ASA Position on Heiner

[Adrian Cunningham <adrianc@naa.gov.au>]

Dear Aus-Archivists

Now that the Heiner affair has shot back into the media spotlight,
questions have been asked on this list about the ASA's position in
relation to the disposal decision made by the Queensland State Archives
in relation to the Heiner documents.

Previously, the ASA Statement on the Heiner case has criticised the Qld
Cabinet for with-holding from the Archivist knowledge that the documents
were required for foreshadowed legal proceedings.  Our statement was
also critical of the kind of political interference in disposal decision
making that occurred in the Heiner case and called for greater
legislative independence of the State Archives from the
Executive/Cabinet, such as that which is enjoyed by the Audit Office.  

Last year it was revealed that the Heiner documents were likely to have
contained inter alia allegations of child abuse at the John Oxley Youth
Centre.  In view of this revelation, Kevin Lindeberg wrote to the ASA
asking us to condemn the disposal decision made by the Queensland State
Archives in this case.  Below, for the information of ASA members and
others, is the text of the letter of reply that I sent to Lindeberg on 6
October on behalf of ASA Council.

The ASA Council continues to monitor developments in the Heiner case.
We decided not to make a submission to the Forde Enquiry into Child
Abuse in Qld Government institutions because the terms of reference
carefully excluded any possibility of the Enquiry looking into the
shreddergate case.  As I understand it at the present time, Forde is
still refusing to give any consideration to the Heiner shredding case,
despite calls for her to widen the scope of her deliberations.  Should
the Forde Enquiry choose to examine the shredding issue, the ASA will
stand ready to make a submission and/or give oral testimony.

I should also remind averyone that the ASA has a formal position paper
on the destruction of records.  This position paper, which can be found
on the ASA Website, has been made available to previous enquiries into
the Heiner shredding.

best wishes,
Adrian Cunningham
President, Australian Society of Archivists

________________________________________________

> Dear Mr Lindeberg
> 
> Thank you for your letter of 24 September regarding the Forde
> Commission of Inquiry and the shredding of the Heiner Inquiry
> Documents.
> 
> The Council of the Australian Society of Archivists has given careful
> consideration to your request that the Society issue a further public
> statement on the Heiner shredding, focussing on the possibility that
> the shredded records contained information pertaining to allegations
> of child abuse at the John Oxley Youth Centre.
> 
> While we certainly agree with you that no archivist should authorise
> the destruction of records that they know contain child abuse
> allegations, we cannot be certain that in this particular case the
> archivist was in possession of such knowledge.  The evidence to hand
> indicates that the archivist made an examination of the Heiner
> material, but there is no evidence that her examination revealed to
> her the existence of any child abuse allegations.  If such allegations
> were indeed present in the records, they would probably have been one
> of a range of issues canvassed therein.
> 
> Hindsight certainly proves in this case that the records should not
> have been destroyed.  However, the process of authorising the
> destruction of records is one of risk management.  Although archivists
> endeavour to acquit this serious responsibility with the utmost care
> and professionalism, the process is inherently imperfect.  The history
> of archival appraisal is littered with examples of decisions which
> have proved to be incorrect in hindsight.  The sheer volume of
> material that archivists are called upon to consider means that
> detailed examination of records during appraisal is simply not
> feasible.  As a result, mistakes are inevitable.
> 
> So, our view is that our existing public statement is sufficient.  We
> have stated that the State Archivist needs to perform his or her
> duties free from political pressure and interference and that, in the
> case of the Heiner destruction, she should have been made aware that
> the records were required for foreshadowed legal proceedings.  Because
> of this, and given its terms of reference, we have decided not to make
> a written submission to the Forde enquiry.  Although we would be happy
> to give evidence to the Forde Inquiry should we be asked, we feel that
> we do not need to add anything to our statement which is currently in
> the public domain.
> 
> We thank you for your interest in the professional role and
> responsibilities of archivists and wish you well in your endeavours to
> seek redress for the injustices you have suffered.  
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> 
> Adrian Cunningham
> President