❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding Mr. Winzer's public interest claim against the Department of Transport, alleging a cover-up and victimisation. The Premier acknowledges some issues were investigated but declines further action.
AnsweredQoN 2646Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Further to question on notice No. 2 804 tabled on May 4 2004 tabled by the Member for Nedlands and responded to by the Premier on June 15 2004, substantially in regard to Mr Winzer’s claim against Mr Dave Robinson of collaborating in a cover-up of Mr Winzer’s public interest claim when Mr Robinson was the State Secretary of Mr Winzer’s then union -
(1) Will the Premier acknowledge that in the context of Mr Winzer’s wider public interest claim and other serious matters including financial raised against the Department of Transport (DOT), now Planning and Infrastructure, that what the Premier on June 15 2004, referred to as ‘an understanding between the parties’ that an agreement was struck between the Public Sector Standards Commission (PSSC) and the Community and Public Sector Union/Civil Service Association set out in the PSSC letter of October 21 1999 as follows ‘As agreed at our earlier meeting, this request for information did not include that of the veracity of the enterprise bargaining agreement and related matters which Mr Winzer had alleged had resulted in the DOT expending considerable sums of money,’ may represent support for Mr Winzer’s claim of a cover up?
(2) Will the Premier acknowledge that Mr Winzer included in the attachments to his letter of June 14 2001 to the Premier copies of WorkCover transcript including the evidence of an executive officer of the PSSC that may represent support for Mr Winzer’s claim of a cover-up; as follows ‘….it was agreed at that time certainly that the issue of the enterprise bargaining matters were not matters that the union wished to pursue’ (WorkCover transcript 2.2.00:849) and ‘….at that time that as the union weren’t - - the issue of the enterprise bargaining matter and the allegations surrounding it were not matters that they are wanting to pursue.’ (WorkCover transcript 2.2.00:870) and ‘Now when we subsequently met with them, it’s clear that they’re not wanting to pursue the EBA issue,’ (WorkCover transcript 2.2.00:870)?
(3) Will the Premier 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?
(4) Will the Premier acknowledge that the answers provided by Minister Chance on August 25 2005 highlight the need for the records of the Parliament 2000 to 2004 to be corrected to show that no DPI officer had ever addressed Mr Winzer’s public interest claim and for an investigation of the involvement of the PSSC and Mr Robinson, now Secretary of Unions WA, into Mr Winzer’s experience in attempting to make a public interest claim?
(5) If not, why not?
(1) Will the Premier acknowledge that in the context of Mr Winzer’s wider public interest claim and other serious matters including financial raised against the Department of Transport (DOT), now Planning and Infrastructure, that what the Premier on June 15 2004, referred to as ‘an understanding between the parties’ that an agreement was struck between the Public Sector Standards Commission (PSSC) and the Community and Public Sector Union/Civil Service Association set out in the PSSC letter of October 21 1999 as follows ‘As agreed at our earlier meeting, this request for information did not include that of the veracity of the enterprise bargaining agreement and related matters which Mr Winzer had alleged had resulted in the DOT expending considerable sums of money,’ may represent support for Mr Winzer’s claim of a cover up?
(2) Will the Premier acknowledge that Mr Winzer included in the attachments to his letter of June 14 2001 to the Premier copies of WorkCover transcript including the evidence of an executive officer of the PSSC that may represent support for Mr Winzer’s claim of a cover-up; as follows ‘….it was agreed at that time certainly that the issue of the enterprise bargaining matters were not matters that the union wished to pursue’ (WorkCover transcript 2.2.00:849) and ‘….at that time that as the union weren’t - - the issue of the enterprise bargaining matter and the allegations surrounding it were not matters that they are wanting to pursue.’ (WorkCover transcript 2.2.00:870) and ‘Now when we subsequently met with them, it’s clear that they’re not wanting to pursue the EBA issue,’ (WorkCover transcript 2.2.00:870)?
(3) Will the Premier 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?
(4) Will the Premier acknowledge that the answers provided by Minister Chance on August 25 2005 highlight the need for the records of the Parliament 2000 to 2004 to be corrected to show that no DPI officer had ever addressed Mr Winzer’s public interest claim and for an investigation of the involvement of the PSSC and Mr Robinson, now Secretary of Unions WA, into Mr Winzer’s experience in attempting to make a public interest claim?
(5) If not, why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
16 November 2005
Responded by
Leader of the House representing the Premier
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?
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?
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.