A parliamentary question regarding compensation for a fisherman and the potential resignation of a minister. The response deflects the comparison and states the government is open to considering further information regarding the fisherman's case.

AnsweredQoN 441Legislative Council
Asked
22 June 2004
Portfolio
Leader of the House representing the Premier

QuestionView source ↗

(1) In the light of the recent comments made by the High Court judiciary and those of Professor Greg Craven of Curtin University, does the Government intend to make an ex gratia payment in lieu of compensation to Carnarvon fisherman Jeff Palmer? (2) If not, will the Government apply the same principle and insist on the resignation of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Hon Michelle Roberts, who has attempted to escape responsibility for the recent break-out by criminals from the Supreme Court by claiming that her department did not correctly inform her? Hon KIM CHANCE

AnswerView source ↗

(1)-(2) I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am sure that the first part of the question was asked by the member with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek! Although the judgment of the High Court upheld without dissent - 5-nil - the case that was put by the State, the State is always prepared to consider any further materials and propositions put forward on the matter. We have always said that we are open to such propositions. It is unclear which principle the member is referring to in the second part of this question as there is no parallel that I can imagine between the two situations he has referred to.
(2) If not, will the Government apply the same principle and insist on the resignation of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Hon Michelle Roberts, who has attempted to escape responsibility for the recent break-out by criminals from the Supreme Court by claiming that her department did not correctly inform her? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am sure that the first part of the question was asked by the member with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek! Although the judgment of the High Court upheld without dissent - 5-nil - the case that was put by the State, the State is always prepared to consider any further materials and propositions put forward on the matter. We have always said that we are open to such propositions. It is unclear which principle the member is referring to in the second part of this question as there is no parallel that I can imagine between the two situations he has referred to.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am sure that the first part of the question was asked by the member with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek! Although the judgment of the High Court upheld without dissent - 5-nil - the case that was put by the State, the State is always prepared to consider any further materials and propositions put forward on the matter. We have always said that we are open to such propositions. It is unclear which principle the member is referring to in the second part of this question as there is no parallel that I can imagine between the two situations he has referred to.
(1)-(2) I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am sure that the first part of the question was asked by the member with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek! Although the judgment of the High Court upheld without dissent - 5-nil - the case that was put by the State, the State is always prepared to consider any further materials and propositions put forward on the matter. We have always said that we are open to such propositions. It is unclear which principle the member is referring to in the second part of this question as there is no parallel that I can imagine between the two situations he has referred to.

Explore WA Government Data

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

Explore more