❓ Opposition questions the Consumer Affairs Minister about the Labor government's commitment to funding legal action for investors who suffered losses due to finance brokers, referencing a pre-election promise and the Attorney General's skepticism. The Minister defends the government's actions and deflects blame to the previous government.
AnsweredQoN 69Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FINANCE BROKERS, LEGAL ACTION
I refer to the statement entitled “ALP Approach to Finance Brokers”, which was widely distributed by the current Attorney General before the state election, and ask - (1) Is the minister aware that it states quite clearly that Labor promised - to fund legal action to recover losses from finance brokers, company directors, valuers, banks, auditors, accountants, lawyers, and anyone else responsible for the losses. (2) Is the minister aware that it refers to the provision of legal assistance, and goes on to say - If the State is held responsible, appropriate action will be taken to both pay investors and achieve recovery from the wrong doers. (3) In view of this document does the minister agree with the Attorney General that it is - and I quote the word the Attorney General used himself - “fanciful” to believe that the Labor Government would support legal action to determine whether the State was liable for any investor losses? Mr KOBELKE
I refer to the statement entitled “ALP Approach to Finance Brokers”, which was widely distributed by the current Attorney General before the state election, and ask - (1) Is the minister aware that it states quite clearly that Labor promised - to fund legal action to recover losses from finance brokers, company directors, valuers, banks, auditors, accountants, lawyers, and anyone else responsible for the losses. (2) Is the minister aware that it refers to the provision of legal assistance, and goes on to say - If the State is held responsible, appropriate action will be taken to both pay investors and achieve recovery from the wrong doers. (3) In view of this document does the minister agree with the Attorney General that it is - and I quote the word the Attorney General used himself - “fanciful” to believe that the Labor Government would support legal action to determine whether the State was liable for any investor losses? Mr KOBELKE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I thought the Premier had already answered that question very well, but it seems that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is coming back for a second serve. The five points laid out in the document referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are being fulfilled. Not all have been fulfilled as yet, because the Government is working on them. The Government is funding legal action. I cannot supply the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with the amount of that funding, but if he wishes to place a question on notice I will tell him the exact amount that has been spent on the prosecution of the potentially liable St George Bank. That decision was initiated before the Labor Party came to government, and the Labor Government is continuing to pursue the matter. A range of other cases will be judged on their merit, and funding will also be available for those cases. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition clearly implied in his question that “responsible” somehow reflects on the members opposite; that the members now in opposition, who were in government, are accepting responsibility for the finance brokers scandal. I would be happy to hear a submission from the Opposition on how the Government can find a way of sheeting home to individual members responsibility for the action, or inaction, that led to people losing their money. There is a big difference between a member who, through his actions or failure to act, leaves himself liable for the losses of others, and a government agency that, as a regulator, is not doing its job properly. Under the previous Government there were failures by regulatory bodies, but it is a big step in law to move from that statement to saying they are liable for the criminal actions of others. The Government, as the Premier pointed out, will pursue the criminal actions of others and if, through those proceedings, it reaches a point at which the liability of the Government is shown, the Government will accept that liability. Dr Gallop: The Opposition is playing the same game it played when in government. It is trying to shift responsibility away from its mates. This is exactly what it did in government. Mr KOBELKE: I very much appreciate the question and I will be very happy to take it further, if members opposite are willing to accept liability. I do not think they will accept that liability personally but, if personal liability can be shown, the Government will be very happy to help fund action so that money can be recovered from members who now sit on the opposition benches.
(1) Is the minister aware that it states quite clearly that Labor promised - to fund legal action to recover losses from finance brokers, company directors, valuers, banks, auditors, accountants, lawyers, and anyone else responsible for the losses. (2) Is the minister aware that it refers to the provision of legal assistance, and goes on to say - If the State is held responsible, appropriate action will be taken to both pay investors and achieve recovery from the wrong doers. (3) In view of this document does the minister agree with the Attorney General that it is - and I quote the word the Attorney General used himself - “fanciful” to believe that the Labor Government would support legal action to determine whether the State was liable for any investor losses? Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) I thought the Premier had already answered that question very well, but it seems that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is coming back for a second serve. The five points laid out in the document referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are being fulfilled. Not all have been fulfilled as yet, because the Government is working on them. The Government is funding legal action. I cannot supply the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with the amount of that funding, but if he wishes to place a question on notice I will tell him the exact amount that has been spent on the prosecution of the potentially liable St George Bank. That decision was initiated before the Labor Party came to government, and the Labor Government is continuing to pursue the matter. A range of other cases will be judged on their merit, and funding will also be available for those cases. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition clearly implied in his question that “responsible” somehow reflects on the members opposite; that the members now in opposition, who were in government, are accepting responsibility for the finance brokers scandal. I would be happy to hear a submission from the Opposition on how the Government can find a way of sheeting home to individual members responsibility for the action, or inaction, that led to people losing their money. There is a big difference between a member who, through his actions or failure to act, leaves himself liable for the losses of others, and a government agency that, as a regulator, is not doing its job properly. Under the previous Government there were failures by regulatory bodies, but it is a big step in law to move from that statement to saying they are liable for the criminal actions of others. The Government, as the Premier pointed out, will pursue the criminal actions of others and if, through those proceedings, it reaches a point at which the liability of the Government is shown, the Government will accept that liability. Dr Gallop: The Opposition is playing the same game it played when in government. It is trying to shift responsibility away from its mates. This is exactly what it did in government. Mr KOBELKE: I very much appreciate the question and I will be very happy to take it further, if members opposite are willing to accept liability. I do not think they will accept that liability personally but, if personal liability can be shown, the Government will be very happy to help fund action so that money can be recovered from members who now sit on the opposition benches.
Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) I thought the Premier had already answered that question very well, but it seems that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is coming back for a second serve. The five points laid out in the document referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are being fulfilled. Not all have been fulfilled as yet, because the Government is working on them. The Government is funding legal action. I cannot supply the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with the amount of that funding, but if he wishes to place a question on notice I will tell him the exact amount that has been spent on the prosecution of the potentially liable St George Bank. That decision was initiated before the Labor Party came to government, and the Labor Government is continuing to pursue the matter. A range of other cases will be judged on their merit, and funding will also be available for those cases. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition clearly implied in his question that “responsible” somehow reflects on the members opposite; that the members now in opposition, who were in government, are accepting responsibility for the finance brokers scandal. I would be happy to hear a submission from the Opposition on how the Government can find a way of sheeting home to individual members responsibility for the action, or inaction, that led to people losing their money. There is a big difference between a member who, through his actions or failure to act, leaves himself liable for the losses of others, and a government agency that, as a regulator, is not doing its job properly. Under the previous Government there were failures by regulatory bodies, but it is a big step in law to move from that statement to saying they are liable for the criminal actions of others. The Government, as the Premier pointed out, will pursue the criminal actions of others and if, through those proceedings, it reaches a point at which the liability of the Government is shown, the Government will accept that liability. Dr Gallop: The Opposition is playing the same game it played when in government. It is trying to shift responsibility away from its mates. This is exactly what it did in government. Mr KOBELKE: I very much appreciate the question and I will be very happy to take it further, if members opposite are willing to accept liability. I do not think they will accept that liability personally but, if personal liability can be shown, the Government will be very happy to help fund action so that money can be recovered from members who now sit on the opposition benches.
(1)-(3) I thought the Premier had already answered that question very well, but it seems that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is coming back for a second serve. The five points laid out in the document referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are being fulfilled. Not all have been fulfilled as yet, because the Government is working on them. The Government is funding legal action. I cannot supply the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with the amount of that funding, but if he wishes to place a question on notice I will tell him the exact amount that has been spent on the prosecution of the potentially liable St George Bank. That decision was initiated before the Labor Party came to government, and the Labor Government is continuing to pursue the matter. A range of other cases will be judged on their merit, and funding will also be available for those cases. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition clearly implied in his question that “responsible” somehow reflects on the members opposite; that the members now in opposition, who were in government, are accepting responsibility for the finance brokers scandal. I would be happy to hear a submission from the Opposition on how the Government can find a way of sheeting home to individual members responsibility for the action, or inaction, that led to people losing their money. There is a big difference between a member who, through his actions or failure to act, leaves himself liable for the losses of others, and a government agency that, as a regulator, is not doing its job properly. Under the previous Government there were failures by regulatory bodies, but it is a big step in law to move from that statement to saying they are liable for the criminal actions of others. The Government, as the Premier pointed out, will pursue the criminal actions of others and if, through those proceedings, it reaches a point at which the liability of the Government is shown, the Government will accept that liability. Dr Gallop: The Opposition is playing the same game it played when in government. It is trying to shift responsibility away from its mates. This is exactly what it did in government. Mr KOBELKE: I very much appreciate the question and I will be very happy to take it further, if members opposite are willing to accept liability. I do not think they will accept that liability personally but, if personal liability can be shown, the Government will be very happy to help fund action so that money can be recovered from members who now sit on the opposition benches.
Mr KOBELKE: I very much appreciate the question and I will be very happy to take it further, if members opposite are willing to accept liability. I do not think they will accept that liability personally but, if personal liability can be shown, the Government will be very happy to help fund action so that money can be recovered from members who now sit on the opposition benches.
(1) Is the minister aware that it states quite clearly that Labor promised - to fund legal action to recover losses from finance brokers, company directors, valuers, banks, auditors, accountants, lawyers, and anyone else responsible for the losses. (2) Is the minister aware that it refers to the provision of legal assistance, and goes on to say - If the State is held responsible, appropriate action will be taken to both pay investors and achieve recovery from the wrong doers. (3) In view of this document does the minister agree with the Attorney General that it is - and I quote the word the Attorney General used himself - “fanciful” to believe that the Labor Government would support legal action to determine whether the State was liable for any investor losses? Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) I thought the Premier had already answered that question very well, but it seems that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is coming back for a second serve. The five points laid out in the document referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are being fulfilled. Not all have been fulfilled as yet, because the Government is working on them. The Government is funding legal action. I cannot supply the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with the amount of that funding, but if he wishes to place a question on notice I will tell him the exact amount that has been spent on the prosecution of the potentially liable St George Bank. That decision was initiated before the Labor Party came to government, and the Labor Government is continuing to pursue the matter. A range of other cases will be judged on their merit, and funding will also be available for those cases. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition clearly implied in his question that “responsible” somehow reflects on the members opposite; that the members now in opposition, who were in government, are accepting responsibility for the finance brokers scandal. I would be happy to hear a submission from the Opposition on how the Government can find a way of sheeting home to individual members responsibility for the action, or inaction, that led to people losing their money. There is a big difference between a member who, through his actions or failure to act, leaves himself liable for the losses of others, and a government agency that, as a regulator, is not doing its job properly. Under the previous Government there were failures by regulatory bodies, but it is a big step in law to move from that statement to saying they are liable for the criminal actions of others. The Government, as the Premier pointed out, will pursue the criminal actions of others and if, through those proceedings, it reaches a point at which the liability of the Government is shown, the Government will accept that liability. Dr Gallop: The Opposition is playing the same game it played when in government. It is trying to shift responsibility away from its mates. This is exactly what it did in government. Mr KOBELKE: I very much appreciate the question and I will be very happy to take it further, if members opposite are willing to accept liability. I do not think they will accept that liability personally but, if personal liability can be shown, the Government will be very happy to help fund action so that money can be recovered from members who now sit on the opposition benches.
Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) I thought the Premier had already answered that question very well, but it seems that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is coming back for a second serve. The five points laid out in the document referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are being fulfilled. Not all have been fulfilled as yet, because the Government is working on them. The Government is funding legal action. I cannot supply the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with the amount of that funding, but if he wishes to place a question on notice I will tell him the exact amount that has been spent on the prosecution of the potentially liable St George Bank. That decision was initiated before the Labor Party came to government, and the Labor Government is continuing to pursue the matter. A range of other cases will be judged on their merit, and funding will also be available for those cases. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition clearly implied in his question that “responsible” somehow reflects on the members opposite; that the members now in opposition, who were in government, are accepting responsibility for the finance brokers scandal. I would be happy to hear a submission from the Opposition on how the Government can find a way of sheeting home to individual members responsibility for the action, or inaction, that led to people losing their money. There is a big difference between a member who, through his actions or failure to act, leaves himself liable for the losses of others, and a government agency that, as a regulator, is not doing its job properly. Under the previous Government there were failures by regulatory bodies, but it is a big step in law to move from that statement to saying they are liable for the criminal actions of others. The Government, as the Premier pointed out, will pursue the criminal actions of others and if, through those proceedings, it reaches a point at which the liability of the Government is shown, the Government will accept that liability. Dr Gallop: The Opposition is playing the same game it played when in government. It is trying to shift responsibility away from its mates. This is exactly what it did in government. Mr KOBELKE: I very much appreciate the question and I will be very happy to take it further, if members opposite are willing to accept liability. I do not think they will accept that liability personally but, if personal liability can be shown, the Government will be very happy to help fund action so that money can be recovered from members who now sit on the opposition benches.
(1)-(3) I thought the Premier had already answered that question very well, but it seems that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is coming back for a second serve. The five points laid out in the document referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are being fulfilled. Not all have been fulfilled as yet, because the Government is working on them. The Government is funding legal action. I cannot supply the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with the amount of that funding, but if he wishes to place a question on notice I will tell him the exact amount that has been spent on the prosecution of the potentially liable St George Bank. That decision was initiated before the Labor Party came to government, and the Labor Government is continuing to pursue the matter. A range of other cases will be judged on their merit, and funding will also be available for those cases. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition clearly implied in his question that “responsible” somehow reflects on the members opposite; that the members now in opposition, who were in government, are accepting responsibility for the finance brokers scandal. I would be happy to hear a submission from the Opposition on how the Government can find a way of sheeting home to individual members responsibility for the action, or inaction, that led to people losing their money. There is a big difference between a member who, through his actions or failure to act, leaves himself liable for the losses of others, and a government agency that, as a regulator, is not doing its job properly. Under the previous Government there were failures by regulatory bodies, but it is a big step in law to move from that statement to saying they are liable for the criminal actions of others. The Government, as the Premier pointed out, will pursue the criminal actions of others and if, through those proceedings, it reaches a point at which the liability of the Government is shown, the Government will accept that liability. Dr Gallop: The Opposition is playing the same game it played when in government. It is trying to shift responsibility away from its mates. This is exactly what it did in government. Mr KOBELKE: I very much appreciate the question and I will be very happy to take it further, if members opposite are willing to accept liability. I do not think they will accept that liability personally but, if personal liability can be shown, the Government will be very happy to help fund action so that money can be recovered from members who now sit on the opposition benches.
Mr KOBELKE: I very much appreciate the question and I will be very happy to take it further, if members opposite are willing to accept liability. I do not think they will accept that liability personally but, if personal liability can be shown, the Government will be very happy to help fund action so that money can be recovered from members who now sit on the opposition benches.
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.