Role of 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 orfrustrate 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  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 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 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(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.
- 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.