❓ Question regarding progress on financial settlement for victims of the finance brokers scandal. The Attorney General's response details the complexities of a proposed settlement involving IMF (Australia) Ltd and concerns about funds reaching victims.
AnsweredQoN 836Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FINANCE BROKERS SCANDAL VICTIMS - COMPENSATION
(1) What progress has been made with regard to a financial settlement between the government and victims of the finance brokers scandal? (2) When does the government expect that the settlement will be finalised for the long-suffering retirees? Mr J.A. McGINTY
(1) What progress has been made with regard to a financial settlement between the government and victims of the finance brokers scandal? (2) When does the government expect that the settlement will be finalised for the long-suffering retirees? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I thank the member for Churchlands for the question. The claim funded by IMF (Australia) Ltd that is directed against the state government has been responsible for the activities of the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board back in the 1990s. Let us not forget that this problem was caused by Doug Shave and the Liberal Party when the Liberal Party was in power. Do members remember Doug Shave? He was the man who was asleep at the wheel during all of these matters. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the members for Nedlands and Murdoch. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : Somewhat surprisingly, I rise to defend Doug Shave. The point I make is that the Attorney General just accused a former member and minister of causing the finance broking issue. We all know that members of that industry have been convicted and jailed. There are criminals involved. I ask that the Attorney General withdraw any imputation of a criminal offence unless he can substantiate it. The SPEAKER : I did not hear any particular words indicating that a criminal offence has been committed. It was probably unparliamentary if it was said. I do not know whether the rules apply to former members. However, the question, as asked, lends itself to some reference to the former minister involved, and to suggesting that he had committed some criminal offence. If that is not the case, the Attorney General should withdraw that. However, the implication of Doug Shave’s involvement is a valid point. Mr J.A. McGINTY : There was no intention on my part to imply that Doug Shave had committed any criminal offence. If what I said was capable of that interpretation, I certainly withdraw it. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr R.F. Johnson : You said that he caused it. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I said that he was asleep at the wheel. It is noteworthy that the electorate of Alfred Cove has passed its judgment on what was once the safest Liberal Party electorate in the state with an approximated 80 per cent conservative vote. The electorate cast its judgment on Doug Shave and rejected him from that seat. As a consequence, we now have the new member for Alfred Cove in Parliament. Whether that was a change for the better is debatable. I should not say that in her absence. The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
(2) When does the government expect that the settlement will be finalised for the long-suffering retirees? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for Churchlands for the question. The claim funded by IMF (Australia) Ltd that is directed against the state government has been responsible for the activities of the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board back in the 1990s. Let us not forget that this problem was caused by Doug Shave and the Liberal Party when the Liberal Party was in power. Do members remember Doug Shave? He was the man who was asleep at the wheel during all of these matters. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the members for Nedlands and Murdoch. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : Somewhat surprisingly, I rise to defend Doug Shave. The point I make is that the Attorney General just accused a former member and minister of causing the finance broking issue. We all know that members of that industry have been convicted and jailed. There are criminals involved. I ask that the Attorney General withdraw any imputation of a criminal offence unless he can substantiate it. The SPEAKER : I did not hear any particular words indicating that a criminal offence has been committed. It was probably unparliamentary if it was said. I do not know whether the rules apply to former members. However, the question, as asked, lends itself to some reference to the former minister involved, and to suggesting that he had committed some criminal offence. If that is not the case, the Attorney General should withdraw that. However, the implication of Doug Shave’s involvement is a valid point. Mr J.A. McGINTY : There was no intention on my part to imply that Doug Shave had committed any criminal offence. If what I said was capable of that interpretation, I certainly withdraw it. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr R.F. Johnson : You said that he caused it. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I said that he was asleep at the wheel. It is noteworthy that the electorate of Alfred Cove has passed its judgment on what was once the safest Liberal Party electorate in the state with an approximated 80 per cent conservative vote. The electorate cast its judgment on Doug Shave and rejected him from that seat. As a consequence, we now have the new member for Alfred Cove in Parliament. Whether that was a change for the better is debatable. I should not say that in her absence. The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for Churchlands for the question. The claim funded by IMF (Australia) Ltd that is directed against the state government has been responsible for the activities of the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board back in the 1990s. Let us not forget that this problem was caused by Doug Shave and the Liberal Party when the Liberal Party was in power. Do members remember Doug Shave? He was the man who was asleep at the wheel during all of these matters. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the members for Nedlands and Murdoch. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : Somewhat surprisingly, I rise to defend Doug Shave. The point I make is that the Attorney General just accused a former member and minister of causing the finance broking issue. We all know that members of that industry have been convicted and jailed. There are criminals involved. I ask that the Attorney General withdraw any imputation of a criminal offence unless he can substantiate it. The SPEAKER : I did not hear any particular words indicating that a criminal offence has been committed. It was probably unparliamentary if it was said. I do not know whether the rules apply to former members. However, the question, as asked, lends itself to some reference to the former minister involved, and to suggesting that he had committed some criminal offence. If that is not the case, the Attorney General should withdraw that. However, the implication of Doug Shave’s involvement is a valid point. Mr J.A. McGINTY : There was no intention on my part to imply that Doug Shave had committed any criminal offence. If what I said was capable of that interpretation, I certainly withdraw it. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr R.F. Johnson : You said that he caused it. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I said that he was asleep at the wheel. It is noteworthy that the electorate of Alfred Cove has passed its judgment on what was once the safest Liberal Party electorate in the state with an approximated 80 per cent conservative vote. The electorate cast its judgment on Doug Shave and rejected him from that seat. As a consequence, we now have the new member for Alfred Cove in Parliament. Whether that was a change for the better is debatable. I should not say that in her absence. The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
(1)-(2) I thank the member for Churchlands for the question. The claim funded by IMF (Australia) Ltd that is directed against the state government has been responsible for the activities of the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board back in the 1990s. Let us not forget that this problem was caused by Doug Shave and the Liberal Party when the Liberal Party was in power. Do members remember Doug Shave? He was the man who was asleep at the wheel during all of these matters. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the members for Nedlands and Murdoch. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : Somewhat surprisingly, I rise to defend Doug Shave. The point I make is that the Attorney General just accused a former member and minister of causing the finance broking issue. We all know that members of that industry have been convicted and jailed. There are criminals involved. I ask that the Attorney General withdraw any imputation of a criminal offence unless he can substantiate it. The SPEAKER : I did not hear any particular words indicating that a criminal offence has been committed. It was probably unparliamentary if it was said. I do not know whether the rules apply to former members. However, the question, as asked, lends itself to some reference to the former minister involved, and to suggesting that he had committed some criminal offence. If that is not the case, the Attorney General should withdraw that. However, the implication of Doug Shave’s involvement is a valid point. Mr J.A. McGINTY : There was no intention on my part to imply that Doug Shave had committed any criminal offence. If what I said was capable of that interpretation, I certainly withdraw it. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr R.F. Johnson : You said that he caused it. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I said that he was asleep at the wheel. It is noteworthy that the electorate of Alfred Cove has passed its judgment on what was once the safest Liberal Party electorate in the state with an approximated 80 per cent conservative vote. The electorate cast its judgment on Doug Shave and rejected him from that seat. As a consequence, we now have the new member for Alfred Cove in Parliament. Whether that was a change for the better is debatable. I should not say that in her absence. The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the members for Nedlands and Murdoch. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : Somewhat surprisingly, I rise to defend Doug Shave. The point I make is that the Attorney General just accused a former member and minister of causing the finance broking issue. We all know that members of that industry have been convicted and jailed. There are criminals involved. I ask that the Attorney General withdraw any imputation of a criminal offence unless he can substantiate it. The SPEAKER : I did not hear any particular words indicating that a criminal offence has been committed. It was probably unparliamentary if it was said. I do not know whether the rules apply to former members. However, the question, as asked, lends itself to some reference to the former minister involved, and to suggesting that he had committed some criminal offence. If that is not the case, the Attorney General should withdraw that. However, the implication of Doug Shave’s involvement is a valid point. Mr J.A. McGINTY : There was no intention on my part to imply that Doug Shave had committed any criminal offence. If what I said was capable of that interpretation, I certainly withdraw it. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr R.F. Johnson : You said that he caused it. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I said that he was asleep at the wheel. It is noteworthy that the electorate of Alfred Cove has passed its judgment on what was once the safest Liberal Party electorate in the state with an approximated 80 per cent conservative vote. The electorate cast its judgment on Doug Shave and rejected him from that seat. As a consequence, we now have the new member for Alfred Cove in Parliament. Whether that was a change for the better is debatable. I should not say that in her absence. The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
The SPEAKER : I call to order the members for Nedlands and Murdoch. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : Somewhat surprisingly, I rise to defend Doug Shave. The point I make is that the Attorney General just accused a former member and minister of causing the finance broking issue. We all know that members of that industry have been convicted and jailed. There are criminals involved. I ask that the Attorney General withdraw any imputation of a criminal offence unless he can substantiate it. The SPEAKER : I did not hear any particular words indicating that a criminal offence has been committed. It was probably unparliamentary if it was said. I do not know whether the rules apply to former members. However, the question, as asked, lends itself to some reference to the former minister involved, and to suggesting that he had committed some criminal offence. If that is not the case, the Attorney General should withdraw that. However, the implication of Doug Shave’s involvement is a valid point. Mr J.A. McGINTY : There was no intention on my part to imply that Doug Shave had committed any criminal offence. If what I said was capable of that interpretation, I certainly withdraw it. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr R.F. Johnson : You said that he caused it. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I said that he was asleep at the wheel. It is noteworthy that the electorate of Alfred Cove has passed its judgment on what was once the safest Liberal Party electorate in the state with an approximated 80 per cent conservative vote. The electorate cast its judgment on Doug Shave and rejected him from that seat. As a consequence, we now have the new member for Alfred Cove in Parliament. Whether that was a change for the better is debatable. I should not say that in her absence. The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
The SPEAKER : I did not hear any particular words indicating that a criminal offence has been committed. It was probably unparliamentary if it was said. I do not know whether the rules apply to former members. However, the question, as asked, lends itself to some reference to the former minister involved, and to suggesting that he had committed some criminal offence. If that is not the case, the Attorney General should withdraw that. However, the implication of Doug Shave’s involvement is a valid point. Mr J.A. McGINTY : There was no intention on my part to imply that Doug Shave had committed any criminal offence. If what I said was capable of that interpretation, I certainly withdraw it. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr R.F. Johnson : You said that he caused it. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I said that he was asleep at the wheel. It is noteworthy that the electorate of Alfred Cove has passed its judgment on what was once the safest Liberal Party electorate in the state with an approximated 80 per cent conservative vote. The electorate cast its judgment on Doug Shave and rejected him from that seat. As a consequence, we now have the new member for Alfred Cove in Parliament. Whether that was a change for the better is debatable. I should not say that in her absence. The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : There was no intention on my part to imply that Doug Shave had committed any criminal offence. If what I said was capable of that interpretation, I certainly withdraw it. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr R.F. Johnson : You said that he caused it. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I said that he was asleep at the wheel. It is noteworthy that the electorate of Alfred Cove has passed its judgment on what was once the safest Liberal Party electorate in the state with an approximated 80 per cent conservative vote. The electorate cast its judgment on Doug Shave and rejected him from that seat. As a consequence, we now have the new member for Alfred Cove in Parliament. Whether that was a change for the better is debatable. I should not say that in her absence. The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : I said that he was asleep at the wheel. It is noteworthy that the electorate of Alfred Cove has passed its judgment on what was once the safest Liberal Party electorate in the state with an approximated 80 per cent conservative vote. The electorate cast its judgment on Doug Shave and rejected him from that seat. As a consequence, we now have the new member for Alfred Cove in Parliament. Whether that was a change for the better is debatable. I should not say that in her absence. The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
(2) When does the government expect that the settlement will be finalised for the long-suffering retirees? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for Churchlands for the question. The claim funded by IMF (Australia) Ltd that is directed against the state government has been responsible for the activities of the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board back in the 1990s. Let us not forget that this problem was caused by Doug Shave and the Liberal Party when the Liberal Party was in power. Do members remember Doug Shave? He was the man who was asleep at the wheel during all of these matters. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the members for Nedlands and Murdoch. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : Somewhat surprisingly, I rise to defend Doug Shave. The point I make is that the Attorney General just accused a former member and minister of causing the finance broking issue. We all know that members of that industry have been convicted and jailed. There are criminals involved. I ask that the Attorney General withdraw any imputation of a criminal offence unless he can substantiate it. The SPEAKER : I did not hear any particular words indicating that a criminal offence has been committed. It was probably unparliamentary if it was said. I do not know whether the rules apply to former members. However, the question, as asked, lends itself to some reference to the former minister involved, and to suggesting that he had committed some criminal offence. If that is not the case, the Attorney General should withdraw that. However, the implication of Doug Shave’s involvement is a valid point. Mr J.A. McGINTY : There was no intention on my part to imply that Doug Shave had committed any criminal offence. If what I said was capable of that interpretation, I certainly withdraw it. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr R.F. Johnson : You said that he caused it. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I said that he was asleep at the wheel. It is noteworthy that the electorate of Alfred Cove has passed its judgment on what was once the safest Liberal Party electorate in the state with an approximated 80 per cent conservative vote. The electorate cast its judgment on Doug Shave and rejected him from that seat. As a consequence, we now have the new member for Alfred Cove in Parliament. Whether that was a change for the better is debatable. I should not say that in her absence. The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I thank the member for Churchlands for the question. The claim funded by IMF (Australia) Ltd that is directed against the state government has been responsible for the activities of the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board back in the 1990s. Let us not forget that this problem was caused by Doug Shave and the Liberal Party when the Liberal Party was in power. Do members remember Doug Shave? He was the man who was asleep at the wheel during all of these matters. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the members for Nedlands and Murdoch. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : Somewhat surprisingly, I rise to defend Doug Shave. The point I make is that the Attorney General just accused a former member and minister of causing the finance broking issue. We all know that members of that industry have been convicted and jailed. There are criminals involved. I ask that the Attorney General withdraw any imputation of a criminal offence unless he can substantiate it. The SPEAKER : I did not hear any particular words indicating that a criminal offence has been committed. It was probably unparliamentary if it was said. I do not know whether the rules apply to former members. However, the question, as asked, lends itself to some reference to the former minister involved, and to suggesting that he had committed some criminal offence. If that is not the case, the Attorney General should withdraw that. However, the implication of Doug Shave’s involvement is a valid point. Mr J.A. McGINTY : There was no intention on my part to imply that Doug Shave had committed any criminal offence. If what I said was capable of that interpretation, I certainly withdraw it. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr R.F. Johnson : You said that he caused it. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I said that he was asleep at the wheel. It is noteworthy that the electorate of Alfred Cove has passed its judgment on what was once the safest Liberal Party electorate in the state with an approximated 80 per cent conservative vote. The electorate cast its judgment on Doug Shave and rejected him from that seat. As a consequence, we now have the new member for Alfred Cove in Parliament. Whether that was a change for the better is debatable. I should not say that in her absence. The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
(1)-(2) I thank the member for Churchlands for the question. The claim funded by IMF (Australia) Ltd that is directed against the state government has been responsible for the activities of the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board back in the 1990s. Let us not forget that this problem was caused by Doug Shave and the Liberal Party when the Liberal Party was in power. Do members remember Doug Shave? He was the man who was asleep at the wheel during all of these matters. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the members for Nedlands and Murdoch. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : Somewhat surprisingly, I rise to defend Doug Shave. The point I make is that the Attorney General just accused a former member and minister of causing the finance broking issue. We all know that members of that industry have been convicted and jailed. There are criminals involved. I ask that the Attorney General withdraw any imputation of a criminal offence unless he can substantiate it. The SPEAKER : I did not hear any particular words indicating that a criminal offence has been committed. It was probably unparliamentary if it was said. I do not know whether the rules apply to former members. However, the question, as asked, lends itself to some reference to the former minister involved, and to suggesting that he had committed some criminal offence. If that is not the case, the Attorney General should withdraw that. However, the implication of Doug Shave’s involvement is a valid point. Mr J.A. McGINTY : There was no intention on my part to imply that Doug Shave had committed any criminal offence. If what I said was capable of that interpretation, I certainly withdraw it. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr R.F. Johnson : You said that he caused it. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I said that he was asleep at the wheel. It is noteworthy that the electorate of Alfred Cove has passed its judgment on what was once the safest Liberal Party electorate in the state with an approximated 80 per cent conservative vote. The electorate cast its judgment on Doug Shave and rejected him from that seat. As a consequence, we now have the new member for Alfred Cove in Parliament. Whether that was a change for the better is debatable. I should not say that in her absence. The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order the members for Nedlands and Murdoch. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : Somewhat surprisingly, I rise to defend Doug Shave. The point I make is that the Attorney General just accused a former member and minister of causing the finance broking issue. We all know that members of that industry have been convicted and jailed. There are criminals involved. I ask that the Attorney General withdraw any imputation of a criminal offence unless he can substantiate it. The SPEAKER : I did not hear any particular words indicating that a criminal offence has been committed. It was probably unparliamentary if it was said. I do not know whether the rules apply to former members. However, the question, as asked, lends itself to some reference to the former minister involved, and to suggesting that he had committed some criminal offence. If that is not the case, the Attorney General should withdraw that. However, the implication of Doug Shave’s involvement is a valid point. Mr J.A. McGINTY : There was no intention on my part to imply that Doug Shave had committed any criminal offence. If what I said was capable of that interpretation, I certainly withdraw it. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr R.F. Johnson : You said that he caused it. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I said that he was asleep at the wheel. It is noteworthy that the electorate of Alfred Cove has passed its judgment on what was once the safest Liberal Party electorate in the state with an approximated 80 per cent conservative vote. The electorate cast its judgment on Doug Shave and rejected him from that seat. As a consequence, we now have the new member for Alfred Cove in Parliament. Whether that was a change for the better is debatable. I should not say that in her absence. The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
The SPEAKER : I call to order the members for Nedlands and Murdoch. Withdrawal of Remark Mr C.J. BARNETT : Somewhat surprisingly, I rise to defend Doug Shave. The point I make is that the Attorney General just accused a former member and minister of causing the finance broking issue. We all know that members of that industry have been convicted and jailed. There are criminals involved. I ask that the Attorney General withdraw any imputation of a criminal offence unless he can substantiate it. The SPEAKER : I did not hear any particular words indicating that a criminal offence has been committed. It was probably unparliamentary if it was said. I do not know whether the rules apply to former members. However, the question, as asked, lends itself to some reference to the former minister involved, and to suggesting that he had committed some criminal offence. If that is not the case, the Attorney General should withdraw that. However, the implication of Doug Shave’s involvement is a valid point. Mr J.A. McGINTY : There was no intention on my part to imply that Doug Shave had committed any criminal offence. If what I said was capable of that interpretation, I certainly withdraw it. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr R.F. Johnson : You said that he caused it. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I said that he was asleep at the wheel. It is noteworthy that the electorate of Alfred Cove has passed its judgment on what was once the safest Liberal Party electorate in the state with an approximated 80 per cent conservative vote. The electorate cast its judgment on Doug Shave and rejected him from that seat. As a consequence, we now have the new member for Alfred Cove in Parliament. Whether that was a change for the better is debatable. I should not say that in her absence. The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
The SPEAKER : I did not hear any particular words indicating that a criminal offence has been committed. It was probably unparliamentary if it was said. I do not know whether the rules apply to former members. However, the question, as asked, lends itself to some reference to the former minister involved, and to suggesting that he had committed some criminal offence. If that is not the case, the Attorney General should withdraw that. However, the implication of Doug Shave’s involvement is a valid point. Mr J.A. McGINTY : There was no intention on my part to imply that Doug Shave had committed any criminal offence. If what I said was capable of that interpretation, I certainly withdraw it. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr R.F. Johnson : You said that he caused it. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I said that he was asleep at the wheel. It is noteworthy that the electorate of Alfred Cove has passed its judgment on what was once the safest Liberal Party electorate in the state with an approximated 80 per cent conservative vote. The electorate cast its judgment on Doug Shave and rejected him from that seat. As a consequence, we now have the new member for Alfred Cove in Parliament. Whether that was a change for the better is debatable. I should not say that in her absence. The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : There was no intention on my part to imply that Doug Shave had committed any criminal offence. If what I said was capable of that interpretation, I certainly withdraw it. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr R.F. Johnson : You said that he caused it. Mr J.A. McGINTY : I said that he was asleep at the wheel. It is noteworthy that the electorate of Alfred Cove has passed its judgment on what was once the safest Liberal Party electorate in the state with an approximated 80 per cent conservative vote. The electorate cast its judgment on Doug Shave and rejected him from that seat. As a consequence, we now have the new member for Alfred Cove in Parliament. Whether that was a change for the better is debatable. I should not say that in her absence. The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : I said that he was asleep at the wheel. It is noteworthy that the electorate of Alfred Cove has passed its judgment on what was once the safest Liberal Party electorate in the state with an approximated 80 per cent conservative vote. The electorate cast its judgment on Doug Shave and rejected him from that seat. As a consequence, we now have the new member for Alfred Cove in Parliament. Whether that was a change for the better is debatable. I should not say that in her absence. The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
The issue raised by the member for Churchlands can be answered very concisely in this way: a claim has been made on the state government for $130 million, being the losses sustained by more than 2 000 investors, who are part of the IMF (Australia) Ltd action, plus interest since it occurred. IMF has proposed to the government that a compromise be reached to settle the matter. That compromise involves a payment of $30 million to IMF on behalf of its clients. The government has made no offer to settle the dispute. The government is obviously always interested in discussing matters and reaching agreement on any legal action that is taken. Three problems currently present themselves to the government in acceding to the request of IMF to settle for $30 million out of $130 million. The first problem is the payment that would be made to IMF: IMF would receive $7.8 million. That is $7.8 million that would not otherwise go to the victims of the finance broking scandal. Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
Mr T.R. Sprigg : So what? That has nothing to do with you. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has everything to do with the government if it is to make a settlement. Immediately the settlement of $30 million is reduced to $22 million to be distributed among the victims. That worries me in the context of a negotiated settlement, as distinct from a knocked-down, drawn out litigation that proceeds through the courts whereby maybe IMF could in those circumstances claim the full benefit that would go to my cousin Hugh McLernon, who runs IMF. Therefore, the first problem is the amount of money that will not find its way to the victims. Under the IMF proposal, 22 per cent of the settlement would not find its way into the pockets of the victims of the finance brokers scandal. If there is to be a settlement, I would want the maximum amount of money to go to the victims. The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
The second issue is that the government has constantly received legal advice that state has excellent prospects of being able to defend the claim. The advice I am receiving is that although there might be a moral liability resting on the government as a result of Doug Shave being asleep at the wheel at the time, there is not a legal liability. Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
Mr C.J. Barnett : That is not what you said a few years ago when you were on this side. Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : It is exactly what was said. The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
The third problem is one of equity. If there is to be a settlement - there has been no offer made for a settlement to date - we would need to treat each victim of the finance brokers scandal equitably. We would not settle only with the clients of Hugh McLernon. We would want to make sure that each victim of those events during the 1990s was treated equitably and, consequently, any money that was set aside for settlement would need to include those people who opted to not sue the state government, for whatever reason. They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
They are the three issues of difficulty that present themselves and stand in the way, in my view, of a settlement. However, having said that, we are continuing to give consideration to those matters. We need to find a resolution of those three issues.
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.