Page 1978 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In relation to the merits of the VITAB agreement, the Government Solicitor notes that the "Minister was not advised on this issue and therefore kept in ignorance of the magnitude of the risk involved". The Government Solicitor concludes that "in the circumstances it is open to conclude that the conduct of ACTTAB involved misbehaviour and that the chief executive officer did not perform his functions to a standard required by the agreement".
It was the Government's view that a decisive response was needed in order to restore confidence in the TAB and to ensure that the management of ACTTAB met the standard required of such an important public enterprise. The Government therefore took action to replace the board of ACTTAB. Subsequently, the new board acted to terminate the contract of the chief executive officer. Madam Speaker, members may be concerned, and I have heard some of them express concern, about whether natural justice was observed in relation to the Government's dealings with ACTTAB's board. I consider that it has been. The inquiry itself, in fact, constituted an opportunity for the board members and the chief executive officer to put their views on a matter where there had clearly been criticism of actions taken by them. The chief executive officer and the chairman of ACTTAB both appeared before the board of inquiry and were represented - at public expense, I might say - by senior legal counsel in that process. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, on receipt of the report by Professor Pearce, the Minister for Sport gave ACTTAB board members and the chief executive officer the opportunity to review the report and to respond to him on any matters which they wished to raise as a result of the report. In the event, no matters were raised with the Minister. I repeat, Madam Speaker, that the Government had a clear requirement to act upon Professor Pearce's report swiftly and decisively. To have ignored Professor Pearce's finding that "primary responsibility for the problems that have flowed from entry into the VITAB contract rests with ACTTAB" could well have been seen as failure to fulfil the Government's own duty in relation to TAB operations in this Territory.
The next conclusion reached by Professor Pearce, No. (6), says:
The Department of Environment, Land and Planning paid less heed to the effect of the contract than was desirable. This flowed largely from the relationship between the Department and ACTTAB as a statutory authority whereby the Department considered that ACTTAB was responsible for the contract. Nonetheless the interests of the ACT and the racing industry in terms of possible loss of revenue were not given the weight that they should. A greater effort should have been made to understand the possible outcomes of the contract and briefing sought from ACTTAB.
(Extension of time granted) I thank members. Professor Pearce's report contains, also, some comments in relation to individual departmental officers and ministerial staff. I do not intend to make further comment on that matter because, as members will be aware, the performance and supervision of departmental officers is a matter for departmental management, and the conduct of ministerial or members' staff is a matter for the individual Minister or member.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .