Costellos, 52 Kellet St. Kings Cross

4:55 AM (14 minutes ago)

to me

541 - Attorney-General - ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE NSW POLICE SERVICE— PAEDOPHILIA EVIDENCE—CHILD PROTECTION ENFORCEMENT AGENCY

Nile, Fred to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations

(1)        Has the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Service handed over to the Child Protection Enforcement Agency (CPEA) all material on members of the judiciary and legal profession alleged, by victims and witnesses, to be involved in paedophilia or pedastry, for example, the evidence given by the witness code named KR5 that he saw a judge at the boy brothel Costello's?

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today for chapter 1 of what will take many hours. I recently have been given an order

to produce documents to the McClellan Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to

Child Sexual Abuse to justify my making a case to the royal commission, which is doing

excellent work and is discovering things on the public record about the treatment of and

behaviour towards children in our institutions—which a lot of us have known about for 50

years; most people have chosen to look the other way and ignore—that we have the same

problem, I think, in the institution of the law as well as in the institutions of our churches et

cetera.

I was given an order to produce, and I produced, documents to justify my case to the

McClellan royal commission. I have some of those documents here. The notations from the

royal commissioner are on the documents. This one I am holding up here, for instance,

asks, about boys picked up by judge so-and-so, 'Were they Marcellin College students?' This

is a police intelligence document that says, 'A certain judge used to pick up boys in the

toilets opposite Marcellin College.' That particular judge, by the way, gave a sentence of

'found guilty till the rising of the court' to a person who was charged with serious sexual

offences. He also allowed a father who was abusing his foster children and whom he found

guilty in a closed court, with names suppressed, to go back to the family home. That is that

particular judge.

I want to make the case that there is clearly a need—and I intend to get a senior legal

opinion—for the inclusion in the terms of reference for the royal commission, under

'institution', the institution of the law. We also need a federal judicial commission. In

estimates the other day, the Attorney-General said we do not need a federal judicial

commission because there is no endemic corruption in the federal law system. I said to

him, 'Well, does that mean there is in New South Wales,' because New South Wales does

have the very, very successful Judicial Commission of New South Wales, which does

everything from educating judges on sentencing to being a speed camera in the system for

this behaviour. Of course, I did not get a sensible response to that: 'It's a different

jurisdiction,' et cetera.

Within the federal jurisdiction, I have pointed out the behaviour of one Dr Rikard-Bell, who

has given 2,000 opinions as an expert to the Family Court. The Family Court system in

Australia is broken. There are a lot of things that go on in there, with partners dividing and

accusations of sexual misbehaviour within the family, especially the fathers. This guy, who

has given 2,000 opinions as an expert to the court, says in an interview with the ABC,

which I would like to table, that he has no real expertise. In fact, he was instructed by a

man, Dr Richard Gardner—who has since suicided, by the way—that Dr Rikard-Bell

recommends as an opinion maker, and who said:

... the child has to be helped to appreciate that we have in our society an exaggeratedly

punitive and moralistic attitude about adult-child sexual encounters ...

This is the guy giving advice to Dr Rikard-Bell. This Dr Rikard-Bell insists on interviewing

children in front of the offending fathers. How is that for intimidation? And so it goes on.

So there is a serious problem in the Family Court. I now have on my desk in my office a pile

which is nearly a foot thick of correspondence from parents, especially mothers, who have

been mistreated, as they see it, in the Family Court. I just think the Family Court needs

sorting out, but I do not have time to go through the particular detail.

I have here also police documents that every Attorney-General, from Philip Ruddock to now,

has seen. The present Attorney-General has not been delivered these documents; he saw

some of them in a Senate hearing in Melbourne, where I was not allowed to table them.

This goes to why we need a federal judicial commission and why we should include the

institution of the law in the terms of reference of the royal commission. This is a police

document, from the Child Protection Enforcement Agency—I will not name anyone—to the

Commissioner of Police New South Wales, with a date: 'The attached report relates to

Justice'—the name is deleted—'who has emerged prominently during my investigations to

date. Much of the information is hearsay and not capable of being sustained, but collectively

it paints a disturbing picture of a senior member of the legal profession who may or may

not have committed criminal offences but who certainly, in my view, is open to

compromise,' which is the serious issue. It goes on: 'In the circumstances, I feel no

alternative but to seek your permission to carry out a sustained surveillance operation

against this target. I do not take this decision lightly in view of Justice'—deleted

name's—'high profile, but I feel that based on similar evidence I would have little hesitation

in carrying out such an operation against any other member of the public. For such reasons,

I do not think that this particular person should be treated any differently, though I

recognise the matter must be handled with acute sensitivity. I am of the view that such an

investigation would serve a dual purpose. Primarily, it may provide evidence of criminal

offences committed against young boys aged under 18. There is certainly strong suspicion

of such activity. Secondly, it may yield evidence of inappropriate behaviour which, whether

or not it constitutes a criminal offence, would leave the judge open to compromise and

ought to be reported to the appropriate legal body'—very important words. It continues:

'Such consideration was singularly absent from the suspicion surrounding Justice Yeldham,'

and I will name him, 'which consequently did not show either the police or the legal

profession in a good light. I believe this action is defensible on those grounds alone. Subject

to your approval, I intend to take personal command of the operation under the auspices of

Strike Force Cori.'

I also raised in estimates the other day another police document, with a list of people. I am

not going to name anyone on this list. I note that royal commissioner Justice Wood said he

does not recall this document at the time, even though it is his document, signed off by

Gary Crooke QC. It is addressed to the New South Wales Police Service and it is a list of

alleged paedophiles. A person known to the commission compiled the list involving

paedophilia. The list details his knowledge of activities—these are only allegations—and at

the back there are surveillance issues.

To give an idea of the intensity of this: the first person on the list is a former Prime

Minister; the second person is a political party heavyweight; the next person is a very

senior business person; the next person is a senior judge; the next person is a Supreme

Court master; the next person is Justice Yeldham, who, sadly, has passed away. He should

not have suicided. Everyone knew what he was up to. The next guy on the list is a local

court magistrate; the next guy is a former president of the Law Society; the next one is

John Marsden, who has passed away; the next one is a judge, the guy who used to go to

Marcellin College; the next guy is a QC; the next guy is a barrister; the next guy is a

barrister; the next guy is a barrister; the next guy is a barrister; the next guy is a QC; the

next guy is a barrister; the next guy is a QC; the next guy is a senior partner of a law firm;

the next guy is a senior solicitor of a law firm; the next guy is a barrister's clerk—and so it

goes on.

These are police documents. The Wood royal commission, in volume 4, said they were

disturbed at the way files were mismanaged and the contents were lost. Sadly, I have a lot

of the contents from the lost files and I have had them for some time. They were delivered

to me on a bench in the botanic gardens. I think it is absolutely essential that we, the

Australian people, give serious consideration to why we should have a judicial commission

and why we should get the royal commission, which is doing a fantastic job, to include this

in its terms of reference.

I have talked about Costello's, the boy brothel, and Porky's. Some of the people who

attended those are noted here. The police were on the payroll. They would ring up

Costello's, the boy brothel, and say, 'We're coming to raid you.' They were being paid. I can

name the coppers that were getting the money. The police are seriously compromised. For

someone like me, who has all this knowledge, even though you could get smashed for

talking about—it would be derogatory—I do not think it would be responsible to not try and

do something about it.

I have a police letter here saying that there was a guy who represented Philip Bell, a

notorious paedophile, under a false name in court. I wrote to the police and said, 'Why

haven't you arrested him?' They said: 'It's only evidence from the royal commission. We

would have to have another investigation. Evidence from the royal commission may not be

admissible in a prosecution. We would have to have our own investigation.' I am advised

the prosecution always retains a discretionary power not to proceed—in other words, a

cover-up. This is a lawyer who represented—