Page 617 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The fifth issue related to the alleged involvement of Mr Bartholomew and, in turn, his association with Mr Tripp. The Opposition has tried to argue that Mr Bartholomew was a major participant in the development of the VITAB agreement and that his relationship with Mr Tripp casts aspersions on the legitimacy of the contract. As the Minister said in the Assembly on 22 February, Mr Bartholomew attended only one brief meeting on 21 July 1993 and was not involved in any other negotiations. Furthermore, Mr Bartholomew is neither a director nor a shareholder of VITAB.
The final issue concerns whether the Minister misled the Assembly during February and March following the notice of termination by VicTAB. This is the issue that is of some concern to Ms Szuty. The Opposition argues that the Minister continued to state that the VITAB contract was safe and beneficial to the Territory, knowing that VicTAB had indicated that it would terminate its link with ACTTAB. The Minister provided clear evidence of the financial benefits which the Territory, through ACTTAB, would derive from the VITAB agreement, and $100,000 is projected through to 30 June this year. Moreover, the Minister indicated a range of provisions in the agreement which provided the necessary financial security to the Territory in relation to the arrangements with VITAB. The Minister also indicated that he did not announce VicTAB's decision to terminate the link with ACTTAB, so that, sensibly, he could protect the interest of the Territory, in terms of pursuing a reconsideration of the notice of termination by VicTAB or enabling ACTTAB to commence discussions with other State TABs with a view to securing an alternative pooling arrangement. That is very sound administration, undeniably. The Minister did not mislead the Assembly on this matter. Rather, as has been demonstrated, he was seeking to ensure that the best interests of the Territory were protected and enhanced.
It is clear that the Minister has convincingly refuted all the so-called evidence presented by the Opposition. Quite simply, despite all the posturing and hyperbole in the lead-up to this debate, over quite a number of weeks now, they have failed to prosecute the case today. More than that, to take up Ms Szuty's point, if there is any benefit of doubt it has to be given to Mr Berry. I make it clear that there is no doubt that he has done the job properly. He has administered this with the best of ability. It has been well done. Let us take up Ms Szuty's point. If there is any doubt, the doubt has to be given to Mr Berry. It has to be. I relate that to my comment earlier about what Professor Pearce might find about this good deal in due course. I think that is a very important issue for the Independents to understand.
The Government, Madam Speaker, has responded to the concerns raised in relation to this matter by setting up an independent inquiry, with wide terms of reference and the powers of the Inquiries Act and chaired by an eminent lawyer. It is time to drop this outrageous motion and leave Professor Pearce to do the job that he was commissioned to undertake.
Mr Humphries: Might I speak a second time, Madam Speaker? I do not know whether I need leave or not.
MADAM SPEAKER: You need leave. The motion simply allowed you to have no - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .