Page 2015 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is almost certain that VITAB would not have assented to being an agent of ACTTAB. If ACTTAB had insisted, VITAB would have looked elsewhere for an Australian link. It is doubtful also if it would have agreed to stricter audit procedures.
Another point we made was that the ACT Government allowed ACTTAB to sign the agreement with VITAB without, it appears, having received written advice from the Victorian TAB or the Victorian Government. I recall Mrs Carnell saying that in this place and elsewhere many times. What did Professor Pearce say? He found that there was no written agreement between ACTTAB and VicTAB and he said:
The continuance of this link with VicTAB was essential not only to the VITAB contract but to the whole functioning of ACTTAB and to have allowed the arrangements to rest on mutual understanding indicates a very poor commercial sense on the part of ACTTAB.
Point No. 5 was that adequate and timely checks were not conducted to ascertain who the principals of VITAB were. We made that point repeatedly in this place and it was repeatedly denied by all the members of the Government, especially Mr Berry. What did Professor Pearce find?
... there was a failure to check the backgrounds of the persons who were proposed to be the directors of VITAB.
Point No. 6 was that both ACTTAB and the ACT Government failed to assess the likely impact this agreement would have had on Australian TAB revenues. What did Professor Pearce say? He said this:
The full ramifications of entering into a contract with a privately owned TAB operating in an off-shore tax haven were not thought through.
Insufficient heed was paid to the effect of the contract on the ACT Government generally and the racing industry in particular. No consideration was given to the need to provide a return to these bodies.
These are words quoted from Professor Pearce's report. Every one of those words vindicates what was said by the Liberal Party here and outside this chamber on many occasions.
There is just one more point to be made to refresh people's memories about what was said. Who recalls the argument about the directorship of VITAB? Who were the directors of VITAB? We have tabled documents indicating clearly that the directors of VITAB did not include a Mr Michael Dowd. That claim was attacked by the Labor Party repeatedly. Then Mr Berry stood up on the day the no-confidence motion was moved in this place and said, "Yes, he is a director; it is just that he has not been registered yet". Let me quote Professor Pearce once more. As of June this year, this month, he said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .