❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the case of Mr. Winzer, a former public servant, and his public interest claim against the Department of Transport. The question seeks confirmation and acknowledgement from the Minister for Agriculture regarding past advice, reports, and departmental actions related to Mr. Winzer's case.
AnsweredQoN 2061Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Premier to his reply to question without notice No. 3575 asked by Hon P Foss on December 1 2004, and ask -
(1) Can the Minister for Agriculture confirm his advice to the Premier in 2004, already deemed to be a public record by the Environmental and Public Affairs Standing Committee, included the following -
‘Mr Winzer's current predicament - loss of employment at DOT, loss of employment as a Public Servant, impaired mental and physical health and associated stresses on family life - directly flow from these initial claims, and his former employer's response to them.’
(2) Will the Minister acknowledge that it formed the basis of his [now the Minister] report of September 6 2000 to the Parliament that Mr Winzer had provided him with records to support his claim that no officer for the Department had ever addressed any aspect of his public interest claim in any way, and that the Department had provided to the Parliament on March 14 2000 in response to the Hon L Ravlich’s questions, false advice as follows -
‘Mr Winzer has not provided any evidence to support the allegations he has made in his correspondence with the Acting Director General, despite being asked directly to do so.’
(3) Will the Minister acknowledge that in terms of the asked but did not provide pattern of information conveyed to the Parliament on March 14 2000, by the Department, it was identical to the information the Department provided to the Public Sector Standards Commission and the Department’s consulting psychiatrists as at (a) and (b) respectively -
(a) ‘Mike Harris called Neil to his office to ask him what he knew - but at the end of that period, he refused to either confirm or deny what he knew’; and
(b) ‘The employee took it upon himself to act as a ‘whistleblower’ alleging departmental mal-administration and corruption, and then withdrew these allegations when pressed for details.’?
(4) Will the Minister accept that it is a matter of record that Mr Winzer only ever had one meeting with Mr Harris, the then Acting Director General and that occurred when he was called to Mr Harris’ office on January 29 1999; notwithstanding the occasion later that same day when Mr Winzer delivered by hand a letter of response as obliged by Mr Harris?
(5) Will the Minister acknowledge that as chair of the Public Administration Standing Committee, he reported to the Parliament on September 6 2000, that in regard to his attempts to make his public interest claim, Mr Winzer had been harassed and that the Department had reported a particular version of a meeting that Mr Winzer had been obliged to attend to the Public Sector Standards Commission, and that the Minister on September 6 reported this as follows -
‘I will not go into the fine detail of the harassment, except in one particular case. Upon being summoned to the office of one of his superiors, who I do not intend to name, he found that not only was his superior in the room but also a lawyer was present. He had no warning that a legal representative would be present on the employer’s side, and he had no opportunity to arrange his own representation either from his union or another legal practitioner. He was simply sat down and asked a strange question. He was asked to substantiate rumours, which were said to be circulating within the Department of Transport about allegations of corruption within the Department. Mr Winzer assures me, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that he has never at any time repeated those particular rumours. He was nevertheless asked to substantiate rumours to which he had never been a party, rumours which he had certainly heard, because they had been heard by everybody in the Department of Transport, but rumours which had no connection with him whatsoever. When this matter went to review, and I will not go into the details of that review, the evidence given of that meeting was that upon being challenged to substantiate his allegations he refused to do so. That is a twist of the truth.’
(6) Will the Minister acknowledge that it is a form of the twist of the truth, he reported to the Parliament on September 6 2000, that the Public Sector Standards Commission conveyed in their letter of December 2 1999, to the Department, as follows -
‘Mr Winzer was requested to substantiate these allegations [PSSC confirmed March 13 2000, that they were referring to Mr Winzer’s public interest claim] so that they could be properly investigated. Mr Winzer initially declined to assist DOT. When formally requested to do so, Mr Winzer through his legal representative said that ‘he was concerned as to the legal effect of repeating mere rumours of corruption, as opposed to his actual knowledge of corruption.’
(7) Will the Minister acknowledge that the details provided on September 6 2000, by him to the Parliament about the meeting in connection with the harassment of Mr Winzer, and the twist of the truth, are identical to the details provided May 4 2004, by the DPI to the Parliament, in connection with the meeting on January 29 1999, Mr Winzer attended at the direction of the then Director General and also attended by the Department’s legal representative?
(8) Will the Minister acknowledge that during a lengthy briefing spread over two periods with the Minister’s Chief of Staff, Mr Winzer explained that the inaccuracies in the information the DPI provided to the House on May 4 2004, were the same inaccuracies as -
(a) provided to the Hon L Ravlich on March 14 2000, in the Parliament; and
(b) he [now the Minister], had consequently described in Parliament on September 6 2000, as a twist of the truth?
(9) Will the Minister, in regard to his letter to Minister MacTiernan that the Minister has already confirmed was about the inaccuracies in the information the DPI, provided to the House on May 4 2004, and read out to Mr Winzer over the phone, acknowledge the following -
(a) Mr Winzer is correct in regard to the Ministers maintenance of his understanding of the disadvantages sustained by Mr Winzer, as a direct result of his attempts to make his public interest claim, and in particular, the Minister’s reference to ‘victimisation’ in the letter to Minister MacTiernan; and
(b) Mr Winzer is correct in regard to the letter the Minister sent to Minister MacTiernan, that the Minister conveyed his belief that the DPI on May 4 2004 advice to the Parliament was contrary to the Minister’s understanding that no officer for the Department had ever addressed any aspect Mr Winzer’s public interest claim in any way?
(10) If not, why not?
(11) Will the Minister acknowledge that the petition sent to the Premier and copied to the Minister, in regard DPI’s advice to the House on May 4 2004, as to Mr Winzer being asked to provide information to support his allegations as distinct from rumours cited by the Department as to other unspecified matters, and Mr Winzer consequently not providing substantiating information, was signed by the following individuals -
Mr Tim Daly, State Secretary of the AWU, Hon P Embry, Member for the South West, Hon C Edwardes, Member for Kingsley, Mr Bill Game, State Secretary of the CEPU, Hon K Hodson-Thomas, Member for Carine, Hon J Scott, Member for South Metropolitan, Mr T Reakes, Vic Pk-Carlisle ALP Branch, and Mr D North, Vic Pk-Carlisle ALP Branch?
(12) Will the Minister acknowledge that his 2004 advice to the Premier, is entirely consistent with his report of September 6 2000 to the Parliament?
(13) Is the Minister now able to advise the House, as a result of the meeting between his Chief of Staff and Minister MacTiernan’s Chief of Staff, as per his advice to the Parliament on December 1 2004, that a determination was made in regard to how the DPI’s May 4 2004 advice to the Parliament, would be corrected?
(14) If not, why not?
(1) Can the Minister for Agriculture confirm his advice to the Premier in 2004, already deemed to be a public record by the Environmental and Public Affairs Standing Committee, included the following -
‘Mr Winzer's current predicament - loss of employment at DOT, loss of employment as a Public Servant, impaired mental and physical health and associated stresses on family life - directly flow from these initial claims, and his former employer's response to them.’
(2) Will the Minister acknowledge that it formed the basis of his [now the Minister] report of September 6 2000 to the Parliament that Mr Winzer had provided him with records to support his claim that no officer for the Department had ever addressed any aspect of his public interest claim in any way, and that the Department had provided to the Parliament on March 14 2000 in response to the Hon L Ravlich’s questions, false advice as follows -
‘Mr Winzer has not provided any evidence to support the allegations he has made in his correspondence with the Acting Director General, despite being asked directly to do so.’
(3) Will the Minister acknowledge that in terms of the asked but did not provide pattern of information conveyed to the Parliament on March 14 2000, by the Department, it was identical to the information the Department provided to the Public Sector Standards Commission and the Department’s consulting psychiatrists as at (a) and (b) respectively -
(a) ‘Mike Harris called Neil to his office to ask him what he knew - but at the end of that period, he refused to either confirm or deny what he knew’; and
(b) ‘The employee took it upon himself to act as a ‘whistleblower’ alleging departmental mal-administration and corruption, and then withdrew these allegations when pressed for details.’?
(4) Will the Minister accept that it is a matter of record that Mr Winzer only ever had one meeting with Mr Harris, the then Acting Director General and that occurred when he was called to Mr Harris’ office on January 29 1999; notwithstanding the occasion later that same day when Mr Winzer delivered by hand a letter of response as obliged by Mr Harris?
(5) Will the Minister acknowledge that as chair of the Public Administration Standing Committee, he reported to the Parliament on September 6 2000, that in regard to his attempts to make his public interest claim, Mr Winzer had been harassed and that the Department had reported a particular version of a meeting that Mr Winzer had been obliged to attend to the Public Sector Standards Commission, and that the Minister on September 6 reported this as follows -
‘I will not go into the fine detail of the harassment, except in one particular case. Upon being summoned to the office of one of his superiors, who I do not intend to name, he found that not only was his superior in the room but also a lawyer was present. He had no warning that a legal representative would be present on the employer’s side, and he had no opportunity to arrange his own representation either from his union or another legal practitioner. He was simply sat down and asked a strange question. He was asked to substantiate rumours, which were said to be circulating within the Department of Transport about allegations of corruption within the Department. Mr Winzer assures me, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that he has never at any time repeated those particular rumours. He was nevertheless asked to substantiate rumours to which he had never been a party, rumours which he had certainly heard, because they had been heard by everybody in the Department of Transport, but rumours which had no connection with him whatsoever. When this matter went to review, and I will not go into the details of that review, the evidence given of that meeting was that upon being challenged to substantiate his allegations he refused to do so. That is a twist of the truth.’
(6) Will the Minister acknowledge that it is a form of the twist of the truth, he reported to the Parliament on September 6 2000, that the Public Sector Standards Commission conveyed in their letter of December 2 1999, to the Department, as follows -
‘Mr Winzer was requested to substantiate these allegations [PSSC confirmed March 13 2000, that they were referring to Mr Winzer’s public interest claim] so that they could be properly investigated. Mr Winzer initially declined to assist DOT. When formally requested to do so, Mr Winzer through his legal representative said that ‘he was concerned as to the legal effect of repeating mere rumours of corruption, as opposed to his actual knowledge of corruption.’
(7) Will the Minister acknowledge that the details provided on September 6 2000, by him to the Parliament about the meeting in connection with the harassment of Mr Winzer, and the twist of the truth, are identical to the details provided May 4 2004, by the DPI to the Parliament, in connection with the meeting on January 29 1999, Mr Winzer attended at the direction of the then Director General and also attended by the Department’s legal representative?
(8) Will the Minister acknowledge that during a lengthy briefing spread over two periods with the Minister’s Chief of Staff, Mr Winzer explained that the inaccuracies in the information the DPI provided to the House on May 4 2004, were the same inaccuracies as -
(a) provided to the Hon L Ravlich on March 14 2000, in the Parliament; and
(b) he [now the Minister], had consequently described in Parliament on September 6 2000, as a twist of the truth?
(9) Will the Minister, in regard to his letter to Minister MacTiernan that the Minister has already confirmed was about the inaccuracies in the information the DPI, provided to the House on May 4 2004, and read out to Mr Winzer over the phone, acknowledge the following -
(a) Mr Winzer is correct in regard to the Ministers maintenance of his understanding of the disadvantages sustained by Mr Winzer, as a direct result of his attempts to make his public interest claim, and in particular, the Minister’s reference to ‘victimisation’ in the letter to Minister MacTiernan; and
(b) Mr Winzer is correct in regard to the letter the Minister sent to Minister MacTiernan, that the Minister conveyed his belief that the DPI on May 4 2004 advice to the Parliament was contrary to the Minister’s understanding that no officer for the Department had ever addressed any aspect Mr Winzer’s public interest claim in any way?
(10) If not, why not?
(11) Will the Minister acknowledge that the petition sent to the Premier and copied to the Minister, in regard DPI’s advice to the House on May 4 2004, as to Mr Winzer being asked to provide information to support his allegations as distinct from rumours cited by the Department as to other unspecified matters, and Mr Winzer consequently not providing substantiating information, was signed by the following individuals -
Mr Tim Daly, State Secretary of the AWU, Hon P Embry, Member for the South West, Hon C Edwardes, Member for Kingsley, Mr Bill Game, State Secretary of the CEPU, Hon K Hodson-Thomas, Member for Carine, Hon J Scott, Member for South Metropolitan, Mr T Reakes, Vic Pk-Carlisle ALP Branch, and Mr D North, Vic Pk-Carlisle ALP Branch?
(12) Will the Minister acknowledge that his 2004 advice to the Premier, is entirely consistent with his report of September 6 2000 to the Parliament?
(13) Is the Minister now able to advise the House, as a result of the meeting between his Chief of Staff and Minister MacTiernan’s Chief of Staff, as per his advice to the Parliament on December 1 2004, that a determination was made in regard to how the DPI’s May 4 2004 advice to the Parliament, would be corrected?
(14) If not, why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
25 August 2005
Responded by
Minister for Agriculture and Forestry
Response time
98 days
(b) ‘The employee took it upon himself to act as a ‘whistleblower’ alleging departmental mal-administration and corruption, and then withdrew these allegations when pressed for details.’?
(b) he [now the Minister], had consequently described in Parliament on September 6 2000, as a twist of the truth?
(b) Mr Winzer is correct in regard to the letter the Minister sent to Minister MacTiernan, that the Minister conveyed his belief that the DPI on May 4 2004 advice to the Parliament was contrary to the Minister’s understanding that no officer for the Department had ever addressed any aspect Mr Winzer’s public interest claim in any way?
(1) Yes (2) Yes (3) (a) & (b) This would appear to be part of a consistentpattern of information provided by DOT in respect to Mr Winzer. (4) Yes, this would appear to be the case on the information presented to me. (5) Yes (6) Yes (7) Nothing in the details provided on 4th May 2004 have led me to alter my view, as aired in Parliament on 6 September 2000, about the harassment of Mr Winzer. (8) (a) Yes (b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(2) Yes (3) (a) & (b) This would appear to be part of a consistentpattern of information provided by DOT in respect to Mr Winzer. (4) Yes, this would appear to be the case on the information presented to me. (5) Yes (6) Yes (7) Nothing in the details provided on 4th May 2004 have led me to alter my view, as aired in Parliament on 6 September 2000, about the harassment of Mr Winzer. (8) (a) Yes (b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(3) (a) & (b) This would appear to be part of a consistentpattern of information provided by DOT in respect to Mr Winzer. (4) Yes, this would appear to be the case on the information presented to me. (5) Yes (6) Yes (7) Nothing in the details provided on 4th May 2004 have led me to alter my view, as aired in Parliament on 6 September 2000, about the harassment of Mr Winzer. (8) (a) Yes (b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(4) Yes, this would appear to be the case on the information presented to me. (5) Yes (6) Yes (7) Nothing in the details provided on 4th May 2004 have led me to alter my view, as aired in Parliament on 6 September 2000, about the harassment of Mr Winzer. (8) (a) Yes (b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(5) Yes (6) Yes (7) Nothing in the details provided on 4th May 2004 have led me to alter my view, as aired in Parliament on 6 September 2000, about the harassment of Mr Winzer. (8) (a) Yes (b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(6) Yes (7) Nothing in the details provided on 4th May 2004 have led me to alter my view, as aired in Parliament on 6 September 2000, about the harassment of Mr Winzer. (8) (a) Yes (b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(7) Nothing in the details provided on 4th May 2004 have led me to alter my view, as aired in Parliament on 6 September 2000, about the harassment of Mr Winzer. (8) (a) Yes (b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(8) (a) Yes (b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(b) he [now the Minister], had consequently described in Parliament on September 6 2000, as a twist of the truth?
(b) Mr Winzer is correct in regard to the letter the Minister sent to Minister MacTiernan, that the Minister conveyed his belief that the DPI on May 4 2004 advice to the Parliament was contrary to the Minister’s understanding that no officer for the Department had ever addressed any aspect Mr Winzer’s public interest claim in any way?
(1) Yes (2) Yes (3) (a) & (b) This would appear to be part of a consistentpattern of information provided by DOT in respect to Mr Winzer. (4) Yes, this would appear to be the case on the information presented to me. (5) Yes (6) Yes (7) Nothing in the details provided on 4th May 2004 have led me to alter my view, as aired in Parliament on 6 September 2000, about the harassment of Mr Winzer. (8) (a) Yes (b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(2) Yes (3) (a) & (b) This would appear to be part of a consistentpattern of information provided by DOT in respect to Mr Winzer. (4) Yes, this would appear to be the case on the information presented to me. (5) Yes (6) Yes (7) Nothing in the details provided on 4th May 2004 have led me to alter my view, as aired in Parliament on 6 September 2000, about the harassment of Mr Winzer. (8) (a) Yes (b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(3) (a) & (b) This would appear to be part of a consistentpattern of information provided by DOT in respect to Mr Winzer. (4) Yes, this would appear to be the case on the information presented to me. (5) Yes (6) Yes (7) Nothing in the details provided on 4th May 2004 have led me to alter my view, as aired in Parliament on 6 September 2000, about the harassment of Mr Winzer. (8) (a) Yes (b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(4) Yes, this would appear to be the case on the information presented to me. (5) Yes (6) Yes (7) Nothing in the details provided on 4th May 2004 have led me to alter my view, as aired in Parliament on 6 September 2000, about the harassment of Mr Winzer. (8) (a) Yes (b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(5) Yes (6) Yes (7) Nothing in the details provided on 4th May 2004 have led me to alter my view, as aired in Parliament on 6 September 2000, about the harassment of Mr Winzer. (8) (a) Yes (b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(6) Yes (7) Nothing in the details provided on 4th May 2004 have led me to alter my view, as aired in Parliament on 6 September 2000, about the harassment of Mr Winzer. (8) (a) Yes (b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(7) Nothing in the details provided on 4th May 2004 have led me to alter my view, as aired in Parliament on 6 September 2000, about the harassment of Mr Winzer. (8) (a) Yes (b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(8) (a) Yes (b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(b) Yes (9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(9) (a) Yes (b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(b) Yes (10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(10) Not applicable (11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(11) Yes (12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(12) Yes (13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
(13) & (14) No such determination was made. The purpose of the meeting referred to was simply to discuss the issue and provide additional briefing to the Chiefs of Staff. My advice to Parliament on 1 December 2004, in responding to Question without Notice 3575 was that a meeting had been arranged. I remain of the view that the papers tabled in response to Question on Notice 1800 on the 4 May 2000 do not, of themselves, demonstrate that DOT has addressed Mr Winzer's public interest claim about the EBA, but rather they related to the issue referred to in part 5 of this question - that is, the matter of rumours of corruption, not the substantive EBA issue.
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.