1

Neil Winzer 24th

February 2014

12 Holleton Terrace

Padbury Western Australia 6025

Phone: 045 046 2526 Email: winzer@iinet.net.au

Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Phone: (02) 6277 2313 Email: jscfadt@aph.gov.au

Dear members of the Committee

CORRUPTION IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND THE SENATE ELECTION

In my submissions of 20.1.14, 28.1.14, 10.2.14 and 18.2.14 to you I‟ve presented data on the

comprehensive failure of the political and justice systems of Western Australia in regard to

the disclosure of corruption I initiated and pressed the argument as to the implications of that

failure for national security and the national economy.

It is a prerequisite that you take a position on the data presented in support of my contention

that there was never a genuine investigation of the disclosure, as at Attachment A today.

In my previous submissions I offered an explanation as to the Department of Foreign Affairs

and Trade having been grossly incorrect in advising me on 23.5.13 that the “CMAG

[Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group] is mandated to address country situations where

serious or persistent violations of Commonwealth values have occurred” (my emphasis) and

that “the circumstances of your situation do not fall within the remit of the CMAG‟s

mandate.”

Obviously, I‟ve had to wait to make this submission in order to attach the weight that, I

believe, goes with the decision of Hon Justice Hayne of the Court of Disputed Returns

regarding the 2013 Western Australian Senate election. The following is posted on

Australian Electoral Commission website:

As advised in the AEC‟s previous media statement (18 February), in accordance with the Australian Constitution and the requirements of the Western Australian Election of Senators Act 1903, an election of six senators for Western Australia will occur once a writ has been issued by His Excellency Mr Malcolm McCusker AC CVO QC, the Governor of Western Australia.

I submit that the data in regard to Governor McCusker being a chronic liar provided at

Attachment B of my 10.2.14 submission and again at Attachment B today is incompatible

with the constitutional responsibilities issued to him.

While it might be argued that Governor McCusker‟s propensity for lying will not impact on

the outcome of the up-coming Senate election in WA, surely questions are promoted as to the

overall integrity of the election.

2

Today I request the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to take

steps to ask:

1. whoever are the candidates in the Senate election in WA to take a position on the

issues related to corruption in WA that I have detailed; and

2. the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in light of the possibility of an intense

social media campaign imposed by me on the candidates in the Senate election in

regard to corruption in WA, to review their 23.5.13 advice that “the circumstances of

[my] situation” do not involve a “country situation”.

Such a campaign would of course encompass, as I put to you on 18.2.14, evidence as

to the involvement in crimes of those the Public Sector Commissioner wants to

protect being trumped by the Public Sector Commissioner‟s legislated authority. I

say the data in support of my contention regarding the Attorney-General being

unduly influenced by the Public Sector Commissioner is a perfect match to the Chief

Justice‟s 1.8.13 explanation that "both the written law and any directions of the

Minister are trumped by any public sector standard or code of ethics published by the

Commissioner".

In closing I note with great alarm the fact that, despite my persistence in advising you that the

problems I‟ve explained have been exacerbated by those in the WA political and justice

systems refusing further communication with me, your officers have not even provided an

acknowledgement regarding my submissions.

Consequently, I will seek the attention of Prime Minister Abbott by writing to him directly

and attaching a copy of this submission.

Sincerely

Neil Winzer

CC All Members of the WA Parliament Minister Julie Bishop

Governor Malcolm McCusker Minister David Johnston

Len Roberts-Smith QC Hon Tanya Plibersek

Hon Stephen Conroy Hon Nick Xenophon

Hon Christine Milne Commissioner Karl O‟Callaghan

3

ATTACHMENT B Submission of 24.2.14 to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

GOVERNOR MCCUSKER IS A CHRONIC LIAR

I submit that the data in the following 7 points shows Governor McCusker has a

propensity for telling lies:

1. Governor McCusker repeated what he knew to be a lie told by the Police and

endorsed by the WA Corruption and Crime Commission

In his report to dated 29.12.06 the Parliamentary Inspector, now Governor McCusker, argued

that it was “justified and appropriate” that the CCC had accepted the Police decision to quash

all of my claims of perjury, as follows: Mr Winzer‟s complaint of perjury against witnesses who gave evidence against him in a workers‟ compensation claim was also investigated by Mansas, who interviewed (among others) a witness, Helen Langley, who was the former supervisor of Mr Winzer at DOT. Mansas‟ conclusion was that there was no evidence of the alleged perjury, it was simply that some matters were in contention between the witnesses and Mr Winzer. (my emphasis) Det Sgt Mansas concluded his very detailed report (to which there were 18 “attachments” which included transcripts of interviews) by recommending to the Commission that the inquiry be closed, but with the observation that he felt sure that this would not satisfy Mr Winzer. In my opinion, the CCC‟s acceptance of that recommendation, in relation to Mr Winzer‟s allegation of perjury and corruption, and after its own review of those complaints, was justified and appropriate.

As you may see from the detailed at points 1, 2 and 3 of my paper Governor McCusker, a

Common Liar and Cheat provided at Attachment A to my submission of 28.1.14 to the Joint

Standing Committee, Governor McCusker on 29.12.06 endorsed that „it was simply that some

matters were in contention‟ argument despite being fully aware of reports to the WA

Parliament and views of significant others that were seriously at odds with it; as follow:

6.9.00

The report to Parliament on 6.9.00 given by Hon Kim Chance as the chairman of the

Standing Committee on public Administration that included:

I will not go into the fine detail of the harassment, except in one particular case. Upon being summoned to the office of one of his superiors [Michael Harris] - who I do not intend to name - he found that not only was his superior in the room but also a lawyer was present [Mark Bodycoat]. He had no warning that a legal representative would be present on the employer‟s side, and he had no opportunity to arrange his own representation either from his union or from another legal practitioner. He was simply sat down and then asked a strange question. He was asked to substantiate rumours which were said to be circulating within the Department of Transport about allegations of corruption within the department. Mr Winzer had not been the source of these rumours. Mr Winzer assures me - and there is no evidence to the contrary - that he has never at any time repeated those particular rumours. He was nonetheless asked to substantiate rumours to which he had never been party - rumours which he had certainly

4

heard, because they had been heard by everybody in the Department of Transport, but rumours which had no connection with him whatsoever. When this matter went to a review - and I will not go into the details of that review - the evidence given of that meeting was that upon being challenged to substantiate his allegations he refused to do so. That is a twist of the truth. He cannot prove now that that is what happened because the department‟s lawyer was present in the room, he had no warning that that was to be the case and he had no opportunity of having his own representation. That is one small example of what has happened in this case. (Legislative Council, 6.9.00 pp 734 – 735) [my emphasis]

Emphasis is warranted regarding parliamentary protocol preventing the word „lie‟ being

used. That is why Hon K Chance used the expression „twist of the truth‟ in relation to the

time when “this matter went to a review” and “the evidence given”. Hon K Chance was

referring to perjury, as he explained in his letter of 3.4.12 to Justice John Chaney, President

of the State Administrative Tribunal, as follows:

That is what I meant by a “twist of the truth”, Parliamentary rules prohibit the use of the word “lie” but it has the same meaning.

The greater part of Hon K Chance‟s letter of 3.4.12 to Justice John Chaney was copied at

point 10 of my paper Governor McCusker, a Common Liar and Cheat provided in my

submissions of 21.3.13 to the CMAG and 28.1.14 to the Joint Standing Committee on

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade at attachments D and A respectively.

15.11.00

The Legislative Council Estimates and Financial Operations Standing Committee held a

public hearing on 9.800 as may be verified from the Department of Transport Inquiry

transcript. I provided Governor McCusker with a copy of that transcript that began with my

opening statement that “Transport have never responded by way of an explanation”. It can

also be seen from the transcript that when questioned by the Committee I elaborated on that

point and cited the failure of the Public Sector Standards Commission to oblige Transport to

present documents that might substantiate their position. It can also be seen from the

transcript that one of the members of the Committee stated that “something was amiss” after

they explained that the PSSC had already given contrary advice to the Committee.

I provided Governor McCusker with a copy of the 15.11.00 advice to me from the Standing

Committee that included: 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 inappropriate in the circumstances, the Committee is unable to pursue these matters any further.

14.10.04

On 14.10.04, a mere three weeks before my initial approach on 7.11.04 to Governor

McCusker, Hon Cheryl Edwardes, a former Attorney-General, wrote to Premier Gallop as

follows:

You are aware that there has never been a full and complete investigation of this matter. In light of the Department‟s 4

th May response [to Parliament] concern must be expressed

5

about the past advice to you as to “considerations”, “examinations”, “re-examinations” etc.

Given that there had been no Police involvement between 4.5.04 when the Police provided

me with their eight lines of final advice as to their “no substantive criminal offence” finding

and 29.12.06 when Governor McCusker endorsed the „it was simply that some matters were

in contention‟ argument, Hon Cheryl Edwardes note of there never having been “a full and

complete investigation” was absolutely correct.

That is, Governor McCusker endorsed the „it was simply that some matters were

in contention‟ argument knowing that there had not been “a full and complete

investigation”

November 2004

I provided Governor McCusker with the Standing Committee on the Environment and Public

Affairs Sessional report on petitions tabled in November 2004 which included the view of

two of the members of the Committee:

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 Parliament resumes after prorogation.

14.12.04

On 14.12.04 Governor McCusker was provided a copy of a petition to the Premier from those

who, on the basis of the documents, believed that Parliament had been misled on 4.5.04 by

Transport‟s advice that they‟d addressed my claim. The petition was signed by the following:

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

30.3.05

Governor McCusker on 30.3.05 had allowed me approximately two hours of his time during

which I gave a presentation of the documents included in support of and associated with the

advice tabled in Parliament on 4.5.04. My presentation on 30.3.05 included extensive detail

as to the perjury associated with the advice tabled in Parliament on 4.5.04 which was the

same as that disseminated in other forums and to psychiatrists. It was the same in that it was

of the „Winzer’s claim has been addressed‟ / „Winzer failed when asked to substantiate his

claim‟ pattern that had been fabricated from the content and process of the meeting I attended

on 29.1.99 with the Director General of Transport and Transport‟s resident solicitor.

6

On 30.3.05 I‟d attended Governor McCusker‟s office with Mr Trevor Reakes and my brother

Barrie as witnesses. My statutory declaration and that of my brother are similar to that of Mr

Reakes, as follows:

I, Trevor Raymond Reakes of 36 Morgan Street, Cannington 6107 do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:- I accompanied Mr Neil Winzer and Mr Barrie Winzer to a meeting on 30 March 2005 with Malcolm McCusker QC concerning the public interest claim initiated by Neil. My direct involvement in the public interest claim effectively began with my letters to former Premier Gallop from 1 November 2001. The stance that I eventually took in regard to the claim is adequately summarised in the statutory declaration that I submitted in conjunction with the statutory declaration of Mr Damien North. The statutory declarations of Mr North and I support the claim that former Premier Gallop knowingly collaborated in a cover up of the public interest claim. At a meeting with Minister Chance, I witnessed Neil‟s presentation of the documents and advice the Department of Planning and Infrastructure provided to the WA Parliament on 4 May 2004. At the conclusion of Neil‟s presentation Minister Chance expressed his understanding as to the Department having misled the Parliament by advising that they had addressed Neil‟s public interest claim. I understand that Minister Chance on 25 August 2005 inform the Parliament of his determination in regard to the 4 May 2004 advice. I have also been involved in the claim by way of signing, along with a range of union officials and politicians from various parties, a petition advising former Premier Gallop that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure had misled the Parliament on 4 May 2004 by advising that Neil‟s public interest claim had been addressed. My understanding going into the 30 March 2005 meeting with Mr McCusker was that Neil‟s main objective was to provide a presentation in regard to the advice the Department of Planning and Infrastructure provided to the Parliament on 4 May 2004. I recall that at the conclusion of Neil‟s presentation of the Department‟s 4 May 2004 advice, Mr McCusker expressed his understanding as to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure having misled the Parliament by advising that they had addressed Neil‟s public interest claim.

25.8.05

The documentation used in my 30.3.05 presentation for Governor McCusker was used in my

presentation for Minister Chance‟s chief of staff and formed the basis of Minister Chance‟s

advice of 25.8.05 in answer to detailed questions from the Opposition. Minister Chance on

25.8.05 advised Parliament as follows:

Transport had misled the Parliament from 2000 to 2004 by advising that their officers

had addressed my public interest claim;

Transport had misled consulting psychiatrists by advising that their officers had

addressed my public interest claim;

Transport had victimised me over many years because of my attempt to make a public

interest claim;

Transport had misled the Public Sector Standards Commission by advising that their

officers had addressed my public interest claim; and

7

The Public Sector Standards Commission had accepted Transport‟s false advice and as

demonstrated in the PSSC letter of 2.12.99, had paraphrased that false advice.

27.12.06

My letter of 27.12.06 to Governor McCusker addressing a draft of his 29.12.06 report is a

critical document. A significant feature of my letter of 27.12.06 is the detail as to my

concerns about the Police closing-off the fraud part of my public interest claim to which I‟d

identified Mr Stuart Hicks as the “cornerstone”. Having learnt, subsequent to the Police

advice to me of 4.5.04, that Mr Hicks had been on the panel that selected Commissioner

O‟Callaghan I wrote and attached to my 27.12.06 letter to Governor McCusker 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.

Round up

Governor McCusker on 29.12.06 endorsed the „it was simply that some

matters were in contention between the witnesses and Mr Winzer‟ argument

despite his full awareness of:

a report tabled in Parliament on 6.9.00 as to perjury, albeit couched

in the terms of a „twist of the truth‟ in accordance with protocol;

the 9.8.00 Legislative Council Estimates and Financial Operations

Standing Committee Department of Transport Inquiry transcript

statement that “something was amiss” regarding my testimony that

was in gross conflict with the „twist of the truth‟ evidence provided

the Public Sector Standards Commission;

knowing of the informed opinion provided to the Premier on

14.10.04 by a former Attorney-General as to there having not been a

full and complete investigation of my public interest claim;

the minority report from the Standing Committee on the

Environment and Public Affairs Sessional report as to Parliament

needing to look at “serious matters of public interest”;

receiving a copy of the 14.12.04 petition on Parliament being misled;

giving before three witnesses on 30.3.05 an acknowledgement grossly

conflicting with the „some matters were in contention‟ argument;

being advised of Minister Chance on 28.8.05 having advised

Parliament in comprehensive terms regarding the outcome of my

8

initiative in making a public interest claim;

receiving a copy of the 14.12.04 petition on Parliament being misled;

and

on 27.12.06 receiving extensive detail in support of my warning as to

the Police acting with a conflict of interest.

2. In responding to my persistence in making detailed submissions as to his acceptance

of the CCC report of 14.8.08 Governor McCusker lied to the Joint Standing

Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission

I persisted in citing the Police for having acted with a conflict of interest when making

detailed submissions as to Governor McCusker‟s acceptance of the CCC report of 14.8.08

and requesting him to agree to a meeting. The request for a meeting made on 4.10.08 by then

Minister Kim Chance included the following:

Mr Winzer has, with reference to his response to the Corruption and Crime Commission of 14

th August 2008, asked me to seek an opportunity for us to meet with you at your

earliest possible convenience. In light of the extensive history associated with this matter, I believe a meeting would be appropriate. Mr Winzer has advised me that it was on your suggestion that he make his request of the Corruption and Crime Commission for the opportunity at a formal interview to present the evidence that he contends supports his claim in regard to the WA Police Service investigation. It seems clear from the Corruption and Crime Commission report of 14

th August 2008

that they have rejected this request.

Governor McCusker‟s reply of 8.10.08 (four days later) to then Minister Kim Chance in

relation to my „Police conflict of interest‟ complaint was as follows:

If Mr Winzer contends that he has some documentary evidence, hitherto not seen by the Commission, to support his allegation of “conflict of interest” then I would suggest that he compile whatever documents are relevant to his allegation of a conflict of interest, with an explanatory note, explaining why he contends that the documents do support his allegation, and forward the documents and the note to the Commission with a request that the Commission review that documentation and reconsider his complaint of “conflict of interest”. (McCusker, 8.10.08)

In his 29.5.09 submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the CCC Hon Kim Chance

explained the situation in these terms:

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

9

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”?

Emphasis is warranted as to the fact that I courtesy copied my submission of 3.12.10 to the

Joint Standing Committee on the CCC to Governor McCusker, Premier Barnett and a wide

range of significant others, thus making him conscious of the fact that I was citing him for

telling lies. Unfortunately I was to learn that he was not deterred. My 3.12.10 submission

began as follows:

My request for a copy of the advice provided by the then Parliamentary Inspector, Mr M J McCusker QC, that underpinned the Committee’s advice to me of 13.5.09 I contend strongly that Mr M J McCusker QC intentionally provided you with misleading advice and therefore your advice to me of 13.5.09 concluding with the view that “The Parliamentary Inspector‟s attendance to this matter was painstaking and thorough.” was/is incorrect.

3. Governor McCusker lied in putting to me the argument that the CCC had

“properly” rejected my claim of a Police conflict of interest.

Subsequent to the CCC having denied during the two occasions I was interviewed any

discussion as to my claim as to the Police acting with a conflict of interest, I persisted in

pressing Governor McCusker for his recommendation for the CCC to allow a formal

interview at which I could present my supporting documents; that the CCC have to this day

not seen. My letter of 13.8.08 to Governor McCusker (emailed before the CCC report dated

14.8.08) began as follows:

My request for you to recommend that the Corruption and Crime Commission conduct a formal interview at which I would have the opportunity to present evidence in support of my claim that the WA Police Service acted with a conflict of interest Towards the conclusion of our conversation on 4.8.08 by phone you recommended that I put to the Corruption and Crime Commission the request that I‟d made of you on 31.5.08, 23.7.08 and 1.8.08 for the opportunity to present evidence in support of my claim that the WA Police Service acted with a conflict of interest in conducting their „investigation‟ into the public interest claim I initiated. Your further recommendations were that I ask for that opportunity to be granted before the CCC finish their report and provide you with a courtesy copy of my request. My letters of 4.8.08 and 7.8.08 to the CCC in regard to a formal interview were copied to you. My requests of 4.8.08 and 7.8.08 culminated in a rather blunt conversation I had yesterday by phone with Mr David Robinson of the CCC. I believe, going by the

10

acoustics, Mr Robinson used the speaker facility without paying me the courtesy of advice. Consequently, I believe other CCC officers may be able to provide their record of the conversation.

And included:

Concluding the conversation I cited Mr Robinson for having attempted to conduct by stealth over the phone that which I‟d asked the Commissioner be conducted formally. He agreed to my request to put his rejection of my request of the Commissioner in writing as a priority. Notwithstanding the documents I have showing that Sgt Mansas was aware of Mr Hicks‟ working relationship with the Police Service, the certainty of there being documents such as special notices from the Commissioner and internal newsletters bringing Mr Hicks‟ presence to the attention of all officers, must have crossed Mr Robinson‟s mind. The Hicks, Bogan reports that were tabled in Parliament would also set out the methodology used in their reviews and, surely, include a record of Hicks and Bogan having circulated widely to areas such as the Public Sector Investigations Unit, asking questions and gathering information.

And concluding as follows:

With respect, emphasising the urgency associated with my situation and hoping to maintain what I believe is my good relationship with you, I appeal for either:

the opportunity to discuss this situation with you at a meeting very soon, or

your recommendation for the Corruption and Crime Commission to conduct a formal interview at which I would have the opportunity to present evidence in support of my claim that the WA Police Service acted with a conflict of interest.

I ask you to keep the above request dated 13.8.08 in mind as it is, I strongly contend, grossly

at odds with Governor McCusker‟s advice of 30.10.08, that included the following: 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)

My letter of 21.9.08 to Governor McCusker was lengthy in that it comprised of great detail as

to my critique of the CCC‟s 14.8.08 report. It was in effect the critique that I‟ve since

reduced to the form of a brief on the essence of parliamentary question and answer No. 3772

of 24.3.11 noted in my covering letter today. My letter of 21.9.08 should be read in full in

order to gain a complete appreciation of Governor McCusker‟s persistence in telling lies.

My letter of 21.9.08 began as follows:

Dear Mr McCusker The Corruption and Crime Commission report of 14.8.08 is false to the point that I believe it strongly supports the contention, that I have previously put to you, that the CCC is corrupt. I contend that the CCC have acted willfully and blatantly in order to suppress the public interest claim, the origins of which can be traced back to the questions I asked in 1995 within the scope of my duty statement. The CCC have applied no skill in doing this. Clearly, their audacity emanates from their power. They have demonstrated a great degree of bias in their selection of evidence, manipulated evidence, overlooked the failure of the Western Australian Police Service (WAPS) to interview key witnesses and presented Parliamentary records in a crudely false way.

11

And: Repeatedly, I have told you that I have appreciated your past involvement, particularly in the fact that you were the first, other than Minister Chance and the aforementioned range of individuals who are not authorities, to allow me to conduct the presentation for you on 30.3.05 regarding what happened on 29.1.99 in Mr Harris‟ office. However, I have been shocked by what you have put your signature to on 19.8.08. Not only is it wrong it is I believe extremely discourteous in terms of the way the interests of the public have been dismissed.

And: The CCC, I say, have for improper reasons „hidden‟ behind your determination as conveyed in your report of 29.12.06 to classify the CCC‟s acceptance of the WAPS report as “justified and appropriate”. I will explain the significance of your determination of 29.12.06 and the significance of your decision to delete from your 16.10.06 draft report your recommendation for Mr Stuart Hicks, the key figure to my public interest claim, to be interviewed for the first time. Some considerable time before your determination of 29.12.06 I provided you with advice as to my claim that WAPS had acted with a conflict of interest in order to shield Hicks with whom they have a strong working relationship. On 27.12.06 I provided you with advice as to why a decision to classify the CCC‟s acceptance of the WAPS report as “justified and appropriate” would be wrong. In this regard my submission to you of 27.12.06 was made with reference to a considerable amount of evidence and included 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;

4. In responding to my complaints against him submitted to the Legal Profession

Complaints Committee Governor McCusker lied to the LPCC on 16.11.09, 9.8.10

and 1.9.10

I complained to the LPCC that Governor McCusker had on 16.11.09, 9.8.10 and 1.9.10

intentionally provided them with the following two items of incorrect advice:

A. The CCC interviewed me and reviewed their position with regard to my claim that the

Police Service acted with a conflict of interest.

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.

As Governor McCusker was addressing my submission of 9.11.09 to the LPCC that

was unambiguously about my claim as to the Police Service having acted with a

conflict of interest, his advice to the LPCC could only be interpreted as being about

the CCC interviewing me in regard to my claim as to the Police Service having acted

with a conflict of interest.

Recall at point 3 above Governor McCusker‟s reply of 8.10.08 (four days after

Minister Chance‟s request for a meeting) was as follows:

If Mr Winzer contends that he has some documentary evidence, hitherto not seen by the Commission, to support his allegation of “conflict of interest” then I would suggest that he compile whatever documents are relevant to his allegation of a conflict of interest, with an explanatory note, explaining why he contends that the documents do support his allegation, and forward the documents and the note to

12

the Commission with a request that the Commission review that documentation and reconsider his complaint of “conflict of interest”. (McCusker, 8.10.08)

; and

B. He met with 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.

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.

In offering a defence against my complaint that Mr M J McCusker QC had willfully

misled them, the LPCC on 30.9.10 acknowledged that the evidence shows that neither

Governor McCusker nor the Corruption and Crime Commission had addressed my

claim that the Police Service acted with a conflict of interest.

The following, I say, would have been included in the LPCC‟s considerations leading

to that acknowledgement:

The documents showing my vigorous efforts to press the CCC for a „put up or shut

up‟ opportunity regarding my Police conflict of interest claim, culminating in my

phone discussion with Mr David Robinson of the CCC during which he‟d, as I

reported on 13.8.08 to Mr M J McCusker, “attempted to conduct by stealth over

the phone that which I‟d asked the Commissioner be conducted formally;

The statutory declaration of Mr Ian Ainsworth who supported me during

interviews at the CCC and witnessed the CCC‟s categorical rejection of my

attempt to raise my Police conflict of interest claim;

The letter to the LPCC from the Hon Kim Chance as follows:

I refer to Mr Neil Winze‟s letters of 09/11/09, 26/11/09 and 13/08/10 to the Legal Practice Complaints Committee and confirm that I have not been interviewed by the Parliamentary Inspector or the Corruption and Crime Commission regarding the performance of the Western Australian Police Service in relation to the public interest claim initiated by Mr Winzer.

The challenge I put to the LPCC to request the CCC for any evidence of them

having interviewed me regarding my Police conflict of interest claim.

5. In responding to my complaints against him submitted to the Legal Profession

Complaints Committee, Governor McCusker lied to the State Administrative

Tribunal on 25.11.10

Justice John Chaney, President of the State Administrative Tribunal, deemed that my

complaint that Governor McCusker intended to mislead the LPCC was entirely separate from

my complaint that on 25.11.10 he intended to mislead the SAT by advising as follows: For that purpose [the function of the Parliamentary Inspector] I examined all of the information provided to me by Mr Winzer, and the CCC‟s handling of his complaint.

13

Because he had complained that the CCC had not given him the opportunity fully to present his allegations, by interview (although I believe he had been interviewed) I arranged for the CCC to conduct a further interview at which [I] was invited to give a full statement of [my] allegations. (McCusker, 25.11.10)

My complaint that Governor McCusker on 25.11.10 intended to mislead the SAT effectively

had four parts:

A. If Governor McCusker “examined all of the information provided” how can the

simple and verifiable information in my two-page brief on the essence the

parliamentary question tabled on 24.3.11 be explained in public interest terms.

It is critical to take into account the documentation as to my numerous attempts

following my first submission on 7.11.04 to him as Parliamentary Inspector to draw

his attention to this simple and verifiable information.

B. He did not make such an „arrangement‟ with the CCC, but rather, as the documents

show, in light of my protests as to the CCC refusing my request for such an

arrangement, he repeatedly gave the advice that I was to make the arrangement

myself. For example, he advised then Minister Kim Chance on 8.10.08 in relation to

my „Police conflict of interest‟ complaint as follows:

If Mr Winzer contends that he has some documentary evidence, hitherto not seen

by the Commission, to support his allegation of “conflict of interest” then I would

suggest that he compile whatever documents are relevant to his allegation of a

conflict of interest, with an explanatory note, explaining why he contends that the

documents do support his allegation, and forward the documents and the note to

the Commission with a request that the Commission review that documentation

and reconsider his complaint of “conflict of interest”. (McCusker, 8.10.08)

C. There was no “further interview”. It is important to keep in mind the documentation

as to my persistence in pressing for an interview on my „Police conflict of interest‟

complaint. Of course it is open to any authority to request the Corruption and Crime

for a record of any such “further interview”.

D. I was never “invited to give a full statement of [my] allegations” other than when Mr

David Robinson for the CCC had “attempted to conduct by stealth over the phone that

which I‟d asked the Commissioner be conducted formally” as I complained to

Governor McCusker on 13.8.08.

6. Governor McCusker on two counts lied to me at a mediation conference at the

State Administrative Tribunal regarding my complaint that on 16.11.09, 9.8.10

and 1.9.10 he‟d lied to the LPCC

Regarding my complaint that Governor McCusker on 16.11.09, 9.8.10 and 1.9.10 lied to the

LPCC, we attended a mediation conference at the State Administrative Tribunal on 29.4.11.

While Governor McCusker was supported by his personal solicitor, Michael Hawkins, and

the LPCC solicitor, Patricia LeMiere, I was supported by the Hon Max Trenorden MLC.

14

I began the proceedings by offering to withdraw my complaint if Governor McCusker would

say something on the basis of which Trenorden, with the help of others, could bring an end to

my disclosure experience.

Governor McCusker immediately thanked Trenorden and I for our positive approach and said

that “while it had always been [his] view that [I] had been victimised, [I] had not made that

complaint for [him] to address”. He also said he would “do all [he] could to help [me] get

back to work”.

Those two statements constitute two lies.

As can be seen in my initial submission of 7.11.04 to him and many of my subsequent

submissions to him, a claim victimisation was inextricably linked to my fundamental claim of

corruption.

An understanding as to the second lie can be gained from the fact that my circumstances have

remained unchanged. The outcome of that mediation conference was that Mr Reece

Waldock, the current Director General of Transport, rejected the recommendation that I be

allowed to return to work provided by the most respected psychiatrist in WA. Mr Waldock

for the purpose of gaining an alternative opinion developed a brief featuring the „Winzer’s

claim has been addressed‟ / „Winzer failed when asked to substantiate his claim‟ pattern of

false advice and a list of 25 of the authorities involved over the years. Mr Waldock argued

that my “ongoing actions, and unchanged views” represent a reason why I shouldn‟t be

allowed to return to work.

7. Governor McCusker on approximately 16.11.08 lied to the Parliamentary Joint

Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity in that

he submitted that the law enforcement integrity model in WA works.

Notwithstanding the information I‟ve provided in the above 6 points, I contend that the only

basis for an interpretation of Governor McCusker‟s submission to the Parliamentary Joint

Committee on ACLEI as to the law enforcement integrity model in WA working would be a

basis upon which it was proper to be extremely selective in regard to evidence presented.

It is a crucial fact to the claim of corruption I initiated formally on 18.9.98 that my requests

for the opportunity to present the full suite of documents I have to support my claim as to the

WA Police acting with a conflict of interest have been rejected. Governor McCusker played

an instrumental role in that rejection.

Furthermore, Governor McCusker simply ignored the submissions of a Minister and two

other Members of Parliament that supported strongly my claim as to the WA Police acting

with a conflict of interest.

Minister Chance on 30.05.07 lodged a submission with Governor McCusker including:

I also draw to your attention your comments on page 4 of your 29 December letter to Commissioner Hammond 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

15

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). (My emphasis added)

The Hon Paddy Embry‟s letter of 20.06.07 to Governor McCusker began as follows:

Mr Neil Winzer approached me to write to you on his behalf and I am pleased to do so. I composed the first part of this letter, Mr Winzer the second part (dated 11

th June 2007).

I have read it carefully several times and am happy as to the veracity of its contents.

And included:

For my part I recommend him to you and ask you to revisit his case. I strongly suspect that Sgt Mansas was given a „job to do‟ rather than to enquire fully into the whole matter.

The Hon Jim Scott‟s undated letter to Governor McCusker included:

The position I held on the public interest disclosure at the time of my interview with Det Sgt Mansas that can be easily extrapolated from the public record is as follows:

A. The most fundamental provisions of the 1995 EBA were not implemented and

therefore, in regard to wage increases tied to implementation I stated in the Legislative Council 11 March 2003 during the Public Interest Disclosure Bill debate:

I believe that there was a problem and that taxpayers‟ money has been expended without services being provided

And: 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.

And: D. No valid investigation was ever conducted by any of the agencies responsible for

monitoring and/or regulating the public sector. I made this point in regard to the public interest claim initiated by Neil Winzer during the Public Interest Disclosure Bill debate on 19 September 2002.

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 organizational change agenda as stated by Mr Hicks. When I asked for evidence in connection with the matters in contention the Department was unable to provide it. I could not then provide the non existing evidence 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 provided proof that the Department cannot show that it adequately dealt with Mr Winzer‟s public interest claim.

And:

16

I ask that you seriously consider my concerns that the report of Det Sgt Mansas did not point out that the Department continually failed to provide evidence that it dealt with Mr Winzer‟s claim. Mansas also seemed to accept at face value that the EBA conditions were substantially met despite significant deficiencies in meeting important targets.

I stand by my submission of 24.11.08 to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian

Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity that began as follows:

Untrue submissions provided by Len 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

Dear Committee Secretary

I understand from the terms of reference for the inquiry what your objective is. Therefore, I understand that you will have no interest in addressing my public interest claim per se. I will refer to my experience as a public servant in making a claim of fraud, abuse of office, perjury and other crimes only as a way addressing the terms of reference meaningfully.

Not being aware of your inquiry it was only with the media reports on 17.11.08 that my attention was drawn to the submissions made to you by Len Roberts-Smith QC, Commissioner of the WA Corruption and Crime Commission and Malcolm McCusker QC, the Parliamentary Inspector of the CCC.

The media have reported that Roberts-Smith told you that McCusker has too much power and McCusker told you that the current law enforcement integrity model in Western Australia works.

I submit that the Corruption and Crime Commission works to an agenda that is not in the public interest and McCusker does not have enough power.

The public interest disclosure I initiated formally in 1998 was not addressed by my employing department. Beginning with the Public Sector Standards Commission and the Equal Opportunity Commission I appealed to every authority in WA, but did not achieve an investigation. Some of the detail of my „whistleblower‟ experience is conveyed in the attached copies of my submissions of 29.10.08, 12.11.08 and 20.11.08 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry into Whistleblowing Protections within the Australian Government Public Sector.

Turning directly to the point of this submission I note my claim that as a result of the lack accountability in WA, an individual who has, or may have had, engaged in corrupt conduct was appointed to the Board of the Australian Crime Commission.

The core truth regarding Governor McCusker‟s performance can be appreciated from Hon

Max Trenorden advice to the Legislative Council on 9.8.11, including 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. 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!