❓ Question regarding verification of legal costs paid to IMF (Australia) Pty Ltd lawyers as part of a compensation package for finance broking victims. The Minister's response defends the thoroughness of the negotiations and the credibility of IMF's claims.
AnsweredQoN 178Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
FINANCE BROKING - INSOLVENCY MANAGEMENT FUND
(1) Was the Premier and/or the minister aware at the time of the government’s approval of the compensation package for finance broking victims that the amount agreed to be paid to the lawyers was not verified by anyone and was determined on the say-so of the IMF (Australia) Pty Ltd lawyers? A simple yes or no will suffice. (2) If the Premier and/or the minister was aware, will he and/or she explain why the government would agree to pay against this or any other claim without some verification of the claim? (3) If the Premier and/or the minister was not aware of this situation at the time of the government’s decision, will he and/or she now take action and have the IMF lawyers present a detailed cost claim that can be verified before the new payments are finalised; and, if not, why not? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! I will not reflect on the decision made by the house yesterday, but perhaps members should give greater consideration to having an hour-long question time in future if members are going to be unruly. Hon JON FORD
(1) Was the Premier and/or the minister aware at the time of the government’s approval of the compensation package for finance broking victims that the amount agreed to be paid to the lawyers was not verified by anyone and was determined on the say-so of the IMF (Australia) Pty Ltd lawyers? A simple yes or no will suffice. (2) If the Premier and/or the minister was aware, will he and/or she explain why the government would agree to pay against this or any other claim without some verification of the claim? (3) If the Premier and/or the minister was not aware of this situation at the time of the government’s decision, will he and/or she now take action and have the IMF lawyers present a detailed cost claim that can be verified before the new payments are finalised; and, if not, why not? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! I will not reflect on the decision made by the house yesterday, but perhaps members should give greater consideration to having an hour-long question time in future if members are going to be unruly. Hon JON FORD
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for some notice of the question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided a quite detailed answer. I seek leave to table the response and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2616.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
(2) If the Premier and/or the minister was aware, will he and/or she explain why the government would agree to pay against this or any other claim without some verification of the claim? (3) If the Premier and/or the minister was not aware of this situation at the time of the government’s decision, will he and/or she now take action and have the IMF lawyers present a detailed cost claim that can be verified before the new payments are finalised; and, if not, why not? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! I will not reflect on the decision made by the house yesterday, but perhaps members should give greater consideration to having an hour-long question time in future if members are going to be unruly. Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for some notice of the question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided a quite detailed answer. I seek leave to table the response and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2616.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
(3) If the Premier and/or the minister was not aware of this situation at the time of the government’s decision, will he and/or she now take action and have the IMF lawyers present a detailed cost claim that can be verified before the new payments are finalised; and, if not, why not? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! I will not reflect on the decision made by the house yesterday, but perhaps members should give greater consideration to having an hour-long question time in future if members are going to be unruly. Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for some notice of the question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided a quite detailed answer. I seek leave to table the response and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2616.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! I will not reflect on the decision made by the house yesterday, but perhaps members should give greater consideration to having an hour-long question time in future if members are going to be unruly. Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for some notice of the question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided a quite detailed answer. I seek leave to table the response and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2616.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
The PRESIDENT : Order, members! I will not reflect on the decision made by the house yesterday, but perhaps members should give greater consideration to having an hour-long question time in future if members are going to be unruly. Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for some notice of the question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided a quite detailed answer. I seek leave to table the response and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2616.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for some notice of the question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided a quite detailed answer. I seek leave to table the response and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2616.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for some notice of the question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided a quite detailed answer. I seek leave to table the response and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2616.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
Leave granted. [See paper 2616.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
[See paper 2616.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package.
3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
(2) If the Premier and/or the minister was aware, will he and/or she explain why the government would agree to pay against this or any other claim without some verification of the claim? (3) If the Premier and/or the minister was not aware of this situation at the time of the government’s decision, will he and/or she now take action and have the IMF lawyers present a detailed cost claim that can be verified before the new payments are finalised; and, if not, why not? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! I will not reflect on the decision made by the house yesterday, but perhaps members should give greater consideration to having an hour-long question time in future if members are going to be unruly. Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for some notice of the question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided a quite detailed answer. I seek leave to table the response and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2616.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
(3) If the Premier and/or the minister was not aware of this situation at the time of the government’s decision, will he and/or she now take action and have the IMF lawyers present a detailed cost claim that can be verified before the new payments are finalised; and, if not, why not? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! I will not reflect on the decision made by the house yesterday, but perhaps members should give greater consideration to having an hour-long question time in future if members are going to be unruly. Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for some notice of the question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided a quite detailed answer. I seek leave to table the response and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2616.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! I will not reflect on the decision made by the house yesterday, but perhaps members should give greater consideration to having an hour-long question time in future if members are going to be unruly. Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for some notice of the question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided a quite detailed answer. I seek leave to table the response and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2616.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
The PRESIDENT : Order, members! I will not reflect on the decision made by the house yesterday, but perhaps members should give greater consideration to having an hour-long question time in future if members are going to be unruly. Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for some notice of the question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided a quite detailed answer. I seek leave to table the response and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2616.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for some notice of the question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided a quite detailed answer. I seek leave to table the response and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2616.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for some notice of the question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided a quite detailed answer. I seek leave to table the response and have it incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2616.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
Leave granted. [See paper 2616.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
[See paper 2616.] The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
The following material was incorporated - I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
I thank the member for his question. The premise upon which the question is framed is incorrect and the member clearly has not comprehended the thoroughness in which these arrangements were negotiated. Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
Integral to the fund’s creation was the resolution of the Van Stokkum claims. In that regard lengthy and robust commercial negotiation were held with IMF. 1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
1. Cabinet approved the establishment of a $30 million compensation scheme for finance broker victims, the terms of which involved the discontinuance of the Van Stokkum v State of Western Australia action; the payment to IMF of $3.4 million (inclusive of its disbursements, which at that time IMF advised were in excess of $1.4 million) in lieu of the approximately $7 million (inclusive of its disbursements) which in the ordinary course IMF would have recovered from its clients; and IMF’s agreeing, for no extra fee, to administer the compensation fund. The assertions, of themselves credible, by IMF as to the amount of its disbursements, made orally and in writing by IMF and through its solicitors Solomon Bros, were sufficient for the formulation, following lengthy discussions with IMF, of a final non-negotiable disbursement-inclusive commercial settlement offer to IMF. That offer was accepted with great reluctance by IMF after significant further discussions. The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package. 2. See 1 above 3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
The $3.4 million payment (included to extinguish all IMF’s claims against its clients for fees) is not to be seen in isolation but as a component of a total compensation and litigation compromise package.
3. Not applicable, though in any event IMF ultimately accepted the Government’s offer.
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.