❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice where Hon Peter Foss questions the Attorney General's viewing of a Channel Seven tape related to Lewandowski, suggesting a potential conflict of interest involving Hon Bob Kucera. The Attorney General denies any conflict or reluctance to disclose information.
AnsweredQoN 1514Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Attorney General’s answer to question without notice 1379 of 2003, and, in particular, the part question as to the purpose for which the Attorney General viewed the Channel Seven tape of Lewandowski being interviewed, to which he replied “self-evident”. When I learned that he had viewed the tape, I immediately assumed he had done so to determine whether his friend, cabinet colleague and relative, Hon Bob Kucera had been implicated in his evidence to the Supreme Court in line with previous conduct of the Attorney General. (1) Is this the self-evident reason that the Attorney General is referring to? (2) Is this why he has been reluctant over the course of three questions to disclose what happened? (3) If not, what was the reason for watching it and not being willing to enunciate that reason? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1) No. (2) There was no reluctance. (3) Not applicable.
When I learned that he had viewed the tape, I immediately assumed he had done so to determine whether his friend, cabinet colleague and relative, Hon Bob Kucera had been implicated in his evidence to the Supreme Court in line with previous conduct of the Attorney General. (1) Is this the self-evident reason that the Attorney General is referring to? (2) Is this why he has been reluctant over the course of three questions to disclose what happened? (3) If not, what was the reason for watching it and not being willing to enunciate that reason? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1) No. (2) There was no reluctance. (3) Not applicable.
(1) Is this the self-evident reason that the Attorney General is referring to? (2) Is this why he has been reluctant over the course of three questions to disclose what happened? (3) If not, what was the reason for watching it and not being willing to enunciate that reason? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1) No. (2) There was no reluctance. (3) Not applicable.
(2) Is this why he has been reluctant over the course of three questions to disclose what happened? (3) If not, what was the reason for watching it and not being willing to enunciate that reason? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1) No. (2) There was no reluctance. (3) Not applicable.
(3) If not, what was the reason for watching it and not being willing to enunciate that reason? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1) No. (2) There was no reluctance. (3) Not applicable.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1) No. (2) There was no reluctance. (3) Not applicable.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1) No. (2) There was no reluctance. (3) Not applicable.
(1) No. (2) There was no reluctance. (3) Not applicable.
(2) There was no reluctance. (3) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.
When I learned that he had viewed the tape, I immediately assumed he had done so to determine whether his friend, cabinet colleague and relative, Hon Bob Kucera had been implicated in his evidence to the Supreme Court in line with previous conduct of the Attorney General. (1) Is this the self-evident reason that the Attorney General is referring to? (2) Is this why he has been reluctant over the course of three questions to disclose what happened? (3) If not, what was the reason for watching it and not being willing to enunciate that reason? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1) No. (2) There was no reluctance. (3) Not applicable.
(1) Is this the self-evident reason that the Attorney General is referring to? (2) Is this why he has been reluctant over the course of three questions to disclose what happened? (3) If not, what was the reason for watching it and not being willing to enunciate that reason? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1) No. (2) There was no reluctance. (3) Not applicable.
(2) Is this why he has been reluctant over the course of three questions to disclose what happened? (3) If not, what was the reason for watching it and not being willing to enunciate that reason? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1) No. (2) There was no reluctance. (3) Not applicable.
(3) If not, what was the reason for watching it and not being willing to enunciate that reason? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1) No. (2) There was no reluctance. (3) Not applicable.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1) No. (2) There was no reluctance. (3) Not applicable.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Attorney General has provided the following response - (1) No. (2) There was no reluctance. (3) Not applicable.
(1) No. (2) There was no reluctance. (3) Not applicable.
(2) There was no reluctance. (3) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.