The probity checking of Vitab principals was a matter for the ACT TAB, several senior ACT public servants told Vitab inquirer Professor Dennis Pearce at a public hearing yesterday.
And a former Hawke, Fraser and Dawkins staffer who was head of the ACT department with responsibility for sport at the time, Jeff Townsend, told Professor Pearce that he had had no contact with former Prime Minister Bob Hawke (a Vitab shareholder) about Vitab other than an exchange of pleasantries at the media launch in October last year.
Professor Pearce is inquiring into the contract with the Vanuatu-based Vitab and ACTTAB under which ACTTAB gave computer access to the multi-state super-pool and other services in return for a percentage of turnover, enabling Vitab to run phone and other betting on Australian races. He is also inquiring into why the Victorian TAB terminated it super-pool arrangements with the ACT.
The contract led to a successful Assembly no-confidence motion against Sports Minister Wayne Berry last month causing him to resign.
Giving the bulk of the evidence yesterday were: Mr Townsend, now acting head of Chief Minister’s and then head of Environment, Land and Planning, which had responsibility for ACTTAB; Berry adviser Sue Robinson; senior Treasury official Mike Woods and senior DELP officials with responsibility for sport Greg Fraser and John Meyer.
Mr Townsend said it was not the department’s job to shadow ACTTAB. His impression of the Vitab proposal when first seeing it at a meeting with Mr Berry and ACTTAB managers on July 23 last year was that it did not ring bells as being dangerous. At that meeting discussions had centred on the legality and financial security of the deal, not the probity of the proponents. The attitude had been to check the concept first.
“”It was more sensible to see if you’re going to do it before you decide who you are going to dance with,” he said.
(It was alleged in the Assembly that the Vitab proponents were linked with illegal SP book-making and that Mr Berry had not ensured proper checks were made about them.)
Asked how he would do a probity check, Mr Townsend said, “”I would ring Peter Dawson.” (Mr Dawson was then commissioner of the Australian Federal Police.) He added it would have to be done carefully because of privacy and he would have to check the law first.
Could ACTTAB or a statutory authority do it?
Mr Townsend said he did not know, but presumed so, but their might be some legal complexity.
Was he surprised no probity check had been done?
No, because he thought they were being done and had been assured of that.
Was he surprised the contract had been signed before the probity checks had been done?
Yes, in retrospect.
Ms Robinson said she did not recall any names of the proponents at that meeting except Mr Hawke. His named added sensitivity to the matter because appointments by a minority government could result in vilification in the Assembly.
Ms Robinson agreed with Mr Townsend that they had been assured that checks on the proponents were being done.
“”We assumed ACTTAB would have done them,” she said.
Mr Woods said he had queried what would happen if Vitab’s shareholders changed. Once he had been satisfied that a process would be put in place for that he thought probity checks of present proponents was a matter for DELP or ACTTAB.
Mr Meyer cited a letter from ACTTAB chief executive Philip Neck to the head of the Victorian TAB that ACTTAB’s solicitors were conducting a full investigation into Vitab including the probity of the proponents.
He said there had been no discussion about a probity check in his meetings, just about legal and financial checks on the contract itself.
Asked did it occur to him it that it might be a good idea to do checks on a relatively unknown group of people (other than Mr Hawke), Mr Meyer said: At no stage did that issue arise for me. I was focused on taking the contract through the government process. It was not in my thoughts that a probity check should be done.”
The department had formed a view that probity was not an issue for it.
Asked about some paragraphs at the end of ACTTAB’s background paper that recommended a check, Mr Meyer said he had no recollection about looking at the recommendations. He had stopped short at them.
Mr Fraser said of the probity checks, it was a question of ACTTAB being seen as the business experts in the area. The department was not resourced for that. It put the department on a basis of responding to requests rather than initiating. Also the confidentiality agreement put the department on a basis of doing things on a “”need-to-know” footing.
Asked didn’t he feel the need to know who was behind the Vitab deal, he said, no because a process was under way so “”I didn’t see the need to get greatly involved.
Asked hypothetically whether a department should stop a statutory authority from dealing with thoroughly unsavoury people, Mr Fraser said yes.
Professor Pearce: How would you know they were unsavoury if the attitude was that that would be left to ACTTAB?
Mr Taylor: ACTTAB was the business operator it was up to them to satisfy themselves who they were dealing with.
The officials agreed that the confidential nature of the agreement had precluded checks with other TABs about the nature of the competition for the Vitab deal. ACTAB had told them there was competition to get the deal.
On whether ACTTAB should have got an agreement with Victoria to lock in the superpool arrangement, Mr Townsend said, if it had a public-service culture it would have, but it was a business. Victoria’s pulling out was not foreseeable and “”we still do not know the reason for it”.
Ms Robinson said Mr Neck had confirmed the Vitab negotiations with Victoria. Mr Meyer said he had relied on ACTTAB to put issues and the super-pool issue had not been raised.
The inquiry resumes today with evidence from senior ACTAB managers.