Dart) Inquiry

Neil Winzer 24th April 2014 12 Holleton Terrace Padbury Western Australia 6025 Phone: 045 046 2526 Email: [email protected]

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee CANBERRA ACT 2600 Phone: (02) 6277 3535 Email: [email protected]

Dear members of the References Committee

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE DEFENCE ABUSE RESPONSE TASKFORCE (DART) INQUIRY

I will address the followings terms of reference:

a. the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (DART) process to date; and

f. any related matters.

I would like to think it is a sign of the system of government working that my submissions of 3.12.13 and 7.1.14 to Senator David Johnston the Minister for Defence and related submissions of 20.1.14, 28.1.14, 10.2.14, 18.2.14, 24.2.14 and 8.4.14 to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade have contributed in some way to the decision to conduct this inquiry. However, there is no tangible reason for such thinking in that I have yet to be even provided an acknowledgement to any of those submissions.

Notwithstanding my full understanding of the fact that in conducting the inquiry the References Committee will not be in a position resolve the dispute that has caused me to make this submission, I must attempt to capture your understanding as to the most basic facts to that dispute. An attempt to capture your understanding is necessary in that the record of the performance of Senator David Johnston, now the Minister for Defence, and Mr Len Roberts-Smith QC, now the DART Chairman, is integral to that dispute. The dispute is associated with a claim that I initiated regarding corruption in the Western Australian public sector and my claim of a campaign of abuse I was subjected to as a result of that initiative. Index Terms of Reference page a. THE SELECTION OF A CHAIRPERSON FOR THE DART 7

 Was Roberts-Smith QC aware of my claim that I was being abused as a 8 consequence of initiating a public interest disclosure before making his report of 14.8.08 as the WA Corruption and Crime Commissioner?

 Did grounds exist for Roberts-Smith QC at any time during the period of his 37 appointment to the CCC (May 2007 to January 2011) to be aware of my formal claim that he is corrupt and, prior to his DART appointment, aware that the claim had not been addressed let alone resolved? f. THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF SENATOR DAVID JOHNSTON AS THE 57 MINISTER FOR DEFENCE REGARDING MY CONCERNS ABOUT 2

ROBERTS-SMITH QC SIMPLE AND VERIFIABLE DATA SHOWING THAT ONLY A SHAM 61 INVESTIGATION WAS CONDUCTED BY MR ROBERTS-SMITH QC

Notwithstanding the format of this submission as indicated in the above index it is I believe absolutely necessary that I first draw your attention to the simple and verifiable data regarding the advice I put to Premier Court on 23.11.99 that “Transport [my employing department] have never responded to my claims by way of a written or verbal explanation”. To this day that advice has not been addressed in an accountable and transparent way by any authority with the power to achieve a resolution. Moreover, I believe it is necessary that the References Committee consider the 14.8.08 determination of Mr Roberts-Smith QC as the WA Corruption and Crime Commissioner that was / is grossly at odds with court transcript and what Parliament was advised from 2000 to 2004 regarding “a written or verbal explanation”. Furthermore, I believe it is in the public interest that consideration be given to the fact that Senator Johnston in 2006, having been provided copies of that court transcript and advice to Parliament, advised that “the erosion of time casts an undeniable ambiguity over the facts”. Senator Johnston has not responded to my correspondence from 3.12 13 regarding these matters.

My presentation of the simple and verifiable data to the References Committee is in the form of a four-page brief on three claims of perjury I‟ve selected for this submission from a total of 14 claims of perjury before Mr Roberts-Smith QC when he was the WA Corruption and Crime Commissioner and a two-page brief on the report signed by Mr Roberts-Smith QC on 14.8.08 featuring the following determination:

While there is no evidence of a detailed written response to Mr Winzer‘s concerns, there is evidence to support the proposition that he did receive a response from various officers in DOT [Department of Transport], albeit those responses were not in writing.

„Whistleblowing‟ is essentially about placing significant others in a position of having to decide whether to tell the truth about the evidence before them or alternatively, due to considerations as to friendships, philosophical alignments, career aspirations and the like, telling other than the truth.

My fundamental argument from 18.9.98 when I submitted my claim of corruption formally was that Transport misled agencies, Parliament and psychiatrists they obliged me to see by advising they had addressed my claim. Documentation referred to in my two-page brief on the report signed by Mr Roberts-Smith QC shows that Transport‟s argument was based on a „Winzer failed when asked to substantiate his claim‟ / „Winzer’s claim has been addressed‟ pattern of advice fabricated from the content and process of a meeting I was obliged to attend on 29.1.99. I pointed to the existence of records of my questions and advice beginning three years before my formal claim and the non-existence of a record of Transport having addressed my preceding questions or the formal claim.

As I put to Premier Court on 23.11.99 my claim was never discussed with me. As to the determination made by Mr Roberts-Smith QC in regard to it being sufficient in public interest terms that my claim of corruption was “discussed” with me, the transcript of the testimony of all the officers in a position giving them a responsibility for such a “discussion” can be accessed by „Googling‟ neilwinzer.wordpress.com and the post Detail – no investigation.

Please contemplate the fact that I had pressed the package of perjury claims and „existence / non-existence‟ of records data in submissions to every conceivable public sector agency and avenue of the WA Parliament for ten years before Mr Roberts-Smith QC produced his report. It should I believe be critical to the contemplations of the References Committee that the record on the performance of the agencies and Parliament comprises of approximately one half that presented an excuse of some type or another to avoid having to address my claim and the other half that cited substance in my claim or called for a genuine investigation. For detail on this „50-50‟ record „Google‟ neilwinzer.wordpress.com and refer to the post Honest and dishonest identified.

I approached Senator Johnston following his comments that may be seen on the Senate Hansard database of 14.6.06 under the heading Matters of Public Interest. Senator Johnston‟s comments were about “… conduct which gives rise to alarm at the integrity and management capacity of senior [WA] police, particularly the commissioner [Karl O‟Callaghan]” and included:

There is only one word to describe the police conduct in this matter: corrupt. I do not use this word lightly or without great consideration, but I maintain my assessment, given their conduct.

I provided Senator Johnston with the package of perjury claims and the „existence/non- existence‟ of records data and advice on the apparent situation of two members of the panel that selected Commissioner O‟Callaghan being simultaneously under criminal investigation. I also provided Senator Johnston with documents as to an investigation in accordance with my submissions featuring the two selection panel members in the corruption I disclosed. I explained to Senator Johnston that the key facts to the situation involve clear documentary evidence of the Police, during their thirty-month „investigation‟, having failed to advise me of their relationship with those two individuals and, after the appointment, Commissioner O‟Callaghan refusing to respond to my questions as to the possibility of a conflict of interest.

It is relevant to note that the period of my dealings with Senator Johnston fell between the dates of parliamentary questions tabled by Hon Peter Collier MLC, now a Minister, and Hon Paul Omodei MLA, then Leader of the Opposition. Those questions were clearly aimed at exposing the cover-up and were based on references to strong support given previously in the form of recognition of the substance of the simple and verifiable data. On 12.10.05 Hon P Collier questioned the Premier, Deputy Premier and Minister for Transport (then Planning and Infrastructure). On 20.11.07 and 28.11.07 Hon P Omodei questioned the Premier.

However, on 26.10.06 Senator Johnston advised me of "problems in investigating the various allegations you have made, as the erosion of time casts an undeniable ambiguity over the facts in a number of ways.” He re-stated that view in 2008 as the Minister for Justice.

Mr Roberts-Smith QC provided his report on 14.8.08 that I contend was based a three-part strategy to affect a cover-up:

1. Regarding my perjury claims the Police argument that “it was simply that some matters were in contention between the witnesses and Mr Winzer” was accepted;

2. My persistent requests for a formal interview and presentation of documentation concerning the claim that the Police acted with a conflict of interest involving the two members of the panel that selected the Police Commissioner were refused; and

3. Although acknowledging that a document showing Transport had addressed my claim couldn‟t be found, it was argued there was evidence of “discussions”.

Emphasis is warranted as to the fact that the centrepiece of the strategy I‟ve cited in relation to Mr Roberts-Smith QC, being the refusal of my persistent requests for a formal interview regarding the Police conflict of interest, was also the centrepiece of my presentation of documents to Senator Johnston.

Specifically in regard to my appeal to the CCC that I was being subjected to a campaign of abuse because I had initiated the disclosure, my submission to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee is that the considerable number of submissions I made directly to the Police Service and the CCC could not have been overlooked if a cover-up was not their priority. For example, I provided a copy of the advice provided on 16.6.99 by Mr Michael Harris the Director General of Transport to the Minister for Transport in response to my claim that I was being abused because I had initiated the disclosure, as follows:

Transport denies harassing Mr Winzer for having raised these matters. There is clear documented evidence that he has received a response to issues he has raised. Transport has also requested that Mr Winzer provide proof to substantiate his allegations; he was either unable or chose not to do so. (Harris 16.6.99) (my emphasis)

The 14.8.08 report of Mr Roberts-Smith QC, while including the acknowledgement that “the Commission examined the files held by the DPI [Transport] in relation to Mr Winzer‟s public interest claim but was unable to locate any detailed written response to his claim”, did not include mention of me even having made a claim as to abuse.

Featuring in the considerable number of submissions I made directly to the Police and the CCC in regard to being subjected to a campaign of abuse because I had initiated the disclosure was the misconduct in public office claim I put to the Parliamentary Inspector for the CCC on 18.4.07 against the Minister for Transport. Given my previous appeals to the Minister for Transport that were based on the package of perjury claims, the „existence/non-existence‟ of records data and the explicitness of my protests as to the use of “hired-gun” psychiatrists to try to discredit me, I contend the reference I made on 18.4.07 to advice given by the Commonwealth Attorney-General was highly appropriate, including :

The most obviously culpable state of mind is no doubt an intention to cause the injurious result, but knowing disregard of an appreciated and unacceptable risk of causing an injurious result or a deliberate closing of the mind to such risk would be readily acceptable as culpable also. It is clearly blameworthy to take an obvious and significant risk of causing injury to another. But it is not clearly blameworthy to do something involving a risk of injury to another if one does not genuinely perceive the risk.

The Parliamentary Inspector would gain nothing by arguing that he was not obliged to forward that claim to Mr Roberts-Smith QC due to the fact that in response to my second Prayer for Relief / Petition of Last Resort, the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs in September 2007 recommended to Parliament that immediate steps be taken “to resolve the issue of Mr Winzer‟s employment”. My advice of 4.10.07 to the Premier as to 5 that recommendation included note of my misconduct in public office claim against the Minister for Transport. I then attached a copy of that letter to the Premier to my advice of 31.12.07 addressed jointly to the Parliamentary Inspector and Mr Roberts-Smith QC.

An understanding may also have been gained by Mr Roberts-Smith QC in regard to the fact that I was appealing for help in relation to the campaign of abuse I was being subjected to if he‟d taken into account my constant references to abuse recorded by television, talk-back radio, printed news, books published by academics and occupation health and safety national glossy publications. It was also a matter of public record that I made submissions to a range of State parliamentary committees, a Commonwealth department conducting a relevant inquiry and a Commonwealth parliamentary committee conducting a relevant inquiry.

I am effectively placing the Committee in the position, involving two briefs comprising of a mere six pages (see at page 61), of considering whether there was a legitimate reason for Mr Roberts-Smith QC to have reported on 14.8.08 or, more to the point failed as he did to address the subject of abuse, and consequently lock my family and I into the campaign of abuse that continues to this day. I strongly contend that I put simple and verifiable data about the criminal activity of senior public officers before Mr Roberts-Smith QC and, not only did he lie, he effectively collaborated with those who were subjecting me to a campaign of abuse. It is a matter of raw credibility, not curriculum vitaes. If my argument as to the verifiability and simplicity of the data doesn‟t translate to your easy recognition of a sham investigation, then all of what I say today about Mr Roberts-Smith QC amounts to crap.

For some years I‟ve been challenging WA authorities in a position to resolve this matter to undermine the data and yet no attempt has been made; for obvious reasons I suggest.

As noted above, based on an understanding as to the substance of the package of perjury claims and the simple and verifiable data (see at page 61), considerable support has been provided for my challenge of those WA authorities. The support of Hon K Chance began with his report of 6.9.00 as chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Administration to Parliament, did not wane during the eight years he was a Minister and continues to this day.

As a courtesy copy was provided, the References Committee may refer to my letter of 22.4.14 to Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the attached copies of the letters of 31.5.10 and 16.6.10 from Hon Kim Chance and the response of 3.6.10 from the Parliamentary Inspector of the WA Corruption and Crime Commission, Mr Christopher Steytler QC. While the focus of my letter to the Prime Minister is different to that of this submission, the correspondence between Messrs Chance and Steytler is about a “conclusion [that] must be drawn as to the performance of the CCC” and is therefore exceptionally useful in regard to a consideration of my contentions regarding the Commissioner, Mr Roberts-Smith QC.

Hon Kim Chance‟s letter of 16.6.10 to Mr Christopher Steytler QC begins as follows:

I was surprised by your reply of 03/06/10 to my letter to you of 31/05/2010.

I provided to you on 31/05/10 a position that I firmly believe sets out extremely simple and verifiable information as to the Western Australian Parliament and a court being wilfully misled in regard to Mr Winzer‘s efforts to achieve a response to the public interest claim he submitted formally with the Department of Transport on 18/09/98. Specifically, the information comprising of extracts from sworn testimony, the official records of the Parliament and Transport correspondence to their then Minister, showed that the Parliament and a court had been misled in respect of: 6

2. The existence of documentary evidence of Transport having addressed Mr Winzer‘s claim. On this point the official records of the Parliament clearly conflict with Mr Harris‘ advice to his then Minister and his testimony.

My hope was that you would take a fresh look at this information, given its simplicity and verifiability, and consequently contemplate what conclusion must be drawn as to the performance of the CCC.

In conclusion Hon K Chance on 16.6.10 asked Mr C Steytler QC to explain why “The disadvantages Mr Winzer has attracted continue without fair consideration”.

It is in the public interest that recognition be given to the fact that Hon K Chance deserves, at the very least, to be deemed adequately qualified and worthy of belief in terms of a decision as to the simplicity and verifiability of the information available to him since 2000, including the eight years he was a Minister. Moreover, it is in the public interest that recognition be given to the fact that Hon K Chance in a very forthright manner confronted Mr C Steytler QC about his failure to address simple and verifiable information as to the failure of Mr Roberts- Smith QC to address the criminal activity of senior public officers.

Consequently, I say it is in the public interest that the References Committee, if not convinced by Hon K Chance‟s explanation, refer to the challenge that I respectfully put to them of offering an explanation as to any fault in my six-page brief (see at page 61).

I submit that Mr C Steytler QC on 3.6.10 offered a straight regurgitation of the errors of Mr Roberts-Smith QC without the slightest attempt to respond to Hon K Chance‟s references to the simple and verifiable evidence in explaining those errors. Furthermore I submit that the correspondence is exceptionally useful in regard to a consideration of my contention that Mr Roberts-Smith QC and Senator Johnston in responding to my concerns were motivated by friendships, philosophical alignments, career aspirations or the like, but not the truth.

I am effectively placing the References Committee in the position of considering whether Mr Roberts-Smith QC has the integrity required for the DART challenge of achieving a correct resolution to a long-standing problem that means a great deal to a great many.

An objective and thorough consideration of this submission would I believe be in the public interest. Sincerely

Neil Winzer CC Prime Minister Tony Abbott Minister Julie Bishop Minister David Johnston Len Roberts-Smith QC Hon Tanya Plibersek Hon Stephen Conroy Hon Nick Xenophon Hon Scott Ludlam Governor Malcolm McCusker All Members of the WA Parliament Mr Barry Heffernan, Vietnam Veterans Mr John King, Returned Services League

TERM OF REFERENCE (a)

THE SELECTION OF A CHAIRPERSON FOR THE DART

I submit that in the process associated with the selection of a Chairperson for the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce there was a failure to exercise due diligence in determining whether it was appropriate on 26.11.12 to appoint Mr Len Roberts-Smith QC. I submit that rather than a meticulous screening process to find an appropriate person to achieve a correct resolution to a long-standing problem that means a great deal to a great many, only the curriculum vitae that Mr Roberts-Smith QC promotes was considered. Had the appropriate checks been carried out it have been quickly realised that his tenure May 2007 to January 2011 as the Western Australian Corruption and Crime Commissioner was marked by intense public controversy, as indicated on ABC News on 1.9.08:

KERRY O'BRIEN, REPORTER: Now to Western Australia, where the Carpenter Labor Government enters the final week of the state election campaign having to defend the actions of the state's anti-corruption watchdog after another high-profile defeat in the courts. In November 2006, senior health executive Michael Moodie was charged with forgery over travel allowance invoices. Last week, a court acquitted Mr Moodie. The unusual thing about this case is that the Corruption and Crime Commission used its seldom employed right to bring criminal charges without reference to the State Director of Public Prosecutions. Michael Moodie is not alone in suggesting he's been the victim of payback for blowing the whistle on poor clinical practices in a Perth hospital eight years ago. And: HAMISH FITZSIMMONS: Earlier this year, another senior public servant Mike Allen was acquitted of two charges of giving false evidence to the CCC during an investigation into his dealings with Brian Burke. MIKE ALLEN, PUBLIC SERVANT: I think there are significant flaws in this whole process. HAMISH FITZSIMMONS: That belief is shared by Michael Moodie. As he leaves Perth to return to his home interstate, Mr Moodie has this advice for whistleblowers. MICHAEL MOODIE: Don't do it. Keep quiet. HAMISH FITZSIMMONS: And is that the right thing, do you think? MICHAEL MOODIE: That's the very wrong thing. If I had my time over again, there's no way I would repeat what I did.

Confirmation was also provided in Parliament on 22.9.11, only eight months after his departure from the CCC, by Hon Max Trenorden MLC during the debate on the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission, Thirteenth Report, Analysis of Recommended Reforms to the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003, (see page 55 for further detail on that debate) including the following:

This is an organisation that has a poor culture and has been unable to keep commissioners, unable to keep inspectors, and has done some very questionable things. These statements have not only been made by me; one only has to examine the public records to know that what I am saying is true. This has to be the premier organisation in this state, but it is not acting as a premier organisation. It is not an A-grade organisation; it is way down the alphabet, and we cannot accept that.

Moreover, had the appropriate checks been carried out it have been discovered that my claims against Roberts-Smith QC of corruption had not been addressed, let alone resolved.

My claim against Mr Roberts-Smith QC, effectively from May 2007 when he joined the CCC, has been that in order to shield certain senior public officers he acted to suppress both the disclosure I initiated as to corruption and my claim that I was being abused because I persisted with the complaint as to a cover-up of that disclosure.

Mr Roberts-Smith QC, as may be seen from his 14.8.08 report, failed in absolute terms to address my claim that I was being subjected to a campaign of abuse because I had initiated the disclosure. Moreover, I say that he knowingly collaborated in that campaign of abuse.

I submit that there is a likelihood that, as long as Mr Roberts-Smith QC is the Chairman, the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce won‟t conduct an inquiry addressing in a thorough and objective manner the failures of the senior officers who are or were ultimately responsible for the abuse. Therefore, there is a need to aim at improving the integrity of the defence abuse inquiry by appointing an alternative chairman who unlike Mr Roberts-Smith QC is free of taint and is from outside of the community of senior military officers.

I cite as equally applicable to Mr Roberts-Smith QC the findings from the 2002 KPMG Fraud Survey that I have often referred to in pressing my original claim of fraud against the individual I identified as the primary perpetrator:

The tendency for victim organisations to treat fraudsters with leniency, thereby allowing them to move from organisation to organisation, committing further fraud at will (often with the same modus operandi).

Was Mr Roberts-Smith QC aware of my claim that I was being abused as a consequence of initiating a public interest disclosure before making his report of 14.8.08 as the WA Corruption and Crime Commissioner?

Hansard, if not the submissions I made directly to the Police Service and the CCC, was a source Mr Roberts-Smith QC could have turned to for detail on the campaign of abuse I had already been subjected to by the time of his involvement as the Corruption and Crime Commissioner. Mr Roberts-Smith QC could have taken into account my constant references to abuse I‟d been subjected to recorded by television, talk-back radio, printed news, books published by academics and occupation health and safety national glossy publications. It was also a matter of public record that I made submissions to a range of State parliamentary committees, a Commonwealth department conducting a relevant inquiry and a Commonwealth parliamentary committee conducting a relevant inquiry.

Before turning to the performance of Mr Roberts-Smith QC at the CCC May 2007 to January 2011, I put the argument that it was in 1999 when he was the President of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal that he first became aware of my claim that I was being abused because I had initiated a claim of corruption against senior public officers. I advised the Tribunal of my view that the Equal Opportunity Commissioner, in not affording my submission the status of a complaint, had acted to defeat the objectives of their Act. Given that the Tribunal was promoted as an „independent‟ body, I requested their advice as to how I might challenge the Equal Opportunity Commissioner‟s action in blocking my access i.e. effectively nullifying the Tribunal‟s independence. The reply I was provided by the A/Registrar of the Tribunal was “I have been instructed to say that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matters raised in your letter.”

There is an extensive WA Parliament Hansard database as to the circumstances I‟ve been forced to contend with to this day as a result of submitting my claim formally on 18.9.98. That record began in 1999 and was still being enlarged on a regular basis until 2012. It should be noted that I made a complaint in 2000 to what was then called the Anti-Corruption Commission and had been advised that they didn‟t have jurisdiction. The record as to my circumstances can be followed through to August 2004 when I first approached the CCC and emphasised the importance of the public record. I was maintaining that public record emphasis when in May 2007 Mr Roberts-Smith QC was appointed as the Commissioner for the CCC and through to 14.8.08 when he provided his report. Given the intense criticism directed at the CCC over the years regarding microphones hidden in the homes of individuals they have investigated, it is not unreasonable to suggest that they could have on their own initiative accessed the WA Parliament Hansard database.

The regular additions to the record continued until January 2011 when Mr Roberts-Smith QC left the CCC, right up to the most recent Hansard inclusion on 27.11.12. What I‟m providing as to the record generated subsequent the provision of the 14.8.08 report, given that it comprises largely of the attempts of significant others to undo the effects of the report, is equally important as that existing prior to 14.8.08.

Insight to there being a general understanding as to an inextricable linkage from the outset between my claim of corruption and claim of abuse can be gained from the records from those four periods (1999-04 and circa 2007, 2008 and 2012).

1999 - 04

In response to my claim that I was being abused because I had initiated the disclosure Mr Michael Harris the Director General of Transport on 16.6.99 advised the Minister for Transport as follows:

21.6.99 - The Anti-Corruption Commission advised:

Unfortunately based on the information you have provided the allegations that you raise do not appear to be within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

From 2000 to 2012 many questions were tabled and many statements were made in Parliament by a range of Members of all of the political persuations, beginning with Q&A No 880 of 14.3.00 from Hon Lijanna Ravlich of the ALP to the then Minister for Transport, including:

(1) Given the substantial documentary evidence which has been provided by Transport employee, Mr Neil Winzer, in support of his claim of serious improper conduct and/or corruption, can the Minister for Transport explain why neither he nor the Anti-Corruption Commission, Auditor General or the Public Sector Standards Commission, have conducted an investigation? (2) Can the Minister for Transport explain why Mr Winzer has never had any greater explanation for his experience than - 10

"Your letters deal either with issues which you have raised previously with Transport and which have been investigated by the appropriate authorities, or with issues related to the proceedings you have taken against Transport. In either case I do not intend to debate them further in correspondence." (3) Can the Minister provide an explanation for Mr Winzer‘s experience, other than it having been part of a campaign of harassment with the objective of silencing him? (emphasis added)

The answer provided included the following:

I have caused this matter to be examined by the Department of Transport and am advised as follows: (1) Mr Winzer has written repeatedly to the Acting Director General of Transport, making allegations of improper conduct. He has also written to each of the other agencies and persons referred to in the question. I am unable to answer on behalf of any of those persons or agencies and suggest that the Honourable Member direct questions to those agencies. I am informed that those agencies examined the allegations made by Mr Winzer and determined that there was no reason to proceed further. 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. (2) Mr Winzer has received detailed responses to his correspondence and has met with either the present Acting Director General or his predecessor in relation to his allegations. (3) All of Mr Winzer‘s allegations have been examined. There is no campaign of harassment as alleged in the question and no attempt to silence Mr Winzer. (emphasis added)

Clearly, Parliament was misled by this answer. For example the advice that “Mr Winzer has received detailed responses to his correspondence” conflicts with the 14.8.08 determination of Mr Roberts-Smith that there was “no evidence of a detailed written response to Mr Winzer‟s concerns”.

Hon K Chance MLC was interviewed regarding my situation by Channel 7 News on 31.5.00 and offered the following observation:

As a public servant he had to bring to the attention of his superiors the fact that the Department was breaking the law. When he did that he then became persona non grata.

On 6.9.00 Hon Kim Chance tabled a report by on behalf of the Standing Committee on Public Administration, including:

I hope Parliament will be prepared to look at this man's situation in an unbiased and fair- minded way. He has given great service to the State and can still do that as he is still a young man. I hate to think that we might be part of a system that for one reason or another has set out to destroy an individual. I know that nobody in this Parliament would want that to happen and I hope we can bring some goodwill to the way in which this man has been dealt with.

On 5.11.00 the Legislative Council Estimates and Financial Operations Standing Committee advised as follows:

Although the Committee believes, based upon the material that you have supplied, that some of the actions of the Department of Transport towards you may have been 11

inappropriate in the circumstances, the Committee is unable to pursue these matters any further. And: The Committee does not have the either the capacity or power to thoroughly investigate alleged breaches of the law or to impose sanctions or provide remedies.

On 28.11.02 the Hon Paddy Embry commented in the Legislative Council as follows:

I will now refer to whistleblowing and Neil Winzer. I am sure everybody in this House must have heard of Neil Winzer, particularly those who were members prior to the last State election. Hon Graham Giffard has spoken on the matter, as has the Leader of the House. Words have been said to the effect that this guy has been shafted, to put it politely.

My letter of 16.4.03 to Det Snr Sgt Bill Mansas who had responsibility for the Police Service „investigation‟ was headed “MY REQUEST FOR YOU TO TAKE STEPS TO ALLAY FURTHER DISADVANTAGE TO ME”.

My submission of 8.6.03 to the National Workers’ Compensation and Occupational Health and Safety Frameworks Public Inquiry conducted in 2003 by the Productivity Commission can be seen on the Internet (http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/workers- compensation/docs/finalreport), headed as follows:

 DEFICIENCIES OF THE WA WORKERS‟ COMPENSATION SYSTEM (WORKCOVER) GENERALLY  THE WILLFUL USE OF THE WORKERS‟ COMPENSATION SYSTEM TO DISCREDIT ME AND THUS DISMISS MY PUBLIC INTEREST CLAIM INVOLVING EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION IN THE WA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, NOW PLANNING AND INFRASTUCTURE  THE ROLE OF PSYCHIATRISTS IN PARTICULAR

On 16.3.04 Mr Liam Bartlett interviewed Ms Jean Thorton, Mr Chris Read and I on the ABC Talkback program. The transcript of the session that I have is that produced by the Government Media Monitoring Unit. Bartlett began the session by saying:

Well if you‘ve had any interest, at all, in some of the major problems in the Public Service over the past few years there are some excellent chance you would have heard of our next three guests.

During that ABC Talkback program Ms Thorton put the following agreed opening statement:

Well, the joint experience is that we have all had, with the whistleblowing legislation, and… we couldn‘t recommend it to anyone. We have all suffered greatly from what happened, not so much as me as these two guys, Chris and Neil, but the new Public Interest Disclosure Act does nothing to protect whistleblowers, and I have had a lot of people come to me, since I went public, asking for advice on corruption that they have come across in the public sector, and I‘ve basically warned then about the consequences.

On 17.3.04 the West Australian reported that Ms Thorton, Mr Read and I were warning that “no one should try to expose corruption under the current conditions.”

On 28.3.04 Mr Bartlett followed-up the talk-back program with a half-page article in the Sunday Times with the headline “The dangers of telling the truth”. 12

Channel 10 News in a lengthy session interviewed Hon Jim McGinty, the Attorney-General, Ms Thorton, Mr Read and I following our meeting on 7.4.04. The Attorney-General‟s interview began as follows:

INTERVIEWER: What can you tell us about today‘s meeting?

MINISTER: You can always learn an awful lot from people who have been ‗through the mill‘ themselves. These whistleblowers were treated harshly under the previous law. We have now got Western Australia‘s first ever whistleblower laws in place, but they gave me some very good suggestions of ways in which we can make it even better the future.

INTERVIEWER: How viable are these suggestions and are you considering looking at possibly implementing them in the future?

MINISTER: We‘ve undertaken to go away and have a … sorry …we‘ve undertaken to consult with people who are immediately involved and we are going to have a further meeting in a month or twos time, to see if we can‘t find a way to offer even greater protection for whistleblowers‘. Whistleblowers have got major cultural issues they need to overcome within their Departments. The way in which the bureaucracy handles these matters is always difficult. What we want to do is have a culture that rewards whistleblowers rather than punishes them. (emphasis added)

On 7.4.04 during the second reading of the Public Interest Disclosure Bill the Hon Cheryl Edwardes MLA, a former Attorney General, said:

This Government has done absolutely nothing to resolve Neil Winzer‘s situation and have his complaint investigated. Putting that issue aside, Neil Winzer is receiving no income. It is a disgrace. He is a public servant who is not on redeployment; he is doing nothing and is not receiving any money. Nobody will sit down with him and explain to him why. I have never seen a worse case of very poor human management relations, and I can give the minister a number of cases. I implore the Minister Assisting the Minister for Public Sector Management to get involved in the matter. A number of ministers have been involved in the matter. Right from the beginning, commitments and promises were made to this man and it is unfair and wrong to allow him to sit there like a shag on a rock. It impacts on not only him and his health, but also his family and his family‟s health. If the minister thinks that the matter should not be investigated or that it is not worthy of being investigated, for goodness sake, she should deal with this man as an individual. He is a public servant who has provided service to this State, and he needs to be treated properly. (emphasis added)

On 20.5.04 in the Legislative Assembly (Hansard p332b-338a) the Hon C Edwardes said “Even though Neil Winzer‟s matters have not been investigated, he has been poorly treated as a public servant and an individual.”

On 25.8.04 Hon C Edwardes‟ statement in the Legislative Assembly included:

Having established that mobbing is an occupational safety and health issue, I draw attention to one group of employees that has already endured severe cases of workplace mobbing in Western Australia; that is, the whistleblowers to whom I have referred many times this year and last. Time and again I have raised the causes of the likes of Chris Read, Jean Thornton and Neil Winzer. Sadly, I need to report that their cases are still not being dealt with adequately or properly. And: Neil Winzer, the public servant, is subjected to constant harassment on a daily basis. He is receiving that treatment from public servants in that department. I will repeat what one 13

public servant said about another public servant: Mr X - I will not repeat his name - could remain at home and rot just like Mr Winzer. If this is not part of workplace mobbing, I do not know what is. This Government is allowing that to occur with whistleblowers. (my emphasis) And: Neil Winzer as a public servant has been discarded and forgotten; nobody wants to talk to him. And: The report from the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards, which was presented last week, shows that no whistleblower will ever come forward again. If that is what the Government wants, it has succeeded in being part of the workplace mobbers because it has allowed this to continue and the whistleblowers to be intimidated.

The State Solicitor‟s Office attempt to harass me was the subject of the letter 6.12.04 from the former Attorney-General, Hon C Edwardes, to Premier Gallop. The questions were put by Hon C Edwardes in her letter in light of a clearly-worded letter from the State Solicitor‟s Office and therefore the answers to the first three questions could not have been other than „yes‟. The letter of 6.12.04 began as follows:

Dear Premier I write regarding the case of whistleblower Mr Neil Winzer. Specifically,I wish to ask questions that cannot now proceed within the Parliament. I do not propose to retrace the long history of this particular matter. It is already well documented. What I do wish to do is place before you the following questions: 1. Is it correct that the State Solicitors Office, acting on behalf of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, has proposed that whistleblower Mr Neil Winzer discontinue any and all actions against the Minister in respect of any matter arising in the course of his employment with the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (formerly the Department of Transport)? 2. Is it also correct that the Department for Planning and Infrastructure has left open the possibility that it may pursue Mr Winzer for costs relating to compensation? 3. Does this amount to the Government asking this particular whistleblower to sign away all his rights and then face the prospect of having some costs awarded against him? 4. How does the Premier reconcile these actions with the Government‘s previous statements that its legislation would legally protect whistle blowers from reprisals or intimidation and that it would give whistleblowers access to full immunity from civil, criminal or disciplinary action? 5. How does the Premier reconcile these actions with the Government‘s position that whistleblowers would not be further victimised?

Hon Paddy Embry tabled my first Petition of Last Resort / Prayer for Relief (parliamentary terminology) on 4.5.04 that was based on the simple and verifiable data showing there had never been an investigation of my public interest claim. By way of that Petition of Last Resort, with the aim of illustrating the abusive circumstances I was experiencing I juxtaposed simple and verifiable data such as that you may see at page 61 of this submission with the testimony given in a court by one of Transport‟s „hired-gun‟ psychiatrists. The psychiatrist‟s testimony included the following: 14

No, no, but from a psychiatric perspective, if I have somebody who‘s gone to the Equal Opportunities Tribunal, the Public Service Standards Commission, to the Anti-Corruption Commission and I can‘t remember the other body, all of which find no fault, all of which say that – that in fact the department informs Mr Winzer he must cease making these types of allegations because they‘re vexatious and damaging, I take the view that this is reasonable. Now living in our society in our context I would accept that those authorities are reasonable. (Dr Zelko Mustac, Psychiatrist for Transport)

And:

My view is that if I heard Mr Winzer‘s words saying one thing and these august bodies saying something else, unless that I accept that all these august bodies are either incompetent or in cahoots or something I have to come to the conclusion that Mr Winzer is the one that is wrong. (Dr Zelko Mustac, Psychiatrist for Transport)

Another of Transport‟s psychiatrists, Dr Peter McCarthy, reported that the problem wasn‟t that the Transport managers that were corrupt, the problem was me being a “paranoid misanthrope”. At that time, not knowing what the term „misanthrope‟ meant, I had to refer to the dictionary to discover that he was saying that I just hated people.

That Petition of Last Resort / Prayer for Relief divided the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs and consequently their November 2004 Report 14 included the following:

A minority of the Committee, Hons Jim Scott and Christine Sharp MLCs, were of the view that there was merit in further investigation of the matter. The minority noted that Mr Winzer‘s petition was not further explored or dealt with due to its complexity and because the limited time remaining before Parliament is likely to be prorogued would not allow an adequate investigation of the merits of the claim to be concluded. In the minority‘s view Mr Winzer‘s petition raises serious matters of public interest and the Legislative Council should re-examine this issue when the Parliament resumes after prorogation.

Question On Notice No. 2061 tabled in the Legislative Council on 19.5.05 by Hon Norman Moore for Hon K Chance the Minister for Agriculture and Forrestry included the following:

(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?

“Yes” was the answer Hon K Chance gave to both questions.

The simple and verifiable data, such as that you may see at page 61 of this submission, also formed the basis of my second Petition of Last Resort / Prayer for Relief tabled by Hon Giz Watson on 22.9.05. 15

That second Petition of Last Resort / Prayer for Relief wasn‟t reported on until September 2007.

‘Neil’s Prayer for Relief’ was the cover story of the October 2005 issue of the Australian Safety Matters magazine. It was a very detailed three-page account. The editor, a former colleague of mine at Transport, provided the following note:

In the face of determined destructive effort as was taken against Neil, can a code of practice on bully really be expected to provide results? Words would never replace quality and competence among system managers. Unfortunately, I‘ve been a first hand witness to Neil‘s mistreatment and seen the rallying of a whole class of people in positions of authority to protect their own.

Assoc Prof Allan Peachment had written on my behalf to the Legislative Council Estimates and Financial Operations Standing Committee, Premier Gallop, the Attorney-General and the Public Sector Standards Commissioner on 3.4.00, 1.6.01, 5.9.01 and 3.4.00 respectively specifically in respect of Transport‟s false claim of having addressed my claim. The conclusion to his book The Years of Scandal: Commissions of Inquiry in Western Australia 1991-2004 published in mid – 2006, included the following:

While governments may occasionally be prepared to dismiss or prosecute an individual, where evidence points to corrupt or unethical behaviour, when it comes to corrupt systems or processes within the machinery of government, enthusiasm for reform is minimal. This point is demonstrated by the state government‘s treatment of those few individuals who have disclosed what they believe to be systemic corruption or unethical behaviour, thus acting as the eyes and ears of the public interest within an organisation, so-called whistleblowers. Their names are well known. [They are Neil Winzer (Transport), Chris Read (Ombudsman), Jean Thornton (Health). Without disputing either the rights or wrongs of their cases, all three have been left in limbo, despite their many private and public pleas for closure.

2007

From the beginning to the end of his tenure at the CCC Mr Roberts-Smith QC was busy fending-off strong criticism such as that put on 5.6.07 by Hon Margaret Quirk MLA:

Objectively inappropriate standards are being applied and, more generally, there is a perceived lack of rigour and accountability in how those investigations are being pursued.

It is, I believe, relevant to note that during the contact I had with the Australian Crime Commission throughout 2007 for the reasons set out below at pages 41 to 43, that my appeal to them for protection did result in a meeting that ultimately had no outcome. My letter of 22.2.07 to the ACC began as follows:

My meeting with your Mr Gough scheduled for 10am, Friday 23rd February 2007 I have provided 6.2.07 and 15.2.07 detail of the disadvantages already sustained by my family and I as a direct result of my efforts in making a public interest disclosure. I have also provided evidence of threats made against me. The disadvantages to which I‘ve referred, imposed on me while I was still in the workplace and since I‘ve left the workplace, range from vilification to the stopping of my pay. 16

I continued to sustain disadvantages after WA monitoring and regulatory authorities were involved. Moreover, I claim, it was as a consequence of the involvement of WA authorities that I continued to sustain disadvantages. It may be interpreted that the threats I have referred to have never constituted a threat to either my life or that of any member of my family. However, as this matter has been effectively suppressed for many years but is now edging slowly toward the possibility that some of those against whom I‘ve made a claim being faced with some measure of accountability, I must contemplate the possibility of disadvantages more serious than I‘ve previously sustained. On numerous occasions, when I‘ve discussed my circumstances with those who would be defined as ordinary and reasonable people, I‘ve been cautioned as to my welfare. In the context of claims of fraud, abuse of office, perverting justice and perjury, a measure of accountability may present as a concern to some. It may be that those involved, including union leaders and those who have previously received high accolades for what has been perceived as their contribution to society, would not relish that prospect.

The formal claim of abuse I submitted on 18.4.07 took the form of the claim of misconduct in public office I made to the Parliamentary Inspector for the CCC against the Minister for Transport, Allanah McTiernan MLA.

Emphasis is again warranted in regard to the understanding to be gained from the package of perjury claims and the simple and verifiable data that I‟ve provided at page 61. Obviously Mr Roberts-Smiths‟ 14.8.08 acknowledgement that there was “no evidence of a detailed written response to Mr Winzer‟s concerns” had not been given when I submitted the claim of misconduct in public office on 18.4.07. However, all the other data in the package you may see at page 61 formed the basis of my appeals to Minister MacTiernan.

The Parliamentary Inspector would gain nothing by arguing that he was not obliged to forward that claim to Mr Mr Roberts-Smith QC due to the fact that I advised him directly following the September 2007 response of the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs to my second Prayer for Relief / Petition of Last Resort. That Standing Committee recommended to Parliament that immediate steps be taken “to resolve the issue of Mr Winzer‟s employment” (my emphasis). My advice of 4.10.07 to the Premier as to that recommendation included note of my misconduct in public office claim against the Minister for Transport. I then attached a copy of that letter to the Premier to my advice of 31.12.07 addressed jointly to the Parliamentary Inspector and Mr Mr Roberts-Smith QC.

Furthermore, Q&A No. 2926 initiated by the Leader of the Opposition resulted in the Premier‟s answer on 25.2.08 (Note: my letter received by the Premier on 5.10.07 was dated 4.10.07), including:

(2) Correspondence was received from Mr Winzer on 5 October 2007 drawing my attention to the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs and noting that the Committee had access to information which outlined Mr Winzer's claims about the "issue of [his] employment".

The Premier on 25.2.08 also advised as follows:

(5) Yes, I received correspondence from Mr Winzer on 19 April 2007 indicating that he had made a claim of misconduct against the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure to the Parliamentary Inspector, Mr Malcolm McCusker QC.

I attached a copy of 4.10.07 letter to the Premier to my advice of 31.12.07 addressed jointly to the Corruption and Crime Commissioner and the Parliamentary Inspector for the CCC. My appeal to the both of them included the following:

It may be helpful if I explain what I hoped would be the outcome of my letters of 4.10.07, 13.12.07 and 17.12.07 to the Premier.

I listed for the Premier on 4.10.07 eleven items that, it is my understanding, are encompassed by what the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs referred to in their recommendation to Parliament as ―the issue of [my] employment‖. That list includes the fact that nobody has addressed my misconduct in public office claim against Minister MacTiernan. I had hoped the Premier would recognise that it was necessary for him to intervene in order to achieve a resolution.

I interpreted Minister MacTiernan‘s response, on behalf of the Premier, to my letter of 4.10.07 as intentionally offensive and provocative. Minister MacTiernan simply offered advice as to an option I‘ve been aware of since 1997; my exit from DPI by way of a redundancy arrangement.

The two sets of exploratory questions tabled and the set of substantial questions already submitted for the next sitting of the Legislative Assembly by the Hon Paul Omodei followed Minister MacTiernan‘s action in responding to my letter of 4.10.07.

In making the misconduct in public office claim I referred to extracts from a reference developed by the Office of the Attorney-General (Federal) for their considerations in the area of misconduct in public office. Given my previous appeals to the Minister for Transport that were based on the package of perjury claims and the and the simple and verifiable data (see the boxed information below for detail) I contend the A-G‟s reference was highly appropriate, including :

And also from the A-G‟s reference:

… the general tendency in modern times of our criminal law. The shift is towards adopting a subjective approach. It is generally necessary to look at the matter in the light of how it would have appeared to the Defendant.

I specified on 18.4.07 my misconduct in public office claim against Minister MacTiernan to be as follows:

My claim is that Minister MacTiernan has willfully neglected to perform her duty and/or willfully misconducted herself without reasonable excuse or justification. A consideration of ―how it would have appeared to the Defendant‖ as suggested in the above reference from the Office of the Attorney General (Federal), must include the evidence showing that the public interest claim had never been investigated. Considering ―how it would have appeared‖ to Minister MacTiernan, the evidence as to numerous discussions between her and Minister Chance in regard to the public interest claim must also be taken into account. I contend it would be extremely difficult to interpret Minister MacTiernan‘s 16.11.04 advice that she was ―not prepared to devote the resources necessary to respond to these allegations‖, as having been given with the public interest in mind. 18

I submit that Minister MacTiernan‟s advice that she was “not prepared to devote the resources necessary to respond to these allegations” (Question On Notice No. 2498 of 2004) (my emphasis) constitutes clear evidence of misconduct in that, regarding criminal activity in her department, when confronted with the truth in the form of advice from her colleague, Hon K Chance, and the simple and verifiable data she simply refused to act.

Moreover, I submit that Mr Mr Roberts-Smith QC failed to act on my complaint against Minister MacTiernan.

By way of the following boxed information I offer the References Committee a definition of the allegations Minister MacTiernan was referring to in saying she was “not prepared to devote the resources necessary to respond to these allegations” (Question On Notice No. 2498 of 2004) (my emphasis):

“THESE ALLEGATIONS”: MY ATTEMPTS FROM 22.2.01 TO GET MINISTER MACTIERNAN TO ADDRESS MY CLAIM AS TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN HER DEPARTMENT AND THE INEXTRICABLY LINKED CAMPAIGN OF ABUSE

I STRONGLY CONTEND THAT IT CAN IT BE CLEARLY SEEN FROM MY SUBMISSIONS TO THE MINISTER MACTIERNAN THAT I:

1. identified the range of senior Department of Transport officers against whom I‟d made claims of corruption; 2. specifically requested that advice provided by any of the senior Department of Transport officers against whom I‟d made claims of corruption be considered in the context of my claim. That is, the advice of those senior Transport officers should not be the only source for a response to my claims and be automatically accepted as the truth in preference to my advice; 3. specifically requested that the officers against whom I‟d made claims of corruption not have „hands-on‟ involvement in the administration of my employment; including the administration of my application for workers‟ compensation; 4. pleaded for an explanation as to how the Minister saw my claims were unsubstantiated, if that was considered the case; 5. pleaded for the prevention of the actions of the officers against whom I‟d made claims of corruption in referring me to psychiatrists who I cited as „hired guns‟ for the purpose of discrediting me and thereby suppressing the public interest claim I initiated; 6. cited the fact that her colleague, Minister K Chance, had provided advice to Parliament, to the Public Sector Standards Commission and on television regarding the substance of my public interest claim and his support for a resolution; 7. cited the fact that her colleague, Minister K Chance, had communicated with her directly with the objective of achieving a resolution?

I first wrote to Minister MacTiernan on 22.2.01, including the following:

Minister, I hereby advise you that it is my strong belief based on evidence now available, that a number of those involved in the coarse of my attempts to make disclosures in the public interest have proven themselves to be dishonest. I include perjury in my claims against some. To the best of my knowledge those currently working within your portfolio are as follows:  Mr Mike Harris  A/Director General of Transport;  Ms Helen Langley  Diector of Human Resources at Transport;  Mr Dennis Forte  Executive Director at Transport;  Mr Alan Hubbard  Executive Director at Transport;  Mr Reece Waldock  Executive Director at Transport; and  Mr Clinton Floate  Consultant, Occupational Safety and Health.

My letter of 21.2.01 to former Premier Geoffrey Gallop that I provided to Minister MacTiernan on 22.2.01 began as follows:

PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENDITURE: THE CONTRACTING OF SOLICITORS, PSYCHIATRISTS AND PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS TO SUPPRESS „WHISTLEBLOWERS‟

Minister MacTiernan did not respond to my letter of 22.2.01.

22.4.01 – My letter to Minister MacTiernan, included:

For the purpose of achieving justice, I hereby offer to pay for the cost of an investigation, should as a result of that investigation, my claims not be proven correct.

1.11.01 – My letter to Minister MacTiernan, included:

It is important to note that the ―review‖ Minister Chance referred to (6.9.00) was that involving the Public Sector Standards Commission. Assoc Prof Allan Peachment (3.4.00) had provided the Commissioner a detailed explanation of the fallaciousness of significant information provided to the Commission by Ms Langley, Transport‘s Human Resources Director, describing it as a ―very serious matter‖. The Hon K Chance MLC, (27.3.00) wrote to the Commissioner in regard to the PSSC‘s Executive Director, Mr O‘Neil‘s acceptance and paraphrasing of the false information as follows, ―Again with the utmost respect, what absolute nonsense!‖ Furthermore, in his letter to the Commissioner the Hon K Chance MLC, (27.3.00) referred to the meeting I was obliged to attend in Mr Haris‘ officer (29.1.99) as a ―set-up‖.

Minister, I provided (2.4.01) Minister Chance a 40 page account of that ―set-up‖ meeting. You were provided a courtesy copy. That account included a detailed explanation of Minister Chance‘s ―a twist of the truth‖ comment to Parliament (6.9.00). My letter to the Premier (17.7.01), copied to you, contained a much shorter explanation of that ―twist of the truth‖; as follows:

On 29.1.99, on the grounds of his obligation to investigate evidence of corruption, Mr Harris summoned me forthwith to a meeting. Mr Harris‘ consulting solicitor also attended. As acknowledged by Mr Harris on the existing transcript (C&RD, p1574), I attended with the expectation of discussing the evidence supporting my longstanding claims. However, I was denied any discussion of my claims. I was formally questioned about unspecified matters and/or rumours of corruption and subsequently directed, under threat of disciplinary action, to advise of my 20

knowledge of unspecified matters and/or rumours by close of business that day. My solicitors advised (1.2.99) that I was “…concerned as to the legal effect of repeating mere rumours of corruption as opposed to his actual knowledge of corruption.” The reference to ―actual knowledge‖ of course pointed to the EBA/privatisation and contracting-out related evidence. However, based on advice provided by Ms Langley and Mr Forte, the Public Sector Standards Commission wrote (2.12.99): When formally requested to [substantiate his EBA/privatisation and contracting-out related claims] 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”. (emphasis added);

Clearly, my response to the harassment (29.1.99) about mere rumours of corruption was ‗cut‘ and ‗pasted‘ in order for it to appear as though it had been my response to questions, that were in fact never asked, about my EBA/privatisation and contracting-out related claims. Subsequently (16.6.99) Mr Harris advised his Minister as follows: Transport has also requested that Mr Winzer provide proof to substantiate his allegations; he was either unable or chose not to do so.

Transport‘s consulting psychiatrists and the Parliament of Western Australia were also similarly misled. And: As I have pointed out many times in past correspondence, the ‗hands-on administration‘ of my case by the very people against whom I have made my public interest claims has included their action in stopping my pay. Consequently, my family and I have experienced financial hardship for nearly two years now. Surely Minister, the argument that these people are putting, as I‘ve heard informally, that the fact that I‘m not being paid is technically legitimate given my entitlements to annual leave and sick leave etc have expired, can be seen for what it is. I believe it is a transparent tactic to wear me down and destroy me. Surely also Minister, the treatment of me at the hands of these people is grossly inconsistent with the Attorney General‘s announcements to the media (20.7.01) about ‗whistleblower‘ legislation and ―…restoring openness and accountability in Government‖.

Example of the hands on administration of my case by those I‟d complained about 1. On 16.6.99, in light of my explicit submissions to the Minister for Transport as to the Department of Transport‟s failure to address the public interest disclosure I initiated and the claim that I was being harassed, Mr Harris the Director General, against whom I‟d made the claim of harassment, advised the Minister as follows: Transport denies harassing Mr Winzer for having raised these matters. There is clear documented evidence that he has received a response to issues he has raised. Transport has also requested that Mr Winzer provide proof to substantiate his allegations; he was either unable or chose not to do so. (Harris 16.6.99) (my emphasis – see also point 5 below)

2. Q&A No. 880 of 2000 – Harris advised the Minister who advised Parliament as follows: (2) Mr Winzer has received detailed responses to his correspondence and has met with either the present Acting Director General or his predecessor in relation to his allegations.

3. Q&A No. 880 was followed up by Q&A No. 1980 of 2000, including: (1) How many detailed responses has Mr Neil Winzer received from the Department of Transport to his correspondence? (2) On what dates were these responses sent to Mr Winzer? (3) On what date did Mr Winzer meet with the present Acting Director General to discuss his allegations? The answer Mr Harris provided for the Minister to table in Parliament included: (1) Transport has responded to correspondence received from Mr Winzer on three occasions. (2) 12 October 1999; 25 October 1999; 3 November 1999. (3) 29 January 1999. (emphasis added)

4. Notes: My claim had nothing to do with Road Trauma Trust Fund and in relation to both Mr Harris and Mr Bodycoat, Transport‟s resident lawyer, it was only on 29.1.99 that we ever met. In response to Q&A No. 1800 of 2004 about “the legal practice of keeping all records relating to Mr Winzer's public interest claim” Parliament was advised that I was “asked” at the meeting on 29.1.99 (with Harris and Bodycoat) to substantiate my claim and “no substantiating information was provided”. Compare that advice with Harris‟ 16.11.99 “requested” and “either unable or chose not to do so” pattern of advice. Then consider the testimony showing I was prevented any discussion of my claim on 29.1.99: HARRIS: Well, I – as I recall, and as the notes say, Mr Winzer responded when I asked the question that all the information that he already had -- all the information that he had, he had already provided. Now that led me to the conclusion that what he was talking about were the matters that‘d already written to me and others about. Now that was not the matter that was the subject of this meeting because somebody had suggested that there were – there was corruption or maladministration in the administration of the Road Trauma Trust Fund.‖ Now at that point I said to Mr Winzer it was not the previous issues that were the subject of this [29.1.99] meeting ….‖ (WorkCover, 23.2.00:1574)

5. The Corruption and Crime Commission reported on 14.8.08 as follows: While there is no evidence of a detailed written response to Mr Winzer‘s concerns, there is evidence to support the proposition that he did receive a response from various officers in DOT, albeit those responses were not in writing.

28.11.01 – My letter to Minister MacTiernan, included:

Minister, I consider it is in stark contrast to the apparent comfort of the Transport officers I have named that my outlook in regard to my health, family relationships etc, etc is of a disaster. I‘m sure even my sons have begun to doubt me.

I am pleading with you, with all due respect, to address this situation immediately. Please advise me as to where I have got my ‗wires crossed‘ if you think that is the case.

30.11.01 – My letter to Minister MacTiernan, included:

I do not believe a consideration of the performance of the insurer, with full knowledge of the inextricable linkages between my claim for workers‘ compensation and claim of serious improper conduct and/or corruption, can be put aside. My views on this can be 22

traced back through my letters to the former Premier from 12.10.99 and with the current Premier. One dimension of the insurer‘s performance involved their use of ‗hired gun‘ psychiatrists and the conveyance of the significantly false information constructed by Mr Mike Harris, A/Director General, Department of Planning and Infrastructure. This record formed the basis of my complaints (28.4.00 and 20.2.01) to the Medical Board of Western Australia about Dr Mustac and Dr McCarthy respectively. I have attached a copy of the covering letter of my complaint against Dr Mustac for your information. I suggest that the hard evidence of a psychiatrist being wilfully used to suppress a ‗whistleblower‘ that I provided in support of that complaint makes very ugly reading.

7.1.02 – My letter to Minister MacTiernan, included:

The advice conveyed in Mr Hatt‘s first paragraph was that ―As an employee of the Department [I] have an obligation to keep the Department informed of [my] fitness for work.‖

To be clear, based on the available evidence my view is that the Transport staff I‘ve named are guilty of crimes against the people of Western Australia.

Therefore I refuse to deal with these people or their „puppets‟ in some sort of a „business as usual‟ mode.

I will continue to meet my obligations to you as my employer.

By citing ―crimes against the people of Western Australia‖ I mean the failure to observe the legal process when implementing Transport‘s privatisation and contracting-out program, encompassing the public bus system. The failure to observe the legal process has involved fraud, misappropriation, falsification of records and victimisation.

My letter of 7.1.02 to Minister MacTiernan, concluded as follows: Minister, with all due respect, I request you to provide me with your explanation against the evidence and not simply pass on to me what Messrs Hicks, Harris, Langley etc tell you. Yours sincerely

22.3.02, Q&A No 541 of 2002 – Hon Jim Scott referred to his previous question 20.12.01 and included the following in his question:

(2) Why did Transport not provide a reply to Mr Winzer regarding - (a) the conflicting information given to employees by Transport relating to organisational change; and (b) why Mr Winzer was subject to disadvantages as a result of him asking questions on this issue?

The answer from Minister MacTiernan included the following:

(2) (a) Departmental records indicate that replies have been provided to all of Mr Winzer's correspondence addressed to the Department. (b) As above.

27.3.02, Q&A No 542 of 2002 – Hon Jim Scott again pressed the issue of records:

1) Did/does the Department of Transport have a documentary record of complaints by Mr 23

Niel Winzer that Transport did not follow a lawful process when it switched agendas for organisational change?

The reply from Minister MacTiernan included:

(1) The Department has followed the lawful practice of keeping all documents relating to the complaints by Mr Winzer.

On the two occasions noted above Parliament was misled. Minister MacTiernan‟s advice that “Departmental records indicate that replies have been provided to all of Mr Winzer's correspondence” conflicts with the 14.8.08 determination of Mr Mr Roberts-Smith QC that there was “no evidence of a detailed written response to Mr Winzer‟s concerns”.

Emphasis is warranted as to the fact Minister MacTiernan provided that misleading answer to that 23.2.02 question despite the previous advice of Hon K Chance and I.

That is, Minister MacTiernan knew exactly what she was doing in misleading Parliament.

31.7.02 – My letter to Minister MacTiernan, included:

Please do not be again misled by your Department as indicated in the answers provided to Parliament (7.5.02) in response to questions on notice from Hon Jim Scott MLC.

 At answer 541(2)(a) it is stated that ―Departmental records indicate that replies have been provided to all of Mr Winzer‘s correspondence with the Department.‖; and  At answer 542(1) it is stated that ―The Department has followed the lawful practice of keeping all documents relating to the complaints by Mr Winzer.‖

Minister, the challenge is sublimely simple; direct the Department to produce the documents, videos or whatever.

I have stated, again and again and again in my correspondence, that:

1. there is no record, other than that of retribution as reported to Parliament on behalf of the Standing Committee on Public Administration (6.9.00) and on Channel Seven News (31.5.00) by now Minister Chance, of the Department having ever addressed my claim and evidence of internal corruption; and 2. there is no record of Mr Stuart Hicks having advised staff of the decision to switch the organisational change agendas because he didn‘t give that advice.

Notwithstanding the more public interest dimensions of these matters, and with all due respect I ask, do you appreciate what impact the performance of the officer‘s I‘ve previously named has had on my family? Yes, I know I must carry some of the responsibility for my family‘s circumstances, but …..!

By way of Q&A No 282 of 2004 Hon J Scott MLC (Q&A No 264 of 2004 was similar to this) pursued the issue I had previously raised with Minister MacTiernan as to her, in light of the advice of Minister Chance and I, preferring the advice individuals against whom I‟d made claims of corruption. Hon J Scott MLC began as follows:

(1) Can the minister confirm or deny that departmental officers who have advised the minister in the past on Mr Neil Winzer‘s public interest claim, including claims of fraud, 24

falsification of records and perjury, are among the officers that Mr Winzer has named as being central to his public interest claim? (2) Will the minister investigate and report on whether any of the officers who have provided the minister with advice in the past are included in the list of officers that Mr Winzer advised of in his letter to the minister of 22 February 2001, his letter to the Premier of 30 October 2001 or his letter to the director general of 9 September 2002?

The reply was as follows:

(1)-(2) I am advised that in his former roles as the Director General of the Department of Transport and the Acting Director General of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, Mike Harris provided advice to the minister on this matter. Mr Harris left the Western Australian public service in 2002. I am advised that no other current or past officers of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure whom Mr Winzer has named as being central to his public interest claim have advised the current minister on Mr Winzer‘s public interest claim.

Minister MacTiernan apparently had no reservations and possibly demonstrated arrogance, in light of the advice of Minister Chance and I, in regard to her acknowledgement that “Mike Harris provided advice to the minister on this matter” without making a qualification as to having queried Harris‟ advice. Recall, I‟d advised Minister MacTiernan from 22.2.01 of my claims of perjury against Mr Harris.

Emphasis is again warranted in regard to the understanding to be gained from the package of perjury claims and the simple and verifiable data that I‟ve set out in the package at page 61 of this submission.

In complaining of misconduct in public office to Mr Mr Roberts-Smith QC I made reference to Question On Notice No. 2498 asked in the Legislative Council on 20.10.04 by Hon Jim Scott, including:

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?

Minister MacTiernan‟s response was as follows: (5) No, as stated above and on previous occasions, this matter has already been investigated by a number of independent bodies. It should be noted that the petition has been lodged with the Environment and Public Affairs Committee and not the Public Administration and Finance Committee as stated in the Question. (6) The Minister is not prepared to devote the resources necessary to respond to these allegations (emphasis added)

Hon P Collier MLC, who is now a Minister, on 12.10.05 asked Minister MacTiernan in 25

regard to the same issue, as follows:

(3) Will the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure accept that in the tabling of this question, no attempt is being made to draw a distinction between ‗officers responsible‘ and ‗officers personally responsible‘, but rather to ascertain which officers have been involved in the research, collating or provision of advice given to the Parliament and in what capacity or circumstances they gave the advice 2000 to 2004 identified by Minister Chance as misleading? (4) Will the Minister table all the records to show which DPI officers have been involved in relation to the following questions - (a) No. 880 answered on March 14 2000; (b) No 542 tabled on March 27 2002 and answered on May 7 2002; (c) No. 1 554 tabled on June 26 2002 and answered on June 26 2002; (d) No. 42 tabled on August 15 2002 and answered on September 18 2002; (e) No. 1 792 tabled on March 10 2004 and answered on April 6 2004; and (f) No. 1 800 tabled March 12 2004 and answered on May 4 2004, or identify which DPI officers were responsible for providing the answers to the above question on notice?

Minister MacTiernan simply stepped around the question by advising that my public interest claim had been “investigated”.

Although it was not until Mid-2007, Hon Jim Scott also addressed this issue in his submission to the Parliamentary Inspector, as follows:

B. The Department has misled the Public Sector Standards Commission, a court, the psychiatrists they contracted and the Parliament by advising that they had addressed the public interest claim.

In regard to advice given on behalf of the Department, it has always been my concern that it was those senior officers Mr Winzer had cited for wrongdoing, may have been providing the advice and thus their own defence. Despite my persistence in tabling questions about the source of advice, I believe I failed to uncover the truth. The paper trail to that truth would still exist. In this context it should be noted that the officers who Mr Winzer named in his letter to Minister MacTiernan on her appointment were subsequently promoted. On the other hand, Minister MacTiernan has never granted Mr Winzer a meeting and he has not been paid since 2000.

15.8.02 – My letter to Minister MacTiernan, included:

It is also appropriate that I draw your attention once again to the opinion of Dr Peter McCarthy as expressed at the Conciliation and Review Directorate (22.9.00). Having received false information from the Department and subsequently rejected my extensive attempts to point this out to him, Dr McCarthy took the view that there was absolutely no substance to my claim that the senior public servants I have named are corrupt, but rather, it is just that I hate them. In Dr Carthy‘s opinion I am a ―paranoid misanthrope‖ (C&RD transcript, p29). Consequently, Dr McCarthy said of my work future ―…driving a bulldozer out the back of Leinster.‖ (C&RD transcript, p80)

I have documented support in regard to my public interest claim from the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, the Standing Committee on Public Administration, Hon Jim Scott MLC, Hon Paddy Embry MLC and Assoc Prof Allan Peachment, among others.

Minister Kim Chance has confirmed to me (17.7.02) that he still stands by the strongly supportive view that he has expressed publicly. 26

22.10.02 – My letter to Minister MacTiernan, began as follows:

HOPEFULLY WORKING TOWARD A RESOLUTION

Further to my letters to you 14.10.02 and 15.10.02 and the frustration expressed therein I hereby request, with all due respect, information directly from you that may help to clarify the situation.

I understand that recently you and Minister Chance discussed my circumstances, with and Department of Planning and Infrastructure people attending for the second part of the meeting. Subsequently, the Hon Cheryle Edwardes MLA and the Hon Paddy Embry MLC were provided some information as to the outcome of that meeting. The reports were of ―support‖ and ―sympathy‖.

The Hon Derrick Tomlinson MLC and the Hon Jim Scott MLC also received information of a similar tone. The Hon Derrick Tomlinson copied to you (2.10.02) his account of the information he received from the Hon Graham Giffard, including the acknowledgement of my public interest claim being ―founded in reasonable truth‖ and ―the failure of others to find a fair resolution‖. The Hon Jim Scott has reported to me the Hon Graham Giffard having said that the Government would like to resolve this, but not ―sacrifice‖ Stuart Hicks.

In a letter to the Premier copied to you (8.7.02) I stated as follows:

As I am of the belief that I could not work under the prevailing standards of the Public Service and having been without an income for over two years, I hereby reaffirm my interest in a severance payment that does not incorporate a ‗hush clause‘.

4.11.02 – In light of the Police Service recommendation of an investigation of “official corruption” at Transport based on my complaints, my letter to Minister MacTiernan, was headed “REQUEST FOR A MEETING” and concluded as follows:

I respectfully suggest, given you are about to make critical decisions as to my treatment following on from my letter 22.10.02 and the fact that a full Police Service investigation of my public interest claim is likely to take some time, your agreement to be brought up to date would be timely. I am confident this would only take 30 minutes at the very most.

11.11.02 – I pressed Minister MacTiernan about my request for a meeting and included:

Given that I first alerted you 22.2.01 to the evidence of the criminal conduct of these people and I‘ve had no income since June 2000 because of, I claim, the criminal conduct of these people, I am most anxious to be advised.

20.11.02 - My letter to Minister MacTiernan, began as follows:

In your reply to me (19.11.02) you have not agreed to my request for what would have been our first meeting and stated that the Public Sector Management Act ―…specifically prevents any direction to be given by [you] on these matters.‖ Given the information I‘ve provided to you in the letters you‘ve acknowledged, your clear position is that I should be dealing directly with the former or current work colleagues of the people who are currently subject to a Police Service investigation in relation to my claim of fraud, misappropriation, falsification of records, perjury and victimisation.

My letter of 20.11.02 to Minister MacTiernan, concluded as follows: 27

I wish to be clear with respect to what I‘ve asked of you in regard to the workers‘ compensation decision unfavourable to me. I have simply asked you, being vested with Ministerial authority, to seek the relevant information and pass on to me what your public interest view would be if my claim of the workers‘ compensation decision having been skewed as a result of the evidence given by those people who are currently subject to the Police Service investigation, is proven. As I believe massive public resources have been expended thus far in suppressing my public interest claim, I don‘t believe it would make sense if further resources are unnecessarily expended in achieving a correction.

6.1.04 - The subject heading of my letter to Minister MacTiernan was as follows:

 Clarification of the Hon Jim Scott‟s questions without notice in the Legislative Council 9.12.03; and  Opportunity for you to table as little as a „post-it-note‟ that may represent evidence negating my claim and thus end the enormous consumption of public resources since 1995 as noted by Hon Cheryl Edwardes in the Legislative Assembly 10.9.03

3.11.04 – My letter to Minister MacTiernan, included advice of a petition made to the Premier regarding Parliament being misled by Transport‟s advice on 4.5.04 that they‟d addressed my claim. The petition was supported by the following individuals:

Hon C Edwardes, Member for Kingsley Mr D North - Vic Pk/Carlisle ALP Branch Mr T Reakes - Vic Pk/Carlisle ALP Branch Mr B Game, State Secretary of the CEPU Mr T Daly, State Secretary of the AWU Hon J Scott, Member for Sth Metropolitan Hon K Hodson-Thomas, Member for Carine Hon P Embry, Member for the Sth West

My letter of 3.11.04 to Minister MacTiernan also included the following:

It is my understanding that Hon K Chance has now written to you advising of his ―clear view‖ that is entirely consistent with the second element my public interest claim, being that no officer for the Department ever addressed any aspect of my initial public interest claim or the evidence offered in support on my initiative. I very much appreciate Hon K Chance‘s honesty and integrity in using the term ―victimisation‖ in relation to my effort to make a public interest claim and urging you to achieve a resolution.

A comparison of Q&A No. 2498 of 2004 tabled by Hon Jim Scott and answered by Minister MacTiernan and Q&A No. 2061 of 2005 tabled by Hon Norman Moore and answered by Minister Chance

I submit that this comparison is effectively that of a Minister in government who knowingly engages in misconduct and a Minister in government who acts in the public interest.

As may be seen from the copy of part of Q&A No. 2498 of 2004 at page 24 that was about “the legal practice of keeping all records relating to Mr Winzer's public interest claim”, Minister MacTiernan was asked to acknowledge some simple facts.

It is important to recall my persistence from 2001 in putting consistent document-based advice to Minister MacTiernan and the 2002 record of Minister Chance making 28

representations to Minister MacTiernan on my behalf.

The simple facts Minister MacTiernan was asked by way of Q&A No. 2498 of 2004 to acknowledge concerned Minister Chance‟s 6.9.00 report to Parliament regarding me being harassed at a meeting on 29.1.99 by the Director General of Transport and Transport‟s resident lawyer and the outcome of that meeting being advice as to my failure to substantiate my public interest claim when asked. Minister Chance on 6.9.00, albeit in Opposition at that time, reported that the „failed when asked‟ outcome of the 29.1.99 meeting had been a “twist of the truth”.

The simple facts Minister MacTiernan was asked to acknowledge also concerned the 6.9.00 determination of the “twist of the truth” having been based on the same documents that formed the basis of Minister MacTiernan‟s response on 4.5.04 to Hon J Scott‟s question. Minister MacTiernan on 4.5.04

The facts were irrefutable. With regard to Q&A No. 2498 of 2004 Minister MacTiernan was effectively „snookered‟ by those facts and was consequently faced with the choice of giving a „yes‟ answer or maintaining the suppression of my disclosure and the campaign of abuse I was subjected to.

Rather than „yes‟ the answer Minister MacTiernan resorted to was that she was “not prepared to devote the resources necessary to respond to these allegations” (emphasis added).

Despite the fact that in 2004 Minister Chance, as he did in 2002, made representations to Minister MacTiernan on my behalf she again chose to maintain the suppression of my disclosure and the campaign of abuse I was subjected to

I submit that Q&A No. 2061 of 2005, in that it confirms that Minister MacTiernan knew the situation in exact terms, constitutes a confirmation of her decision to maintain the suppression of my disclosure and the campaign of abuse of which I was the target. Q&A No. 2061 of 2005 includes Minister Chance‟s simple „yes‟ answer to parts (a) and (b) of question (9) as follows:

Consequently, I submit this comparison clearly shows a Minister in government knowingly engaged in misconduct and a Minister in government acting in the public interest.

I again draw your attention to the advice given by the Commonwealth Attorney-General as to what constitutes misconduct in public office: The most obviously culpable state of mind is no doubt an intention to cause the injurious result, but knowing disregard of an appreciated and unacceptable risk of causing an injurious result or a deliberate closing of the mind to such risk would be readily acceptable as culpable also. It is clearly blameworthy to take an obvious and significant risk of causing injury to another. But it is not clearly blameworthy to do something involving a risk of injury to another if one does not genuinely perceive the risk.

My submission to the Australian Crime Commission on 15.2.07 began as follows:

Dear Mr Milroy Further to my 6.2.07 appeal for the protection of the Australian Crime Commission In my letter of 6.2.07 to you I advised of my efforts since 1999 to ask Western Australian authorities to afford me the status of a protected witness. Today I emphasise that it is critical that my appeal to the ACC for protection be considered in the context of a public interest matter. The WA authorities I have complained about have I believe always responded to my requests as though they were responding to either:

 a threat to the reputation of an individual or the public sector as a whole; or

 an attempt on my part to achieve some sort of personal gain. (emphasis added)

On 12.6.07 Hon Paddy Embry in submitting to the Parliamentary Inspector that the Police had reported falsely on what he had said in providing support for the disclosure I‟d initiated argued that proper attention would “also give justice to Neil Winzer and his family who have suffered so much for so long.”

In mid-2007, shortly after Hon Paddy Embry‟s 12.6.07 contribution noted above, Hon Jim Scott MLC made a lengthy and strongly-worded submission to the Parliamentary Inspector which, as a matter of procedure, should have been provided to Mr Roberts-Smith QC. I provided Mr Roberts-Smith QC with a copy on 7.4.08. Hon Jim Scott‟s submission included:

Mr Winzer has suffered loss and considerable stress because he tried to do what he considered his duty as a public servant. The aforementioned 2004 advice from Minister Chance to then Premier Geoffrey Gallop also included:

Mr Winzer's current predicament - loss of employment at DOT, loss of employment as a Public Servant, impaired mental and physical health and associated stressors on family life - directly flow from these initial claims, and his former employer's response to them

The value of Minister Chance‘s 2004 advice to then Premier Gallop could not be legitimately discounted on the grounds that it was provided after the interviews conducted by to Det Sgt Mansas. On 6 September 2000 as Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Administration, then Hon K Chance reported to Parliament as to ―harassment‖ and the Department having constructed a ―twist of the truth‖ in regard to their efforts to address the public interest claim.

Alarmed by the advice, provided on 28.5.08 by the CCC officer that conducted the interview I attended, as to the CCC not having a copies of the submissions of Embry, Scott and Chance, my explicitly-worded letter of 30.5.08 was addressed jointly to the McCusker and Roberts- 30

Smith. This is an important letter in regard to my claim as to the collaboration of McCusker and Roberts-Smith in a cover-up and therefore I will return to it below.

2008

My 30.4.08 letter to all Members of Parliament included the following:

I‘ve always emphasised the importance of documentation and that the ‗Winzer failed when asked to substantiate his claim‘ advice was false. For example, my letter of 23.11.99 to the Premier included: Because Transport have never responded to my claims by way of a written or verbal explanation, they have to be committed in the workers‘ compensation forum to a verbal, personal attack upon me. The only documentation in this vein to assist them will be that covering a range of accusations and threats which of course they would have followed through with if they had been able to.

I would argue that it was due to my claim of misconduct against the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure that the CCC did not by any measure address my claim of abuse when I was formally interviewed (The CCC claimed that the recording device had failed at the first interview and I subsequently forced a repeat interview). The CCC‟s file notes of the first interview on 28.5.08 enable verification of the fact that I expressed my concerns, including:

In conclusion, Mr Winzer emphasised that his overriding concern was his employment status and his wish to have that matter resolved in his favour. DR (Dave Robinson for the CCC) advised Mr Winzer that the Commission‘s focus is on the PI‘s [Parliamentary Inspector] referral and more specifically the question of whether there is any evidence of misconduct.

Emphasis is warranted as to the fact that the report of 14.8.08 signed by Mr Roberts- Smith QC was totally devoid of any reference to the claim of misconduct in public office I made against the Minister for Transport or any other mention of abuse.

Mr Gavin Waugh and Mr Andrew Downes, former colleagues of mine at Transport, on 30.5.08 and 31.5.08 respectively complained to Mr Roberts-Smith QC that their submissions in support of the public interest claim I initiated had not been addressed. Their concerns were not subsequently addressed by Mr Mr Roberts-Smith QC.

Mr Trevor Reakes and Mr Damian North in separate submissions dated 31.5.08 to Mr Mr Roberts-Smith QC complained that their submissions to the Parliamentary Inspector in support of the public interest claim I initiated had not been addressed. Mr Reakes and Mr North had a combined 30-year history of Australian Labour Party membership. Their ALP Branch was in the electorate of Premier Gallop. Based on the personal relationship Mr Reakes had developed with the Premier as an active member and election campaigner, he made attempts through a range of avenues to advise the Premier that he, the Premier, was being misled in regard to my disclosure. After approximately two years of failed attempts to have the Premier address those concerns, Mr Reakes and Mr North made separate submissions to the Parliamentary Inspector. Although their submissions were worded differently, both were headed as follows:

Our claim  former Premier Geoffrey Gallop knowingly allowed the interests of senior advisors and public servants to override the interests of the WA public

Mr Mr Roberts-Smith QC did not subsequently address the concerns expressed by Mr Reakes and Mr North.

I made three submissions from 29.10.08 to the Inquiry Into Whistleblowing Protections Within the Australian Government Public Sector conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. In essence, I submitted that the record of my experience in making a disclosure constituted proof that there is not an accountability regime in place in WA and I had been denied protection. My submission was posted at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/laca/whistleblowing/subs.htm .

On numerous occasions over the years I had sent open letters to all the Members of the WA Parliament. My letter of 15.9.09 is particularly noteworthy in that Hon Michael Mischin MLC, now the Attorney-General, responded to it and subsequently provided a letter to Premier Barnett dated 18.11.09 which I strongly contend was extremely supportive regarding the argument I put to all the Members of Parliament on 15.9.09.

Firstly, before turning to detail of my 15.9.09 letter and Hon M Mischin‟s 18.11.09 letter, I ask you to recall my statement in the 24.4.14 covering letter to my submission to the References Committee as to my hope of drawing attention to the simple and verifiable data regarding the advice I put to Premier Court on 23.11.99 that “Transport [my employing department] have never responded to my claims by way of a written or verbal explanation”. With that recollection you will recognise that in writing to all the Members of the WA Parliament on 15.9.09 my hope was to draw attention to the simple and verifiable data. I began on 15.9.09 as follows: To all the Members of the Western Australian Parliament

 In the administration of the public interest claim I initiated the Corruption and Crime Commission has proven to be a corrupt agency and integral to a systemic problem

 My action in providing relevant information to individuals and bodies responsible for either awarding or the employment of those encompassed by the public interest claim Please consider the evidence and not simply listen to others who say this is purely an individual‘s gripe and not about the cover-up of a public interest claim in regard to the involvement of officers of the Department of Transport in fraud, misappropriation, falsification of records, abuse of office and perjury. I‘m arguing that your assessment as to the integrity of the Corruption and Crime Commission can be made as easily as it is to read the seven points I‘ve set out in the following two pages. Surely it is in the public interest that you read these two pages. My hope is, if you identify the situation as I expect you will, you will assist me in my continuing efforts to be granted a meeting at which an explanation for this situation will be provided. As a number of you may recall, I‘ve written to all the Members of the Western Australian Parliament many times. I refer to my letters of 30.4.08 and 13.5.08 in particular. My hope then, that I now understand to have been extremely naïve, was to put the CCC on notice in regard to the public interest necessity for a thorough and objective investigation. I was interviewed at the CCC on 28.5.08 and 17.7.08. My letter of 30.4.08 to all the Members of the Western Australian Parliament included:

Based on the available record of the CCC‘s performance in 2004 and 2007-8 in this matter I submitted to the Commissioner on 9.4.08 as follows: I believe there are many, many indicators as to the intention of your agency to do what all the other so-called ‗appropriate independent agencies‘ have done in regard to the public interest claim I initiated formally in 1998. That is, refuse to acknowledge the truth when faced with it. My letter of 13.5.08 to all the Members of the Western Australian Parliament included: For the reasons I explained in my letter of 30.4.08, I am confident that under transparent and accountable conditions I will be able to gain the CCC‘s acknowledgement as to the Parliament having been misled on 4.5.04 by DPI‘s ‗Winzer failed when asked to substantiate his claim‘ pattern of advice. Not only have the CCC refused to acknowledge the truth when faced with it, they have constructed their own ‗twists of the truth‘, particularly in regard to the ‗Winzer failed when asked to substantiate his claim‘ / ‗the claim has already been addressed‘ pattern of advice. Please note that the information critical to this pattern of false advice is that inextricably linked with:

 the meeting of 29.1.99 I was obliged to attend with Mr Michael Harris, then Director General of Transport, and Mr Mark Bodycoat, then Transport‘s in-house solicitor; and

 my persistent and consistent requests for Transport to be obliged to provide documents in order to substantiate their claim as to a ‗Winzer‘s claim has been addressed‘ / ‗Winzer failed when asked to substantiate his claim‘ outcome to the 29.1.99 meeting. Despite my efforts to put the CCC on notice as to the importance of transparency and accountability those conditions were not provided; the WA public were denied. Malcolm McCusker QC subsequently endorsed the CCC‘s performance.

I wrote on the day after our meeting providing copies of a range of documents in accordance with the Hon M Mischin‟s request and additional associated documents. Given that the Hon M Mischin was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney General when Hon K Chance and I met with him on 7.10.09 and had been a prosecutor with the State Solicitor‟s Office he must be given credit for having the skills necessary for assessing evidence made available to him, including the following:

 (WORD.doc Chance13)  Report to the Parliament given by Kim Chance MLC as the Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Administration, including information on the meeting I was obliged to attend on 29.1.99 in the office of the then Director General, Michael Harris;

 (WORD.doc Mischin1)  Examples of my claims of perjury that I believe have been proven as a consequence of the CCC‘s findings;

 (WORD.doc CCC9x)  List of my claims of perjury; and

I believe that the position the Hon M Mischin took, based on an assessment of what I told him on 7.10.09 and the data I provided the next day was honest and supportive of a resolution. I note in particular the following extracts from the Hon M Mischin‟s letter of 18.11.09 to Premier Barnett:

 “Mr Winzer‘s claims of constructive dismissal and victimisation over more than ten years – and peripheral issues arising from that – have been investigated by some 15 separate government, independent and Parliamentary bodies but no true resolution has so far been reached. From what I can glean, there does appear to be substance in his contention that one or more wrongs have been done to him.‖

 ―On 29 January 1999 he was peremptorily summoned to a meeting with the acting Director General of the Department, Michael Harris, and a lawyer, Mark Bodycoat. He was accused of having promoted or initiated rumours about misconduct in the Department. His answers to questions that had been put to him were mis-recorded or subsequently edited in a way that misrepresented or distorted the course of the conversation.‖

 ―In the interests of justice, I would ask you most earnestly to order a mediation hearing between the relevant departments and Mr Winzer with the view to, finally, finding some common ground and settling the matter once and for all. Mr Winzer, his family and his health deserve this. This needs to be brought to a conclusion. The relevant authorities should be directed to do so by the end of this year.‖

 ―In the meantime, I trust there is some way in which we can finally put this matter to rest. Please advise me of what can be done to cut this Gordian knot. It would be a small, but significant symbol of our Government‘s commitment to do what is right and to solve problems in a timely manner.‖

I emphasise that he had recognised the “wrongs” and agreed with the determination the Hon K Chance had made as to the outcome of the meeting of 29.1.99 being a “twist of the truth”, as was reported to Parliament by the Hon K Chance on 6.9.00.

Certainly the Hon M Mischin, other than saying “as of now, there is no way to definitely prove, or disprove, his claims”, made no attempt to cast doubt of the accuracy of the position reported to Parliament by the Hon K Chance 6.9.00. Furthermore, I contend that the Hon M Mischin‟s 18.11.09 reference to my “answers to questions that had been put to him were mis-recorded or subsequently edited in a way that misrepresented or distorted the course of the conversation” (emphasis added) is a reference to what the Hon K Chance reported to Parliament on 6.9.00 as a “twist of the truth”.

Moreover, I contend that the Hon M Mischin would have, when he provided to Premier Barnett on 18.11.09 the advice that “answers to questions that had been put to him were mis- recorded or subsequently edited in a way that misrepresented or distorted the course of the conversation” he would have at the very minimum been conscious of the item pertaining to Mr Harris in the detailed document headed „Examples of my claims of perjury that I believe have been proven as a consequence of the CCC’s findings‟ I put to him on 8.10.09, including:

MR HARRIS: With respect, we believe we have dealt with each of those issues in correspondence over a period of time. The fact that there is a disagreement about that is why we‘re in a court to have that determined – as we are in other jurisdictions to have other issues determined. ( WorkCover:pp1584-5)

I say, the Hon K Mischin gave his 18.11.09 advice to Premier Barnett having recognised that testimony as constituting perjury as it was in gross conflict with the CCC‟s findings:

As part of it (sic) enquiries into this matter, the Commission examined the files held by the DPI [Department for Planning and Infrastructure / Transport] in relation to Mr Winzer‘s public interest claim but was unable to locate any detailed responses to his claim.

Again I ask you to recall my statement in the 24.4.14 covering letter to my submission to the References Committee as to my hope of drawing attention to the simple and verifiable data and the package I‟ve provided at page 61 of this submission including detail on the same instance of perjury Hon M Mischin referred to in his 18.11.09 letter to Premier Barnett.

2011 - 12

On 29.4.11 shortly after it had been announced that Malcolm McCusker QC would be the next Governor I attended a mediation session at the State Administrative Tribunal with him regarding my complaint that he‟d intended to mislead the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee. Mr McCusker QC was supported by his lawyer and the LPCC‟s lawyer and I was supported by Hon Max Trenorden MLC.

A significant outcome to that complaint was the LPCC‟s acknowledgement, based on the range of documentary evidence that I provided, that “the CCC did not interview the complainant [Winzer] in respect of his complaint about the police investigation [conflict of interest] and that he had not discussed that complaint when he spoke with Mr Chance” (emphasis added). Detail on the significance, in the context of my complaint against Mr Roberts-Smith QC, of that LPCC acknowledgement is provided below at page 39.

Mr McCusker QC expressed his position at the 29.4.11 mediation session as follows:

 He believe I‟d been “victimised” because of my public interest claim but I had not made a claim of victimisation to him;

 I should be allowed to return to work and that he was prepared to do all you could to help in that regard; and

 As the Parliamentary Inspector he had been obstructed by the “culture” at the CCC.

I had cause to provide an account of what occurred on 29.4.11 mediation session in my letter of 1.6.11 to Governor McCusker, including the following:

You would recall that I demonstrated at our mediation session my determination to take a positive path, if one was open to me, to end all matters associated with the public interest disclosure I initiated. My proposal was that I would withdraw my complaint if you would say something that Mr Trenorden could translate, with the assistance of others, into an arrangement whereby I could as a priority return to a job in the public sector. I also said that while I was strongly of the view that the return of the pay I‘ve been denied over the past ten years was a reasonable request, I understood that more time may be required in that regard.

Mr Trenorden advised you that he had already begun the groundwork for that positive objective. He explained that he was working with a senior officer of my Department, Transport, who had no prior involvement with me and had no bias. At Transport‘s expense I had been interviewed by Prof Paul Skerritt as to my mental fitness to return to work.

I recall that, almost immediately, you advised that it was your view that I had been victimised but I had not made that claim. You later said that you agreed that I should be allowed to return to work and that you were prepared to do all you could to help. (emphasis added)

With encouragement to withdraw the matter VR 206 of 2010 ‗on the spot‘, I did so.

The positivity was maintained by Transport advising me on 2.5.11 that Prof Skerritt had reported that I was fit to return to work and ―On this basis, we are currently reviewing the vacant positions available within the Department at Level 5.‖ 35

Unfortunately, for all concerned, the Transport officer with whom Mr Trenorden was working suddenly and unexpectedly died.

Unfortunately for me, Mr Reece Waldock, an Executive Director at Transport when I initiated the disclosure and now the Director General, has taken over the administration of my employment and in my view, returned to the campaign of victimisation. Mr Waldock must be conscious of his conflict of interest in that he was advised on the past occasions I made complaints against him.

Furthermore, I had cause to email him later as follows:

With the expectation that you would be winding up your practice, my request was only for you to approach one of you colleagues. I asked for ―your help in gaining the assistance of a legal practitioner on a pro bono basis to return this situation to a positive footing.‖ Mr Trenorden and Mr Chance are doing their best but are not expressing optimism. You spoke during our mediation session of the problem of ―culture‖ you were confronted with as the Parliamentary Inspector. This is effectively the problem I face with Mr Waldock. My situation is desperate. I feel you are in a position to help, as you offered during our mediation session.

I was bitterly disappointed with Mr McCusker‟s response of 10.6.11, as follows:

I have approached several "colleagues" but none is prepared to take on this matter for you, I'm afraid it really calls for political intervention, rather than a "legal" approach, so I do hope Messrs Chance & Trenorden will prevail with Mr Waldock.

I simply did not believe Mr McCusker would not have been able to influence one of his colleagues to help and I was left with his argument as to “political intervention” being at odds with the advice Transport provided on 19.5.11 to the Parliament as to the need for me “to seek independent legal advice.”

It is, I believe, a matter of further concern that Mr Waldock, the current Director General of Transport whose perjury features in the package at page 61, was responsible for that advice of 19.5.11 to the Parliament in response to Question on Notice No. 3772 tabled by the Hon Giz Watson. That question included:

(5) According to statute and procedure, could a public interest claim in 1999 be addressed in any way other than in writing? (6) Would a similar public interest claim when made under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2003 be likely to have a similar outcome?

Mr Waldock‟s answer to those two parts of the question was as follows:

(5 - 6) This is a legal matter for which Mr Winzer will need to seek independent legal advice.

Hon M Trenorden was of the view that it had been a mistake to think that public servants would recognise the significance of Governor McCusker at the 29.4.11 mediation conference being released from my complaint about him misleading the LPCC and the significance of his (Governor McCusker‟s) “victimisation” acknowledgement and act to agree to my request to be allowed to return to work. Regarding the 29.4.11 mediation conference Hon M Trenorden 36 wrote to the Public Sector Commissioner, Mr Malcolm Wauchope, on 16.11.11, including the following:

I met with the State Administration Tribunal in a hearing with the current Governor and his assistants (before he was appointed), misrepresented Mr Winzer because I believed foolishly that there was an attempt to resolve this matter.

Malcolm McCusker QC stated that he believed Neil Winzer had been unfairly treated and I encouraged Mr Winzer to drop his case against McCusker, which in hindsight was a mistake, given the current climate.

There is no excuse for the unbelievable delays in resolving these issues for Neil Winzer and one way or the other it must be bought to a head.

Hon M Trenorden on 9.8.11 made a lengthy statement about the abuse I was subjected to, including:

Mr Winzer is still on the records as being employed by the Department of Transport. He has not received a pay cheque for 10 years, but he is still on the department‘s record as an employee. Why has his matter not been dealt with? I will put it to members bluntly: because he blew the whistle, he is a person to be punished! I do not want to make any comment at all about whether he was right or wrong in the issues that he raised. All that we need to know is that he believed totally in the issues that he raised. But right now this man‘s position remains unresolved. His life is in turmoil—absolute turmoil. I fear for this man. He rings me twice a day. His life is in a mess.

Hon Max Trenorden on 22.9.11 in debate on the report entitled Analysis of Recommended Reforms to the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 tabled by the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission made the following statements about the CCC that clearly, given the lag-time of the report, applied to the performance of Mr Roberts-Smith QC:

It took Hon M Trenorden longer than ten minutes to make his point in the Legislative Council on 27.11.12; beginning as follows:

I do not think I will take 10 minutes, so other people may be able to use the time. On Tuesday, 5 November this year, Hon Robin Chapple asked a question of the Leader of the House representing the Premier about a Mr Winzer. This is a long ongoing saga in this chamber. People in this chamber have been involved with Mr Winzer for many, many years and the situation is just disgusting. I will not mess around; it is just disgusting that the public service has not dealt with this matter. It is beyond comprehension that for 10 years this matter has not been dealt with.

In concluding his comments on 27.11.12 Hon M Trenorden referred to the “club” of public officers that includes Mr Roberts-Smith QC, as follows:

So why has that not happened? Why is there not a mechanism in this state that forces Mr Waldock to do something about it? What does the Public Sector Commissioner do? What does he actually do? I am more than angry about this case. Why has the Public 37

Sector Commissioner not stepped into this case and dealt with it? It is only about 10 years old—that is all! It is simply disgraceful that the Public Sector Commissioner is refusing to act on this issue. It is even more disgraceful that a department head, Mr Waldock, having had a clear message from a professor of psychiatry that this man is capable of work, is not prepared to accept that letter.

I will just go over it again: the only conclusion is that Mr Waldock is going to shop around until he finds a psychiatrist who gives the answer that he is looking for. As Professor Skerritt says, he is seeking information about matters to do with the public service. This Professor Skerritt says that that is none of his business and that he is just saying that this man is capable of doing a work trial. This issue has been reported on by several committees of this house and members have regularly stood and attempted to get some justice for Mr Winzer, but this just cruises on. Just like with Michael Moodie, it just cruises on. You just trample over these people because you have the power, because you are in the club and the club allows you to do what you want. It is just unacceptable. (my emphasis)

I contend that the above information, including that which came into existence after Mr Roberts-Smith QC provided his report on 14.8.08, shows that he was aware of my claim that I was being abused as a consequence of initiating a public interest disclosure before making his report of 14.8.08.

Did grounds exist for Mr Roberts-Smith QC during the entire period of his appointment to the CCC to be aware of my formal claim that he is corrupt and prior to his DART appointment to be aware that the claim had not been addressed let alone resolved?

topic page A. My submissions about the CCC being a corrupt agency while Mr Roberts-Smith 41 QC was Commissioner May 2007 to January 2011

B. Evidence of Mr Roberts-Smith QC, in the period from January 2011 when he left 52 the CCC to 26.11.12 when he was appointed to the DART, being aware that my claim that he was corrupt had not been addressed let alone resolved

It should help if, before referring to some of the history of my claim that the CCC is a corrupt agency and that Mr Roberts-Smith QC as the Commissioner from May 2007 to January 2011 was instrumental to that corruption, I again note my contention as to the three-part strategy employed to affect a cover-up:

1. It was prior to the arrival of Mr Roberts-Smith QC, as may be seen from the Parliamentary Inspector‟s letter of 29.12.06, that the CCC accepted the Police Service argument as to perjury that “it was simply that some matters were in contention between the witnesses and Mr Winzer”;

2. Subsequent to the arrival of Mr Roberts-Smith QC the CCC simply refused my persistent requests for a formal interview and presentation of supporting documentation concerning the claim that the Police acted with a conflict of interest involving the two members of the panel that selected the Police Commissioner; and

3. The CCC, although acknowledging that they didn‟t find a document showing Transport had addressed my claim, argued there was evidence of “discussions”.

Emphasis is warranted as to my view that the centrepiece of the strategy was the refusal of my persistent requests for a formal interview and presentation of supporting documentation concerning the claim that the Police acted with a conflict of interest and it was this concern that formed the basis of my approach to Senator Johnston in 2006. I will provide detail on this below. However, at this point I note that I raised the Police conflict of interest claim with Senator Johnston and Mr McCusker QC on 17.10.06 and 27.12.06 respectively. I provided both of them with a copy of a detailed paper that I believe should be recognised as an important document in the context of my claims of corruption against Governor McCusker and Mr Mr Roberts-Smith QC. The paper begins as follows:

CONSIDERATIONS AS TO THE LEGITIMACY OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER: A GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURES IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA These are times during which with greater frequency we see and hear of cases of wrongdoing in the public and private sectors internationally and within Australia. Not all cases involve an individual perpetrator. Clearly, some cases involve many perpetrators and silent observers. Some cases involve elaborate arrangements. It seems that the public are no longer surprised by what happens. The Enron, Australian Wheat Board, Westpoint and Raynor/Marquet cases come readily to mind.

It is in this context that I believe it is reasonable to suggest there are grounds for discussion as to the legitimacy of the process for the appointment of Karl O‟Callaghan as the Police Commissioner.

My argument is not that Karl O‟Callaghan or anyone else encompassed by my argument is involved in organised crime as it is generally considered.

My argument is, given Mr O‟Callaghan is the highest ranking law enforcement officer in Western Australia and consequently on the Board of the Australian Crime Commission, the process of his selection should have been but was not scrupulous. The selection process was not marked by extreme thoroughness, but rather, it was marked by the inclusion on the panel of Mr Stuart Hicks and Mr Mal Wauchope when it was know that they featured respectively in my public interest claims of public sector corruption and the suppression of my claim of corruption. Indeed, Mr Wauchope was placed in the instrumental position of chair of the selection panel.

Mr Hicks was the Director General of the Department of Transport, now Planning and Infrastructure, when I initially identified the matter that now constitutes the cornerstone of my public interest claim. Mr Hicks resigned as Director General in 1996 and, among other activities, has since worked as a contract consultant to government agencies including the WA Police Service. Mr Wauchope remains to this day, the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

I say that an investigation of my claims against Mr Hicks and Mr Wauchope should have been but was not conducted before they were placed on the selection panel. Certainly the 39 evidence, that I strongly contend supports my claims, wasn‟t investigated by any of the parliamentary committees and so-called „independent authorities‟ to which I‟d previously appealed. What the Western Australian Police Service have cited as an investigation was not concluded until after Mr O‟Callaghan was selected. The Crime and Corruption Commission have advised that neither Mr Hicks nor Mr Wauchope were interviewed by the Police Service.

At a minimum, all my formal submissions in conjunction with the considerable print and electronic media attention must be considered to have made those responsible for the make- up of the panel conscious of the possibility that they would be held accountable for their decision. For example, my advice of 16.7.02 addressed jointly to then Premier Gallop, Attorney General McGinty and then Police Minister Roberts preceded former Commissioner Mathew‟s announcement of his resignation and thus the decision as to who would sit on the selection panel. My 16.7.02 advice began with:

POLICE SERVICE RECOMMENDATION FOR AN INVESTIGATION

The Police Service Offence Report No 110702 1230 5274 containing a recommendation for an investigation of my claim involving fraud, misappropriation, falsification of records and victimisation is a move in the right direction. However, I‘m not sure whether it should be thought of as representing a substitute for an ―examination of evidence by senior legal counsel‖ as suggested to Minister McGinty by Assoc Prof Allan Peachment (5.9.01).

The Police Service recommendation is clearly legitimate, long overdue and in the interest of justice should be free of interference. Those involved, such as Mr Hicks, Mr Saunders and Mr Wauchope should bear the test of evidence despite their utility to the Government.

My argument is that when there was more than sufficient reason for caution in regard to the make-up of the panel and the obvious option of alternatives to Hicks and Wauchope existed, no caution was exercised.

Everybody is entitled to the presumption of innocence until they are proven guilty. However, for the integrity of the selection process to be upheld and for it to be seen that the integrity of the process was being upheld, the evidence offered in support of my claims should have been fully tested and to have been seen to have been fully tested before Mr Hicks and Mr Wauchope were allocated places on the panel. Clearly, the sequence of events was critical.

The possibility of public detriment associated with the selection process should be considered. My brief comment is that, given the power and influence that goes with the positions held by Mr Wauchope and Mr O‟Callaghan, there is scope for ends to be reached that are not in the public interest. I note that Mr Wauchope had also previously chaired the panel for the selection of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner and Ombudsman. In the case of Mr Hicks I suggest there are questions that need to be answered as to whether the extensive contracts for his service at WAPOL including a role on the WAPOL Corporate Executive Team constitute a benefit derived by him as a result of his influence on the selection of Mr O‟Callaghan.

Would Mr O‟Callaghan‟s appointment be invalidated if within the scope of my public interest claim it was now found that a crime had been committed by Mr Hicks and/or Mr Wauchope?

I ask the References Committee, that in considering the documentation I refer to below concerning the CCC being a corrupt agency while Mr Roberts-Smith QC was Commissioner, to note that my claim that the Police acted with a conflict of interest remained central.

Consequently, I „flag‟ the 30.9.10 acknowledgement of the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee, without wanting to discount the value of the documents I refer to in chronological order in getting to it. The LPCC on 30.9.10 acknowledged the following:

The Committee considers that the statements in the practitioner‘s [McCusker] letter dated 16 November 2009 were general statements made by the practititioner in response to the complaint as a whole and without recourse to the Parliamentary Inspector‘s files. The Committee considers that, in making the statements, over 12 months after the various events upon which upon which the complainant [Winzer] relies, the practitioner may have overlooked or forgotten those events and may not have remembered that the CCC did not interview the complainant [Winzer] in respect of his complaint about the police investigation and that he had not discussed that complaint when he spoke with Mr Chance. In the circumstances, the Committee does not believe that the practitioner intended to mislead the Committee when he made the statements in the letter dated 16 November 2009 and the Committee was not misled by those statements. (emphasis added)

While that 30.9.10 LPCC acknowledgement, based on submissions I made to the LPCC, represented progress towards the truth it „overlooked‟ the fact that Mr McCusker QC had access to the files when he was the Parliamentary Inspector on 30.10.08 and advised me on as follows:

I see no point whatsoever in our having a meeting, and I must say that despite the length of your letter of September 2008 I am unable to discern any new issue, not already considered, that it raises. For example, your claim that the WA Police Force acted when it had a conflict of interest is one which the CCC has considered and in my opinion has properly rejected. (my emphasis)

Of course Mr McCusker QC knew a “consideration” without the documents I wanted to present at the formal interview I was requesting could not be the basis of legitimate opinion as to “properly rejected”.

However, Mr McCusker QC in referring my letter of 9.11.09 to the LPCC which was unambiguously about my claim as to the Police Service having acted with a conflict of interest, on 16.11.09 he misled the LPCC on two counts:

Count one - in part (b) of his letter of 16.11.09 he advised: I understand that at my request the CCC did in fact interview Mr Winzer, and reviewed the position previously taken by the Commission with regard to Mr Winzer‘s complaints.

The CCC had never interviewed me regarding my claim as to the Police Service having acted with a conflict of interest as can be determined from the 30.10.08 advice of Mr MCusker QC to me. The records show the CCC had repeatedly rejected my request for such an interview.

Count two - in part (c) of his letter of 16.11.09 he advised: I did in fact, as Parliamentary Inspector, meet with the Honorable Kim Chance on an earlier occasion, to discuss Mr Winzer‘s complaints regarding the CCC‘s investigation of the complaints made to it by Mr Winzer. Having finally completed my investigation of Mr 41

Winzer‘s complaints, in 2008, I could see nothing to be gained by a further interview with Mr Chance.

The point that warrants emphasis here is that the LPCC‟s 30.9.10 advice was given in response to the range of documentary evidence provided by me and, in addition, the statutory declaration of a friend who attended the CCC with me, Mr Ian Ainsworth, Mr MCusker QC and the letter to the LPCC from Hon K Chance confirming that, although he had met with Mr MCusker QC on my behalf on an early occasion, on no occasion had he discussed my Police conflict of interest claim with him.

Consequently, there is not the slightest reason for doubting the accuracy of the LPCC‟s 30.9.10 advice that “the CCC did not interview the complainant [Winzer] in respect of his complaint about the police investigation ….” (my emphasis)

A. My submissions about the CCC being a corrupt agency while Mr Roberts-Smith QC was Commissioner May 2007 to January 2011

I submit that it would have been a matter of procedure that Mr Roberts-Smith QC when he started at the CCC in May 2007 would have been made aware at least of my ongoing complaints about the agency, including my submission of 3.4.07 addressed jointly to the Premier, the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs, Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission and the A/Commissioner, Corruption and Crime Commission, beginning as follows:

Dear Premier and other involved parties

 Registration of my objection to the situation I would face at the CCC in my attempt to achieve an open and accountable investigation; and

 Call for an inquiry to make public what meets the definition of public interest information The Corruption and Crime Commission‘s letter to me of 27.3.07 and the letter of 23.3.07 from then Commissioner Hammond to Malcolm McCusker QC are attached. I hereby register my objection, in the strongest possible terms, to this situation that I face as a public servant who has been trying since 1998 to achieve an open and accountable investigation of a public interest disclosure. Most recently, my appeals for a public inquiry to be conducted by the CCC have been ignored. The following is a brief outline of my grounds for objection:

That submission of 3.4.07 concluded as follows:

The bulk of the public interest disclosure that I contend should be deemed public interest information that should be ventilated by way of a public inquiry, includes: 1. Other than my claim of perjury associated with Mr Harris‘ position as to the existence of ―documents – letters‖, approximately 19 claims ranging from fraud, perjury and abuse of office to falsification of records; 2. The contracting of psychiatrists by DPI and the utility of our grossly dysfunctional workers‘ compensation system to suppress the public interest disclosure; 42

3. The agreement struck between a union and a State authority not to investigate the disclosure; 4. The sanitisation of a Police Service road traffic report. This is a particularly interesting item given the current WA road death toll and the calls for an overhaul of the Road Safety Council; 5. The failure of all the so-called ‗appropriate independent authorities‘ to investigate. In particular, I draw your attention to my claim that former Premier Gallop knowingly allowed the interests of certain senior advisors and public servants to override the interests of the public of Western Australia in regard to my disclosure; and 6. The Western Australian Police Service having acted with a conflict of interest in order to shield Mr Stuart Hicks against whom I have claims of fraud, abuse of office and perjury. I hope that somebody accepts the responsibility to respond by addressing my request for a public inquiry rather than just suggesting that now the matter is with the CCC it is strictly for their decision. Yours sincerely

My submission dated 4.1.07 to the Australian Crime Commission, while preceding the appointment of Mr Mr Roberts-Smith QC to the CCC, represented an element of my attempts long after 4.1.07 to gain the support of a Federal agency regarding the Federal implications of the failure of the WA authorities to address the simple and verifiable data such as that I‟ve provided to the References Committee (see at page 61). A key argument that I put to the ACC concerned the evidence underpinning my claim as to the WA Police Service having acted with a conflict of interest. Because the WA Police Service had failed to investigate the claims of corruption I‟d made against two of the members of the panel that selected Mr O‟Callaghan to be the Commissioner, there was the possibility that a member of the Board of the ACC, Commissioner O‟Callaghan, constituted a security risk.

During 2007 I appealed to every Federal agency that was represented on the Board of the ACC including the Federal Police, Australian Commissioner for Law Enforcement Integrity and Office of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security. I submit there can be no doubt, while I did not as I recall courtesy copy these appeals to Mr Mr Roberts-Smith QC, that he was not made aware via one channel or another.

The 27.9.07 reply I received from IGIS was indicative of the lack of progress I made, as follows: Dear Mr Winzer I am writing to acknowledge receipt of an email which you sent to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Mr Ian Carnell, on 26 September 2007. Mr Carnell is presently overseas and will not be returning to duty until late next week. While I will certainly bring your correspondence to Mr Carnell‘s attention upon his return, having read the material which you forwarded to this office my preliminary view is that the issues you have raised do not fall within the remit of this office, and that there does not appear to be a specialist Commonwealth agency with appropriate jurisdiction to pursue the matters you wish to raise. Although I am not aware of the material you wish to adduce, the correspondence which you attached to your letter to Mr Carnell suggests that the matters you wish to raise are intrinsically state-based in nature and would be best handled by a competent state based authority in Western Australia. I appreciate that the person you have raised concerns about sits on the board of the Australian Crime Commission (ACC), and that the ACC is a multi-jurisdictional body with 43

significant Commonwealth level inputs, and it is for this reason (amongst others) that you are seeking intervention/investigation by a Commonwealth body. The most logical body to deal with concerns about the ACC is the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI). I note from your correspondence that you have already approached the Integrity Commissioner (i.e. the head of ACLEI) and been advised that ACLEI does not have any jurisdiction with respect to the ACC Board. I have no reason to doubt this advice. This being so, you would appear to have few other options available at the Commonwealth level, other than to make a direct approach to the Minister with responsibility for the ACC, namely the Minister for Justice, the Attorney-General (who is the senior Minister in the Attorney-General‘s portfolio), or to the Prime Minister. I note that you have already written directly to the Minister for Justice and the Prime Minister. If any of the above Ministers are unable or unwilling to assist you, for whatever reason, the only alternative I can suggest which you appear not to have exhausted would be to approach the Western Australian Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations (this is the formal title of the person who performs the functions of the WA Ombudsman). The WA Parliamentary Commissioner/Ombudsman is an independent officer of the Western Australian parliament. The role and functions of this office are set out at http://www.ombudsman.wa.gov.au. While this office does not appear to have the capacity to assist you directly, I trust that the above information is of some assistance to you. Please be assured that if the Inspector-General has any additional comments to make following his return to duty, we will contact you either via email, or at the address you have provided to us. Yours sincerely Neville Bryan Principal Investigation Officer Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security 27 September 2007

On 2.10.07 my frustration with the situation took the form of a mail-out that was courtesy copied to the WA Premier and Opposition Leader, as follows:

Commissioner Andrew P Scipione New South Wales Police Force Dear Commissioner Scipione Having made exhaustive enquiries I am now putting to each member of the Board of the Australian Crime Commission my request to be allowed to conduct a presentation of the evidence I believe supports my claim that Western Australian Police Commissioner Karl O‘Callaghan has, or may have had, engaged in corrupt conduct. I made detailed requests of Commissioner O‘Callaghan in 2004 and 2006 for an explanation as to his association with two individuals who the WA Police Service had previously led me to believe were the subject of a criminal investigation. Commissioner O‘Callaghan did not respond to my requests in either 2004 or 2006. The Western Australian authorities I subsequently appealed to, including the Premier and Police Minister, failed to address my request to be allowed to conduct a presentation of my claim. Given the expressed position of the Attorney General of WA that ‗you‘re a part of the problem if you‘re not a part of the solution‘, I contend that Commissioner O‘Callaghan‘s performance should be considered as a corruption issue. 44

Following the media reporting of comments highly critical of Commissioner O‘Callaghan made by the now Federal Minister for Justice, Senator David Johnston, I approached him in regard to the Federal aspects of my claim. I contend that Commissioner O‘Callaghan‘s presence compromises the integrity and professional standards of the Board of the ACC. I did not accept Senator Johnston‘s advice about "problems in investigating the various allegations [I] have made, as the erosion of time casts an undeniable ambiguity over the facts in a number of ways."

I gave up. My Last letter to the Board of the ACC of 5.11.07 concluded as follows: Again, I respectfully request that the ACC Board give direction for an officer to witness my presentation of evidence as to my claim against Commissioner O‘Callaghan, or alternatively, make the recommendation for an open and accountable inquiry be conducted by a WA authority. Yours sincerely Neil Winzer CC Hon Alan Carpenter MLA, Premier Hon Paul Omodei MLA, Leader of the Opposition

However, concerning the simple and verifiable information and the integrity of the Police „investigation‟ I subsequently gained the support of Hon Paul Omodei, the Leader of the Opposition. I note Q&A No. 2926 of 20.10.07 and Q&A No. 2946 of 20.10.07. Q&A No. 2946 of 20.10.07 included the following:

(b) is the Premier aware that the Western Australian Police Service in July 2002 recommended an investigation of official corruption within the DPI; (f) is the Premier aware that the specific documents Mr Winzer requested be tabled at the meeting scheduled between him and the then Director General of DPI are the same documents that are the subject of the investigation recommended in the Parliamentary Inspector‘s report of 29 December 2006 to the Corruption and Crime Commission? Answered on 25 February 2008 (b) No, however, I am advised by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet that correspondence was received from Mr Winzer, dated 16 July 2002, stating that a Western Australian Police Service report recommended an investigation of Mr Winzer's claims. (f) Following Mr Winzer forwarding correspondence to the Department I am aware that the Parliamentary Inspector has recommended that the question to be addressed is whether "Mr Winzer is correct in alleging that no officer of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure ever addressed any aspect of his public interest claim".

In the context of that answer provided 25.2.08 I again stress the importance of the Package at page 61 of this submission in terms of it constituting proof that Mr McCusker QC and Mr Roberts-Smith QC acted corruptly.

Given my submission of 26.7.07 to the Joint Committee on the CCC, courtesy copied to Malcolm McCusker QC as the Parliamentary Inspector for the CCC, I believe it is reasonable to consider that, given his May 2007 appointment to the CCC, Mr Roberts-Smith QC would have been aware of my views. My submission of 26.7.07 began as follows:

Formal complaint against the Corruption and Crime Commission

The Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs advice of 27.6.07 includes the following ―draft recommendations‖:

 That I co-operate fully with the Corruption and Crime Commission in relation to my public interest claim; and 45

 That the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and/or the Minister for Public Sector Management take immediate steps to resolve the issue of my employment.

I cite the Standing Committee‘s first draft recommendation as problematic on the grounds of my formal complaint against the Corruption and Crime Commission. I believe the second draft recommendation must pertain to the Minister for Public Sector Management given my claim of misconduct in public office against the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.

By 7.2.08 my concerns about the CCC had intensified as may be seen from my letter of that date to the Parliamentary Inspector. This is an important record, including:

I strongly contend that the history of this public interest matter confirms my above statement and points to a very corrupt dimension to the administration of this State. The significant ‗attached issues‘ are: 1. My claim that the Police Service acted with a conflict of interest in order to shield Mr Stuart Hicks and Mr Malcolm Wauchope. I say that this claim against the Police Service is supported by the submissions to you from Minister Kim Chance and the former Members of the Legislative Council, Paddy Embry and James Scott as to the Police Service having reported falsely in regard to whether they provided ―supporting evidence of the allegations of corruption or perjury made by Mr Winzer‖ (Parliamentary Inspector‘s 29.12.06 report). 2. Department for Planning and Infrastructure‘s use of psychiatrists in combination with our grossly dysfunctional workers‘ compensation system to suppress the public interest disclosure; 3. The agreement not to investigate the disclosure struck between a Community and Public Sector Union and the Public Sector Standards Commission. In 2000 I submitted a formal and detailed claim against the PSSC to the Estimates and Financial Operations Standing Committee. This agreement was the subject of question on notice No. 2804 tabled on 4.5.04 tabled by the Hon Sue Walker and question on notice No. 2646 tabled 10.12.05 by the Hon Peter Collier; 4. The sanitisation of a Police Service road traffic report. This is a particularly interesting item given the current road death toll; 5. The misconduct in public office claim I submitted on 1.2.08 against Minister Jim McGinty; 6. The misconduct in public office claim I submitted on 18.4.07 against Mr Greg Martin, the former Director General of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure; 7. The misconduct in public office claim I submitted on 18.4.07 against Minister Alannah McTiernan; and 8. The misconduct in public office claim I submitted on 22.9.05 against Mr Geoffrey Gallop, the former Premier. I say that this claim against the former Premier is supported by the statutory declarations of Mr Trevor Reakes and Mr Damien North; Agreeing with the CCC about the value of the WorkCover transcript they noted on 21.1.08, I request that the CCC also obtain the reports that were not released to me that were compiled by investigators contracted by DPI. I have copies of the reports of Western Assessors of 13.4.99 and 21.4.99 that respectively included the comments that ―[I was] generally considered to be a trouble maker‖ and ―[I] had developed an adverse reputation in the department already, by 1997‖. As it is my contention that those comments effectively support my claim as to victimisation, I believe it would assist us in uncovering the truth if the CCC obtain the other reports. There are possibly three further reports, two of which are dated 28.6.99 and 19.7.99.

My advice of 13.3.08 to Mr Roberts-Smith QC, began with my expression of extreme frustration with the fact that by that stage I had been trying for 9 years to have the simple and 46 verifiable data, as specified in my letters to the Parliamentary Inspector, addressed and consequently I referred to the „attached issues‟. My letter of 13.3.08 began as follows:

Please refer to my letters of 7.2.08 and 12.2.08 to the Parliamentary Inspector, copied to you.

My priority is to be released from the experience associated with the public interest claim I effectively initiated in 1995. While that is my priority, I‘m conscious of it not being the time to loose sight of what is in the public interest.

On 9.4.08, based on the record of the CCC‟s 2004 and 2007-8 performance I submitted to the Mr Roberts-Smith QC as follows:

I believe there are many, many indicators as to the intention of your agency to do what all the other so-called ‗appropriate independent agencies‘ have done in regard to the public interest claim I initiated formally in 1998. That is, refuse to acknowledge the truth when faced with it.

It was significant to that account I provided on 9.4.08 to Mr Roberts-Smith QC that I cited the CCC‟s failure in 2004 to address the simple and verifiable evidence I provided and the fact that they had endorsed the performance of the Police Service in having interviewed only one of the officers against whom I made claims, despite my extremely detailed submissions in regard to more than ten officers. During 2007-8, the CCC had also rejected two of the Parliamentary Inspector‟s recommendations.

I addressed my submission of 30.5.08 jointly to McCusker QC and Mr Roberts-Smith QC: Dear Sirs Accompanied by Minister Kim Chance, Mr Mike McMullan the Minister‘s Chief of Staff and Mr Ian Ainsworth, I met with Mr David Robinson of the CCC on 28.5.08. Having only been able to check with Mr Ian Ainsworth my recollection of what was said and achieved at that meeting, I hereby express my great alarm in regard to Mr Robinson‘s advice on my claim in regard to the WA Police Service investigation. Mr Robinson‘s advice was as follows:

 He does not have copies of the submissions made by the former Members of Parliament, Mr Paddy Embry and Mr James Scott concerning the Police Service report as to them not providing ―any supporting evidence of the allegations of corruption or perjury made by Mr Winzer‖ as noted in the Parliamentary Inspector‘s 29.12.06 report (copies attached); and

 He has no knowledge of Minister Kim Chance having submitted to the Parliamentary Inspector that the Police Service report as to him not providing ―any supporting evidence of the allegations of corruption or perjury made by Mr Winzer‖ as noted in the Parliamentary Inspector‘s 29 December 2006 report, having been at odds with his, Minister Chance‘s, recollection of the outcome of his interview with the Police Service. Because I do not have a copy of Minister Chance‘s submission I wrote to the Parliamentary Inspector on 16.7.07, as attached. My claim is that WAPS acted with a conflict of interest in order to shield Mr Stuart Hicks and Mr Malcolm Wauchope and I believe the submissions of Minister Chance, Mr Embry and Mr Scott constitute strong support for that claim. There are a number of extremely serious dimensions to this claim as detailed in my paper Considerations As To The Legitimacy Of The Appointment Of The Police Commissioner: A Graphic Illustration Of The Administration Of Public Interest Disclosures In Western Australia. 47

On 4.8.08 my submission to Mr Mr Roberts-Smith QC began as follows:

 My claim that the WA Police Service acted with a conflict of interest in order to shield Mr Stuart Hicks and Mr Malcolm Wauchope

 My request for the opportunity at a formal interview to present the evidence I have to support this claim before the report pursuant to the interviews of 28.5.08 and 17.7.08 is finalised

I have not previously put this claim formally to the Corruption and Crime Commission. However, I have in a good number of my previous submissions referred to this claim; most recently in my letter of 23.7.08 to your Mr Robinson.

On 7.8.08 my letter to Mr Roberts-Smith QC began as follows:

This submission is further to my request of 4.8.08 for the opportunity to present at a formal interview the evidence I have to support the claim that the WA Police Service acted with a conflict of interest in relation to the claims I put to them.

That 7.8.08 letter to Mr Roberts-Smith QC also included the following:

I contend that the submissions made to the Parliamentary Inspector by Minister Kim Chance, Mr Embry and Mr Scott amount to damning evidence in regard to the integrity of the WAPS report and should be considered as extremely serious in public interest terms.

Even if the submissions of Minister Chance, Mr Embry and Mr Scott have been read before they warrant further consideration in the context of Mr Robinson‘s acknowledgement that there are no documents to support Mr Harris‘ testimony as to the existence of ―documents – letters‖ showing that the Department for Planning and Infrastructure had addressed the public interest claim.

Minister Chance‘s submission to the Parliamentary Inspector included: I also draw to your attention your comments on page 4 of your 29 December letter to Commissioner Hmmond where you stated in respect to Det. Sgt. Mansas‘ investigation that ―none provided any supporting evidence of the allegations of corruption or perjury made by Mr Winzer.‖ (Attachment1). This is very much at odds with my recollection of my interview with Det. Sgt. Mansas where I referred Det. Sgt. Mansas to evidence that I believe supports Mr Winzer‘s claim, as I had previously done in my statement to Parliament on 6 September 2000 (Attachment 4) and in my letter to Mr Don Saunders, the then Public Sector Standards Commissioner (Attachment5).

Mr Embry‘s submission to the Parliamentary Inspector included:

 I do remember his [Det Sgt Mansas] questions were pre written. He did not want to discuss anything beyond those same questions.

 The terms of reference were so narrow that in reality the interview was a total waste of my time. And: I strongly suspect that Sgt Mansas was given a ‗job to do‘ rather than enquire fully into the whole mater.

Mr Scott‘s submission to the Parliamentary Inspector included: The public record of my statements and questions in Parliament 2002 to 2004 represents my view as to the existence of evidence supporting the public interest disclosure initiated by Neil Winzer. 48

And: If Det Sgt Mansas had chosen to assess my response on the basis of my providing no evidence then he failed to understand that the evidence in this case is the lack of evidence. That is, the lack of evidence by the Department that it had fully or substantially implemented the EBA or evidence that it had written to staff informing them of the shift in the organizational change agenda as stated by Mr Hicks. When I asked for recorded evidence in connection with the matters in contention the Department was unable to provide it. I could not then provide the non existing evidence of guilt or innocence to Det Sgt Mansas. While it may best be described as an exercise in schiamachy my questions, answers and public statements on the public record do provide proof that the Department cannot show that it adequately dealt with Mr Winzer‘s public interest claim. And: I ask that you seriously consider my concerns that the report provided by Det Sgt Mansas did not point out that the Department continually failed to provide evidence that it dealt with Mr Winzer‘s claim. Manzas (sic) also seemed to accept at face value that the EBA conditions were substantially met despite significant deficiencies in meeting important targets.

With respect, I submit that the reasons why WAPS adopted a ―no substantive criminal offence‖ position are obvious and that an investigation in the public interest is warranted.

I made a submission on 20.11.08 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs conducting the Inquiry into whistleblowing protections within the Australian Government public sector. My contention is that Mr Roberts-Smith QC was made aware of this submission by way of my open letters to all Members of Parliament eg. the open letter dated 15.9.09. My submission on 20.11.08 began as follows:

 Inquiry into whistleblowing protections within the Australian Government public sector

 Appearance of Commissioner Len Roberts-Smith before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity on 17.11.08

By way of my submissions of 29.10.08 and 12.11.08 to you I put the contention that the WA Corruption and Crime Commission works to an agenda without the public interest as the priority and furthermore, it is a corrupt agency. By way of my submissions I argued that Malcolm McCusker QC, the Parliamentary Inspector of the CCC, does not have enough power to make the CCC accountable. Consequently, I am greatly alarmed by what Commissioner Len Mr Roberts-Smith QC has stated publicly in regard to his submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee. A copy of the ABC report posted 17.11.08 is attached.

I‘ve also submitted to you that as a result of the combination of the above factors, as a ‗whistleblower‘ I have been denied protection, a whole range of disadvantages have been imposed on the Western Australian public and an issue of national security has been created in that the Board of the Australian Crime Commission has a member who has, or may have had, engaged in corrupt conduct.

You are no doubt aware of the public bickering over the last year or so between Len Mr Roberts-Smith QC and Malcolm McCusker QC about who has what power.

It is my opinion that it is evident from the content and process of that bickering that neither Roberts-Smith nor McCusker have the public interest in mind. If they had the public interest in mind they would have agreed on a way forward well before now.

I also made a submission on 24.11.08 to the Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity that was conducting their Inquiry Into Law Enforcement Integrity Models headed as follows:

 Untrue submissions provided by Len Mr Roberts-Smith QC and Malcolm McCusker QC to your Inquiry into Law Enforcement Integrity Models

 Lack of accountability in Western Australia in regard to disclosures of corruption

 ACLIE unable to respond to my request for assistance in 2007 with a problem concerning the Board of the Australian Crime Commission resulting from the lack of accountability in WA

That 24.11.08 submission to the Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity was noted as No. 21 and categorised as confidential on their Internet site. In essence, I submitted that on 17.11.08 that the Mr Roberts-Smith QC and Mr McCusker QC provided untrue submissions to the Inquiry into Law Enforcement Integrity Models. The media had reported that the CCC of WA advised that the Parliamentary Inspector has too much power and the Parliamentary Inspector advised that the current law enforcement integrity model in Western Australia works. I submitted that the CCC works to an agenda that is not in the public interest and the Parliamentary Inspector does not have enough power.

I disseminated advice widely as to my 24.11.08 submission to the Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.

The 4.6.09 submission I made to Mr C Steytler, the Parliamentary Inspector, conveyed advice as to the submission Hon K Chance made on 29.5.09 to the Joint Standing Committee on the CCC. Although the primary focus of Hon K Chance‟s advice was Mr McCusker QC, that advice can be clearly seen as highly critical of Mr Mr Roberts-Smith QC, as follows:

While the committee has stated that the Parliamentary Inspector‘s attendance to the matter was ―painstaking and thorough‖ this view of his performance cannot be supported by any examination of the facts relating to the clear conflict of the evidence provided by then Transport Director General Harris to the effect that the matters raised by Mr. Winzer had been responded to ―in every issue‖ and the later finding by the CCC that this was not the case. Quite simply the Parliamentary Inspector‘s response has been to permit this clear contradiction to stand even though there is every reason to believe that Parliament has been deliberately misled in the process. Only one version of the truth in this matter can be correct, yet the Parliamentary Inspector‘s report takes us nowhere in terms of finding a resolution even towards the correction of the record. Similarly, the clear disparities in the issue of the matters that were discussed at the crucial meeting of 29/01/99 are unaddressed in any way. I have already raised with the committee my concerns that the reports of what happened at this meeting, which lies at the very centre of the whole Winzer issue, are contradictory and deliberately misleading. Put simply, the records provide contradictory information. Either the CCC report on this matter of 14/08/2008 is correct, or the Parliamentary record is correct, but both cannot be correct, yet the Parliamentary Inspector‘s report just glosses over this conflict, how is that either ―painstaking‖ or ―thorough‖? And: Rather than dealing properly with the matters properly raised by Mr.Winzer, something that could have easily been achieved, the department chose to isolate and destroy him and the issues that have followed since then have essentially been contrived to blur the original and quite simple facts. 50

Since that time Mr.Winzer has not been paid and has incurred debts in attempting to address the resulting issues. Your committee can be a part of the answer. The matter he has raised is not just about him, there are a range of systemic issues here that I believe go to the heart of the integrity of our system of public administration. I ask the committee to look again at the clear inconsistencies that I have referred to in my letter and in my preceding correspondence and which the Parliamentary Inspector‘s report appeared to ignore. Yours sincerely

As noted above, on numerous occasions over the years I had sent open letters to all the Members of the WA Parliament. I referred to at pages 31 to 33 my letter of 15.9.09 that motivated Hon K Mischin to write to Premier Barnett. That 15.9.09 letter was headed as follows:

 In the administration of the public interest claim I initiated the Corruption and Crime Commission has proven to be a corrupt agency and integral to a systemic problem

 My action in providing relevant information to individuals and bodies responsible for either awarding or the employment of those encompassed by the public interest claim

That 15.9.09 letter, in addition to the paragraphs referred to at pages 31 to 32 featured my complaint as to the Police having acted with a conflict of interest, as follows:

7. Refusing to allow me to present the documentation I have offered has been the CCC‘s simple strategy for withstanding my claim that WAPS failed to conduct a genuine investigation in order to shield Mr Stuart Hicks and Mr Malcolm Wauchope. The importance of the WAPS and CCC documentation and the sequence of events cannot be overstated. It can be clearly seen that pursuant to Det Sgt Gwilliam‘s recommendation for an investigation of ―official corruption‖ that was to a considerable extent based upon the documentation I provided as to Hicks and Wauchope, and prior to the conclusion of the WAPS ‗investigation‘, Hicks was a member and Wauchope chaired the panel that selected Karl O‘Callaghan as Commissioner. Despite that refusal to allow me a ‗put up or shut up‘ opportunity, the CCC on 14.8.08 advised the Parliamentary Inspector as follows: The Commission will be writing to Mr Winzer advising him that on the information he has provided so far there does not appear to be grounds for the Commission to conduct a further interview with him or any action other action (sic) in relation to his concerns about this matter. The CCC are being willfully misleading to advise of ―information he has provided so far‖. The critical fact is they have denied me the opportunity to provide any of the documentation I have in regard to this matter. My numerous requests for that opportunity were explicit, as in my letter of 4.8.08 to the Commissioner headed as follows:

 My claim that the WA Police Service acted with a conflict of interest in order to shield Mr Stuart Hicks and Mr Malcolm Wauchope

 My request for the opportunity at a formal interview to present the evidence I have to support this claim before the report pursuant to the interviews of 28.5.08 and 17.7.08 is finalised Furthermore, the CCC have failed to address the submissions made by then Minister Kim Chance and two former Members of the Legislative Council, Mr Paddy Embry and Mr James Scott, that constitute strong support for my contention about WAPS failing to conduct a genuine investigation. Kim Chance, for example, advised as to the WAPS 51

report being ―… very much at odds with my recollection of my interview with Det. Sgt. Mansas ….‖

My open letter to all the Members of Parliament was emailed on 11.10.10, a mere three months prior to the departure on Mr Roberts-Smith QC from the CCC. Given the wide circulation, including a courtesy copy to the Parliamentary Inspector and the media, it‟s reasonable to assume Mr Roberts-Smith QC became aware of it. That 11.10.10 letter began:

1. In offering a defence against my complaint that M J McCusker QC had willfully misled them the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee have, albeit inadvertently, acknowledged that the evidence shows that neither M J McCusker QC nor the Corruption and Crime Commission have addressed my claim that the Police Service acted with a conflict of interest in regard to the public interest disclosure I initiated; 2. My complaint that M J McCusker QC misled the LPCC by advising that: - the CCC interviewed me and reviewed their position with regard to my claim that the Police Service acted with a conflict of interest; and - met with the Hon. Kim Chance to discuss my complaints regarding the CCC‟s investigation of my claim that the Police Service acted with a conflict of interest. 3. M J McCusker QC has been given refuge behind parliamentary privilege as per Jenkins and McCusker [2010] WASAT 100 after he has treated the Parliament with contempt by failing to report on the answers provided to the Parliament by the Department of Transport in regard to my claim of corruption, subsequent to my detailed advice to him as to the significance of those answers; and 4. Insight to the overall modus operandi of the LPCC is enabled by a consideration of their reasons for dismissing my two claims of perjury against Mr Mark Bodycoat, now the Public Trustee for South Australia 5. My experience this year with the Police Service shows that Commissioner O‟Callaghan‟s claim aired over the last two weeks on the Australian Story presentation of the case involving Mr Andrew Mallard, as to their investigative procedures having been “improved immeasurably”, is utter nonsense. I believed I had no other recourse than to submit complaints to the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee against practitioners that have had significant involvement in the ‗administration‘ of the public interest claim I initiated. Those practitioners being Mr Malcolm McCusker QC, Mr Mark Bodycoat, Mr George Raithel, Mr Len Mr Roberts-Smith QC, Ms Michelle Pontifex, Mr Tim Sharp and Ms Darryl Wookey. The original public interest claim involved fraud, misappropriation, abuse of office, falsification of records and perjury. There has since been a number of claims that have attached, in most cases due to the actions of individuals aimed at suppressing the original claim.

Importantly, that 11.10.10 letter to all the Members of Parliament included reference to the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee‟s 30.9.10 acknowledgement, as follows:

complaint when he spoke with Mr Chance. In the circumstances, the Committee does not believe that the practitioner intended to mislead the Committee when he made the statements in the letter dated 16 November 2009 and the Committee was not misled by those statements. (emphasis added)

B. Evidence of Mr Roberts-Smith QC, in the period from January 2011 when he left the CCC to 26.11.12 when he was appointed to the DART, being aware that my claim that he was corrupt had not been addressed let alone resolved

An exchange of correspondence that highlighted the problems with the performance of Mr Roberts-Smith QC occurred only six months before he left the CCC. I submit that it would have been a matter of procedure that copies of that exchange between Mr Christopher Steytler QC, the Parliamentary Inspector, and Hon K Chance would have been provided to Mr Roberts-Smith QC.

THE SUBMISSIONS 31.5.10 AND 16.6.10 MADE BY HON K CHANCE AND THE 3.6.10 RESPONSE OF MR C STEYTLER QC THE PARLIAMENTARY INSPECTOR

I cite the 3.6.10 response of Mr Steytler QC as outrageously corrupt and confirmation of the accuracy of the comments of Hon M Trenorden in the Legislative Council on 27.11.12 in seeking a resolution to my circumstances. Hon M Trenorden said “You just trample over these people because you have the power, because you are in the club and the club allows you to do what you want. It is just unacceptable.”

Again asking the References Committee to refer to the simple and verifiable data and the four-page brief on three claims of perjury packaged at page 61 of this submission, I note that Hon K Chance began his letter of 31.5.10 to Mr Steytler QC as follows:

While I appreciate that the matter of Mr Neil Winzer is a complex and contentious issue, I remain concerned that it is a case of an individual who has challenged the system and where the statutory measures that the system provides for the protection of the individual have failed to protect Mr Winzer.

Consequently, as a former member of parliament, now private citizen, I ask you to consider just one aspect of the case which remains to me a source of bewilderment in that it appears to be a clear case of contradictory evidence that has been permitted to stand, uncorrected, on the record.

I refer to the pattern of advice that was provided by the (then) Department of Transport to the Minister for Transport by the then Acting Director General of Transport on 16/06/1999 and later, in order to inform the minister in relation to Question on Notice 880 of 14/03/2000

The 3.6.10 response provided by Mr C Steytler QC was a straight regurgitation of the errors of the CCC without the slightest attempt to respond to Hon K Chance‟s references to the simple and verifiable evidence in explaining those errors. Consequently, Hon K Chance‟s questions as to the motivations of the CCC were not by any measure addressed by Mr C Steytler QC.

I was surprised by your reply of 03/06/10 to my letter to you of 31/05/2010.

I provided to you on 31/05/10 a position that I firmly believe sets out extremely simple 53

and verifiable information as to the Western Australian Parliament and a court being wilfully misled in regard to Mr Winzer‘s efforts to achieve a response to the public interest claim he submitted formally with the Department of Transport on 18/09/98. Specifically, the information comprising of extracts from sworn testimony, the official records of the Parliament and Transport correspondence to their then Minister, showed that the Parliament and a court had been misled in respect of:

1. The purpose of meeting Mr Winzer attended on 29/01/99 with Mr Michael Harris, then Director General of Transport, and Mr Mark Bodycoat, then Transport‘s resident solicitor. On this point the official records of the Parliament clearly conflict with testimony of Mr Harris; and 2. The existence of documentary evidence of Transport having addressed Mr Winzer‘s claim. On this point the official records of the Parliament clearly conflict with Mr Harris‘ advice to his then Minister and his testimony. My hope was that you would take a fresh look at this information, given its simplicity and verifiability, and consequently contemplate what conclusion must be drawn as to the performance of the CCC. And: My point is that the simple and verifiable information as to the Western Australian Parliament and a court being wilfully misled in regard to Mr Winzer‘s efforts to achieve a response to the public interest claim that I provided on 31/05/10 is precisely the same as that I reported to the Legislative Council on 06/09/00, albeit in an alternative format. I believe that on 31/05/10, given I did not rely upon hypothesis or anecdotal reference, but only upon extracts from sworn testimony, the official records of the Parliament and Transport correspondence to their then Minister, I have effectively brought the crux of the matter to life. I suggest that it is a useful exercise to put my report of 06/09/00 beside the information I provided to you on 31/05/10, and an exercise that promotes legitimate questions as to the failure of the various authorities involved. And Hon K Chance concluded as follows: You go on to refer to the CCC explanation that they also considered the fact that Mr Harris had left Western Australia as a reason not to take any further action. How Mr Harris‘ absence from this state in any way diminishes the wrong done to Mr. Winzer is left unexplained by the CCC. I await your response to my submission that the fact that Mr Harris is no longer in WA is not in any way an understandable consideration in respect of: 1. The fact that the parliamentary record in regard to the purpose of meeting Mr Winzer attended on 29/01/99 and the existence of documentary evidence of Transport having addressed Mr Winzer‘s claim remain uncorrected; and 2. The disadvantages Mr Winzer has attracted continue without fair consideration. Yours sincerely,

It was in early-2011 that I made application to the State Administrative Tribunal about the LPCC‟s rejection of my complaint against Mr Roberts-Smith QC. The defence the LPCC gave for Mr Roberts-Smith QC was that the Parliamentary Inspector and the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission having already determined Mr Roberts-Smith QC had done his job properly. I put to the SAT my contention that Mr L Mr Roberts-Smith QC should not be given the protection of parliamentary privilege because he has treated the Parliament with contempt by failing to address the simple and verifiable information that was available to him by way of the official records of the Parliament. My application to the SAT regarding Mr Roberts-Smith QC began as follows:

GROUNDS UPON WHICH I AM SEEKING A REVIEW 54

1. He failed to address my claim that the Police Service acted with a conflict of interest in order to protect Mr Stuart Hicks and Mr Malcolm Wauchope in relation to my broader public interest disclosure; and

2. He failed to address the simple and verifiable information associated with the public interest disclosure I initiated as to the involvement of other senior officers of the Department of Transport in fraud, misappropriation, falsification of records, abuse of office and perjury.

I had first appealed on 1.6.09 to the Mr Christopher Steytler QC the Parliamentary Inspector who succeeded Mr McCusker QC. It was on 18.10.10 that I advised him of the serious conflict between the following two items:

1. The LPCC 30.9.10 determination regarding my claim that the Police Service acted with a conflict of interest in regard to the public interest disclosure I initiated, including the following:

… the CCC did not interview the complainant in respect of his complaint about the police investigation and that he had not discussed that complaint when he spoke with Mr Chance ….

2. McCusker‟s 30.10.08 advice was false in that I had, in requesting a formal interview at which I could present my documents, simply never handed-over my documents to be taken behind closed doors for some sham consideration:

As Mr Steytler QC had not responded I wrote again on 11.11.10 beginning with the request that he address the issues as follow:

 Your attention to the matters I put to you on 18.10.10 would have a considerable bearing on applications I have with the State Administrative Tribunal regarding Mr Malcolm McCusker QC, Mr Mark Bodycoat, Mr George Raithel, Mr Len Mr Roberts-Smith QC, Ms Michelle Pontifex, Mr Tim Sharp and Ms Darryl Wookey

It was timely in respect of the January 2011 departure of Mr Roberts-Smith from the CCC that I wrote on 5.1.11 to Mr Steytler QC, and provided courtesy copy to all the Members of the WA Parliament. That 5.1.11 letter was headed as follows:

 The letter of 23.12.10 over your signature reflects gross dishonesty and an action plan that is not aimed at an outcome that would be in the public interest

 The Corruption and Crime Commission would not be able to produce documents to substantiate their „already been investigated‟ position on my claim that the Police Service acted with a conflict of interest in regard to my public interest disclosure

 Mr McCusker, given that on two occasions now I have confronted him as to his false „already been investigated‟ advice and he has chosen not to rectify that advice, should not be excused on a „failure to recollect‟ basis 55

 My request for a „put up or shut up‟ interview under formal conditions regarding my Police conflict of interest claim

Mr Roger Macknay QC had succeeded Mr Mr Roberts-Smith QC as Commissioner when I wrote to him on 2.12.11, beginning as follows:

 My request, in light of the position put by now Governor McCusker during a mediation conference at the State Administrative Tribunal on 29.4.11, that you act on my complaint that I‟ve been victimised as a result of making a public interest claim

 My challenge of you, based on my brief of a mere one and a half pages, to identify fault with my contention that there has never been an investigation of my public interest claim involving fraud, misappropriation, abuse of office, falsification of records and perjury.

 My challenge of you, based on my account of my persistence in requesting the then Parliamentary Inspector to recommend to the CCC that I be interviewed on the full scope of my allegations, to provide evidence that would undermine my complaint that now Governor McCusker intended on 25.11.10 to mislead the SAT by advising that he‟d made that recommendation and I‟d been interviewed on the full scope of my allegations. This is a submission I‘d hoped would not have to be made. This submission is the result of the performance of those who have willfully prevented an acquittal of what was effectively an agreement reached with now Governor McCusker on 29.4.11 at the SAT for conditions that would enable me to withdraw all of my claims and ‗get on with my life‘. This submission features detail on the performance of my current employer Mr Reece Waldock, the Director General of Transport, regarding my request to be allowed to return to work.

Although I continued my appeals to Mr Macknay QC until 1.3.12 he did not alter his position in support of Mr Mr Roberts-Smith QC.

On 5.12.11 my letter to the Joint Standing Committee on the CCC, courtesy copied to all the Members of the WA Parliament, began as follows:

Dear members of the Committee I wish to appear before the Committee in regard to Public Hearings with the Corruption and Crime Commission. It is not my intention to be playing psychological games with you when I say that I feel sure you are going to deny me this opportunity. You would deny me because you know that I would ultimately confront you with your past failure to attempt to explain your position in support of the CCC‘s refusal to concede to my request for a formal interview on the full scope of my public interest disclosure. The challenge I have on 1.12.11 re-submitted to Commissioner Macknay, as per the attached copy, is a key to my complaint that an objective and thorough investigation of my disclosure was never conducted. An element of my public interest disclosure, albeit a significant one, involves information as to the Police acting with a conflict of interest. It is clear to me that, like the CCC, you oppose any opportunity for me to table the documents I have in support of my position. The basis to my request for a formal interview is the fact that all the authorities I had appealed to for help prior to reaching the CCC had taken the documents I believed supported the various aspects of my disclosure ‗behind closed doors‘ and re-appeared some time later to simply offer an excuse as to why they could not investigate. The ‗put up or shut up‘ path should run both ways. The opportunity to press for explanations was critical, and in my view, in the public interest. 56

Furthermore, in the context of my contention that Mr Mr Roberts-Smith QC and relevant others in the WA political and judicial communities would have been fully aware that my claims of corruption against him had not been addressed, I note that his appointment to the DART in November 2012 was effectively „sandwiched‟ between the statements of the Hon Max Trenorden in the WA Legislative Council on 9.8.11 and 27.11.12. The 9.8.11 statements included the following:

Mr Winzer blew the whistle on a number of very prominent Western Australians. I will not run through who they are, but some of them cannot be much more prominent in this state, and I will point out to this house that some years ago we passed a bill that said that people who blow the whistle will be protected. But do we protect whistleblowers? Absolutely not!

The 27.11.12 statements of the Hon M Trenorden in Parliament were about the campaign of abuse I‟d been subjected to by the “club” of which Mr Roberts-Smith QC was a key member:

This issue has been reported on by several committees of this house and members have regularly stood and attempted to get some justice for Mr Winzer, but this just cruises on. Just like with Michael Moodie, it just cruises on. You just trample over these people because you have the power, because you are in the club and the club allows you to do what you want. It is just unacceptable. (my emphasis)

I submit that what Hon M Trenorden stated in Parliament on 22.9.11 represents support for my argument, that in making his statements in Parliament on 27.11.12 about the campaign of abuse I‟d been subjected to by the “club” Hon M Trenorden was inferring that Mr Roberts- Smith QC had been a member of the “club”. On 22.9.11 the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission, Thirteenth Report, Analysis of Recommended Reforms to the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 was debated. Hon M Trenorden contribution to that debate included:

I start from the premise, which I think is absolutely true, that if the Corruption and Crime Commission is not broken, it is badly cracked. Its performance in recent years has been appalling. And: I served on the Joint Standing Committee on the Anti-Corruption Commission. I went through the process of listening to the ACC in those days and I empathise with the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission and Hon Nick Goiran because I understand what happens. So, what I am trying to say now is not a criticism of the committee, but my own perception of spending time in this place and around the ACC. And: The Corruption and Crime Commission has over a period substantially damaged a range of individuals in this state, only to be proved in court that it was wrong or at least was unable to carry the charges. Some of those cases were extremely high-profile. That is just not acceptable. To go back to an analogy that I occasionally use, I partly own a racehorse—I think I own the left ear—but if I changed its colours, changed its name and put it on a different track, it would perform the same. That will also be the case unless we do something really basic about the function of the Corruption and Crime Commission. And: This is an organisation that has a poor culture and has been unable to keep commissioners, unable to keep inspectors, and has done some very questionable things. 57

These statements have not only been made by me; one only has to examine the public records to know that what I am saying is true. This has to be the premier organisation in this state, but it is not acting as a premier organisation. It is not an A-grade organisation; it is way down the alphabet, and we cannot accept that. And: It is not acceptable to have prominent people going through an investigative process and coming out with their lives in a mess. If those people are guilty, that is fine, but it is just not one case. In fact, there have been several, and I will speak to the next item on the notice paper on that issue. There have been several cases in which the CCC has had to apologise. I just wanted to make that point. This is a place that is controlled by parties, and we often debate along party lines, but this is an issue I ask all members to think about. I am not trying to be smart and pre-empt what the executive does; there are good people everywhere trying to do the right thing, but I have a concern that if we just play around the edges of the CCC, paint it a different colour and bang a different number on it, it will perform just as it did before the so-called change.

The responsibilities of Senator David Johnston as the Minister For Defence regarding my concerns about Mr Roberts-Smith QC

Firstly, I feel it is critical that I make clear the fact that Senator Johnston had no grounds for misinterpretation of the purpose of my contact with him.

I met with Senator Johnston on 22.8.06 following his comments that may be seen on the Senate Hansard database of 14.6.06 under the heading Matters of Public Interest. Senator Johnston‟s comments were about “conduct which gives rise to alarm at the integrity and management capacity of senior [WA] police, particularly the commissioner” and “we have what amounts to a fraud being perpetrated upon the public of Western Australia by this police commissioner” his advice as follows:

There is only one word to describe the police conduct in this matter: corrupt. I do not use this word lightly or without great consideration, but I maintain my assessment, given their conduct.

My letter of 28.8.06 to Senator Johnston was headed as follows:

POLICE RESPONSE TO MY ADVICE THAT THE GOVERNMENT‟S WISH NOT TO SACRIFICE HICKS HAD BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE CORRIDORS OF THE PARLIAMENT

My letter of 28.8.06 ended as follows:

My contention is that it is obvious that [Det Sgt] Mansas went to Scott, Embry, Giffard and Tomlinson [Members of Parliament] with the intention of verifying my account of the ‗corridors discussions‘.

Furthermore, my contention is that Mansas concluded his ‗investigation‘ on 4.5.04 in accordance with:  Government‘s wish not to sacrifice Hicks; and  What was by then, WAPOL‘s strong links with Hicks.

In my opinion WAPOL sensitivity on this matter can be ascertained from my notes of the vigorous discussion I had 16.9.04 with Spt John Vivian who was then personal assistant to Commissioner O‘Callaghan. I have already provided you with a copy of these notes among the ‗category six‘ documents. 58

Your advice as to the steps you are considering and the likely timetable would be appreciated. Yours Sincerely

Please note that the reference to “category six documents” related to the nine categories to the extensive range of documents I provided with an index. The document, attached to my letter dated 28.8.06, included the index and began as follows:

SUMMARY OF THE INFORMATION IN NINE CATEGORIES Regarding:  My request of the WA Police Service to investigate my claim against Mr Stuart Hicks, a former Director General of the Department of Transport, as part of a broader public interest claim;  Mr Hicks‘ conduct of a review of the work organisation of the WA Police Service and his participation in the selection of Commissioner O‘Callaghan; and  My concern in regard to Mr Hicks‘ working relationship with the WA Police Service having been established and/or maintained during the period I understood Mr Hicks was under criminal investigation and consequently, the possibility that the outcome of the investigation was influenced as a result of that relationship.

The following is a bare summary of the information in nine categories I wished to show to you or a member of your staff:

That „summary of information‟ document attached to my 28.8.06 letter, concluded as follows: In summary, I am seeking an explanation as to whether:

 Mr Hicks was under criminal investigation when he conducted his review of the work organisation of the WA Police Service and participated in the selection of Commissioner O‘Callaghan; or

 The WA Police Service failed to investigate Mr Hicks.

Consequently, I contend that Senator Johnston was provided a package of perjury claims, the „existence/non-existence‟ of records data and advice on the apparent situation of two members of the panel that selected Commissioner O‟Callaghan being simultaneously under criminal investigation. Senator Johnston was provided documents as to an investigation in accordance with my submissions featuring the two selection panel members in the corruption I disclosed. I explained to Senator Johnston that the key facts to the situation involve clear documentary evidence of the Police, during their thirty-month „investigation‟, having failed to advise me of their relationship with those two individuals and, after the appointment, Commissioner O‟Callaghan refusing to respond to my questions as to the possibility of a conflict of interest.

At pages 38 and 39 of this submission I‟ve noted the importance of the fact that I provided Senator Johnston with a copy of my paper Considerations as to the Legitimacy of the Appointment of the Police Commissioner: A Graphic Illustration of the Administration of Public Interest Disclosures in Western Australia on 17.10.06

Senator Johnston‟s letter of 20.10.06 included:

…I have now managed to read all the material, and, as you know, have met with the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) to discuss the issues raised.

The ACC has offered to look at the matter further, with a view to determining whether the issues raised fall within their jurisdiction of investigation. I am compelled to say, however, I do not have any confidence you will receive any kind of favourable determination, in terms of the ACC accepting this as an investigation, or in the unlikely event that they did, of any outcomes that would be satisfactory to you.

My primary reason for this conclusion is the number of years that have passed since the original issue with Department of Transport, and the events that have transpired since.

From my own perspective as a legal practitioner can see serious problems in investigating the various allegations you have made, as the erosion of time casts an undeniable ambiguity over the facts in a number of ways.

The point I‟m wanting to make at this stage (20.10.06) is that, if Senator Johnston had wanted to act in the public interest when he was advised by the ACC along the same lines as I was ultimately advised on 27.9.07 by IGIS as to having few other options “than to make a direct approach to the Minister with responsibility for the ACC, namely the Minister for Justice”, he would have exercised the „option‟ of making that approach and putting it on record.

Moreover, asking the References Committee to look back to the pages around 14 to 16 of this submission for detail on my 2006 circumstances, the point I‟m wanting to make is that having “read all the material” (his 20.10.06 letter) that included the package of perjury claims and the simple and verifiable information / „existence/non-existence‟ of records data, he could have, at a minimum, provided encouragement for a resolution. As you may see from the above pages Hon Giz Watson on 22.9.05 had tabled my second Petition of Last Resort / Prayer for Relief featuring the simple and verifiable information and in September 2007 the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs to Parliament was “to resolve the issue of Mr Winzer‟s employment” (my emphasis).

My letter to the Australian Crime Commission dated 22.11.06 began as follows:

Dear Sir/Madam

Senator David Johnston, as per his letter of 20.10.06 enclosed, has advised that he has already raised some aspects of this matter with the ACC.

Unfortunately, Senator Johnston has chosen not to offer further assistance. He was initially eager to assist and as a consequence of his meeting with the ACC directed one of his officers to compile a brief. As I was liaising with that officer I know that considerable time and resources were expended on that brief. My concern is that Senator Johnston may have discovered senior Liberal Party figures were involved in the origins of the matter and consequently made a political rather than a public interest decision.

I certainly do not accept what Senator Johnston has said 20.10.06 about "problems in investigating the various allegations [I] have made, as the erosion of time casts an undeniable ambiguity over the facts in a number of ways." Most of my evidence has been locked in time in the form of the existing records; many being statements made to the Parliament or on oath to a court.

My letter to the Australian Crime Commission dated 22.11.06 also included:

As noted in my letter of 20.11.06 to the Standing Committee I have also enclosed my paper Considerations as to the Legitimacy of the Appointment of the Police Commissioner: A Graphic Illustration of the Administration of Public Interest Disclosures in Western Australia. 60

The enclosed documents in my view adequately address my reason for making this submission noted above at (1) and in regard to reason (2), include detail as to my concerns and/or claims concerning the WA Police Commissioner and Mr Michael Linlay Harris. Police Commissioner O‟Callaghan is of course on the Board of the ACC. (added emphasis)

My letter to the ACC dated 18.12.06 began as follows:

Dear Sir/Madam

In ‗raw‘ terms my submission of 22.11.06 to the ACC is that due to there never having been an investigation of my claims of serious criminal activity against Mr Hicks and Mr Wauchope, members of the panel that selected WA Police Commissioner O‘Callaghan, it is possible that Commissioner O‘Callaghan represents the selection of two crooks. That possibility was made greater by the fact that Mr Wauchope undertook the instrumental role of chair of the panel.

As I have explained at pages 43 and 44 of this submission, I eventually gave up my efforts with the ACC and the range of other Federal agencies I approached.

My next step, or at least one of my next steps, with little confidence, was to ask for help from Senator Ellison the Minister for Justice on 8.3.07. Recall from page 42 the 27.9.07 advice I received from IGIS was to do exactly that.

My letter of 8.3.07 to Senator Ellison the Minister for Justice is concluded as follows:

Minister, given I have offered evidence as to the possibility that the integrity and professional standards of the ACC Board may have been compromised and the fact that the Western Australian Corruption and Crime Commission is not ―a body set up specifically to address such allegations‖ as Mr Milroy has stated, I respectfully request your advice as to who or what authority may be prepared to accept my presentation of evidence.

I did not receive a response of any sort from Senator Ellison.

Senator Johnston had been appointed the Minister for Justice when I wrote on 17.4.07 and repeated my request for advice as to who or what authority may be prepared to accept my presentation of evidence as to the possibility that the integrity and professional standards of the ACC Board may have been compromised.

The situation had effectively turned full-circle in that the „option‟ of approaching the Minister for Justice, as noted on 27.9.07 by IGIS, that Senator Johnston did not elect to follow as reflected in his 20.10.06 letter, was before him as the Minister for Justice on 17.4.07.

Additionally, in light of the intense media attention and extraordinary expenditure of taxpayers‟ resources regarding the „Mohammed Haneef matter‟, on 3.9.07 I requested the Prime Minister‟s advice as to who or what Federal authority may be prepared to accept my presentation of the evidence that I say supports my claim that Commissioner O‟Callaghan “has, or may have had, engaged in corrupt conduct”. I was of course quoting the Minister for Immigration.

The relevant advice of the Minister for Justice on 28.5.07 was as follows:

My understanding is that the ACC assessed that your allegations do not fall within the ACC‘s jurisdiction because they relate to alleged misconduct in a single state jurisdiction and do not involve serious or organised crime of national significance, as defined by section 4(1) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002. I am satisfied with ACC‘s assessment.

In the circumstances, I am unable to assist you any further or recommend any further course of action for you to pursue.

Senator Johnston knew what I knew, as confirmed to me on 27.9.07 by the Office of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (see page 42 of this submission for further detail):

I appreciate that the person you have raised concerns about sits on the board of the Australian Crime Commission (ACC), and that the ACC is a multi-jurisdictional body with significant Commonwealth level inputs, and it is for this reason (amongst others) that you are seeking intervention/investigation by a Commonwealth body. The most logical body to deal with concerns about the ACC is the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI). I note from your correspondence that you have already approached the Integrity Commissioner (i.e. the head of ACLEI) and been advised that ACLEI does not have any jurisdiction with respect to the ACC Board. I have no reason to doubt this advice. This being so, you would appear to have few other options available at the Commonwealth level, other than to make a direct approach to the Minister with responsibility for the ACC, namely the Minister for Justice ….

Senator Johnston on 28.5.07 simply played the old game of feeding back what I already knew. I‟d requested advice as to who or what authority may be prepared to accept my presentation of evidence knowing that he, as the Minister for Justice aware that ACC had no jurisdiction over the ACC Board , was in a position to take some initiative.

Obviously, I‟m not a constitutional lawyer and therefore not qualified to suggest the Minister for Justice could have initiated a process to correct the fact that there wasn‟t an agency with the jurisdiction to investigate matters concerning the integrity of the ACC Board. As I had stated in my correspondence it was a strange situation where, unlike ACC Board member Commissioner Karl O‟Callaghan, any individual cleaning the ACC toilets who had been identified on the basis of simple and verifiable information as having suspect integrity would have been subjected to a rigorous assessment.

Senator Johnston could have at least given informal encouragement to a WA authority for an end to the campaign of abuse.

Senator David Johnston was appointed as the Minister for Defence following the election in September 2013. When I wrote to Senator Johnston on 3.12.13 he failed in his responsibility, particularly given his clear understanding of the background, to respond to my expressed concerns about Len Mr Roberts-Smith QC being the DART Chairman.

SIMPLE AND VERIFIABLE DATA SHOWING THAT ONLY A SHAM INVESTIGATION WAS CONDUCTED BY MR MR ROBERTS-SMITH QC

1. Two-page brief on the Essence of the Parliamentary Questions Tabled on 24.3.11 2. One claim of perjury against each of the Directors General of Transport, Mr Stuart Hicks (DG at the time relevant to the original disclosure of fraud), Mr Michael Harris (DG at the time I was forced from the workplace) and Mr Reece Waldock (current).

BRIEF ON THE ESSENCE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS OF 24.3.11 A. It is my long-standing claim, as should be verified from the copious records, that the original public interest claim I initiated formally on 18.9.98 was not addressed by the Department of Transport (DOT) by way of documentation or discussion. The claim involved fraud, misappropriation, falsification of records, abuse of office and perjury.

B. The following Corruption and Crime Commission determination of 14.8.08 has two- parts; what may be referred to as a „documentation‟ part and a „discussion‟ part: While there is no evidence of a detailed written response to Mr Winzer‘s concerns, there is evidence to support the proposition that he did receive a response from various officers in DOT, albeit those responses were not in writing.

C. In regard to the „documentation‟ part of the CCC‟s determination, which I contend is correct, note the conflicting records of the Legislative Council over 4 years:

 The Department‟s citation of three documents in response to Question with Notice No. 1980 of 2000 that was tabled with reference to question on notice No. 880 of 2000 and “How many detailed responses has Mr Winzer received from the Department of Transport to his correspondence.”;

 The Department‟s advice that “Departmental records indicate that replies have been provided to all of Mr Winzer's correspondence addressed to the Department” in response to Question with Notice No. 541 of 2002 that was specifically about my public interest claim, question without notice No. 988 of 2001 and what “reply” I‟d been provided; and

 The range of documents tabled by the Department in response to Question with Notice No. 1800 of 2004, that was tabled with reference to Question with Notice No. 541 of 2002 and “records relating to Mr Winzer's public interest claim”;

D. In regard to the „discussion‟ part of their determination, which I contend is incorrect, it is important to note that I only ever had one meeting with Mr Michael Harris, then Director General, and Mr Mark Bodycoat, then resident solicitor. I point to the conflict between the CCC‟s determination as to what was discussed at that meeting on 29.1.99 and Transport having advised Parliament that we met to discuss my public interest claim, as follows:

 The Department‟s citation of 29.1.99 in response to “On what date did Mr Winzer meet with the present Acting Director General to discuss his allegations” at part (3) of Question with Notice No. 1980 of 2000; and

 The Department‟s advice that at the meeting on 29.1.99 I “was asked to provide any information he held to support allegations indicating corruption or maladministration” and I didn‟t provide “substantiating information”, in response to Question with Notice No. 1800 of 2004 tabled with specific reference to my public interest claim and the response to Question with Notice No. 541 of 2002; 63

The CCC, in conflict with the above records, determined that the Road Trauma Trust Fund was discussed on 29.1.99. My claim had no connection with the RTTF: Mr Bodycoat‘s notes of the meeting indicate that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss allegations concerning the Road Trauma Trust Fund. (CCC report 14.8.08) And: … both Mr Harris (in his WorkCover evidence) and Mr Bodycoat (in his notes of the meeting) say that the Road Trauma Trust Fund was discussed. The Commission notes that Mr Harris was questioned at some length about this matter during the WorkCover hearing by Mr Winzer‘s counsel. His evidence on this issue is consistent with Mr Bodycoat‘s notes. (CCC report of 14.8.08) My longstanding claim had no connection with the RTTF and therefore if the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the RTTF, the CCC‟s determination as to discussion of my claim, with Harris or Bodycoat at least, was incorrect. Furthermore, there is no record that can be verified as having been generated within a year of 29.1.99 supporting CCC‟s argument as to the RTTF being mentioned on 29.1.99. I emphasised these points:

 The critical testimony of the officers in a position making it appropriate for them to discuss my claim with me clearly shows there was no such discussion (see attached copies of testimony and claims of perjury – I made 27 claims of perjury in total);

 The testimony and documents linked to the 29.1.99 meeting shows that I was accused of rumours of unspecified corruption and prevented from discussing my claim; and

 My answers to the accusations about the unspecified corruption were „cut and pasted‟ as my answers to questions, that were in fact not asked, about my longstanding claim. Thus was constructed the „Winzer failed when asked to substantiate his claim‟ / „Winzer’s claim has been addressed‟ pattern of advice.

E. Regarding the CCC‟s RTTF determination, consider these additional points:

 Mr Bodycoat‟s testimony was confused and not consistent with the notes purported to be his or his date-verified 29.1.99 emails and advice to Harris and consequently, conflicts with the CCC‟s determination. As to the “purpose” of the meeting on 29.1.99 Mr Bodycoat testified that it was to discuss my disclosure; as he put it “discussion relating to some of the issues which [he] understood to be mentioned in the memorandum of the 1st of October from [me][about my disclosure].” However, his testimony was not that my disclosure was actually discussed. Mr Bodycoat testified that I was not accused of making any allegation. However, his testimony conflicts with his date-verified emails and advice of 29.1.99 to Mr Harris that include repeatedly “you‟ve made some allegations” (see attached copies of my claims of perjury). There‟s no mention of the RTTF in Bodycoat‟s emails and advice. The notes purported to be his are not date-verified. The 23.2.00 testimony of Harris is the only date-verified record of the RTTF being mentioned on 29.1.99;

 Six date-verified documents, including those tabled by the Department in response to Question with Notice No. 1800 of 2004, that contain considerable information as to the content and process of the meeting, but no mention of the RTTF or any allegations related to it; and

 The „Winzer’s claim has been addressed / Winzer failed when asked to substantiate his claim when asked‟ pattern of advice that was cited by the Department as the 64

outcome of the 29.1.99 meeting and disseminated widely; for example, in response to Question with Notice No. 1800 of 2004 and to the range of psychiatrists for DOT. I strongly contend this point as to the outcome of the 29.1.99 meeting (see Question with Notice No. 1800 of 2004), even considered on a stand-alone basis, shows the CCC‟s 14.8.08 determination as to the RTTF being discussed on 29.1.99 and it being “difficult, if not impossible, to attempt to satisfactorily resolve this conflict” was nothing short of corrupt.

CLAIM OF PERJURY AGAINST MR HICKS – DIRECTOR GENERAL UNTIL 1996

This particular claim of perjury is based on Mr Hicks‟ testimony about processes and events critical to my claim of fraud that meant, had his testimony been true, there would be substantiating documents. I submitted to authorities that Mr Hicks‟ testimony constituted perjury and that there were no substantiating documents. Although it was eventually acknowledged by the Corruption and Crime Commission that there were no substantiating documents, the determination of the Police that “there was no evidence of the alleged perjury, it was simply that some matters were in contention between the witnesses and Mr Winzer” was applied to quash every one of the 25 perjury claims I specified. Despite my preceding protests Governor McCusker when he was the Parliamentary Inspector deemed that the endorsement of that Police determination by Mr Mr Roberts-Smith QC, then Commissioner for the CCC, was appropriate. Commissioner O‟Callaghan, Governor McCusker and Mr Roberts-Smith QC have simply denied any communication regarding my explanation as to the Police shielding Hicks because of his close working relationship with the Police.

Firstly, in order to show that I had from the outset submitted a clear explanation of my public interest claim, I note my 19.11.98 submission to the Public Sector Standards Commission: Example Issue 1 - The payment to-date of approximately $4M in wages under the Department of Transport Enterprise Agreement 1995 (1995 EBA) even though the public have never received a dividend as agreed.

Example Issue 2 - The process of discarding the strategy and mechanism of accountability contained in the 1995 EBA, in order to fulfil a privatisation and contracting-out agenda without any strategy or mechanism of accountability. .

Given that the Code of Ethics developed and promoted by the Public Sector Standards Commission featured a requirement for decisions to be documented, it was an initial assumption on my part that the PSSC would immediately ask Transport for copies of any record showing that my claim had been addressed. Consequently, in my early submissions to the PSSC I made little more than passing reference to the fact that Transport had not addressed my claim.

However, when I discovered that Transport had advised the PSSC that they had addressed my public interest claim and that the PSSC had paraphrased that advice as being true, I began to present my public interest claim as having two elements; the change of agenda process and the failure to address my claim.

I submitted to Premier Court on 23.11.99 that “Transport have never responded to my claims by way of a written or verbal explanation”

Obviously there were instances of the elements of my claim intersecting. For example:

 testimony was given about the process associated with the change of agenda; and

 I cited as perjury the testimony of Transport‟s witnesses about having addressed the issue of the process associated with the change of agenda that formed the basis of my claim.

For example, Mr Stuart Hicks the Director General of Transport until late-1996, who provided what I cited as a fraudulent report integral to the change of agenda process to a Cabinet Committee, gave the following testimony on 4.2.00:

MR HADLOW: Mr Hicks, Mr Winzer has suggested that as a result of him bringing to management‘s attention unethical behaviour in the process of developing and implementing the 1995 EBA and improper behaviour in those processes as well, that that brought him into conflict with management and there developed from that a plan or agenda to silence Mr Winzer. To silence him from further discussing these unethical - - what he perceived were unethical processes or improper conduct that he says was unethical and improper. And that that plan to silence him was effectively to remove him from that position by ultimately abolishing his job. What do you say to that? MR HICKS: I‘m not aware of any such plan. So therefore it surprises me. It‘s contrasted, I suppose, in my mind with what was truly an elaborately transparent and consultative process. So elaborately transparent and consulted was the process, so much was everybody in it together that it was quite unique. (Hicks, WorkCover, 4.2.00:p1058) (my emphasis) And MR HICKS: Yes. Indeed, as I recall, there was a general staff meeting also which briefed people as to where things had got to and what the nature of the proposed milestone agreement would be. I mean, that was quite open and involved the staff as did the rest of the process. (WorkCover:p1083) And MR McDONALD: …at which point did the employees at the Department of Transport, and in particular, Mr Winzer, become aware that there was reasons for the milestones not being strictly adhered to…. MR HICKS: I don‘t know. I would imagine that would have been fairly clear. It certainly would have been to Neil, because he was significantly involved with it, but I would think that most people understood because of the representational approach where we had representatives of the staff…. (WorkCover:p1084)

I claimed that Mr Hicks‟ testimony constituted perjury in that, if his claims about “an elaborately transparent and consultative process” were correct, there should be substantiating documents and that a simple check was all that was needed. My challenge for the discovery of evidence to support Mr Hicks‟ claim was put in a number of forums. For example:

 Mr Hicks‟ claim of transparency was the subject of vigorous debate 16.3.00 at WorkCover (pages 2353-68) leading to a direction being issued by the Review Officer for Transport to provide evidence. The following extract is indicative of that debate: MR McDONALD: The documents - - it is the applicant‘s contention that the matter of - - the issue of whether the director general of Transport was told to change the 66

agenda is critical. The applicant claims that he‘s - - this was never written nor - - or said, regarding a change of agenda, or at least, said publically. He believes that the Department of Transport should be able to demonstrate that it was, and Hicks has led evidence along these lines. (WorkCover:p2363)

None of the documents provided by Transport (12.3.00) in accordance with the Review Officer‟s direction supported Mr Hicks‟ claim of transparency in regard to the switch of agendas.

 The Minister for Transport, having been asked in regard to Hicks‟ testimony to provide a substantiating document (Q&A number 42 of 15.8.02), answered as follows: (g) The Minister is advised that the former Director General of Transport provided this information to the Conciliation and Review Directorate hearing on oath. I am unaware of any documentation the former Director General may have to substantiate his position as part of his personal records. There is no record on DPI file documenting the staff meeting.

On the basis of Q&A number 42 my written challenge of 15.11.02 to Det Sgt Mansas was for him to follow-up with Mr Hicks directly, on the issue of substantiating documents.

On 28.1.03 the simplicity of the task of obtaining substantiating documents was specified to the Police in an eleven-page format I headed as follows: CORNERSTONE ISSUE: Mr Stuart Hicks, Director General (1990-96) knowingly gave false evidence while under oath (4.2.00) in relation to the openness and accountability in the switch of organisational change agendas at the Department of Transport On 11.2.03 my letter to Det Sgt Mansas included the following: I respectfully request you to ask Transport to actually present evidence of having ever addressed my claims or the evidence I provided in support.

Det Sgt Mansas, by email (copy available), refused to respond.

CLAIM OF PERJURY AGAINST MR HARRIS – DIRECTOR GENERAL 1998 - 2000

 On 16.6.99 Mr Harris, in light of my explicit submissions to the Minister for Transport regarding Transport‟s failure to address my public interest claim, advised the Minister as follows:

Transport denies harassing Mr Winzer for having raised these matters. There is clear documented evidence that he has received a response to the issues he has raised. Transport has also requested that Mr Winzer provided proof to substantiate his allegations; he was either unable or chose not to do so.

 On 23.2.00 Harris repeatedly stated that his advice of 16.6.99 to the Minister was true and correct. For example:

MR MACDONALD: (TO WITNESS) See, that‘s been the substance of this claim; is that Mr Winzer has not received a response from the Department of Transport that addresses the issues - - 67

MR HARRIS: And the substance of our response is that we have responded to every issue he has raised. As I‘ve said in this note to the Minister [Mr Harris‘ advice of 16th June 1999 to then Minister Criddle about the Hon L Ravlich‘s questions on my EBA related public interest claim], if he has some other allegation that has not been responded to, then either give it to us, or give it to the Anti-Corruption Commission, and we‘ll deal with it. MR MACDONALD: Well, he believes he has. He believes he has raised his concerns with the Department of Transport - - MR HARRIS: All right, then. MR MACDONALD: - - and he feels in response to that he‘s had his position abolished, he‘s been redeployed; he‘s been re-registered for redeployment; his - - MR HARRIS: And we (…. indistinct ….) MR MACDONALD: - - substantive position was abolished, as he referred to - - MR HARRIS: With respect, we believe we have dealt with each of those issues in correspondence over a period of time. The fact that there is a disagreement about that is why we‘re in a court to have that determined – as we are in other jurisdictions to have other issues determined. ( WorkCover:pp1584-5) (My emphasis added) And: MR McDONALD: [Reading Mr Harris‘ advice of 16.6.99 to the Minister] Well, that‘s - - what I‘m getting at is, it says:

―Transport has also requested that Mr Winzer provide proof to substantiate his allegations.‖

Which - - is that a communication; was it a letter written to Mr Winzer? I‘m asking you what does that refer to?

MR HARRIS: Going back over time there have been a number of documents – letters sent to Mr Winzer, asking for substantiated (sic) of claims. Our view is that they have not been substantiated in responses. (WorkCover,23.2.00:p1588) (My emphasis)

 In response to question with notice No 880 of 14.3.00 Parliament was advised: (2) Mr Winzer has received detailed responses to his correspondence and has met with either the present Acting Director General or his predecessor in relation to his allegations.

 Questioned on the “how many detailed responses” advice (Q&A No.880, 14.3.00) Harris as the Director General specified in response (Q&A No.1980 of 20.6.00) three documents he‟d signed. None of those documents constituted an attempt to address my claim.

 Questioned as to the date of the meetings “with either the present Acting Director General or his predecessor in relation to [my] allegations”, as per the response at Q&A No 880, 14.3.00, Harris advised (Q&A No. 1980 of 20.6.00) of our meeting on 29.1.99.

However, on 23.2.00 Harris‟ testimony, when cross-examined on whether my public interest claim was discussed at the 29.1.99 meeting, was “Now that was not the matter that was the subject of this meeting” (Harris, WorkCover, 23.2.00:1574).

CLAIM OF PERJURY AGAINST MR WALDOCK – CURRENT DIRECTOR GENERAL

It constituted background to his testimony that Mr Waldock, regarding specifically worded requests from the Public Sector Standards Commission, responded on 10.5.99 as follows: Having reviewed the material supplied, I can find no substance whatsoever in Mr Winzer‘s claim that Transport has breached the Public Sector Code of Ethics in either the implementation of the EBA or the handling of the privatisation and contracting-out process.

Nine months later Mr Waldock provided the following testimony that is clearly at odds with his advice of 10.5.99 to the Standards Commission:

MR McDONALD: Mr Waldock, I‘ll put something to you that you did hear before, but it‘s probably the appropriate time to put it up in cross-examination. Are you aware that Mr Winzer‘s allegations against the Department of Transport is that they applied an improper process in shifting from the underlying principles of the 1995 enterprise bargaining agreement to an alternative agenda, and that agenda being - - a change in the philosophy of management to one based on privatisation and contracting-out?

MR WALDOCK: Am I aware? No, I‘m not aware of that allegation.

MR McDONALD: No? Are you aware that consequently Mr Winzer alleges that approximately $7 million of money has been paid contrary to the provisions of the 1995 enterprise bargaining agreement?

MR WALDOCK: No. I‘m not aware of that.

MR McDONALD: And you‘ve never been made aware of this allegation in the past?

MR WALDOCK: No. (WorkCover, 3.2.00:922-3)