(d) other incidents of child abuse may exist and remain unaddressed;

and consequently, it may be open to conclude that the Queensland Government knowingly obstructed justice and obstructed the Murphy Select Committee from properly fulfilling its commission as set by the Senate in December 1994.

We are highlighting that there was knowledge within the Queensland Government and CJC in 1995 that what lay at the heart of the Heiner Inquiry was alleged misconduct of certain JOYC staff (and possibly others) engaging in suspected child abuse.

It is our strong view that the new evidence is so serious that it cannot be merely noted in 2001 but should be subjected to a fresh independent Senate examination.

For the benefit of the Senate, and prospective Federal whistleblower protective legislation, we have decided not to touch on every aspect of our concerns but to concentrate on the more substantial parts which go to supporting our position.

We submit that it is unconscionable conduct for any State or Federal Government, which claims to respect the rule of law and fundamental human rights to:

POINT 1:

knowingly order the destruction of public records containing evidence of the alleged abuse of children while in the care of the State or Commonwealth so that the evidence cannot be used, for whatever reason, in particular, holding public officials who were or may have engaged in such alleged misconduct to account (including their superiors who may have been aware of such conduct).

In this regard, there is evidence (yet to be fully explored by an appropriate body) suggesting that the Goss Government acted in an unconscionable and illegal manner when it knowingly destroyed relevant evidence for the purpose of affording protection to certain accountable Youth Workers and Mr Coyne over alleged offences of criminal assault against children (by whomsoever) placed in the John Oxley Youth Detention Centre by order of the courts or by statute.

The law required that their known alleged misconduct be properly and impartially addressed.

POINT 2:

knowingly order the destruction of public records in its possession and known to be required as evidence for foreshadowed court proceedings for the purpose of preventing those records being used in those proceedings.

POINT 3:

deliberately withhold or conceal relevant information concerning the real status of public records during an appraisal process from its State or Federal Archivist in order to achieve its desire to have such records destroyed by using the archivist's deceptively obtained approval to destroy such records when knowing that access to them is being sought by a citizen pursuant to law.

POINT 4:

buy the permanent silence of any public official from the public purse in a Termination State or Federal government Deed of Settlement about known alleged abuse of children in a State-run institution for the rest of his or her life.

In this matter, the Deed of Settlement of 7 February 1991 used as the instrument to terminate Mr Coyne's employment specifically made such demands.

At the time this matter came before the Senate, it was not disclosed that the following form of words in the aforesaid Deed of Settlement “...the events leading up to and surrounding his relocation from the John Oxley Youth Detention Centre” was about or could be argued to cover incidents of alleged child abuse in the period before the Heiner Inquiry was established.

Unquestionably the Goss Queensland Government knew that abuse of children was an issue of concern at the Centre. On 1 October 1989, the Hon Ann Warner, when Opposition spokesperson for Family Services, cited specific incidents of alleged child abuse in The Sunday Sun (1 October 1989 p 19), calling for the incidents to be investigated.

These incidents led directly to the establishment of the Heiner Inquiry, but it seems that other grievances of a similar kind going back to 1988 may have been aired at the Inquiry.

The drafting and use of such an instrument, coming from any government with the assistance of the Office of Crown Law, in effect, indirectly or directly authorises, or, at the very least, condones the abuse of children in State-run institutions.

We suggest that any Minister/officer or agent of the State/Crown, who possessed knowledge of the nature of these alleged unlawful events which they then specifically required not to be broadcast by inserting prohibiting clauses in a State/Crown Deed of Settlement, would be acting outside the law, and would be engaging in prima facie abuse of office, obstruction of justice and misappropriation of public monies for an illegal purpose if public monies were to change hands as part of such a termination of employment arrangement. The facts show that former Minister the Hon Anne Warner and her then Director-General Ms Ruth Matchett possessed such knowledge when executing the February 1991 Coyne/State of Queensland Deed of Settlement.

In all these respects, the law is clear. It prohibits such conduct.

We also suggest that it is open to conclude that the contrived nature of Mr Coyne's so-called involuntary retrenchment pursuant to section 28 of the Public Service Management and Employment Act 1988 may have knowingly breached the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 such was the Queensland Government's rush and desire to rid themselves of him, and consequently may invite Federal intervention at that level alone.

By way of additional evidence showing the contrived and prima facie illegal nature of Mr Coyne's retrenchment, on 7 February 1997, Solicitors and Notary John Katahanas & Company, acting for Mr Coyne, lodged Writ (No 1130 of 1997) in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Mr Coyne claimed against the State of Queensland:

(a) damages for breach of contract, (b) damages for wrongful termination of employment, (c) damages for breach of statutory duty, (d) damages for deceit, and (e) damages for negligence;

against Ms Ruth L Matchett:

(a) damages for inducing breach of contract, (b) damages for breach of statutory duty, (c) damages for malfeasance in public office, (d) damages for termination of employment, (e) damages for deceit;

and against both Defendants:

(a) interest on the moneys claimed in paragraphs (1) and (2) hereof pursuant to the provisions of section 47 of the Supreme Court Act 1965, (b) costs, (c) such further and other orders as may be just in the circumstances.

While Mr Coyne seems to have dropped the action after several months, we submit that the lodging of such a Writ in the Supreme Court of Queensland itself gives rise to the existence of suspected misconduct surrounding the manner in which his career was ended in February 1991.

As far as we know, no out-of-court settlement was reached pursuant to the aforesaid Writ.

We request that this grievance be placed before the Senate as soon as possible for consideration. Should the Senate decide to revisit the matter, then we would be pleased to provide a more detailed submission (supported by relevant case law), and, if necessary, to provide oral submissions, as would our client, Mr Kevin Lindeberg.

Yours sincerely

GREENWOOD QC

9 May 2001.

... it is totally unacceptable for any Australian government to send to the international community a signal that shredding public records to stop their use in court proceedings or to stop lawful access to them is acceptable conduct in our public and legal administration or in any aspect of public life at all. It brings our reputation as a nation governed by the rule of law into unacceptable disrepute.