Page 550 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Later the same day Mr Cornwell asked a question about why ACTTAB had signed an arrangement with VITAB instead of opening its own office in Vanuatu. You will recall that question, Mr Cornwell. The Minister responded to that question and, again, in response to interjections, he said that the deal was profitable for the Territory, and on the advice he had received it was safe. If we look at the Hansard of 2 March, Mr Westende asked a question about amendments to the VITAB contract recommended by the Government Solicitor. Mr Berry responded that he did not have the details with him - and why would he? In response to interjections that the Minister had given the Opposition nothing, the Minister said that the Government had struck a good deal and that he had been involved in making sure that the deal was safe. You must look at the context.
On 3 March Mr Kaine referred to tabled advice which said that the ACT Government had no liability as a result of the VITAB arrangements. He asked about how the Minister could give an assurance that the Government would have no liability in the event that the ACTTAB deal with VITAB, as he put it, went bad. The Minister declined to offer legal advice to the Assembly and he indicated that ACTTAB had taken action to ensure that hey were protected. Mr Kaine asked a supplementary question. The Minister responded that his advice from Treasury and the Law Office was clear and that the ACT Government was safe. So, Madam Speaker, in each of these cases, as I say, you must look at the context. When the Minister was asked a question in the Assembly about whether there were risks of exposure to bad debts from VITAB or whether VITAB was likely to cream off existing ACTTAB business, he responded that the deal was safe. He was responding to questions about the relationship between ACTTAB and VITAB, and he was correct. Madam Speaker, the Minister was not asked about the safety of ACTTAB's relationship with Victoria, with VicTAB. To my knowledge, he has never been asked about that matter in this Assembly, although, as members are, at length, pointing out, they have had five months to do so. Where was the question?
Madam Speaker, the Minister was advised that the Victorian TAB had orally informed both ACTTAB and VITAB that participation in the superpool would not be affected by a contract with VITAB. The Minister has a letter from the Victorian TAB to ACTTAB which denies that the decision to terminate their relationship with ACTTAB was made because of VITAB. Madam Speaker, if there is any doubt about these facts, and there clearly at least can be debate about them, if you do not accept the Minister's word on the issue or the documents he will be making available to members, and has made available, then the appropriate thing to do is to wait - to wait until the examination of these facts is conducted through the inquiry. There is a very complex set of circumstances to be investigated, and I think we would all agree on that: Who said what and to whom; what letters were received; what assurances were given; and in what order did events occur. These are all matters that have been debated. It is quite clear that the no-confidence motion now is a deliberate attempt on the part of Opposition members to make sure that the facts, which are yet to be determined by the inquiry, do not get in the way of a political scalp.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .