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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4697 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

Mr Neck admitted in evidence that he had asked Mr Kolomanski about Mr Bartholomew's association with Mr Tripp, and his criminal record, and suggested that Mr Bartholomew be removed from VITAB and relinquish his directorship. (Extension of time granted) Mr Neck was party to the concealment of Mr McMahon's known gaming offence. He was aware of the reasons for the removal of Mr Charles Wright from VITAB and the apparent removal from VITAB of Mr Peter Bartholomew. In these respects, Mr Burbidge found that Mr Neck was a participant in the deception. ACTTAB was prepared to accept on numerous occasions assurances from VITAB without further investigation. VITAB repeatedly said that everything was in order, so ACTTAB accepted that it just must be so. The former board of ACTTAB was inept and the members' actions did not reflect much credit upon them. There was little sign that the board as a whole monitored that which Mr Neck was doing and apprised itself sufficiently to recognise the danger signals. This, of course, was the board that Mr Berry appointed.

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 February 1994 outlining the business relationship between Mr Bartholomew and a shareholder of VITAB, Mr Bob Hawke, prompted the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning to write to the chairman of the ACTTAB board and ask many questions. As Mr Burbidge said:

Had these questions been answered directly and honestly, either then or later, I think it inevitable that investigation would have followed which would have exposed the parties actually involved and the true purpose of the venture.

Mr Speaker, these are extraordinary findings that should concern all members of this Assembly.

In relation to Mr Neck, Mr Burbidge found:

... it would be open to look to Mr Neck for damages for breach of his contract ... The action would not be easy, but nor is it an unrealistic option.

The board of inquiry also made a series of adverse findings in relation to the legal advice provided to the board of ACTTAB when it entered into the VITAB deal, and later when it dissolved its relationship with the Vanuatu-based company. Mr Burbidge stated that in his view Mr George Marques of Macphillamy Cummins and Gibson failed to observe the necessary degree of professional competence, in that he failed to advise ACTTAB of the need to identify precisely the beneficial shareholders of VITAB, failed to ensure that those persons had been cleared by probity checks and failed to include in the agreement a right of termination for ACTTAB if the Victorian TAB cancelled ACTTAB's link with the superpool during the currency of the VITAB agreement. Mr Burbidge further stated that in his view recovery of the settlement might be available from action against Macphillamy Cummins and Gibson, in the event that it could not be obtained from the VITAB promoters. On another matter, Mr Speaker, the board of inquiry was also critical of advice provided by a solicitor from Sly and Weigall in 1994 that was presented to the new ACTTAB board. However, it took the view that this had not caused any major disadvantage to ACTTAB.

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