❓ Hon Giz Watson questions the Minister for Police and Emergency Services regarding Mr. Neil Winzer's public interest claim against the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, alleging misconduct related to a road traffic workshop report and subsequent handling of the matter. The Minister's response indicates a lack of further investigation and refers Mr. Winzer to other relevant authorities.
AnsweredQoN 2653Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
In regard to a public interest claim by Mr Neil Winzer against the now Department for Planning and Infrastructure including claims of perjury, fraud, misappropriation, and pressure being brought to bear on Mr Winzer to falsify his report on a road traffic workshop held in November 1998 -
(1) Can the Minister advise Mr Winzer had been given the task of writing the report on the road traffic workshop?
(2) Has the Minister been made aware that -
(a) Mr Winzer was able to rely on his notes to ensure the accuracy of his report, and was also provided detailed notes of a Superintendent who attended the workshop;
(b) Mr Winzer had attempted to report that former Commissioner Falconer’s decision to disband the specialised traffic divisions of the Service had been by far the most prominent issue of discussion at the workshop;
(c) many officers were concerned at the impact the former Commissioner’s decision was having on the road toll;
(d) Mr Winzer has claimed that he was directed, by the then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety, to falsify his report;
(e) on Mr Winzer’s refusal to falsify his report, the then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety raised allegations against Mr Winzer of under-performance, citing his report on the workshop as ‘inflammatory’; and
(f) following the written complaint Mr Winzer submitted on January 27 1999 to his then Executive Director, a ‘toned-down’ version of the report was effectively ‘quarantined’ within the Road Safety Commission and not provided to the officers who attended the workshop?
(3) Was the Minister advised by Mr Winzer that a Sergeant who attended the workshop had given evidence on oath on January 31 2000 in support of Mr Winzer’s written account of the proceedings?
(4) As Minister, did Mr Winzer meet you to advise that the Sergeant who attended the workshop gave evidence in regard to the comments of then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety on Mr Winzer’s reporting of the Police workshop?
(5) Can the Minister advise if the allegations of under-performance raised against Mr Winzer have, to this day, been quashed?
(6) Did the Minister advise the Premier in 2004 that you supported the position expressed by the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry in his answer provided to question on notice No. 2061 of May 19 2005?
(7) Does the Minister agree that Police Commissioner O’Callaghan’s recent initiative in establishing the Traffic Enforcement Group, and the potential for that initiative to lead to a lower road toll, vindicates Mr Winzer’s refusal to falsify his report?
(8) Will the Minister undertake to review the information provided in question on notice No. 2061 of 2005?
(9) Can the Minister advise if in 2001, your Ministerial Chief of Staff advised Mr Winzer and Mr Reakes to the effect that ‘the boss has said to fix this’, referring to Mr Winzer’s public interest claim?
(10) Can the Minister advise if Mr Winzer’s public interest claim has been addressed?
(1) Can the Minister advise Mr Winzer had been given the task of writing the report on the road traffic workshop?
(2) Has the Minister been made aware that -
(a) Mr Winzer was able to rely on his notes to ensure the accuracy of his report, and was also provided detailed notes of a Superintendent who attended the workshop;
(b) Mr Winzer had attempted to report that former Commissioner Falconer’s decision to disband the specialised traffic divisions of the Service had been by far the most prominent issue of discussion at the workshop;
(c) many officers were concerned at the impact the former Commissioner’s decision was having on the road toll;
(d) Mr Winzer has claimed that he was directed, by the then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety, to falsify his report;
(e) on Mr Winzer’s refusal to falsify his report, the then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety raised allegations against Mr Winzer of under-performance, citing his report on the workshop as ‘inflammatory’; and
(f) following the written complaint Mr Winzer submitted on January 27 1999 to his then Executive Director, a ‘toned-down’ version of the report was effectively ‘quarantined’ within the Road Safety Commission and not provided to the officers who attended the workshop?
(3) Was the Minister advised by Mr Winzer that a Sergeant who attended the workshop had given evidence on oath on January 31 2000 in support of Mr Winzer’s written account of the proceedings?
(4) As Minister, did Mr Winzer meet you to advise that the Sergeant who attended the workshop gave evidence in regard to the comments of then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety on Mr Winzer’s reporting of the Police workshop?
(5) Can the Minister advise if the allegations of under-performance raised against Mr Winzer have, to this day, been quashed?
(6) Did the Minister advise the Premier in 2004 that you supported the position expressed by the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry in his answer provided to question on notice No. 2061 of May 19 2005?
(7) Does the Minister agree that Police Commissioner O’Callaghan’s recent initiative in establishing the Traffic Enforcement Group, and the potential for that initiative to lead to a lower road toll, vindicates Mr Winzer’s refusal to falsify his report?
(8) Will the Minister undertake to review the information provided in question on notice No. 2061 of 2005?
(9) Can the Minister advise if in 2001, your Ministerial Chief of Staff advised Mr Winzer and Mr Reakes to the effect that ‘the boss has said to fix this’, referring to Mr Winzer’s public interest claim?
(10) Can the Minister advise if Mr Winzer’s public interest claim has been addressed?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
29 November 2005
Responded by
Minister for Fisheries representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services
Response time
42 days
(b) Mr Winzer had attempted to report that former Commissioner Falconer’s decision to disband the specialised traffic divisions of the Service had been by far the most prominent issue of discussion at the workshop; (c) many officers were concerned at the impact the former Commissioner’s decision was having on the road toll; (d) Mr Winzer has claimed that he was directed, by the then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety, to falsify his report; (e) on Mr Winzer’s refusal to falsify his report, the then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety raised allegations against Mr Winzer of under-performance, citing his report on the workshop as ‘inflammatory’; and (f) following the written complaint Mr Winzer submitted on January 27 1999 to his then Executive Director, a ‘toned-down’ version of the report was effectively ‘quarantined’ within the Road Safety Commission and not provided to the officers who attended the workshop?
(c) many officers were concerned at the impact the former Commissioner’s decision was having on the road toll; (d) Mr Winzer has claimed that he was directed, by the then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety, to falsify his report; (e) on Mr Winzer’s refusal to falsify his report, the then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety raised allegations against Mr Winzer of under-performance, citing his report on the workshop as ‘inflammatory’; and (f) following the written complaint Mr Winzer submitted on January 27 1999 to his then Executive Director, a ‘toned-down’ version of the report was effectively ‘quarantined’ within the Road Safety Commission and not provided to the officers who attended the workshop?
(d) Mr Winzer has claimed that he was directed, by the then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety, to falsify his report; (e) on Mr Winzer’s refusal to falsify his report, the then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety raised allegations against Mr Winzer of under-performance, citing his report on the workshop as ‘inflammatory’; and (f) following the written complaint Mr Winzer submitted on January 27 1999 to his then Executive Director, a ‘toned-down’ version of the report was effectively ‘quarantined’ within the Road Safety Commission and not provided to the officers who attended the workshop?
(e) on Mr Winzer’s refusal to falsify his report, the then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety raised allegations against Mr Winzer of under-performance, citing his report on the workshop as ‘inflammatory’; and (f) following the written complaint Mr Winzer submitted on January 27 1999 to his then Executive Director, a ‘toned-down’ version of the report was effectively ‘quarantined’ within the Road Safety Commission and not provided to the officers who attended the workshop?
(f) following the written complaint Mr Winzer submitted on January 27 1999 to his then Executive Director, a ‘toned-down’ version of the report was effectively ‘quarantined’ within the Road Safety Commission and not provided to the officers who attended the workshop?
· 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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) many officers were concerned at the impact the former Commissioner’s decision was having on the road toll; (d) Mr Winzer has claimed that he was directed, by the then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety, to falsify his report; (e) on Mr Winzer’s refusal to falsify his report, the then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety raised allegations against Mr Winzer of under-performance, citing his report on the workshop as ‘inflammatory’; and (f) following the written complaint Mr Winzer submitted on January 27 1999 to his then Executive Director, a ‘toned-down’ version of the report was effectively ‘quarantined’ within the Road Safety Commission and not provided to the officers who attended the workshop?
(d) Mr Winzer has claimed that he was directed, by the then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety, to falsify his report; (e) on Mr Winzer’s refusal to falsify his report, the then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety raised allegations against Mr Winzer of under-performance, citing his report on the workshop as ‘inflammatory’; and (f) following the written complaint Mr Winzer submitted on January 27 1999 to his then Executive Director, a ‘toned-down’ version of the report was effectively ‘quarantined’ within the Road Safety Commission and not provided to the officers who attended the workshop?
(e) on Mr Winzer’s refusal to falsify his report, the then Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety raised allegations against Mr Winzer of under-performance, citing his report on the workshop as ‘inflammatory’; and (f) following the written complaint Mr Winzer submitted on January 27 1999 to his then Executive Director, a ‘toned-down’ version of the report was effectively ‘quarantined’ within the Road Safety Commission and not provided to the officers who attended the workshop?
(f) following the written complaint Mr Winzer submitted on January 27 1999 to his then Executive Director, a ‘toned-down’ version of the report was effectively ‘quarantined’ within the Road Safety Commission and not provided to the officers who attended the workshop?
· 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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.