No Excuses For Not Putting All The Cards On The Table
The Age
Monday September 3, 2007
The contradictions raised by the gaming licences inquiry only proves the lack of proper supervision.
THE words "gaming" and "probity" sit as awkwardly in oxymoronic proximity as "Iraq" and "peace". The gambling industry is one that does not always inspire public confidence, and this state is no exception. Certainly, testimony given to the parliamentary upper house inquiry into the awarding of Victoria's lucrative gaming licences has, even at this early stage of proceedings, thrown up matters of considerable concern that reach to the very heart of government. Last week, two former trustees of Tattersall's (one of the two tenderers) testified under oath that they were told by David White, a former state Labor minister and, at the time, lobbyist for Tattersall's, that in early 2004 he had discussed the future of licences with the then premier, Steve Bracks - a contradiction of Mr Bracks' repeated claims that he never discussed gaming licences outside the Government. Last Thursday Mr Bracks, calling the inquiry "a witch-hunt", again denied any improper interference, but stopped short of fulfilling the inquiry's calls for him to testify. His reason - that this could compromise cabinet confidentiality - is not entirely sound, as the events in dispute were not part of cabinet proceedings. If Mr Bracks is as understandably anxious to clear his name as he says he is, why avoid the inquiry and run the risk of public suspicion that he might, after all, have something to hide?The inquiry has revealed a further inconsistency. It involves Tattersall's and a $350,000 bonus deal for David White if the tender was successful: details of the deal, denied a few months ago at the company's annual general meeting, were found in documents seized by the inquiry. Mr White forfeited the bonus when he resigned last year.It is not for this newspaper to pre-empt the inquiry by branding anyone dishonest or acting in less than acceptable circumstances. Any results or opinions are for the inquiry to determine; and it should be remembered it was established because of perceived serious flaws in the tendering process that could have been avoided by a more responsive and responsible system of checks and balances. In March, an editorial in The Age said of the awarding of something as contentious and lucrative as gaming licences that "the Government cannot reasonably expect to get away with anything less than absolute transparency". Transparency means just that: in culinary terms, a clear broth of specified ingredients, prepared with skill and simplicity; not a murky soup, lurking with vested interests, secret encounters, conspiracy theories and smear tactics, all lovingly stirred by various interested parties. Perhaps the most curious testimony - the most symbolic of the confusions and conflicts that have permeated the process - has come from the Government-appointed gaming licence probity auditor, Geoff Walsh. In conceding he did not investigate claims that Mr White was conducting a smear campaign against Tattersall's rival tenderer, the Greek gaming company Intralot, Mr Walsh told the inquiry that he was "not pursuing procedural perfection" because a focus on minor discretions could lead to undesirable outcomes. Since conducting a smear campaign is a breach of tender rules under which Tattersall's could have faced disqualification, this is hardly a small matter. Besides, how would Mr Walsh have been able to draw this conclusion without further investigation? Tattersall's itself seems blase: at the inquiry on Tuesday, the company's chief executive, Dick McIlwain, in reaction to suggestions of a smear campaign, said: "So what?"There is nothing of the witch-hunt about this inquiry. It was established to sort out a Byzantine procedure determining the awarding of licences to a multibillion-dollar industry with huge social impacts. The proceedings are not yet over, but even at this stage it is apparent why they were necessary.
© 2007 The Age
Share This