❓ Mr. McGinty questions Mr. Shave, the Minister for Fair Trading, about a meeting with Mr. Kevin Fidge regarding Mr. Shave's former father-in-law's financial issues. The exchange reveals conflicting accounts and raises concerns about transparency.
AnsweredQoN 30Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the meeting that the minister had with Mr Kevin Fidge last year. (1) Could the minister tell the House who was present at that meeting and where it took place? (2) Could the minister inform the House how his former father-in-law, Mr Turton, was referred to at that meeting and, in particular, whether he was referred to as a member of his family or as his father-in-law by Mr Fidge? (3) Could the minister tell the House whether he was aware, prior to that meeting, that his former father-in-law, Don Turton, had money at risk through a finance broker? Mr SHAVE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) To the best of my knowledge, the first that I knew of this problem was at that meeting of 29 April, to which I referred. Fidge made a comment to the effect, as I recollect, that "One of your relatives has a problem or something with these finance brokers and can’t get his money." That is the extent of the recollection I have of the matter. Dr Gallop: Very interesting. Mr SHAVE: During the Gunning inquiry I said to the counsel who asked the question about Mr Fidge that Mr Fidge may well have mentioned "Don" or "former father-in-law". I did not know the precise words, and that is all there was to it. Mr McGinty: Who was present at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
(1) Could the minister tell the House who was present at that meeting and where it took place? (2) Could the minister inform the House how his former father-in-law, Mr Turton, was referred to at that meeting and, in particular, whether he was referred to as a member of his family or as his father-in-law by Mr Fidge? (3) Could the minister tell the House whether he was aware, prior to that meeting, that his former father-in-law, Don Turton, had money at risk through a finance broker? Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) To the best of my knowledge, the first that I knew of this problem was at that meeting of 29 April, to which I referred. Fidge made a comment to the effect, as I recollect, that "One of your relatives has a problem or something with these finance brokers and can’t get his money." That is the extent of the recollection I have of the matter. Dr Gallop: Very interesting. Mr SHAVE: During the Gunning inquiry I said to the counsel who asked the question about Mr Fidge that Mr Fidge may well have mentioned "Don" or "former father-in-law". I did not know the precise words, and that is all there was to it. Mr McGinty: Who was present at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
(2) Could the minister inform the House how his former father-in-law, Mr Turton, was referred to at that meeting and, in particular, whether he was referred to as a member of his family or as his father-in-law by Mr Fidge? (3) Could the minister tell the House whether he was aware, prior to that meeting, that his former father-in-law, Don Turton, had money at risk through a finance broker? Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) To the best of my knowledge, the first that I knew of this problem was at that meeting of 29 April, to which I referred. Fidge made a comment to the effect, as I recollect, that "One of your relatives has a problem or something with these finance brokers and can’t get his money." That is the extent of the recollection I have of the matter. Dr Gallop: Very interesting. Mr SHAVE: During the Gunning inquiry I said to the counsel who asked the question about Mr Fidge that Mr Fidge may well have mentioned "Don" or "former father-in-law". I did not know the precise words, and that is all there was to it. Mr McGinty: Who was present at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
(3) Could the minister tell the House whether he was aware, prior to that meeting, that his former father-in-law, Don Turton, had money at risk through a finance broker? Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) To the best of my knowledge, the first that I knew of this problem was at that meeting of 29 April, to which I referred. Fidge made a comment to the effect, as I recollect, that "One of your relatives has a problem or something with these finance brokers and can’t get his money." That is the extent of the recollection I have of the matter. Dr Gallop: Very interesting. Mr SHAVE: During the Gunning inquiry I said to the counsel who asked the question about Mr Fidge that Mr Fidge may well have mentioned "Don" or "former father-in-law". I did not know the precise words, and that is all there was to it. Mr McGinty: Who was present at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) To the best of my knowledge, the first that I knew of this problem was at that meeting of 29 April, to which I referred. Fidge made a comment to the effect, as I recollect, that "One of your relatives has a problem or something with these finance brokers and can’t get his money." That is the extent of the recollection I have of the matter. Dr Gallop: Very interesting. Mr SHAVE: During the Gunning inquiry I said to the counsel who asked the question about Mr Fidge that Mr Fidge may well have mentioned "Don" or "former father-in-law". I did not know the precise words, and that is all there was to it. Mr McGinty: Who was present at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
(1)-(3) To the best of my knowledge, the first that I knew of this problem was at that meeting of 29 April, to which I referred. Fidge made a comment to the effect, as I recollect, that "One of your relatives has a problem or something with these finance brokers and can’t get his money." That is the extent of the recollection I have of the matter. Dr Gallop: Very interesting. Mr SHAVE: During the Gunning inquiry I said to the counsel who asked the question about Mr Fidge that Mr Fidge may well have mentioned "Don" or "former father-in-law". I did not know the precise words, and that is all there was to it. Mr McGinty: Who was present at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Dr Gallop: Very interesting. Mr SHAVE: During the Gunning inquiry I said to the counsel who asked the question about Mr Fidge that Mr Fidge may well have mentioned "Don" or "former father-in-law". I did not know the precise words, and that is all there was to it. Mr McGinty: Who was present at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Mr SHAVE: During the Gunning inquiry I said to the counsel who asked the question about Mr Fidge that Mr Fidge may well have mentioned "Don" or "former father-in-law". I did not know the precise words, and that is all there was to it. Mr McGinty: Who was present at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Mr McGinty: Who was present at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
(1) Could the minister tell the House who was present at that meeting and where it took place? (2) Could the minister inform the House how his former father-in-law, Mr Turton, was referred to at that meeting and, in particular, whether he was referred to as a member of his family or as his father-in-law by Mr Fidge? (3) Could the minister tell the House whether he was aware, prior to that meeting, that his former father-in-law, Don Turton, had money at risk through a finance broker? Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) To the best of my knowledge, the first that I knew of this problem was at that meeting of 29 April, to which I referred. Fidge made a comment to the effect, as I recollect, that "One of your relatives has a problem or something with these finance brokers and can’t get his money." That is the extent of the recollection I have of the matter. Dr Gallop: Very interesting. Mr SHAVE: During the Gunning inquiry I said to the counsel who asked the question about Mr Fidge that Mr Fidge may well have mentioned "Don" or "former father-in-law". I did not know the precise words, and that is all there was to it. Mr McGinty: Who was present at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
(2) Could the minister inform the House how his former father-in-law, Mr Turton, was referred to at that meeting and, in particular, whether he was referred to as a member of his family or as his father-in-law by Mr Fidge? (3) Could the minister tell the House whether he was aware, prior to that meeting, that his former father-in-law, Don Turton, had money at risk through a finance broker? Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) To the best of my knowledge, the first that I knew of this problem was at that meeting of 29 April, to which I referred. Fidge made a comment to the effect, as I recollect, that "One of your relatives has a problem or something with these finance brokers and can’t get his money." That is the extent of the recollection I have of the matter. Dr Gallop: Very interesting. Mr SHAVE: During the Gunning inquiry I said to the counsel who asked the question about Mr Fidge that Mr Fidge may well have mentioned "Don" or "former father-in-law". I did not know the precise words, and that is all there was to it. Mr McGinty: Who was present at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
(3) Could the minister tell the House whether he was aware, prior to that meeting, that his former father-in-law, Don Turton, had money at risk through a finance broker? Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) To the best of my knowledge, the first that I knew of this problem was at that meeting of 29 April, to which I referred. Fidge made a comment to the effect, as I recollect, that "One of your relatives has a problem or something with these finance brokers and can’t get his money." That is the extent of the recollection I have of the matter. Dr Gallop: Very interesting. Mr SHAVE: During the Gunning inquiry I said to the counsel who asked the question about Mr Fidge that Mr Fidge may well have mentioned "Don" or "former father-in-law". I did not know the precise words, and that is all there was to it. Mr McGinty: Who was present at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) To the best of my knowledge, the first that I knew of this problem was at that meeting of 29 April, to which I referred. Fidge made a comment to the effect, as I recollect, that "One of your relatives has a problem or something with these finance brokers and can’t get his money." That is the extent of the recollection I have of the matter. Dr Gallop: Very interesting. Mr SHAVE: During the Gunning inquiry I said to the counsel who asked the question about Mr Fidge that Mr Fidge may well have mentioned "Don" or "former father-in-law". I did not know the precise words, and that is all there was to it. Mr McGinty: Who was present at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
(1)-(3) To the best of my knowledge, the first that I knew of this problem was at that meeting of 29 April, to which I referred. Fidge made a comment to the effect, as I recollect, that "One of your relatives has a problem or something with these finance brokers and can’t get his money." That is the extent of the recollection I have of the matter. Dr Gallop: Very interesting. Mr SHAVE: During the Gunning inquiry I said to the counsel who asked the question about Mr Fidge that Mr Fidge may well have mentioned "Don" or "former father-in-law". I did not know the precise words, and that is all there was to it. Mr McGinty: Who was present at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Dr Gallop: Very interesting. Mr SHAVE: During the Gunning inquiry I said to the counsel who asked the question about Mr Fidge that Mr Fidge may well have mentioned "Don" or "former father-in-law". I did not know the precise words, and that is all there was to it. Mr McGinty: Who was present at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Mr SHAVE: During the Gunning inquiry I said to the counsel who asked the question about Mr Fidge that Mr Fidge may well have mentioned "Don" or "former father-in-law". I did not know the precise words, and that is all there was to it. Mr McGinty: Who was present at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Mr McGinty: Who was present at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Mr SHAVE: At that meeting there was Walker, Mitchell, me and perhaps my electoral officer. Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Dr Gallop: Perhaps we need a royal commission to clear this up. Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Mr SHAVE: This has become bigger than Ben Hur. I have given all of this information to the Gunning inquiry. Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Mr McGinty: Were Fidge and Brailey at the meeting? Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Mr SHAVE: Fidge and Brailey were there, yes. Brailey had been making allegations about people for some 12 months and had been trying to get to meetings with me. My people had been meeting and helping her wherever possible, albeit that that was not always easy. When Fidge came to see me I did not know that Brailey was coming along too. As I said to the Gunning inquiry, that was a bit of a highjack, because her way of getting to come in and discuss these matters with me was by using one of my constituents to get into my office. Notwithstanding that, I took the attitude, "Well, Brailey is here and I am prepared to listen to her, because if Fidge wants her along and Fidge is a constituent, I guess that is his right." Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
Whichever way one looks at it, one has to say that even if Fidge said on 29 April, "It was your former father-in-law, Don," or whatever, irrespective of the fact that I had not had a meeting with my former wife in seven years and that I see my former father-in-law only once or twice a year, and irrespective of whether members opposite say that the meeting of 29 April should have been an important meeting, the fact is that I did not even pick up the telephone to say, "Can I help you?"
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.