Mr Campbell asked the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, upon notice, on 13 February 1997:

(1) Is or was Mr Johannes Jacobsen a federal agent operating in WA; if so, for how long has he been employed in that capacity.

(2) Is he able to say whether on or about 24 January 1997 Mr Jacobsen ordered Miss Susan Stewart to stop distribution of any publication written by Dr Z.S. Jemielita; if so, (a) on what grounds and (b) upon whose authority.

(3) Did Mr Jacobsen or associates provide a transcript of a taped interview to the Judge as exhibit 63 in the trial of Dr Jemielita and his wife.

(4) Was the transcript put before the jury as part of the evidence for the deliberation of the jury.

(5) Is it permissible to tender transcripts of a tape when the tape itself is not available.

(6) Was the transcript made available to Dr Jemielita's defence beforehand; if not, how could the doctor refute it.

(7) Have 120 pages of the transcript been removed from the District Court records; if so, (a) was the transcript falsified and (b) why were the pages removed.

(8) Was the material removed following information from a member of his staff.

(9) Did an officer from the Australian Federal Police contact the Postmaster in Perth on telephone number 13 13 18 and request him not to accept Dr Jemielita's mail; if so (a) who was the officer and (b) why.

(10) Will he refer the matter of inadmissible and false evidence and other matters contained in the petition of Ann Vanstone QC to the Supreme Court of WA.

Mr Williams —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

(1) Yes. Federal Agent Jacobsen is an experienced member of the Australian Federal Police who has been working in Western Australia since 1980 on investigations into serious crime and major fraud, including Medicare fraud.

(2) I am advised that Federal Agent Jacobsen did not make any such approach to Miss Susan Stewart.

(3) Yes. During Dr Jemielita's trial the prosecution played a tape recording of the police interview of Dr Jemielita. The prosecution tendered this tape recording as exhibit 62. The prosecution also provided the trial Judge and the jury with a transcript of the tape recording as an aid to which they could refer whilst the tape recording was played during the trial. The prosecution tendered this transcript as exhibit 63. The judge also permitted the jury to have access to the tape and transcript during its final deliberations.

(4) Yes. The prosecution tendered the tapes of the record of interview as exhibit 62 as the primary evidence of the interview. The prosecution tendered the transcript of the recording as exhibit 63 to assist the judge and jury in understanding the tape recording.

(5) In this trial both the tapes and the transcript of the tapes were tendered.

(6) Yes, the prosecution made the transcript available to Dr Jemielita's defence by 19 October 1992, some 35 days before the trial commenced on 23 November 1992. The DPP also made the tape recording available to Dr Jemielita's defence by 5 November 1992, some 18 days before the trial commenced.

It was therefore open to Dr Jemielita to refute the transcript from, at the latest, 5 November 1992. At no time before the trial did Dr Jemielita attempt to refute the transcript.

The tape recording of the interview with Dr Jemielita was played during the trial. Throughout the trial and particularly when the tape recording was played to the court, Dr Jemielita and his counsel had every opportunity to refute any part of the transcript. At no time during the trial did Dr Jemielita or his counsel challenge the transcript's veracity.

On 8 January 1993 Dr Jemielita appealed to the Western Australian Full Court of Criminal Appeal against his conviction. The appeal was heard on 6 May 1993. At no time from 5 November 1992 up to or during the appeal did Dr Jemielita challenge the veracity of the transcript of the record of interview.

(7) The DPP is unable to say. The transcript was in the custody of the District Court from the trial which began in November 1992 until 12 June 1996 when the transcript was returned to Federal Agent Jacobsen, along with other exhibits in the trial. The DPP is not aware of any basis for the allegation that pages were removed and the transcript was falsified during the three and a half years it was in the custody of the District Court.

(8) Neither the AFP nor Federal Agent Jacobsen have any knowledge of this issue.

(9) No.

(10) A decision on whether the case should be referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal will be made once all the reports requested by the Attorney-General's Department have been received and the Departmental submission has been provided to me for consideration.