❓ Mr. Barron-Sullivan questions the Minister for Consumer Affairs regarding access to documents related to finance brokers, contrasting the current government's stance with a previous election promise. The Minister defends the government's actions, highlighting a difference in approach compared to the previous administration and confirming the release of specific documents.
AnsweredQoN 111Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MINISTRY OF FAIR TRADING, DOCUMENT ACCESS
(1) Is the minister aware of an ongoing request from the legal firm Solomon Partners for pre-discovery access to documents from the Ministry of Fair Trading concerning various finance brokers? (2) Is it correct that on 5 June the ministry refused to provide documents, claiming legal professional privilege? (3) Did the minister yesterday refuse access to documents on similar grounds, as being in contravention of established legal practice? (4) How does the minister’s refusal to provide the information stack up against Labor’s clear election promise that “All government knowledge about the finance broking industry, including legal opinions and results of audits and investigations will be open to the public”? (5) Does the minister intend breaking yet another election promise - for the second time in a week - and is this a disingenuous cover-up? Mr KOBELKE
(1) Is the minister aware of an ongoing request from the legal firm Solomon Partners for pre-discovery access to documents from the Ministry of Fair Trading concerning various finance brokers? (2) Is it correct that on 5 June the ministry refused to provide documents, claiming legal professional privilege? (3) Did the minister yesterday refuse access to documents on similar grounds, as being in contravention of established legal practice? (4) How does the minister’s refusal to provide the information stack up against Labor’s clear election promise that “All government knowledge about the finance broking industry, including legal opinions and results of audits and investigations will be open to the public”? (5) Does the minister intend breaking yet another election promise - for the second time in a week - and is this a disingenuous cover-up? Mr KOBELKE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(5) I will answer the last part of the question first: no. It seems the member has a copy of Mr Solomon’s letter, which I received only about half an hour ago. This issue relates to the very different stance taken by the Gallop Government on finance brokers matters and the release of various documents. Supposedly, a legal opinion was provided during the life of the last Government which advised the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board that it could not pursue certain inquiries because the people who had invested money were not clients. The previous Government refused to release the documents. I sent the documents to Mr Solomon yesterday. This Government released them but the previous Government would not. Under the previous Government, claimants had to fight their cases through the courts to get discovery of documents of any nature. This Government accepted the determination that certain documents were discoverable and extended it to include a range of other cases and claims so that people could pursue their claims properly through the courts and not be stopped at every turn by heavy-handed government legal action. This Government has taken a totally different approach from that of the previous Government. There are legal documents about which one has to think very carefully before they are released. For example, legal documents relating to specific cases and the interests of other parties cannot be released just because we want them out in the open. There is a need to ensure proper process is followed and the Government is taking notice of that legal advice. This Government, very different from the last, has made consent agreements in the courts to allow disclosure when claims are made. This Government has provided to Mr Solomon the three legal documents that were sought by him and denied by the previous Government.
(2) Is it correct that on 5 June the ministry refused to provide documents, claiming legal professional privilege? (3) Did the minister yesterday refuse access to documents on similar grounds, as being in contravention of established legal practice? (4) How does the minister’s refusal to provide the information stack up against Labor’s clear election promise that “All government knowledge about the finance broking industry, including legal opinions and results of audits and investigations will be open to the public”? (5) Does the minister intend breaking yet another election promise - for the second time in a week - and is this a disingenuous cover-up? Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(5) I will answer the last part of the question first: no. It seems the member has a copy of Mr Solomon’s letter, which I received only about half an hour ago. This issue relates to the very different stance taken by the Gallop Government on finance brokers matters and the release of various documents. Supposedly, a legal opinion was provided during the life of the last Government which advised the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board that it could not pursue certain inquiries because the people who had invested money were not clients. The previous Government refused to release the documents. I sent the documents to Mr Solomon yesterday. This Government released them but the previous Government would not. Under the previous Government, claimants had to fight their cases through the courts to get discovery of documents of any nature. This Government accepted the determination that certain documents were discoverable and extended it to include a range of other cases and claims so that people could pursue their claims properly through the courts and not be stopped at every turn by heavy-handed government legal action. This Government has taken a totally different approach from that of the previous Government. There are legal documents about which one has to think very carefully before they are released. For example, legal documents relating to specific cases and the interests of other parties cannot be released just because we want them out in the open. There is a need to ensure proper process is followed and the Government is taking notice of that legal advice. This Government, very different from the last, has made consent agreements in the courts to allow disclosure when claims are made. This Government has provided to Mr Solomon the three legal documents that were sought by him and denied by the previous Government.
(3) Did the minister yesterday refuse access to documents on similar grounds, as being in contravention of established legal practice? (4) How does the minister’s refusal to provide the information stack up against Labor’s clear election promise that “All government knowledge about the finance broking industry, including legal opinions and results of audits and investigations will be open to the public”? (5) Does the minister intend breaking yet another election promise - for the second time in a week - and is this a disingenuous cover-up? Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(5) I will answer the last part of the question first: no. It seems the member has a copy of Mr Solomon’s letter, which I received only about half an hour ago. This issue relates to the very different stance taken by the Gallop Government on finance brokers matters and the release of various documents. Supposedly, a legal opinion was provided during the life of the last Government which advised the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board that it could not pursue certain inquiries because the people who had invested money were not clients. The previous Government refused to release the documents. I sent the documents to Mr Solomon yesterday. This Government released them but the previous Government would not. Under the previous Government, claimants had to fight their cases through the courts to get discovery of documents of any nature. This Government accepted the determination that certain documents were discoverable and extended it to include a range of other cases and claims so that people could pursue their claims properly through the courts and not be stopped at every turn by heavy-handed government legal action. This Government has taken a totally different approach from that of the previous Government. There are legal documents about which one has to think very carefully before they are released. For example, legal documents relating to specific cases and the interests of other parties cannot be released just because we want them out in the open. There is a need to ensure proper process is followed and the Government is taking notice of that legal advice. This Government, very different from the last, has made consent agreements in the courts to allow disclosure when claims are made. This Government has provided to Mr Solomon the three legal documents that were sought by him and denied by the previous Government.
(4) How does the minister’s refusal to provide the information stack up against Labor’s clear election promise that “All government knowledge about the finance broking industry, including legal opinions and results of audits and investigations will be open to the public”? (5) Does the minister intend breaking yet another election promise - for the second time in a week - and is this a disingenuous cover-up? Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(5) I will answer the last part of the question first: no. It seems the member has a copy of Mr Solomon’s letter, which I received only about half an hour ago. This issue relates to the very different stance taken by the Gallop Government on finance brokers matters and the release of various documents. Supposedly, a legal opinion was provided during the life of the last Government which advised the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board that it could not pursue certain inquiries because the people who had invested money were not clients. The previous Government refused to release the documents. I sent the documents to Mr Solomon yesterday. This Government released them but the previous Government would not. Under the previous Government, claimants had to fight their cases through the courts to get discovery of documents of any nature. This Government accepted the determination that certain documents were discoverable and extended it to include a range of other cases and claims so that people could pursue their claims properly through the courts and not be stopped at every turn by heavy-handed government legal action. This Government has taken a totally different approach from that of the previous Government. There are legal documents about which one has to think very carefully before they are released. For example, legal documents relating to specific cases and the interests of other parties cannot be released just because we want them out in the open. There is a need to ensure proper process is followed and the Government is taking notice of that legal advice. This Government, very different from the last, has made consent agreements in the courts to allow disclosure when claims are made. This Government has provided to Mr Solomon the three legal documents that were sought by him and denied by the previous Government.
(5) Does the minister intend breaking yet another election promise - for the second time in a week - and is this a disingenuous cover-up? Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(5) I will answer the last part of the question first: no. It seems the member has a copy of Mr Solomon’s letter, which I received only about half an hour ago. This issue relates to the very different stance taken by the Gallop Government on finance brokers matters and the release of various documents. Supposedly, a legal opinion was provided during the life of the last Government which advised the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board that it could not pursue certain inquiries because the people who had invested money were not clients. The previous Government refused to release the documents. I sent the documents to Mr Solomon yesterday. This Government released them but the previous Government would not. Under the previous Government, claimants had to fight their cases through the courts to get discovery of documents of any nature. This Government accepted the determination that certain documents were discoverable and extended it to include a range of other cases and claims so that people could pursue their claims properly through the courts and not be stopped at every turn by heavy-handed government legal action. This Government has taken a totally different approach from that of the previous Government. There are legal documents about which one has to think very carefully before they are released. For example, legal documents relating to specific cases and the interests of other parties cannot be released just because we want them out in the open. There is a need to ensure proper process is followed and the Government is taking notice of that legal advice. This Government, very different from the last, has made consent agreements in the courts to allow disclosure when claims are made. This Government has provided to Mr Solomon the three legal documents that were sought by him and denied by the previous Government.
Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(5) I will answer the last part of the question first: no. It seems the member has a copy of Mr Solomon’s letter, which I received only about half an hour ago. This issue relates to the very different stance taken by the Gallop Government on finance brokers matters and the release of various documents. Supposedly, a legal opinion was provided during the life of the last Government which advised the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board that it could not pursue certain inquiries because the people who had invested money were not clients. The previous Government refused to release the documents. I sent the documents to Mr Solomon yesterday. This Government released them but the previous Government would not. Under the previous Government, claimants had to fight their cases through the courts to get discovery of documents of any nature. This Government accepted the determination that certain documents were discoverable and extended it to include a range of other cases and claims so that people could pursue their claims properly through the courts and not be stopped at every turn by heavy-handed government legal action. This Government has taken a totally different approach from that of the previous Government. There are legal documents about which one has to think very carefully before they are released. For example, legal documents relating to specific cases and the interests of other parties cannot be released just because we want them out in the open. There is a need to ensure proper process is followed and the Government is taking notice of that legal advice. This Government, very different from the last, has made consent agreements in the courts to allow disclosure when claims are made. This Government has provided to Mr Solomon the three legal documents that were sought by him and denied by the previous Government.
(1)-(5) I will answer the last part of the question first: no. It seems the member has a copy of Mr Solomon’s letter, which I received only about half an hour ago. This issue relates to the very different stance taken by the Gallop Government on finance brokers matters and the release of various documents. Supposedly, a legal opinion was provided during the life of the last Government which advised the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board that it could not pursue certain inquiries because the people who had invested money were not clients. The previous Government refused to release the documents. I sent the documents to Mr Solomon yesterday. This Government released them but the previous Government would not. Under the previous Government, claimants had to fight their cases through the courts to get discovery of documents of any nature. This Government accepted the determination that certain documents were discoverable and extended it to include a range of other cases and claims so that people could pursue their claims properly through the courts and not be stopped at every turn by heavy-handed government legal action. This Government has taken a totally different approach from that of the previous Government. There are legal documents about which one has to think very carefully before they are released. For example, legal documents relating to specific cases and the interests of other parties cannot be released just because we want them out in the open. There is a need to ensure proper process is followed and the Government is taking notice of that legal advice. This Government, very different from the last, has made consent agreements in the courts to allow disclosure when claims are made. This Government has provided to Mr Solomon the three legal documents that were sought by him and denied by the previous Government.
(2) Is it correct that on 5 June the ministry refused to provide documents, claiming legal professional privilege? (3) Did the minister yesterday refuse access to documents on similar grounds, as being in contravention of established legal practice? (4) How does the minister’s refusal to provide the information stack up against Labor’s clear election promise that “All government knowledge about the finance broking industry, including legal opinions and results of audits and investigations will be open to the public”? (5) Does the minister intend breaking yet another election promise - for the second time in a week - and is this a disingenuous cover-up? Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(5) I will answer the last part of the question first: no. It seems the member has a copy of Mr Solomon’s letter, which I received only about half an hour ago. This issue relates to the very different stance taken by the Gallop Government on finance brokers matters and the release of various documents. Supposedly, a legal opinion was provided during the life of the last Government which advised the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board that it could not pursue certain inquiries because the people who had invested money were not clients. The previous Government refused to release the documents. I sent the documents to Mr Solomon yesterday. This Government released them but the previous Government would not. Under the previous Government, claimants had to fight their cases through the courts to get discovery of documents of any nature. This Government accepted the determination that certain documents were discoverable and extended it to include a range of other cases and claims so that people could pursue their claims properly through the courts and not be stopped at every turn by heavy-handed government legal action. This Government has taken a totally different approach from that of the previous Government. There are legal documents about which one has to think very carefully before they are released. For example, legal documents relating to specific cases and the interests of other parties cannot be released just because we want them out in the open. There is a need to ensure proper process is followed and the Government is taking notice of that legal advice. This Government, very different from the last, has made consent agreements in the courts to allow disclosure when claims are made. This Government has provided to Mr Solomon the three legal documents that were sought by him and denied by the previous Government.
(3) Did the minister yesterday refuse access to documents on similar grounds, as being in contravention of established legal practice? (4) How does the minister’s refusal to provide the information stack up against Labor’s clear election promise that “All government knowledge about the finance broking industry, including legal opinions and results of audits and investigations will be open to the public”? (5) Does the minister intend breaking yet another election promise - for the second time in a week - and is this a disingenuous cover-up? Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(5) I will answer the last part of the question first: no. It seems the member has a copy of Mr Solomon’s letter, which I received only about half an hour ago. This issue relates to the very different stance taken by the Gallop Government on finance brokers matters and the release of various documents. Supposedly, a legal opinion was provided during the life of the last Government which advised the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board that it could not pursue certain inquiries because the people who had invested money were not clients. The previous Government refused to release the documents. I sent the documents to Mr Solomon yesterday. This Government released them but the previous Government would not. Under the previous Government, claimants had to fight their cases through the courts to get discovery of documents of any nature. This Government accepted the determination that certain documents were discoverable and extended it to include a range of other cases and claims so that people could pursue their claims properly through the courts and not be stopped at every turn by heavy-handed government legal action. This Government has taken a totally different approach from that of the previous Government. There are legal documents about which one has to think very carefully before they are released. For example, legal documents relating to specific cases and the interests of other parties cannot be released just because we want them out in the open. There is a need to ensure proper process is followed and the Government is taking notice of that legal advice. This Government, very different from the last, has made consent agreements in the courts to allow disclosure when claims are made. This Government has provided to Mr Solomon the three legal documents that were sought by him and denied by the previous Government.
(4) How does the minister’s refusal to provide the information stack up against Labor’s clear election promise that “All government knowledge about the finance broking industry, including legal opinions and results of audits and investigations will be open to the public”? (5) Does the minister intend breaking yet another election promise - for the second time in a week - and is this a disingenuous cover-up? Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(5) I will answer the last part of the question first: no. It seems the member has a copy of Mr Solomon’s letter, which I received only about half an hour ago. This issue relates to the very different stance taken by the Gallop Government on finance brokers matters and the release of various documents. Supposedly, a legal opinion was provided during the life of the last Government which advised the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board that it could not pursue certain inquiries because the people who had invested money were not clients. The previous Government refused to release the documents. I sent the documents to Mr Solomon yesterday. This Government released them but the previous Government would not. Under the previous Government, claimants had to fight their cases through the courts to get discovery of documents of any nature. This Government accepted the determination that certain documents were discoverable and extended it to include a range of other cases and claims so that people could pursue their claims properly through the courts and not be stopped at every turn by heavy-handed government legal action. This Government has taken a totally different approach from that of the previous Government. There are legal documents about which one has to think very carefully before they are released. For example, legal documents relating to specific cases and the interests of other parties cannot be released just because we want them out in the open. There is a need to ensure proper process is followed and the Government is taking notice of that legal advice. This Government, very different from the last, has made consent agreements in the courts to allow disclosure when claims are made. This Government has provided to Mr Solomon the three legal documents that were sought by him and denied by the previous Government.
(5) Does the minister intend breaking yet another election promise - for the second time in a week - and is this a disingenuous cover-up? Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(5) I will answer the last part of the question first: no. It seems the member has a copy of Mr Solomon’s letter, which I received only about half an hour ago. This issue relates to the very different stance taken by the Gallop Government on finance brokers matters and the release of various documents. Supposedly, a legal opinion was provided during the life of the last Government which advised the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board that it could not pursue certain inquiries because the people who had invested money were not clients. The previous Government refused to release the documents. I sent the documents to Mr Solomon yesterday. This Government released them but the previous Government would not. Under the previous Government, claimants had to fight their cases through the courts to get discovery of documents of any nature. This Government accepted the determination that certain documents were discoverable and extended it to include a range of other cases and claims so that people could pursue their claims properly through the courts and not be stopped at every turn by heavy-handed government legal action. This Government has taken a totally different approach from that of the previous Government. There are legal documents about which one has to think very carefully before they are released. For example, legal documents relating to specific cases and the interests of other parties cannot be released just because we want them out in the open. There is a need to ensure proper process is followed and the Government is taking notice of that legal advice. This Government, very different from the last, has made consent agreements in the courts to allow disclosure when claims are made. This Government has provided to Mr Solomon the three legal documents that were sought by him and denied by the previous Government.
Mr KOBELKE replied: (1)-(5) I will answer the last part of the question first: no. It seems the member has a copy of Mr Solomon’s letter, which I received only about half an hour ago. This issue relates to the very different stance taken by the Gallop Government on finance brokers matters and the release of various documents. Supposedly, a legal opinion was provided during the life of the last Government which advised the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board that it could not pursue certain inquiries because the people who had invested money were not clients. The previous Government refused to release the documents. I sent the documents to Mr Solomon yesterday. This Government released them but the previous Government would not. Under the previous Government, claimants had to fight their cases through the courts to get discovery of documents of any nature. This Government accepted the determination that certain documents were discoverable and extended it to include a range of other cases and claims so that people could pursue their claims properly through the courts and not be stopped at every turn by heavy-handed government legal action. This Government has taken a totally different approach from that of the previous Government. There are legal documents about which one has to think very carefully before they are released. For example, legal documents relating to specific cases and the interests of other parties cannot be released just because we want them out in the open. There is a need to ensure proper process is followed and the Government is taking notice of that legal advice. This Government, very different from the last, has made consent agreements in the courts to allow disclosure when claims are made. This Government has provided to Mr Solomon the three legal documents that were sought by him and denied by the previous Government.
(1)-(5) I will answer the last part of the question first: no. It seems the member has a copy of Mr Solomon’s letter, which I received only about half an hour ago. This issue relates to the very different stance taken by the Gallop Government on finance brokers matters and the release of various documents. Supposedly, a legal opinion was provided during the life of the last Government which advised the Finance Brokers Supervisory Board that it could not pursue certain inquiries because the people who had invested money were not clients. The previous Government refused to release the documents. I sent the documents to Mr Solomon yesterday. This Government released them but the previous Government would not. Under the previous Government, claimants had to fight their cases through the courts to get discovery of documents of any nature. This Government accepted the determination that certain documents were discoverable and extended it to include a range of other cases and claims so that people could pursue their claims properly through the courts and not be stopped at every turn by heavy-handed government legal action. This Government has taken a totally different approach from that of the previous Government. There are legal documents about which one has to think very carefully before they are released. For example, legal documents relating to specific cases and the interests of other parties cannot be released just because we want them out in the open. There is a need to ensure proper process is followed and the Government is taking notice of that legal advice. This Government, very different from the last, has made consent agreements in the courts to allow disclosure when claims are made. This Government has provided to Mr Solomon the three legal documents that were sought by him and denied by the previous Government.
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.