By: Kevin Lindeberg

Kevin Lindeberg — Sun, 08 Feb 2004 01:14:30 +0000

A SNAP QUEENSLAND ELECTION TO PROTECT KIDS: OR IS THE RABBIT ON THE RUN?
So Queensland Premier Beattie called a snap election for 7 February 2004, and won another historic victory with the Coalition wondering what hit it. Mr Beattie caught many by surprise, while others saw it as running true to form when certain facts are known.
He claimed to need a new mandate so that he could implement the 110 recommendations of the Crime and Misconduct Commission’s Abuse of Foster Care Children Report. Mr. Beattie assured everyone that children must always come first. Wonderful! So it seems, the welfare of abused children brought about this snap election.
Very commendable indeed, but was it true?
Perhaps his snap election was a little more than that? Perhaps, he had an eye on the looming political/legal/constitutional crisis that the Heiner Affair represents to himself, certain of his Ministers and others in Queensland’s public administration, all of which, ironically, just happens to find its origins in the notoriously dysfunctional Families Department which the CMC damned in its Report recommending the establishment of a new Department of Child Safety?
It should be noted – and stated over and over – that Mr. Beattie went to the polls on Saturday 7 February 2004, some 3 days BEFORE Federal Parliament resumes with a certain hot matter known to be on the agenda of both Federal Houses: the Heiner Affair.
The House of Representatives Standing Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, chaired by the Hon Bronwyn Bishop MP, has not finished with its examination into Heiner as part of its on-going inquiry into crime in the community.
It holds a new public document revealing the new layer of criminality associated with the Heiner Affair concerning the legal implications of (a) knowingly destroying public records containing unlawful/criminal abuse of children in a State-run institution to prevent the material being used against the careers of the staff who owed those children a duty of care; and (b) the February 1991 Deed of Settlement’s extraordinary ‘silence’ conditions about certain ‘events’ at the centre in exchange for public money. http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/laca/crimeinthecommunity/subs/sub142_2.pdf
The Australian Senate is to vote on establishing a Senate Select Committee on the Lindeberg Grievance and consider whether or not the Queensland Government and Criminal Justice Commission (now known as the Crime and Misconduct Commission) misled it on Heiner some years ago in respect of whether:
(a) the criminal law concerning the destruction of evidence (containing evidence of abuse of children in a State-run institution) was knowingly twisted for an improper purpose;
(b) a relevant “access” regulation was knowingly misinterpreted for an improper purpose;
(c) a tendered document revealing evidence of children at the centre being handcuffed for excessive periods was deliberately tampered with for an improper purpose;
(d) a relevant file concerning the pack-rape of a female indigenous minor at the centre was deliberately withheld from the Senate for an improper purpose;
(e) the role of the State Archivist was misrepresented for an improper purpose;
(f) the relevant February 1991 Deed of Settlement between the State of Queensland and a public official was misrepresented for an improper purpose
and whether contempt may have been committed in the above going to possible obstruction of justice.
I suggest that these matters to the social/political/administrative/criminal justice affairs of Queensland are something which voters might like to have known about before casting their votes on February 7 but Mr. Beattie – ‘the rabbit on the run’ – has now cutely denied them that right by calling a snap election – and received another overwhelming majority.
Is that the end of the story? I don’t think so….
Kevin Lindeberg
11 Riley Drive
CAPALABA QLD 4157
Wednesday 14 January 2004
07 3390 3912 or 0401 224 013

Comments on: Separation of powers again

By: Kevin Lindeberg