1 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. 3 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; 4 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.