Page 648 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
there as a consequence of them being charged, and that would be quite unfair. In fact, it would be unlikely that we would be able to get any information on people who have been charged due to the provisions of the Privacy Act. There are serious privacy issues there. To say that you were misled because you found out that somebody had been charged, I think, is a very long bow.
Somebody wanted to talk about competition and said, basically, that they feel that the level of competition was not as I said it was. That is a matter of perception. I dealt with that. I do not think I have misled anybody on it and I have made abundantly clear what the position really is. After the Canberra Times wrote one article they ignored this matter. They subsequently found, after they were reminded by my office, that it was amongst the freedom of information information that they had received. They wrote about the advice that I had from the chief executive of ACTTAB, Mr Neck. He advised me by letter on 27 July 1993 that there was strong competition for the VITAB contract. That suggests to me that there were a few people interested in it. Bob Hawke said - - -
Mrs Carnell: You also said that he was a shareholder.
MR BERRY: Bob Hawke said on 8 November, at the launch of VITAB, that ACTTAB was selected by VITAB over a number of other Australian TABs. I can only take these people at their word, unless I go out and ferret out each individual matter. There is also a statutory declaration by the chief executive of ACTTAB which confirms that the Queensland TAB was a competitor for the VITAB offshore betting arrangement.
There is another statutory declaration that has been put down from Mr Meyer. So I think I had a reasonable basis for saying that ACTTAB was in competition for the VITAB agreement and that I have not misled the Assembly. I think you all agree that there was competition.
Mr De Domenico: No, we do not agree.
Mr Cornwell: No, we do not agree.
MR BERRY: Just because we disagree, it does not mean that I misled this Assembly. That is the point. You can make all the accusations that you like. In relation to inducements, there has been no misleading of the Assembly. The issue is quite clear. VITAB provided me with a letter which pointed out that they had no intention of inducing Australian residents to bet with VITAB. In fact people are required, as I said in my speech, to put in a declaration. People seem to be ignoring what I said earlier.
Mrs Carnell: Only account customers.
MR BERRY: I gave you a copy of the speech. It would not have been hard to pick it up - page 16. In addition, VITAB require new clients to sign a declaration warranting that "all bets are placed by me outside Australia". On this issue of inducements, I think you will find that the letter tying VITAB and ACTTAB is probably stronger than that which exists between the States, but that is not an issue that is up for argument here. What I am saying to you is that I do not think I have ever misled you on the inducements issue either. I do not know what you are on about.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .