A member of parliament questions the Attorney General regarding the lack of police cooperation with a Royal Commission into police corruption, suggesting it may be due to the revocation of indemnity for a witness and implying the government benefits from the lack of evidence. The Attorney General declines to comment, dismissing the questions as idle speculation.

AnsweredQoN 279Legislative Council
Asked
23 October 2002
Portfolio
minister representing the Attorney General

QuestionView source ↗

During the Fitzgerald inquiry in Queensland, many police officers voluntarily came forward with evidence of corruption. This has not been the case in the Western Australian Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers. (1) Could this be because of the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in revoking the indemnity given to Mr Lewandowski by the Court of Criminal Appeal? (2) Has the Attorney General explained just who will benefit from this lack of participation by members of the Police Force? (3) Does it suit the Government to effectively close down the royal commission through lack of evidence? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the member for some notice of the question. I advise the member that the Attorney General has provided the following answer - (1)-(3) I have no intention of commenting on the idle speculation contained in the member’s question.
(1) Could this be because of the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in revoking the indemnity given to Mr Lewandowski by the Court of Criminal Appeal? (2) Has the Attorney General explained just who will benefit from this lack of participation by members of the Police Force? (3) Does it suit the Government to effectively close down the royal commission through lack of evidence? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I advise the member that the Attorney General has provided the following answer - (1)-(3) I have no intention of commenting on the idle speculation contained in the member’s question.
(2) Has the Attorney General explained just who will benefit from this lack of participation by members of the Police Force? (3) Does it suit the Government to effectively close down the royal commission through lack of evidence? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I advise the member that the Attorney General has provided the following answer - (1)-(3) I have no intention of commenting on the idle speculation contained in the member’s question.
(3) Does it suit the Government to effectively close down the royal commission through lack of evidence? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I advise the member that the Attorney General has provided the following answer - (1)-(3) I have no intention of commenting on the idle speculation contained in the member’s question.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I advise the member that the Attorney General has provided the following answer - (1)-(3) I have no intention of commenting on the idle speculation contained in the member’s question.
I thank the member for some notice of the question. I advise the member that the Attorney General has provided the following answer - (1)-(3) I have no intention of commenting on the idle speculation contained in the member’s question.
(1)-(3) I have no intention of commenting on the idle speculation contained in the member’s question.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more