Page 2008 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(b) the circumstances relating to the cancellation of the agreement between VicTAB and ACTTAB;
(c) the involvement of the Minister for Sport, the staff and board of ACTTAB and any other official in relation to the agreement between ACTTAB and VITAB; and
(d) any other relevant matters.
It is important when reading the report to keep this in mind, particularly when you read the conclusions summarised at paragraph 206. My appearance before the inquiry was, of course, after this Assembly's no-confidence motion. I was happy to take advantage of the opportunity to present my case away from the political acrimony of the Assembly. It was my hope that the inquiry would get to the bottom of the whole issue, and I said at the time that it was needed to clear the air. For me, there is still one piece of the jigsaw which is not in place. Why did VicTAB cancel the contract with ACTTAB? The Liberals might know. Unfortunately, Professor Pearce did not get to the bottom of it either. He reveals at paragraph 180 that he was constrained in what he could say, and he went on to discuss only those aspects which are on the public record.
I believe that another problem is the fact that Professor Pearce did not have the opportunity to question the Victorian Racing Minister. Mr Reynolds made all sorts of accusations in the coward's castle, but he would not front. There is no question that there was collaboration between the Liberals opposite, Mr De Domenico and Mrs Carnell, and Mr Reynolds; but, still, Mr Reynolds would not front. I say that that was a typical use of the coward's castle for accusations, and one that the Liberals opposite seem comfortable with as well. More information came to light during the course of the inquiry in articles in the Financial Review. This is the Mr Reynolds who claimed that the inaccurate police documents were leaked to the ACT Liberals because of his concern for the best interests of racing. He did not see fit to advise the ACT Government of his concern.
Mr De Domenico: You did not ask him. You could have rung him. He would have told you.
MR BERRY: He was not interested in advising the ACT Government of his concerns, not even when I asked him about it on 10 February. I asked him what his concerns were. Do you know what he told me then? He told me that it was the issue of inducements. Of course, later on, he changed his tune, when he was reported in the Canberra Times. We know that Mr Reynolds intervened in the process, in the latter part of last year, and it is strange that that occurred at about the same time as the Liberals opposite were, as they describe it, doing their job. The collaboration became quite clear, and the political position became quite clear.
I have to say that it has been somewhat disturbing to me to see that this matter has been picked up and reported in the Financial Review, but the Canberra Times, here in the ACT, has not even bothered to follow up the question. I think it would have demonstrated more of an interest in all of the issues if the Canberra Times had followed
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .