Page 616 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD: The words are there, "honesty" and "integrity". That is what he says of Wayne Berry. He said, "We are not questioning his honesty, his integrity; we are only moving a motion of no confidence". In saying that, Mr Cornwell said it all. No-one in this Assembly seriously doubts the honesty or the integrity of Wayne Berry. I believe that the Minister and the Government have put forward clear evidence which contradicts each and every one of the allegations raised by the Opposition. Let us look at them in turn. The Opposition alleges that the Minister misled the Assembly in relation to the status of directors and shareholders of VITAB, and in particular of Oak Ltd. The Minister, however, has provided clear evidence about who are the directors of VITAB and why there may be discrepancies in relation to the company records in Vanuatu, and the Opposition should now acknowledge that point.
The second issue related to the checking of the directors and shareholders of VITAB. The Opposition raised concerns about the bona fides of the directors and suggested that one of them was guilty of a criminal offence. The Minister has tabled evidence from the Australian Federal Police which clearly contradicts the assertions of the Opposition. All of the directors of VITAB have received clearances from the AFP. In addition to the character checks, the directors have provided performance guarantees for VITAB's obligations. Also, a security bond of $50,000 has been provided by VITAB. The contract further provides for ACTTAB approval for any changes to the company's directors or a change of shareholding greater than 5 per cent. It is clear from all of this that the Opposition's claims in relation to this matter cannot be substantiated.
The third issue related to whether ACTTAB was in competition with other TABs for the VITAB business. The Opposition has claimed that the Minister has misled the Assembly on this issue and there was no other competitor for the VITAB agreement. Against this, the Minister has provided statutory declarations from the chief executive of ACTTAB and a departmental officer and also has referred to other instances where references were made to competition from other TABs by people who were in a position to know. All of this demonstrates that the Minister had a reasonable basis for saying that ACTTAB was in competition for the VITAB agreement.
The fourth issue concerns the question of inducements. The Opposition claims that the VITAB agreement geared up possibilities for Australian based customers to be induced to bet with VITAB rather than with Australian TABs. In relation to this issue the Minister referred to the written undertaking provided by VITAB that they would not be offering inducements to Australian punters. The accuracy of that claim can be clearly demonstrated. The facts prove that. There is clear evidence to show that neither the operation of VITAB nor the Victorian TAB's Vanuatu based operation has impacted on TAB turnovers Australia-wide. In relation to ACTTAB, its Australian turnover has increased by 6.4 per cent since the commencement of the VITAB agreement. Turnover in all of the States and Territories has continued to increase over the last 12 months. Turnover everywhere has increased. So what VITAB said has been shown to be the fact. On this evidence there is simply no basis in fact for the concerns raised by the Opposition.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .