5 thoughts on “The Carmody Inquiry into the Heiner Affair commences today”

1. I received this e mail from Kevin Lindeberg yesterday and repost here with his permission:

   6

   former JOYC staff members are set down to examined and cross-examined over their submitted Statements.

   So far some 55 Statements have been tendered. Because my lawyer and I have leave to appear, I know what they say but cannot disclose the contents due to an order placed on me and other recipents of them by Commissioner Carmody. I must respect that order.

   So, their contents will be rolled out gradually, presumably as each witness comes to the witness box.

   This, however, shall fall entirely on the discretion of the Commissioner. He may keep a non-publication order in place.

   While I am restrained in saying anything about the Statements’ contents (although the names of the authors are publicly known), it is important to always remember the special characteristic of Mr Heiner’s investigation into the ‘management’ of the Centre.

   This is publicly known but is now worth repeating.

   It was done in private one-on-one discussion-cum-interrogation basis between himself and the witness, and what was said was tape recorded and later transcribed into hard copy, and kept private. This process brought hard evidence into existence.

   It must follow that what was said between Mr Heiner and each witness was only known to them. It follows therefore that what one witness may say in his/her Statement about his/her recollection during their respective interview does not necessarily apply to everyone.

   In this scenario, one can turn the tide.

   There are more witness Statements to come, including from some key players. They may be tendered tomorrow, or through the week.

   My lawyer has been given the right to cross-examine any witness he thinks appropriate, by leave of Commissioner Carmody.

   As to whether all the Youth Worker witnesses will be got through in the coming two weeks, I simply don’t know.

   It has been stated that as of 22 January 2013 the Inquiry intends calling the politicians to ask them about their involvement in the matter. It promises to be another long list.

   As for now, I cannot say further but it is likely to be a very interesting ride.

2. link
   Read more: www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/youth-detention-centre-staff-to-face-inquiry-20121201-2an8q.html#ixzz2DvkhNwsI

3. Val, it is a pity that under your link to the Brisbane Times in the “recommended for you” is a piece of junk journalism by Ben Cubby. Not only is it biased but it shows he does not have a clue about climate assessment or how to research facts. I would recommend that no one buys this poor quality Fairfax newspaper. No wonder that the Faifax share price has dropped dramatically. I think they might be gone in a couple of years. That environmental fool Cousins (chairman/person) who has cost Australian taxpayers lots, (note mess in Tasmania and problems in WA for a start)should be sued by Fairfax shareholders particularly the superannuation Funds.

4. I see Andrew Bolt is pretty scathing about the Ben Cubby article “It’s the end of the world as we know it” – fair enough, there is a calm and considered headline if ever there was one. AB says – “If Ben means it, he should quit and party while he can”

5. Emailed from Mr Kevin Lindeberg – I assume he is OK if this is posted.
   Dear Friends
   Today at the Carmody Inquiry, theRubicon on the Heiner Affair was irretrievable crossed.

   A highly credible witness under oath, Mrs Irene Parfitt, former Youth Worker at the JOYC, confirmed the contents ofher police statement that she told Mr Heiner about the pack rape of Annette Harding when she gave evidence to him in Brisbane Children’s Court at North Quay.

   She was, in effect, a whistleblower. She would not tolerate silence any longer over a burning issue at the Centre for many staff, and she believed the Heiner Inquiry was the place to make her public interest disclsoure.

   The assault was a matter which greatly disturbed her. Notwithstanding some time difficulties expected after the passage of close to 23 years, sheclearly recalled telling Mr Heiner about the sexual assault of Ms Harding, a 14-year-old indigenous child while in the care of the State.

   Mr Heiner was lawfully entitled to take her evidence. It was recorded. This evidence of ‘criminal paedophilia’ went through the shredder on 23 March 1990.

   It should be remembered that in May/June 2010, the Bligh Government paid Ms Harding some $140,000 on the condition of silence directly attributable to this incident.

   For those who did not attend the 2 weeks of evidence in Brisbane, they may like to know that Ms Harding attended. Like a reminder of a terrible past or a chilling wind from the south in winter, she went in and out of the hearings, often in tears.

   But she was there delicately standing as an indigenous Australian woman but as a grim reminder of an event many thought would never see the light of day, and which many over the last 22 years have done all they can to keep the truth hidden in the dark under a web of lies.

   Well, today in Court 17 of the Brisbane Magistrates Court Complex, the dazzling light came in. It was dramatic stuff.

   Mrs Parfitt delivered the truth.

   So, the contents of the Rofe QC Audit hold firm despite a long queue of former Youth Workers over the last 8 dayssaying that they never told Mr Heiner about child sexual abuse, or that he never asked them about it.

   Another witness to appear tomorrow, Mr Michael Roch, confirmed back in 2001 that Mr Heiner asked him about the Harding Incident during their interview in the Children’s Court. We shall have to wait and see how he recounts his evidence under oath tomorrow eleven years later.

   Now we know that there were three levels of ‘legal/evidentary’ value to the Heiner Inquiry documents when they were ordered to be put through the shredder by the 5 March 1990 Goss Cabinet in order to prevent their use as evidence.

   They were required in judicial proceedings in respect of their administrative value for several public servants. These public servants had, in legal terms, commenced judicial proceedings. Bylaw, that is sufficient to trigger section 129 of the Criminal Code.

   The documents also hadevidentary value because their contents where known by government to concern children being handcuffed the outside fences at JOYC overnight, and now child sexual abuse concerning the sexual assault of a 14-year-old indigenous Australian in the Australia bush when Crown supervisory staff failed to keep an eye on the inmates.

   In the history of the long-running Heiner Affair this has been one of its most momentous days.

   There shall doubtless be more to come in 2013.

   They may prove to be legally, constitutionallyand politically historic days for Queensland, if not Australia, because of the parties now involved in this cover-up.

   The truth must finally out.
   Kevin Lindeberg