❓ Opposition Leader Dr Gallop questions Minister Shave about the Finance Brokers Control Act, citing the Gunning inquiry's findings of inaction and ignored warnings regarding Global Finance. Minister Shave deflects blame, pointing to a review initiated by his predecessor and the board chairman's decisions.
AnsweredQoN 159Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Gunning inquiry conclusion that no legislation has been brought to Parliament to improve the protection afforded by the Finance Brokers Control Act despite repeated calls from industry representatives and the board. I also refer to the Gunning inquiry conclusions that the procedures for dealing with complaints were entirely reactionary; no-one took the step of attempting to analyse the trends emerging from the increased numbers of complaints from 1996; and when clear signals of extensive problems with Global Finance emerged in the latter part of 1998, their signals were at best not recognised and, and possibly, ignored. (1) Was it not the minister who was responsible for the legislation? (2) Was it not the minister who was given the signals in 1998 and 1999 and who ignored their significance? (3) Is it not the minister who should accept responsibility and resign? Mr SHAVE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I received a letter from Mr John Urquhart, the chairman of the board, who also made the same allegations regarding this matter. Dr Gallop: I am referring to the Gunning inquiry. Mr SHAVE: I will get to that in a moment. Mr Urquhart wrote to me and stated that I had been negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. In the letter, Mr Urquhart discussed his reports from 1997 and 1999, when I was the minister. He said that he had repeatedly advised me that there was a need to upgrade the Act. In 1998, I looked at the Finance Brokers Control Act. In the annual report dated 30 June 1998, Mr Urquhart stated - The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
(1) Was it not the minister who was responsible for the legislation? (2) Was it not the minister who was given the signals in 1998 and 1999 and who ignored their significance? (3) Is it not the minister who should accept responsibility and resign? Mr SHAVE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I received a letter from Mr John Urquhart, the chairman of the board, who also made the same allegations regarding this matter. Dr Gallop: I am referring to the Gunning inquiry. Mr SHAVE: I will get to that in a moment. Mr Urquhart wrote to me and stated that I had been negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. In the letter, Mr Urquhart discussed his reports from 1997 and 1999, when I was the minister. He said that he had repeatedly advised me that there was a need to upgrade the Act. In 1998, I looked at the Finance Brokers Control Act. In the annual report dated 30 June 1998, Mr Urquhart stated - The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
(2) Was it not the minister who was given the signals in 1998 and 1999 and who ignored their significance? (3) Is it not the minister who should accept responsibility and resign? Mr SHAVE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I received a letter from Mr John Urquhart, the chairman of the board, who also made the same allegations regarding this matter. Dr Gallop: I am referring to the Gunning inquiry. Mr SHAVE: I will get to that in a moment. Mr Urquhart wrote to me and stated that I had been negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. In the letter, Mr Urquhart discussed his reports from 1997 and 1999, when I was the minister. He said that he had repeatedly advised me that there was a need to upgrade the Act. In 1998, I looked at the Finance Brokers Control Act. In the annual report dated 30 June 1998, Mr Urquhart stated - The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
(3) Is it not the minister who should accept responsibility and resign? Mr SHAVE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I received a letter from Mr John Urquhart, the chairman of the board, who also made the same allegations regarding this matter. Dr Gallop: I am referring to the Gunning inquiry. Mr SHAVE: I will get to that in a moment. Mr Urquhart wrote to me and stated that I had been negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. In the letter, Mr Urquhart discussed his reports from 1997 and 1999, when I was the minister. He said that he had repeatedly advised me that there was a need to upgrade the Act. In 1998, I looked at the Finance Brokers Control Act. In the annual report dated 30 June 1998, Mr Urquhart stated - The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Mr SHAVE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I received a letter from Mr John Urquhart, the chairman of the board, who also made the same allegations regarding this matter. Dr Gallop: I am referring to the Gunning inquiry. Mr SHAVE: I will get to that in a moment. Mr Urquhart wrote to me and stated that I had been negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. In the letter, Mr Urquhart discussed his reports from 1997 and 1999, when I was the minister. He said that he had repeatedly advised me that there was a need to upgrade the Act. In 1998, I looked at the Finance Brokers Control Act. In the annual report dated 30 June 1998, Mr Urquhart stated - The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I received a letter from Mr John Urquhart, the chairman of the board, who also made the same allegations regarding this matter. Dr Gallop: I am referring to the Gunning inquiry. Mr SHAVE: I will get to that in a moment. Mr Urquhart wrote to me and stated that I had been negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. In the letter, Mr Urquhart discussed his reports from 1997 and 1999, when I was the minister. He said that he had repeatedly advised me that there was a need to upgrade the Act. In 1998, I looked at the Finance Brokers Control Act. In the annual report dated 30 June 1998, Mr Urquhart stated - The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
(1)-(3) I received a letter from Mr John Urquhart, the chairman of the board, who also made the same allegations regarding this matter. Dr Gallop: I am referring to the Gunning inquiry. Mr SHAVE: I will get to that in a moment. Mr Urquhart wrote to me and stated that I had been negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. In the letter, Mr Urquhart discussed his reports from 1997 and 1999, when I was the minister. He said that he had repeatedly advised me that there was a need to upgrade the Act. In 1998, I looked at the Finance Brokers Control Act. In the annual report dated 30 June 1998, Mr Urquhart stated - The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Dr Gallop: I am referring to the Gunning inquiry. Mr SHAVE: I will get to that in a moment. Mr Urquhart wrote to me and stated that I had been negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. In the letter, Mr Urquhart discussed his reports from 1997 and 1999, when I was the minister. He said that he had repeatedly advised me that there was a need to upgrade the Act. In 1998, I looked at the Finance Brokers Control Act. In the annual report dated 30 June 1998, Mr Urquhart stated - The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Mr SHAVE: I will get to that in a moment. Mr Urquhart wrote to me and stated that I had been negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. In the letter, Mr Urquhart discussed his reports from 1997 and 1999, when I was the minister. He said that he had repeatedly advised me that there was a need to upgrade the Act. In 1998, I looked at the Finance Brokers Control Act. In the annual report dated 30 June 1998, Mr Urquhart stated - The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
[See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
(1) Was it not the minister who was responsible for the legislation? (2) Was it not the minister who was given the signals in 1998 and 1999 and who ignored their significance? (3) Is it not the minister who should accept responsibility and resign? Mr SHAVE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I received a letter from Mr John Urquhart, the chairman of the board, who also made the same allegations regarding this matter. Dr Gallop: I am referring to the Gunning inquiry. Mr SHAVE: I will get to that in a moment. Mr Urquhart wrote to me and stated that I had been negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. In the letter, Mr Urquhart discussed his reports from 1997 and 1999, when I was the minister. He said that he had repeatedly advised me that there was a need to upgrade the Act. In 1998, I looked at the Finance Brokers Control Act. In the annual report dated 30 June 1998, Mr Urquhart stated - The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
(2) Was it not the minister who was given the signals in 1998 and 1999 and who ignored their significance? (3) Is it not the minister who should accept responsibility and resign? Mr SHAVE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I received a letter from Mr John Urquhart, the chairman of the board, who also made the same allegations regarding this matter. Dr Gallop: I am referring to the Gunning inquiry. Mr SHAVE: I will get to that in a moment. Mr Urquhart wrote to me and stated that I had been negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. In the letter, Mr Urquhart discussed his reports from 1997 and 1999, when I was the minister. He said that he had repeatedly advised me that there was a need to upgrade the Act. In 1998, I looked at the Finance Brokers Control Act. In the annual report dated 30 June 1998, Mr Urquhart stated - The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
(3) Is it not the minister who should accept responsibility and resign? Mr SHAVE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I received a letter from Mr John Urquhart, the chairman of the board, who also made the same allegations regarding this matter. Dr Gallop: I am referring to the Gunning inquiry. Mr SHAVE: I will get to that in a moment. Mr Urquhart wrote to me and stated that I had been negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. In the letter, Mr Urquhart discussed his reports from 1997 and 1999, when I was the minister. He said that he had repeatedly advised me that there was a need to upgrade the Act. In 1998, I looked at the Finance Brokers Control Act. In the annual report dated 30 June 1998, Mr Urquhart stated - The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Mr SHAVE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I received a letter from Mr John Urquhart, the chairman of the board, who also made the same allegations regarding this matter. Dr Gallop: I am referring to the Gunning inquiry. Mr SHAVE: I will get to that in a moment. Mr Urquhart wrote to me and stated that I had been negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. In the letter, Mr Urquhart discussed his reports from 1997 and 1999, when I was the minister. He said that he had repeatedly advised me that there was a need to upgrade the Act. In 1998, I looked at the Finance Brokers Control Act. In the annual report dated 30 June 1998, Mr Urquhart stated - The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(3) I received a letter from Mr John Urquhart, the chairman of the board, who also made the same allegations regarding this matter. Dr Gallop: I am referring to the Gunning inquiry. Mr SHAVE: I will get to that in a moment. Mr Urquhart wrote to me and stated that I had been negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. In the letter, Mr Urquhart discussed his reports from 1997 and 1999, when I was the minister. He said that he had repeatedly advised me that there was a need to upgrade the Act. In 1998, I looked at the Finance Brokers Control Act. In the annual report dated 30 June 1998, Mr Urquhart stated - The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
(1)-(3) I received a letter from Mr John Urquhart, the chairman of the board, who also made the same allegations regarding this matter. Dr Gallop: I am referring to the Gunning inquiry. Mr SHAVE: I will get to that in a moment. Mr Urquhart wrote to me and stated that I had been negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. In the letter, Mr Urquhart discussed his reports from 1997 and 1999, when I was the minister. He said that he had repeatedly advised me that there was a need to upgrade the Act. In 1998, I looked at the Finance Brokers Control Act. In the annual report dated 30 June 1998, Mr Urquhart stated - The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Dr Gallop: I am referring to the Gunning inquiry. Mr SHAVE: I will get to that in a moment. Mr Urquhart wrote to me and stated that I had been negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. In the letter, Mr Urquhart discussed his reports from 1997 and 1999, when I was the minister. He said that he had repeatedly advised me that there was a need to upgrade the Act. In 1998, I looked at the Finance Brokers Control Act. In the annual report dated 30 June 1998, Mr Urquhart stated - The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Mr SHAVE: I will get to that in a moment. Mr Urquhart wrote to me and stated that I had been negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. In the letter, Mr Urquhart discussed his reports from 1997 and 1999, when I was the minister. He said that he had repeatedly advised me that there was a need to upgrade the Act. In 1998, I looked at the Finance Brokers Control Act. In the annual report dated 30 June 1998, Mr Urquhart stated - The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
The finance brokers industry, and the regulation under which it operates, is under review by the Finance Brokers Industry Reference Group. Accordingly, the Board did not this year pursue its long standing proposals for upgrading the Act, and awaits the outcome of the review with interest. I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
I table the document. My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
My predecessor implemented a review which started in November 1996. Mr Urquhart made a decision that he would not progress the upgrading of the Act until the review was finished. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition for that part of the question. Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Dr Gallop: What about the Gunning inquiry’s phrase “despite repeated calls”? Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Mr SHAVE: The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about “repeated calls”. Mr Urquhart also talks about “repeated calls”. I intend to table those documents. In 1999, I pursued Mr Urquhart to ensure that he brought in indemnity insurance. I have documents related to that. I also enclose my submission to the Gunning inquiry and I refer members to page 28 of the evidence I gave which explains why people did not get indemnity insurance. I table that document. I have a chronology of events for what exactly happened regarding this matter and I also table it. Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Mr McGinty: Just resign! Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Mr SHAVE: The member does not like the truth. The Gunning inquiry found that the narrow views of the chairman and board were the reasons that the majority of people lost their money. Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Mr McGinty: You are misleading Parliament. Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Mr SHAVE: No, I am not. The main reason that people lost money was because crooked finance brokers and crooked valuers ramped up valuations and offered interest rates of 14.3 per cent - which is something that I heard about from the Legislative Council committee last week. The brokers and valuers made people believe that by paying them 14.3 per cent, they would be offered decent security. I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
I have spoken in this place about the responsibility that I accept. I will be tabling other documents. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
The SPEAKER: Order! The amount of interjecting is excessive and unacceptable. Parliament was reminded yesterday of the practice of trying to get answers as quickly as possible. There is some discretion regarding issues of the day. I ask the minister to wind up his answer. Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
Mr SHAVE: I will table a number of documents relating to this matter and of a board meeting held on 5 August 1997 when I met Mr Brunton, Mr Urquhart and others. At no time has Mr Urquhart or any other member of the board approached me requesting money or requesting me to make changes to the Act. [See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
[See papers Nos 223 to 229.]
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.