❓ A parliamentary question regarding Mr. Winzer's claims of a cover-up of his public interest disclosures and the Premier's response to his correspondence, specifically concerning an alleged agreement hindering the investigation.
AnsweredQoN 2804Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(b) is the Premier aware of Mr Winzer’s longstanding claims of a cover-up of his public interest disclosures that he has lodged against the Public Sector Management Office, the Public Sector Standards Commission and the Anti Corruption Commission; (c) will the Premier confirm that Mr Winzer wrote to the Premier on 14 June 2001 regarding an agreement between the Civil Service Association and the Public Sector Standards Commission not to request information from Mr Winzer’s employing department that was central to Mr Winzer’s public interest claim; (d) did the Premier give Mr Winzer a substantive response to his correspondence of 14 June 2001; (e) if not, why not; (f) if yes, what was the date of the Premier’s reply; (g) will the Premier investigate his reply to Mr Winzer of 7 February 2002, where he stated that there was ‘no basis’ and ‘no supporting evidence’ for Mr Winzer’s public interest claims, to ascertain if his reply was influenced by the lack of evidence resulting from the agreement in (c) above; and (h) if not, why not?
(c) will the Premier confirm that Mr Winzer wrote to the Premier on 14 June 2001 regarding an agreement between the Civil Service Association and the Public Sector Standards Commission not to request information from Mr Winzer’s employing department that was central to Mr Winzer’s public interest claim; (d) did the Premier give Mr Winzer a substantive response to his correspondence of 14 June 2001; (e) if not, why not; (f) if yes, what was the date of the Premier’s reply; (g) will the Premier investigate his reply to Mr Winzer of 7 February 2002, where he stated that there was ‘no basis’ and ‘no supporting evidence’ for Mr Winzer’s public interest claims, to ascertain if his reply was influenced by the lack of evidence resulting from the agreement in (c) above; and (h) if not, why not?
(d) did the Premier give Mr Winzer a substantive response to his correspondence of 14 June 2001; (e) if not, why not; (f) if yes, what was the date of the Premier’s reply; (g) will the Premier investigate his reply to Mr Winzer of 7 February 2002, where he stated that there was ‘no basis’ and ‘no supporting evidence’ for Mr Winzer’s public interest claims, to ascertain if his reply was influenced by the lack of evidence resulting from the agreement in (c) above; and (h) if not, why not?
(e) if not, why not; (f) if yes, what was the date of the Premier’s reply; (g) will the Premier investigate his reply to Mr Winzer of 7 February 2002, where he stated that there was ‘no basis’ and ‘no supporting evidence’ for Mr Winzer’s public interest claims, to ascertain if his reply was influenced by the lack of evidence resulting from the agreement in (c) above; and (h) if not, why not?
(f) if yes, what was the date of the Premier’s reply; (g) will the Premier investigate his reply to Mr Winzer of 7 February 2002, where he stated that there was ‘no basis’ and ‘no supporting evidence’ for Mr Winzer’s public interest claims, to ascertain if his reply was influenced by the lack of evidence resulting from the agreement in (c) above; and (h) if not, why not?
(g) will the Premier investigate his reply to Mr Winzer of 7 February 2002, where he stated that there was ‘no basis’ and ‘no supporting evidence’ for Mr Winzer’s public interest claims, to ascertain if his reply was influenced by the lack of evidence resulting from the agreement in (c) above; and (h) if not, why not?
(h) if not, why not?
(b) I am aware that Mr Winzer has written to a number of people regarding his dissatisfaction with the relevant agencies. I also note that Mr Winzer’s correspondence refers to at least nine occasions on which he has written to the former Premier regarding his dissatisfaction with these agencies. (c) Mr Winzer wrote to me on 14 June 2001 regarding the performance of Mr Dave Robinson, Branch Secretary CPSU/CSA. This letter had no specific reference to an agreement between the CPSU/CSA and the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner. However, I am aware that Mr Winzer has written on other occasions about an understanding between these parties that the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner would be examining the manner in which Mr Winzer had been treated by the (then) Department of Transport, not the veracity of the Department’s enterprise bargaining agreement. (d) - (f) Mr Winzer was provided with a letter acknowledging receipt of his letter. The acknowledgement letter indicated a further response would be forthcoming. However, following subsequent correspondence from Mr Winzer it was determined that a further response was not required. (g) - (h) No. The matter has been considered fully on a number of occasions.
(c) Mr Winzer wrote to me on 14 June 2001 regarding the performance of Mr Dave Robinson, Branch Secretary CPSU/CSA. This letter had no specific reference to an agreement between the CPSU/CSA and the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner. However, I am aware that Mr Winzer has written on other occasions about an understanding between these parties that the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner would be examining the manner in which Mr Winzer had been treated by the (then) Department of Transport, not the veracity of the Department’s enterprise bargaining agreement. (d) - (f) Mr Winzer was provided with a letter acknowledging receipt of his letter. The acknowledgement letter indicated a further response would be forthcoming. However, following subsequent correspondence from Mr Winzer it was determined that a further response was not required. (g) - (h) No. The matter has been considered fully on a number of occasions.
(d) - (f) Mr Winzer was provided with a letter acknowledging receipt of his letter. The acknowledgement letter indicated a further response would be forthcoming. However, following subsequent correspondence from Mr Winzer it was determined that a further response was not required. (g) - (h) No. The matter has been considered fully on a number of occasions.
(g) - (h) No. The matter has been considered fully on a number of occasions.
(c) will the Premier confirm that Mr Winzer wrote to the Premier on 14 June 2001 regarding an agreement between the Civil Service Association and the Public Sector Standards Commission not to request information from Mr Winzer’s employing department that was central to Mr Winzer’s public interest claim; (d) did the Premier give Mr Winzer a substantive response to his correspondence of 14 June 2001; (e) if not, why not; (f) if yes, what was the date of the Premier’s reply; (g) will the Premier investigate his reply to Mr Winzer of 7 February 2002, where he stated that there was ‘no basis’ and ‘no supporting evidence’ for Mr Winzer’s public interest claims, to ascertain if his reply was influenced by the lack of evidence resulting from the agreement in (c) above; and (h) if not, why not?
(d) did the Premier give Mr Winzer a substantive response to his correspondence of 14 June 2001; (e) if not, why not; (f) if yes, what was the date of the Premier’s reply; (g) will the Premier investigate his reply to Mr Winzer of 7 February 2002, where he stated that there was ‘no basis’ and ‘no supporting evidence’ for Mr Winzer’s public interest claims, to ascertain if his reply was influenced by the lack of evidence resulting from the agreement in (c) above; and (h) if not, why not?
(e) if not, why not; (f) if yes, what was the date of the Premier’s reply; (g) will the Premier investigate his reply to Mr Winzer of 7 February 2002, where he stated that there was ‘no basis’ and ‘no supporting evidence’ for Mr Winzer’s public interest claims, to ascertain if his reply was influenced by the lack of evidence resulting from the agreement in (c) above; and (h) if not, why not?
(f) if yes, what was the date of the Premier’s reply; (g) will the Premier investigate his reply to Mr Winzer of 7 February 2002, where he stated that there was ‘no basis’ and ‘no supporting evidence’ for Mr Winzer’s public interest claims, to ascertain if his reply was influenced by the lack of evidence resulting from the agreement in (c) above; and (h) if not, why not?
(g) will the Premier investigate his reply to Mr Winzer of 7 February 2002, where he stated that there was ‘no basis’ and ‘no supporting evidence’ for Mr Winzer’s public interest claims, to ascertain if his reply was influenced by the lack of evidence resulting from the agreement in (c) above; and (h) if not, why not?
(h) if not, why not?
(b) I am aware that Mr Winzer has written to a number of people regarding his dissatisfaction with the relevant agencies. I also note that Mr Winzer’s correspondence refers to at least nine occasions on which he has written to the former Premier regarding his dissatisfaction with these agencies. (c) Mr Winzer wrote to me on 14 June 2001 regarding the performance of Mr Dave Robinson, Branch Secretary CPSU/CSA. This letter had no specific reference to an agreement between the CPSU/CSA and the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner. However, I am aware that Mr Winzer has written on other occasions about an understanding between these parties that the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner would be examining the manner in which Mr Winzer had been treated by the (then) Department of Transport, not the veracity of the Department’s enterprise bargaining agreement. (d) - (f) Mr Winzer was provided with a letter acknowledging receipt of his letter. The acknowledgement letter indicated a further response would be forthcoming. However, following subsequent correspondence from Mr Winzer it was determined that a further response was not required. (g) - (h) No. The matter has been considered fully on a number of occasions.
(c) Mr Winzer wrote to me on 14 June 2001 regarding the performance of Mr Dave Robinson, Branch Secretary CPSU/CSA. This letter had no specific reference to an agreement between the CPSU/CSA and the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner. However, I am aware that Mr Winzer has written on other occasions about an understanding between these parties that the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner would be examining the manner in which Mr Winzer had been treated by the (then) Department of Transport, not the veracity of the Department’s enterprise bargaining agreement. (d) - (f) Mr Winzer was provided with a letter acknowledging receipt of his letter. The acknowledgement letter indicated a further response would be forthcoming. However, following subsequent correspondence from Mr Winzer it was determined that a further response was not required. (g) - (h) No. The matter has been considered fully on a number of occasions.
(d) - (f) Mr Winzer was provided with a letter acknowledging receipt of his letter. The acknowledgement letter indicated a further response would be forthcoming. However, following subsequent correspondence from Mr Winzer it was determined that a further response was not required. (g) - (h) No. The matter has been considered fully on a number of occasions.
(g) - (h) No. The matter has been considered fully on a number of occasions.
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
15 June 2004
Response time
42 days
(a) I am aware of the views expressed on the 6WF program relating to Whistleblower Legislation.
(b) I am aware that Mr Winzer has written to a number of people regarding his dissatisfaction with the relevant agencies. I also note that Mr Winzer’s correspondence refers to at least nine occasions on which he has written to the former Premier regarding his dissatisfaction with these agencies.
(c) Mr Winzer wrote to me on 14 June 2001 regarding the performance of Mr Dave Robinson, Branch Secretary CPSU/CSA. This letter had no specific reference to an agreement between the CPSU/CSA and the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner. However, I am aware that Mr Winzer has written on other occasions about an understanding between these parties that the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner would be examining the manner in which Mr Winzer had been treated by the (then) Department of Transport, not the veracity of the Department’s enterprise bargaining agreement.
(d) - (f) Mr Winzer was provided with a letter acknowledging receipt of his letter. The acknowledgement letter indicated a further response would be forthcoming. However, following subsequent correspondence from Mr Winzer it was determined that a further response was not required.
(g) - (h) No. The matter has been considered fully on a number of occasions.
(b) I am aware that Mr Winzer has written to a number of people regarding his dissatisfaction with the relevant agencies. I also note that Mr Winzer’s correspondence refers to at least nine occasions on which he has written to the former Premier regarding his dissatisfaction with these agencies.
(c) Mr Winzer wrote to me on 14 June 2001 regarding the performance of Mr Dave Robinson, Branch Secretary CPSU/CSA. This letter had no specific reference to an agreement between the CPSU/CSA and the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner. However, I am aware that Mr Winzer has written on other occasions about an understanding between these parties that the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner would be examining the manner in which Mr Winzer had been treated by the (then) Department of Transport, not the veracity of the Department’s enterprise bargaining agreement.
(d) - (f) Mr Winzer was provided with a letter acknowledging receipt of his letter. The acknowledgement letter indicated a further response would be forthcoming. However, following subsequent correspondence from Mr Winzer it was determined that a further response was not required.
(g) - (h) No. The matter has been considered fully on a number of occasions.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.