Page 1975 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Having disposed of those allegations, I will turn to Professor Pearce's findings about what happened, and why. The inquiry report contains useful background about the development of the betting industry in Australia and the establishment of TABs in the 1960s. Professor Pearce makes a point of noting that the State and Territory TABs have operated on the basis of a "gentlemen's agreement" in their relations with each other. The understanding is that the various TABs do not poach one another's clients. Professor Pearce says that this agreement is not always honoured, but in the main most TABs do not actively seek to induce individual punters to transfer their business.
The report says that the industry is on the verge of considerable change. The privatisation of VicTAB will have a marked effect on competition between the TABs at a time when the growth in industry turnover is low. The logical conclusion is that, to compete for turnover and for profits, the TABs must either expand overseas or lure punters from each other by offering inducements, contrary to the gentlemen's agreement. Indeed, Professor Pearce says that a privatised VicTAB will be obliged to poach other TABs' customers if it is to serve its shareholders properly. As a result, Madam Speaker, ACTTAB were understandably keen to leap into a possible Asian market and to be competitors in the new era. Professor Pearce quotes convincing evidence that ACTTAB also believed that they were competing with other TABs for the VITAB contract, just as Mr Berry informed the Assembly. It must also be noted that VicTAB already had a Vanuatu relationship with the Chung Corporation. ACTTAB were thus negotiating a contract in direct competition with the soon to be privatised VicTAB, with whom they had a contract allowing access to the VicTAB superpool. This contract could be terminated without cause.
Against this background, the report finds that enthusiasm overcame ACTTAB as they rushed to tie up the deal. It is now apparent that there was a lack of care and follow-up by ACTTAB and, to a lesser extent, officers of the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning. The report also finds that there are some weaknesses in the relationship, or the understanding of the relationship, between ACTTAB on the one hand and the department and Government on the other.
I will turn, Madam Speaker, to Professor Pearce's conclusions. Professor Pearce came to nine conclusions on the matters he was asked to investigate. I will detail the Government's response to these conclusions as I go through them. The conclusions begin:
(1) Mr Berry, his Departmental officers, ACTTAB officials and the various advisers to these parties acted in good faith throughout the negotiations leading to the entry by ACTTAB into the contract with VITAB.
(2) Mr Berry acted properly in his role as Minister in relation to the VITAB contract but was not well advised. He would not have been under any obligation to resign as Minister for events that flowed from that contract. This finding bears no relationship to the motion of the Legislative Assembly expressing no confidence in Mr Berry.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .