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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 1656 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

At the round table the Australian Services Union claimed that the ACTTAB report was the same as the Northern Territory TAB report, so the person on the far side of this Assembly is not exactly Robinson Crusoe. PKF does confirm that portions of the report are identical to or similar to the Northern Territory report, as they did when asked initially. Obviously, the analysis of changes taking place in the gaming industry and the comparison with other TABs are likely to be very similar, regardless of the home base of the particular TAB involved. In other words, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, there are whole areas of this report that are based upon what is happening in New South Wales, what is happening in Tasmania, and what is happening in other parts of Australia. Obviously, those areas of the report will be the same. The consultants make no apologies for this.

ACTTAB and the Northern Territory TAB have much in common. They are relatively small players who are dependent on pooling arrangements with a much bigger player to ensure that they can offer punters a competitive gambling product. The Northern Territory TAB is linked to the Tabcorp pool through ACTTAB. Both TABs also face the same issues arising from threats from other gambling products and the emergence of Internet gambling. The Northern Territory and ACT governments have similar concerns and this led to similar terms of reference.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I cannot see a term of reference, even though I looked and I have read them all, that says, "The ACT Government would like you to recommend selling". In fact, quite the opposite. Yet Mr Corbell said all the way through that the consultants had done exactly what the ACT Government had asked them to do. There is nothing in the terms of reference to suggest that at all.

Given the very similar positions of the two TABs, it is not surprising that on a number of issues the consultants reached identical conclusions. I agree with the consultants that it would be a waste of time to unnecessarily manage the syntax for the sake of appearance. They could have, but why would you do that? The consultants have not charged the ACT for work already done for the Northern Territory and have delivered the report at about half the price paid by the Northern Territory simply because a lot of the work had already been done. The ACT has actually benefited from the work conducted by the Northern Territory. As the consultants acknowledge, it would have been unethical for them to charge twice for the research already conducted into other TABs, racing and gambling and competitive gaming.

What is clear is that where the issues or circumstances are different the reports are different. The differences include the different structures and legislative environments in which the two TABs operate, and the different contractual arrangements they have with third parties, including such things as relationships with the racing industry and so on. The consultants also rejected entirely allegations that public submissions were not considered. PKF have stated that all submissions were taken into account and information relevant to the terms of reference was assessed in arriving at the findings, rather than simply providing statements of opinion. In fact, I can table today a summary of the consultants' views on these submissions.

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