Older background information and third party links

Quote from Courier Mail: 'Former Labor premier Wayne Goss last night described the allegations as "flawed". "I never feared anything would come of it. What I did resent was the continued reports of some unspecified wrongdoings", he said.'

Links and background information:

Introductory statement

"Curiously though what was forgotten by the mainstream media in the thousands of words written about him and his career to-date was his unexpected and stunning representation in 1995 of Queenslander Mr Kevin Lindeberg before the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases when it attempted to investigate the notorious shredding of the Heiner Inquiry documents by order of the Goss Government.

"What has been curiously forgotten was his oral submission and written opinion regarding the legality of the shredding. He went so far as to suggest that it was open to conclude that the entire Goss Cabinet had committed serious offences when it ordered the shredding of those public records to prevent their use in litigation after the Crown had been served with notice of impending court proceedings in which those records were known to be critically relevant. He suggested in 1995 that the case warranted serious re-examination and severely criticised the Criminal Justice Commission’s handling of the Lindeberg allegations."

(See Australian Society of Archivists (ASA) link below: "The ASA also wishes to place on record its absolute rejection of the argument which the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission placed before the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases in 1995, to wit that archivists should only consider the historical significance of records when reaching a disposal decision.")

The report by the "whistle blower". (NB 230k text only document) - January 1995.

"My submission presents an outline on how various public officials and agencies handled the shredding and related matters. All in their various ways, had a duty to act honestly and impartially in the public interest. All in their various ways, had a capacity to deliver justice to Mr Coyne and myself. None has.

"Mr Coyne's career was reduced to tatters by his Department using pro-active means representing abuse of office. Following my removal from the case, his union betrayed his interests throughout preferring to assist in covering up the shredding rather than exposing it for what it was and remains.

"I was at the time of the shredding, and am, a member of the Australian Labor Party.

"I also became a victim of the shredding, and would not cop it.

"That struggle now places me before the Australian Senate for examination based on facts."

Submission to Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases  (NB 210k text only document) - by Kevin Lindeberg - July 1995. (Downloadable MS Word Document).

"In essence Mr O'Shea has mis-stated Mr Callinan's submission, and then attempted to deal with various points on that mis-stated premise. He used the umbrella of Parliament to table his opinion without opening himself up to scrutiny by the members of the Committee unlike my counsel Mr Ian Callinan QC did on 23 February 1995."

Connolly/Ryan Judicial Review (extract):

4.5.11. And finally in Section 59 (Page 142):

"The real impropriety involved in the payment to Mr Coyne relates to the fact that - as, in our view, it is open to conclude - the payment was made for an ulterior purpose. No doubt the individuals concerned in negotiating and making the payment conceived that the Department would benefit to some extent from securing Mr Coyne's silence, as this would remove the possibility of further distraction as the new management of the Oxley Centre attempted to re-establish satisfactory working relationships after the upheaval and trauma which resulted from the Heiner Inquiry. Presumably, those individuals assuaged their own consciences, by assuring themselves that $27,190.00 was a small price to pay in order to allow the Department to "get on with business." But in our view it is open to conclude that the same individuals were fully conscious of the fact that they had acted dishonourably, and perhaps illegally, over the destruction of the Heiner documents, the returning of statements to the QSSU, and the destruction of photocopies of those statements. Had the true facts been brought to light - as they have now, for the first time, been brought fully to light - a number of individuals, including the Minister and Ms Matchett, were at risk of serious personal and (in the Minister's case) political embarrassment. In our view it is open to conclude that those individuals allowed their personal interests to guide them in deciding on the disbursement of $27,190.00 of public funds, and accordingly acted in a way which can be characterised as involving substantial impropriety."

Report by Ian Callinan QC (now High Court judge)

"It is clear that Cabinet made a decision to destroy the documents knowing full well that Coyne wished access to them. It may be that Cabinet made that decision to destroy the documents on the basis that, in its view, the public interest in protecting the people who gave evidence before Heiner outweighed Coyne's private interest in having access to them."

Australian Society of Archivists) (ASA) Statement on the Heiner Affair
"The ASA also wishes to place on record its absolute rejection of the argument which the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission placed before the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases in 1995, to wit that archivists should only consider the historical significance of records when reaching a disposal decision. There are a wide variety of factors which might inform a decision to retain or destroy a particular set of records. These factors include, but are not limited to, the value of the records as evidence of financial affairs and obligations and the value of the records as evidence relating to citizen's rights. Any indication that records are likely to be required in future legal proceedings should, by itself, be sufficient justification to warrant the retention of the records in question."

Shredding of the “Heiner” Documents - the Hurley (Chief Archivist Victorian Government) report - March 1996 (NB 100k text only document) - (Downloadable MS Word Document)..

"The original destruction appears to have been the incautious act of a newly-elected government trying to escape the consequences of an ill-conceived decision of its predecessor. Like a mini-watergate, the real harm came not from the original decision but from subsequent efforts to justify it and to minimise the damage.

"The Goss government was ill-advised to have undertaken document destruction in this way. It is highly unusual, after all, for the disposal of a particular set of records (usually an administrative housekeeping matter) to be dealt with at cabinet level. The advice from Crown Solicitor O’Shea said the State Archivist’s concurrence was mandatory but neither he nor any other adviser seems, at that early stage, to have considered the question whether the Archivist’s discretion involved a consideration of issues in any way related to the government’s reasons for wanting to destroy the records or any reasons citizens (historians apart) might have for wishing them to be preserved. So far as those reasons were concerned, the Archivist appears to have been treated as rubber stamp.

"It was only subsequently, when the whistleblowers concerned voiced their objections and refused to be put off, that the Queensland Government, the Crown Solicitor, and the CJC developed and articulated theories about the nature of the Archivist’s discretion and her proper role. At each stage in the development and defence of their position, the persistence of the whistleblowers compelled them to advance more and more outrageous arguments in order to sustain the flawed logic of the official Queensland position.

"Finally, the official Queensland position collapses under its own internal contradictions. On the one hand, the State Archivist has an unfettered discretion to destroy records, potentially the power to retain or approve the destruction of official records on any grounds she chooses, arbitrarily, or by whatever whim takes her fancy in the passing moment. On the other hand, she is most severely limited to a consideration of historical value and it is not her proper function to consider any other ground for retention. The first proposition is based on the absence of any “legal/legislative provision” bearing on the matter and the second is advanced despite the absence of such provision restricting the archivist’s discretion in the way suggested.

"The professional associations - the Australian Society of Archivists (ASA) and the Records Management Association of Australia (RMAA) have long argued the propriety of submitting records disposal practices to professional review in the interests of public accountability (not just preservation of an historical record). Nowhere has the opposing case (that governments are free to destroy records at their own discretion subject only to a consideration of historical value and that State archives authorities have no role to play in support of accountability) been so strongly and persistently placed on the public record. It cannot be allowed to stand. ASA and RMAA should take up the challenge and do whatever is necessary to place on the public record their opposition to the stance taken by the Queensland authorities in the Heiner case."

Australian Archives advice on keeping records. "Proper recordkeeping is a crucial part of government administration and accountability. It is the basis for establishing and maintaining documentary evidence of government activities and decisions supporting accountability and good business practice. Agencies contracting out the provision of services to other parties must ensure that these arrangements include recordkeeping practices which meet Commonwealth standards." Extract from the Newnham Submission

"The evidence in Shreddergate mounts and mounts. Not only have respected senior counsel come to the view that a serious prima facie conspiracy exists in the shredding but former Queensland Police Commissioner Noel Newnham added his professional weight to a similar view in his submission to the Connolly/Ryan Judicial Review into the Effectiveness of the CJC. "

The statement in the Senate by Queensland Democratic Senator Woodley - May 1997

"The issue at stake is essentially a simple one, but one of great importance. If the Crown or the state, through its statutory keeper of public records, cannot be relied on to impartially and independently protect public records from destruction when those records are known to be required for foreshadowed court proceedings or when it is known that they are the subject of a legally enforceable access statute, the due administration of justice is gravely imperilled. That is essentially what the Lindeberg declaration states in a document I wish to table later.

"As a Democrat, I find it hard to think of anything more serious than the Crown or state deliberately shredding public records to thwart justice. One of Australia's leading Queen's Counsel, Mr Ian Callinan, described it as an unthinkable act. It is made much worse, however, when executive government uses and abuses the independent and impartial good office of a state or federal archivist to achieve that objective. Archivists should be protecting records in the public interest, not destroying them for any desired outcome of executive government or its agencies at the expense of individual lawful rights. It is fundamentally undemocratic and may breach criminal and administrative law in the process."

Senate slammed over CJC case - by Weekend Independent

"THE failure of the Australian Senate to investigate evidence that the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission provided false or misleading evidence to a Senate Committee has been described as a serious blow to democracy in Australia.

"Queensland whistleblowers have written to Senate President Margaret Reid calling on the Upper House to investigate the matter which was brought to its attention by the Queensland Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee (PCJC) eight months ago.

"President of the Whistleblowers Action Group, Gordon Harris, told The Weekend Independent whistleblowers were very disappointed the Senate had failed to act on the matter and were critical of it for "not wanting to act".

"The Senate is destroying the rights of Australians," Mr Harris said."

Coalition Government Responds to Advice Regarding Heiner Affair -
June 1997

"Mr Borbidge said the Director had advised there was one matter relative to which a charge could, theoretically, be laid under section 92 of the Criminal Code which deals with abuse of office.

"But the Director had concluded his advice by stating that: "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".

"Mr Borbidge said the Government had accepted the Director's advice, and no prosecutions would be launched as a result of his report."

Over 50 articles and original FOI documents researched and uncovered by The Weekend Independent - check out "Shreddergate"

The report by The Weekend Independent- August 1997

Return to "Making the news"

Scribbles Global Web Builders Strachan and Co GWB FijiBure.Com EmailStaff thenetpics thestoryofus Author Woman to Woman