The Heiner Affair – 20 odd years of Labor and Government cover-up

Piers Akerman has just written an article reviewing the 22 year old Heiner Affair which originated when documents relating to child abuse were shredded by the Goss Queensland Labor Govt in 1990. The documents related to an inquiry into the former John Oxley Youth Detention Centre headed by former magistrate Noel Heiner in 1989. One of the victims who was pack raped while in Qld Govt care was recently paid $120,000 and is said to be travelling to Canberra to make her case known.
As Piers Akerman explains – a 2,800 page audit document pulling together the whole saga and composed by Sydney QC David Rofe was emailed to all Senators on Australia day last month. Some leading figures in powerful positions now are involved.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in 2004 posted documents on the subject – look for Volume 2. That committee no longer exists.
Anybody concerned could write to their Senators and ask what they intend doing.

39 thoughts on “The Heiner Affair – 20 odd years of Labor and Government cover-up”

  1. Warwick thank you for posting on this sad matter
    In my view members of the executive are not above the law
    The most informative site on this affair is the Heiner website
    Start with the categories on the left hand side – the first category is ‘what is heiner about’
    Chris Barrett writing in the Brisbane Times in April 2009 puts the history succinctly

    The Heiner affair is the long-running controversy surrounding the Goss cabinet’s 1990 shredding of documents relating to child abuse – including the rape of a 14-year-old Aboriginal girl – after it aborted an inquiry into the former John Oxley Youth Detention Centre.

    The documents had been compiled during an inquiry headed by former magistrate Noel Heiner that was set up in the final days of the Queensland Cooper conservative government in 1989.

    The complaint to the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee (PCMC) was lodged by former union official Kevin Lindeberg in February 2008 and concerned the handling of the Heiner affair by the main corruption watchdog, the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) and its predecessor body, the Criminal Justice Commission (CJC).

    Attached to the application for review was a nine-volume audit produced by Sydney QC David Rofe that contains details of 68 alleged prima facie charges that he believes could be brought against public officials past and present.

    They include Prime Minister Kevin Rudd – Mr Goss’s former chief-of-staff – the Governor-General Quentin Bryce, who took no action after requesting and receiving a report on the affair from then Premier Peter Beattie in 2003, and six serving Queensland judicial officers.

    The review application to the PCMC also included a statement of concern sent to Mr Beattie in 2007 from legal heavyweights, including the former Chief Justice of Western Australia David Malcolm.

    The former Chief Justice of Australia, the late Sir Harry Gibbs, had previously aired his concerns at the destruction of documents.

    Most recently, Premier Anna Bligh received a letter from Buckingham Palace, dated November 26, 2008, noting the Queen’s request for “consideration” to be given to matters raised in letters to Her Majesty by Mr Lindeberg.

    Warwick in his post refers to the 2,800 page document e mailed to Senators last weekend; I suspect this is the nine volume audit by Rofe QC referred to in the article above; I’ve written to Senator Boyce this week asking her for a copy of this document but no reply as yet

    What’s at stake? As the article What’s the Heiner Affair About puts it:

    the right to a fair trial without wilful interference by the State in the administration of justice in the form of destroying known relevant evidence held in its possession and control and known to be accessible pursuant to the rules of the Supreme Court of Queensland in discovery upon the commencement of judicial proceedings;
    • equality before the law;
    • the upholding of Parliamentary propriety and the doctrine of the separation of powers;
    • the State not engaging in covering up crime, going to the offence of criminal paedophilia against a child held in the care and custody of the State;
    • the lawful disbursement of public monies not to be used as “hush money” to cover up criminal conduct perpetrated by the State and/or its officials

    The next category is Timeline of Events; the documents generated by the Heiner Inquiry and possibly documents from other quarters relevant to allegations concerning the inquiry, the Youth Detention Centre and others involved comprised over 100 hours of taped evidence and other material. This is the evidence which was shredded – the Timeline states that the Gosss cabinet ordered their destruction on 5 March 1990


    At that time Kevin Rudd was chief of staff to the Qld Premier Goss
    On 23 March 1990 the documents were destroyed
    That time line was prepared using the source documents on
    As to the time line on the inquiries there was an initial inquiry by the Queensland Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee and since then things have moved to the Federal arena.
    Piers Ackerman writing on 27/9/2007 see says Labor Senators twice blocked attempts by Queensland National Party Senator Barnaby Joyce to table the full 3000-page nine-volume Rofe report in federal parliament last week

    As Piers says in his latest article

    Last year the Senate Privileges Committee voted to bury the matter

    and an attempt to have the matter debated in the Senate was stopped by the Labor Party and the Greens, with former Family First Senator Steven Fielding voting to stop the matter being raised (in this case he acted against his Party’s Policy.)

    As I said at the beginning of this long comment (sorry Warwick) it is an important principle in our legal system that all citizens are equal before the law even members of the executive (government) and judges and that is what is at stake here

  2. This is the biggest scandal our nation has ever had to confront.

    The issue now facing every Senator – all 76 of them – is, given that they cannot unknow what they know, how can they keep this information from the Australian people, especially because one of the allegations of serious wrongdoing concerns GG Bryce when she was Governor of Queensland in the period 2003-2005.

    If the Senators conceal what they know about her, then they will be turning our constitutional monarchy system of government on its head.

  3. Why has the rest of the MSM left all the hard yards on this disgraceful affair to Piers Akerman?

    Why are all politicians silent when they must have known about it for a long time?

    NOT good enough!

    I can surmise only that both sides of politics have some involvement they do not want to see aired–though Labor clearly has a lot of the ignominy attached to what was a cover up of massive proportions.

  4. Jazza to be fair there has been other media involved
    You can see the print media news here
    and on the right hand side of that page Heiner News Coverage from various outlets
    Piers article is the only one I’ve been able to find about the Senators receiving the 2,800 page report but he may have been the only reporter advised about that occurrence

    Barnaby Joyce has a long running interest and has attempted to table the Rofe report in the Senate in (I think) 2007 – but I may be wrong about that but I think that is what Piers is referring to here

    But I do totally agree with you that the MSM except for Piers are silent now

    How to support Piers; write to your local senator; write to newspapers and spread the word

  5. Warwick thanks for posting on this
    At about the time of my post above (8/2/2012) I wrote to my local senator (Boyce) and Barnaby Joyce (not my local senator)

    And the only senator I’ve had a reply from is Barnaby Joyce

    Bit sad when elected reps are not interested enough in their local constituents to reply to a matter of concern

  6. Dear Fellow Australians

    I generally don’t join in these debates/discussions because, as a matter of principle, I normally speak directly to people, notwithstanding this is doing so directly via cyberspace.

    I note that my public address to the ACM Toowoomba on 4 March 2012 has been posted here. Some 60 people were in attendance. I was invited to speak.

    I consider it to be my “bookend” speech.

    It brings us to an endpoint of this long 22-year struggle for justice, and attempts to explain why the Heiner Affair is so unprecedented in Australian political history and so important in the continuing challenge for us all to ensure that we are always governed by the rule of law, and never by the arbitrary political desires of men/women.

    The principles at stake should concern us all, not just those who have been harmed by the massive abuse of power on display in the Heiner Affair.

    Equality before the law for all is, or ought to be, a non-negotiable value of our nation.

    I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Rofe QC Audit except that if your elected representatives are now aware of them in respect of certain public officials, then your/our “right to know” – as we the people – cannot be surely denied by those whom we have elected without fundamentally damaging the foundation of our democracy.

    A society knowingly kept in darkness about the probity of its officials is neither democratic nor safe.

    While I shall continue with this struggle, it is as much yours as it is mine.

    Do not sit idly by as a spectator.

  7. The type of cover up is not something new to some of us. We have suspected it for a very long time, but how can we, the little people, fight against these giants who ooze power and confidence over us and shut us down at every turn.

    This woman’s suffering will be with her for the rest of her life made worse by the Silencing Payout. She is not alone, there are many others who have suffered the same fate.

    The Australian Government should stop playing God or parent to Australian families by taking their children and putting them into institutional and foster care. Family is one of the most important institutions in the world and should be respected at all costs. Families should not be punished due to low income or having a dirty house and the sole reason for having their children taken away from them. It simply does not make sense to pay a stranger to care for these children when the parents could have been given the money in such hard times. Has this government not learned anything from its past, The Stolen Generation, Adopted children from England, Forde Inquiry and many others. Why do we see the same mistakes happening over and over? Are these people not intellectuals? Or is it that they forget to represent the people who put them there? Children die in foster care too and yet foster parents seem not to be held accountable for their actions compared to parents who are demonized and punished.

    While we are at it, the conduct of the Department of Child Safety in Queensland leaves a lot to be desired. It needs to be thoroughly investigated by someone other than another government department. It is unethical, unjust and violates families human rights and social justice when a Department investigates itself. Proof of this exists in Departmental documentation when they have been asked to report their findings to a parent’s complaint to the Crime and Misconduct Commission. This equates to non-transparency, not being accountable and telling lies to hide their evil deeds.

    Mandatory reporting should be revisited and better instruments used for Notifications received, which may be based on vicious complaints. Research has shown how much parents and children suffer when they are separated.

    The Department of Child Safety needs to be monitored more appropriately. Presently they are doing a good job of destroying families. Parents, grand parents and others are disrespected, not included in decision making processes, set up to fail at meetings, court hearings stalled due to presenting affidavits and the list goes on. They presently have an us and them mentality which is destructive. They display unprofessionalism when they take delight in removing children from their families.

    There are so many families fighting the system. Can someone out there please listen to their pleas? WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OUR CHILDREN WHO MAY BE TOMORROW’S LEADERS. Maybe that is what is needed to make a great leader, a child who has suffered at the hands of government departments to show all of us what to do.

  8. Good news – Newman government to consider new Heiner inquiry: Attorney-General
    April 12, 2012
    Queensland’s new Attorney-General, Jarrod Bleijie, has committed the LNP Government to review the controversial Heiner affair if there is new evidence, or evidence that was ‘‘not properly looked at’’.

    The Heiner affair refers to the 1990 shredding of evidence into 1988 child sex abuse at the John Oxley Youth Detention Centre at Wacol.

  9. Hmm.. another Claytons Inquiry.
    Recall that the Borbidge (Nationals) Government’s Morris-Howard Inquiry into Heiner was constrained:”The investigation by the barristers will be ‘on the papers’, with no witnesses being called or orally testimony asked for or given.”
    Heiner needs a Special Prosecutor to be appointed, as called for by Heiner whistleblower Kevin Lindeberg. Otherwise, we end up with another “Fair Work” type Inquiry, with little (judicial) substance.

  10. this site introduces readers to Queensland’s new Attorney General

    oh, experience in corporate and property law but

    “I believe that sentencing standards need to be based on community expectations and [I wish] to highlight the differences between law and justice,” states Bleijie in his LinkedIn profile

    we’ll see

  11. Again I shall not comment too much at this stage but I think that Romanoz’s comment needs attention.

    What is being proposed because of uniqueness of the Heiner Affair (namely who is allegedly involved)is that Parliament is required to establish a “Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry” by an Act of Parliament. It would be very different to the 1996 Morris QC/Howard investigation which was established by the Executive (i.e. the Cabinet).

    The proposed Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry has the full powers of a commission of inquiry, and, in this instance, would be headed by three retired senior judges, asssisted by counsel assisting and other staff. In short, it would be the most powerful investigative body capable of being established, and able to access what it wanted and to cross-examine whom it wanted. The Act would stipulate the timeline and terms of reference. It would report to Parliament, and would be independent.

    I trust that this clears the air.

  12. They considered it on 12 June 2012. So why is the media not reporting about the consideration?
    Editor note: Gidday Fritz – I think “Heiner” is too complex for 99% of the MSM – which is mostly GreenLeft influenced anyway.

  13. update on the Heiner affair

    ONE of Queensland’s most intriguing conspiracy theories – the Heiner Affair – is set for yet another examination.

    Premier Campbell Newman confirmed on Friday the Commission of Inquiry into child protection could include re-examination of issues arising from Heiner, now almost one quarter of a century old.

    Mr Newman stressed ….

    ‘this inquiry, headed by Tim Carmody, SC, would only look at evidence related to Heiner if Mr Carmody chose to do so.

    “Our position is that is someone brings something forward that is new, that has not been examined before, then these matter should be examined,’’ Mr Newman said.

    The inquiry’s terms of reference allow for examination of reviewing “allegations of criminal conduct associated with government responses into historic child sexual abuse in youth detention centres.”

    So … we’ll see

  14. update on the Heiner affair

    TIM Carmody has been asked to step down from his position as head of the Queensland child protection inquiry.

    In a dramatic first half hour of the inquiry which began its first public hearings this morning, Sydney barrister David Rolfe, QC, asked that Mr Carmody “recuse” himself from the role.

    The inquiry has already heard disturbing figures which point to a massive social problem developing over the past decade.

    There are now 7602 children in some form of state care – far more than the prison population which stands at 5972.

    Kathryn McMillan, SC, said tough issues had to be examined such as ensuring removal of children from families become a last resort.

    But this morning’s hearings suggested the inquiry risks becoming fixated on its most controversial term of reference – section 3 (E) – which allows it to investigate areas covered by the notorious Heiner Affair.

    Mr Carmody has said he has no opinion on Heiner but this morning revealed he had a conversation about the matter with his assistant commission in the last few weeks of his role as Queensland Crime Commissioner more than a decade ago.

    “My memory is vague,” he said of the conversation.

    “The reality was that my tenure was coming to an end.”

    The inquiry also heard there were complaints made about the “inaction” of the Crime Commission in relation to the Heiner Affair under Mr Carmody.

    Mr Rolfe, who appeared for Kevin Lindeberg who has pursued the Heiner Affair for a quarter of a century, asked for an opportunity to prepare a written application for a recusal.

    Mr Rolfe said Mr Lindeberg had “for 25 years fought this battle of getting justice for all”.

    Bruce Grundy a journalism lecturer has also asked for leave to appeal in relation to 3 (E).

    Three others including Crown Law and Legal Aid have asked to appear in relation to the inquiry as a whole.

    Mr Carmody has adjourned the inquiry until next week where Mr Rolfe is expected to read his written submission.

    It’s good to see that Rolfe SQ remains involved

  15. Piers has another update on the Heiner Affair
    Piers writes in his inimitable style but I found the following article easier to follow from a legal point of view

    A lawyer and a university lecturer have called for the inquiry’s commissioner Tim Carmody SC to recuse himself from examining the 1990 Heiner affair because the Queensland Crime Commission, which he led from 1997 to 2002, had failed to act on the matter.

    The Heiner affair involved the shredding of documents relating to the alleged rape in 1988 of a girl in state care.

    But Mr Carmody on Tuesday dismissed requests he disqualify himself.

    He said there was no conflict of interest because he would be examining past government actions and not the crime watchdog nor his time as its commissioner.

    “I am satisfied that I’m not commissioned to review or report on the interests of the Queensland Crime Commission between 1997 and 2002,” he told the inquiry.

    “There being no other basis of alleged apprehended bias … the applications for recusal are dismissed.”

    The inquiry has heard two submissions calling for him to stand down from hearings examining the Heiner affair.

    The lawyer for Heiner affair whistleblower Kevin Lindeberg said his client had the utmost confidence in Mr Carmody in relation to all other parts of the inquiry.

    “His sole concern is confined to the fact that … you, commissioner, in a nutshell, may in fact be called upon to judge your own conduct in relation to your involvement and the commission’s involvement in the Heiner affair,” lawyer Michael Bosscher said.

    Former journalist and university lecturer Bruce Grundy, who reported on the Heiner affair, said Mr Carmody should stand down for the same reason.

    Mr Grundy said the QCC must have been aware of the allegations of child rape in November 2001 because of newspaper articles he wrote.

    But as Piers points out the Commissioner’s ruling puts the role of public servants into well …. limbo – they’re not part of Government

  16. Kevin Lindeberg may be the minority in having the utmost confidence in Mr Carmody in relation to all other parts of the inquiry. It is important to understand that all parts of the inquiry are undertaken in a responsible and honest manner. Hence it is impossible to imagine how as lawyer Micheael Bosscher states “…you commissioner, in a nutshell, may in fact be called upon to judge your own conduct in relation to your involvement and the commission’s involvement in the Heiner affair.” It is not only unethical but unjust that this conduct could ever be accepted in any inquiry, and that the Commissioner himself may ask and answer his own questions. It is simply not good enough that someone in charge of the CMC failed to investigate appropriately at the time. So basically what we are being told is that someone who failed to investigate and did not at the time, is now in charge of investigating the Heiner Affair. I am sure that this position is worth fighting for especially the $$$$ signs. When someone fails to investigate in any position they hold, signifies a pattern of neglect, irresponsible behaviour and lack of respect for the victims and children in care which equates to a waste of time and money on this inquiry.

  17. Halle that’s a perceptive comment but I think the Commissioner decided that the conduct of Queensland Crime Commission during the relevant years was not relevant to the enquiry because the Commission in his view did not form part of ‘government’ which is what the Terms of Reference require him to investigate
    and therefore he did not have to investigate his own actions when he led that Commission
    so in his view there could be no perception of bias

  18. Val, a legal eagle will always have an answer for everything. Nevertheless, it is the Commissioner who has made this decision and no-one in higher office. Furthermore, when a government is asked to undertake an investigation it also employs public servants to do that job. Hence it is difficult to understand how government and public servants can ever be considered separate.

  19. Halle I agree

    Briefly for other readers the Carmody commission terms of reference 3e obliges the commission to “review the adequacy and appropriateness of any response of and action taken by government to allegations including any allegations of criminal conduct associated with government responses into historic child sexual abuse in youth detention centres”.

    Mr Carmody interpreted the terms of reference referring to government action and response “as referring to the political executive – that is the Premier and cabinet”.

    Is he right …. I would disagree

    Is his decision appellable? I have no idea

  20. Thank you for your contribution and explanations Val. Hopefully someone else may be able to shed more light on this very sad state of affairs and give their views. Perhaps there is also someone else out there who may know if Mr Carmody’s own decision can be appellable. It would have to be someone who knows the ins and outs of the legal system and who is very good at it. Here’s hoping.

  21. thanks Halle
    for legal enthusiasts here’s the website of the Commission
    which I have rather belatedly come across (with some assistance and thanks for that)
    the hearings link contains transcripts and the Commissioner’s ruling on the recusal app
    If Warwick gets time he might put the link in the post

  22. updates on Heiner
    • From: The Australian
    • August 11, 2012 12:00AM

    AN extraordinary document has been lodged with Queensland’s Child Protection Commission of Inquiry and released to the public. In support of an application for the Commissioner to recuse himself, it includes unsubstantiated claims that there may be sufficient cause for the conduct of the Governor-General Quentin Bryce and six serving Queensland judicial officers to be investigated for possible breaches of Section 87 of the Queensland Criminal Code, relating to official corruption.

    and that the very important posting that has gone out to the world via “The Heiner Affair” webpage as from 8 August 2012.

    Piers mentions in his article:

    The Child Protection Commission has been deluged with requests for the Rofe Audit, Exhibit 5 (attachment 2) and has asked that callers use its website when seeking a copy.

    I can confirm the Rofe Audit is riveting.

  23. Val, I have requested the Rofe Audit, Exhibit 5 (Attachment 2) via the website as you mentioned above. I received an email to say that they had tried to send the document but that it had returned undelivered to them. They then wanted my postal address to send me a dvd. I have now received this dvd and it will not let me use it, but I have strange noises coming from the computer. Can you explain what has happened here? It did have a password I was suppose to use, but I cannot even open it. I thought the d drive was broken so I inserted another disc, but had no problems with it. Has anyone else received the Rofe Audit by email or disc? I look forward to hearing from others experiences. Can I access the Rofe Audit another way?

  24. Halle if you have any trouble let me know, I didn’t have any trouble, my computer has a fairly fast download 1.52 Mbps

    try the dvd first, you would need to first download the document and then open it and it is when you’re at that stage you would need the password to open the document

    any probs let me know

  25. Val, I went to the site as in comment 33, and then entered the password as shown on the dvd and it worked. I have downloaded it now and will read it eventually. It is a huge document. Thank you for your help.

  26. copy of an e mail I received from Kevin Lindebergh yesterday reposted here with his permission:

    I have always endeavoured to be reasonable and ethical in unearthing the entire truth of this notorious scandal.

    My journey is well set out in the Rofe Audit. [See Important Developments at left of webpage). It is founded on the democratic principle that no one is above the law in a democracy. It is also based on the premise that those in public office ought to uphold and enforce the law without fear or favour.

    The Newman Government has knowingly selected a “limited” definition of “government” (despite its common meaning which undoubtedly includes “departments” and “statutory authorities”) which it must know leaves the bulk of the (Heiner) cover-up untested.

    Within that “bulk” (in the (public) Rofe QC Audit) is an allegation that the Commissioner – they chose to review this matter and expected to carry public confidence in all his deliberations – has a case to answer for not acting when the same child abuse (under supposed review now) was brought to his attention in 2001 when Crime Commissioner of the “statutory authority” whose sworn duty was to investigate criminal paedophilia. THIS IS ON THE PUBLIC RECORD.

    Does it get any madder or perverse than this?

    To get an additional flavour of this go to again, and read Mr Bruce Grundy’s recent August 2012 address to Queenslander for Constitution Monarchy. It’s entitled “Shreddergate and other cover-ups.”.

    This QCPCI, set up to honour a Newman pre-election promise of reviewing the Heiner Affair, DOES NOT permit “the entire truth” of the Heiner Affair to be investigated.

    It is also abundantly clear that it is the wrong legal vehicle to properly review all the alleged wrongdoing set out in the Audit.

    One cannot reach any other reasonable conclusion than that this perpetuates the cover-up, so long endured under some 20 years of continious ALP regimes in Queensland.


    Am I the only one who is curious on this point? Doesn’t the rule of law matter in Queensland?

    When does morality and ethics – which we would all hope resides in our elected leaders [and I say damn to hell the cynics who say that such a notion is one man’s pipedream!] – stand up and say, “Enough is enough! Let’s have the truth, the whole truth, even in all its grubby form!”

    There’s an old Biblical saying, and etched on one of the major academic buildings at UQ: “Great is Truth, and mighty above all things.”

    Well, not in Queensland it seems….

    I shall now proceed to up the ante because this is a nonsense answer, and it’s grossly immoral.

    It is unacceptable to me.



    No. 561
    Asked on 23 August 2012
    MR KNUTH asked the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice (MR BLEIJIE)–
    With reference to the ruling by the Child Protection Commissioner Tim Carmody SC on 24 July 2012 that the word ‘government’ in Terms of Reference 3(e) authorising the Commission of Inquiry to investigate the alleged wrongdoing associated with the Heiner Affair means ‘…The Premier and Cabinet Ministers’—
    Will the Attorney-General amend the Inquiry Terms of Reference to broaden the definition of ‘government’ to include ‘government departments’ and ‘statutory authorities’ to be consistent with the definition in the Australian Policy Handbook?
    I thank the Member for Dalrymple for his question.
    The Queensland Government set the Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry’s Terms of Reference by Order in Council (Commissions of Inquiry Order (No. 1) 2012) to allow the appointed Commissioner, the Honourable Tim Carmody SC, to investigate all matters identified as he sees appropriate. This includes, under Term of Reference 3(e), a review of the adequacy and appropriateness of past government responses of, and action taken by, government to allegations of child sexual abuse in youth detention and any associated alleged criminal conduct.
    The term ‘government’ is not defined in the Order in Council. This term is broad and has a number of common meanings. As the Member acknowledges, on 24 July 2012, Commissioner Carmody SC made a ruling that interpreted the words “government action and responses” in the context of Term of Reference 3(e) as referring to the action and responses of the political executive; that is, the Premier and Cabinet. The Queensland Government is of the view that Commissioner Carmody’s ruling fully clarifies the meaning of government for the purposes of the Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry and no further amendment to the terms of reference is needed.

  27. Val;

    see also Newman’s attempt to exonerate the Dam Engineers as reported The Australian Tues. Sept 25.

    The charitable interpretation is that he is trying to avoid the massive claims likely if judgement was allowed to stand, as budget is already in trouble.
    The other possibility is that the Public Service are protecting their own, but surely not?

  28. noticed that Graeme, curious it’s a US report with (to me at least) unknown terms of reference
    Hedley Thomas had an article about it in the Oz today ‘the great Wivenhoe debacle’

    Before returning to her role on the Supreme Court of Appeal, Catherine Holmes, as commissioner of the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, spent 12 months scrutinising the Wivenhoe engineers and their actions. In her final report in March, on page 508, she says: “There are several things that may have motivated the three engineers to present the false flood report, including a wish to protect their professional reputations from the damage that would be caused by a disregard of the manual, or the maintenance of (dam operator) SEQWater’s immunity under the (relevant legislation).”

    Yesterday, the US engineers said this about the same document, following a behind-the-scenes review lasting two months: “The flood engineers should be commended for producing this extensive, well organised and very readable document in six weeks, while the region was recovering from the flood event.”

    The US engineers omitted the official adverse findings of the inquiry, airbrushed out of existence despite being published in more than 100 pages of the final report.

    When the US engineers received the Newman government’s precise terms of reference for their review, they expressly excluded the findings of Queensland’s $15 million public inquiry.

    I suspect the US report is light weight

  29. updates on the Heiner affair:
    check out Bruce Grundy’s speech

    Shreddergate And Other Cover-Ups.

    Bruce is a journalist who has been following Shreddergate since its inception

    From that page you have a link to the Inquiry’s website and if you scroll down to the end you find Bruce Grundy’s recusal application (that’s the application to which I refer in comment 22 above)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *