The Lindeberg Grievance
Commonweath of Australia Senate
OPENING STATEMENT BY MR KEVIN LINDEBERG
CHAIR—Thank you. Be seated. I now invite you to make an opening statement.
Mr Lindeberg—Some may ask: why has the Senate come back to this matter again? Some may say it is a waste of time. Some may ask: what is new? Some may say that this is yet another occasion where I am tilting at windmills, like some modern-day Don Quixote.
But others, who have taken the time to acquaint themselves with the facts and who are not diverted by myths and untruths, will join me in saying that this committee’s task is a hugely important one, based on new evidence and by no means a waste of time. Those eyes, nationally and internationally, are watching these proceedings with keen interest.
This committee’s prime task is to see whether or not its privileges and immunities were knowingly abused at an earlier time. The character of the evidence to be advanced may prove that criminal contempt of the Senate has taken place.
In simple terms, if a government and law enforcement authority can appear before the Senate and provide false and misleading evidence to cover up serious crimes, which go to the heart of a democratic society, and the Senate does not care then we are in deep strife.
I am talking about crimes such as the need to protect the administration of justice by properly protecting known and actual evidence from lawful unshredding in anticipated and pending judicial proceedings, the need to protect children in care and not cover up the crime of criminal paedophilia, the need to properly protect public records, the need to protect the integrity of evidence provided to the Senate, the need to properly disburse public moneys and not use it as hush money to cover up crime, and the need for probity in high public office.
If this is all too hard and the Senate baulks at the immensity of the task when evidence subsequently surfaces showing that perjury or contempt may have been committed by a state government or law enforcement agency which at an earlier time prevented the Senate from making full and proper findings and recommendations pursuant to its constitutional function, then we can give the game away—we can fold our tents. Our democratic system of representative government will have been subverted to become a farce, a joke, a circus of clowns.
THE R F GREENWOOD QC SUBMISSION ON THE LINDEBERG GRIEVANCE & THE HEINER AFFAIR SENATE HANSARD 28 JUNE 2001
Whistleblowers: Heiner Case Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (3.08 a.m.) —
I seek an indication from the chamber whether all senators' adjournment speeches will be incorporated. The PRESIDENT —It would be a matter of the speeches being shown in advance to the whips, and it may have been agreed or not have been agreed. I do not know. You have the call, Senator. Senator HARRIS —I have seen no adjournment speeches, Madam President. The PRESIDENT —You have the call to speak if you wish, Senator. Senator HARRIS —I rise to table a grievance—dated 9 May 2001—this evening on behalf of Queenslander Mr Kevin Lindeberg and compiled by Mr Robert F. Greenwood QC, in respect of a charge that the Senate was gravely misled by the Queensland government and the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission when it took evidence in the Heiner affair in 1995 before the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases chaired by Senator Shayne Murphy. The grievance is addressed to Senator Margaret Reid, President of the Senate. Honourable senators should know that, after considering the matter, the President declined to table it but she invited the interested parties, Messrs Lindeberg and Greenwood, to see if any senator would. After an approach and careful consideration, I have agreed to do so. Under normal circumstances I would respect the President's discretion but on this occasion, regretfully, I cannot. The grievance does bring serious new evidence and critical insights into the notorious Heiner affair which I believe must be appropriately considered by this chamber. Disturbingly, it reveals for the first time that allegations of child abuse brought about the Heiner inquiry, and that the shredding unacceptably aided in covering up the abuse. This chamber knows that I, along with all other senators, have a longstanding interest in eradicating child abuse, no matter where it exists, who has engaged in it and who has covered it up. To reiterate, the new evidence reveals what can be reasonably assumed to have been shredded, namely, evidence of abuse of children in that state run institution, and it throws a new and disturbing light on the thousands of dollars of public money paid by the Queensland government to a public servant to buy his silence about the child abuse and related matters.
Senate Select Committee on the Lindeberg Grievance
Report November 2004
In relation to the first term of reference, Mr Lindeberg specifically identified four main matters in which he claims the previous inquiries were misled. Accordingly the report focuses on these matters, which are:
- providing to the Senate a contrived interpretation of section 129 of the Criminal Code (Qld) 1899 in particular, and of Public Service Management and Employment Regulation 65 and Libraries and Archives Act 1988;
- deliberately tampering with evidence as in Document 13 by providing it to the Senate in an incomplete form in order to inflict a detriment on a witness and/or witnesses to a related Senate inquiry, and to improperly obstruct the Senate inquiry from making full and proper findings and recommendations;
- deliberately withholding known relevant evidence from the Senate which was in the possession and control of the Queensland Government at all relevant times revealing the crime of pack-rape and criminal paedophilia; and
- failing to properly disclose to the Senate the true nature of the February 1991 Deed of Settlement between Mr Peter Coyne and the State of Queensland concerning certain ’events’ at the John Oxley Youth Detention Centre, which both parties agreed to never publicly disclose in exchange for the payment of taxpayers’ moneys after threats were made by certain persons against State public officials to take the matter to the CJC, in particular, to investigate.
Dissenting Report Senator Santoro
(d) The Committee wrote to the Queensland Government on 11 August 2004 requesting a copy of the unedited version of Document 13, which is central to this inquiry, but, to date, the Queensland Government has not responded. The committee undertook to receive Document 13 in camera to protect the identity of the children identified in the document (assuming they were named in it), and had suggested to the Queensland Premier that much of the speculation surrounding the document might be addressed if the committee were able to inspect the document in its entirety. That is, if Document 13 had been edited originally to protect the children named in it, providing the committee with the opportunity to verify this point and report on it would have laid to rest the "theories" that circulate about its content.
Senator Baranaby Joyce 17/9/07 - ADJOURNMENT SPEECH - Heiner Affair and Lindeberg Grievance
I would like to read two letters onto the record tonight. The first letter is from the Hon. Jack Lee AO QC, Retired Chief Judge at Common Law Supreme Court of New South Wales; co-signed by Dr Frank McGrath, Retired Chief Judge, Compensation Court of New South Wales; co-signed by Alastair MacAdam, Senior Lecturer in Arts Law, Law Faculty, QUT Brisbane, and Barrister-at-Law; co-signed by the Hon. Justice RP Meagher QC, former Justice of the Appeal Court of New South Wales; co-signed by Alex Shand QC, leading QC in Australia; and also co-signed by Barry O’Keefe, former Chief Judge, Commercial Division, Supreme Court of New South Wales and former Commissioner of the Independent Commission against Corruption in New South Wales. It is addressed to the Hon. Peter Beattie MLA: