❓ Mr. McGinty questions Mr. Shave about his awareness of his former father-in-law's financial risk with Blackburne and Dixon, and a meeting regarding finance broking. Mr. Shave deflects, accusing the member for Fremantle of untruths and defending his actions.
AnsweredQoN 27Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) When was the minister first aware that his former father-in-law, Don Turton, had money at risk through Blackburne and Dixon Pty Ltd? (2) Will the minister confirm that on 25 June last year, Mr Pat Walker and Mr Bill Mitchell were present with him at a meeting with Mr Kevin Fidge and Mrs Denise Brailey regarding finance broking matters, and that at that meeting Mr Fidge and/or Mrs Brailey referred to Mr Turton as a member of the minister's family, or his father-in-law, who had money at risk through a finance broker? (3) Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting prior to the minister giving his evidence to the Gunning inquiry on 20 June? Mr SHAVE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) During the past couple of days, I have been following a few comments on the radio regarding this matter. The first to which I refer is a comment by the member for Fremantle on the radio yesterday. I will not say that the member for Fremantle is a liar because that would be unparliamentary. However, he does not always tell the truth. I refer to his comments on the radio concerning a question from a Mr McNamara. Mr McGinty: Did you say that was yesterday? Mr SHAVE: Or the day before. It was when the member spoke on the radio. Mr McGinty: That has been once or twice. Mr SHAVE: That is all right. I will give the date. It was at 5.12 pm on 7 August. The member for Fremantle was asked a question by Mr McNamara along the lines of whether I had ever helped any people with problems, and Mr McGinty made these comments - . . . he sent a message to his principal private secretary, or senior policy officer, to look into the matter of his father-in-law. He is my former father-in-law, but they are the words he used. The member for Fremantle continued – He's never done that for one other investor. So Doug Shave is on the record as lifting a finger to help his friends and relatives, and that's it John. That is not the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have helped hundreds of people with problems. I have referred hundreds of inquiries about these matters to policy officers. In fact, one of the people who came to see me was a Mr Kevin Fidge. He came to see me from 11.30 am to 11.45 am on 29 April 1999, so not even Mr Fidge and Mrs Brailey could get that date right. At that time, Mr Fidge came to see me and talked about Global Finance Group Pty Ltd. I understand that the questions that were put to me on that matter in the Gunning inquiry were as a result of a letter Fidge wrote to the inquiry. At 8.32 am on 10 August, in answer to a question by Bartlett, Mrs Brailey said - . . . Mr Fidge said, he was asked, did you have a meeting with Ms Brailey and Mr Fidge?; yes; and that was all that was asked. The allegation against the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry is that he did not do anything and he did not ask any questions. I suggest that even those people who may be biased on this matter should obtain a copy of the transcripts and the comments I made to the Gunning inquiry. They will find that Mr Chaney, counsel assisting the inquiry, questioned me extensively on that issue. I gave him a clear indication of my recollection of what happened at that meeting. For the member for Fremantle to say on the radio that I do not try to assist other constituents is an untruth. He knows it is untrue because since this finance issue has arisen, half of the people on the other side of this Parliament have sent me dozens of letters about these issues, and I have dealt with them. It is interesting, with these people trying to accuse me and nail me by innuendo, that if in fact - Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
(2) Will the minister confirm that on 25 June last year, Mr Pat Walker and Mr Bill Mitchell were present with him at a meeting with Mr Kevin Fidge and Mrs Denise Brailey regarding finance broking matters, and that at that meeting Mr Fidge and/or Mrs Brailey referred to Mr Turton as a member of the minister's family, or his father-in-law, who had money at risk through a finance broker? (3) Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting prior to the minister giving his evidence to the Gunning inquiry on 20 June? Mr SHAVE replied : (1)-(3) During the past couple of days, I have been following a few comments on the radio regarding this matter. The first to which I refer is a comment by the member for Fremantle on the radio yesterday. I will not say that the member for Fremantle is a liar because that would be unparliamentary. However, he does not always tell the truth. I refer to his comments on the radio concerning a question from a Mr McNamara. Mr McGinty: Did you say that was yesterday? Mr SHAVE: Or the day before. It was when the member spoke on the radio. Mr McGinty: That has been once or twice. Mr SHAVE: That is all right. I will give the date. It was at 5.12 pm on 7 August. The member for Fremantle was asked a question by Mr McNamara along the lines of whether I had ever helped any people with problems, and Mr McGinty made these comments - . . . he sent a message to his principal private secretary, or senior policy officer, to look into the matter of his father-in-law. He is my former father-in-law, but they are the words he used. The member for Fremantle continued – He's never done that for one other investor. So Doug Shave is on the record as lifting a finger to help his friends and relatives, and that's it John. That is not the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have helped hundreds of people with problems. I have referred hundreds of inquiries about these matters to policy officers. In fact, one of the people who came to see me was a Mr Kevin Fidge. He came to see me from 11.30 am to 11.45 am on 29 April 1999, so not even Mr Fidge and Mrs Brailey could get that date right. At that time, Mr Fidge came to see me and talked about Global Finance Group Pty Ltd. I understand that the questions that were put to me on that matter in the Gunning inquiry were as a result of a letter Fidge wrote to the inquiry. At 8.32 am on 10 August, in answer to a question by Bartlett, Mrs Brailey said - . . . Mr Fidge said, he was asked, did you have a meeting with Ms Brailey and Mr Fidge?; yes; and that was all that was asked. The allegation against the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry is that he did not do anything and he did not ask any questions. I suggest that even those people who may be biased on this matter should obtain a copy of the transcripts and the comments I made to the Gunning inquiry. They will find that Mr Chaney, counsel assisting the inquiry, questioned me extensively on that issue. I gave him a clear indication of my recollection of what happened at that meeting. For the member for Fremantle to say on the radio that I do not try to assist other constituents is an untruth. He knows it is untrue because since this finance issue has arisen, half of the people on the other side of this Parliament have sent me dozens of letters about these issues, and I have dealt with them. It is interesting, with these people trying to accuse me and nail me by innuendo, that if in fact - Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
(3) Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting prior to the minister giving his evidence to the Gunning inquiry on 20 June? Mr SHAVE replied : (1)-(3) During the past couple of days, I have been following a few comments on the radio regarding this matter. The first to which I refer is a comment by the member for Fremantle on the radio yesterday. I will not say that the member for Fremantle is a liar because that would be unparliamentary. However, he does not always tell the truth. I refer to his comments on the radio concerning a question from a Mr McNamara. Mr McGinty: Did you say that was yesterday? Mr SHAVE: Or the day before. It was when the member spoke on the radio. Mr McGinty: That has been once or twice. Mr SHAVE: That is all right. I will give the date. It was at 5.12 pm on 7 August. The member for Fremantle was asked a question by Mr McNamara along the lines of whether I had ever helped any people with problems, and Mr McGinty made these comments - . . . he sent a message to his principal private secretary, or senior policy officer, to look into the matter of his father-in-law. He is my former father-in-law, but they are the words he used. The member for Fremantle continued – He's never done that for one other investor. So Doug Shave is on the record as lifting a finger to help his friends and relatives, and that's it John. That is not the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have helped hundreds of people with problems. I have referred hundreds of inquiries about these matters to policy officers. In fact, one of the people who came to see me was a Mr Kevin Fidge. He came to see me from 11.30 am to 11.45 am on 29 April 1999, so not even Mr Fidge and Mrs Brailey could get that date right. At that time, Mr Fidge came to see me and talked about Global Finance Group Pty Ltd. I understand that the questions that were put to me on that matter in the Gunning inquiry were as a result of a letter Fidge wrote to the inquiry. At 8.32 am on 10 August, in answer to a question by Bartlett, Mrs Brailey said - . . . Mr Fidge said, he was asked, did you have a meeting with Ms Brailey and Mr Fidge?; yes; and that was all that was asked. The allegation against the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry is that he did not do anything and he did not ask any questions. I suggest that even those people who may be biased on this matter should obtain a copy of the transcripts and the comments I made to the Gunning inquiry. They will find that Mr Chaney, counsel assisting the inquiry, questioned me extensively on that issue. I gave him a clear indication of my recollection of what happened at that meeting. For the member for Fremantle to say on the radio that I do not try to assist other constituents is an untruth. He knows it is untrue because since this finance issue has arisen, half of the people on the other side of this Parliament have sent me dozens of letters about these issues, and I have dealt with them. It is interesting, with these people trying to accuse me and nail me by innuendo, that if in fact - Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
Mr SHAVE replied : (1)-(3) During the past couple of days, I have been following a few comments on the radio regarding this matter. The first to which I refer is a comment by the member for Fremantle on the radio yesterday. I will not say that the member for Fremantle is a liar because that would be unparliamentary. However, he does not always tell the truth. I refer to his comments on the radio concerning a question from a Mr McNamara. Mr McGinty: Did you say that was yesterday? Mr SHAVE: Or the day before. It was when the member spoke on the radio. Mr McGinty: That has been once or twice. Mr SHAVE: That is all right. I will give the date. It was at 5.12 pm on 7 August. The member for Fremantle was asked a question by Mr McNamara along the lines of whether I had ever helped any people with problems, and Mr McGinty made these comments - . . . he sent a message to his principal private secretary, or senior policy officer, to look into the matter of his father-in-law. He is my former father-in-law, but they are the words he used. The member for Fremantle continued – He's never done that for one other investor. So Doug Shave is on the record as lifting a finger to help his friends and relatives, and that's it John. That is not the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have helped hundreds of people with problems. I have referred hundreds of inquiries about these matters to policy officers. In fact, one of the people who came to see me was a Mr Kevin Fidge. He came to see me from 11.30 am to 11.45 am on 29 April 1999, so not even Mr Fidge and Mrs Brailey could get that date right. At that time, Mr Fidge came to see me and talked about Global Finance Group Pty Ltd. I understand that the questions that were put to me on that matter in the Gunning inquiry were as a result of a letter Fidge wrote to the inquiry. At 8.32 am on 10 August, in answer to a question by Bartlett, Mrs Brailey said - . . . Mr Fidge said, he was asked, did you have a meeting with Ms Brailey and Mr Fidge?; yes; and that was all that was asked. The allegation against the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry is that he did not do anything and he did not ask any questions. I suggest that even those people who may be biased on this matter should obtain a copy of the transcripts and the comments I made to the Gunning inquiry. They will find that Mr Chaney, counsel assisting the inquiry, questioned me extensively on that issue. I gave him a clear indication of my recollection of what happened at that meeting. For the member for Fremantle to say on the radio that I do not try to assist other constituents is an untruth. He knows it is untrue because since this finance issue has arisen, half of the people on the other side of this Parliament have sent me dozens of letters about these issues, and I have dealt with them. It is interesting, with these people trying to accuse me and nail me by innuendo, that if in fact - Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
(1)-(3) During the past couple of days, I have been following a few comments on the radio regarding this matter. The first to which I refer is a comment by the member for Fremantle on the radio yesterday. I will not say that the member for Fremantle is a liar because that would be unparliamentary. However, he does not always tell the truth. I refer to his comments on the radio concerning a question from a Mr McNamara. Mr McGinty: Did you say that was yesterday? Mr SHAVE: Or the day before. It was when the member spoke on the radio. Mr McGinty: That has been once or twice. Mr SHAVE: That is all right. I will give the date. It was at 5.12 pm on 7 August. The member for Fremantle was asked a question by Mr McNamara along the lines of whether I had ever helped any people with problems, and Mr McGinty made these comments - . . . he sent a message to his principal private secretary, or senior policy officer, to look into the matter of his father-in-law. He is my former father-in-law, but they are the words he used. The member for Fremantle continued – He's never done that for one other investor. So Doug Shave is on the record as lifting a finger to help his friends and relatives, and that's it John. That is not the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have helped hundreds of people with problems. I have referred hundreds of inquiries about these matters to policy officers. In fact, one of the people who came to see me was a Mr Kevin Fidge. He came to see me from 11.30 am to 11.45 am on 29 April 1999, so not even Mr Fidge and Mrs Brailey could get that date right. At that time, Mr Fidge came to see me and talked about Global Finance Group Pty Ltd. I understand that the questions that were put to me on that matter in the Gunning inquiry were as a result of a letter Fidge wrote to the inquiry. At 8.32 am on 10 August, in answer to a question by Bartlett, Mrs Brailey said - . . . Mr Fidge said, he was asked, did you have a meeting with Ms Brailey and Mr Fidge?; yes; and that was all that was asked. The allegation against the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry is that he did not do anything and he did not ask any questions. I suggest that even those people who may be biased on this matter should obtain a copy of the transcripts and the comments I made to the Gunning inquiry. They will find that Mr Chaney, counsel assisting the inquiry, questioned me extensively on that issue. I gave him a clear indication of my recollection of what happened at that meeting. For the member for Fremantle to say on the radio that I do not try to assist other constituents is an untruth. He knows it is untrue because since this finance issue has arisen, half of the people on the other side of this Parliament have sent me dozens of letters about these issues, and I have dealt with them. It is interesting, with these people trying to accuse me and nail me by innuendo, that if in fact - Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
Mr McGinty: Did you say that was yesterday? Mr SHAVE: Or the day before. It was when the member spoke on the radio. Mr McGinty: That has been once or twice. Mr SHAVE: That is all right. I will give the date. It was at 5.12 pm on 7 August. The member for Fremantle was asked a question by Mr McNamara along the lines of whether I had ever helped any people with problems, and Mr McGinty made these comments - . . . he sent a message to his principal private secretary, or senior policy officer, to look into the matter of his father-in-law. He is my former father-in-law, but they are the words he used. The member for Fremantle continued – He's never done that for one other investor. So Doug Shave is on the record as lifting a finger to help his friends and relatives, and that's it John. That is not the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have helped hundreds of people with problems. I have referred hundreds of inquiries about these matters to policy officers. In fact, one of the people who came to see me was a Mr Kevin Fidge. He came to see me from 11.30 am to 11.45 am on 29 April 1999, so not even Mr Fidge and Mrs Brailey could get that date right. At that time, Mr Fidge came to see me and talked about Global Finance Group Pty Ltd. I understand that the questions that were put to me on that matter in the Gunning inquiry were as a result of a letter Fidge wrote to the inquiry. At 8.32 am on 10 August, in answer to a question by Bartlett, Mrs Brailey said - . . . Mr Fidge said, he was asked, did you have a meeting with Ms Brailey and Mr Fidge?; yes; and that was all that was asked. The allegation against the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry is that he did not do anything and he did not ask any questions. I suggest that even those people who may be biased on this matter should obtain a copy of the transcripts and the comments I made to the Gunning inquiry. They will find that Mr Chaney, counsel assisting the inquiry, questioned me extensively on that issue. I gave him a clear indication of my recollection of what happened at that meeting. For the member for Fremantle to say on the radio that I do not try to assist other constituents is an untruth. He knows it is untrue because since this finance issue has arisen, half of the people on the other side of this Parliament have sent me dozens of letters about these issues, and I have dealt with them. It is interesting, with these people trying to accuse me and nail me by innuendo, that if in fact - Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
Mr SHAVE: Or the day before. It was when the member spoke on the radio. Mr McGinty: That has been once or twice. Mr SHAVE: That is all right. I will give the date. It was at 5.12 pm on 7 August. The member for Fremantle was asked a question by Mr McNamara along the lines of whether I had ever helped any people with problems, and Mr McGinty made these comments - . . . he sent a message to his principal private secretary, or senior policy officer, to look into the matter of his father-in-law. He is my former father-in-law, but they are the words he used. The member for Fremantle continued – He's never done that for one other investor. So Doug Shave is on the record as lifting a finger to help his friends and relatives, and that's it John. That is not the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have helped hundreds of people with problems. I have referred hundreds of inquiries about these matters to policy officers. In fact, one of the people who came to see me was a Mr Kevin Fidge. He came to see me from 11.30 am to 11.45 am on 29 April 1999, so not even Mr Fidge and Mrs Brailey could get that date right. At that time, Mr Fidge came to see me and talked about Global Finance Group Pty Ltd. I understand that the questions that were put to me on that matter in the Gunning inquiry were as a result of a letter Fidge wrote to the inquiry. At 8.32 am on 10 August, in answer to a question by Bartlett, Mrs Brailey said - . . . Mr Fidge said, he was asked, did you have a meeting with Ms Brailey and Mr Fidge?; yes; and that was all that was asked. The allegation against the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry is that he did not do anything and he did not ask any questions. I suggest that even those people who may be biased on this matter should obtain a copy of the transcripts and the comments I made to the Gunning inquiry. They will find that Mr Chaney, counsel assisting the inquiry, questioned me extensively on that issue. I gave him a clear indication of my recollection of what happened at that meeting. For the member for Fremantle to say on the radio that I do not try to assist other constituents is an untruth. He knows it is untrue because since this finance issue has arisen, half of the people on the other side of this Parliament have sent me dozens of letters about these issues, and I have dealt with them. It is interesting, with these people trying to accuse me and nail me by innuendo, that if in fact - Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
Mr McGinty: That has been once or twice. Mr SHAVE: That is all right. I will give the date. It was at 5.12 pm on 7 August. The member for Fremantle was asked a question by Mr McNamara along the lines of whether I had ever helped any people with problems, and Mr McGinty made these comments - . . . he sent a message to his principal private secretary, or senior policy officer, to look into the matter of his father-in-law. He is my former father-in-law, but they are the words he used. The member for Fremantle continued – He's never done that for one other investor. So Doug Shave is on the record as lifting a finger to help his friends and relatives, and that's it John. That is not the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have helped hundreds of people with problems. I have referred hundreds of inquiries about these matters to policy officers. In fact, one of the people who came to see me was a Mr Kevin Fidge. He came to see me from 11.30 am to 11.45 am on 29 April 1999, so not even Mr Fidge and Mrs Brailey could get that date right. At that time, Mr Fidge came to see me and talked about Global Finance Group Pty Ltd. I understand that the questions that were put to me on that matter in the Gunning inquiry were as a result of a letter Fidge wrote to the inquiry. At 8.32 am on 10 August, in answer to a question by Bartlett, Mrs Brailey said - . . . Mr Fidge said, he was asked, did you have a meeting with Ms Brailey and Mr Fidge?; yes; and that was all that was asked. The allegation against the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry is that he did not do anything and he did not ask any questions. I suggest that even those people who may be biased on this matter should obtain a copy of the transcripts and the comments I made to the Gunning inquiry. They will find that Mr Chaney, counsel assisting the inquiry, questioned me extensively on that issue. I gave him a clear indication of my recollection of what happened at that meeting. For the member for Fremantle to say on the radio that I do not try to assist other constituents is an untruth. He knows it is untrue because since this finance issue has arisen, half of the people on the other side of this Parliament have sent me dozens of letters about these issues, and I have dealt with them. It is interesting, with these people trying to accuse me and nail me by innuendo, that if in fact - Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
Mr SHAVE: That is all right. I will give the date. It was at 5.12 pm on 7 August. The member for Fremantle was asked a question by Mr McNamara along the lines of whether I had ever helped any people with problems, and Mr McGinty made these comments - . . . he sent a message to his principal private secretary, or senior policy officer, to look into the matter of his father-in-law. He is my former father-in-law, but they are the words he used. The member for Fremantle continued – He's never done that for one other investor. So Doug Shave is on the record as lifting a finger to help his friends and relatives, and that's it John. That is not the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have helped hundreds of people with problems. I have referred hundreds of inquiries about these matters to policy officers. In fact, one of the people who came to see me was a Mr Kevin Fidge. He came to see me from 11.30 am to 11.45 am on 29 April 1999, so not even Mr Fidge and Mrs Brailey could get that date right. At that time, Mr Fidge came to see me and talked about Global Finance Group Pty Ltd. I understand that the questions that were put to me on that matter in the Gunning inquiry were as a result of a letter Fidge wrote to the inquiry. At 8.32 am on 10 August, in answer to a question by Bartlett, Mrs Brailey said - . . . Mr Fidge said, he was asked, did you have a meeting with Ms Brailey and Mr Fidge?; yes; and that was all that was asked. The allegation against the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry is that he did not do anything and he did not ask any questions. I suggest that even those people who may be biased on this matter should obtain a copy of the transcripts and the comments I made to the Gunning inquiry. They will find that Mr Chaney, counsel assisting the inquiry, questioned me extensively on that issue. I gave him a clear indication of my recollection of what happened at that meeting. For the member for Fremantle to say on the radio that I do not try to assist other constituents is an untruth. He knows it is untrue because since this finance issue has arisen, half of the people on the other side of this Parliament have sent me dozens of letters about these issues, and I have dealt with them. It is interesting, with these people trying to accuse me and nail me by innuendo, that if in fact - Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
(2) Will the minister confirm that on 25 June last year, Mr Pat Walker and Mr Bill Mitchell were present with him at a meeting with Mr Kevin Fidge and Mrs Denise Brailey regarding finance broking matters, and that at that meeting Mr Fidge and/or Mrs Brailey referred to Mr Turton as a member of the minister's family, or his father-in-law, who had money at risk through a finance broker? (3) Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting prior to the minister giving his evidence to the Gunning inquiry on 20 June? Mr SHAVE replied : (1)-(3) During the past couple of days, I have been following a few comments on the radio regarding this matter. The first to which I refer is a comment by the member for Fremantle on the radio yesterday. I will not say that the member for Fremantle is a liar because that would be unparliamentary. However, he does not always tell the truth. I refer to his comments on the radio concerning a question from a Mr McNamara. Mr McGinty: Did you say that was yesterday? Mr SHAVE: Or the day before. It was when the member spoke on the radio. Mr McGinty: That has been once or twice. Mr SHAVE: That is all right. I will give the date. It was at 5.12 pm on 7 August. The member for Fremantle was asked a question by Mr McNamara along the lines of whether I had ever helped any people with problems, and Mr McGinty made these comments - . . . he sent a message to his principal private secretary, or senior policy officer, to look into the matter of his father-in-law. He is my former father-in-law, but they are the words he used. The member for Fremantle continued – He's never done that for one other investor. So Doug Shave is on the record as lifting a finger to help his friends and relatives, and that's it John. That is not the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have helped hundreds of people with problems. I have referred hundreds of inquiries about these matters to policy officers. In fact, one of the people who came to see me was a Mr Kevin Fidge. He came to see me from 11.30 am to 11.45 am on 29 April 1999, so not even Mr Fidge and Mrs Brailey could get that date right. At that time, Mr Fidge came to see me and talked about Global Finance Group Pty Ltd. I understand that the questions that were put to me on that matter in the Gunning inquiry were as a result of a letter Fidge wrote to the inquiry. At 8.32 am on 10 August, in answer to a question by Bartlett, Mrs Brailey said - . . . Mr Fidge said, he was asked, did you have a meeting with Ms Brailey and Mr Fidge?; yes; and that was all that was asked. The allegation against the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry is that he did not do anything and he did not ask any questions. I suggest that even those people who may be biased on this matter should obtain a copy of the transcripts and the comments I made to the Gunning inquiry. They will find that Mr Chaney, counsel assisting the inquiry, questioned me extensively on that issue. I gave him a clear indication of my recollection of what happened at that meeting. For the member for Fremantle to say on the radio that I do not try to assist other constituents is an untruth. He knows it is untrue because since this finance issue has arisen, half of the people on the other side of this Parliament have sent me dozens of letters about these issues, and I have dealt with them. It is interesting, with these people trying to accuse me and nail me by innuendo, that if in fact - Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
(3) Was the minister or his lawyer, Mr Neil McKerracher, given a copy of the fax from Mr Fidge outlining what took place at that meeting prior to the minister giving his evidence to the Gunning inquiry on 20 June? Mr SHAVE replied : (1)-(3) During the past couple of days, I have been following a few comments on the radio regarding this matter. The first to which I refer is a comment by the member for Fremantle on the radio yesterday. I will not say that the member for Fremantle is a liar because that would be unparliamentary. However, he does not always tell the truth. I refer to his comments on the radio concerning a question from a Mr McNamara. Mr McGinty: Did you say that was yesterday? Mr SHAVE: Or the day before. It was when the member spoke on the radio. Mr McGinty: That has been once or twice. Mr SHAVE: That is all right. I will give the date. It was at 5.12 pm on 7 August. The member for Fremantle was asked a question by Mr McNamara along the lines of whether I had ever helped any people with problems, and Mr McGinty made these comments - . . . he sent a message to his principal private secretary, or senior policy officer, to look into the matter of his father-in-law. He is my former father-in-law, but they are the words he used. The member for Fremantle continued – He's never done that for one other investor. So Doug Shave is on the record as lifting a finger to help his friends and relatives, and that's it John. That is not the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have helped hundreds of people with problems. I have referred hundreds of inquiries about these matters to policy officers. In fact, one of the people who came to see me was a Mr Kevin Fidge. He came to see me from 11.30 am to 11.45 am on 29 April 1999, so not even Mr Fidge and Mrs Brailey could get that date right. At that time, Mr Fidge came to see me and talked about Global Finance Group Pty Ltd. I understand that the questions that were put to me on that matter in the Gunning inquiry were as a result of a letter Fidge wrote to the inquiry. At 8.32 am on 10 August, in answer to a question by Bartlett, Mrs Brailey said - . . . Mr Fidge said, he was asked, did you have a meeting with Ms Brailey and Mr Fidge?; yes; and that was all that was asked. The allegation against the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry is that he did not do anything and he did not ask any questions. I suggest that even those people who may be biased on this matter should obtain a copy of the transcripts and the comments I made to the Gunning inquiry. They will find that Mr Chaney, counsel assisting the inquiry, questioned me extensively on that issue. I gave him a clear indication of my recollection of what happened at that meeting. For the member for Fremantle to say on the radio that I do not try to assist other constituents is an untruth. He knows it is untrue because since this finance issue has arisen, half of the people on the other side of this Parliament have sent me dozens of letters about these issues, and I have dealt with them. It is interesting, with these people trying to accuse me and nail me by innuendo, that if in fact - Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
Mr SHAVE replied : (1)-(3) During the past couple of days, I have been following a few comments on the radio regarding this matter. The first to which I refer is a comment by the member for Fremantle on the radio yesterday. I will not say that the member for Fremantle is a liar because that would be unparliamentary. However, he does not always tell the truth. I refer to his comments on the radio concerning a question from a Mr McNamara. Mr McGinty: Did you say that was yesterday? Mr SHAVE: Or the day before. It was when the member spoke on the radio. Mr McGinty: That has been once or twice. Mr SHAVE: That is all right. I will give the date. It was at 5.12 pm on 7 August. The member for Fremantle was asked a question by Mr McNamara along the lines of whether I had ever helped any people with problems, and Mr McGinty made these comments - . . . he sent a message to his principal private secretary, or senior policy officer, to look into the matter of his father-in-law. He is my former father-in-law, but they are the words he used. The member for Fremantle continued – He's never done that for one other investor. So Doug Shave is on the record as lifting a finger to help his friends and relatives, and that's it John. That is not the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have helped hundreds of people with problems. I have referred hundreds of inquiries about these matters to policy officers. In fact, one of the people who came to see me was a Mr Kevin Fidge. He came to see me from 11.30 am to 11.45 am on 29 April 1999, so not even Mr Fidge and Mrs Brailey could get that date right. At that time, Mr Fidge came to see me and talked about Global Finance Group Pty Ltd. I understand that the questions that were put to me on that matter in the Gunning inquiry were as a result of a letter Fidge wrote to the inquiry. At 8.32 am on 10 August, in answer to a question by Bartlett, Mrs Brailey said - . . . Mr Fidge said, he was asked, did you have a meeting with Ms Brailey and Mr Fidge?; yes; and that was all that was asked. The allegation against the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry is that he did not do anything and he did not ask any questions. I suggest that even those people who may be biased on this matter should obtain a copy of the transcripts and the comments I made to the Gunning inquiry. They will find that Mr Chaney, counsel assisting the inquiry, questioned me extensively on that issue. I gave him a clear indication of my recollection of what happened at that meeting. For the member for Fremantle to say on the radio that I do not try to assist other constituents is an untruth. He knows it is untrue because since this finance issue has arisen, half of the people on the other side of this Parliament have sent me dozens of letters about these issues, and I have dealt with them. It is interesting, with these people trying to accuse me and nail me by innuendo, that if in fact - Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
(1)-(3) During the past couple of days, I have been following a few comments on the radio regarding this matter. The first to which I refer is a comment by the member for Fremantle on the radio yesterday. I will not say that the member for Fremantle is a liar because that would be unparliamentary. However, he does not always tell the truth. I refer to his comments on the radio concerning a question from a Mr McNamara. Mr McGinty: Did you say that was yesterday? Mr SHAVE: Or the day before. It was when the member spoke on the radio. Mr McGinty: That has been once or twice. Mr SHAVE: That is all right. I will give the date. It was at 5.12 pm on 7 August. The member for Fremantle was asked a question by Mr McNamara along the lines of whether I had ever helped any people with problems, and Mr McGinty made these comments - . . . he sent a message to his principal private secretary, or senior policy officer, to look into the matter of his father-in-law. He is my former father-in-law, but they are the words he used. The member for Fremantle continued – He's never done that for one other investor. So Doug Shave is on the record as lifting a finger to help his friends and relatives, and that's it John. That is not the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have helped hundreds of people with problems. I have referred hundreds of inquiries about these matters to policy officers. In fact, one of the people who came to see me was a Mr Kevin Fidge. He came to see me from 11.30 am to 11.45 am on 29 April 1999, so not even Mr Fidge and Mrs Brailey could get that date right. At that time, Mr Fidge came to see me and talked about Global Finance Group Pty Ltd. I understand that the questions that were put to me on that matter in the Gunning inquiry were as a result of a letter Fidge wrote to the inquiry. At 8.32 am on 10 August, in answer to a question by Bartlett, Mrs Brailey said - . . . Mr Fidge said, he was asked, did you have a meeting with Ms Brailey and Mr Fidge?; yes; and that was all that was asked. The allegation against the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry is that he did not do anything and he did not ask any questions. I suggest that even those people who may be biased on this matter should obtain a copy of the transcripts and the comments I made to the Gunning inquiry. They will find that Mr Chaney, counsel assisting the inquiry, questioned me extensively on that issue. I gave him a clear indication of my recollection of what happened at that meeting. For the member for Fremantle to say on the radio that I do not try to assist other constituents is an untruth. He knows it is untrue because since this finance issue has arisen, half of the people on the other side of this Parliament have sent me dozens of letters about these issues, and I have dealt with them. It is interesting, with these people trying to accuse me and nail me by innuendo, that if in fact - Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
Mr McGinty: Did you say that was yesterday? Mr SHAVE: Or the day before. It was when the member spoke on the radio. Mr McGinty: That has been once or twice. Mr SHAVE: That is all right. I will give the date. It was at 5.12 pm on 7 August. The member for Fremantle was asked a question by Mr McNamara along the lines of whether I had ever helped any people with problems, and Mr McGinty made these comments - . . . he sent a message to his principal private secretary, or senior policy officer, to look into the matter of his father-in-law. He is my former father-in-law, but they are the words he used. The member for Fremantle continued – He's never done that for one other investor. So Doug Shave is on the record as lifting a finger to help his friends and relatives, and that's it John. That is not the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have helped hundreds of people with problems. I have referred hundreds of inquiries about these matters to policy officers. In fact, one of the people who came to see me was a Mr Kevin Fidge. He came to see me from 11.30 am to 11.45 am on 29 April 1999, so not even Mr Fidge and Mrs Brailey could get that date right. At that time, Mr Fidge came to see me and talked about Global Finance Group Pty Ltd. I understand that the questions that were put to me on that matter in the Gunning inquiry were as a result of a letter Fidge wrote to the inquiry. At 8.32 am on 10 August, in answer to a question by Bartlett, Mrs Brailey said - . . . Mr Fidge said, he was asked, did you have a meeting with Ms Brailey and Mr Fidge?; yes; and that was all that was asked. The allegation against the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry is that he did not do anything and he did not ask any questions. I suggest that even those people who may be biased on this matter should obtain a copy of the transcripts and the comments I made to the Gunning inquiry. They will find that Mr Chaney, counsel assisting the inquiry, questioned me extensively on that issue. I gave him a clear indication of my recollection of what happened at that meeting. For the member for Fremantle to say on the radio that I do not try to assist other constituents is an untruth. He knows it is untrue because since this finance issue has arisen, half of the people on the other side of this Parliament have sent me dozens of letters about these issues, and I have dealt with them. It is interesting, with these people trying to accuse me and nail me by innuendo, that if in fact - Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
Mr SHAVE: Or the day before. It was when the member spoke on the radio. Mr McGinty: That has been once or twice. Mr SHAVE: That is all right. I will give the date. It was at 5.12 pm on 7 August. The member for Fremantle was asked a question by Mr McNamara along the lines of whether I had ever helped any people with problems, and Mr McGinty made these comments - . . . he sent a message to his principal private secretary, or senior policy officer, to look into the matter of his father-in-law. He is my former father-in-law, but they are the words he used. The member for Fremantle continued – He's never done that for one other investor. So Doug Shave is on the record as lifting a finger to help his friends and relatives, and that's it John. That is not the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have helped hundreds of people with problems. I have referred hundreds of inquiries about these matters to policy officers. In fact, one of the people who came to see me was a Mr Kevin Fidge. He came to see me from 11.30 am to 11.45 am on 29 April 1999, so not even Mr Fidge and Mrs Brailey could get that date right. At that time, Mr Fidge came to see me and talked about Global Finance Group Pty Ltd. I understand that the questions that were put to me on that matter in the Gunning inquiry were as a result of a letter Fidge wrote to the inquiry. At 8.32 am on 10 August, in answer to a question by Bartlett, Mrs Brailey said - . . . Mr Fidge said, he was asked, did you have a meeting with Ms Brailey and Mr Fidge?; yes; and that was all that was asked. The allegation against the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry is that he did not do anything and he did not ask any questions. I suggest that even those people who may be biased on this matter should obtain a copy of the transcripts and the comments I made to the Gunning inquiry. They will find that Mr Chaney, counsel assisting the inquiry, questioned me extensively on that issue. I gave him a clear indication of my recollection of what happened at that meeting. For the member for Fremantle to say on the radio that I do not try to assist other constituents is an untruth. He knows it is untrue because since this finance issue has arisen, half of the people on the other side of this Parliament have sent me dozens of letters about these issues, and I have dealt with them. It is interesting, with these people trying to accuse me and nail me by innuendo, that if in fact - Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
Mr McGinty: That has been once or twice. Mr SHAVE: That is all right. I will give the date. It was at 5.12 pm on 7 August. The member for Fremantle was asked a question by Mr McNamara along the lines of whether I had ever helped any people with problems, and Mr McGinty made these comments - . . . he sent a message to his principal private secretary, or senior policy officer, to look into the matter of his father-in-law. He is my former father-in-law, but they are the words he used. The member for Fremantle continued – He's never done that for one other investor. So Doug Shave is on the record as lifting a finger to help his friends and relatives, and that's it John. That is not the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have helped hundreds of people with problems. I have referred hundreds of inquiries about these matters to policy officers. In fact, one of the people who came to see me was a Mr Kevin Fidge. He came to see me from 11.30 am to 11.45 am on 29 April 1999, so not even Mr Fidge and Mrs Brailey could get that date right. At that time, Mr Fidge came to see me and talked about Global Finance Group Pty Ltd. I understand that the questions that were put to me on that matter in the Gunning inquiry were as a result of a letter Fidge wrote to the inquiry. At 8.32 am on 10 August, in answer to a question by Bartlett, Mrs Brailey said - . . . Mr Fidge said, he was asked, did you have a meeting with Ms Brailey and Mr Fidge?; yes; and that was all that was asked. The allegation against the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry is that he did not do anything and he did not ask any questions. I suggest that even those people who may be biased on this matter should obtain a copy of the transcripts and the comments I made to the Gunning inquiry. They will find that Mr Chaney, counsel assisting the inquiry, questioned me extensively on that issue. I gave him a clear indication of my recollection of what happened at that meeting. For the member for Fremantle to say on the radio that I do not try to assist other constituents is an untruth. He knows it is untrue because since this finance issue has arisen, half of the people on the other side of this Parliament have sent me dozens of letters about these issues, and I have dealt with them. It is interesting, with these people trying to accuse me and nail me by innuendo, that if in fact - Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
Mr SHAVE: That is all right. I will give the date. It was at 5.12 pm on 7 August. The member for Fremantle was asked a question by Mr McNamara along the lines of whether I had ever helped any people with problems, and Mr McGinty made these comments - . . . he sent a message to his principal private secretary, or senior policy officer, to look into the matter of his father-in-law. He is my former father-in-law, but they are the words he used. The member for Fremantle continued – He's never done that for one other investor. So Doug Shave is on the record as lifting a finger to help his friends and relatives, and that's it John. That is not the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have helped hundreds of people with problems. I have referred hundreds of inquiries about these matters to policy officers. In fact, one of the people who came to see me was a Mr Kevin Fidge. He came to see me from 11.30 am to 11.45 am on 29 April 1999, so not even Mr Fidge and Mrs Brailey could get that date right. At that time, Mr Fidge came to see me and talked about Global Finance Group Pty Ltd. I understand that the questions that were put to me on that matter in the Gunning inquiry were as a result of a letter Fidge wrote to the inquiry. At 8.32 am on 10 August, in answer to a question by Bartlett, Mrs Brailey said - . . . Mr Fidge said, he was asked, did you have a meeting with Ms Brailey and Mr Fidge?; yes; and that was all that was asked. The allegation against the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry is that he did not do anything and he did not ask any questions. I suggest that even those people who may be biased on this matter should obtain a copy of the transcripts and the comments I made to the Gunning inquiry. They will find that Mr Chaney, counsel assisting the inquiry, questioned me extensively on that issue. I gave him a clear indication of my recollection of what happened at that meeting. For the member for Fremantle to say on the radio that I do not try to assist other constituents is an untruth. He knows it is untrue because since this finance issue has arisen, half of the people on the other side of this Parliament have sent me dozens of letters about these issues, and I have dealt with them. It is interesting, with these people trying to accuse me and nail me by innuendo, that if in fact - Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
Dr Gallop: Will you answer the question? Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
Mr SHAVE: I am answering it. If in fact Fidge came to see me on 29 April - that is the date - and I had an overwhelming passion to assist my former father-in-law, one would have thought that when Fidge and Brailey walked out of the office I would have spent 20¢ to ring my former father-in-law to find out what his problem was. However, I did not do that. When those people on the other side say that I take a particular interest in looking after my former relatives and not other people, it is interesting to note that at the meeting I held with Fidge and Brailey, Mitchell and Walker happened to be there. On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
On 13 August, some four or five months later when I discovered the details about my former father-in-law's investment, I did not even ask those people to come to assist with the matter. My former father-in-law came in as a constituent. He lives in Myaree, which is down the street from my office. He rang my electoral officer. When my former father-in-law came through the door of my office, I did not even know why he was there. If I was so keen to use my position to help my poor, aggrieved former father-in-law on 29 April, why would I not have made the phone call? The reason I did not spend the 20¢ to make the phone call was that my view was that if he wanted to see me, he could do so. That is what happened and that is all there is regarding this matter.
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.