Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2286 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

This is a serious matter and I can assure you that my decision to move this motion has not been taken lightly. I am doing so not just because there may have been a cover-up that protects people who have done silly things. My concern is that failure to have the truth revealed about some of the dealings involving ACTTAB has cost the taxpayers of the Territory dearly.

My concerns fall into two broad categories. The first surrounds the payment of some $4m to VITAB after the ending of that company's relationship with ACTTAB. I believe that the money should not have been paid by the Government at all. The second concern is that one of the lessons which should have been learnt from the VITAB affair was not learnt. Some of those concerned with the administration of gambling, either in ACTTAB or in the ACT Racing Club, continue to believe in the tooth fairy - to believe that there was a clever but underhand way of gaining extra revenue. Rebates secretly given to one punter using the betting auditorium placed at risk the continuing relationship of ACTTAB with the Victorian superTAB every bit as much as had those previously between ACTTAB and VITAB.

Mr Speaker, I believe it is far better that details of matters such as these be produced before an independent inquiry where claims can be tested. I have no desire to repeat in this chamber all the allegations which have been raised and which have raised disquiet in my mind; yet I know as well that I must at least give members of the Assembly sufficient reason to agree with me that an independent inquiry should be set up. So let me outline some of my concerns, without attempting to attribute blame to individual people.

First, in regard to the $4m in compensation, should it have been paid at all? I believe there are grounds for believing that VITAB, the company which ended up with the ACT taxpayers' money, had no claim to the compensation specified in its agreement with ACTTAB because it had been engaging in deceptive conduct. I believe that a commissioner will find that, contrary to its understanding with ACTTAB, VITAB had based its business around giving considerable discounts to Australian punters. There was no business built around a new market of Asian punters, but simply an old-fashioned rort to siphon money away from ordinary punters into the hands of a fortunate few, with the owners of VITAB being chief among them.

Yet suppose this is not the case and that compensation did have to be paid. Should the money have come from the taxpayers of the ACT or from somebody else? During the last year I have asked many questions about the legal advice given to ACTTAB before entering into its agreement with VITAB and the advice given to it after entering into the agreement. Fundamental to those questions is my amazement that ACTTAB's legal advisers allowed their client to sign a contract which made them liable to pay compensation to VITAB for an action over which they had no control - namely, the cancellation by superTAB of the link with ACTTAB. I am surprised that there were no grounds for ACTTAB to seek recovery from its lawyers of the $4m it had to pay because of this foolhardy contract. Because the Government maintains that the relevant documents are commercial-in-confidence and cannot be perused by mere members of this Assembly, then let a commissioner look at them. We should not allow to be abroad the suggestion that the taxpayers of the ACT have had to foot a bill which should have been paid by a firm of solicitors.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .