Page 590 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The fourth issue is the issue of inducements and whether the VITAB agreement opened up the possibilities for Australian TAB customers to be induced to bet with VITAB rather than Australian TABs. The issue of inducements has long been an industry-wide issue in Australia. It has been the subject of discussion at various meetings of TAB chief executives and at racing Ministers forums. Principally, the issue relates to interstate TABs and their agents offering inducements to punters in other States and Territories. These inducements may range from refreshments at TAB outlets through to the provision of dedicated computer lines and associated equipment.
The Opposition first raised the issue of inducements in the Assembly in the November sittings. In response, on 23 November I tabled a written undertaking - this is a very clear undertaking - provided by VITAB that they would not be offering inducements. Did you mention that in that advice earlier on, Mr Connolly? Yes, of course. I tabled a written undertaking provided by VITAB that they would not be offering inducements to Australian punters.
In this context the Opposition also sought to gain considerable mileage from a meeting of racing officials held in Sydney on 6 December 1993. Contrary to the rumour mongering - and that is all it was - of the Opposition I have been advised by ACT representatives attending the meeting that the meeting was not called to discuss the VITAB agreement but to discuss the issue of inducements offered by State TABs within Australia. I emphasise "within Australia". Whilst Queensland and New South Wales raised concerns about offshore arrangements, the meeting agreed only that the situation should be monitored. At this stage only VicTAB had offshore links, and ACTTAB had an offshore link through VITAB. I think that is pretty clear.
You talked about your legal advice in relation to inducements and how one party to an agreement might take on another party, or not be able to, in relation to the letter. "If it could be shown" - this is your own advice - "that ACTTAB had taken steps against its interests or incurred obligations after the date the letter was received and in reliance on the statements of intention in it, and if damages could be shown to flow from reliance on those representations rather than on the terms of the agreement, there may be a right to damages to the ACTTAB".
Mr Connolly: So it is not legally meaningless?
MR BERRY: It is not legally meaningless.
Mr Connolly: It is potentially actionable.
MR BERRY: It has potential for action. You just cannot deny those facts. The concern about VITAB offering inducements to Australian punters is, of course, not borne out by the evidence. It is all right to throw the mud, but you really have to produce the goods, and the Liberals have not produced the goods. ACTTAB's Australia based turnover has continued to increase at over 6.4 per cent since the commencement of the VITAB operation. So why hammer it? It is doing all right, with a rate of increase slightly higher than in the period immediately prior to the commencement of VITAB operations.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .