Page 2006 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
At the end of paragraph 116 Professor Pearce said this:
I find:
. that there was a failure to check the backgrounds of the persons who were proposed ...
. the responsibility for that failure must be assumed by ACTTAB.
So that responsibility is fairly and squarely put on the board of ACTTAB, and that is the board, as the Liberals quite rightly pointed out, that was nominated by the Minister. To that extent, at least, the Minister has to bear that particular responsibility.
It is interesting that at paragraph 119 Professor Pearce deals with ACTTAB as a statutory authority and talks about the relationship of a statutory authority with a government department. I think there is good reason for each of us to look at the way we set up statutory authorities. The accountability of statutory authorities to the parliament and to the Government is an issue that will continue to arise. Even more critical than that, Madam Speaker, is what Professor Pearce says at the beginning of paragraph 125, namely:
What is revealed here is a systemic problem.
He refers to matters that a department has to do, and the relationship between a department and statutory authorities. He describes it as "a systemic problem". When that is the case, Madam Speaker, it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that an identified systemic problem is resolved. He goes on to say:
It is not wise for the Minister to be used as some sort of liaison officer or conduit as was done in this case.
He refers to how that happened. Madam Speaker, another issue arises from paragraph 126, where Professor Pearce says:
What I do think my Inquiry reveals is that the Board should contain persons who have sufficient familiarity with the TAB industry to have foreseen some of the problems to which the VITAB agreement was likely to give rise.
That is the issue that the Liberals have raised about the responsibility of the Minister in appointing appropriate members - appropriate members, not hacks - to the board. That is why, I believe, the new Minister found it incumbent upon him to sack the old board and to ensure that he has an appropriate new board. Professor Pearce also deals with the notion of having foreseen problems. He argues, quite regularly throughout his report, that it is not with hindsight that these things should be recognised; they should have been recognised beforehand. At paragraph 195 Professor Pearce adds:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .