Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 11 June 2002 THE SPEAKER (Mr Riebeling) took the Chair at 2.00 pm, and read prayers. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE MICKELBERG CASE, MINISTER FOR HEALTH 1057. Ms SUE WALKER to the Attorney General: I refer the Attorney General to the sworn affidavit of former detective Anthony Lewandowski alleging that he and the late Don Hancock stripped and beat Perth Mint swindle suspect Peter Mickelberg at the Belmont CIB office on 26 July 1982. (1) Is the Attorney General aware that the Minister for Health, Hon Bob Kucera, was the officer in charge of the Belmont CIB office at that time? (2) Is the Attorney General also aware that then Detective Sergeant Kucera offered his office to Lewandowski and Hancock to interview Peter Mickelberg and was present several times during that interview? (3) If so, when did the Attorney General become aware of those facts? Mr McGINTY replied: I have just finished discussing with the Press the very important issues relating to the Mickelberg matter that were raised at the noon press conference. I said that either the Director of Public Prosecutions or I has the power to grant an indemnity to any officer who comes forward with knowledge of impropriety or other matters relating to the mint swindle or the fabrication of evidence that took place if we accept that the affidavit is truthful. I urge any former or serving police officer who has knowledge of these matters to come forward and to seek that indemnity. (1) Yes, I was aware that the then Detective Sergeant Kucera was the officer in charge of the Belmont Police Station in July 1982, when the interview with Peter Mickelberg took place at that office. (2) Yes, I am aware that it was his office in which the interview took place at the Belmont CIB office. It would be very interesting to look at the floor plan of the building, because it might throw an interesting light on the issue. (3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue. MICKELBERG CASE, MINISTER FOR HEALTH 1058. Ms SUE WALKER to the Attorney General: Why did the Attorney General fail to inform the public of the Minister for Health’s involvement until forced to do so today? I particularly refer him to the radio interview in which he participated this morning during which he was asked whether other officers were involved. Mr McGINTY replied: I urge members to appreciate the gravity of this matter. We are talking about something that goes to the heart of public confidence in the Western Australia Police Service and the administration of justice in this State. This matter has gone on three occasions to the Court of Criminal Appeal and on either two or three occasions to the High Court of Australia. It is one of the most high profile cases conducted in Western Australia. The consequence of the member’s playing petty politics with a matter of this nature can only be the destruction of her interests. We must look at - 11214 [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 11 June 2002] Several members interjected. Mr McGINTY: Mr Kucera was not involved in any way in the investigation of any aspect of the Perth Mint swindle. Ms Sue Walker: He was involved in the interview. He went into the room three times. Mr McGINTY: I suggest that, given the gravity of this matter to the administration of justice in this State, the member resist the temptation to try to score cheap political points. That is what she is doing. In 1998, Mr Kucera gave evidence before the Court of Criminal Appeal. That was the first time he was called to give evidence. He did so in an open court and the evidence was reported in the media and in the court’s judgment. He provided his recollection of events with which he was peripherally connected but not involved in July 1982 at the Belmont Police Station. Those matters are on the public record. When I was presented with an affidavit from Anthony Lewandowski, I saw it as a matter of enormous public interest and concern. That is why I took the step of making it public - I called a press conference as soon as I reasonably could. Ms Sue Walker: You did not mention the minister. Mr McGINTY: This is too serious for the member to be playing petty, cheap politics. She should listen, because this is a very important matter. Given the gravity of the issue, she is doing herself no credit. It is a matter of public record. I received an affidavit from Anthony Lewandowski that in no way - directly or indirectly - referred to or cast any doubt upon the evidence given to the Court of Criminal Appeal by Mr Kucera in 1998. The press conference was called to deal with the startling admission by the detective who conducted the investigation that he had fabricated the evidence with Don Hancock, that he had perjured himself with Don Hancock and that he and Don Hancock had committed serious assaults on Peter Mickelberg. He also said that he felt that he was now free to come forward because Don Hancock had died and he would not be dobbing him in, to use my own turn of phrase. That was the purpose of the press conference. I could see no reason to mention Mr Kucera because he was not the subject of the sworn affidavit. The member for Nedlands should rise above the cheap shot. BURRUP PENINSULA, PUBLIC MEETING 1059. Mr BOWLER to the Minister for State Development: I refer the minister to media reports about a public meeting held last Sunday at the Burrup Peninsula concerning a number of projects earmarked for development. (1) Was any support given to the projects by any of the political representatives present? (2) What was the nature of that support? Mr BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I had the pleasure of attending a public meeting last Sunday called by the Shire of Roebourne. That meeting was attended by a number of members of Parliament: Hon Robin Chapple, Hon John Fischer, Hon Jon Ford in the other place, the member for Kimberley, you, Mr Speaker, Senator Alan Eggleston and me. A number of political representatives were invited graciously by the shire to speak at that meeting. First, Senator Alan Eggleston spoke on behalf of the Howard Government and said that it supported the projects, which was very important. Hon Robin Chapple spoke on behalf of the Greens (WA) and said that he supported the projects. Hon John Fischer spoke on behalf of One Nation and said that he supported the projects. You, Mr Speaker, spoke in your capacity as a local member and said that you supported the projects. I spoke and said that I supported the projects. It was a very important meeting because everybody who spoke supported the projects. There was an argument about location, but every person who spoke - representatives from the Greens, One Nation and the Howard and State Governments - agreed that these projects should be supported. That was very important because it had not been clear previously that everyone supported these projects. However, now it is on the public record for some hundreds of people who were listening intently to every word that all those political groups support these projects. Other comments were made, and I will refer to one now and to others later. Senator Alan Eggleston said that although he supported the projects, things were going much too fast and we needed to slow down the process. That was news to me, because I have been in discussions with the federal Minister for Small Business, Mr Macfarlane, at a local level. Members will know that Minister Macfarlane, representing the Howard Government, has provided considerable support to these projects. Indeed, the federal Government has allocated some $85 million to support one of the projects. When Minister Macfarlane has spoken to me, he has been very keen for us to get on with the job; yet, when Senator Eggleston spoke on behalf of the federal Government, he said that we must slow down the process. I was intrigued by this mis-message. I was intrigued that we had two messages: one from a minister who said to speed it up and one from a member who said to slow it down. I took the liberty of asking my staff to contact Minister Macfarlane’s office to ascertain whether the position of the federal Government had changed and whether Senator Eggleston had reported [ASSEMBLY - Tuesday, 11 June 2002] 11215 accurately to the local community about the federal Government wanting the process slowed down.