By Senator Santo Santoro, Senator for Queensland
With regret, I am unable to agree with the findings of this
Committee, and specifically, I do not believe that the Committee is in a
position to find that no contempt of the Senate was committed and that there is
no basis for reconstituting the Committee and concluding this inquiry in a
timely, but comprehensive, manner.
There have been a number of Commonwealth and State
inquiries into the events leading up to, and following from, the decision of
the Queensland Cabinet in March 1990 to destroy the "Heiner
The issues central to these inquiries are many and varied,
but strike at the heart of good and honest government and the proper
administration of criminal and child protection laws.
The Heiner inquiry was established by the then Queensland
Government in 1989 to investigate issues relating to the treatment of children
in the John Oxley Youth Centre. Shortly after that inquiry was established,
there was a change of government (in December 1989), and soon thereafter the
inquiry was finalised. The documents generated by that inquiry were
subsequently shredded by a decision of the Queensland Cabinet.
The reasons for that decision being made, the legal
ramifications that flowed from it, and the treatment of the central players,
including Mr Lindeberg, have been matters of public controversy in Queensland
for more than a decade.
Despite a number of inquiries, it is fair to say that many
serious issues remain unresolved.
If that were all that was involved, serious though these
issues are, there would, no doubt, be little to enliven the jurisdiction of the
Senate. However, the Senate established two select committees into public
interest whistleblowing, and serious allegations were made that the Queensland
Criminal Justice Commission gave false and misleading evidence to the second of
the inquiries (the Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases). These
allegations are set out in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Report.
The Senate Committee of Privileges subsequently dealt with
those allegations in December 1996 and May 1998.
This Committee was set up to fully and finally deal with Mr
Lindeberg’s allegations. If the Senate had thought that there was nothing
further in those allegations, and that they had been fully and properly
investigated by previous inquiries, then it would not have agreed to establish
Clearly one cogent
reason for establishing this Committee was a desire to ensure that there was
closure on these allegations.
If that was the fundamental purpose underpinning the
establishment of this Committee, then this Committee has not achieved the
objective set by the Senate.
Fundamentally, my concern is that this Committee has only
partially carried out its work, and yet purports to make findings which could
only be made at the conclusion of a full and proper inquiry. I am not in a
position, on the basis of the limited evidence that has been submitted, to sign
off on findings that could only be made when due process has been given to Mr
Lindeberg and others, and after due and diligent inquiry is made of the
My concerns are as follows:
(a) The Committee only convened one
public hearing, on 11 June 2004 in Brisbane. The Committee has only heard
from three witnesses.
(b) The Committee agreed to convene a further public hearing for
16 and 17 August 2004, but this hearing was deferred due to the pending federal
(c) Mr Lindeberg, and other witnesses, who were due to appear before
the Committee at its August hearings, were not given sufficient additional
opportunity to present further material or to respond to questions that may be
the outset, members of the Committee were of the view that several days of
hearings were required to fully explore the matters before the inquiry. At the
Committee's public hearing on the 11 June 2004 Committee members indicated that
they were keen for Mr Lindeberg to continue his testimony in order to further
explore the issues raised.
These comments provide a clear
indication that there were outstanding matters to pursue and that the process
of evidence gathering was not complete.
Further, at the conclusion of his
appearance at that hearing Mr Lindeberg indicated to the Committee that "There
are other things I would like to say". Contrary to the claim in the
majority report that Mr Lindeberg has had ample opportunity to make his case,
he was not afforded the opportunity to state his case fully before this
(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.
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.
Central to the establishment of the Heiner inquiry were
allegations of the mistreatment of children in detention. Much of the
alleged "cover up" of material, or of misleading evidence, relates to
how people in authority in Queensland dealt with children at risk and in
This Committee was established to inquire into matters
germane to a contempt of the Senate, but that of itself does not adequately
express or highlight the human dimension of the Lindeberg grievance, and why
this matter has not gone away, but has remained a matter of ongoing public
debate and individual anguish (for many) in Queensland.
I am disappointed that this Committee has sought to rule
off this matter having not completed its inquiry. I am disappointed because the
findings of the Committee will not be the final word in the Heiner inquiry
debate, and, in fact, this half completed inquiry will only fuel the debate
that there has been an ongoing “cover up”.
My dissent from the findings of this Committee should not
be read as an endorsement of any of the allegations of Mr Lindeberg, or giving
implicit support to a finding that there has been a contempt of the
However, I do not believe that Mr Lindeberg and other
potential witnesses have been given procedural fairness by this committee, and
I do not believe there is any proper basis for its findings.
I dissent, because in my view, this Committee has not
followed proper process and its findings are founded on an inadequate base of evidence.
respectfully recommend that this Committee be reconstituted and complete its
task, not just so that the Lindeberg Grievance is dealt with finally, but so
that the important human and constitutional issues underpinning this Grievance
are fully and fairly ventilated.
Hansard Hearing transcript of where Committee members raised the
prospect of calling Mr Lindeberg again to reappear before the Committee. (PDF 80KB)
15 November 2004
Back to top