❓ The Minister for Fair Trading is questioned about the suitability of Mr. Ray Weir, a bankrupt, to remain on the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board and the veracity of his testimony. The Minister is seeking legal advice before making a decision.
AnsweredQoN 269Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) When did the minister first become aware that the last remaining industry member of the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, Mr Ray Weir, was a bankrupt? (2) What action is the minister taking over the evidence Mr Weir gave to the Select Committee into the Finance Broking Industry, which can be described at best as totally misleading, if not downright dishonest? (3) In order to restore confidence in the finance broking industry, will he now sack Ray Weir from the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board? Mr SHAVE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I do not have the newspaper article in front of me. However, earlier this year during a newspaper interview, Mr Weir was asked why, when he applied for appointment to the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he did not disclose that he had been a bankrupt. When I read the newspaper article, I asked my staff to check whether Mr Weir's application made any reference to that. My staff did so and found that when he made his application he had not disclosed that he was a bankrupt. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that I did not appear to have anything on the record, I said that Mr Weir did not disclose it; to the best of my knowledge, I did not know. Subsequently, Weir said that he wrote a letter in 1997 seeking to be exempt from the Finance Brokers Control Act. I told officers to investigate. My office receives about 1 000 letters a week. It was referred down to the office, and it was found that Mr Weir had pointed out that he had financial problems at that time. I do not have the exact date on which the letter to me was written, but it was about three years ago. When I answered questions, I properly thought that what I was saying was right. Mr Weir said he was offended, and I apologised to him for any concern. I said publicly that it was an oversight and that the letter had been received some three years ago. When Mr Weir wrote to me on 11 or 15 October - I will table the letter - to justify his staying on the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he also said that he had had no problems with any investigations, police matters or financial difficulties. One could have read the text of the letter to be talking about the board; however, one could also have drawn the wider implication that he had no financial problems. The newspaper interview with which he was involved took place after that letter was written. On two occasions, Weir said that he never had a problem. I am sorry - he wrote in a letter three years ago that he had had a problem. However, I thought that the man had not had any problems. A lot of evidence has been given to the upper House committee. Mr Weir in his letter to me of 11 or 15 October told me all the reasons that all the other board members should be sacked and why he should be retained, but that is another issue. I will table the letter, the last paragraph of which states why he should stay and everyone else should go. The letter and advice I received from Crown Law is very specific: Sacking these people must be a decision made by the Governor on recommendation from the Government. The basis on which people may be replaced has a narrow interpretation. I must be guided by Crown Law, which is trying to resolve some of those issues. Mr McGinty: Do you think he should be sacked? Mr SHAVE: That is a decision I will make when I receive further advice and I know the options, and the grounds for them, available to me. Until I have those grounds, and until I am told whether those grounds are right or wrong, it would be improper for me to comment in that regard. I will not speculate. I have outlined the circumstances. Dr Gallop: You remind me of the defendant who was asked how he pleaded, and said “I don’t know; I’ve not heard the evidence yet.” The SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps the minister could wind up his answer. He has had five minutes. Mr SHAVE: Unlike some people, I went to the Gunning inquiry and told it all the details of all issues surrounding my involvement. It made an appropriate judgment.
(2) What action is the minister taking over the evidence Mr Weir gave to the Select Committee into the Finance Broking Industry, which can be described at best as totally misleading, if not downright dishonest? (3) In order to restore confidence in the finance broking industry, will he now sack Ray Weir from the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board? Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) I do not have the newspaper article in front of me. However, earlier this year during a newspaper interview, Mr Weir was asked why, when he applied for appointment to the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he did not disclose that he had been a bankrupt. When I read the newspaper article, I asked my staff to check whether Mr Weir's application made any reference to that. My staff did so and found that when he made his application he had not disclosed that he was a bankrupt. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that I did not appear to have anything on the record, I said that Mr Weir did not disclose it; to the best of my knowledge, I did not know. Subsequently, Weir said that he wrote a letter in 1997 seeking to be exempt from the Finance Brokers Control Act. I told officers to investigate. My office receives about 1 000 letters a week. It was referred down to the office, and it was found that Mr Weir had pointed out that he had financial problems at that time. I do not have the exact date on which the letter to me was written, but it was about three years ago. When I answered questions, I properly thought that what I was saying was right. Mr Weir said he was offended, and I apologised to him for any concern. I said publicly that it was an oversight and that the letter had been received some three years ago. When Mr Weir wrote to me on 11 or 15 October - I will table the letter - to justify his staying on the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he also said that he had had no problems with any investigations, police matters or financial difficulties. One could have read the text of the letter to be talking about the board; however, one could also have drawn the wider implication that he had no financial problems. The newspaper interview with which he was involved took place after that letter was written. On two occasions, Weir said that he never had a problem. I am sorry - he wrote in a letter three years ago that he had had a problem. However, I thought that the man had not had any problems. A lot of evidence has been given to the upper House committee. Mr Weir in his letter to me of 11 or 15 October told me all the reasons that all the other board members should be sacked and why he should be retained, but that is another issue. I will table the letter, the last paragraph of which states why he should stay and everyone else should go. The letter and advice I received from Crown Law is very specific: Sacking these people must be a decision made by the Governor on recommendation from the Government. The basis on which people may be replaced has a narrow interpretation. I must be guided by Crown Law, which is trying to resolve some of those issues. Mr McGinty: Do you think he should be sacked? Mr SHAVE: That is a decision I will make when I receive further advice and I know the options, and the grounds for them, available to me. Until I have those grounds, and until I am told whether those grounds are right or wrong, it would be improper for me to comment in that regard. I will not speculate. I have outlined the circumstances. Dr Gallop: You remind me of the defendant who was asked how he pleaded, and said “I don’t know; I’ve not heard the evidence yet.” The SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps the minister could wind up his answer. He has had five minutes. Mr SHAVE: Unlike some people, I went to the Gunning inquiry and told it all the details of all issues surrounding my involvement. It made an appropriate judgment.
(3) In order to restore confidence in the finance broking industry, will he now sack Ray Weir from the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board? Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) I do not have the newspaper article in front of me. However, earlier this year during a newspaper interview, Mr Weir was asked why, when he applied for appointment to the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he did not disclose that he had been a bankrupt. When I read the newspaper article, I asked my staff to check whether Mr Weir's application made any reference to that. My staff did so and found that when he made his application he had not disclosed that he was a bankrupt. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that I did not appear to have anything on the record, I said that Mr Weir did not disclose it; to the best of my knowledge, I did not know. Subsequently, Weir said that he wrote a letter in 1997 seeking to be exempt from the Finance Brokers Control Act. I told officers to investigate. My office receives about 1 000 letters a week. It was referred down to the office, and it was found that Mr Weir had pointed out that he had financial problems at that time. I do not have the exact date on which the letter to me was written, but it was about three years ago. When I answered questions, I properly thought that what I was saying was right. Mr Weir said he was offended, and I apologised to him for any concern. I said publicly that it was an oversight and that the letter had been received some three years ago. When Mr Weir wrote to me on 11 or 15 October - I will table the letter - to justify his staying on the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he also said that he had had no problems with any investigations, police matters or financial difficulties. One could have read the text of the letter to be talking about the board; however, one could also have drawn the wider implication that he had no financial problems. The newspaper interview with which he was involved took place after that letter was written. On two occasions, Weir said that he never had a problem. I am sorry - he wrote in a letter three years ago that he had had a problem. However, I thought that the man had not had any problems. A lot of evidence has been given to the upper House committee. Mr Weir in his letter to me of 11 or 15 October told me all the reasons that all the other board members should be sacked and why he should be retained, but that is another issue. I will table the letter, the last paragraph of which states why he should stay and everyone else should go. The letter and advice I received from Crown Law is very specific: Sacking these people must be a decision made by the Governor on recommendation from the Government. The basis on which people may be replaced has a narrow interpretation. I must be guided by Crown Law, which is trying to resolve some of those issues. Mr McGinty: Do you think he should be sacked? Mr SHAVE: That is a decision I will make when I receive further advice and I know the options, and the grounds for them, available to me. Until I have those grounds, and until I am told whether those grounds are right or wrong, it would be improper for me to comment in that regard. I will not speculate. I have outlined the circumstances. Dr Gallop: You remind me of the defendant who was asked how he pleaded, and said “I don’t know; I’ve not heard the evidence yet.” The SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps the minister could wind up his answer. He has had five minutes. Mr SHAVE: Unlike some people, I went to the Gunning inquiry and told it all the details of all issues surrounding my involvement. It made an appropriate judgment.
Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) I do not have the newspaper article in front of me. However, earlier this year during a newspaper interview, Mr Weir was asked why, when he applied for appointment to the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he did not disclose that he had been a bankrupt. When I read the newspaper article, I asked my staff to check whether Mr Weir's application made any reference to that. My staff did so and found that when he made his application he had not disclosed that he was a bankrupt. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that I did not appear to have anything on the record, I said that Mr Weir did not disclose it; to the best of my knowledge, I did not know. Subsequently, Weir said that he wrote a letter in 1997 seeking to be exempt from the Finance Brokers Control Act. I told officers to investigate. My office receives about 1 000 letters a week. It was referred down to the office, and it was found that Mr Weir had pointed out that he had financial problems at that time. I do not have the exact date on which the letter to me was written, but it was about three years ago. When I answered questions, I properly thought that what I was saying was right. Mr Weir said he was offended, and I apologised to him for any concern. I said publicly that it was an oversight and that the letter had been received some three years ago. When Mr Weir wrote to me on 11 or 15 October - I will table the letter - to justify his staying on the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he also said that he had had no problems with any investigations, police matters or financial difficulties. One could have read the text of the letter to be talking about the board; however, one could also have drawn the wider implication that he had no financial problems. The newspaper interview with which he was involved took place after that letter was written. On two occasions, Weir said that he never had a problem. I am sorry - he wrote in a letter three years ago that he had had a problem. However, I thought that the man had not had any problems. A lot of evidence has been given to the upper House committee. Mr Weir in his letter to me of 11 or 15 October told me all the reasons that all the other board members should be sacked and why he should be retained, but that is another issue. I will table the letter, the last paragraph of which states why he should stay and everyone else should go. The letter and advice I received from Crown Law is very specific: Sacking these people must be a decision made by the Governor on recommendation from the Government. The basis on which people may be replaced has a narrow interpretation. I must be guided by Crown Law, which is trying to resolve some of those issues. Mr McGinty: Do you think he should be sacked? Mr SHAVE: That is a decision I will make when I receive further advice and I know the options, and the grounds for them, available to me. Until I have those grounds, and until I am told whether those grounds are right or wrong, it would be improper for me to comment in that regard. I will not speculate. I have outlined the circumstances. Dr Gallop: You remind me of the defendant who was asked how he pleaded, and said “I don’t know; I’ve not heard the evidence yet.” The SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps the minister could wind up his answer. He has had five minutes. Mr SHAVE: Unlike some people, I went to the Gunning inquiry and told it all the details of all issues surrounding my involvement. It made an appropriate judgment.
(1)-(3) I do not have the newspaper article in front of me. However, earlier this year during a newspaper interview, Mr Weir was asked why, when he applied for appointment to the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he did not disclose that he had been a bankrupt. When I read the newspaper article, I asked my staff to check whether Mr Weir's application made any reference to that. My staff did so and found that when he made his application he had not disclosed that he was a bankrupt. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that I did not appear to have anything on the record, I said that Mr Weir did not disclose it; to the best of my knowledge, I did not know. Subsequently, Weir said that he wrote a letter in 1997 seeking to be exempt from the Finance Brokers Control Act. I told officers to investigate. My office receives about 1 000 letters a week. It was referred down to the office, and it was found that Mr Weir had pointed out that he had financial problems at that time. I do not have the exact date on which the letter to me was written, but it was about three years ago. When I answered questions, I properly thought that what I was saying was right. Mr Weir said he was offended, and I apologised to him for any concern. I said publicly that it was an oversight and that the letter had been received some three years ago. When Mr Weir wrote to me on 11 or 15 October - I will table the letter - to justify his staying on the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he also said that he had had no problems with any investigations, police matters or financial difficulties. One could have read the text of the letter to be talking about the board; however, one could also have drawn the wider implication that he had no financial problems. The newspaper interview with which he was involved took place after that letter was written. On two occasions, Weir said that he never had a problem. I am sorry - he wrote in a letter three years ago that he had had a problem. However, I thought that the man had not had any problems. A lot of evidence has been given to the upper House committee. Mr Weir in his letter to me of 11 or 15 October told me all the reasons that all the other board members should be sacked and why he should be retained, but that is another issue. I will table the letter, the last paragraph of which states why he should stay and everyone else should go. The letter and advice I received from Crown Law is very specific: Sacking these people must be a decision made by the Governor on recommendation from the Government. The basis on which people may be replaced has a narrow interpretation. I must be guided by Crown Law, which is trying to resolve some of those issues. Mr McGinty: Do you think he should be sacked? Mr SHAVE: That is a decision I will make when I receive further advice and I know the options, and the grounds for them, available to me. Until I have those grounds, and until I am told whether those grounds are right or wrong, it would be improper for me to comment in that regard. I will not speculate. I have outlined the circumstances. Dr Gallop: You remind me of the defendant who was asked how he pleaded, and said “I don’t know; I’ve not heard the evidence yet.” The SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps the minister could wind up his answer. He has had five minutes. Mr SHAVE: Unlike some people, I went to the Gunning inquiry and told it all the details of all issues surrounding my involvement. It made an appropriate judgment.
When Mr Weir wrote to me on 11 or 15 October - I will table the letter - to justify his staying on the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he also said that he had had no problems with any investigations, police matters or financial difficulties. One could have read the text of the letter to be talking about the board; however, one could also have drawn the wider implication that he had no financial problems. The newspaper interview with which he was involved took place after that letter was written. On two occasions, Weir said that he never had a problem. I am sorry - he wrote in a letter three years ago that he had had a problem. However, I thought that the man had not had any problems. A lot of evidence has been given to the upper House committee. Mr Weir in his letter to me of 11 or 15 October told me all the reasons that all the other board members should be sacked and why he should be retained, but that is another issue. I will table the letter, the last paragraph of which states why he should stay and everyone else should go. The letter and advice I received from Crown Law is very specific: Sacking these people must be a decision made by the Governor on recommendation from the Government. The basis on which people may be replaced has a narrow interpretation. I must be guided by Crown Law, which is trying to resolve some of those issues.
A lot of evidence has been given to the upper House committee. Mr Weir in his letter to me of 11 or 15 October told me all the reasons that all the other board members should be sacked and why he should be retained, but that is another issue. I will table the letter, the last paragraph of which states why he should stay and everyone else should go. The letter and advice I received from Crown Law is very specific: Sacking these people must be a decision made by the Governor on recommendation from the Government. The basis on which people may be replaced has a narrow interpretation. I must be guided by Crown Law, which is trying to resolve some of those issues.
The letter and advice I received from Crown Law is very specific: Sacking these people must be a decision made by the Governor on recommendation from the Government. The basis on which people may be replaced has a narrow interpretation. I must be guided by Crown Law, which is trying to resolve some of those issues.
Mr SHAVE: That is a decision I will make when I receive further advice and I know the options, and the grounds for them, available to me. Until I have those grounds, and until I am told whether those grounds are right or wrong, it would be improper for me to comment in that regard. I will not speculate. I have outlined the circumstances. Dr Gallop: You remind me of the defendant who was asked how he pleaded, and said “I don’t know; I’ve not heard the evidence yet.” The SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps the minister could wind up his answer. He has had five minutes. Mr SHAVE: Unlike some people, I went to the Gunning inquiry and told it all the details of all issues surrounding my involvement. It made an appropriate judgment.
Dr Gallop: You remind me of the defendant who was asked how he pleaded, and said “I don’t know; I’ve not heard the evidence yet.” The SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps the minister could wind up his answer. He has had five minutes. Mr SHAVE: Unlike some people, I went to the Gunning inquiry and told it all the details of all issues surrounding my involvement. It made an appropriate judgment.
The SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps the minister could wind up his answer. He has had five minutes. Mr SHAVE: Unlike some people, I went to the Gunning inquiry and told it all the details of all issues surrounding my involvement. It made an appropriate judgment.
Mr SHAVE: Unlike some people, I went to the Gunning inquiry and told it all the details of all issues surrounding my involvement. It made an appropriate judgment.
(2) What action is the minister taking over the evidence Mr Weir gave to the Select Committee into the Finance Broking Industry, which can be described at best as totally misleading, if not downright dishonest? (3) In order to restore confidence in the finance broking industry, will he now sack Ray Weir from the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board? Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) I do not have the newspaper article in front of me. However, earlier this year during a newspaper interview, Mr Weir was asked why, when he applied for appointment to the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he did not disclose that he had been a bankrupt. When I read the newspaper article, I asked my staff to check whether Mr Weir's application made any reference to that. My staff did so and found that when he made his application he had not disclosed that he was a bankrupt. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that I did not appear to have anything on the record, I said that Mr Weir did not disclose it; to the best of my knowledge, I did not know. Subsequently, Weir said that he wrote a letter in 1997 seeking to be exempt from the Finance Brokers Control Act. I told officers to investigate. My office receives about 1 000 letters a week. It was referred down to the office, and it was found that Mr Weir had pointed out that he had financial problems at that time. I do not have the exact date on which the letter to me was written, but it was about three years ago. When I answered questions, I properly thought that what I was saying was right. Mr Weir said he was offended, and I apologised to him for any concern. I said publicly that it was an oversight and that the letter had been received some three years ago. When Mr Weir wrote to me on 11 or 15 October - I will table the letter - to justify his staying on the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he also said that he had had no problems with any investigations, police matters or financial difficulties. One could have read the text of the letter to be talking about the board; however, one could also have drawn the wider implication that he had no financial problems. The newspaper interview with which he was involved took place after that letter was written. On two occasions, Weir said that he never had a problem. I am sorry - he wrote in a letter three years ago that he had had a problem. However, I thought that the man had not had any problems. A lot of evidence has been given to the upper House committee. Mr Weir in his letter to me of 11 or 15 October told me all the reasons that all the other board members should be sacked and why he should be retained, but that is another issue. I will table the letter, the last paragraph of which states why he should stay and everyone else should go. The letter and advice I received from Crown Law is very specific: Sacking these people must be a decision made by the Governor on recommendation from the Government. The basis on which people may be replaced has a narrow interpretation. I must be guided by Crown Law, which is trying to resolve some of those issues. Mr McGinty: Do you think he should be sacked? Mr SHAVE: That is a decision I will make when I receive further advice and I know the options, and the grounds for them, available to me. Until I have those grounds, and until I am told whether those grounds are right or wrong, it would be improper for me to comment in that regard. I will not speculate. I have outlined the circumstances. Dr Gallop: You remind me of the defendant who was asked how he pleaded, and said “I don’t know; I’ve not heard the evidence yet.” The SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps the minister could wind up his answer. He has had five minutes. Mr SHAVE: Unlike some people, I went to the Gunning inquiry and told it all the details of all issues surrounding my involvement. It made an appropriate judgment.
(3) In order to restore confidence in the finance broking industry, will he now sack Ray Weir from the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board? Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) I do not have the newspaper article in front of me. However, earlier this year during a newspaper interview, Mr Weir was asked why, when he applied for appointment to the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he did not disclose that he had been a bankrupt. When I read the newspaper article, I asked my staff to check whether Mr Weir's application made any reference to that. My staff did so and found that when he made his application he had not disclosed that he was a bankrupt. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that I did not appear to have anything on the record, I said that Mr Weir did not disclose it; to the best of my knowledge, I did not know. Subsequently, Weir said that he wrote a letter in 1997 seeking to be exempt from the Finance Brokers Control Act. I told officers to investigate. My office receives about 1 000 letters a week. It was referred down to the office, and it was found that Mr Weir had pointed out that he had financial problems at that time. I do not have the exact date on which the letter to me was written, but it was about three years ago. When I answered questions, I properly thought that what I was saying was right. Mr Weir said he was offended, and I apologised to him for any concern. I said publicly that it was an oversight and that the letter had been received some three years ago. When Mr Weir wrote to me on 11 or 15 October - I will table the letter - to justify his staying on the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he also said that he had had no problems with any investigations, police matters or financial difficulties. One could have read the text of the letter to be talking about the board; however, one could also have drawn the wider implication that he had no financial problems. The newspaper interview with which he was involved took place after that letter was written. On two occasions, Weir said that he never had a problem. I am sorry - he wrote in a letter three years ago that he had had a problem. However, I thought that the man had not had any problems. A lot of evidence has been given to the upper House committee. Mr Weir in his letter to me of 11 or 15 October told me all the reasons that all the other board members should be sacked and why he should be retained, but that is another issue. I will table the letter, the last paragraph of which states why he should stay and everyone else should go. The letter and advice I received from Crown Law is very specific: Sacking these people must be a decision made by the Governor on recommendation from the Government. The basis on which people may be replaced has a narrow interpretation. I must be guided by Crown Law, which is trying to resolve some of those issues. Mr McGinty: Do you think he should be sacked? Mr SHAVE: That is a decision I will make when I receive further advice and I know the options, and the grounds for them, available to me. Until I have those grounds, and until I am told whether those grounds are right or wrong, it would be improper for me to comment in that regard. I will not speculate. I have outlined the circumstances. Dr Gallop: You remind me of the defendant who was asked how he pleaded, and said “I don’t know; I’ve not heard the evidence yet.” The SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps the minister could wind up his answer. He has had five minutes. Mr SHAVE: Unlike some people, I went to the Gunning inquiry and told it all the details of all issues surrounding my involvement. It made an appropriate judgment.
Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) I do not have the newspaper article in front of me. However, earlier this year during a newspaper interview, Mr Weir was asked why, when he applied for appointment to the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he did not disclose that he had been a bankrupt. When I read the newspaper article, I asked my staff to check whether Mr Weir's application made any reference to that. My staff did so and found that when he made his application he had not disclosed that he was a bankrupt. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that I did not appear to have anything on the record, I said that Mr Weir did not disclose it; to the best of my knowledge, I did not know. Subsequently, Weir said that he wrote a letter in 1997 seeking to be exempt from the Finance Brokers Control Act. I told officers to investigate. My office receives about 1 000 letters a week. It was referred down to the office, and it was found that Mr Weir had pointed out that he had financial problems at that time. I do not have the exact date on which the letter to me was written, but it was about three years ago. When I answered questions, I properly thought that what I was saying was right. Mr Weir said he was offended, and I apologised to him for any concern. I said publicly that it was an oversight and that the letter had been received some three years ago. When Mr Weir wrote to me on 11 or 15 October - I will table the letter - to justify his staying on the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he also said that he had had no problems with any investigations, police matters or financial difficulties. One could have read the text of the letter to be talking about the board; however, one could also have drawn the wider implication that he had no financial problems. The newspaper interview with which he was involved took place after that letter was written. On two occasions, Weir said that he never had a problem. I am sorry - he wrote in a letter three years ago that he had had a problem. However, I thought that the man had not had any problems. A lot of evidence has been given to the upper House committee. Mr Weir in his letter to me of 11 or 15 October told me all the reasons that all the other board members should be sacked and why he should be retained, but that is another issue. I will table the letter, the last paragraph of which states why he should stay and everyone else should go. The letter and advice I received from Crown Law is very specific: Sacking these people must be a decision made by the Governor on recommendation from the Government. The basis on which people may be replaced has a narrow interpretation. I must be guided by Crown Law, which is trying to resolve some of those issues. Mr McGinty: Do you think he should be sacked? Mr SHAVE: That is a decision I will make when I receive further advice and I know the options, and the grounds for them, available to me. Until I have those grounds, and until I am told whether those grounds are right or wrong, it would be improper for me to comment in that regard. I will not speculate. I have outlined the circumstances. Dr Gallop: You remind me of the defendant who was asked how he pleaded, and said “I don’t know; I’ve not heard the evidence yet.” The SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps the minister could wind up his answer. He has had five minutes. Mr SHAVE: Unlike some people, I went to the Gunning inquiry and told it all the details of all issues surrounding my involvement. It made an appropriate judgment.
(1)-(3) I do not have the newspaper article in front of me. However, earlier this year during a newspaper interview, Mr Weir was asked why, when he applied for appointment to the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he did not disclose that he had been a bankrupt. When I read the newspaper article, I asked my staff to check whether Mr Weir's application made any reference to that. My staff did so and found that when he made his application he had not disclosed that he was a bankrupt. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that I did not appear to have anything on the record, I said that Mr Weir did not disclose it; to the best of my knowledge, I did not know. Subsequently, Weir said that he wrote a letter in 1997 seeking to be exempt from the Finance Brokers Control Act. I told officers to investigate. My office receives about 1 000 letters a week. It was referred down to the office, and it was found that Mr Weir had pointed out that he had financial problems at that time. I do not have the exact date on which the letter to me was written, but it was about three years ago. When I answered questions, I properly thought that what I was saying was right. Mr Weir said he was offended, and I apologised to him for any concern. I said publicly that it was an oversight and that the letter had been received some three years ago. When Mr Weir wrote to me on 11 or 15 October - I will table the letter - to justify his staying on the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he also said that he had had no problems with any investigations, police matters or financial difficulties. One could have read the text of the letter to be talking about the board; however, one could also have drawn the wider implication that he had no financial problems. The newspaper interview with which he was involved took place after that letter was written. On two occasions, Weir said that he never had a problem. I am sorry - he wrote in a letter three years ago that he had had a problem. However, I thought that the man had not had any problems. A lot of evidence has been given to the upper House committee. Mr Weir in his letter to me of 11 or 15 October told me all the reasons that all the other board members should be sacked and why he should be retained, but that is another issue. I will table the letter, the last paragraph of which states why he should stay and everyone else should go. The letter and advice I received from Crown Law is very specific: Sacking these people must be a decision made by the Governor on recommendation from the Government. The basis on which people may be replaced has a narrow interpretation. I must be guided by Crown Law, which is trying to resolve some of those issues. Mr McGinty: Do you think he should be sacked? Mr SHAVE: That is a decision I will make when I receive further advice and I know the options, and the grounds for them, available to me. Until I have those grounds, and until I am told whether those grounds are right or wrong, it would be improper for me to comment in that regard. I will not speculate. I have outlined the circumstances. Dr Gallop: You remind me of the defendant who was asked how he pleaded, and said “I don’t know; I’ve not heard the evidence yet.” The SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps the minister could wind up his answer. He has had five minutes. Mr SHAVE: Unlike some people, I went to the Gunning inquiry and told it all the details of all issues surrounding my involvement. It made an appropriate judgment.
When Mr Weir wrote to me on 11 or 15 October - I will table the letter - to justify his staying on the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board, he also said that he had had no problems with any investigations, police matters or financial difficulties. One could have read the text of the letter to be talking about the board; however, one could also have drawn the wider implication that he had no financial problems. The newspaper interview with which he was involved took place after that letter was written. On two occasions, Weir said that he never had a problem. I am sorry - he wrote in a letter three years ago that he had had a problem. However, I thought that the man had not had any problems. A lot of evidence has been given to the upper House committee. Mr Weir in his letter to me of 11 or 15 October told me all the reasons that all the other board members should be sacked and why he should be retained, but that is another issue. I will table the letter, the last paragraph of which states why he should stay and everyone else should go. The letter and advice I received from Crown Law is very specific: Sacking these people must be a decision made by the Governor on recommendation from the Government. The basis on which people may be replaced has a narrow interpretation. I must be guided by Crown Law, which is trying to resolve some of those issues.
A lot of evidence has been given to the upper House committee. Mr Weir in his letter to me of 11 or 15 October told me all the reasons that all the other board members should be sacked and why he should be retained, but that is another issue. I will table the letter, the last paragraph of which states why he should stay and everyone else should go. The letter and advice I received from Crown Law is very specific: Sacking these people must be a decision made by the Governor on recommendation from the Government. The basis on which people may be replaced has a narrow interpretation. I must be guided by Crown Law, which is trying to resolve some of those issues.
The letter and advice I received from Crown Law is very specific: Sacking these people must be a decision made by the Governor on recommendation from the Government. The basis on which people may be replaced has a narrow interpretation. I must be guided by Crown Law, which is trying to resolve some of those issues.
Mr SHAVE: That is a decision I will make when I receive further advice and I know the options, and the grounds for them, available to me. Until I have those grounds, and until I am told whether those grounds are right or wrong, it would be improper for me to comment in that regard. I will not speculate. I have outlined the circumstances. Dr Gallop: You remind me of the defendant who was asked how he pleaded, and said “I don’t know; I’ve not heard the evidence yet.” The SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps the minister could wind up his answer. He has had five minutes. Mr SHAVE: Unlike some people, I went to the Gunning inquiry and told it all the details of all issues surrounding my involvement. It made an appropriate judgment.
Dr Gallop: You remind me of the defendant who was asked how he pleaded, and said “I don’t know; I’ve not heard the evidence yet.” The SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps the minister could wind up his answer. He has had five minutes. Mr SHAVE: Unlike some people, I went to the Gunning inquiry and told it all the details of all issues surrounding my involvement. It made an appropriate judgment.
The SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps the minister could wind up his answer. He has had five minutes. Mr SHAVE: Unlike some people, I went to the Gunning inquiry and told it all the details of all issues surrounding my involvement. It made an appropriate judgment.
Mr SHAVE: Unlike some people, I went to the Gunning inquiry and told it all the details of all issues surrounding my involvement. It made an appropriate judgment.
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.