Page 635 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
asked at least, then we are looking at that problem and trying to deal with that problem of recklessly misleading the Assembly. We are still saying, "Yes, the directors are fine. There is no problem with bona fides. The checks have been made as far as they can be, but not done thoroughly enough", and the Minister has to wear some of those responsibilities.
On the question of inducements, I find a much weaker argument. The Minister always said about inducements, "This is the letter I have" - he gave us the text of it and, I believe, tabled it - "about inducements", after he had done his correction. That correction was done on the same day, so that is not a question. I think the legal opinions indicate quite clearly that the letter is not good for much; nevertheless, Wayne Berry was always referring to that letter. It was then our responsibility to decide whether or not we thought that letter he relied on was a good thing or a bad thing or whether that was enough or not enough.
I do not find a case of misleading in terms of those inducements, but I do think it adds to this whole impression that everything is hunky-dory, that everything is good. As part of saying, "Yes, things are good", we got in the last sittings in March the good deal and, more importantly, the safe deal. It may well be that I have an old car with lots of things falling off which I drive very fast from here to Adelaide and back - as far as the speed limits allow - and nothing happens. That does not make it a safe car. A safe car is one with the appropriate safety equipment - seat belts and good tyres and so on - not a bomb with bald tyres. You might be lucky. That is why, when the inquiry determines whether or not this came out well, it is not going to tell us to what extent it was a safe deal and to what extent the Minister's impression in this Assembly was able to indicate to the Assembly just where he was. These are the sorts of questions that ought to be answered.
Should the VicTAB deal and the cancellation of the ACT from the pool be seen in isolation, as indeed the Chief Minister and Terry Connolly would have us do? Of course it cannot be seen in isolation. It is an integral part of this whole impression as to whether or not it is a good deal or a bad deal. The Victorian TAB letter of 2 March to Mr Neck says:
I refer to your letter of 25 February 1994.
Contrary to what is stated in the first paragraph of your letter, at no time during our meetings did I state that the reason for giving the notice of termination under the Pool Amalgamation Agreement was because of the agreement entered into between ACT/TAB and VITAB Ltd.
They did not give that as a reason; they never gave any reason. Quite specifically, the first paragraph of Philip Neck's letter - and the Minister was generous enough to allow us to read the first paragraph of that letter, the other parts being commercial-in-confidence - stated quite clearly that the VITAB agreement was the reason. This is what we have to resolve. The reply was, "Contrary to what you are saying, we have never given that as the reason. It is not the reason. We have never given it as the reason". There are lots of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .