the archivist. In his 30-page appreciation
he declared that the CJC's contradictory and misleading claims could not
be allowed to stand and called on the Australian Society of Archivists (ASA)
and the Records Management Association of Australia (RMAA) for support;
-
That on 16 June 1997 and on 18 March 1999 the Australian Society
of Archivists (ASA) issued a public statement and another updated statement
(addressing the unacceptable destruction of public records containing evidence
of suspected child abuse) respectively on the "Heiner Affair." The ASA said
this about the integrity of the public record:
"The operation of a free and democratic society depends upon the maintenance
of the integrity of the public record. Public records are a key source of
information about government actions and decisions. They provide essential
evidence of the exercise of public trust by public officials. This in turn
helps ensure public accountability and protection of the rights of citizens.
In recent years there have been a number of instances of serious disregard
for the integrity of public records in Australia. Some
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
examples include those highlighted by 'W.A. Inc.' Royal Commission, the1994
destruction of Special Branch records in New South Wales and the so-called
'Heiner Affair' in Queensland. This trend is a matter of profound concern
to the Australian Society of Archivists (ASA) and should also be of the gravest
concern to society as a whole.
Archivists, as impartial and independent professionals, play a vital role
in defending the integrity of public records. Cases such as the Heiner Affair
highlight the fact that government archivists need statutory independence
such as that afforded the Auditor-General.
The greatest threat to the integrity of the public record is the unwarranted
destruction of important documents. The ASA strongly asserts that records
should only be destroyed when an archivist reaches a professional decision
that the financial costs of preserving and maintaining access to the records
are not justified by their estimated ongoing utility, value and significance.
In other words, records should only be destroyed when they are no longer
required for the purposes of individual, corporate or societal accountability
and reference. The process of disposal and destruction of public records
should be orderly. It should be guided by established administrative procedures
which in turn are based upon internationally recognised archival principles.
-
That the ASA stated these two fundamental truths for the profession
of archives flowing out of the Heiner shredding:
"1. That government archivists are key agents
of public accountability and that, as such, they must have an adequate charter
including statutory independence from political or any
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
other improper interference in the discharge of their duties and
responsibilities. Successive Queensland Governments have failed to enact
the new archives legislation proposed by the Electoral and Administrative
Reform Commission (EARC) following upon Fitzgerald's findings. The
ASA reiterates its earlier demand that the Queensland Government enact
legislation which guarantees the role and future independence of the State
Archivist in order to help ensure the integrity of the public record in that
State.
2. That government archivists must at all times endeavour
to observe professional appraisal and disposal practices and procedures governed
by an orderly regime of records disposal authorities and that, in particular,
archivists should strongly resist any pressure to make hasty and/or ad hoc
appraisal decisions."
-
That the State Archivist has remained unacceptably mute for
more than nine years when knowing of the aforesaid CJC misrepresentation,
independent public condemnation by her peers and professional associations
of that misrepresentation but at the same time published to the world on
the Queensland Government Archives Web Site that the following values (contrary
to the CJC's claim) must be taken into account by her when sentencing
public records under the Libraries and Archives Act 1988:
"Destruction of public records
Records of temporary status may be destroyed at the expiration of the minimum
retention period described in the Schedule. There is no requirement that
records be destroyed if an agency identifies a need to retain records longer
than the mandatory minimum period.
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
Agencies are required to retain records relating to the destruction of public
records for accountability purposes.
Agencies should ensure that public records are destroyed in an appropriate
manner and that sensitive and confidential information is not inadvertently
released. Agencies may destroy records by shredding, pulping or burning.
Queensland State Archives does not offer a destruction service.
Temporary electronic records should be deleted and the storage media re-formatted
before re-use, or destroyed.
Agencies are not required to refer to Queensland State Archives when sentencing
and destroying records according to the General Disposal and Retention Schedule
for Administrative Records. There are certain conditions that agencies should
be aware of. These are set out below.
Authorisation for the disposal of public records is given under and subject
to the provisions of Section 61 of the Libraries and Archives Act 1988
(Reprint No.2) ("Section 61"). Public records must not be disposed of if
disposal would amount to a contravention of Section. Particular care should
be taken before disposing of public records of a Court or a Commission within
the meaning of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1959 - 1989.
Public records must not be disposed if they are required:
(i) for any court action which involves or may involve the State of Queensland
or an agency of the State; or (Underlining
added)
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
(ii) because the State holds documents which a party to litigation may
obtain under the relevant Rules of Court, whether or not the State is a party
to that litigation, or (Underlining
added)
(iii) pursuant to the Evidence Act 1977, or
(iv) for any other purpose required by law. (Underlining
added)
Documents which deal with the financial, legal or proprietorial rights of
the State of Queensland or a State related Body or Agency viz-a-viz another
legal entity and any document which relates to the financial, legal or
proprietorial rights of a party other than the State are potentially within
the category of public records to which particular care should be given prior
to disposal. Internal documents which strictly relate to uncontentious matters
and do not involve areas of controversy (staff employment, discipline issues
etc.) are unlikely to be required. (Underlining
added)
If in doubt about the legality or probity of the disposal of any document
which may fall within these categories you should obtain legal advice.
Records may only be disposed on a continuing basis in accordance with this
Schedule where there has not been a significant variation in the form or
content of the record series described in the Schedule.
Records not identified in this Schedule must be appraised separately by the
Queensland State Archivist.
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
Authorisation to dispose of records may be reviewed or withdrawn if the
Queensland State Archivist considers this is warranted.
Identification of any records as having permanent status does not mean that
these records can be transferred automatically to the Queensland State Archives."
-
That the above Queensland State Archives guidelines on recordkeeping
are reflective of "The Carlin Declaration" [Mr John W Carlin: Archivist of
the United States] contained in the Strategic Plan for the National Archives
and Records Management (NARA) 1997-2007 issued on 30 September 1997 which
sets world standards on recordkeeping. It declares:
Vision Statement:
"The National Archives is not a dusty hoard of ancient history. It is a public
trust on which our democracy depends. It enables people to inspect for themselves
the record of what government has done. It enables officials and agencies
to review their actions and helps citizens hold them accountable. It ensures
continuing access to essential evidence that documents:
• the rights of American citizens;
• the actions of Federal officials;
• the national experience.
And:
Mission Statement:
"NARA ensures for the citizen and the public servant, for the President and
the Congress and the Courts, ready access to essential evidence."
-
That on 27 March 1998 the ASA provided the Senate Committee
of Privileges with two supporting statements for its position on the "Heiner
Affair" coming from (a) the Society of American Archivists dated 28 February
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
1998, the largest professional body of archivists in the world; and (b) the
Academy of Certified Archivists (Albany New York) February 1998 but the
Committee's 71st Report still endorsed the CJC's misrepresentation
of the role of the archivist;
-
That the Queensland State Archivist's inaction gives rise to
a reasonable suspicion that she has aided in the cover up. Her silence has
permitted obstruction of justice found in the illegal shredding and in the
misrepresentation of her statutory office. It has permitted (a) a denial
of Mr Coyne enjoying his legal rights; and in the process, (b) the concealment
of evidence of child abuse and criminal conduct at JOYC as found nearly a
decade later by the Forde Inquiry (See Point 26); and (c) responsible Ministers
of the Crown and public officials not being held to account in our
democracy.
MISCELLANEOUS
-
That on 21 August 1998, following an examination of the relevant
Cabinet submissions tabled by Queensland Premier the Hon Peter Beattie MLA
on 30 July 1998, former Commonwealth War Crimes Unit Special Prosecutor,
Mr Robert (Bob) F Greenwood QC opined that the new evidence tended "...to
support the proposition that these Ministers (ie who ordered the shredding
on 5 March 1990 which included five senior Ministers in the Beattie Queensland
Government) may have committed criminal offences and "official misconduct"
within the meaning of the Criminal Justice Act." [See Point 2.
& Opinion tabled in Parliament on 4 March 1999 together with my submission
dated 18 September 1998 to the Forde Commission of Inquiry into the Abuse
of Children in Queensland Institutions].
-
That on 19 April 1999 former EARC Commissioner Brian Hunter
categorically denied in writing that EARC had ever investigated the
shredding which contradicted Queensland Premier the Hon Peter Beattie MLA's
claim in
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
Parliament on 4 March 1999, leaving Mr Beattie open to a finding of contempt
of Parliament. EARC allegedly held one of the ten (10) so-called "inquiries"
into my allegations according to Mr Beattie - which in reality neither occurred,
nor found what he claimed. [See Points 42 (K) and (L) - Letter tabled in
Queensland Parliament on 10 June 1999 along with my other letters to the
Speaker the Hon Ray Hollis MLA setting out the possible contempt. The letters
were tabled by Mr Allan Grice MLA, and are highly relevant to this part of
the petition].
-
That at Point 2.13 (page 10) of the 57th Report of
the Senate Committee of Privileges, the Committee found: "The Committee
does not accept the reasons put forward by Mr Lee as Chairman of the QPCU
for the withdrawal of Mr Lindeberg's membership. It considers the explanation
provided by the QPCU disingenuous and draws attention to the comments made
by Mr Lindeberg's submissions to this Committee in respect of them. The Committee
has little doubt that such a withdrawal was, as Mr Lindeberg asserts, a reprisal
for Mr Lindeberg's attempts to have matters of concern to him aired, notable
at the annual general meeting of the QPCU on 28 October 1993. The QPCU's
refusal of membership to Mr O'Neill was, in the Committee's view, to ensure
that another person with detailed knowledge of the Queensland Professional
Officers' Association Superannuation Fund and a supporter of Mr Lindeberg's
efforts to call the credit union directors and management to account at that
meeting would be prevented from attending and participating in the annual
general meeting."
-
That in July 1993 during the period when the shredding and related
matters were being covered up by the Queensland Government, and assisted
in the process by the Office of Crown Law, the Electoral and
Administrative Review Commission published its Report on "Review of
Independence of the Attorney-General" as part of the reforms in
"post-Fitzgerald Queensland." I put a submission before the Commission using
the shredding as a case study. I
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
pointed out that the law, even with the Attorney-General as the "guardian
of the public interest", was likely to play second fiddle in times of
political crisis. Mr Coyne wanted to (if necessary) exercise his right to
orderly court action regarding (a) an interpretation of Public Service
Management and Employment Regulation 65; or (b) defamation proceedings.
At pages 22 and 23 Point 3.84 of the aforesaid EARC Report it says:
"Another obligation which flows from the Attorney-General's precedence as
head of the Bar and role of advisor to the Crown is that the Crown is expected
to be a model litigant. As Justice Mahoney stated in P & C Cantarella
v Egg Marketing Board [1973] 2 NSMLR 366 at 383:
"The duty of the executive branch of government is to ascertain the law and
obey it. If there is any difficulty in ascertaining what the law is, as
applicable to the particular case, it is open to the executive to approach
the court, or afford the citizen the opportunity of approaching the court,
to clarify the matter. Where the matter is before the court it is the duty
of the executive to assist the court arrive at the proper and just result."
In the Heiner Affair matter, the executive branch of Her Majesty's Government
in the State of Queensland shredded the evidence, with Her Majesty's first
law officer, the Attorney-General being party to the decision;
-
That on 27 March 1995 Professor Miles Moody, Head of the School
of Electrical and Electronic Systems Engineering at Queensland University
of Technology, examined the tampered tape and made the following expert finding
concerning the odds of the gaps being purely co-incidental:
"…The gaps starts at the end of a sentence and a new sentence starts
at the end of the gaps. The coincidence of this occurring at each end of
the gap would be approximately equal to the square of the ratio of the length
of a phoneme to the length of the gap. Since a phoneme lasts for about one
fifth of a second, the ratio would be about 1 to 50. The pro-
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
probability of this occurring twice (once at each end of the gap) would therefore
be 1 in 2,500."
-
The Morris/Howard Report argued the applicability of section
129 of the Criminal Code (Qld) at pp 88-96. They argued that the section
could not be "read down" and that "judicial proceeding" must
invite a "wide" ambit in interpretation. Had the Parliament wished it to
mean what Mr O'Shea, the Crown Solicitor, asserted, then it should have read
"is or may be required in a judicial proceedings then pending."
By reference to the wording of the form prescribed under the Criminal
Practice Rules [Goodman v Mayor of Melbourne (1861) 1 W. & W.(L.)
4; R v Taylor (1863) 2 W. & W. (L.) 23; South Australian Banking
Co. v Horner (1968) 2 SALR 263; and Morton v Union Steamship Co of
New Zealand Ltd (1951) 83 CLR 402]; they argued (p90) "…It is
difficult to see why the operation of s. 129 should depend on the fact that
a Writ has been issued, or that a Plaint has been filed, so that conduct
which would constitute a serious criminal offence on the day after the issuing
of a Writ or the filing of a Plaint - whether or not the defendant is aware
that a Writ has been issued or that a Plaint has been filed - would not attract
criminal consequences if the same act was committed 48 hours
earlier."
Case Law cited: (R v Selvage [1982] 1 All ER 96 at 101; And further
authority in R v Thomas [1975] QB 326 at 330; R v Bailey [1956]
N.I. 15 at 16; Foord v Whiddett (1985) 6 FCR 475 and 487; The Queen
v Murphy (1985) 158 CLR at 487).
-
In Flower & Hart (a firm) v White Industries (Qld) Pty
Ltd [1999] FCA 773 (11 June 1999) it was recognized that lawyers owed
the following duty to the court:
……………………….
Kevin Lindeberg
20 Lynton Court
Alexandra Hills Q 4161
-
(d) Not to be a party to an abuse of the Court's process."
It is therefore reasonable for the petitioner to suggest that Mr Coyne's
counsel before lodging the Writ in the Supreme Court of Queensland making
a claim involving suspected official misconduct of malfeasance in public
office and deceit would have satisfied themselves that the claim was soundly
based.
-oOo-
Fait justitia, ruat coelum.
Your petitioner therefore requests the House to:
-
(A) approve leave for KEVIN LINDEBERG, a citizen of Queensland, to
appear before the Bar of Parliament to place his concerns in the public interest
before honourable Members of the Queensland Parliament regarding all the
admissions of fact associated with the shredding of the Heiner Inquiry documents,
and the significant issues touching the rule of law, integrity in government
and public dissent arising therefrom;
(B) appoint an independent Special Prosecutor to investigate and take appropriate
action in respect of all matters associated with this Petition;
(C) in addition and not in exclusion to any of the above, by order of the
Parliament, instruct the Honourable the Speaker to place this Petition before
His Excellency the Queensland Governor for consideration and appropriate
action to restore integrity to our system of government in Her Most Gracious
Majesty's sovereign State of Queensland in the Commonwealth of Australia.
…………………………………………………
Kevin Lindeberg
Petitioner of 20 Lynton Court, Alexandra Hills Queensland 4161
13 September 1999
|
