1

Neil Winzer 4th

December 2012

12 Holleton Terrace

Padbury WA 6025

Winzer@iinet.net.au - phone: 045 046 2526

Governor Malcolm McCusker

enquiries@govhouse.wa.gov.au; dos@govhouse.wa.gov.au; mccuskerqc@iinet.net.au

Hon Robin Chapple‟s question without notice that featured my request for a meeting to

achieve an arrangement that would enable me to „get on with my life‟ – despite the question

having included irrefutable detail as to Parliament being misled 2000 to 2004 by the advice

that documents existed addressing my public interest claim, the 15.11.12 answer was that my

public interest claim had been investigated

Your 29.12.06 endorsement of the closure of the perjury aspects of my public interest claim

effectively removed the foundations to the claim and created the current situation whereby I

continue to be victimised

I cite as context:

President Hu Jintao, in posting the warning of an end to the Communist Party if corruption

wasn‟t addressed, said "no-one is above the law" and the Party should "ensure that leaders abide

by the law in both thinking and action";

Detective Inspector Peter Fox advised that he was instructed to close his investigation after

finding members of the Catholic Church hierarchy to the Archbishop level involved in the

prevention of the disclosure of paedophile activity; and

The inquiry into the involvement of Members of the NSW Parliament in decisions made

regarding coal exploration that led to profits in the order of $100 million.

I emphasise that I‟m not attempting to equate, in terms of the implications, those reports with your

performance. I‟m arguing that the same fundamental principles as to corruption apply and, as others

elsewhere in the past have argued, any individual must be recognised as part of the problem when they

know of corruption and aren‟t subsequently a part of the solution.

On 7.11.04 you were the Parliamentary Inspector and I asked for help. As a public servant I‟d disclosed

information as to criminal activity, but there had not been an objective and thorough investigation.

(That is still the case as can be seen from my brief on the essence of Giz Watson‟s 24.3.11 question)

There is a legal obligation on public servants to report what they believe is wrongdoing in their

workplace. It wasn‟t a case of a purely personal choice that didn‟t result in a benefit. At that time I

believed you to be beyond undue influence.

As may be seen from my first four letters to you my focus was on the simple and verifiable information

showing that the Department of Transport on 5.4.04 had misled Parliament in responding to question

with notice No.1800. Question No.1800 of 2004 was tabled with reference to Q&A No.541 of 2002

regarding Transport “having followed the legal practice of keeping all records relating to [my] public

interest claim”. Question 1800 of 2004 featured:

2

testimony given by a former Director General of Transport, Dr Chris Whitaker about “many

discussions” during which my concerns were addressed; and

testimony as to a “number of documents – letters sent to [me], asking for substantiated (sic)

of claims” given by a former Director General, Mr Harris, under cross-examination on the

advice that I had “received detailed responses to [my] correspondence” that he provided on

16.6.99 to the Minister for Transport.

Your good understanding of the abuse of office and perjury linked to Q&A No.1800 of 2004, I strongly

contend, did unfold from my 30.3.05 presentation of documents in your office. You are aware of my

statutory declaration and the declarations of two witnesses in regard to your 30.3.05 acknowledgement

of having recognised that Parliament had been misled.

Furthermore, at that time on reasonable grounds, I contend, I expected receptivity to my claim of fraud

would unfold from the understanding of the abuse of office and perjury. Focussing on Q&A No.1800 of

2004, my 30.3.05 presentation didn‟t extend to detail on my claim of fraud or the „attached‟ Police

Service conflict of interest claim concerning Mr Hicks.

However, that „unfolding‟ scenario was ended with the draft of your report, including: 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. 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.

In taking that position, you knowingly „pulled the rug‟ from my public interest claim.

It was dishonest, not justified and appropriate, for you to support the determination that it was “simply

that some matters were in contention between the witnesses and [I]”, particularly so due to the fact that

my 30.3.05 presentation was based almost entirely on documents in support of my claims of perjury and

the documentary record of my persistence in challenging for documents to be produced in support of

testimony given by witnesses for Transport.

Consider the points in the following two boxes in light of the CCC‟s acknowledgement that their

investigator “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”.

Please also keep in mind that due to my focus in this letter being on my presentation to you of the

information associated with Q&A No. 1800 of 2004 and consequently, the public interest questions as to

why you subsequently endorsed the closure of the perjury aspects of my public interest claim, I‟m

3

referring here to only a small proportion of the instances of perjury encompassed by the public interest

claim.

Attached you may see a table of twenty three document-based claims I submitted to the Police Service

as to Transport‟s witnesses knowingly giving false testimony. Of the claims tabled, in order to limit the

amount of reading involved, I‟ve provided details on six only.

Whitaker - the “many discussions” testimony featured in Q&A No.1800 of 2004

Whitaker didn‟t discuss with me my documented concerns about the involvement of

his predecessor in fraud because, as he argued in testimony, “If somebody presents a

proposition to me, and I think it‟s worth looking at, that‟s what I unquestionably would

do” (WorkCover:p2114-5) and he repeatedly cited my claims as “fanciful in the extreme”

(WorkCover: pp2112-3 and p2114). Those two statements reduce to the fact that he did

not discuss my concerns with me because he classified them as not “worth looking at”.

If discussions were held between a Director General and an employee with such

documented concerns, it was appropriate that a record was made, at least a record

of the meeting having taken place, if not the content and process of the meeting.

Whitaker also gave testimony as to “many” meetings with me and that Ms Langley and

Mr Forte also had “discussions” with me, despite the fact that the only record of a meeting

that has ever been discovered was that made by me. My record was of the meeting of

31.7.97. The testimony of Langley and Forte is conflicting, as can be seen from the brief

I‟ve previously provided on the essence of Giz Watson‟s 24.3.11 question.

Because I was still seeking such “discussions” with Whitaker subsequent to our meeting

on 31.7.97, I wrote to him on 7.10.97 beginning as follows: I would very much appreciate a response to my letter of 21 September 1997 which I delivered to you by hand 22 September 1997, (copy attached).

The following is a complete copy of Whitaker‟s response dated 6.10.97:

The decision to abolish your position was based on the changing needs and

workforce composition of Transport alone. It was not related to the comments

you made on the values, or your comment on the processes for developing them.

Your contribution to Transport is acknowledged by me and your many

colleagues. I wish you every success with the Office of Multicultural Interests

and your future career.

Harris – the “detailed responses” testimony directly related to Q&A No.1800 of 2004

On 16.6.99 Harris, in light of my explicit submissions to him regarding Transport‟s

failure to address my public interest claim, advised his Minister as follows:

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

4

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 - - 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 16

th

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

5

interest claim was discussed at the 29.1.99 meeting, was “Now that was not the matter

that was the subject of this meeting” (WorkCover, 23.2.00:1574).

Note also that no record was tabled (Q&A No. 1980 of 20.6.00) as to a meeting in relation

to Whitaker, being Harris‟ predecessor as cited (Q&A No 880 of 14.3.00).

Courteous though it was, my letter of 27.12.06 was highly critical in public interest terms of the position

set out in the draft of your letter. Detail of my „Police conflict of interest‟ claim regarding Mr Stuart

Hicks was detailed in the 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 attached 27.12.06.

The only difference in your report of 29.12.06 was the absence of the recommendation for the CCC to

interview Hicks, against whom I‟d made claims of fraud and perjury.

No less than three Members of Parliament, one being a Minister of longstanding, put to you in detailed

submissions that Mansas had reported falsely what they‟d said when interviewed.

My persistent and consistent requests for a formal interview regarding my „Police conflict of interest‟

claim were either rejected or ignored. A response was not provided to the Members of Parliament who

documented clearly their contention as to the Police Service corruption.

To summarise the information in the two boxes above and relate it to the „these claims have been

investigated‟ response of 15.11.12 to Robin Chapple‟s question, I firstly emphasise your

recommendation for the CCC to investigate question No.1800 answered on 5.4.04 and note:

On 5.4.04 Transport failed to identify a date, other than 31.7.97 as noted in the letter of mine

they referred to, when asked to “table records that support the evidence provided by former

Director General, Dr Chris Whitaker, regarding the many discussions” (Q&A No. 1800 of 2004).

Transport 5.4.04 advised Parliament that they were “unaware of any documentation the former

Director General may have to substantiate his position as part of his personal records”; and

I followed-up your recommendation for the CCC to investigate Q&A No.1800 of 2004 by

providing the CCC with detail as to my claim that Whitaker‟s “many discussions” testimony

amounted to perjury. That detail included a copy of my testimony as to my 31.7.97 meeting with

Whitaker during which he simply listened to me paraphrase what I‟d put to him in writing from

29.11.96 and ended with him saying “leave it with me”. I also put to the CCC that Whitaker

concluded the 31.7.97 meeting by saying something akin to “I will look into it and get back to

you”.

In order to be objective and thorough the CCC would have had to search Transport‟s record‟s

and ask Whitaker for a personal record of meeting with me other than the one on 31.7.97 that I

had cited as my only meeting with Whitaker.

The CCC did not interview Whitaker, I say, knowing that you had supported the nullification of the

perjury aspects of my public interest claim. Consequently, the CCC determined that Whitaker‟s

testimony regarding “many discussion” and “many meetings” was truthful.

6

I strongly contend that any reasonable person would acknowledge their recognition of Harris‟ testimony

in regard to Transport having addressed my public interest claim “in correspondence over a period of

time” as constituting perjury. As noted above, the CCC on 14.8.08 did acknowledge that no such

document / correspondence could be found.

However, knowing that you had supported the move to remove the perjury aspect from my public

interest claim, it was open to the CCC to simply „overlook‟ Harris‟ testimony regarding the existence of

documents showing that Transport had addressed my claim.

As to the „been investigated‟ advice to Robin Chapple, we need to reflect on the CCC‟s 14.8.08

determination that it was sufficient that my public interest claim had been “discussed” with me and that

Harris‟ departure from WA represented an appropriate end.

The following extract from my letter of 10.11.08 conveys my view at that time that you had at least a

moral obligation to help me achieve a fair resolution to my disclosure experience.

Please correct me if I’m wrong in that I construe from your letter of 5.11.08 that you are effectively advising that if any public servant submits a claim of corruption and the Corruption and Crime Commission either through incompetence or a corrupt agenda reject all aspects of that claim, there is no point in that public servant submitting a complaint about the CCC to you.

Please also correct me if I’m wrong in the interpretation that by making my submission to you on 7.11.04, I was simply adding to those years of my life I’d already wasted as a result of attempting to make a report as to corruption in the WA public sector.

I have taken the liberty to reformat what you have on 5.11.08 advised:

“…that [your] jurisdiction under section 195 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 does not include a power to: direct [your emphasis] the Commission to investigate any issue raised by [me]; direct the Commission to revisit any particular issue raised by it; or direct the Commission to provide any further explanation to [me] other than that in its

assessment of 14 August 2008.”

It may be that it is simply the case that I’m stupid, because I’m at a loss as to what you do have the power to do. Obviously, recommendations mean nothing to a corrupt agency like the CCC.

If it was simply the case that you cannot assist me because of the inadequacy of the legislation I would of course expect you to cite that inadequacy as systemic and relate it to the Parliament. After all, the Parliament has been involved in this public interest claim since 2000.

While I could possibly understand if there is a legislative block, I can’t understand your action in repeating the opinion that the CCC “…has dealt with [my] complaints objectively and fully….”

My view is that your position of 29.12.06 as to it being “justified and appropriate” to close the perjury

aspect of my claim was wrong, to say the least, and you now need to help me.

Certainly I don‟t need another false commitment such as that you gave on 29.4.11 at the SAT about

doing “all you could to help me get back to work”. That was a commitment you gave for me to

withdraw my complaint that you‟d misled the SAT on 25.11.10 by advising:

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. Because he had complained that the CCC had not given him the opportunity fully to present his allegations, by interview (although

7

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.

How can your 29.12.06 decision to endorse the closure of the perjury aspects of my public interest claim

possibly be reconciled with that 25.11.10 advice to the SAT?

Furthermore, how can the fact that at the SAT on 29.4.11 before Max Trenorden and others, you

acknowledged your view that I‟ve been “victimised”, be reconciled with the 15.11.12 advice to

Parliament as to Reece Waldock remaining involved in decisions on my future?

The argument that you are the Governor now and therefore you have no responsibility does not carry

weight with me. It is not possible under the circumstances for me to just let you turn your back.

Yours sincerely

Neil Winzer

CC All the Members of Parliament Media

8

ATTACHMENT Letter of 4.12.12 to Governor Malcolm McCusker

THE POLICE SERVICE DETERMINED THAT “THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE

OF THE ALLEGED PERJURY, IT WAS SIMPLY THAT SOME MATTERS

WERE IN CONTENTION BETWEEN THE WITNESSES”

IN SUPPORT OF MY CLAIM OF WITNESSES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORT KNOWINGLY GIVING FALSE TESTIMONY I PROVIDED THE

POLICE SERVICE WITH TWENTY THREE DOCUMENT-BASED BRIEFS

Of the twenty three claims tabled below I will in order to limit the amount of reading involved, only

provide you with details on six claims. The Police Service was of course provided details in regard to

every claim. In addition to detail on a claim of perjury against the current Director General of the

Department of Transport, I‟ve provided detail on one claim against each of the three former directors

general who appeared as witnesses for Transport at WorkCover and two claims against the one person,

as noted on 29.12.06 by the Parliamentary Inspector, interviewed by the Police Service.

Firstly, I offer extracts from four documents as context to my complaint that Governor McCusker, when

the Parliamentary Inspector for the Corruption and Crime Commission, took the position that it was

“justified and appropriate” for the CCC to accept the recommendation of the Police Service to close the

perjury aspects of my public interest claim. These extracts show, I strongly contend, that I did not

fundamentally alter my argument as to what I was claiming was contrary to the public interest,

notwithstanding the issues that have „attached‟ over fourteen years as a result of the various authorities

failing to do their job.

Critically, these extracts show that over the years I did not alter my emphasis on the importance of

documentation in support of my position or that of the Department of Transport.

Emphasis is warranted as to this being a very limited selection of extracts from the great many relevant

documents showing that over the years I did not alter my emphasis.

My submission of 19.11.98 to the Public Sector Standards Commission included:

At this stage of our communications I will not go to the extent of breaking my experience over the last three years down into all of those issues which could possibly be considered separately and then make the links to the Public Sector Code of Ethics. In Schedule (1) I have addressed briefly the following two issues only: 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, ie. Transport did not implement the 1995 EBA despite the commitment and efforts of the staff and the Community and Public Sector Union / Civil Service Association (CPSU/CSA)

9

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. The payment of the wage increases under the 1995 EBA has effectively served as a smokescreen for the undertaking of this agenda.

My submission of 17.12.99 to the Premier included:

In their letter (2.12.99) PSSC have once again acknowledged that in coming to their decision, they have held discussions with Transport. The PSSC have never as much as laid eyes on me. Transport could not have offered PSSC any documents that supported their view of my case because they have never provided me with anything more than single sentence dismissive statements since I began writing to Transport in 1996 about, initially simple concerns in relation to the Transport Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 1995 (1995 EBA). Moreover, other than the documentary evidence that supports my position, there is only record of my deteriorating circumstances. In my view the PSSC have failed to conduct the obvious exercise of asking Transport as to what their response was to each of my documents. In the cases where Transport is not able to produce a corresponding, reasonable and understandable written reply, they should then be asked to provide a credible rebuttal to my claims that every time I acted, they reacted in an attempt to silence me. Please refer to the “my action/their reaction sequence of events’ table provided to you 23.11.99.

My submission of 31.3.05 to Malcolm McCusker, the Parliamentary Inspectoer, included:

Thank you for our meeting yesterday. I noted at the meeting the following two extracts from WorkCover’s determination of my application that reflect quite accurately what I refer to as the first and second elements of my public interest claim:

The evidence of Mr Hicks makes it very clear that the change of agenda of the department towards privatisaton and contracting out or away from enterprise bargaining to workplace agreements, was never covert or clandestine as the applicant would have me believe. It was openly communicated within the department. (WorkCover determination, 14.6.02:pp118-9) The evidence of several of the respondent’s witnesses show clearly in my view that the applicant’s concerns regarding the implementation of the EBA were discussed with him on numerous occasions and that he was given a response to those concerns. [See for example: Dr Chris Whitaker (T2113-2124), Mr Dennis Forte (T480-482) and Mr Stuart Hicks (T1056-1059, 1067-1068) and Mr Mike Harris generally] (WorkCover determination, 14.6.02:p129)

The fact that the change of agenda was not “openly communicated within the department” has always been the key component of my claim. Although I do not recall ever describing my claim in terms of a “covert or clandestine” process, I concede that is not an unreasonable interpretation of what I had been putting to the Department in writing from as early as November 1996.

And:

I think it is critical to note that as a result of the fact that my claim was not addressed by any officer for the Department on any occasion, it became a case of my initiative only and my persistence in pressing my view in different ways rather than the Department, for example, obliging me to explain or provide more detail. As to asking or obliging me to explain my claim the Department falsely advised the Parliament on 14

th March 2000 and in a similar way on 4

th May 2004.

10

The CCC reported correctly 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.

And:

As part of its enquiries into this matter, the Commission examined the files held by the DPI in relation to Mr Winzer’s public interest claim but was unable to locate any detailed written response to his claim.

Before considering the information tabled it is helpful to recall the Parliamentary

Inspector‟s letter of 29.12.06 to the CCC, including:

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.

TABLE

TESTIMONY AT WORKCOVER MY CLAIM

Mr Stuart Hicks - his testimony was:

1 that the shift from the EBA-based change

agenda to the privatisation agenda was “openly

communicated within the Department”

(WorkCover determination)

Precisely and clearly I put to the CCC that there

was no document to support that testimony as it

was untrue. Consequently, the CCC were unable

to discover such a document

2 that the Milestones Report represented an

“agreed assessment” – The unions involved,

Civil Service Association (CSA) being one, had

endorsed Transport‟s report to the Cabinet Sub-

Committee on the progress in implementing the

1995 EBA

Not only was there was no agreement documented

or minutes of a relevant meeting, the unions

couldn‟t have “agreed” to the Report because, as

per the testimony of a union representative, they

did not see it before it went to the Sub-Committee

Dr Chris Whitaker - his testimony was:

3 that I was the “only person” who had concerns

as to a lack of progress made by Transport in

the implementation of the 1995 EBA

Whitaker was at Transport at the time of an

employee petition, a letter from the CSA to

Transport and the resolution from a mass meeting

of CSA members as to the lack of progress in

implementing the EBA

Mr Michael Harris - his testimony was:

4 that I was given access to due process in regard

to the public interest claim I initiated formally

My formal public interest claim 18.9.98 included

reference to the Public Sector Standard as to the

11

on 18.9.98, the day after he arrived at Transport documentation of decisions and yet, as a direct

result of my communications as to Transport‟s

failure to address my claim, Harris documented

his threat of a range of disciplinary measures

5 that he‟d never seen a medical assessment of

me nor had anyone communicated to him that

they had seen one

Harris‟ letter of 15.3.99 to CSA included “Thank

you for your letter dated 15 March 1999 enclosing

a medical report on Neil Winzer.”

6 that documents existed constituting evidence

that I‟ve been asked to substantiate my claim

The CCC 14.8.08 reported that “there is no

evidence of a detailed written response to Mr

Winzer‟s concerns”.

Mr Reece Waldock – his testimony was

7 that he had never been aware of my public

interest claim

Nine months earlier he had advised the Public

Sector Standards Commission that he‟d reviewed

the material I had supplied to him and he found

“no substance whatsoever in Mr Winzer‟s claim”

Ms Helen Langley – her testimony was:

8 that it was reported to her as the Director of

Human Resources by two members of the

Transport OH&S Committee that I represented

a risk of physical harm to them

After showing the two individuals named a the

transcript of Langley‟s testimony, I was provided

statutory declarations as to them having refuted

Langley‟s account

9 that she wasn‟t aware of my efforts to put my

EBA / privatisation and contracting-out related

concerns and pressing Transport to consider the

evidence I offered

Langley‟s most senior staff member (Mr Floate),

her supervisor (Mr Forte) and Whitaker, the

former Director General, all testified as to their

awareness of my documented concerns from

early-1997.

10 that Dr John Pearce, an Occupational Physician

I was sent to in late-1998, had been asked to

report as to whether I represented a danger to

other staff, but not on my fitness to work

Dr Pearce began his letter to my treating doctor

with “Your patient Neil Winzer was sent to me for

a fitness for duties examination” and he asked for

advice on “diagnosis”, “management” and my

“work future”

Mr Clinton Floate - his testimony was

11 that it was not the case that Transport was

wanting to get rid of me, but rather, it was my

manner and communication style that caused

managers to refuse to give me a job

As the redeployment officer Floate said to me “if

you drop all claims, I will place you in a position

in the Department”. Investigators for Transport

reported that I was considered to be a

“troublemaker”.

12 that in his capacity as a CSA workplace

delegate and CSA representative on the

Transport Enterprise Bargaining Group, that the

CSA members were happy as to the progress in

EBA implementation

Floate, along with all of his HR colleagues, signed

a petition as to the lack of progress in

implementing the EBA. There was also a letter

from the CSA to Transport and the resolution

from a mass meeting of CSA members regarding

the lack of progress

13 that the work and issues central to my public

12

interest claim was not encompassed by the job

description for my position

Mr Scott Hollingsworth - his testimony was

14 That in regard to the Milestones Report on

progress in implementing the 1995 EBA, the

CSA “endorsed it before it went to the

Minister”.

The testimony of Floate was that, as the CSA

representative, he did not see the Milestones

Report before it went to the Sub-Committee

15 that the fundamental provisions of the 1995

EBA were implemented

Hicks, on this point, gave correct testimony: MR MCDONALD: But clause 15(b)(ii) and 15(b)(iii)

weren‟t actually implemented. Would you agree with that?

MR HICKS: At that particular point, no, for the reasons that

I‟ve explained.

16 that the shift from the EBA based change

agenda to the privatisation agenda was an open

process

This issue was at the epicenter of my claim. I put

to the CCC that there was no document to support

the “open process” argument. The CCC were

subsequently unable to discover such a document

17 that he was not responsible for implementation

of the EBA

He was the Executive Director Corporate

Development, and his responsibility for EBA

implementation was confirmed by three other

executive directors; Frodsham, (WorkCover

p669), Waldock (p935) and Forte (p452, p483).

18 that he did not recall my EBA / privatisation

and contracting-out related complaints

He was, in addition to being the Executive

Director Corporate Development, he was

Whitaker‟s Executive Officer. Whitaker, Forte

and Floate all testified as to their awareness of my

documented concerns from early-1997.

19 that he did not recall receiving the documents,

containing criticism of his work performance,

that I contend resulted in the decision to abolish

my position

Whitaker‟s testimony regarding my advice to him

of an email exchange between Hollingsworth and

I was that “…if you look at the precise dates and so on and

so forth, indicated that in fact Mr Hollingworth had

acknowledged to Mr Winzer the receipt of a submission that

he looked at it, and I think he passed it … and that was

obviously inconsistent with what Mr Hollingworth recalled

to me at the time, and which I passed on to Mr Winzer”

Ms Nina Lyhne – her statutory declaration

was

20 that she was “not aware … that [I] had been

subject to stress and [I] did not appear to be

suffering from stress.”

Gave testimony as to my advice to her about the

difficulties I had in pressing my public interest

claim and that “… all these other things that he

needed to do and it was causing him a great deal

of stress.” (WorkCover p946)

Dr John Pearce - advised the Medical Board

21 that after meeting me it was clear to him that

“the issue” was not of a medical nature

Pearce wrote to my treating doctor for advice on

“diagnosis”, “management” and my “work future”

and the subsequent advice included “His work

13

future is certainly a matter of concern but is

difficult to predict. The current situation is having

a negative effect on him and continues to

aggravate his generalized anxiety state.”

22 that he “declined to offer a professional

service to the Department of Transport.”

Pearce, after my treating doctor on 20.1.99

provided the advice he‟d requested, Pearce

provided a second consultation to me on 5.2.99.

No witness for Transport over some 19 days of

hearing gave evidence as to Dr Pearce at any stage

declining “to offer a professional service”.

23 that he had “hand balled the file”, “disposed”

of his file, hadn‟t “created a file” and

“retained no records”

Pearce returned the phone call from my then

advocate and, as per the file note, Pearce “made it

perfectly clear that he had been approached by

other parties in this matter and no longer wanted

to be “harrassed”” On the both occasions I saw

Pearce it was at the head office of the Department

of Education. Education advised me 26.3.01 that

for the purpose of the FOI Act, “Dr Pearce is an

officer of EDWA.” There are very specific laws

pertaining to the definition of a public record and

the maintenance and disposal of such records.

Stuart Hicks ―

His testimony was that the shift from the EBA based change agenda to the privatisation agenda was

“openly communicated within the Department” – I claimed that this was not the case and therefore there

were no documents to substantiate his testimony.

MR HADLOW: And in the lead up to the milestones report, were those factors of change aware to people?

MR HICKS: Absolutely. (WorkCover, p 1050)

And:

Review Officer: Mr Hicks, is it true to say - - or, what the impression I have from your evidence is that while you were

director general you were required to shift the focus of the department towards privatising - - contracting out. Is that

right?

Mr Hicks: … I think pressure is the wrong word. Government was stating quite explicitly that they wanted wherever

appropriate government operations to be privatised where there was no longer any particularly good reason why they

should be operated within government, and that did touch on certain aspects of my responsibility. (p 1053)

And:

MR MCDONALD: But clause 15(b)(ii) and 15(b)(iii) weren‟t actually implemented. Would you agree with that?

MR HICKS: At that particular point, no, for the reasons that I‟ve explained.

MR MCDONALD: So the question I‟ve got for you is who knew about those reasons?

MR HICKS: Indeed, all people people who were involved in the process. The Minister for Transport, the labour

minister, myself the CEO, the Doplar people. I mean if they weren‟t aware they would not have given their approval.

MR MCDONALD: Then, I‟m asking you is that written down anywhere?

MR HICKS: What I‟m putting to you is I don‟t know what‟s precisely written down or not. I‟m sorry, because I wasn‟t

the main recorder of all that particular information. (WorkCover, p 1081-2)

And:

MR McDONALD: And in this case with the 1995 EBA, clause 15(b)(ii) and (iii) provided milestones that had to be

satisfied for the pay rise to occur.

14

MR HICKS: Unless there was a particular reason that a particular event shouldn‟t occur at the predicted time in which

case they needed to be satisfied that overall the productivity improvements were there. One of the issues I remember

Graham Kierath raising with me was, “If you do the study [as per milestone at clause 15(b)(ii)], Stuart, what will be the

productivity difference?” In other words, identify for me please, if you have done the study, will there be productivity

improvements as such? My answer was, of course, “Well no study, minister, makes a productivity change of its own

right.” The productivity improvements will come out not of the study but of the work that is subsequently done. We

have to do this work after this particular point in time and we have to do it when licensing has become part of the

department. We can‟t actually start to make those corrections until subsequently. He said that made sense to him and

that was reasonable.

It wasn‟t something that he felt wasn‟t a reasonable undertaking. He was looking more, as he made it very clear, to be

convinced that there were productivity improvements actually under the belt by the time that money was coming in, and

the study was not seen by him as being the major productivity improvement. The study was the gathering of information

which would help further productivity improvements in the future.

MR McDONALD: And he said that to you or did he put that in writing to you?

MR HICKS: He said it to me as part of the discussion.

MR McDONALD: Okay. And you passed that on?

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, p 1083) (My emphasis added)

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 of the transcript)

The Hon G Giffard 18.9.02 replied to questions on behalf of the Minister: I am unaware of any documentation the former Director General may have to substantiate his position as part of his

personal records. There is not DPI file documenting the staff meeting.

Dr Chris Whitaker ―

His testimony was that I was the only person who had concerns about Transport not implementing the

1995 EBA.

MR McDONALD: But this is the point of exhibit 19 [My memo to Whitaker 29.11.96], is Mr Winzer

asking you - -

DR WHITAKER: Yes. MR McDONALD: He‟s basically raising that issue with you regarding the milestones report. You‟re saying you‟ve met

up with him and you‟ve explained the situation to him, is that what your saying?

DR WHITAKER: All I can say - - I mean I‟m sort of aware …(indistinct)… all I can say is I do remember meeting with

Mr Winzer on a number of occasions, and I‟m sure it was around about the time that we‟re talking about now, and

being abundantly aware that he had concerns about the extent to which the 95 agreement had been implemented. My recollection is as my judgment is now that it was fairly complex - - and as Rhys Waldock obviously said to you a

rapidly changing environment, and that the judgment had been formed by - - first by Stuart Hicks to make

representations to government and secondly government so determining, And bearing in mind of course that the Minister

who was then Eric Charlton, would have had to as it were, supported the application that he was satisfied with the extent

of implementation assigned? To the IR subcommittee, that the decision has been made. And I mean, that‟s the proper

processes of government. I mean to suggest that there‟s a conspiracy involving the minister, Stuart Hicks and everybody

else, and that the only person with a true view on what happened was Neil Winzer and there was a great

conspiracy, I mean I just find fanciful in the extreme. (My emphasis added)

15

MR McDONALD: It‟s Mr Winzer‟s understanding that you said to him “Leave it with me”, this concern of his about

the implementation of the 1995 EBA.

DR WHITAKER: I mean it may well - - yeah, okay, I don‟t recall specific meetings, but it may well be - - I mean that

sounds entirely possible that there was a dialogue along those lines and the context? Would have been perhaps the first I

heard of it, which was certainly from him, that things hadn‟t been properly implemented, bearing in mind, you know,

some of these memos are dated when I just sort of a few weeks back in the driving seat as it were, and a lot of things

have changed in the 2 years I‟d been away, the Department had doubled in size, I was getting to grips with a lot of

things. It‟s quite possible that I‟ve said to him thanks for that, and leave it with me, I‟ll have a look at it. I mean I don‟t

sort of shoot from the hip and sort of say no, you‟re wrong, or yes, you‟re right. If somebody presents a proposition to

me, and I think it‟s worth looking at, that‟s what I unquestionably would do. (WorkCover, p2114-5)

And:

MR McDONALD: We have in these proceedings over 160 exhibits, so we‟ve seen quite a lot of paperwork. Do you - -

can you refer to anything that addresses Mr Winzer‟s concerns regarding the 1995 EBA, that specifically takes up the

issue he raises, that the milestones were not implemented?

DR WHITAKER: Do you mean in terms of any written response? MR McDONALD: That‟s correct.

DR WHITAKER: Yes. No, I don‟t think I can. Just give you the context of it and that is that as I think I mentioned

earlier response to Mr Hadlow, when I arrived at Transport the emphasis was very much to the next round and if - - I

think Mr Winzer was the only person who was looking backwards as it were, about you know, about the history and

so on, so that‟s one contextual thing. The second is, and I do remember on a number of occasions talking with him about

it, because I know? It was a genuine belief that he held, and I believe still does hold, and we went through before without,

you know, going through it again, and going through the discussions, well, you know, a judgment was made that what

had happened was, and again I think my words were a sufficient proactive response by the Department to the

commitments in the EBA and the decision was made, you know, to pay the second tranche and so on, and I still have no

evidence whatsoever at all, not even in all the things that Mr Winzer has given us, which would suggest that the wrong

judgment was made.

MR McDONALD: Well, the union did bring about an action in the Western Australian Industrial Relations

Commission, regarding the implementation of the EBA, so - -

DR WHITAKER: Yes …(indistinct)… MR McDONALD: - - would you - - hang on a sec, Dr Whitaker, would you concede that it was also the union that was

looking backwards regarding the 1995 EBA?

DR WHITAKER: Yes. Well, we were talking about this a short time ago. I don‟t actually have anything before me that

prompts it, but what you said to me then was that the union‟s contention was that they didn‟t see the milestones report,

okay? And you know, as I said, that may well be true. I don‟t recall, but I could be prompted if you‟ve got something, I

don‟t recall anything from the union basically supporting Mr Winzer‟s overall contention that it was a sham and a

conspiracy. I mean, I‟ve only heard that from Mr Winzer to the best of my recollection. (WorkCover p2124-5)

Please note Dr Whitaker was the Director General at the time of:

the 1.11.96 petition of complaint about Transport‟s failure to implement the EBA that was signed by

all members of the HR staff;

CPSU/CSA notified Dr Whitaker 30.9.97 of their concern about Transport‟s non-perfomance in

regard to the fundamental provisions of the EBA; and

based on the 9.10.97 resolution of CPSU/CSA members at a mass meeting an application giving

explicit detail in regard to Transport‟s non-performance was submitted to the WAIRC.

Mr Mike Harris ― His testimony was that he‟d never seen a medical assessment of me nor had anyone communicated to

him that they had seen one.

16

My contention is that Transport received the 20.1.99 medical report before the 10.55 am 29.1.99

meeting.

Mr Harris 10.11.98 threatened disciplinary and defamation action and also advised: Out of concern for you health, I have arranged an appointment for you with an Occupational Physician Dr John Pearce

who has considerable experience in dealing with staff affected by redeployment.

Dr Pearce 10.12.98 advised my doctor that I was “sent to [him] for a fitness for duties examination” and

asked for “advice re [my] medical condition….”

After my appointment with Dr Pearce I advised my Exec Director of the pending medical report: MR McDONALD: When - - when did Mr Winzer speak to you about his health?

MS LYHNE: It would have been around you know, during our meetings - - he asked me to follow through with this

business about the doctor and his referral. So it would have been some time in January I suppose, in early January, I‟m

assuming it‟s about that time. (WorkCover, p974)

And:

Well, in our meetings where we were talking about the work programs and so forth, Neil would often raise issues about

other dealings he had with the Department and he was in court - - I‟m not sure what - - exactly what it was about, and he

would say he was unable to meet the requirements of the work program because he was doing all these other things that

he needed to do and it was causing him a great deal of stress. (WorkCover, p946)

I contend that Ms Lyhne would have advised Mr Harris of the pending medical report: MR McDONALD: Nina Lyhne approaches you in one of your regular meetings referring to sub standard work

performance of Mr Winzer - -

MR HARRIS: Yes.

MR McDONALD: - - and you don‟t inform her about his perception of - - harassment [referring to my submission to

Mr Harris 18.9.98]?

MR HARRIS: Well, I mean, you can ask Nine herself. But my understanding is that she was well aware of Mr Winzer‟s

history, and well aware of Mr Winzer‟s issues with the department; and as a good senior manager was constantly in

touch with the HR people, and was well aware of referrals [there was only one “referral” and that was to Dr Pearce] and

other matters. It wasn‟t a matter that I needed specifically to raise. (WorkCover, p1565-6)

The report requested by Dr Pearce was provided 20.1.99. The report contained considerable detail as

to a connection between my health and the circumstances arising from my public interest claim. I

advised Ms Lyhne of the report being available and she advised me 28.1.99: At the meeting I requested that Martin Morgan find out what the outcome of your medical review was so that we can

provide you with this information.

My contention is that all of the officers involved were conscious of my health being an issue: MR McDONALD: Did Mr Harris discuss with you any concerns he had regarding Mr Winzer‟s health – this is prior to

the meeting on the 29th

of January, 99.

MR BODYCOAT: Mm? Yes. I note that the - - the issue of - - of health had been discussed; yes – I think both with - -

with Mike Harris and Helen Langley. (WorkCover, p1365)

Mr Bobycoat‟s email 8.00 am, 29.1.99 to Mr Harris indicates that Ms Lyhne was included in their

communication loop: There are four potential outcomes from the meeting this morning. I have listed them below, with comments on the

subsequent courses of action required. The comments reflect the position agreed on between Dennis, Helen and me in

the discussion which followed the original meeting. Nina has also been informed of the present position. (My

emphasis added)

17

The “meeting this morning” referred to in Mr Bodycoat‟s email 8.00 am, 29.1.99 occurred at 10.55am

and was that described in Parliament 6.9.00 by the Hon Kim Chance MLC as the Chair of the Standing

Committee on Public Administration as a matter of “harassment”.

While it is not absolutely conclusive evidence of receipt of the report before the 10.55 am 29.1.99

meeting, I contend that it is evidence of Mr Harris‟ consciousness of the sensitivity on the issue of

access to the report that he knowingly provided false evidence as to my then Union‟s provision of the

report 15.3.99. Because Transport were arguing that they didn‟t have a copy of the report, CPSU/CSA

made sure they did. Mr Harris‟ letter to CPSU/CSA 15.3.99, included:

Thank you for your letter dated 15 March 1999 enclosing a medical report on Neil Winzer.

However, at WorkCover on 23.2.00: MR McDONALD: (TO WITNESS): Have you ever seen a report from Dr Risbey, dated 20 January, 1999.

MR HARRIS: Ah - - not until I saw it on the piece of paper that you just gave me.

MR McDONALD: That‟s - - that‟s not the report; that‟s a referral to - -

MR HARRIS: Oh? Well, I mean - -

MR McDONALD: - - from Dr Pearce to Dr Risbey..

MR HARRIS: - - I haven‟t seen any medical assessments of Mr Winzer – ever.

MR McDONALD: Has anyone ever communicated to you that they had seen -

MR HARRIS: No.

MR McDONALD: (TO WITNESS): Though there was - - the report was paid for – Dr Risbey‟s report, the 20th

of

January, 1999; is it possible that Transport got a copy of that report?

MR HARRIS: I have no idea. I‟ve never seen one. (WorkCover, p1572)

Mr Reece Waldock -

Mr Waldock, regarding specifically worded requests from the 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)

18

Ms Helen Langley ―

Her testimony was that members of the Transport OH&S Committee reported that I represented a risk of

physical harm to them.

MS LANGLEY: … and it was Peter Nicholl; and Laurie Baxter, one of the members – and I have a note here - -

MR HADLOW: Sorry? Who was the first person?

MS LANGLEY: Peter Nicholl.

MR HADLOW: Right.

MS LANGLEY: And they - - they came to talk to me, and said that this paper [my Reality of Redeployment paper] had

been presented at the committee, and they were really - - they were concerned – not so much about the content of the

paper, but concerned about the way Neil had approached the issue and approached some of the members of the committee,

which they felt was in a slightly threatening manner - -

MR HADLOW: Mm Hm.

MS LANGLEY: - - and they were concerned about Transport‟s duty of care in relation to anything that might happen

to them in - -

MR HADLOW: What do you - -

MS LANGLEY: - - in dealing with this - -

MR HADLOW: - - mean by that?

MS LANGLEY: - - matter. They were a little bit afraid of Neil (…indistinct…)

MR HADLOW: Okay. That - - what – physical violence, or something would happen; or - -

MS LANGLEY: Well, the - - yes. If the truth‟s told, that‟s what they were saying they were concerned about.

(WorkCover, p1698) (my emphasis added)

And:

But as I was the person members of staff actually came to express their concerns about intimidatory behaviour and

that they might be at risk of physical harm, that I put that to Dr Pearce, and he did not come back to me on that score.

(Langley, WorkCover, p2179-80) (my emphasis added)

However, the following statutory declarations conflict with Ms Langley‟s evidence:

1. I, Shayne Patrick Flanagan of 3 Devonway, Lyhnwood, WA 6147 do solemnly and sincere declare as follows:

On Thursday, 20th

July, I was invited by Mr Laurie Baxter to listen to a phone discussion between him and Mr Neil

Winzer. I informed Mr Winzer that I had been asked to listen in.

And after referring to Transcript of Ms Langley‟s evidence that I had read over the phone:

Mr Baxter said that was not an accurate interpretation of what he‟d reported to Ms Langley. Mr Winzer sought on a

number of occasions to clarify Mr Baxter‟s view in regard to him being a threat to other staff. Mr Baxter repeatedly

stated that he had at no time inferred that there was potential for a physical element to Mr Winzer‟s interaction with

other staff.

Mr Baxter said that he had told Ms Langley that Mr Winzer‟s account of the redeployment system may be interpreted

by some staff as threatening.

2. I, Peter Ronald Nicholl of 13 Orana Crescent City Beach do solemnly and sincere declare as follows:

During the period I have worked or associated with Mr Neil Winzer at Transport I have never considered or inferred to

any party or parties that I believed Mr Winzer to be a physical threat or danger to any staff member within transport.

19

Ref: My letter to Det Snr Sgt Mansas 28.1.03 - Attachment F

Ms Helen Langley ―

said that Dr Pearce had been asked to report as to whether I represented a danger to other

staff, but not on my fitness to work

MR McDONALD: My question is, Ms Langley, this Mr Winzer‟s recollection of what Dr Pearce said to him. I will ask

you again, did you refer Mr Winzer to Dr Pearce for a medical assessment?

MS LANGLEY: No. I did not. Had I done so it would have been in writing so that Dr Pearce could have been quite

clear about what it was that Transport was looking for. We had agreed to pay his costs. He has never billed Transport

for any of that. There is no request. The only sort of recollection around that time is that I believe that Dr Pearce had

phoned me. I believe I was out, as I often am, and I returned his call. But as I explained previously, that the only

assessment that I would need if there was concern that Neil was a danger to other staff at Transport with whom he

interacted.

MR McDONALD: You‟ve said that to Dr Pearce?

MS LANGLEY: Yes.

MR McDONALD: But you weren‟t concerned if Mr Winzer actually had his own health problems that may be weren‟t

going to affect other people?

MS LANGLEY: Well, it had been bought to my attention by the occupational health and safety committee of actual

threatening behaviour and intimidatory behaviour that Neil had exhibited that was quite tangible. (WorkCover:2179-80) And:

MS LANGLEY: It is my recollection - - say John Pearce phoned a day or two before the 10th

to say, “I‟m seeing your

chap, Winzer.” Now, I believe because, I had got a note somewhere – I don‟t know where that is – that he left a message

and asked me to phone him and I returned his call, “Yes, Dr Pearce, what can I do for you?” That kind of - - me phoning

him; that‟s it, but it was prompted by an approach from John Pearce. (WorkCover, p2179-80)

And:

MS LANGLEY: No, it‟s out of - - No. It was out of concern for Neil‟s health. I added the part that Dr Pearce - - When

Dr Pearce says, “Do you want anything from me?” and I said no. And I said at the end of the conversation – it was a bit

of an after thought, “If you consider Neil to be a danger to other staff, perhaps I should know.” But other than that -

- I mean, it wasn‟t the intention of referring Neil there. But as I was the person members of staff actually came to

express their concerns about intimidatory behaviour and that they might be at risk of physical harm, that I put that to Dr

Pearce, and he did not come back to me on that score. (WorkCover, p2179-80) (my emphasis added)

Ms Langley‟s claim is that she told Dr Pearce “a day or two before the 10th”

that

Transport didn‟t want anything from him other than to know if he considered me “to be a

danger to other staff”. On the 10th

Dr Pearce wrote: Your patient Neil Winzer was sent to me for a fitness for duties examination. There are obviously industrial and

interpersonal issues at work but I would be grateful for advice re his medical condition re:

diagnosis

management

work future

I look forward to your guidance and advice.

However, also note Dr Pearce‟s statements that were obtained by WorkCover: He was not asked by Department of Transport to conduct a fitness for duties review of the applicant and the phrase was

simply one used by him for his communication with Dr Risbey. He saw the applicant as a favour to a friend, being Mr

Graham Edwards and the arrangement was very informal.

20

Ref • My letter 18.2.03 to Hon C Barnett - Attachment, pp 14-16