Evidence through the shredder
Evidence through the shredder
September/October Edition, 2007: Records tell the history of what our governments get up to. But who polices the records, and what happens when they go up in smoke? Brought back into the public spotlight by respected members of the legal community, IDM revisits the still unresolved state of the Heiner Affair and what’s deemed by some academic circles, to be one of the greatest shredding scandals of the 20th Century.
Kevin Lindeberg is following the newspapers carefully. 17 years after loosing his job for breaking his silence over the cover-up of an aboriginal girl in the care of the Queensland Government, Lindeberg is still looking for the evidence that disappeared. The case he’s fought to keep in the public consciousness still holds no one accountable, and by championing the cause of the archivist and recordkeeping profession, he wants to ensure it doesn’t happen again.
“They have a real role in protecting evidence so that justice can be done, particularly when it involves government,” says Lindeberg.
For more than a decade, Lindeberg’s name has crossed through archivist and recordkeeping circles throughout the globe. A published author in relevant archivist journals, Lindeberg inadvertly found himself consumed in the profession when he crossed from union official to whistle-blower on a case of document destruction so explosive its unresolved state continues to raise headline almost two decades later.
Still without a day job after his experiences defending what he believes “is fundamental within the bones of any decent person who believes in the rule of law,” Lindeberg now draws cartoons to occupy his time and pull in some cash. Although believing no one would ever be a whistle-blower if they saw how it affected his live, he has still not abandoned the fight to have what he says happened all those years ago publicly acknowledged.
The Heiner Affair starts its journey back in 1988 when a teenage aboriginal girl was gang raped while in the care of the Queensland Government. The incident occurred during then Premier Wayne Goss’ time in the Queensland Government at the same point that Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd was his chief of staff. In 1989, Lindeberg found himself involved in the investigation into the John Oxley Youth Detention Centre when he was assigned by his union to represent union member Peter Coyne, the then acting manager of the facility.
The investigation was a standard procedure for Lindeberg given his experience as a union official. However that changed when Lindeberg attempted to access crucial documents in order to brief himself on the matter, he found the documents described in staff records and procedures at the centre to no longer be available. Lindeberg believed, and still maintains today, that the documents were shredded.
While Coyne was moved to a new position, Lindeberg was sacked by the QPOA in 1999 after a complaint from the Department of Family Services, which claimed Lindeberg had acted unlawfully in seeking access to the documents.
A decade later, Lindeberg’s convictions were found to have some steady legs to stand on and he learnt for the first time the matter involved the rape of a young girl. In 2004 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended an independent Special Prosecutor be appointed by the Queensland Government to investigate the matter. Taking evidence under oath, the House of Representatives committee summoned former magistrate Noel Heiner who admitted evidence of child abuse was shredded with the documents.
But the issue has hit the headlines and Lindeberg once again forms the achillis heal of some politicians who may wish the matter would simply disappear. In the wake of Queensland’s Premier Peter Beattie’s retirement from office, a Judges Statement of Concern issued to the Queensland Government, and a call from some politicians to reopen the case, the tail of a government community centre, the gang rape of an aboriginal girl and disappearance of the documents that told the story once again enters the political arena.
“This is deemed to be one of the great shredding scandals of the 20th Century but it’s still not resolved,” says Lindeberg. Even though the case involves the severe abuse of a child in Government care, Lindeberg says he’s not waging a war against these allegations, but rather a battle to protect government records from being abused by individuals in power.
The Judges Statement of Concern primarily calls for the 2004 Representatives Standing Committee’s recommendation to be fulfilled. It’s a letter signed high-up the legal chain and comes after a two-year long audit by NSW QC David Rofe, whose report concludes on an alleged 67 unaddressed criminal charges in need of action.
The Judges Statement of Concern also takes issue at the ‘serious inconsistency in the administration of Queensland’s Criminal Code.’ Specifically, the ‘double-standards’ imposed by Queensland Law-enforcement authorities able to initiate successful proceedings against Douglas Ensbey in a remarkably similar case, but not against members of the Executive Government.
In calling for the Heiner Affair to be revisited, the Judges note that the 2004 conviction against Ensbey occurred nine years after relevant destruction-of-evidence took place. In conclusion, the Statement is blunt in presenting what it labels an ‘unacceptable’ prospect. “We suggest that if the Heiner Affair remains in its current unresolved state, it would give reasonable cause for ordinary citizens, especially Queenslanders, to believe that there is one law for them, and another for Executive Government and civil servants.”
However the case does not just concern politicians and their accountability, but also the archivist profession and their role in a fair and accurate democracy. Lindeberg has become renown in international archivist circles and found himself on first name-basis with the most prominent archivists around the globe.
“The Heiner Affair has got to be settled because archivists are a critical role in protecting the administration of justice,” says Lindeberg. “What they’re effectively saying in Queensland is that an archivist authority to order the destruction of documents can override the criminal code.”
Lindeberg labels archivists as the vital ingredient that protects the state of democracy and calls for their profession to be made Officers of the Parliament in order to entrench their independence from government. As a profession, Lindeberg hopes archivists will rally together to make these issues known. “It really comes down to a question for the archivists, they must decide whether they are a profession or just a club,” he says. “I believe they are a profession within the administration of justice.”
As a whistle blower whose life has been dramatically impacted by the Heiner Affair, Lindeberg calls for archivists to do more and formally step up to the plate to protect evidence of public importance. “The archivists should now, along with the judges, be calling on all the authorities to establish an inquiry into this issue to get the truth,” he says. “If it’s good enough for judges to speak out, why isn’t it good enough for archivists?”
With some of the most highly regarded legal experts again working to bring the affair to the public’s attention. Shredding of evidence not only affects the legal communities, archivist and recordkeeping professions, but also all of us optimistic enough to believe there’s no ‘us and them’ mentality when it comes to the Law. With documented evidence, it seems only archivists can ensure all’s fair in an accountable world. The rape remains unresolved, and the committee’s recommendation that a Special Prosecutor be appointed to investigate the case still remains at large as the Queensland Government maintains there is nothing more to be investigated.