CMC fails to act on Heiner Affair

It didn’t take long for the CMC to get back to me about the Heiner Affair. As I’ve always said, if you want to get something done quickly, choose to do nothing.

Stephen Lambrides, assistant commissioner for misconduct, wrote back to me and had this to say;

The allegations have been investigated and canvassed on several occasions including in a number of Senate Inquiries. They relate to events with occurred almost 20 years ago.

In these circumstances the CMC does not intend revisiting them.

Fantastic. Why do we even have a CMC, if it refuses to do it’s job? Here we have plenty of evidence of a criminal act, and yet nobody is willing to take it to court and give it a proper airing.

How can we have a free and open society in this country when the people we elect to run things are free to do whatever they wish without any oversight?

Comments welcome, please let me know what you think. Who else can I write to that might actually have the will and the power to move on this?

One Response to “CMC fails to act on Heiner Affair”

  1. Shredder Says:

    Can you please publish the letter to the CMC and also the response in full? Without preempting what the CMC failed to mention in their reply I bet they failed to mention that the Crime in the Community Senate Committee recommended that a special prosecutor be appointed to charge those involved. The full report of the Senate Committee can be found here.

    In short the committee recommends

    The Heiner Affair – the destruction of evidence

    Recommendation 1 (Paragraph 2.174)
    That the Queensland Government publicly release the 1996 advice on the
    Morris/Howard Report provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions
    to the then Borbidge Government.

    Recommendation 2 (Paragraph 2.213)
    Given that:
    • it is beyond doubt that the Cabinet was fully aware that the
    documents were likely to be required in judicial proceedings and
    thereby knowingly removed the rights of at least one prospective
    • previous interpretations of the applicability of section 129 as not
    applying to the shredding have been proven erroneous in the light of
    the conviction of Pastor Douglas Ensbey; and
    • acting on legal advice such as that provided by the then
    Queensland Crown Solicitor does not negate responsibility for taking
    the action in question.

    the Committee has no choice but to recommend that members of the
    Queensland Cabinet at the time that the decision was made to shred the
    documents gathered by the Heiner inquiry be charged for an offence
    pursuant to section 129 of the Queensland Criminal Code Act 1899.
    Charges pursuant to sections 132 and 140 of the Queensland Criminal
    Code Act 1899 may also arise.

    3 The Heiner Affair – motives for the shredding
    Recommendation 3 (Paragraph 3.163)
    That a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate all aspects of the
    Heiner Affair, as well as allegations of abuse at John Oxley Youth Centre
    that may not have been aired as part of the Heiner inquiry and may not
    have been considered by the Forde or other inquiries.
    That this special prosecutor be empowered to call all relevant persons
    with information as to the content of the Heiner inquiry documents,
    including but not necessarily limited to:
    • Public servants at the time, including staff of the then Department
    of Family Services, the Criminal Justice Commission, Queensland
    Police, and the John Oxley Youth Centre
    • Relevant union officials

    That the special prosecutor be furnished with all available
    documentation, including all Cabinet documents, advices tendered to
    Government, records from the John Oxley Youth Centre and records held
    by the Department of Family Services, the Criminal Justice Commission
    and the Queensland Police.

    Recommendation 4 (Paragraph 3.166)
    That the Commonwealth, through the Council of Australian
    Governments process, obtain a commitment from the States and
    Territories to legislate to require the retention for 30 years of
    documentation relating to allegations of abuse of children.

Leave a Reply