The Chief Minister, Rosemary Follett, reopened the way for Wayne Berry to return to the Ministry after the next election yesterday, following the tabling of the Pearce report into the Vitab affair.
The report put the bulk of the blame over the Vitab affair on the ACT TAB, and the ACT Government has responded by ordering a Cabinet process for future important decisions by statutory authorities.
Professor Pearce found that the then Sports Minister, Wayne Berry, his advisers and TAB and department officers had all acted in good faith.
He also found that the involvement of former Prime Minister Bob Hawke in VITAB had made ACTTAB feel less need to check out the VITAB principals.
Professor Pearce inquired 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 also inquired into why the Victorian TAB terminated it super-pool arrangements with the ACT.
The Assembly voted in April for a no-confidence motion against Mr Wayne Berry on the ground that he misled the Assembly into believing all was well with the contract when it was not. This caused him to resign.
Professor Pearce said his findings bore no relationship to the Assembly’s vote, but on the matter before him he said, “”Mr Berry acted properly in his role as Minister in relation to the VITAB contract but was not well advised. He would not have been under any obligation to resign as Minister for events that flowed from that contract.”
Ms Follett, said she would not rule out a future return to the ministry by Mr Berry, but that could not happen in the present Assembly where Labor had a minority.
She said the Government had acted “”swiftly, decisively and appropriately” in dismissing the ACTTAB board.
Mr Berry said he had been exonerated and the Liberals and Independents were “”noting but pathetic political opportunists”.
Opposition Leader Kate Carnell said the report showed that the Opposition had done its job, but Mr Berry, the department and the TAB had not done theirs.
Eight months ago she had listened to a small group of Canberrans who had come to her with their concerns about Vitab who had been ignored by the Government. The Opposition’s questioning and inquiring had been vindicated by the report.
The Government had converted the TAB back to a statutory authority and had appointed board members on the basis of their union and political affiliations rather than management skills. It had put ideology ahead of good management. It could not shift the whole blame to ACTTAB. the Government had set up the administrative machinery and approved the Vitab deal.
Professor Pearce report concluded, “”Primary responsibility for the problems that have flowed from entry into the VITAB contract rests with ACTTAB. . . . It failed to think through the full ramifications flowing from the contract. It also demonstrated an anxiety to enter into the contract lest it lose out to another TAB without knowing whether there was competition and whether VITAB was an appropriate body with whom it should contract.”
The process leading up to the contract were deficient, he said. The impact of contracting with a private TAB had not been thought through. There was a failure to check the backgrounds of the VITAB directors and the impact on the arrangement with the Victorian TAB had not been thought through and no written statement on VicTAB’s intentions had been sought.
These were not matters of hindsight, but should have been anticipated and investigated, except perhaps in relation to VicTAB.
Of the Minister’s office, he said, “”I also consider that the Minister’s adviser, Ms [Sue] Robinson, did not provide him with the standard of advice that could have been expected.”
He said of the Department of Environment, Land and Planning that it “”paid less heed to the effect of the contract than was desirable. . . . A greater effort should have been made to understand the possible outcomes of the contract and a briefing sought from ACTTAB.”
If there were government responsibility for probity checks it lay with DELP and if anyone had to be identified it was John Meyer. He had not bee directly told of the need to do checks, but an indirect reference to costs of making inquiries should have alerted him to the issue. He had written the minute to the Minister.
“”On this occasion it seems to me that he failed to exercise his usual diligence,” Professor Pearce said.
As to the future, he said a board member should include someone “”who is an expert in the operation of TABs”. The dividend to Government should be rethought so ACTTAB did not get pressed into making contracts to get the money in.
Professor Pearce said one of the major issues was who was to check the background of the VITAB directors. Mr Berry and his staffer Sue Robinson had given evidence that at their first meeting with DELP head Jeff Townsend Mr Berry had given all the VITAB material to Mr Townsend and had requested that financial, legal and character checks be carried out. Mr Townsend said he did not receive all the documents nor the recommendation that character checks be done.
Professor Pearce concluded, “”I accept Mr Townsend’s view of the matter.”
It was supported by Mr Townsend’s note of the meeting which did not mention probity checks, but which did mention legal and financial checks and the fact the documents had not been tracked on the departmental ministerial tracking system.
However, Professor Pearce said, “”This does not mean that the Department should not have made some inquiries of its own volition.”
On ACTTAB’s checking he said, “”I continue to find it surprising that two totally unknown persons one of whom did not on the face of it have any connections with racing were not checked out in some way by ACTTAB. . . . At the meetings on 17 and 30 September when the department’s tasks necessary to expedite completion of the agreement were under discussion, no questions [by ACTTAB, if they had thought it the department’s job,] were asked about how the background checks were proceeding. The discovery that no action was being taken would have delayed the agreement and this was the time to learn whether” the VITAB people were appropriate to deal with. The VITAB contract was signed in October.
The dismissed chief executive, Philip Neck, is taking legal action over what he says was his unfair dismissal.
Bureaucratic sources say an arrangement with NSW for a link to replace the arrangement with Victoria was agreed upon in principle before the Government got the VITAB report.