❓ Hon Peter Collier questions the Deputy Premier's inaction regarding Mr. Neil Winzer's claims against the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI), alleging the DPI misled various bodies and victimized Mr. Winzer. The Deputy Premier's response acknowledges some of Winzer's claims but declines further investigation.
AnsweredQoN 2644Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Deputy Premier to question on notice No. 2761 of April 6 2004 and No. 2803 of May 4 2004 tabled by the Member for Carine and the Member for Nedlands respectively -
(1) Will the Deputy Premier acknowledge that the aforementioned questions were substantially in regard to Mr Neil Winzer’s plea to him for help on the grounds of Mr Winzer’s claim that advisors close to the Premier were blocking his attempts to achieve an open and accountable determination of his public interest claim and other serious matters including financial against the Department for Planning and Infrastructure?
(2) Will the Deputy Premier as Treasurer acknowledge that the serious matters and in particular financial raised may have had the potential to impact on the Deputy Premier’s portfolio responsibilities and that in the alternative, the Minister may have had a responsibility to inquire into a claim as serious that which Mr Winzer was making against advisors close to the Premier?
(3) Will the Deputy Premier acknowledge that page one of Mr Winzer’s letter of January 15 2002 to the Minister included the following ‘Ordinarily of course, I would have made this request of the Premier. However, as you may see from the attached overview of my claim against Mr Wauchope, I do not view his office as being an appropriate avenue for communication between the Premier and I’?
(4) Will the Deputy Premier acknowledge that the questions tabled by the Member for Carine and the Member for Nedlands were substantially about the Deputy Premier’s failure to ever address Mr Winzer’s plea for help?
(5) Will the Deputy Premier acknowledge that his complete answer provided to the Parliament on June 15 2004 was that ‘This matter does not fall within [the Deputy Premier’s] portfolio responsibilities’?
(6) Will the Deputy Premier acknowledge that Minister K Chance in his answer of August 25 2005 to detailed questions tabled by the Hon Norman Moore, 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?
(7) Will the Deputy Premier acknowledge the likely harm in wider public interest terms and also for Mr Winzer at a personal level that may have been prevented had the Deputy Premier’s help in 2002?
(1) Will the Deputy Premier acknowledge that the aforementioned questions were substantially in regard to Mr Neil Winzer’s plea to him for help on the grounds of Mr Winzer’s claim that advisors close to the Premier were blocking his attempts to achieve an open and accountable determination of his public interest claim and other serious matters including financial against the Department for Planning and Infrastructure?
(2) Will the Deputy Premier as Treasurer acknowledge that the serious matters and in particular financial raised may have had the potential to impact on the Deputy Premier’s portfolio responsibilities and that in the alternative, the Minister may have had a responsibility to inquire into a claim as serious that which Mr Winzer was making against advisors close to the Premier?
(3) Will the Deputy Premier acknowledge that page one of Mr Winzer’s letter of January 15 2002 to the Minister included the following ‘Ordinarily of course, I would have made this request of the Premier. However, as you may see from the attached overview of my claim against Mr Wauchope, I do not view his office as being an appropriate avenue for communication between the Premier and I’?
(4) Will the Deputy Premier acknowledge that the questions tabled by the Member for Carine and the Member for Nedlands were substantially about the Deputy Premier’s failure to ever address Mr Winzer’s plea for help?
(5) Will the Deputy Premier acknowledge that his complete answer provided to the Parliament on June 15 2004 was that ‘This matter does not fall within [the Deputy Premier’s] portfolio responsibilities’?
(6) Will the Deputy Premier acknowledge that Minister K Chance in his answer of August 25 2005 to detailed questions tabled by the Hon Norman Moore, 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?
(7) Will the Deputy Premier acknowledge the likely harm in wider public interest terms and also for Mr Winzer at a personal level that may have been prevented had the Deputy Premier’s help in 2002?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
17 November 2005
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Deputy Premier
Response time
36 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?
- 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.
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?
- 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.
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.