Regarding Nigeria - My Formal Request Of The Australian Foreign Minister For An Independent Investigation Of My Complaint Against The Department Of Foreign Affairs And Trade
Neil Winzer 14th January 2014
12 Holleton Terrace
Padbury Western Australia 6025
[email protected] - phone: 045 046 2526
The Hon Julie Bishop
Parliament House, Canberra
I FORMALLY SUBMIT THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE, HAVING REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE I PROVIDED AS TO THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN POLICE COMMISSIONER IN FRAUD, HAS IN SPONSORING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE WA POLICE AND NIGERIA BREACHED THE COMMONWEALTH CHARTER BY ENTANGLING NIGERIA IN A SERIOUS AND PERSISTENT THREAT TO COMMONWEALTH FUNDAMENTAL POLITICAL VALUES FROM A STRUCTURAL PERSPECTIVE
In submitting this complaint I ask that the data in the following of my submissions, that have previously been courtesy copied to DFAT, be taken into account:
On 21.3.13 and 17.4.13 to the Ministerial Action Group that is part of the Commonwealth Secretariat requesting consideration of the documents that I believe show a comprehensive breakdown of the political and justice systems of WA that constitutes a serious and persistent violation of the Charter of the Commonwealth;
On 25.3.13, 9.4.13, 9.7.13, 15.7.13, 8.8.13 and 11.12.13 to Queen Elizabeth requesting consideration of the documents, including my paper Governor McCusker, a Common Liar and Cheat, that I believe show that Governor Malcolm McCusker has knowingly participating in a serious and persistent violation of the Charter of the Commonwealth; and
On 9.4.13, 23.4.13, 6.8.13 and 14.8.13 to Foreign Minister Bob Carr requesting consideration of my submissions to the MAG and The Queen.
I referred in those submissions to the sections of the Commonwealth Charter under the headings Democracy, Freedom of Expression, Separation of Powers and Rule of Law. Of Good Governance it is stated:
We reiterate our commitment to promote good governance through the rule of law, to ensure transparency and accountability and to root out, both at national and international levels, systemic and systematic corruption.
The violation I claim, features Chief Justice Wayne Martin's refusal to respond to the fact that I received acknowledgement from the Police Service on 2.7.12 regarding the complaint I made in accordance with the Protocol for Complaints Against Judicial Officers about the handling of my complaint against Governor Malcolm McCusker. I claim systemic corruption.
The 'short story' as to that systemic corruption is based on the situation that unfolded from my initiative as a public servant in making a claim as to corruption at Western Australian Department of Transport. That original claim is insignificant compared to the cover-up that followed. My strong contention is that Mr Malcolm Wauchope, who was at the beginning the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet and is now the Public Sector Commissioner, has acted as the overall administrator of the cover-up.
The most fundamental and critical fact of the matter is that which I submitted to the Premier on 23.11.99; “Transport have never responded to my claims by way of a written or verbal explanation.” The 14.8.08 report of the Corruption and Crime Commission was that they were “unable to locate any detailed written response to his claim.” The 14.8.08 report of CCC that my claim was “discussed” with me conflicts grossly with the associated documents and testimony. The advice that detailed written responses to my claim did exist tabled in Parliament from 2000 to 2004 also conflicts grossly with the CCC report. See my brief on the essence of the question tabled on 24.3.11 in the Legislative Council at Attachment A of my first submission to the MAG.
It was in terms of an 'oiling of the wheels' of the systemic corruption that I pointed out a number of times in the above listed submissions that the Parliamentary Inspector for the CCC on 29.12.06, now Governor McCusker, agreed with the CCC's endorsement of the Police report that “it was simply that some matters were in contention between the witnesses and Mr Winzer.” I also pointed out that Governor McCusker's motivation in doing that was to shield Mr Stuart Hicks. I had named Mr Hicks as the principal wrongdoer in my original corruption claim and the Police, as the documents show, led me to believe he was the subject of a criminal investigation. However, as I discovered later, during the 'investigation' Mr Hicks had been under contract to the Police to advise them how to prevent corruption and also sat on the panel that selected our current Police Commissioner. The CCC documents show that Mr Hicks was not interviewed as part of the Police 'investigation'.
Shortly after that 'investigation' was concluded Mr Hicks was awarded the Order of Australia by a panel that included Mr Wauchope and another individual against whom I'd made complaints to the Police under the Criminal Code.
Even now this all seems preposterous to me so I can appreciate how it must strike a new reader. However, I point to the documents. The documents listed in the brief on the essence of the question tabled on 24.3.11 in the Legislative Council at Attachment A of my first submission to the MAG represent but a small proportion of those relevant and available.
There are many helpful exercises for gaining an understanding as to this matter constituting a case of a serious and persistent violation of the Charter of the Commonwealth. For example consider the exercise of comparing the data in the following box with Governor McCuskers agreement with the CCC's endorsement of the Police report that “it was simply that some matters were in contention between the witnesses and Mr Winzer”:
MERELY ONE OF THE COUNTS OF PERJURY I SUBMITTED TO THE POLICE
The contentions I submitted to the WA police Service against Mr Stuart Hicks in total were of fraud, misappropriation, abuse of office and two counts of perjury. Hicks had responded to my fraud claim involving the Milestones Report provided to a committee of the Cabinet by giving testimony about very critical processes and events. On 14.6.02 WorkCover made the following determination on those processes and events:
The evidence of Mr Hicks makes it very clear that the change agenda of the department towards privatisation 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, p118-119:pt204)
Hicks' testimony, had it been true, meant there were substantiating documents.
However, the Corruption and Crime Commission on 14.8.08 reported as follows:
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.
Examples of Hicks' testimony indicating that there were substantiating documents include:
MR HADLOW: Mr Hicks, Mr Winzer has suggested that as a result of him bringing to management's attention unethical behaviour in the process of developing and implementing the 1995 EBA and improper behaviour in those processes as well, that that brought him into conflict with management and there developed from that a plan or agenda to silence Mr Winzer. To silence him from further discussing these unethical - - what he perceived were unethical processes or improper conduct that he says was unethical and improper. And that that plan to silence him was effectively to remove him from that position by ultimately abolishing his job. What do you say to that?
MR HICKS: I'm not aware of any such plan. So therefore it surprises me. It's contrasted, I suppose, in my mind with what was truly an elaborately transparent and consultative process. So elaborately transparent and consulted was the process, so much was everybody in it together that it was quite unique. (Hicks, WorkCover, 4.2.00:p1058) (my emphasis)
MR HICKS: Yes. Indeed, as I recall, there was a general staff meeting also which briefed people as to where things had got to and what the nature of the proposed milestone agreement would be. I mean, that was quite open and involved the staff as did the rest of the process. (WorkCover:p1083)
MR McDONALD: …at which point did the employees at the Department of Transport, and in particular, Mr Winzer, become aware that there was reasons for the milestones not being strictly adhered to….
MR HICKS: I don't know. I would imagine that would have been fairly clear. It certainly would have been to Neil, because he was significantly involved with it, but I would think that most people understood because of the representational approach where we had representatives of the staff…. (WorkCover:p1084)
I say that testimony constitutes perjury. My challenge for the discovery of evidence to support Mr Hicks' claim was put in a number of forums. For example:
Mr Hicks' claim of transparency was the subject of vigorous debate 16.3.00 at WorkCover (pages 2353-68) leading to a direction being issued by the Review Officer for Transport to provide evidence. The following extract is indicative of that debate:
MR McDONALD: The documents - - it is the applicant's contention that the matter of - - the issue of whether the director general of Transport was told to change the agenda is critical. The applicant claims that he's - - this was never written nor - - or said, regarding a change of agenda, or at least, said publically. He believes that the Department of Transport should be able to demonstrate that it was, and Hicks has led evidence along these lines. (WorkCover:p2363)
None of the documents provided by Transport (12.3.00) in accordance with the Review Officer's direction supported Mr Hicks' claim of transparency in regard to the switch of agendas.
On 15.8.02 the Minister was asked with notice as to whether the following statement as to Mr Hicks' testimony was correct, and if not why it wasn't correct:
(g) The Director General of Transport is unable to provide documentation to substantiate his claim to the Conciliation and Review Directorate [WorkCover] hearing February 4 2000 that he informed a general staff meeting that the major tenets of the 1995 EBA were to be abandoned because 'fairly significant changes in organization were occurring because the department was about to take responsibility for police licensing'.
The answer provided 18.9.02 was as follows:
(g) The Minister is advised that the former Director General of Transport provided this information to the Conciliation and Review Directorate [WorkCover] hearing on oath. I am unaware of any documentation the former Director General may have to substantiate his position as part of his personal records. There is no record on DPI file documenting the staff meeting.
In light of the above Q&A of 15.8.02 my written challenge of 15.11.02 to Det Sgt Mansas was for him to follow-up with Mr Hicks directly, on the issue of substantiating documents. Det Sgt Mansas, by email, refused to respond.
Surely the above claim of perjury can be clearly seen to be based on both:
existing documents, not ambiguous or suffering from the erosion of time, that support my explanation of processes and events; and
the non-existence of documents supporting the explanation given by Mr Hicks.
I contend that it was a deliberate strategy of Governor McCusker in collaboration with the Corruption and Crime Commission to nullify the above claim of perjury, along with some twenty other document-based claims of perjury, by endorsing the Police report that “it was simply that some matters were in contention between the witnesses and Mr Winzer.”
In total 16 Members of Parliament have attempted to either achieve a genuine investigation of this matter or an alternative resolution. Consider the following two examples:
It was obviously a statement entirely consistent with my contention that Governor McCusker collaborated in a violation of the Charter of the Commonwealth that on 29.5.09 Hon Kim Chance, a Cabinet Minister for eight years, submitted to the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission considerable detail in support of his view as follows:
While the committee has stated that the Parliamentary Inspector's attendance to the matter was “painstaking and thorough” this view of his performance cannot be supported by any examination of the facts relating to the clear conflict of the evidence provided by then Transport Director General Harris to the effect that the matters raised by Mr. Winzer had been responded to “in every issue” and the later finding by the CCC that this was not the case. Quite simply the Parliamentary Inspector's response has been to permit this clear contradiction to stand even though there is every reason to believe that Parliament has been deliberately misled in the process. Only one version of the truth in this matter can be correct, yet the Parliamentary Inspector's report takes us nowhere in terms of finding a resolution even towards the correction of the record.
Similarly, the clear disparities in the issue of the matters that were discussed at the crucial meeting of 29/01/99 are unaddressed in any way. I have already raised with the committee my concerns that the reports of what happened at this meeting, which lies at the very centre of the whole Winzer issue, are contradictory and deliberately misleading. Put simply, the records provide contradictory information. Either the CCC report on this matter of 14/08/2008 is correct, or the Parliamentary record is correct, but both cannot be correct, yet the Parliamentary Inspector's report just glosses over this conflict, how is that either “painstaking” or “thorough”?
While noting Hon K Chance's reference to the critical meeting of 29.1.99 consider the similarly supportive position put on 18.11.09 by the Hon Michael Mischin, now the WA Attorney-General, to Premier Barnett:
Mr Winzer's claims of constructive dismissal and victimisation over more than ten years – and peripheral issues arising from that – have been investigated by some 15 separate government, independent and Parliamentary bodies but no true resolution has so far been reached. From what I can glean, there does appear to be substance in his contention that one or more wrongs have been done to him.
On 29 January 1999 he was peremptorily summoned to a meeting with the acting Director General of the Department, Michael Harris, and a lawyer, Mark Bodycoat. He was accused of having promoted or initiated rumours about misconduct in the Department. His answers to questions that had been put to him were mis-recorded or subsequently edited in a way that misrepresented or distorted the course of the conversation.
In the interests of justice, I would ask you most earnestly to order a mediation hearing between the relevant departments and Mr Winzer with the view to, finally, finding some common ground and settling the matter once and for all. Mr Winzer, his family and his health deserve this. This needs to be brought to a conclusion. The relevant authorities should be directed to do so by the end of this year.
In the meantime, I trust there is some way in which we can finally put this matter to rest. Please advise me of what can be done to cut this Gordian knot. It would be a small, but significant symbol of our Government's commitment to do what is right and to solve problems in a timely manner.
The Hon Max Trenorden, a Member of the Legislative Council for 25 years provided the following accurate summation in the Council on 9.8.11:
I put to members directly that the number one reason this matter has not been dealt with is because this man blew the whistle on a range of prominent Western Australians and he deserves to be punished! That is why the matter has not been resolved and why it remains unresolved now.
From the lengthy statement made by Hon M Trenorden in the Legislative Council on 9.8.11 it can be clearly determined that Mr Malcolm Wauchope, now the Public Sector Commissioner, should in the public interest be investigated as to his involvement in the victimisation of Mr Michael Moodie and I because we initiated disclosures.
The extensive data on the lack of accountability applying to Mr Wauchope provided by Chief Justice Martin in delivering the annual Whitmore Lecture to the NSW chapter of the Council of Australasian Tribunals on 1.8.13 should help in such an investigation. The Chief Justice's speech on 1.8.13 included:
It is to be remembered that this is the same official who is responsible for the conduct of reviews, inquiries and investigations on a wide variety of matters broadly related to the public sector. The same official is now also the employing authority of each agency CEO, who therefore depends upon the favour of the commissioner for their continuation in office.
It is of some concern to me that these statutory agencies have banded together to promulgate definitions of conduct and standards of behaviour which are separate and distinct from the language used in the statutes creating their agencies.
… it is difficult to see how this framework promotes the cause of integrity.
… 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, who is not subject to direction from anyone.
In my opinion the piece de resistance of the 1.8.13 paper was the Chief Justice's comments on what I interpreted as the 'bottom line' issue of trust concerning Mr Wauchope. The Chief Justice's comments included:
Differing views might reasonably be held as to the characterisation of these “soft” accountabilities. My own view is significantly influenced by the view which I have formed with respect to the limited forms of hard accountability applicable to these agencies. In that context, the exemption of these agencies from various forms of soft accountability, particularly those which relate to transparency of action, appears to me to give rise to serious concern.
Some writers have suggested that these concerns can be alleviated by the degree of trust which we should repose in the personnel who comprise these agencies, and the procedures which they adopt.
With respect to Mr Field, the assertion “trust me, I am a sage and humble integrity agency” is about as convincing as the assertion “trust me, I am a sage and a humble lawyer”.
In recent times, feeling bludgeoned into submission, I've put to the various WA authorities that it is time that either the evidence as to a cover-up was addressed to allow the 'chips to fall where they may' or my request for a meeting be granted for the purpose of achieving an arrangement that would enable me to 'get on with my life'.
The response has been to give no response. Surely, even when considered on a stand-alone basis, the tactic for dealing with an unresolved matter of public interest by simply refusing further communication should not be an allowable exercise of discretion within a developed country. The Commonwealth Charter, promoted by Queen Elizabeth, includes statements as to standards that Australia upholds and generally has pride in telling other countries it has achieved regarding democracy, freedom of expression, separation of powers, the rule of law and good governance. The Chief Justice and the Queen's representative are supposed to help define the WA structural perspective and yet their actions are to the contrary.
Minister Bishop, with respect I request an independent investigation of my claim that after the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade refused (see enclosed copy of letter of 23.5.13) to consider the evidence I provided on the involvement of the WA Police Commissioner in fraud, DFAT sponsored the memorandum of understanding between the WA Police and Nigeria and in doing so breached the Commonwealth Charter by entangling Nigeria in a serious and persistent threat to commonwealth fundamental political values from a structural perspective.
CC President Goodluck Jonathan, Federal Republic of Nigeria
Nigerian opposition political parties
Hon Tanya Plibersek, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs
Senator Nick Xenophon
Senator Christine Milne
Chief Justice Wayne Martin
Governor Malcolm McCusker
Police Commissioner, Karl O'Callaghan
All Members of the Western Australian Parliament