Page 1988 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It has resulted in a situation where nobody in government wants to be responsible for the actions of a statutory authority that returns more than $5m to the ACT Government every year. It would appear that the Minister was not responsible, the department was not responsible, and the TAB board does not have the autonomy to act without ministerial approval. Yet we all remember how keen Mr Berry was to associate himself with the launch of the VITAB contract last year.
Madam Speaker, what we witnessed in the last two months was a government desperate to avoid responsibility for its actions. The sackings announced last weekend sent a clear message to Canberrans that the Follett Government will try to hang ACTTAB out to dry. The new Sport Minister has given no reason why these dismissals should have taken place prior to the release of the Pearce report. It was obviously part of a cold, calculated campaign to distance himself and his Government from the VITAB affair, and to stage-manage media and public reactions into believing that ACTTAB alone was responsible. ACTTAB cannot and must not be singled out for criticism, because the origin of the problems Professor Pearce has identified can be found in the actions of the Follett Government. Canberrans were told that decorporatisation would mean greater government responsibility. They were told that their Government would bring the agency back into the fold and protect it. Now the Government has thrown ACTTAB on the sacrificial altar rather than take the responsibility themselves.
In conclusion, the report notes that the environment for TABs in Australia has become more competitive, more aggressive and more off-shore orientated. For the ACT to be able to compete in this market it is going to need to be flexible, and it is going to need to be autonomous. All I can do is hope that the Government takes this on board and does not include the TAB under the Public Sector Management Bill. I want to close my remarks by reminding the Assembly of an answer by Mr Berry in this house on 2 March this year. He said:
We know a good deal when we see one. What we also did, and what I personally was involved in, was to make sure that the deal was safe with respect to the Territory.
The Follett Government approved this deal. Make no mistake, it will wear it too.
MS SZUTY (3.55): Madam Speaker, I wish to offer to the Assembly some thoughts about my impressions of the board of inquiry report into a contract entered into between ACTTAB and VITAB Ltd by Professor Dennis Pearce, which is known as the Pearce report. I would like to say at the outset that I continue to consider that the conduct of the inquiry and the motion of no confidence in the former Minister for Sport, Mr Berry, are two entirely different and separate issues. I said in the Assembly on 12 April 1994:
... we have two processes, which have been described by various members of this Assembly during the debate today. The first process, or outcome, is the inquiry under the Inquiries Act to be chaired by Professor Dennis Pearce ...
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .