The WikiLeaks Party believes that truthful, accurate, factual information is the foundation of democracy and is essential to the protection of human rights and freedoms. Where the truth is suppressed or distorted, corruption and injustice flourish.

The WikiLeaks Party insists on transparency of government information and action, so that these may be evaluated using all the available facts. With transparency comes accountability, and it is only when those in positions of power are held accountable for their actions, that all Australians have the possibility of justice.

The WikiLeaks Party is fearless in its pursuit of truth and good governance, regardless of which party is in power. In each and every aspect of government we will strive to achieve transparency, accountability and justice. This is our core platform.

Exercising Oversight

In a parliamentary democracy, Parliament has three functions

1) To represent the people (the democratic function)

2) To design, guide and implement policy (the legislative function)

3) To scrutinise and oversee government practice, honesty and efficiency (the oversight function).

However what we have witnessed in Australia, despite exceptional work by individual politicians in all the major parties, is a failure of the oversight function. There has been a gradual acceptance that once a single party or a coalition has gained the majority required to form a government, Parliament then becomes little more than an extension of that government’s executive machinery: the houses of Parliament effectively become rubber stamps for its policy agendas. This problem becomes particularly pressing when a single party gains a majority in both Houses, a spectre that remains a distinct possibility after the 2014 WA Senate re-election.

The WikiLeaks Party aims to restore genuine independent scrutiny into our political process.

This is why we are campaigning only for the Upper House. We want to return the Senate to its core function as a genuine Upper House – offering independent scrutiny of government, protecting the interests of the people, and ensuring that light is shone upon bad practices.

Calling Time on Corruption of Purpose

Parliament is also failing Australians in its democratic function.

In a true democracy, Parliament must facilitate – not obstruct – our democratic obligation to dissent.

Yet we are witness to a degeneration of democracy into political party oligarchy, in which dissent is stifled and the public bureaucracy is contained and docile.

Members of Parliament fail to represent the people who elect them partly because of the party system: they are constrained by an obligation to toe their party line. Instead of voting according to conscience or according to the values they have publicly espoused to their constituents, they vote as they are instructed by their Party leadership.

Far too often politicians conceive their public role not to be scrutineers of government, but to be partisan supporters of their own party. Their sense of duty to the party and to the networks of political patronage to which they owe their nomination and their career prospects, outweighs their sense of duty to the electorate.

How rare is it to see a Member of Parliament, whether in government or in opposition, stepping out of line, or raising difficult or controversial issues? To engage in backbench rebellion spells death for the career politician, putting an end to their prospects of career advancement or ministerial appointment.

The result is a system of party oligarchy in which conspiracy and corruption of purpose flourish.

It’s time for a culture shift.

It’s time to give dissidents a voice in our political system.

It’s time to inject some genuine, independent scrutiny into our political process.

The WikiLeaks Party in the Senate

The WikiLeaks Party is running a number of candidates for the Senate in the 2014 WA Senate re-election.

Our Senators will be genuinely independent in their scrutiny of the government and demand thorough transparency its contractual arrangements with private companies.

We will bring our core principles of transparency, accountability and justice to bear on all the major issues currently facing Australia.

WikiLeaks Party candidates are ideally suited to the work of the Senate: they are skilled in understanding complexity and they are experienced in dealing with large amounts of documents produced by bureaucracies and spotting their hidden significance and tricks.

The WikiLeaks Party will be vigilant against corruption in all its forms.

The WikiLeaks organisation was pioneering in its use of ‘scientific journalism’, reporting information with reference to publicly available primary sources. The WikiLeaks Party will promote ‘scientific policy’; decision-making based on research, evidence and clear, transparent principles.

In particular we will be fearless in the pursuit of the 21st century freedoms which are essential to the creation of any meaningful democracy. These include:

• the free flow of information: we live in a media-ocracy. What is politically possible is defined by the media environment. And in Australia 98% of the print media is the hands of just three corporations. Seven out of ten of our national newspapers are owned by the Murdoch News International group. The WikiLeaks Party will push for radical change in media policy to increase Australian media innovation.
• Internet freedom – the WikiLeaks Party will be fearless in its opposition to the creeping surveillance state, driven by globalised data collection and spying agencies, both state and corporate controlled. We will demand that all information on data seizure and storage of citizens’ data by government agencies and allied corporations be made public.
• protection for whistleblowers – with an increasingly unaccountable corporate state and an increasingly secretive security state, whistleblowers are an essential brake on bad practice. Only the threat of leaks can keep unaccountable institutions honest. So whistleblowers must be protected by law.
• standing up for national sovereignty – for too long Australian politics has been under the influence of foreign powers and transnational non-state actors, affecting both our foreign and domestic policy, against the interests of Australians. The WikiLeaks Party will fight to expose the collusions between the Australian state and the military-industrial complex that dominates world affairs.
• integrity in the global community – our national character is proud and generous, but recent policies have not met our obligations to the international community. The WikiLeaks Party will ensure Australia stands tall as a responsible global citizen.

Secret documents newly disclosed by the German news magazine Der Spiegel on Saturday shed more light on how aggressively the National Security Agency and its British counterpart have targeted Germany for surveillance.

A series of classified files from the archive provided to reporters by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, also seen by The Intercept, reveal that the NSA appears to have included Merkel in a surveillance database alongside more than 100 others foreign leaders. The documents also confirm for the first time that, in March 2013, the NSA obtained a top-secret court order against Germany as part of U.S. government efforts to monitor communications related to the country. Meanwhile, the British spy agency Government Communications Headquarters targeted three German companies in a clandestine operation that involved infiltrating the companies’ computer servers and eavesdropping on the communications of their staff.

Der Spiegel, which has already sketched out over several stories the vast extent of American and British targeting of German people and institutions, broke the news last October that Merkel’s cellphone calls were being tapped by the NSA – sparking a diplomatic backlash that strained US-Germany relations. Now a new document, dated 2009, indicates that Merkel was targeted in a broader NSA surveillance effort. She appears to have been placed in the NSA’s so-called “Target Knowledge Base“ (TKB), which Der Spiegel described as the central agency database of individual targets. An internal NSA description states that employees can use it to analyze “complete profiles“ of targeted people.

Read more…

Australia will create knights and dames this year for the first time in the 21st century, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced in a surprise move on Tuesday. A staunch monarchist, Abbott plans to name up to four Knights and Dames of the Order of Australia per year, starting with Australia’s outgoing governor-general Quentin Bryce and her replacement Peter Cosgrove (the governor-general is the Queen’s representative in the country). Future bestowments will go to “Australians of extraordinary and preeminent achievement and merit,” according to the plan.

Australia’s political and media establishment quickly reacted to the unexpected announcement with snark. “Sure as knight follows dame, Tony Abbott’s going to take us back to the good old days,” claimed opposition Labor Party MP Ed Husic. “I think [he] wants to play Marty McFly.” During the prime minister’s question time on Wednesday, opposition leader Bill Shorten and other MPs began audibly humming “Rule Britannia,” angering Abbott. The speaker of the house ejected some MPs from the chamber for disorderly laughter.

Read more…

Got a gripe with your child’s school? Don’t mention it on Facebook. The Victorian Education Department has issued a warning that “inappropriately” complaining about schools on social media will not be tolerated.
Last month the department sent a “statement of values” to state schools outlining expectations of staff, student and parent behaviour.
The statement warns, in a general section, that a person who “inappropriately uses social media as a forum to raise concerns/makes complaints against the school” will have contravened the expectations.
It said principals would be responsible for “what constitutes reasonable and unreasonable behaviour”.
Parents Victoria executive director Gail McHardy said allowing principals to decide alone what was inappropriate behaviour could end badly.
“Parents Victoria would definitely agree that principals being able to determine what constitutes reasonable and unreasonable behaviour is incredibly subjective and is likely to cause more problems than it fixes,” she said.

Read more…

Would you support increasing Australia’s emissions reductions target to at least 19% by 2020, as recommended by the Climate Change Authority earlier this year?
Emissions reduction should be upped to such an extent as to fully cap emissions and hence we arise in genuine expectations and measures to cap these emissions and address climate change imbalances. Coal based emissions need to be limited to less than 550 gigatons by 2050 in order to stay within the prospect of a two degree rise in temperature estimates end of the century, however we have a current surplus of 3000 gigatons, so unless legislation arises to address emissions from all sources then the myriad impacts will arise with devastating effects. 19 per cent is nowhere near a required target. We need to impart the facts and the science to the Australian nation and then procure the reductions to biologically safe levels.

Would you support a price and limit on greenhouse gas emissions for the biggest polluters?
The limit/cap is the mechanism that will exact change agency and that cap has to be one to meet reduction in gross measures of particles per thousand and in terms of gigatons of emissions. When we settle for less we are often left with less. We need to impart the facts and the science to the Australian nation and then deliver limits that will reduce emissions to biologically safe levels.

Would you support Australia committing to immediate ratification of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol?
It is the very least we can do by committing to the second part so we can raise the expectations and significantly reduce emissions, however we need to go well beyond the Kyoto Protocol and reduce emissions in correlation to biological and environmental safe levels despite most of the European nations having ‘walked away’ from the first commitment.

Would you support policies that prepare Australia for the impacts of between 2 and 4 degrees of global warming scenarios, by establishing and disclosing a national plan of action?
We should support policies that prepare Australia for such prevalence, and in the public interest be transparent with a full public record, however we should be supporting policies at this time to reduce emissions in accordance with the science that correlates emission rises with global warming – we need to reduce gigatons of emissions by five-sixths the current rate to reduce what will be the otherwise looming impacts. Deforestation is another cause of negative impacts and this needs to be included in ways forward

Would you support policies that rule out cuts to the current 2020 Renewable Energy Target (of 41,000 GWh)?
There should be no cuts to the as it is very minimalist 2020 Renewable Energy Target of 41,000 GWh, indeed we should be raising significantly and with the public interest in mind the renewable energy target.

Would you support strengthening the Renewable Energy Target to at least 50% by 2030?
We would support raising it to 100 per cent by 2030 and we would support increasing transition to renewables within all layers of the Australian society at speed for the sake of both humanity and the planet as we know and understand both.

Would you support Australia’s commitment to a target of 100% renewable energy by 2050?
Yes. We would support this commitment for much sooner, for effectively now, as the science demonstrates each day delayed hence the logarithmic and exponential rise of impacts. Renewable energy transitions should be the nation’s prioritised agenda and underwrite future economies for the sake of humanity and the planet. We believe every household should have renewable energy and should not be connected to the grid.

Would you support continued funding for large-scale renewable energy and energy efficiency technology through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC)?
This is imperative in realising the transition to renewable energy for the Australian nation and in setting an example of other nations to follow. However we need to put people first and ensure every household in Australia has been transitioned to renewable energy.

Would you support policies that prevent unconventional gas mining in drinking water catchments?
It is anathema that we would procure irrecoverable impacts and irreparable damage, this needs to be highlighted and for stances to be taken against those who mine in water catchments. We must prescribe appropriate legislation to protect drinking water catchments.

Would you support policies that prevent unconventional gas mining in residential areas?
It would be once again anathema to put at risk the biological and environmental health of any residential area wherever within the Australian nation. Legislation must be prescribed and enabled to protect the Australian nation.

Would you support policies that give farmers and other landowners the right to say no to mining on their own property?
Natural rights are myriad and some of these rights should ensure rights to ones land. Miners should not have unfettered access nor override the rights, property and otherwise, of others. Property owners should have the right to veto mining on land acquired by them or on which they reside on. Farmers may live and thrive livelihood from agribusiness and should not be usurped by the demands of others. We need to protect our farmers who are the heart of the nation’s food security.

Would you support a moratorium on coal seam gas and shale gas mining until a scientific consensus on the environmental and health impacts is reached?
The effects of coal seam gas and shale gas are now widely documented and their effects lead to the irreparable fracturing the bedrock of the land and the sea – and with the profit motive rife at this time from mining shale gas, till consensus arises from a science basis as to the environmentally safe approaches to mining shale gas and sourcing coal seam gas, for the sake of biological safety and environmental safety a moratorium is a must-do.

Would you oppose funding cuts for public broadcasters, including the ABC and SBS?
Independent media cannot arise from within privatisation. We would oppose it vehemently and without respite. Any semblance of free media can only arise from outside private ownership.

Would you rule out policies that would increase regulation of Australia’s free press?
Australia does not have a free press and any further restraints would diminish what little prospect we have in the future for the prospect of a free press. Australia ranks lowly on the world’s free press rankings – Reporters Without Borders ranks Australia 26th with countries such as Costa Rica ahead of Australia. We need to also introduce genuine whistleblower laws, we need to introduce legislation to check litigation which is abused by those who can afford it to reduce the public interest and to destroy the public record. We must work towards a free press and not the debacle that Australia endures now with just about all its media.

Oppose the removal and killing of sharks from designated “safe zones” in WA?
We need to listen to the science and the research and we need to remove ourselves from induced hysteria. Shark attacks are few and far between. Some of the culling methods are destroying sea habitats, marine life. We oppose the killing of sharks for unwarranted media driven hysteria. In Western Australia, Premier Colin Barnett has mishandled the hysteria and delivered knee jerk reaction as policy. This is impropriety and poor Government.

Would you support greater transparency around global trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement?
The TPP is multi-faced, and proposes various larceny for multinational robber barons, by reducing checks and balances, working in the interests of the few over the many. The whole TPP must come before a full blown Senate led Commission so as to fully broach checks and balances. It must be done urgently in light of transnational business on a large scale rise, and especially in light of sovereign revenues that Australia maybe cheated from. The TPP is a dangerous mechanism slated in the interest of the multinationals and is without any adequate transparency and accountability protocols.

Would you oppose the inclusion of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses in global trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement?
The ISDS is about sovereign corporates and not about sovereign nations, it is a charade to arbitrate in the interests of the corporates, the multinationals. It is not transparent and the World Bank which may oversee arbitration is not to be trusted without checks and balances that protect Australian sovereignty. Checks and balances should include Australian legislation, not the assumption of ‘international’ public law, to protect Australian sovereignty, and rights which may include impacts to the nation and the nation’s interests, from multinationals who through international mechanisms can then formally cheat the Australian nation, as is common practice throughout the world. Anti-corruption checks should be legislated, and nothing should be arbitrated ever in secrecy, the public record must at all times be available and without delay.

Would you oppose any industrial-scale dredging or dumping of dredge spoil within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area?
World Heritage areas, and other areas not protected but that should be, should not be dredged or mined under any circumstance. The Great Barrier Reef is fragile and vulnerable and has not had any chance to recover from impacts from myriad assaults in recent years. The Great Barrier Reef, the Dampier Peninsula, James Price Point, amid others should be preserved and protected in entirety.

Would you support implementing the recommendations of the World Heritage Committee to avoid the Great Barrier Reef being listed as ‘in danger’ by UNESCO?
The Great Barrier Reef is already in danger, this is scientific consensus, biodiversity has been reduced, marine life damaged, the reef itself, the very coral, vulnerable. It is a must-do that the Great Barrier Reef should be listed as in danger by UNESCO.

Would you prevent any new port development along the Great Barrier Reef coastline?
Legislation should prohibit any major developments that would affect the Great Barrier Reef.

Would you support an end to mandatory offshore detention for asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat?
Mandatory detention now costs the Australian nation more than the Corrective Services budget. Mandatory detention is in breach of international protocols and agreements the Australian Government is party to and which it has ratified. The Australian Government’s moral ground is askew and the Government has with toxicity poisoned and divided the Australian people with ugly racism that should be outdated. There is no need for mandatory detention. Asylum Seekers have every right to reach Australia and apply for Asylum, and for their applications to be justly, and with bona fide oversight and transparency, considered. Australia should process applications with expediency. Australia should set a positive example and also raise its resettlement quota – bringing in also more refugees from overseas camps – Australia should raise its resettlement quota to no less than 50,000. This is about people, and people must come first.

Do you support the closure of the Manus Island offshore detention centre?
We support the closure of all offshore and onshore detention centres, they are inhumane, unjust, a stain on our collective national consciousness.

Do you think children should be removed from indefinite detention?
Everyone should be removed from indefinite detention. Children should never be in such deplorable environments where their form and content, their very development is being harmed.

Would you support maintaining penalty rates for Australian workers?
The majority of Australian workers are still in labour intensive occupations, and the majority work purely to keep food on the table and a roof over their family’s heads. People must be remunerated accordingly. Removing penalty rates is the equivalent of giving rise to wage slavery and various exploitation. The employer must not be put into the unenviable position to decide this, legislation should be retained for penalty rates and employers accommodate this. People’s time must be compensated, it is imperative in terms of social wellbeing and conducive to workplace morale.

Would you oppose any attempt to get rid of the Unfair Dismissal laws?
We have the barest of unfair dismissal laws as it is, by reducing or removing what checks and balances we have it’s open slather for employers versus the employee. Job security must remain a natural right.

1. Our main agenda is to erode monopoly politics, to smash down the narrow corridor of political discourse within Government and make limitless the range of issues introduced into the Senate. The Australian political landscape is trapped within a strict neoliberal-neoconservative paradigm of whom only some tinker with social justice around its edges. There is no left wing or radical voices within Government to challenge the paradigm. We intend to introduce the underwriting policy of transparency to every piece of legislation and ensure the construct of the public record in the Senate so informed decisions are made in the interests of humanity and the planet and not in the interests of skewed excessive self interest groups. We want an end to mandatory detention and for all asylum seekers graced with the natural right to have their applications processed with expediency and public record transparency. We want to bring the real debate on climate change to the Senate, and its impacts, that climate change has arrived and we need to move in leaps and bounds to deal with it, not tinker with charades. The Australian people must be freed from multinational robber barons, and allowed to transition all layers of society, including every household, to renewable and clean energies – and to benefit from the five natural sources of renewable energy. The radicalisation of the housing sector must be undertaken if home ownership is to be a natural right for all people, and homelessness can be addressed however only with a redistribution of wealth – particularly sovereign wealth. We must not continue within the whim of multinationals and the presumption of a trickle-down effect however with a bottom-up approach. Resources should belong to the nation, not to multinational corporates. We call for restorative justice instead of retributive justice and for the release of 65 per cent of the prison population who are incarcerated for minor offences mostly as a result of extreme poverty. We call for an end to the third-world-akin conditions of First Peoples in this nation, the 12th largest economy in the world. We will deal with every piece of legislation on its merit and refuse to trade on one Bill in order to pass another. We call for an end to the surveillance State and an end to Shadow States, and demand truth at all times. This is only the beginning. WikiLeaks has stared down lying Governments and transnational agencies for 8 years, we will do likewise in the Australian Senate.

2. Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s agenda is intertwined with the neoliberal-neoconservative paradigm, and he is only a pawn within this construct. His role is no less or greater than that of his predecessors, and to this time there has been no-one to radically challenge the construct of which individuals such as Abbott only serve. Our agenda will be for all the nation, and the world, to see, we will dawn upon the Senate, language, discourse and evidence similar to that of the WikiLeaks Publishing Organisation, and we will not budge or be compromised. The balance of power in the Senate is at play here – and it is an opportunity for such an influence as the WikiLeaks Party to introduce truth into Government, and for the Australian nation to see. The balance of power has been made all the more difficult to obtain by the servants of the moderate right (Greens) and the opposition major party (Labor) from the ultra conservative Coalition. Labor is of course another right wing neoconservative party. Unfortunately, the Greens preferenced Family First in South Australia and hence assisted them to win a Senate seat, causing a turnover in terms of the balance of power. We need both the Greens and WikiLeaks to secure the 5th and 6th positions to tie up the balance of power. However, if WikiLeaks wins its seat the entire Australian political landscape journeys into unchartered territory. By breaking monopoly politics and the neoliberal paradigm (whose servitude is to elite multinationals and the Shadow States) then we will not only undo the Coalition’s Kafkaesque approach to legislative changes but the whole abhorrent paradigm.

3. The WikiLeaks Party is diametrically opposed to the agendas of the Coalition and the ALP, and is radically far more progressive and libertarian than the Greens. We would deal with each piece of legislation exclusively, merit based. We would bring debate into the Senate for the public record. We will work in the public interest as a whole, for the purpose of equality and humanity, not for any excessive self-interest group. We will continue to expose corruption, however from the big end of town first, not the other way around. We would do everything different to the Abbott Government, and to every previous Government, firstly we will not lie and deceive. Importantly, media must be protected from privatisation and certainly from cross ownership. Whistleblower protections must be bona fide. The abuse of litigation by the wealthy must be legislatively done away with. Globally, Australia’s Free Press Ranking is 26, countries such as Costa Rica are ahead of Australia – we do not believe Australia has a free press. This is only the beginning – it must be remembered that libertarianism arises from the progressive left and hence their foundation suppositions and premises are the same.

4. Our first preference is flowing to the Greens, not that they are a left wing party but they are moderate social justice agents and it is important they hold the seat in the Senate. Our WA preferences in the September 2013 Federal Election also went to the Greens, indeed Senator Scott Ludlam collected all our preferences as was said would be
the case despite the unfair attacks on us that we had preferenced an Aboriginal gentleman ahead of Senator Ludlam – this was a symbolic gesture in the call for affirmative actions for all political parties to work to change the demography of our parliaments, away from what is contemporary, where 90 per cent of parliamentarians are of Anglocentric heritage and with the majority of them with more than 100 years of familial history, and hence origins-of-thinking, in Australia, whereas we will work towards a political party that reflects all Australians; First Peoples and multiculturally. We paid a high price – political suicide for our gesture. However, our WA Senate candidates did not respond negatively to the aggressive attacks because we believe the ends and the means must be the same, however we missed electing our first WikiLeaks Senator by less than 2,800 primary votes on that occasion. Our 2014 preferences were done on a candidate by candidate basis, conviction and merit based approach, below the line.

5. Transparency means the construct of the public record at all times, in order to fully inform everyone involved in the decision making processes and furthermore to allow the public interest to be involved. Transparency is paramount to a just, egalitarian society, it strives for equality whereas what we have now is unjust society, an unjust justice system, where the few benefit at the expense of the majority, and while some miss out altogether.

Transparency is an imperative intertwined with accountability, they go hand in hand – one cannot exist without the other – accountability is also an opportunity to check and balance and remedy wrongs or flaws. There cannot be in a just and honourable society Shadow States and the Surveillance State – everything must be on the public record, accessible by the public record, and there should be no issue with this where society strives for humanity as a whole, rather than society geared to the few bent by their excessive interest alone. The challenge is before us.

Justice is the striving for equality in the truest sense of its meanings, and justice can only arise if transparency and accountability are not only pronounced but are our whole way of life. Humanity’s striving must be premised by first do no harm, and then by doing every good, and only transparency, accountability and justice born from these can guard against the procurement of the harmful and the protection of the natural right to the common good.

Secrecy prevails when governments, despite the efforts of some to press them, simply don’t address the evidence or respond in any way. The ‘some’ who made attempts made in Parliament 2000 to 2012 to achieve a resolution to the disclosure of corruption initiated by Neil Winzer included sitting members of the WA parliament of all the political persuasions. Nine examples of those attempts are listed here.

Collaboration in a cover-up of a disclosure of corruption – by Neil Winzer

You might ask why you’ve not previously heard about what you may read here. If it wasn’t for Wikileaks it is very likely that you never would. For Wikileaks this is ‘bread and butter’ in that as an organisation it is providing an endorsement for information about government the public has a right to know that previously was effectively kept secret. Dismissing this matter as ‘stale’ gives credit to the authorities for their use of the tactic of not responding.

A public interest claim was submitted in 1998 by myself, an employee of the Western Australian Department of Transport, to this day albeit unpaid since 2000, concerning the introduction of privatisation and contracting-out to that department. The claim, ultimately encompassing alleged fraud, misappropriation, falsification of records, abuse of office and perjury, was never the subject of an objective and thorough investigation. There was a cover-up. In all, 16 Members of Parliament have tried to achieve a resolution. As an independent, Hon Max Trenorden MLC made the last attempt in Parliament on 27.11.12 to achieve a resolution (parliament.wa.gov.au – search Hansard – key winzer).

Most of the details of the original claim pale to insignificance in comparison to what must now, based on the 16 years of documentation, be categorised as a failure of the WA political and justice systems with implications of that failure for our national security and economy.

The identity of the Director General of Transport responsible for the fraud is one detail of the original claim worth keeping in mind because it helps in understanding why the matter has degenerated to this point. The claim wasn’t resolved then because of his connections. There were discussions in the WA Parliament about there being no will to “sacrifice” him.

Regarding the implications of the failure to investigate the claim it is also important to note the identity of the public officers, including all of the successors to the position of Director General of Transport, who chose to protect the individual at the centre of the original claim. It is a reasonable contention regarding those public officers that, having once collaborated in the cover-up and received a ‘pay-off’ in some form, they were likely to re-offend.

Over the years with hope of achieving an investigation, I pressed a public interest argument through every conceivable agency of government and avenue of the WA Parliament. The data supporting his argument showed Transport had by advising they had addressed his claim misled agencies, Parliament and psychiatrists they obliged him to see. It is a critical fact that I pointed to the existence of records of his questions and advice beginning three years before his formal claim and the non-existence of a record of Transport having addressed his preceding questions or the formal claim. For example, the testimony of the aforementioned Director General meant, had it been true, records existed critical the privatisation and contracting-out process. I testified that such documents did not exist.

The saga easily read from the detailed submissions I made over the years is of authorities, as I reached each of them in turn, making the decision on whether they would be truthful as to their view of the evidence or subscribe to the ‘no sacrifice’ agenda. As the list of subscribers grew, the decision apparently became easier.

With the objective of confirming my credibility as to the ‘no genuine investigation’ argument, you are referred to the data that has been condensed to the two pages headed Proof of No Investigation that you may see below. More detail concerning perjury in particular can be obtained at [email protected] For myself this data represents a ‘put up or shut up’ opportunity and for you it is the ‘litmus test’. The authorities have dealt with my persistent challenges for this data to be addressed by not responding. It is like a ‘cone of silence’ has been lowered.

I reached the Police Service in 2002 and in 2003 referred to parliamentary questions about the testimony of the aforementioned Director General (parliament.wa.gov.au – search Parliamentary Questions – key winzer). However, I didn’t know that individual was by that stage under a Police contract for advice on prevention of Police corruption. Furthermore, I didn’t know that individual and one other I cited for corruption sat on the panel that selected the new Commissioner. During the selection process the Police had advised me those two were under criminal investigation. In 2004 when I requested advice from the Commissioner as to his relationship with the two individuals I cited for having been involved in criminal activity, he got no response.

Having complained about the Police to the Corruption and Crime Commission I complained on 7.11.04 about the CCC to the Parliamentary Inspector for the CCC, now the Governor. Critically, the Governor on 29.12.06 endorsed the CCC’s support for the Police having quashed every one of the 27 perjury claims I had detailed.

The introduction of the Chief Justice’s Protocol for Complaints Against Judicial Officers gave scope for a complaint about the Chairman of the State Administrative Tribunal having refused my requests to present the ‘no genuine investigation’ data and call MP’s as witnesses in support of his complaints against legal practitioners involved in the disclosure, including the current Governor. Although I obtained an offence report number from the Police in accordance with the Protocol, the Chief Justice imposed the ‘cone of silence’.

Winzer reached a stage, given the apparent lack of will to address the ‘no genuine investigation’ data, when he began requesting a meeting for the purpose of achieving an arrangement that would enable him to ‘get on with his life’. There was no response to his request. The ‘cone of silence’ remained. How is a matter to be progressed if communication is only one-way and secrecy is effectively maintained? Wikileaks can answer that question.

The Queen with great fanfare on 11.3.13 signed the Commonwealth Charter that includes a “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.” Consequently, I made simultaneous submissions to The Queen and the Commonwealth Secretariat. The Secretariat has the job of administering the Charter. I cited the total failure of the political and justice systems of WA with implications of that failure for national security and the national economy.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade defended the Commonwealth Secretariat by arguing that the implications of the failure to investigate that I listed didn’t represent a problem at a national level. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade have yet to respond to my complaints from 20.1.14 about DFAT.

Regarding national level implications, consider the fact that I made submissions to:

¨ Prime Minister Tony Abbott regarding Senator Johnston’s alleged collaboration in the cover-up of the disclosure of corruption I initiated. Despite having the ‘no genuine investigation’ data Senator Johnston’s advice to me on 20.10.06 was of “problems in investigating the various allegations you have made, as the erosion of time casts an undeniable ambiguity over the facts in a number of ways.”

¨ Senator David Johnston the Minster for Defence regarding concern about Len Roberts-Smith QC who as the WA Corruption and Crime Commissioner played a key role in a campaign of abuse directed at me because of my claims, now being the Chairman of the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce;

¨ the Board of the Australian Crime Commission about the WA Police Commissioner’s participation on the ACC Board representing a national security risk in that he’d not been subjected to the test applied to Dr Muhamed Haneef about having or having had a relationship with people involved in criminal activity;

¨ all the national and international companies involved in the then proposed James Price Point gas hub development regarding the integrity of the Environmental Protection Authority’s approval. Detail was given as to the fact that one of the five members of the EPA had never faced the claims of abuse of office and perjury Winzer made against him as a former Director General of Transport. The Board of BHP Billiton and Japan Australia LNG (MIMI) Pty Ltd at least responded;

¨ each state automobile club (RAC etc.) representative on the Board of the Australian Automobile Association alerting them to the fact that the Chief Executive Officer of the AAA had never faced the abuse of office and multiple perjury claims Winzer made against him as a former Director General of Transport; and

¨ the South Australian Parliament alerting them to the fact that the individual that had just been appointed to head a SA department to restore order after a scandal that led to a parliamentary inquiry, had been the resident solicitor of the WA Department of Transport and had never faced Winzer’s claims of perjury and perverting justice.

NINE EXAMPLES FROM 2000 TO 2012 OF STATEMENTS MADE IN PARLIAMENT AIMED AT A RESOLUTION TO MY DISCLOSURE

1. 6.9.00 – Kim Chance MLC (ALP)
Why would this happen? This is not a man who posed any threat to government policy; he is simply a man who is trying to do his job professionally. I hate to think that we might be part of a system that for one reason or another has set out to destroy an individual. I know that nobody in this Parliament would want that to happen and I hope we can bring some goodwill to the way in which this man has been dealt with.

2. 19.9.02 – Jim Scott MLC (Greens WA)
Earlier, a Mr Winzer was in attendance in the House to listen to this debate. He is still trying to get a matter dealt with that would appear to me, on evidence, to be a genuine issue. However, there has been an ability on the part of the bureaucracy to bury the true details of what is going on.

3. 28.11. 02 – Paddy Embry (Independent)
I will now refer to whistleblowing and Neil Winzer. I am sure everybody in this House must have heard of Neil Winzer, particularly those who were members prior to the last State election. Hon Graham Giffard has spoken on the matter, as has the Leader of the House. Words have been said to the effect that this guy has been shafted, to put it politely.

4. 7.4.04 – Cheryl Edwardes MLA (Lib)
This Government has done absolutely nothing to resolve Neil Winzer’s situation and have his complaint investigated. Putting that issue aside, Neil Winzer is receiving no income. It is a disgrace.

5. 25.8.04 – Cheryl Edwardes MLA (Lib)
Neil Winzer, the public servant, is subjected to constant harassment on a daily basis. He is receiving that treatment from public servants in that department. I will repeat what one public servant said about another public servant: Mr X – I will not repeat his name – could remain at home and rot just like Mr Winzer. If this is not part of workplace mobbing, I do not know what is. This Government is allowing that to occur with whistleblowers.

6. November 2004 Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs Minority Report to Parliament
A minority of the Committee, Hons Jim Scott and Christine Sharp MLCs, were of the view that there was merit in further investigation of the matter. The minority noted that Mr Winzer’s petition was not further explored or dealt with due to its complexity and because the limited time remaining before Parliament is likely to be prorogued would not allow an adequate investigation of the merits of the claim to be concluded. In the minority’s view Mr Winzer’s petition raises serious matters of public interest and the Legislative Council should re-examine this issue when the Parliament resumes after prorogation.

7. September 2007 Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs recommendation to Parliament
The Committee recommends that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and/or the Minister for Public Sector Management take immediate steps to resolve the issue of Mr Winzer’s employment.

8. 9.8.11 – Max Trenorden MLC (National)
Mr Winzer blew the whistle on a number of very prominent Western Australians. I will not run through who they are, but some of them cannot be much more prominent in this state, and I will point out to this house that some years ago we passed a bill that said that people who blow the whistle will be protected. But do we protect whistleblowers? Absolutely not!

9. 27.11.12 – Max Trenorden MLC (National)
This issue has been reported on by several committees of this house and members have regularly stood and attempted to get some justice for Mr Winzer, but this just cruises on. Just like with Michael Moodie, it just cruises on. You just trample over these people because you have the power, because you are in the club and the club allows you to do what you want. It is just unacceptable.

Proof of No Investigation

THE ESSENCE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS TABLED ON 24.3.11

A. It is my long-standing claim, as should be verified from the copious records, that the original public interest claim I initiated formally on 18.9.98 was not addressed by the Department of Transport (DOT) by way of documentation or discussion. The claim involved fraud, misappropriation, falsification of records, abuse of office and perjury.

B. The following Corruption and Crime Commission determination of 14.8.08 has two-parts; what may be referred to as a ‘documentation’ part and a ‘discussion’ part:
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.

C. In regard to the ‘documentation’ part of the CCC’s determination, which I contend is correct, note the conflicting records of the Legislative Council over 4 years:
q The Department’s citation of three documents in response to Question with Notice No. 1980 of 2000 that was tabled with reference to question on notice No. 880 of 2000 and “How many detailed responses has Mr Winzer received from the Department of Transport to his correspondence.”;
q The Department’s advice that “Departmental records indicate that replies have been provided to all of Mr Winzer’s correspondence addressed to the Department” in response to Question with Notice No. 541 of 2002 that was specifically about my public interest claim, question without notice No. 988 of 2001 and what “reply” I’d been provided; and
q The range of documents tabled by the Department in response to Question with Notice No. 1800 of 2004, that was tabled with reference to Question with Notice No. 541 of 2002 and “records relating to Mr Winzer’s public interest claim”;

D. In regard to the ‘discussion’ part of their determination, which I contend is incorrect, it is important to note that I only ever had one meeting with Mr Harris, then Director General, and Mr Bodycoat, then resident solicitor. I point to the conflict between the CCC’s determination as to what was discussed at that meeting on 29.1.99 and Transport having advised Parliament that we met to discuss my public interest claim, as follows:
q The Department’s citation of 29.1.99 in response to “On what date did Mr Winzer meet with the present Acting Director General to discuss his allegations” at part (3) of Question with Notice No. 1980 of 2000; and
q The Department’s advice that at the meeting on 29.1.99 I “was asked to provide any information he held to support allegations indicating corruption or maladministration” and I didn’t provide “substantiating information”, in response to Question with Notice No. 1800 of 2004 tabled with specific reference to my public interest claim and the response to Question with Notice No. 541 of 2002;
The CCC, in conflict with the above records, determined that the Road Trauma Trust Fund was discussed on 29.1.99. My claim had no connection with the RTTF:
Mr Bodycoat’s notes of the meeting indicate that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss allegations concerning the Road Trauma Trust Fund. (CCC report 14.8.08)
And:
… both Mr Harris (in his WorkCover evidence) and Mr Bodycoat (in his notes of the meeting) say that the Road Trauma Trust Fund was discussed. The Commission notes that Mr Harris was questioned at some length about this matter during the WorkCover hearing by Mr Winzer’s counsel. His evidence on this issue is consistent with Mr Bodycoat’s notes. (CCC report of 14.8.08)
My longstanding claim had no connection with the RTTF and therefore if the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the RTTF, the CCC’s determination as to discussion of my claim, with Harris or Bodycoat at least, was incorrect. Furthermore, there is no record that can be verified as having been generated within a year of 29.1.99 supporting CCC’s argument as to the RTTF being mentioned on 29.1.99. I emphasised these points:
q The critical testimony of the officers in a position making it appropriate for them to discuss my claim with me clearly shows there was no such discussion (see attached copies of testimony and claims of perjury – I made 27 claims of perjury in total);
q The testimony and documents linked to the 29.1.99 meeting shows that I was accused of rumours of unspecified corruption and prevented from discussing my claim; and
q My answers to the accusations about the unspecified corruption were ‘cut and pasted’ as my answers to questions, that were in fact not asked, about my longstanding claim. Thus was constructed the ‘Winzer failed when asked to substantiate his claim’ / ‘Winzer’s claim has been addressed’ pattern of advice.

E. Regarding the CCC’s RTTF determination, consider these additional points:
q Mr Bodycoat’s testimony was confused and not consistent with the notes purported to be his or his date-verified 29.1.99 emails and advice to Harris and consequently, conflicts with the CCC’s determination. As to the “purpose” of the meeting on 29.1.99 Mr Bodycoat testified that it was to discuss my disclosure; as he put it “discussion relating to some of the issues which [he] understood to be mentioned in the memorandum of the 1st of October from [me][about my disclosure].” However, his testimony was not that my disclosure was actually discussed.
Mr Bodycoat testified that I was not accused of making any allegation. However, his testimony conflicts with his date-verified emails and advice of 29.1.99 to Mr Harris that include repeatedly “you’ve made some allegations” (see attached copies of my claims of perjury). There’s no mention of the RTTF in Bodycoat’s emails and advice. The notes purported to be his are not date-verified. The 23.2.00 testimony of Harris is the only date-verified record of the RTTF being mentioned on 29.1.99;
q Six date-verified documents, including those tabled by the Department in response to Question with Notice No. 1800 of 2004, that contain considerable information as to the content and process of the meeting, but no mention of the RTTF or any allegations related to it; and
q The ‘Winzer’s claim has been addressed / Winzer failed when asked to substantiate his claim when asked’ pattern of advice that was cited by the Department as the outcome of the 29.1.99 meeting and disseminated widely; for example, in response to Question with Notice No. 1800 of 2004 and to the range of psychiatrists for DOT.
I strongly contend this point as to the outcome of the 29.1.99 meeting, even considered on a stand-alone basis, shows the CCC’s determination as to the RTTF being discussed on 29.1.99 and it being “difficult, if not impossible, to attempt to satisfactorily resolve this conflict” was nothing short of corrupt.