You’d almost think these newspaper hacks collude on the timing this of stuff. In the wake of Glenn Milne’s grubby story about Rudd’s visit to a New York strip club, his colleague Piers Ackerman has dredged up an even more ancient story about the Goss Cabinet’s order to shred documents relating to an investigation by retired magistrate Noel Heiner into the alleged abuse of children (including an alleged rape) at the John Oxley Youth Detention Centre. This took place in 1990. At this distance in time, it would be almost impossible to form a judgement about what actually transpired. I’ve got a vague recollection of reading about it, and remember thinking that the shredding of the papers sounded dodgy. But while Ackerman is posing as a crusading journo, I’ve got no doubt the real purpose of this column is to try to generate some headlines which link Rudd’s name with child abuse and rape.
26 Responses to “Everything but the kitchen sink”
Leave a Reply
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
Yep, I;ll bet the GG has got some orders from
HowardCrosby/Textor to improve Howard’s image after Costello blew it last week.Mark, I recall that the story about the shredding documents – it kept on appearing in the newspapers for years. I don’t recall everything about it – even at the time it seemed very complicated and difficult to understand. I do remember that the core of the story was something like this: the Qld govt shredded some documents and they defended the shredding for some reasonable sounding (legal? – perhaps to do with defamation?) reason. Some people claimed that they shredded the documents to hide information. It was impossible to make a judgement from reading newspapers.
Well Piers Ackerman is being himself,riding on an already established controversy. But I dont think Mark you are are being accurate about his point, because essentially,it refers really to assessing character, and because I hold a low opinion of Rudd already,and Piers ,well, I dont go out of my way to read him. Perhaps there is more than a smokey joint or booze masculinity that Piers knows about. And , as Rudd has said nothing intelligent so far about the nightclub stuff, I cannot remember, was remarked on by Rudd himself about matters wheat and bribes. So,those of us,who remember important personages claiming this and that about others and themselves,often have the pigeons they throw away come back to see them.[You could tell me that there is no quote from Rudd on failed memories]. And if Rudd doesnt want to be judged by the same qualities of his own thinking on matters,well what then is essentially wrong with Ackermans!?.I will answer… it isnt mine!?
I read in a comment today that Milne’s wife works for Crosby/Textor.
If that’s true, it’s a cosy world, isn’t it, politics and press gallery ‘journalism’.
Akerman
But if someone else was Labor leader he wouldn’t give a rats about this.
Well, there’s no proof Rudd was even involved in the decision – whatever the merits were. And Sacha’s right – you’d need a Royal Commission to make any sense of it.
Though Rudd probably has invited this sort of stuff by more or less claiming he was Premier while Goss was just the frontman.
On a related note, have either Piers or Milne ever actually won a Walkley ? I ask this as they think they “Credible investigative Journalists”, when in fact they are Gossip Columnists.
The way I remember it is this.
There were legal/procedural reasons why the evidence given to Heiner could not be used. Goss and co then decided that because the evidence could not be used it was better that it did not exist.
I agreed with that, because if evidence was inappropriately assembled and could not be used, then the best way of ensuring that it wouldn’t be used is to destroy it.
Where the problem came in was that a new inquiry should have been instituted. Because there was no such action taken then the question of protecting one’s mates is more than legitimate, it sticks out like dogs balls.
But all questions should be addressed to Wayne Goss. To think that Rudd had anything substantial to do with the decision is to underestimate Goss and no-one should do that!
I’ve just been doing a bit of research on the background for a story I’ll submit to Crikey for tomorrow. So watch this space.
All right! Scoundrel time! Let’s get this party started! Clean out everyone’s closet!
By the end, the only person left standing that the electorate can still stomach in public office will be Humphrey B. Bear. And even then there’ll still be rumours about what happened with Mr Squiggle, that pencil sharpner and some blank stationary in a Canberra motel room.
Btw, Ackerman really likes to throw his weight around in comments on his “blog” I noticed.
Speaking of Humphrey & Prime Ministers.
Maybe something got up his nose…again.
Frank,
One of the individuals in your photo is an intelligent individual with an unblemished record of public service.
Its not the one in the suit!
The Heiner affair has been investigated many times, including being looked at in at least 3 Senate inquiries (initially being raised in this report in 1994 and more fully in Chapter 5 in this report in 1995 and most recently in 2004 (I participated in this one). The key problem was that the documents they shredded may have been wanted for legal action, and therefore there is an allegation of destroying evidence. It wasn’t to cover sexual abuse though, it was to prevent defamation, as it was discovered the Heiner inquiry had been set up incorrectly, and the assumed legal privilege against defamation etc for people providing evidence to the inquiry didn’t exist. I have no doubt the Goss Cabinet did the wrong thing, even though some could argue it was for well-intentioned reasons – and as is usual with these things, the cover up and the crunching of anyone who objected created a bigger problem than the original action.
But its all got very little to do with Kevin Rudd, and frankly even most Libs were tired of raking over this one again by the time of the 2004 Inquiry, although from memory Bronwyn Bishop used an Inquiry of one of her Rep’s Committees to try to reignite it too. The wrong thing was done, and people who tried to whistleblow about it got very unfairly treated, but still nonsense to try to clobber Rudd with it. It is even more of a long bow than the Wolfdene Dam, which was a key pre-election promise for Labor and which the Liberals also opposed.
Jeez I hadn’t read anything by Ackerman for ages … and I won’t be going back for a while, after reading this:
WTF does that mean? Well it doesn’t mean anything, obviously, but what is it supposed to mean? That Kiefel was appointed as a gesture of contempt for Labor? How does that work? That appointing a bloke would have endorsed Labor’s ‘love affair with affirmative action’? Well if you say so PIers.
Howard’s been in power for more than 11 years for Chrissake … what kind of obsessive mind would see a judicial appointment as having any relevance whatsoever to Labor’s attitude to anything?
Anyway at least it saved me having to read the rest of the turgid garbage.
Everyone:
Now that this attempt to smear Rudd has come crashing down on the Coalition …. the next attempt at smearing will most likely target Labor staffers/officials and Labor supporters/voters. “It seemed like a good idea at the time”.
Nabakov:
How can we make a valid vote for Humphrey B Bear?
The dirt unit is a very risky ploy, given the general state of truce, and the well-known dirt on the PM.
Gratifying signs of advanced desperation from Team Rodent.
More on Heiner…
The Heiner inquiry was set up by the Cooper government in the dying days of the National party regime – sort of like the administrative rearrangements made in the Third Reich in the early weeks of April 1945. Contrary to popular mythology, retired magistrate Noel Heiner was appointed not to inquire into allegations of child abuse at the (soon thereafter closed) John Oxley Youth Detention Centre, but to inquire into allegations of bullying of some staff by other staff. The appointment of Heiner was invalid because only public servants could be appointed to conduct such inquiries under the public service legislation, and Heiner was a retired magistrate. The documents were destroyed, under advice from the Crown solicitor, because they could have been used to found defamation actions by some individuals against other individuals on account of the improper establishment of the inquiry. The brand new Goss cabinet was faced with a godawful mess – either they could waste public funds by indemnifying individuals for defamation costs, or they could allow individuals to hang out to dry based on supposedly privileged evidence given in good faith. And all this over a facility that Labor had always wanted to close – and soon did. The whole thing would have died quietly were it not for Professional Officers Association official Kevin Lindeberg, who became consumed with the case to the point of irrationality and who could well still be bending the ear of anyone from the media unwise enough to listen. Among the media types seduced have been David Margan and the entire journalism dept at the Uni of Queensland, all of whom have supplied yet more oxygen to the dying embers of this coodabeen scandal. Akerman’s head will join many others on the Heiner trophy wall.
If it’s a conspiracy, it’s one that has enlisted both sides of politics and much of the legal profession, and one that lacks anything resembling motive. As Andrew Bartlett says, it’s been perhaps the most inquired-into subject in living memory. IMHO the most comprehensive examination was the 1997 Morris Howard report, commissioned by the Borbidge coalition government with the object of digging up some dirt to throw at the Labor opposition. They found none.
“Though Rudd probably has invited this sort of stuff by more or less claiming he was Premier while Goss was just the frontman.”
mmm, guess we will need to deal with local Qld gossip/angst in making decisions for our next P.M. So be it……….
I’m not so sure about that. My sources inform me that he was once allegedly seen on national television with NO PANTS ON!
In a kiddies’ show timeslot, no less.
Sorry Mark this might be a little off-topic, but I’d like to see Howard try to throw a kitchen sink at the Ruddster. I think it would be more than suitably slap-stick for this election. Possibly even a little too high-brow for the current standards.
Now, back on-topic.
Surely, if we are to keep clinging to the Westminister tradition then all blame ultimately rests with elected officials who actually made the decision?
Why is it that conservatives in this country really don’t seem to give a damn about preserving one of our better democratic traditions, that is that elected officials are accountable for the actions of their non-elected staff? Surely true conservatives must see the benefit in this tradition.
Re Heiner – Andrew Bartlett summarises the issue pretty well but there is another angle to it. The corrupt and inept National Party did a hopeless job of establishing the inquiry. Labor comes to power and finds out it is a legal mess. In my view they take the wrong decision to shred the documents (sending archivists and conspiracy theorists into a spin for almost twenty years resulting in wasting vast amounts of taxpayer dollars that should have gone into family services agencies). In hindsight, they should have re-constituted the inquiry properly and let it run its course.
But the important point is when did you last hear about one side of politics conspiring to cover up an alleged child abuse scandal that occurred under the other side of politics….it does not make sense. I believe the Goss Government took the wrong decision but for the right reasons – to get on with the massive job of reforming and governing Qld. Qld had already lived through the Fitzgerald Inquiry and I believe the Government probably took the decision in an attempt to move on. Most of the material that came before Heiner revolved around pretty petty industrial issues at the John Oxley Youth Detention Centre.
The real shame in all of this…..Australia faces massive challenges – environmental, economic, and social and yet our political commentators can talk of nothing but dinners with Peter Costello, strip clubs and long dead conspiracies. How about holding the Howard Government to account for its appalling record for the past 11 years and applying some pressure on the ALP on its agenda.
The Heiner documents affair involves an alleged abuse of power by the Goss Government – in which Mr Rudd had a central role.
While I have no knowledge of that particular situation or reason to ascribe blame to Mr Rudd personally, the fact is that abuse of power was not at all uncommon under the Goss Government – see comments on Public Service bullying in Queensland.
While those abuses are now fading into history, their legacy remains.
Queensland’s public administration has been dysfunctional and crisis prone largely as a consequences of the politicisation of the Public Service and the creation of amateurish machinery by what must be a strong contender for the title of Queensland’s Worst Government.
While the destruction of the Heiner documents (probably due to incompetence rather than malice) appears to have challenged the integrity of the judicial system and so attracted publicity, it has been unfashionable to express concern about abuses of political power which (probably due to incompetence rather than malice) have merely undermined the integrity of government administration.
What a load of horse-shit!! That what’s been written here on a very important and serious issue,
When the Goss Labor government came to power in December, 1989, one of its first actions was to close down an inquiry conducted bt Noel Heiner under the Public Service Act into the management and operation of the John Oxley Youth Detention Centre. Amongst the evidence gathered by Heinerincluded details of a pack rape of a 14 year old aborigional girl at the centre. There were also allegations that some of the staff were abusing the kids, drugs and cigarettes were being traded by staff for sex.
Some of the union members involved were members of the powerful AWU, the union faction which backed Wayne Goss. They put pressure on the government to close down the inquiry.
The Centre Manager, Peter Coyne, demanded to see the details of certain allegations made against him and sought the assistance of his union, the QPOA and in particular Kevin Lindeberg. Coyne and the Deputy Manager, Ann Dutney, also engaged a solicitor who wrote a letter to the department demanding to see details of allegations against them. Both had an absolute entitlement to the information under the regulations of the Public Service Act and the rules of natural justice.
The department deceived Coyne’s solicitor as he had been told the records were safe when the Goss Cabinst had already made the decision to shred the evidence.
Kevin Rudd was Wayne Goss’s Chief of Staff at the time and it was his job to oversee everything which went to Cabinet. Rubb was very much “hands on” and a little control freak.
Rudd cannot deny involvement in the shredding.
Section 129 of Qld’s Criminal code was breached in the act of the shredding, Other sections also come into play, Sect 92, Abuse of Office and sections 132 and 140 which relate to conspiracy and perverting the course of justice.
The whole issue has been covered up by the CJC, Qld Police, Crown Law, DPP and other areas. At the CJC in particalar there were two corrupt Labor lawyers involved in a cocked up investigation. During the process of this investigation evidence was tampered with at the CJC (a taped record of interview). Both these individuals have since been promoted to Qld’s judiciary as magistrates.
This is just a brief overview and just the start, The resultant cover-up and perversion of Qld’s entire justice system is even worse.
Qld’s Chief Justice has a responsibility to clean up this mess, as it affects his judiciary but he continues to sit on his compromised little hands. After all he no doubt is aware of Beattie’s disgraceful performance in parliament an references to Tinker Bell and Peter Pan. Thiker Bell was a fairy.