❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the Department of Planning and Infrastructure's (DPI) handling of a public interest claim made by Mr. Winzer, alleging misleading advice to Parliament and victimisation. The question seeks to identify DPI officers involved in providing advice related to the claim.
AnsweredQoN 2645Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Further to questions on notice Nos 282, 2 176 and 2 498 tabled on May 6, September 23 and October 20 2004 respectively tabled by the then Hon J Scott in regard to Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) senior officers who have been involved in the provision of advice to the Parliament -
(1) Will the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure acknowledge that Minister K Chance in his answers of August 25 2005 to detailed questions tabled by the Hon Norman Moore focusing upon DPI’s advice of May 4 2004, Minister Chance has provided very strong support for Mr Winzer’s claims in regard to the following aspects of his experience in attempting to make a public interest claim -
(a) DPI has misled the Parliament from 2000 to 2004 by advising that their officers had addressed Mr Winzer’s public interest claim;
(b) DPI misled consulting psychiatrists by advising that their officers had addressed Mr Winzer’s public interest claim;
(c) DPI has victimised Mr Winzer over many years because he has attempted to make a public interest claim;
(d) DPI misled the Public Sector Standards Commission (PSSC) by advising that their officers had addressed Mr Winzer’s public interest claim; and
(e) PSSC accepted the DPI’s false advice and as demonstrated in the PSSC letter of December 2 1999, paraphrased that false advice?
(2) Will the Minister acknowledge that when challenged by way of question No. 2 498 to show that DPI had not misled the Parliament on May 4 2004 by claiming that their officers had addressed Mr Winzer’s public interest claim, and other serious matters including financial, the Minister simply advised that the response of May 4 2004 did demonstrate ‘the efforts of the former Department of Transport to address Mr Winzer’s complaints’?
(3) Will the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure accept that in the tabling of this question, no attempt is being made to draw a distinction between ‘officers responsible’ and ‘officers personally responsible’, but rather to ascertain which officers have been involved in the research, collating or provision of advice given to the Parliament and in what capacity or circumstances they gave the advice 2000 to 2004 identified by Minister Chance as misleading?
(4) Will the Minister table all the records to show which DPI officers have been involved in relation to the following questions -
(a) No. 880 answered on March 14 2000;
(b) No 542 tabled on March 27 2002 and answered on May 7 2002;
(c) No. 1 554 tabled on June 26 2002 and answered on June 26 2002;
(d) No. 42 tabled on August 15 2002 and answered on September 18 2002;
(e) No. 1 792 tabled on March 10 2004 and answered on April 6 2004; and
(f) No. 1 800 tabled March 12 2004 and answered on May 4 2004,
or identify which DPI officers were responsible for providing the answers to the above question on notice?
(5) If not, why not?
(1) Will the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure acknowledge that Minister K Chance in his answers of August 25 2005 to detailed questions tabled by the Hon Norman Moore focusing upon DPI’s advice of May 4 2004, Minister Chance has provided very strong support for Mr Winzer’s claims in regard to the following aspects of his experience in attempting to make a public interest claim -
(a) DPI has misled the Parliament from 2000 to 2004 by advising that their officers had addressed Mr Winzer’s public interest claim;
(b) DPI misled consulting psychiatrists by advising that their officers had addressed Mr Winzer’s public interest claim;
(c) DPI has victimised Mr Winzer over many years because he has attempted to make a public interest claim;
(d) DPI misled the Public Sector Standards Commission (PSSC) by advising that their officers had addressed Mr Winzer’s public interest claim; and
(e) PSSC accepted the DPI’s false advice and as demonstrated in the PSSC letter of December 2 1999, paraphrased that false advice?
(2) Will the Minister acknowledge that when challenged by way of question No. 2 498 to show that DPI had not misled the Parliament on May 4 2004 by claiming that their officers had addressed Mr Winzer’s public interest claim, and other serious matters including financial, the Minister simply advised that the response of May 4 2004 did demonstrate ‘the efforts of the former Department of Transport to address Mr Winzer’s complaints’?
(3) Will the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure accept that in the tabling of this question, no attempt is being made to draw a distinction between ‘officers responsible’ and ‘officers personally responsible’, but rather to ascertain which officers have been involved in the research, collating or provision of advice given to the Parliament and in what capacity or circumstances they gave the advice 2000 to 2004 identified by Minister Chance as misleading?
(4) Will the Minister table all the records to show which DPI officers have been involved in relation to the following questions -
(a) No. 880 answered on March 14 2000;
(b) No 542 tabled on March 27 2002 and answered on May 7 2002;
(c) No. 1 554 tabled on June 26 2002 and answered on June 26 2002;
(d) No. 42 tabled on August 15 2002 and answered on September 18 2002;
(e) No. 1 792 tabled on March 10 2004 and answered on April 6 2004; and
(f) No. 1 800 tabled March 12 2004 and answered on May 4 2004,
or identify which DPI officers were responsible for providing the answers to the above question on notice?
(5) If not, why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
16 November 2005
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
Response time
35 days
(b) DPI misled consulting psychiatrists by advising that their officers had addressed Mr Winzer’s public interest claim; (c) DPI has victimised Mr Winzer over many years because he has attempted to make a public interest claim; (d) DPI misled the Public Sector Standards Commission (PSSC) by advising that their officers had addressed Mr Winzer’s public interest claim; and (e) PSSC accepted the DPI’s false advice and as demonstrated in the PSSC letter of December 2 1999, paraphrased that false advice?
(c) DPI has victimised Mr Winzer over many years because he has attempted to make a public interest claim; (d) DPI misled the Public Sector Standards Commission (PSSC) by advising that their officers had addressed Mr Winzer’s public interest claim; and (e) PSSC accepted the DPI’s false advice and as demonstrated in the PSSC letter of December 2 1999, paraphrased that false advice?
(d) DPI misled the Public Sector Standards Commission (PSSC) by advising that their officers had addressed Mr Winzer’s public interest claim; and (e) PSSC accepted the DPI’s false advice and as demonstrated in the PSSC letter of December 2 1999, paraphrased that false advice?
(e) PSSC accepted the DPI’s false advice and as demonstrated in the PSSC letter of December 2 1999, paraphrased that false advice?
(b) No 542 tabled on March 27 2002 and answered on May 7 2002; (c) No. 1 554 tabled on June 26 2002 and answered on June 26 2002; (d) No. 42 tabled on August 15 2002 and answered on September 18 2002; (e) No. 1 792 tabled on March 10 2004 and answered on April 6 2004; and (f) No. 1 800 tabled March 12 2004 and answered on May 4 2004, or identify which DPI officers were responsible for providing the answers to the above question on notice?
(c) No. 1 554 tabled on June 26 2002 and answered on June 26 2002; (d) No. 42 tabled on August 15 2002 and answered on September 18 2002; (e) No. 1 792 tabled on March 10 2004 and answered on April 6 2004; and (f) No. 1 800 tabled March 12 2004 and answered on May 4 2004, or identify which DPI officers were responsible for providing the answers to the above question on notice?
(d) No. 42 tabled on August 15 2002 and answered on September 18 2002; (e) No. 1 792 tabled on March 10 2004 and answered on April 6 2004; and (f) No. 1 800 tabled March 12 2004 and answered on May 4 2004, or identify which DPI officers were responsible for providing the answers to the above question on notice?
(e) No. 1 792 tabled on March 10 2004 and answered on April 6 2004; and (f) No. 1 800 tabled March 12 2004 and answered on May 4 2004, or identify which DPI officers were responsible for providing the answers to the above question on notice?
(f) No. 1 800 tabled March 12 2004 and answered on May 4 2004, or identify which DPI officers were responsible for providing the answers to the above question on notice?
or identify which DPI officers were responsible for providing the answers to the above question on notice?
The issues Mr Winzer raises have been investigated by the following bodies: - Workcover - The Public Sector Standards Commissioner - The Anti-Corruption Commission (now replaced by the Corruption and Crime Commission) - The Legislative Council Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations - The Ombudsman - The Equal Opportunities Commission - The Office of the Auditor General, and - The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
- Workcover - The Public Sector Standards Commissioner - The Anti-Corruption Commission (now replaced by the Corruption and Crime Commission) - The Legislative Council Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations - The Ombudsman - The Equal Opportunities Commission - The Office of the Auditor General, and - The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
- The Public Sector Standards Commissioner - The Anti-Corruption Commission (now replaced by the Corruption and Crime Commission) - The Legislative Council Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations - The Ombudsman - The Equal Opportunities Commission - The Office of the Auditor General, and - The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
- The Anti-Corruption Commission (now replaced by the Corruption and Crime Commission) - The Legislative Council Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations - The Ombudsman - The Equal Opportunities Commission - The Office of the Auditor General, and - The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
- The Legislative Council Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations - The Ombudsman - The Equal Opportunities Commission - The Office of the Auditor General, and - The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
- The Ombudsman - The Equal Opportunities Commission - The Office of the Auditor General, and - The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
- The Equal Opportunities Commission - The Office of the Auditor General, and - The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
- The Office of the Auditor General, and - The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
- The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
(c) DPI has victimised Mr Winzer over many years because he has attempted to make a public interest claim; (d) DPI misled the Public Sector Standards Commission (PSSC) by advising that their officers had addressed Mr Winzer’s public interest claim; and (e) PSSC accepted the DPI’s false advice and as demonstrated in the PSSC letter of December 2 1999, paraphrased that false advice?
(d) DPI misled the Public Sector Standards Commission (PSSC) by advising that their officers had addressed Mr Winzer’s public interest claim; and (e) PSSC accepted the DPI’s false advice and as demonstrated in the PSSC letter of December 2 1999, paraphrased that false advice?
(e) PSSC accepted the DPI’s false advice and as demonstrated in the PSSC letter of December 2 1999, paraphrased that false advice?
(b) No 542 tabled on March 27 2002 and answered on May 7 2002; (c) No. 1 554 tabled on June 26 2002 and answered on June 26 2002; (d) No. 42 tabled on August 15 2002 and answered on September 18 2002; (e) No. 1 792 tabled on March 10 2004 and answered on April 6 2004; and (f) No. 1 800 tabled March 12 2004 and answered on May 4 2004, or identify which DPI officers were responsible for providing the answers to the above question on notice?
(c) No. 1 554 tabled on June 26 2002 and answered on June 26 2002; (d) No. 42 tabled on August 15 2002 and answered on September 18 2002; (e) No. 1 792 tabled on March 10 2004 and answered on April 6 2004; and (f) No. 1 800 tabled March 12 2004 and answered on May 4 2004, or identify which DPI officers were responsible for providing the answers to the above question on notice?
(d) No. 42 tabled on August 15 2002 and answered on September 18 2002; (e) No. 1 792 tabled on March 10 2004 and answered on April 6 2004; and (f) No. 1 800 tabled March 12 2004 and answered on May 4 2004, or identify which DPI officers were responsible for providing the answers to the above question on notice?
(e) No. 1 792 tabled on March 10 2004 and answered on April 6 2004; and (f) No. 1 800 tabled March 12 2004 and answered on May 4 2004, or identify which DPI officers were responsible for providing the answers to the above question on notice?
(f) No. 1 800 tabled March 12 2004 and answered on May 4 2004, or identify which DPI officers were responsible for providing the answers to the above question on notice?
or identify which DPI officers were responsible for providing the answers to the above question on notice?
The issues Mr Winzer raises have been investigated by the following bodies: - Workcover - The Public Sector Standards Commissioner - The Anti-Corruption Commission (now replaced by the Corruption and Crime Commission) - The Legislative Council Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations - The Ombudsman - The Equal Opportunities Commission - The Office of the Auditor General, and - The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
- Workcover - The Public Sector Standards Commissioner - The Anti-Corruption Commission (now replaced by the Corruption and Crime Commission) - The Legislative Council Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations - The Ombudsman - The Equal Opportunities Commission - The Office of the Auditor General, and - The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
- The Public Sector Standards Commissioner - The Anti-Corruption Commission (now replaced by the Corruption and Crime Commission) - The Legislative Council Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations - The Ombudsman - The Equal Opportunities Commission - The Office of the Auditor General, and - The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
- The Anti-Corruption Commission (now replaced by the Corruption and Crime Commission) - The Legislative Council Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations - The Ombudsman - The Equal Opportunities Commission - The Office of the Auditor General, and - The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
- The Legislative Council Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations - The Ombudsman - The Equal Opportunities Commission - The Office of the Auditor General, and - The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
- The Ombudsman - The Equal Opportunities Commission - The Office of the Auditor General, and - The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
- The Equal Opportunities Commission - The Office of the Auditor General, and - The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
- The Office of the Auditor General, and - The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
- The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
over a lengthy period of time. Further investigation is not considered to be necessary, or an appropriate allocation of departmental resources. If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
If Mr Winzer has further information regarding this or any other matter, he should bring that information to the attention of the relevant authorities.
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.