❓ Hon. Norman Moore questions the Attorney General regarding an ex gratia payment to the Mickelberg brothers, focusing on the circumstances surrounding the decision and the involvement of government officials. The Attorney General's response addresses each point, clarifying the reasons for the meeting, advice received, and cabinet's endorsement.
AnsweredQoN 76Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MICKELBERG CASE — EX GRATIA PAYMENT 76. Hon NORMAN MOORE to the minister representing the Attorney General: I refer the Attorney General to the ex gratia payment made to Ray and Peter Mickelberg. (1) Why did the Attorney General meet privately with the Mickelbergs in his electorate office? (2) Whose advice did the Attorney General obtain prior to his private meeting with the Mickelbergs? (3) Were any government officials from the Director of Public Prosecutions or State Solicitor’s Office involved in negotiations with the Mickelberg brothers; and, if so, who was involved? (4) Why did the Attorney General agree to a payment on behalf of the state, given the court’s rejection of the Mickelbergs’ claim against the state? (5) Did the Attorney General make the payment outside the conditions set by cabinet; and, if so, why? Hon SUE ELLERY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
MICKELBERG CASE — EX GRATIA PAYMENT
I refer the Attorney General to the ex gratia payment made to Ray and Peter Mickelberg. (1) Why did the Attorney General meet privately with the Mickelbergs in his electorate office? (2) Whose advice did the Attorney General obtain prior to his private meeting with the Mickelbergs? (3) Were any government officials from the Director of Public Prosecutions or State Solicitor’s Office involved in negotiations with the Mickelberg brothers; and, if so, who was involved? (4) Why did the Attorney General agree to a payment on behalf of the state, given the court’s rejection of the Mickelbergs’ claim against the state? (5) Did the Attorney General make the payment outside the conditions set by cabinet; and, if so, why? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(1) Why did the Attorney General meet privately with the Mickelbergs in his electorate office? (2) Whose advice did the Attorney General obtain prior to his private meeting with the Mickelbergs? (3) Were any government officials from the Director of Public Prosecutions or State Solicitor’s Office involved in negotiations with the Mickelberg brothers; and, if so, who was involved? (4) Why did the Attorney General agree to a payment on behalf of the state, given the court’s rejection of the Mickelbergs’ claim against the state? (5) Did the Attorney General make the payment outside the conditions set by cabinet; and, if so, why? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(2) Whose advice did the Attorney General obtain prior to his private meeting with the Mickelbergs? (3) Were any government officials from the Director of Public Prosecutions or State Solicitor’s Office involved in negotiations with the Mickelberg brothers; and, if so, who was involved? (4) Why did the Attorney General agree to a payment on behalf of the state, given the court’s rejection of the Mickelbergs’ claim against the state? (5) Did the Attorney General make the payment outside the conditions set by cabinet; and, if so, why? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(3) Were any government officials from the Director of Public Prosecutions or State Solicitor’s Office involved in negotiations with the Mickelberg brothers; and, if so, who was involved? (4) Why did the Attorney General agree to a payment on behalf of the state, given the court’s rejection of the Mickelbergs’ claim against the state? (5) Did the Attorney General make the payment outside the conditions set by cabinet; and, if so, why? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(4) Why did the Attorney General agree to a payment on behalf of the state, given the court’s rejection of the Mickelbergs’ claim against the state? (5) Did the Attorney General make the payment outside the conditions set by cabinet; and, if so, why? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(5) Did the Attorney General make the payment outside the conditions set by cabinet; and, if so, why? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(5) No.
MICKELBERG CASE — EX GRATIA PAYMENT
I refer the Attorney General to the ex gratia payment made to Ray and Peter Mickelberg. (1) Why did the Attorney General meet privately with the Mickelbergs in his electorate office? (2) Whose advice did the Attorney General obtain prior to his private meeting with the Mickelbergs? (3) Were any government officials from the Director of Public Prosecutions or State Solicitor’s Office involved in negotiations with the Mickelberg brothers; and, if so, who was involved? (4) Why did the Attorney General agree to a payment on behalf of the state, given the court’s rejection of the Mickelbergs’ claim against the state? (5) Did the Attorney General make the payment outside the conditions set by cabinet; and, if so, why? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(1) Why did the Attorney General meet privately with the Mickelbergs in his electorate office? (2) Whose advice did the Attorney General obtain prior to his private meeting with the Mickelbergs? (3) Were any government officials from the Director of Public Prosecutions or State Solicitor’s Office involved in negotiations with the Mickelberg brothers; and, if so, who was involved? (4) Why did the Attorney General agree to a payment on behalf of the state, given the court’s rejection of the Mickelbergs’ claim against the state? (5) Did the Attorney General make the payment outside the conditions set by cabinet; and, if so, why? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(2) Whose advice did the Attorney General obtain prior to his private meeting with the Mickelbergs? (3) Were any government officials from the Director of Public Prosecutions or State Solicitor’s Office involved in negotiations with the Mickelberg brothers; and, if so, who was involved? (4) Why did the Attorney General agree to a payment on behalf of the state, given the court’s rejection of the Mickelbergs’ claim against the state? (5) Did the Attorney General make the payment outside the conditions set by cabinet; and, if so, why? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(3) Were any government officials from the Director of Public Prosecutions or State Solicitor’s Office involved in negotiations with the Mickelberg brothers; and, if so, who was involved? (4) Why did the Attorney General agree to a payment on behalf of the state, given the court’s rejection of the Mickelbergs’ claim against the state? (5) Did the Attorney General make the payment outside the conditions set by cabinet; and, if so, why? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(4) Why did the Attorney General agree to a payment on behalf of the state, given the court’s rejection of the Mickelbergs’ claim against the state? (5) Did the Attorney General make the payment outside the conditions set by cabinet; and, if so, why? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(5) Did the Attorney General make the payment outside the conditions set by cabinet; and, if so, why? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(1) Peter Mickelberg telephoned the Attorney General’s office in November 2007, requesting a meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled to be held at the Attorney General’s ministerial office but was rescheduled to 3.00 pm on Friday, 16 November at the Attorney General’s electorate office to accommodate the travel arrangements of Ray Mickelberg, who wished to attend the meeting. (2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(2) Advice was obtained from the Solicitor-General. (3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(3) No. (4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(4) Cabinet endorsed the ex gratia payment to Ray and Peter Mickelberg because, among several reasons, of the significant wrongdoing of a public officer. (5) No.
(5) No.
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.