❓ Hon Jim Scott questions the Minister regarding advice received from Mr. Mike Harris concerning Mr. Winzer's public interest claim, alleging potential conflict of interest and misleading information provided by the Department. He requests the tabling of departmental records related to previous questions on the matter.
AnsweredQoN 2498Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Further to question on notice No. 2176 tabled on September 23 2004. As the issues mentioned below were not discussed at the briefing, will the Minister now answer the following questions -
(1) In light of the Minister’s advice on May 6 2004 in regard to Mr Mike Harris providing all answers to the Minister in regard to Mr Winzer’s public interest claim up until Mr Harris left the public service in 2002, will the Minister acknowledge that Mr Harris was one of the officers that Mr Winzer advised of in the letters listed in my previous question, as being subject to the police service criminal investigations resulting from Mr Winzer’s public interest claim?
(2) Will the Minister acknowledge the conflict of interest involved in Mr Harris advising the Minister in regard to his own conduct, that could potentially be found to be criminal?
(3) Will the Minister acknowledge that the Government has been remiss in allowing Mr Harris to provide the advice that he did?
(4) Will the Minister accept Mr Winzer’s offer to immediately cease all of his efforts to achieve what would be the first investigation of his public interest claim, and thus conclude the expenditure of taxpayers money since 1995 in the order of $750 000 to $1 million, if it can be shown that the answers provided by the Department on the May 4 2004, were not misleading in regard to Mr Winzer’s claim that no officers for the Department ever addressed his public interest claim or the evidence he offered on his initiative in support?
(5) Will the Minister provide endorsement for the inquiry Mr Winzer is asking for in his Petition of Last Resort that is before the Standing Committee on Public Administration and Finance, that centres on the process Mr Winzer claims has been demonstrated since a meeting held in the office of Mr Harris on January 29 1999, and demonstrated most recently in the answers to Parliament on May 4 2004, to fabricate and disseminate seriously false information in regard to Mr Winzer’s efforts to put his public interest claim?
(6) Will the Minister acknowledge in regard to the documents tabled in the Parliament and answers provided May 4 2004, that these are the same documents upon which now Minister, Hon Kim Chance, reported to Parliament on September 6 2000, as the Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Administration and Finance, harassment of Mr Winzer and a twist of the truth in connection with the meeting held in the office of Mr Harris on January 29 1999?
(7) In light of the Minister’s advice on May 6 2004, in regard to the officers responsible for the answers provided in relation to Mr Winzer’s public interest claim since the departure of Mr Harris in 2002, will the Minister accept that officers for the Department responsible for the Department’s ministerial tracking and recording system have checked the system and advised Mr Winzer that Ms Helen Langley, one of those Mr Winzer has advised of as central to his public interest claim, has been responsible for answers provided to the Director General and thus the Minister?
(8) Will the Minister table the Department’s ministerial tracking system records in relation to my questions -
(a) December 20 2001;
(b) December 27 2001;
(c) March 27 2002;
(d) June 26 2002;
(e) August 15 2002;
(f) December 9 2003;
(g) December 2 2003;
(h) March 10 2004;
(i) March 12 2004; and
(j) April 6 2004?
(1) In light of the Minister’s advice on May 6 2004 in regard to Mr Mike Harris providing all answers to the Minister in regard to Mr Winzer’s public interest claim up until Mr Harris left the public service in 2002, will the Minister acknowledge that Mr Harris was one of the officers that Mr Winzer advised of in the letters listed in my previous question, as being subject to the police service criminal investigations resulting from Mr Winzer’s public interest claim?
(2) Will the Minister acknowledge the conflict of interest involved in Mr Harris advising the Minister in regard to his own conduct, that could potentially be found to be criminal?
(3) Will the Minister acknowledge that the Government has been remiss in allowing Mr Harris to provide the advice that he did?
(4) Will the Minister accept Mr Winzer’s offer to immediately cease all of his efforts to achieve what would be the first investigation of his public interest claim, and thus conclude the expenditure of taxpayers money since 1995 in the order of $750 000 to $1 million, if it can be shown that the answers provided by the Department on the May 4 2004, were not misleading in regard to Mr Winzer’s claim that no officers for the Department ever addressed his public interest claim or the evidence he offered on his initiative in support?
(5) Will the Minister provide endorsement for the inquiry Mr Winzer is asking for in his Petition of Last Resort that is before the Standing Committee on Public Administration and Finance, that centres on the process Mr Winzer claims has been demonstrated since a meeting held in the office of Mr Harris on January 29 1999, and demonstrated most recently in the answers to Parliament on May 4 2004, to fabricate and disseminate seriously false information in regard to Mr Winzer’s efforts to put his public interest claim?
(6) Will the Minister acknowledge in regard to the documents tabled in the Parliament and answers provided May 4 2004, that these are the same documents upon which now Minister, Hon Kim Chance, reported to Parliament on September 6 2000, as the Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Administration and Finance, harassment of Mr Winzer and a twist of the truth in connection with the meeting held in the office of Mr Harris on January 29 1999?
(7) In light of the Minister’s advice on May 6 2004, in regard to the officers responsible for the answers provided in relation to Mr Winzer’s public interest claim since the departure of Mr Harris in 2002, will the Minister accept that officers for the Department responsible for the Department’s ministerial tracking and recording system have checked the system and advised Mr Winzer that Ms Helen Langley, one of those Mr Winzer has advised of as central to his public interest claim, has been responsible for answers provided to the Director General and thus the Minister?
(8) Will the Minister table the Department’s ministerial tracking system records in relation to my questions -
(a) December 20 2001;
(b) December 27 2001;
(c) March 27 2002;
(d) June 26 2002;
(e) August 15 2002;
(f) December 9 2003;
(g) December 2 2003;
(h) March 10 2004;
(i) March 12 2004; and
(j) April 6 2004?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
16 November 2004
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
Response time
27 days
(b) December 27 2001; (c) March 27 2002; (d) June 26 2002; (e) August 15 2002; (f) December 9 2003; (g) December 2 2003; (h) March 10 2004; (i) March 12 2004; and (j) April 6 2004?
(c) March 27 2002; (d) June 26 2002; (e) August 15 2002; (f) December 9 2003; (g) December 2 2003; (h) March 10 2004; (i) March 12 2004; and (j) April 6 2004?
(d) June 26 2002; (e) August 15 2002; (f) December 9 2003; (g) December 2 2003; (h) March 10 2004; (i) March 12 2004; and (j) April 6 2004?
(e) August 15 2002; (f) December 9 2003; (g) December 2 2003; (h) March 10 2004; (i) March 12 2004; and (j) April 6 2004?
(f) December 9 2003; (g) December 2 2003; (h) March 10 2004; (i) March 12 2004; and (j) April 6 2004?
(g) December 2 2003; (h) March 10 2004; (i) March 12 2004; and (j) April 6 2004?
(h) March 10 2004; (i) March 12 2004; and (j) April 6 2004?
(i) March 12 2004; and (j) April 6 2004?
(j) April 6 2004?
(c) March 27 2002; (d) June 26 2002; (e) August 15 2002; (f) December 9 2003; (g) December 2 2003; (h) March 10 2004; (i) March 12 2004; and (j) April 6 2004?
(d) June 26 2002; (e) August 15 2002; (f) December 9 2003; (g) December 2 2003; (h) March 10 2004; (i) March 12 2004; and (j) April 6 2004?
(e) August 15 2002; (f) December 9 2003; (g) December 2 2003; (h) March 10 2004; (i) March 12 2004; and (j) April 6 2004?
(f) December 9 2003; (g) December 2 2003; (h) March 10 2004; (i) March 12 2004; and (j) April 6 2004?
(g) December 2 2003; (h) March 10 2004; (i) March 12 2004; and (j) April 6 2004?
(h) March 10 2004; (i) March 12 2004; and (j) April 6 2004?
(i) March 12 2004; and (j) April 6 2004?
(j) April 6 2004?
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.