❓ A parliamentary question regarding the responsibility of the previous Liberal government for the finance broking industry issues, with the current government representative placing blame on past policies and lack of resources allocated to consumer protection.
AnsweredQoN 721Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the coalition’s 1996 state election policy on fair trading, which states that it is supportive of industry taking and maintaining a greater degree of autonomy over the regulatory regimes applicable to specific industries. To what extent was this policy responsible for the finance broking industry fiasco? Mr KOBELKE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Albany for the question. Unfortunately, many people in his electorate are affected by this fiasco, and he has made many representations on their behalf, which indicates his real interest in the matter. The member referred to the Liberal Party’s fair trading policy in 1996, which indicates that the last Liberal Government must take responsibility for a large part of what went on in the late 1990s. The Liberal Party might not want to accept that responsibility, but while that situation continues, Liberal Party members are failing to speak the truth. They must accept responsibility for their failure in government to make sure that they had policies that gave people protection and that they put the resources into the former Ministry of Fair Trading so that it could function effectively. Further than that, when the members for Armadale and Fremantle raised the matter in this Parliament over several years, members who are now in opposition - then in government - defended the then minister, Doug Shave. They stood shoulder to shoulder with Doug Shave in covering up the mess. That means that they must accept responsibility. If they are not willing to apologise for it, it is absolutely clear that they are unwilling to speak the truth. Mr Barron-Sullivan: Do you agree with the brokers who say that this goes back to 1984? Mr KOBELKE: I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition read the Temby report. In 1995 and 1996 the problems started to come out. The then coalition Government did not believe in effective consumer protection. It pulled out of the area; it did not put in the resources. Further, when the matter was raised in this Parliament and clear facts were laid on the Table that there was a major problem, members now in opposition attacked Labor for raising the matter and supported the then minister, Doug Shave, in covering up the mess. Therefore, the responsibility clearly rests with the other side. Will it accept that responsibility? No; no responsibility at all. It is not willing to make an apology. This Opposition will simply not face or speak the truth. It is still in cover-up mode, and while it is in cover-up mode it is not fit to govern this State.
Mr KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for Albany for the question. Unfortunately, many people in his electorate are affected by this fiasco, and he has made many representations on their behalf, which indicates his real interest in the matter. The member referred to the Liberal Party’s fair trading policy in 1996, which indicates that the last Liberal Government must take responsibility for a large part of what went on in the late 1990s. The Liberal Party might not want to accept that responsibility, but while that situation continues, Liberal Party members are failing to speak the truth. They must accept responsibility for their failure in government to make sure that they had policies that gave people protection and that they put the resources into the former Ministry of Fair Trading so that it could function effectively. Further than that, when the members for Armadale and Fremantle raised the matter in this Parliament over several years, members who are now in opposition - then in government - defended the then minister, Doug Shave. They stood shoulder to shoulder with Doug Shave in covering up the mess. That means that they must accept responsibility. If they are not willing to apologise for it, it is absolutely clear that they are unwilling to speak the truth. Mr Barron-Sullivan: Do you agree with the brokers who say that this goes back to 1984? Mr KOBELKE: I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition read the Temby report. In 1995 and 1996 the problems started to come out. The then coalition Government did not believe in effective consumer protection. It pulled out of the area; it did not put in the resources. Further, when the matter was raised in this Parliament and clear facts were laid on the Table that there was a major problem, members now in opposition attacked Labor for raising the matter and supported the then minister, Doug Shave, in covering up the mess. Therefore, the responsibility clearly rests with the other side. Will it accept that responsibility? No; no responsibility at all. It is not willing to make an apology. This Opposition will simply not face or speak the truth. It is still in cover-up mode, and while it is in cover-up mode it is not fit to govern this State.
I thank the member for Albany for the question. Unfortunately, many people in his electorate are affected by this fiasco, and he has made many representations on their behalf, which indicates his real interest in the matter. The member referred to the Liberal Party’s fair trading policy in 1996, which indicates that the last Liberal Government must take responsibility for a large part of what went on in the late 1990s. The Liberal Party might not want to accept that responsibility, but while that situation continues, Liberal Party members are failing to speak the truth. They must accept responsibility for their failure in government to make sure that they had policies that gave people protection and that they put the resources into the former Ministry of Fair Trading so that it could function effectively. Further than that, when the members for Armadale and Fremantle raised the matter in this Parliament over several years, members who are now in opposition - then in government - defended the then minister, Doug Shave. They stood shoulder to shoulder with Doug Shave in covering up the mess. That means that they must accept responsibility. If they are not willing to apologise for it, it is absolutely clear that they are unwilling to speak the truth. Mr Barron-Sullivan: Do you agree with the brokers who say that this goes back to 1984? Mr KOBELKE: I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition read the Temby report. In 1995 and 1996 the problems started to come out. The then coalition Government did not believe in effective consumer protection. It pulled out of the area; it did not put in the resources. Further, when the matter was raised in this Parliament and clear facts were laid on the Table that there was a major problem, members now in opposition attacked Labor for raising the matter and supported the then minister, Doug Shave, in covering up the mess. Therefore, the responsibility clearly rests with the other side. Will it accept that responsibility? No; no responsibility at all. It is not willing to make an apology. This Opposition will simply not face or speak the truth. It is still in cover-up mode, and while it is in cover-up mode it is not fit to govern this State.
Further than that, when the members for Armadale and Fremantle raised the matter in this Parliament over several years, members who are now in opposition - then in government - defended the then minister, Doug Shave. They stood shoulder to shoulder with Doug Shave in covering up the mess. That means that they must accept responsibility. If they are not willing to apologise for it, it is absolutely clear that they are unwilling to speak the truth. Mr Barron-Sullivan: Do you agree with the brokers who say that this goes back to 1984? Mr KOBELKE: I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition read the Temby report. In 1995 and 1996 the problems started to come out. The then coalition Government did not believe in effective consumer protection. It pulled out of the area; it did not put in the resources. Further, when the matter was raised in this Parliament and clear facts were laid on the Table that there was a major problem, members now in opposition attacked Labor for raising the matter and supported the then minister, Doug Shave, in covering up the mess. Therefore, the responsibility clearly rests with the other side. Will it accept that responsibility? No; no responsibility at all. It is not willing to make an apology. This Opposition will simply not face or speak the truth. It is still in cover-up mode, and while it is in cover-up mode it is not fit to govern this State.
Mr Barron-Sullivan: Do you agree with the brokers who say that this goes back to 1984? Mr KOBELKE: I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition read the Temby report. In 1995 and 1996 the problems started to come out. The then coalition Government did not believe in effective consumer protection. It pulled out of the area; it did not put in the resources. Further, when the matter was raised in this Parliament and clear facts were laid on the Table that there was a major problem, members now in opposition attacked Labor for raising the matter and supported the then minister, Doug Shave, in covering up the mess. Therefore, the responsibility clearly rests with the other side. Will it accept that responsibility? No; no responsibility at all. It is not willing to make an apology. This Opposition will simply not face or speak the truth. It is still in cover-up mode, and while it is in cover-up mode it is not fit to govern this State.
Mr KOBELKE: I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition read the Temby report. In 1995 and 1996 the problems started to come out. The then coalition Government did not believe in effective consumer protection. It pulled out of the area; it did not put in the resources. Further, when the matter was raised in this Parliament and clear facts were laid on the Table that there was a major problem, members now in opposition attacked Labor for raising the matter and supported the then minister, Doug Shave, in covering up the mess. Therefore, the responsibility clearly rests with the other side. Will it accept that responsibility? No; no responsibility at all. It is not willing to make an apology. This Opposition will simply not face or speak the truth. It is still in cover-up mode, and while it is in cover-up mode it is not fit to govern this State.
Mr KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for Albany for the question. Unfortunately, many people in his electorate are affected by this fiasco, and he has made many representations on their behalf, which indicates his real interest in the matter. The member referred to the Liberal Party’s fair trading policy in 1996, which indicates that the last Liberal Government must take responsibility for a large part of what went on in the late 1990s. The Liberal Party might not want to accept that responsibility, but while that situation continues, Liberal Party members are failing to speak the truth. They must accept responsibility for their failure in government to make sure that they had policies that gave people protection and that they put the resources into the former Ministry of Fair Trading so that it could function effectively. Further than that, when the members for Armadale and Fremantle raised the matter in this Parliament over several years, members who are now in opposition - then in government - defended the then minister, Doug Shave. They stood shoulder to shoulder with Doug Shave in covering up the mess. That means that they must accept responsibility. If they are not willing to apologise for it, it is absolutely clear that they are unwilling to speak the truth. Mr Barron-Sullivan: Do you agree with the brokers who say that this goes back to 1984? Mr KOBELKE: I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition read the Temby report. In 1995 and 1996 the problems started to come out. The then coalition Government did not believe in effective consumer protection. It pulled out of the area; it did not put in the resources. Further, when the matter was raised in this Parliament and clear facts were laid on the Table that there was a major problem, members now in opposition attacked Labor for raising the matter and supported the then minister, Doug Shave, in covering up the mess. Therefore, the responsibility clearly rests with the other side. Will it accept that responsibility? No; no responsibility at all. It is not willing to make an apology. This Opposition will simply not face or speak the truth. It is still in cover-up mode, and while it is in cover-up mode it is not fit to govern this State.
I thank the member for Albany for the question. Unfortunately, many people in his electorate are affected by this fiasco, and he has made many representations on their behalf, which indicates his real interest in the matter. The member referred to the Liberal Party’s fair trading policy in 1996, which indicates that the last Liberal Government must take responsibility for a large part of what went on in the late 1990s. The Liberal Party might not want to accept that responsibility, but while that situation continues, Liberal Party members are failing to speak the truth. They must accept responsibility for their failure in government to make sure that they had policies that gave people protection and that they put the resources into the former Ministry of Fair Trading so that it could function effectively. Further than that, when the members for Armadale and Fremantle raised the matter in this Parliament over several years, members who are now in opposition - then in government - defended the then minister, Doug Shave. They stood shoulder to shoulder with Doug Shave in covering up the mess. That means that they must accept responsibility. If they are not willing to apologise for it, it is absolutely clear that they are unwilling to speak the truth. Mr Barron-Sullivan: Do you agree with the brokers who say that this goes back to 1984? Mr KOBELKE: I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition read the Temby report. In 1995 and 1996 the problems started to come out. The then coalition Government did not believe in effective consumer protection. It pulled out of the area; it did not put in the resources. Further, when the matter was raised in this Parliament and clear facts were laid on the Table that there was a major problem, members now in opposition attacked Labor for raising the matter and supported the then minister, Doug Shave, in covering up the mess. Therefore, the responsibility clearly rests with the other side. Will it accept that responsibility? No; no responsibility at all. It is not willing to make an apology. This Opposition will simply not face or speak the truth. It is still in cover-up mode, and while it is in cover-up mode it is not fit to govern this State.
Further than that, when the members for Armadale and Fremantle raised the matter in this Parliament over several years, members who are now in opposition - then in government - defended the then minister, Doug Shave. They stood shoulder to shoulder with Doug Shave in covering up the mess. That means that they must accept responsibility. If they are not willing to apologise for it, it is absolutely clear that they are unwilling to speak the truth. Mr Barron-Sullivan: Do you agree with the brokers who say that this goes back to 1984? Mr KOBELKE: I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition read the Temby report. In 1995 and 1996 the problems started to come out. The then coalition Government did not believe in effective consumer protection. It pulled out of the area; it did not put in the resources. Further, when the matter was raised in this Parliament and clear facts were laid on the Table that there was a major problem, members now in opposition attacked Labor for raising the matter and supported the then minister, Doug Shave, in covering up the mess. Therefore, the responsibility clearly rests with the other side. Will it accept that responsibility? No; no responsibility at all. It is not willing to make an apology. This Opposition will simply not face or speak the truth. It is still in cover-up mode, and while it is in cover-up mode it is not fit to govern this State.
Mr Barron-Sullivan: Do you agree with the brokers who say that this goes back to 1984? Mr KOBELKE: I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition read the Temby report. In 1995 and 1996 the problems started to come out. The then coalition Government did not believe in effective consumer protection. It pulled out of the area; it did not put in the resources. Further, when the matter was raised in this Parliament and clear facts were laid on the Table that there was a major problem, members now in opposition attacked Labor for raising the matter and supported the then minister, Doug Shave, in covering up the mess. Therefore, the responsibility clearly rests with the other side. Will it accept that responsibility? No; no responsibility at all. It is not willing to make an apology. This Opposition will simply not face or speak the truth. It is still in cover-up mode, and while it is in cover-up mode it is not fit to govern this State.
Mr KOBELKE: I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition read the Temby report. In 1995 and 1996 the problems started to come out. The then coalition Government did not believe in effective consumer protection. It pulled out of the area; it did not put in the resources. Further, when the matter was raised in this Parliament and clear facts were laid on the Table that there was a major problem, members now in opposition attacked Labor for raising the matter and supported the then minister, Doug Shave, in covering up the mess. Therefore, the responsibility clearly rests with the other side. Will it accept that responsibility? No; no responsibility at all. It is not willing to make an apology. This Opposition will simply not face or speak the truth. It is still in cover-up mode, and while it is in cover-up mode it is not fit to govern this State.
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.