❓ Dr. Gallop questions Minister Shave on his support for submissions to the Gunning inquiry regarding the Finance Brokers Control Act. Shave deflects, leading to heated exchanges and tabling of documents.
AnsweredQoN 40Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Does the minister support the closing submissions of the Ministry of Fair Trading and the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board to the Gunning inquiry? (2) If he does, is he not agreeing with their submissions that it was the constraints of the Finance Brokers Control Act, limited resources and an outdated system of supervision that was the cause of the problems, all of which were his responsibility as minister? (3) If he does not, does this not represent a serious lack of confidence in the ministry and the board and illustrate the minister's failures in this area? Mr SHAVE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the submission of the department. Dr Gallop: You are the minister! Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. I will take the appropriate action when the Gunning inquiry delivers its report. The Labor Party is desperate to try to convict certain people by using untruths and innuendo and particular sections of the media. There is a section of the media, which having found itself in a rut and that it has made a mistake, sometimes sticks with the existing game. The final submission I made to the Gunning inquiry is on the record and I now table it. [See paper No 114.] During debate in this place, the member for Fremantle implied that the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry acted in an inappropriate manner by sending documents to the Queen's Counsel representing me. That is a very serious accusation. Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
(2) If he does, is he not agreeing with their submissions that it was the constraints of the Finance Brokers Control Act, limited resources and an outdated system of supervision that was the cause of the problems, all of which were his responsibility as minister? (3) If he does not, does this not represent a serious lack of confidence in the ministry and the board and illustrate the minister's failures in this area? Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(2) It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the submission of the department. Dr Gallop: You are the minister! Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. I will take the appropriate action when the Gunning inquiry delivers its report. The Labor Party is desperate to try to convict certain people by using untruths and innuendo and particular sections of the media. There is a section of the media, which having found itself in a rut and that it has made a mistake, sometimes sticks with the existing game. The final submission I made to the Gunning inquiry is on the record and I now table it. [See paper No 114.] During debate in this place, the member for Fremantle implied that the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry acted in an inappropriate manner by sending documents to the Queen's Counsel representing me. That is a very serious accusation. Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
(3) If he does not, does this not represent a serious lack of confidence in the ministry and the board and illustrate the minister's failures in this area? Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(2) It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the submission of the department. Dr Gallop: You are the minister! Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. I will take the appropriate action when the Gunning inquiry delivers its report. The Labor Party is desperate to try to convict certain people by using untruths and innuendo and particular sections of the media. There is a section of the media, which having found itself in a rut and that it has made a mistake, sometimes sticks with the existing game. The final submission I made to the Gunning inquiry is on the record and I now table it. [See paper No 114.] During debate in this place, the member for Fremantle implied that the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry acted in an inappropriate manner by sending documents to the Queen's Counsel representing me. That is a very serious accusation. Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(2) It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the submission of the department. Dr Gallop: You are the minister! Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. I will take the appropriate action when the Gunning inquiry delivers its report. The Labor Party is desperate to try to convict certain people by using untruths and innuendo and particular sections of the media. There is a section of the media, which having found itself in a rut and that it has made a mistake, sometimes sticks with the existing game. The final submission I made to the Gunning inquiry is on the record and I now table it. [See paper No 114.] During debate in this place, the member for Fremantle implied that the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry acted in an inappropriate manner by sending documents to the Queen's Counsel representing me. That is a very serious accusation. Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
(1)-(2) It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the submission of the department. Dr Gallop: You are the minister! Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. I will take the appropriate action when the Gunning inquiry delivers its report. The Labor Party is desperate to try to convict certain people by using untruths and innuendo and particular sections of the media. There is a section of the media, which having found itself in a rut and that it has made a mistake, sometimes sticks with the existing game. The final submission I made to the Gunning inquiry is on the record and I now table it. [See paper No 114.] During debate in this place, the member for Fremantle implied that the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry acted in an inappropriate manner by sending documents to the Queen's Counsel representing me. That is a very serious accusation. Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Dr Gallop: You are the minister! Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. I will take the appropriate action when the Gunning inquiry delivers its report. The Labor Party is desperate to try to convict certain people by using untruths and innuendo and particular sections of the media. There is a section of the media, which having found itself in a rut and that it has made a mistake, sometimes sticks with the existing game. The final submission I made to the Gunning inquiry is on the record and I now table it. [See paper No 114.] During debate in this place, the member for Fremantle implied that the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry acted in an inappropriate manner by sending documents to the Queen's Counsel representing me. That is a very serious accusation. Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. I will take the appropriate action when the Gunning inquiry delivers its report. The Labor Party is desperate to try to convict certain people by using untruths and innuendo and particular sections of the media. There is a section of the media, which having found itself in a rut and that it has made a mistake, sometimes sticks with the existing game. The final submission I made to the Gunning inquiry is on the record and I now table it. [See paper No 114.] During debate in this place, the member for Fremantle implied that the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry acted in an inappropriate manner by sending documents to the Queen's Counsel representing me. That is a very serious accusation. Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
[See paper No 114.] During debate in this place, the member for Fremantle implied that the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry acted in an inappropriate manner by sending documents to the Queen's Counsel representing me. That is a very serious accusation. Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
During debate in this place, the member for Fremantle implied that the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry acted in an inappropriate manner by sending documents to the Queen's Counsel representing me. That is a very serious accusation. Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
[See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
[See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
(2) If he does, is he not agreeing with their submissions that it was the constraints of the Finance Brokers Control Act, limited resources and an outdated system of supervision that was the cause of the problems, all of which were his responsibility as minister? (3) If he does not, does this not represent a serious lack of confidence in the ministry and the board and illustrate the minister's failures in this area? Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(2) It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the submission of the department. Dr Gallop: You are the minister! Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. I will take the appropriate action when the Gunning inquiry delivers its report. The Labor Party is desperate to try to convict certain people by using untruths and innuendo and particular sections of the media. There is a section of the media, which having found itself in a rut and that it has made a mistake, sometimes sticks with the existing game. The final submission I made to the Gunning inquiry is on the record and I now table it. [See paper No 114.] During debate in this place, the member for Fremantle implied that the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry acted in an inappropriate manner by sending documents to the Queen's Counsel representing me. That is a very serious accusation. Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
(3) If he does not, does this not represent a serious lack of confidence in the ministry and the board and illustrate the minister's failures in this area? Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(2) It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the submission of the department. Dr Gallop: You are the minister! Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. I will take the appropriate action when the Gunning inquiry delivers its report. The Labor Party is desperate to try to convict certain people by using untruths and innuendo and particular sections of the media. There is a section of the media, which having found itself in a rut and that it has made a mistake, sometimes sticks with the existing game. The final submission I made to the Gunning inquiry is on the record and I now table it. [See paper No 114.] During debate in this place, the member for Fremantle implied that the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry acted in an inappropriate manner by sending documents to the Queen's Counsel representing me. That is a very serious accusation. Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(2) It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the submission of the department. Dr Gallop: You are the minister! Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. I will take the appropriate action when the Gunning inquiry delivers its report. The Labor Party is desperate to try to convict certain people by using untruths and innuendo and particular sections of the media. There is a section of the media, which having found itself in a rut and that it has made a mistake, sometimes sticks with the existing game. The final submission I made to the Gunning inquiry is on the record and I now table it. [See paper No 114.] During debate in this place, the member for Fremantle implied that the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry acted in an inappropriate manner by sending documents to the Queen's Counsel representing me. That is a very serious accusation. Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
(1)-(2) It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the submission of the department. Dr Gallop: You are the minister! Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. I will take the appropriate action when the Gunning inquiry delivers its report. The Labor Party is desperate to try to convict certain people by using untruths and innuendo and particular sections of the media. There is a section of the media, which having found itself in a rut and that it has made a mistake, sometimes sticks with the existing game. The final submission I made to the Gunning inquiry is on the record and I now table it. [See paper No 114.] During debate in this place, the member for Fremantle implied that the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry acted in an inappropriate manner by sending documents to the Queen's Counsel representing me. That is a very serious accusation. Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Dr Gallop: You are the minister! Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. I will take the appropriate action when the Gunning inquiry delivers its report. The Labor Party is desperate to try to convict certain people by using untruths and innuendo and particular sections of the media. There is a section of the media, which having found itself in a rut and that it has made a mistake, sometimes sticks with the existing game. The final submission I made to the Gunning inquiry is on the record and I now table it. [See paper No 114.] During debate in this place, the member for Fremantle implied that the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry acted in an inappropriate manner by sending documents to the Queen's Counsel representing me. That is a very serious accusation. Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE: Let me finish. I will take the appropriate action when the Gunning inquiry delivers its report. The Labor Party is desperate to try to convict certain people by using untruths and innuendo and particular sections of the media. There is a section of the media, which having found itself in a rut and that it has made a mistake, sometimes sticks with the existing game. The final submission I made to the Gunning inquiry is on the record and I now table it. [See paper No 114.] During debate in this place, the member for Fremantle implied that the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry acted in an inappropriate manner by sending documents to the Queen's Counsel representing me. That is a very serious accusation. Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
[See paper No 114.] During debate in this place, the member for Fremantle implied that the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry acted in an inappropriate manner by sending documents to the Queen's Counsel representing me. That is a very serious accusation. Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
During debate in this place, the member for Fremantle implied that the counsel assisting the Gunning inquiry acted in an inappropriate manner by sending documents to the Queen's Counsel representing me. That is a very serious accusation. Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr McGinty: No, it isn't. It was just a question. Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE: The member would not ask the question unless he had a reason. Why did he ask the question? Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr McGinty: Are you a mind reader now? Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE: Why does the member not tell the House why he asked the question? Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr McGinty: To ascertain the truth. Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE: No, he asked it because he is a grubby person who deals in the gutter all the time. He will not answer the question. He peddles innuendo in this place and to certain sectors of the media that are gullible enough to believe him. What I should have done, and what I did after question time last week, was contact the solicitor representing me in the Gunning inquiry just in case - as the member asserted - the counsel assisting the inquiry had acted in an improper manner. My solicitor sent me a letter, which I now table. [See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
[See paper No 115.] Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Some sectors of the media commented that I contradicted myself in this place last week. Those remarks could, if a wide bow is drawn, suggest that I was not telling the truth to this Parliament. I have a full transcript of the questioning that I was subjected to by the Gunning inquiry last week. Before some sectors of the media get over-excited when reading the relevant sections, I clarify the references to Mr T. The Gunning inquiry had tried to suppress the name of my former father-in-law because of natural justice. Unfortunately, his name was released to the Press. The transcripts show me saying that Mr T came to the office. If people, particularly members of the Press, read the transcript closely, they will find that Mr Chaney, during cross-examination, told the chairman of the Gunning inquiry that the minister had used the name Don, and asked him to suppress it. Therefore, when the people in the press gallery read the transcript and make their analyses, they should understand that the pseudonym Mr T was used because the counsel assisting asked the inquiry to designate the name Mr G to one person and Mr T to my former father-in-law. I table that transcript. [See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
[See paper No 116A-B.] Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Another thing that happened last week was very interesting. For some time I have been following the untruths the member for Fremantle has been peddling to the Press. Point of Order Mr KOBELKE: The statement just made by the minister is clearly a reflection on the member for Fremantle. The minister seems to be trying to mount a defence by making an outrageous attack on another member. That is certainly outside the standing orders. The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
The SPEAKER: Standing Order No 92 deals with that. In this Parliament, we consider the word "lie" or "liar" to be unparliamentary because that implies a deliberate untruth. However, members are entitled to state that what someone says is untruthful, whether it is right or wrong. That can be debated subsequently. In this debate, while the minister was definitely talking about the member for Fremantle, he was not acting in an unparliamentary manner. I am sure the member for Fremantle can handle himself. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE: I was questioned by the member for Fremantle last week. He told the Press that I look after only my former relatives. He was very shrewd in dealing with the media. He referred to my "relative" or my "father-in-law", knowing full well that the person concerned has not been my father-in-law for five years. Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Nevertheless, he was smart in the way he did that, and for public consumption one could be gullible and believe what he said. The meeting about Gaunt with the department and Blackburne and Dixon was set up on 7 August before I had ever met my former father-in-law in my office. I will conclude by repeating what the member for Fremantle said last week on radio. Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr McGinty: You weren’t even game to come to the meeting. Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE: No, I had the guts to go before the Gunning inquiry and be questioned under oath, whereas the member for Fremantle hid like a rat under his rock. This is what the member said - But I find it very strange John, that Mr Fidge wrote to the Gunning inquiry and he said this about that meeting, and what he said was, and he set it out in inverted commas - Will the member for Fremantle table that letter? He obviously read from it. Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr McGinty: I would be pleased to. Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE: Please table it. The member for Fremantle will answer on a number of counts in another court, but we will get to that. I will conclude what he said to the Gunning inquiry - - he said to Doug Shave, even your father-in-law Don has money invested with the finance broker and he’s ill, and he’s having problems getting his money back . And he said Mr Shave responded by saying - This is all evidence, according to the member for Fremantle, that these people have not printed. - if people go in for this sort of thing, they deserve to get their fingers burnt . Mr McGinty: That’s what you said. Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE: It is not what I said. That is not correct, but we will determine that in another place. Whatever these people do and say, the fact is that when I got out of that meeting in April I did not even ring the person to ask him how he was getting along. Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr McGinty: No-one said you did. Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Several members interjected. Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Mr SHAVE: If in fact I did say that at that meeting, does it not interestingly sit with the fact that these people have tried to peddle the story that I went out of my way to help my former father-in-law? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
The SPEAKER: Order! It is appropriate to remind members that during question time we try to give everyone an opportunity to ask a question. There is a sort of a practice in place that allows ministers three to four minutes to give an answer and Premiers get a bit longer because they often deal with the difficult issues of the day. The answer to that last question took about 11 minutes, occupying a lot of question time, and it was not helped by the fact that there were a few extra interjections. I allowed the minister to continue because it is a very important issue. However, I also have the view that the answer could have been a lot more concise.
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.