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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 1 Hansard (28 April) . . Page.. 61 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, this represents a $3.2m deterioration from its result in 1996-97. Mr Speaker, revenue has increased slightly - and I have to say "very slightly" - since 1996-97. However, expenses have increased by $4.2m. This includes an additional licence fee paid by ACTTAB to the Territory of, I think, $1.598m.

Mr Quinlan: So, the figures are loaded?

MS CARNELL: We can explain all of this, Mr Speaker. That is to meet ACTTAB's minimum financial obligation to the Territory, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, this also includes an increased contribution to the local racing industry of $0.3m. So, there you go, Mr Speaker. I suppose that I should say, just to make sure that everyone understands, that turnover from last year to this year is up marginally; but it really is at about the same level.

Mr Speaker, the TAB entered into an arrangement with the ACT Government, I think just over 12 months ago, whereby it undertook to pay a minimum licence fee to the ACT Government, based upon particular business conditions. I think those opposite are suggesting that a minimum licence fee is not a normal approach. I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, that it would not matter whether ACTTAB was public or private; anybody running a TAB operation in the ACT would pay a licence fee.

The reason why the approach with ACTTAB changed over the last 12 months to a minimum licence fee approach was that ACTTAB approached us, asking for this agreement. Why did they want it? Mr Speaker, they wanted it because the $3m debt that Mr Berry and VITAB shovelled onto them was crippling the organisation. They came to us and said, "We cannot afford to maintain this debt. We cannot afford to pay for it, Chief Minister. We have an option that we believe we can operate with, by which we can manage to maintain ACTTAB as a viable entity, by going down this path of a minimum licence fee".

It was their idea, not ours. And why was it their idea, Mr Speaker? There were two reasons. One reason, quite simply, was that Mr Berry had stuffed up their financial position. By the way, then, when we did take the $3m debt back from ACTTAB in return for their entering into an arrangement for a minimum licence fee, Mr Berry, in this place and everywhere else, criticised the Government for doing it, Mr Speaker. I can remember Mr Berry talking about taking back the debts of ACT commercially operating enterprises. Well, we did it to keep the TAB afloat, and we did it as part of an approach that the TAB put to us for a minimum licence fee. Mr Speaker, it was an absolutely commercial deal.

Mr Quinlan asked about normal accounting - and I hope that he meant accounting - and business principles. That is exactly what this is - to try to keep afloat the TAB that Mr Berry came very close to destroying.

Mr Berry: That is a lie.

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, it is actually an absolutely true statement. As we remember, Mr Berry then went on to criticise the Government for taking the $3m debt back. Mr Speaker, there is a minimum licence fee that the TAB pays to the ACT Government. That is part of a normal commercial relationship - again, an approach

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