THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH REGARDING DOCUMENTATION THAT WAS FROM THE OUTSET CIRCUMVENTED BY TRANSPORT AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE AUTHORITIES

Transcription

1 1 PERJURY, ABUSE OF OFFICE AND FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS: THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF MS NINA LYHNE TO THE SUPPRESSION OF MY DISCLOSURE OF CORRUPTION Neil Winzer This brief, in broad terms, is about a cover-up of corruption in the Western Australian public sector and the fact that the conditions still prevail for a cover-up of any future disclosure. THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH REGARDING DOCUMENTATION THAT WAS FROM THE OUTSET CIRCUMVENTED BY TRANSPORT AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE AUTHORITIES An understanding as to my disgust and fury regarding this situation may be gained from the record of my references from the outset to the most basic element; a public servant s right / obligation to make a claim about what they believe is wrongdoing and the employer s obligation to address that claim. From when I submitted my claim formally I cited the: existence of the considerable quantity of documentation that I had generated over the previous three years as to my questions, advice and ultimate expressions of concern about what was going on; and non-existence of a record of an attempt on my employer s part, before or after when I submitted my claim formally, to address the issues by way of a document or discussion. It was not a case of whistleblowing in the sense that I took concerns about what was going on at the Department of Transport, where I worked, directly to the media or the political party in opposition. My concerns were about issues within the scope of my duty statement. I was the Industrial Officer. An enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) was struck in 1995 between Transport and a number of industrial unions and registered in the courts of both the Federal and State jurisdictions. The obligation set by my duty statement was to advise those in the line of management and ask appropriate questions. I believed there was gross conflict between the EBA and the Government s policy for privatisation and contracting-out. The sequence was critical in that the agreement had been established before the policy was introduced. The existence of a record of my efforts over three years to do my job is important. The nonexistence of a record of any effort made by my direct supervisor or anyone else in the line of management up to the Director General of Transport to address my questions and advice is equally important. The problems I was drawing attention to could have been corrected. Certainly the correction option wasn't something that the Department wanted to hear about. They had cut corners to implement a new policy and in doing so they had ignored their legal obligations regarding the EBA. Work on a correction would have made their lives difficult and they chose not to undertake that difficulty. Transport chose to take steps to silence me. During 1996 and 1997 I was denied promotion, my substantive position was abolished and I was redeployed.

2 2 OBJECTIVE IN PROVIDING THIS BRIEF My specific objective in providing this brief is to promote questions as to why, as a direct result of my initiative in making a disclosure of corruption, initially at the Department of Transport, I have been faced with the option of exiting the public sector with the terms of my exit being presented to me by Ms Nina Lyhne who collaborated in the corruption I initially cited. My numerous requests to be allowed to return to work, given I am still technically a public servant, have been rejected and I have not been paid for thirteen years. Ms Lyhne advised me on that she was pleased to be able to formally offer [me] voluntary severance. Ms Lyhne collaborated with other Transport executive officers in harassing me at a meeting held on and fabricating a Winzer s claim has been addressed / Winzer failed when asked to substantiate his claim pattern of advice that was provided to psychiatrists and the Western Australian Parliament. The period encompassing when I submitted the public interest claim formally and the meeting on was critical to the setting of the foundations of the matter of public interest that is current; the maintenance of a cover-up. Ms Lyhne has never been obliged to respond to my claims specifically against her of falsification of records, abuse of office and perjury and has been a beneficiary, albeit one of low priority, of that cover-up. At the time of her collaboration in the suppression of the claim I initiated Ms Lyhne was the Executive Director of the Office of Road Safety within Transport. Subsequently, and somewhat ironically, Ms Lyhne was the WorkSafe Commissioner. She is currently a Managing Director at Transport. DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED IN THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT This brief concerns the involvement of Ms Lyhne in what was described in the Western Australian Parliament by the Hon Cheryl Edwardes MLA, a former Attorney-General, as a mobbing exercise: Mr Winzer s case has been raised in another place by the now Minister for Agriculture. I can do no better than quote what he said on 6 September (Hansard, Edwardes, :p10979b-10983a ) The Minister for Agriculture referred to on by the Hon C Edwardes was the Hon Kim Chance who, in regard to what he had described on to the Public Sector Standards Commission as the set-up meeting of , reported on to Parliament as the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Administration, including the following: 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 who I do not intend to name he found that not only was his superior [Director General, Mike Harris] in the room but also a lawyer [Transport s resident lawyer, Mark Bodycoat] was present. 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 another legal practitioner. He was simply sat down and 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 assures me and there is no evidence to the contrary that he has never at any time repeated those

3 3 particular rumours. He was nevertheless asked to substantiate rumours to which he had never been a party rumours which he had certainly 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 [Public Sector Standards Commission] 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. (Hansard, :734-5)(my emphasis) The Hon C Edwardes offered a number of definitions of mobbing, including: It means a group of employees ganging up on a colleague, a subordinate or superior and applying emotional abuse through rumour, innuendo, intimidation, humiliation, discreditation and isolation. All those forms of abuse have the same objective: to force the target to quit the workplace. (Hansard, :p5589b-5597a) There were five in the mob I was set upon by on ; Mr Michael Harris the Director General, Mr Mark Bodycoat Transport s resident solicitor, Mr Dennis Forte the Executive Director of Corporate Services, Ms Helen Langley the Human Resources Director and Ms Lyhne: Mike 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. (Source: Mr Bodycoat s 8am to Mike Harris, Dennis Forte and Helen Langley) MS LYHNE S CONTRIBUTION Ms Lyhne did not attend the critical meeting of that I was obliged to attend. However, her contributions to my circumstances from the time of my transfer as a redeployee on to her area up to and including the meetings held before and after the meeting of were significant to the situation that prevails today. With the benefit of records now available I offer the following six-point account of Ms Lyhne s contributions: 1. The records now available show that Ms Lyhne was aware of the background to my transfer to her area. My memorandum of to Mr Harris began as follows: Could you please advise me as to what steps are being taken to address the matters I raised with you 18 September. Due to the public interest considerations involved I believe you are obliged to address these matters with some priority. At it s core my dispute with Transport is about CorpEx having chosen to embark on a vigorous privatisation and contracting-out program without any public accountability provisions in place, rather than implement an enterprise agreement which not only provided for the contracting of services, also provided for public accountability. Following a long series of events which I believe were discriminatory and due to the fact that the Public Sector Management Office is not functioning in accordance with the legislation, Transport is now using the redeployment system to facilitate an ongoing campaign of discrimination.

4 4 Mr Dennis Forte was the Executive Director of Corporate Services and was asked by Mr Harris to respond. Mr Forte did not address the claim because he considered that it would mean going backwards, not forwards and [he] frankly saw it as only heightening angst and concern amongst staff. For me the first outcome my submission was the advice of that I d been re-registered as a redeployee and I was forced to take annual leave. On I provided Transport with a copy of my complaint to the Public Sector Standards Commission dated As a result of my submission of a paper entitled Reality of Redeployment to WorkSafe and Transport s OH&S Committee I was on invited by a group that was deemed by Transport to represent an employee / management consultative forum to attend one on their meetings. Ms Langley being the Human Resources Director and my supervisor was also invited. The objective was for me to further explain my argument as to a connection between my initiative in making a public interest claim and the dysfunction of the redeployment system. On enforced annual leave in response to the invitation I sent an open letter dated to all of Transport s staff, presenting unambiguously the argument that I was being disadvantaged as a result of making a public interest claim despite my preceding appeals to the former Director General to monitor the situation. That is, I made clear my view that the former Director General had collaborated in bringing about my demise. In light of my open letter of Mr Harris by way of his letter dated made a number of threats against me and advised of an appointment for me to see an Occupational Physician Out of concern for [my] health. In referring me to my doctor for a report Transport s doctor wrote Your patient Neil Winzer was sent to me for a fitness for duties examination. When the report dated became available I advised Ms Lyhne and she advised me on that she had requested a HR officer to find out what the outcome of your medical review was.. In the period up to Mr Harris letter of two separate avenues were explored regarding ways of dealing with me, BUT my public interest claim was not addressed. The advice I received from other employees as to Ms Lyhne s attitude toward me when I was transferred to her area was later confirmed. Investigators contracted by the law firm Transport engaged to oppose the application I made in February 1999 for workers compensation reported on that There were those, who would do all they could to avoid accepting him. 2. I say it constituted perjury that under oath at WorkCover the position put by Ms Lyhne was that her treatment of me was appropriate on the grounds that she wasn t aware my claim was that I d been denied due process and was being harassed in regard to my initiative in making a public interest claim. In short, she argued that her job was to ensure the Office of Road Safety functioned and I was a redeployee. Ms Lyhne repeatedly gave testimony such as I ve never been really aware of what those specific allegations are and my primary concern was his operation in the office and how that worked. It was at odds with that theme regarding her lack of knowledge of the situation that Ms Lyhne also repeatedly gave testimony such as

5 5 No, I don t, and I mean, a number of - - Neil was trying to explain it, it was obviously a very complicated issue and Neil would often raise issues about other dealings he had with the Department and he was in court. Furthermore, it was at odds with the testimony given by Mr Harris: And: Well, I mean, you can ask nine (sic) herself. But my understanding is that she was well aware of Mr Winzer s history, and well aware of Mr Winzer s history with the department; and as a good senior manager was constantly in touch with the HR people, and well aware of referrals and other matters. It wasn t a matter that I needed specifically to raise. I might - - (Harris, WorkCover:1563-6) I can recall discussing - - not discussing. Nina - - Nina was aware of those points. It was not a matter that I recall we talked about at length at any point in time. (Harris, WorkCover, :1568) And after reading out aloud a large section of my memo to Ms Lyhne Mr Harris evidence was: MR McDONALD: When you say Nina Lyhne was aware of those points, how was she aware? MR HARRIS: Ah - - through briefings from Helen and Dennis; through information provided to her when Neil was transferred into her branch. (Harris, WorkCover, :1569) 3. Also under oath at WorkCover on that theme as to her treatment of me being appropriate, Ms Lyhne put forward a position, albeit somewhat contradictory, regarding what stress I was experiencing and my health. Subsequent to advice provided to me by Mr Harris before I arrived in Ms Lyhne s area on I was scheduled to see the Occupational Physician. In order to cover my absence I told Ms Lyhne of the appointment. Immediately after the appointment I advised Ms Lyhne that a report was pending. Ms Lhyne s testimony was that I advised her about the referral to a doctor sometime in January I suppose. Furthermore, Ms Lyhne testified that I told her on a number of occasions that he found it difficult to focus on our work because he was focused on other matters (WorkCover:p948) and that I 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) However, consistent with Transport s overall position on my application for workers compensation, Ms Lyhne s testimony was that there was a distinction between my fitness to work and the stress I was experiencing in regard to my claim was that I d been denied due process and was being harassed in regard to my initiative in making a public interest claim. I suggest that the relevance of her testimony that she had never been really aware of what those specific allegations are can be appreciated here; a lack of awareness as to

6 6 what my claim was would provide the basis for treating me as fit to work. Ms Lyhne s testimony included: I think I asked them [Human Resources] the question at some stage then about his referral to a doctor and I was advised that that was a separate issue and that it wasn t a referral that was based on - - on finding out whether he was fit to work. Additionally I note my claim as to Ms Lyhne having signed what she knew to be a false statutory declaration. Despite her declaration that she was not aware at the time that he had been subject to stress and he did not appear to be suffering from stress, on she testified as to me doing all these other things that he needed to do and it was causing him a great deal of stress. 4. Extending on the theme as to her treatment of me being appropriate and the argument that it was legitimate to manage my presence in the workplace on the basis that there was a separation between the stress related to my public interest claim and my fitness to work, Ms Lhyne accused me of under-performance. It constituted another count of perjury that Ms Lyhne testified that deadlines applied to my work in her area; implying that it was appropriate to have deadlines and that I had agreed. Ms Lyhne s testimony included: With - - well, Sharon and I spoke about it and I also spoke to Neil about we d speak about it in the weekly meetings, but you know, particularly there were deadlines and things that just weren t happening the way they should. It is helpful to review the timing. I arrived in Ms Lyhne s area on There was of course the traditional Christmas shut-down. At some stage before Ms Langley s responding memorandum of Ms Lyhne had asked for advice on the commencement of the under-performance claim that she put to me on Although I am not suggesting my claim that Ms Lyhne attempted to oblige me to falsify a report and later falsified that report herself should be integral to any consideration of the mobbing that occurred on , I am suggesting that it is an inextricably related claim. It is an inextricably related claim in the sense that the report was one of the tasks allocated to me in relation to which Ms Lyhne claimed that Projects are not meeting deadlines, and a number of tasks are not being completed. Furthermore, the report pertained to a workshop that the Office of Road Safety ran in conjunction with the Police Service. In producing a draft of the report I had used the prolific notes taken by a Superintendent in addition to mine. When Ms Lyhne attempted to pressure me to change significant parts of my draft I refused. In particular, Ms Lyhne objected to the inclusion in my draft of the fact that a considerable number of officers of the former Road Traffic Branch had expressed the view that the Commissioner s policy of Integration was contributing to an increase in deaths on our roads. At about that time I met with that Superintendent and advised him of Ms Lyhne s actions and he consented to my use of his notes to defend myself in regard to the reporting of increased road deaths. It was in support of the report related claim I was making

7 7 against Ms Lyhne that a Sergeant who had also attended the workshop testified that some districts didn t have a traffic branch at all and we believed it was having an effect on the road toll because we weren t - - didn t have the policemen out there on the roads. The Sergeant, in arguing that my draft was appropriate, testified that Well, you re dealing with people s lives if it s going to hurt somebody s feelings and maybe upset someone in any particular area, well, too bad. The Sergeant also noted the officers who attended the Workshop never received feedback. It would not have only meant common sense, feedback had been agreed to prior to the workshop. 6. I cite it as significant that I provided Ms Lyhne with a quite lengthy memorandum on containing, amongst a range of issues, my strongly-worded criticism of her action in relation to the report on the road traffic workshop. That memorandum and Mr Harris testimony as to Ms Lyhne advising him of it also provides additional perspective as to the fact that she repeatedly gave testimony on along the lines that I ve never been really aware of what those specific allegations are. The memorandum included the following: Returning to your memo (18 January), I feel compelled to say that as a taxpayer I feel saddened, and as the subject individual, very insulted. I can do nothing else than to classify your effort as entirely consistent with the process of my dispute with Transport over the last three years. Although you already have at least a basic understanding, it will serve as a further clarification of the context of your memo if I now make comment on my dispute with Transport. At the root of my dispute with Transport is my claim that approximately five million of taxpayers dollars (to date) have been spent, not as a true and accurate reward for staff having implemented the 1995 EBA, but as a smokescreen for a privatisation and contracting-out program. (Emphasis that I am not suggesting for one moment that the employees were not entitled to the pay rises which have made up the $5 million). I have tried to report the creation of what I interpret as a $5 million smokescreen. At first I was simply trying to do my job and access the appropriate channels for registering my concerns in relation to the implementation of the 1995 EBA. Unfortunately, the situation has now developed to a point where I feel obliged to attempt to report in good faith what I consider is misadministration and/or corruption. I have previously sought to have my concerns addressed by two consecutive Director Generals. As a result of the first approach (November 1995) I was referred to the A/Director Corporate Services who informed me that I was perceived as being too close to the unions and not being supportive of the Department s objectives. On the second occasion (September 1997), after my substantive position had been abolished in a single position restructure only six months after a full divisional restructure had been finalised, the DGT simply wished me good luck with my future in redeployment. Emphasis is warranted regarding what was effectively a declaration on of my position as to two former Directors General having been involved in a cover-up.

8 8 That memorandum and Mr Harris testimony as to Ms Lyhne advised him of it also provides additional perspective as to the mobbing that occurred on ; only two days later. Mr Harris testified that the meeting was not about my claim that I d been denied due process and was being harassed in regard to my initiative in making a public interest claim: Well, I as I recall, and as the notes say, Mr Winzer responded when I asked the question that all the information that he already had -- all the information that he had, he had already provided. Now that led me to the conclusion that what he was talking about were the matters that d already written to me and others about. Now that was not the matter that was the subject of this meeting because somebody had suggested that there were there was corruption or mal-administration in the administration of the Road Trauma Trust Fund. Now at that point I said to Mr Winzer it was not the previous issues that were the subject of this meeting. (Harris, WorkCover, :1574) It should be noted that my memorandum of did not contain the slightest mention of a claim associated with the Road Trauma Trust Fund, no other document that I ever generated contains a mention of it and there was no record prior to the WorkCover hearing of my association with a claim related to the RTTF. The RTTF was a part of Ms Lyhne s Office of Road Safety responsibilities. It was in complete contradiction to Mr Harris acknowledgement that the meeting was not about my claim that Q&A No of was set in the official records of Parliament: (1) How many detailed responses has Mr Neil Winzer received from the Department of Transport to his correspondence? (2) On what dates were these responses sent to Mr Winzer? (3) On what date did Mr Winzer meet with the present Acting Director General to discuss his allegations? Answer: (1) Transport has responded to correspondence received from Mr Winzer on three occasions. (2) 12 October 1999; 25 October 1999; 3 November (3) 29 January Transport continued to trade in Parliament on the outcome of the mobbing exercise of The focus of question No of 2004 in Parliament was the legal practice of keeping all records relating to Mr Winzer's public interest claim. In responding with the Winzer failed when asked to substantiate his claim pattern of advice Transport, critically, cited the meeting on The focus of question No. 979 of 2012 in Parliament was my request for a meeting for the purpose of achieving an arrangement that would enable me to get on with my life. However, the Winzer s claim has been addressed advice was repeated. Question No. 979 of : (2) Is the Premier aware that in these letters Mr Winzer cited as grounds for such a meeting, amongst other information, the alarming conflict between the Corruption

9 9 and Crime Commission advice of 14 August 2008 to the parliamentary inspector as to there being no evidence of a detailed written response to Mr Winzer s concerns and the persistent advice as to the existence of such written responses to Mr Winzer s concerns provided by the Department of Transport to Parliament pursuant to questions on notice 1980 of 2000, 541 of 2002 and 1800 of 2004? Answer: CONCLUSION (2) Yes, the Premier is also aware that Mr Winzer s claims regarding the Department of Transport have been either investigated or considered for investigation by numerous bodies, as listed in the response to question on notice 541 of The CCC reported on 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. 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. Emphasis is warranted in regard to the existence of a record of my efforts to do my job in asking questions, offering advice and expressing concern over three years and the nonexistence of a record of any effort made by my direct supervisor or anyone else in the line of management to address my questions etc. There is not even a post-it-note as to a discussion. Emphasis is also warranted in regard to the fact that the CCC s determination that in lieu of a written response Transport officers had discussed my claim with me conflicts with the testimony of all the officers who had the opportunity to discuss my claim with me. Based on official records of Parliament and relevant transcript of testimony I have compiled a brief of a mere two pages showing that the CCC report of , when read objectively and thoroughly, effectively constitutes evidence of the disclosure I initiated having never been the subject of a genuine investigation. My challenges of every conceivable authority in WA to identify any measure of fault in that brief have not been taken up, I strongly suggest, because it can t be faulted. The data as to the mobbing exercise on and the outcome being the Winzer s claim has been addressed / Winzer failed when asked to substantiate his claim pattern of advice is a key to understanding how this situation could develop. Subsequent to my questions within the scope of my duty statement and my formal claim made in the public interest my experience has not been positive, to say the least. In contrast, subsequent to her collaboration in the mobbing exercise on Ms Lyhne s experience has been positive and, as she has advised me on , she is pleased to be able to formally offer [me] voluntary severance. In concluding I will borrow an expression used by one of the psychiatrists I was referred to by Transport and suggest that Ms Lyhne is a creature of the WA public sector system and I am not.