The Chair Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of Inquiry into Crime in the Community
House of Representatives Parliament House CANBERRA 2600
1st Submission of Mr. Bruce Grundy, Journalist In Residence, School of Journalism and Communication. The University of Queensland
The Criminal Justice Commission Following the publication of my first story, the Criminal Justice Commission was asked to investigate the whether there had been any official misconduct in the way the matter had been dealt with at the time. Indeed the CJC investigated The Portals incident - not the one I had written about. However, the CJC found "there was no reasonable basis to suspect any official misconduct by any departmental staff in respect of their duty to report the alleged rape of the girl". That is a remarkable conclusion and I do not believe anyone who reads the attached documents would find such a conclusion credible. Following the CJC's determination, the Head of the Families Department then released a press statement in which he welcomed the CJC's finding clearing his department of a cover-up. And so they all got off - scott free. Just as those who shredded the Heiner documents (which were being sought at the time for legal action) did. Read the full submission.
2nd Submission of Mr. Bruce Grundy, Journalist In Residence, School of Journalism and Communication. The University of Queensland
Dear Madam Chair, I have just read, with disquiet, the discussion proofs of Mr Heiner’s evidence to you (18 May 2004) and note that he says he did not interview a John Oxley Youth Worker who had been a pilot (Mr Michael Roch who earlier appeared before you). May I make the following points. 1. Mr Heiner also says he did not interview Mr Coyne, the manager of the centre he was investigating. But he did, at least according to Mr Coyne. For one whole day, on 11 January 1990. The following is an extract from Mr Coyne’s 1 May 1995 submission to the Senate Select Commiffee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases. It says on page 6 under the heading “Giving Evidence”. On 11th January, 7990, / went before Mr Heiner andhis Departmental support staff to give evidence. He indicated to me that he hadbeen appointed to investigate grievances under Regulation 63 of the Public Service Management and Employment Regulations. Before giving evidence / had a discussion with Mr Heiner and he told me something. I then found myself in the position where ... etc And on page 7: I then considered my unenviable position and gave evidence because I had done nothing wrong and wanted my name cleared. I ar~swered questions for the whole of the day, 17th January, 1990.” If Mr Heiner does not remember interviewing Mr Coyne, what credibility can we attach to his claim he did not interview Mr Roch? I suggest, with respect, none at all. Read the full 2nd submission.
3rd Submission of Mr. Bruce Grundy, Journalist In Residence, School of Journalism and Communication. The University of Queensland
Mr Heiner also says he never read the letters of complaint from staff about Mr Coyne. That seems quite remarkable, but also highly unlikely. He provided summaries of them to Mr Coyne (see Appendix A Morris and Howard Report). Did he summarise them without reading them? Did he get his staff or someone else to summarise them? If that is the case, then we really do have a joke on our hands. Are we to believe Mr Heiner spent a day interviewing Mr Coyne without knowing what the complaints against Mr Coyne were? Mr Heiner says his memory is sketchy and he tried to forget the matter. It seems to me, with respect, that in relation to some key matters he succeeded. Read the full final submission.