The chief executive of the ACT TAB and its former chairman have attacked the proposal by
the Minister for Sport, Wayne Berry, to convert the TAB from corporation to a statutory
authority.
The former chairman, Jim Colquhoun, said yesterday that the move was ideological. As a
corporation the TAB ws running better than it had ever done. It was the only TAB in Australia
to increase turnover in the face of a casino opening. Because he had opposed the change, his
appointment as chairman had not been renewed.
The chief executive, Philip Neck, said he could see no logical reason for the change.
“”If it ain’t broke; don’t fix it,” he said.
Mr Berry said on Tuesday in answer to questions from The Canberra Times that making the TAB
a statutory authority would increase its accountability.
“”The decision is consistent with the ALP branch policy platform to own and operate
government business enterprises in selected areas. . . .
“”I have received no direct opposition to the decision.”
However a letter was sent to Mr Berry on December 11 opposing the move. It was signed by
the deputy chairman of the ACT Racing Club, Bill Bartley, the president of the Canberra
Harness Racing Club, Lindsay Cooper, and the chairman of the Canberra Greyhound Club, Les
Mainwaring. It said: “”Members of the ACT racing industry are alarmed . . . that the
Government now proposes to change the structure of the ACT TAB after only two years of
operation as a territory-owned corporation. . . . Any suggestion that the present successfully
operated organisation be summarily changed, and without any consultation with the industry, is
unacceptable.”
They sought a meeting with Mr Berry, but Mr Colquhoun said there had been no reply yet.
The Opposition spokesman on sport, Tony de Domenico, said, “”After two years of
profitability as a Territory-owned corporation the loony left wants to change the structure of
the ACT TAB.”
It should not change. “”Firstly, it’s making money, secondly, everyone I’ve talked to says
they object to the changes and thirdly, no-one has been consulted.”
The changes were only aimed at milking the racing industry.
Mr Neck said TAB turnover was up 7 per cent in the six months to December 31 on the same
period last year, despite the opening of the casino. It had increased turnover in a full year
by 2.6 per cent. Most other states had not done nearly as well.
Mr Neck has served one year of a three-year contract as chief executive of the corporation
ACT TAB Ltd. He did not know what his exact position would be if the corporation were
abolished.
Mr Neck, who came from South Australia, is highly thought of in the racing industry. People
in the industry are concerned that Mr Neck might leave the ACT if the move goes ahead,
however, he said he was willing to serve in a new body but his contract would have to
continue. Mr Berry said he had been given no indication that Mr Neck would want to leave.
Changes instituted by Mr Neck and Mr Colquhoun have been applauded in the industry and
among ACT TAB agents. The TAB is incorporated under the Territory Owned Corporations Act.
Under that Act appointments to the board and executive must be on the basis of relevant
business experience. Racing sources are fearful that if the TAB were made a statutory
authority it would give the Minister power to appoint a much wider class of people.
In general, the law provides much greater ministerial control over statutory authorities
than over territory-owned corporations.
People in the industry are fearful that if the TAB is not run on a business basis, TAB
turnover could fall or not be as high as it otherwise might. All three racing groups rely on
TAB money. The industry gets 4.25 per cent of TAB turnover, 0.75 per centage points of which
goes to the racecourse development fund. Punters get 83.9 per cent. The ACT Government gets
6.4 per cent and operating expenses take 5.4 per cent.
Mr Colquhoun said, “”There is no business justification for the move. The TAB has never
been better.”
An industry source said, “”If the agenda is to knock off the racecourse development fund or
any racing money, he’ll have the fight of his life. The whole of the industry is against this
move.”
Corporatisation was working for the ACTEW, and the Government was not changing that, nor
should it change the TAB. Most other staes were taking their TABs away from government control
and corporatising or privatising. Historically the only reason the TAB began with government
control was “”because the wowsers would not have allowed it otherwise”.
Another industry source said the ACT TAB was not a monopoly that could be milked. It worked
in a competitive environment against other state TABs through telephone accounts, where the
large clientele were. It competed against other forms of gambling, like poker machines,
lotteries and the casino and it competed against other forms of entertainment generally. If it
went from a business environment to the inflexible public-service environment it would go
backwards. That environment was incapable of responding quickly to competitive forces.
The present corporate structure gave ample accountability because the Chief Minister and
relevant Minister were the shareholders and could demand accountability.
Mr Berry said, “”The ACT TAB will continue to conduct its business along current lines and
the changes with are being made will ensure that the TAB has the appropriate degree of
accountability to the Government as the elected representatives of the people of the ACT.
“”The Government will be working closely with the board of the ACT TAB to ensure that the
operation of the ACT TAB maximises the returns to government whilst providing appropriate
levels of return to the industry and ACT TAB clients.”