Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Clark can just resume his seat for a second. The Leader of the House.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wasn't here when the member commenced his motion. It may assist him to know that the government will give leave for the motion.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What the Leader of the House is saying, Member for Clark, is: whilst you've been moving a suspension of standing orders to allow you to debate the motion, the government has now given you leave to debate the motion. I think, in the remaining time, you don't need to argue for a suspension of standing orders; you can just talk to your motion. The Leader of the Opposition.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order: I think, with respect, you might find that either the suspension can be formally seconded and put or the member for Clark might wish to seek leave to move the following motion and do it that way, otherwise we are going to take a lot more time.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In other words, Member for Clark: go right back to where you were at the very start, where you were seeking leave.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Clark. I just remind the member that when you refer to 'you' you're referring to me as the chair. Be mindful when making statements that you're not referring or reflecting on the chair of this place, especially because I hate gambling. Is the motion seconded?

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a privilege to second this motion. I listened intently to question time yesterday expecting the opposition to ask a question of the government around the very serious allegations aired on Sunday evening on 60 Minutes in relation to operations at Crown casinos and resorts. Not one single question was asked by the opposition. Nothing. Despite allegations of government officials connected in cosy relationships with Crown staff, including allegations of fast-tracking and assistance with hundreds of visa applications and allegations of money laundering, not one single question was asked by the opposition.

For those not familiar with the allegations aired, whistleblower Jenny Jiang was one of 19 Crown employees arrested by the Chinese government because the promotion of gambling is banned in China. Those employees were arrested, imprisoned and felt abandoned by Crown. It is hard to know which is the most concerning of the allegations aired. Is it the allegation of money being washed through Crown Casino? Is it the allegation of Crown's connections to Macau junkets and known triad syndicates? Is it the allegation of connections to known drug-trafficking syndicates? Is it the allegation of Crown's contractual relationship with Simon Pan brothels in bringing high-roller customers to gamble at the casino since 2011—brothels, according to the County Court of Victoria, that has been raided more than once by the AFP, with reports that at least two women have been rescued from sex trafficking there. Is it the allegations against Crown of providing enticements, such as designer items and jet flights to Australia, to gamble or allegations of providing high rollers with lucky money—free money—to gamble with?

Or should it be the serious allegation that former head of the Border Force Roman Quaedvlieg was contacted by a number of members of parliament, including ministers, seeking to fast-track Crown junket arrangements? Should that be the one of most concern? Further, it's alleged that serving Australian Border Force officer Andrew Ure moonlighted to provide security for an international criminal fugitive, Tom Zhou, for bringing Chinese high rollers into Australia. Or is it the serious allegation of Australian consular officers assisting in the facilitation of hundreds of visas, with leaked Crown documents allegedly stating, 'Where we may have hundreds of millions of dollars of turnover at stake, in those situations the consulate is very understanding and will do everything they can'? Not one question from the opposition. Nothing. Absolute silence.

We should all be asking, after the airing of such serious allegations, whether Australia's largest gambling empire should have a licence to operate casinos in this country. Are they fit and proper? One would question, with the allegations that have been raised. Are there connections to Crown casinos involving drug trafficking, human trafficking, money laundering or organised crime? We should be asking what role Australian consulates have played in facilitating visas. Should those visas have been issued? Did the issuing of those visas cause harm or potential danger to Australians?

Were the high rollers, who were allegedly issued with fast-tracked visas, people of bad character?

I ask every member in this parliament: where are your collective national security concerns now? Goodness knows we seem to wave through every piece of national security legislation in this place. Do we care? We must care. We must take action. The hypocrisy of our border security regime is unbelievable. On the one hand, we have a government that wants to stop a handful of desperately ill men and women who have been found to be refugees from temporarily transferring to Australia for medical treatment and, on the other, we have a government willing to roll out the welcome mat to those with deep pockets and, potentially, deep connections to the triad!

We have a time line of allegations that spans both Labor's and the current government's time in government. Australians know that both the major parties benefit from donations from the gambling industry and that they have no reservations in accepting money from those who would seek to profit from an industry whose sole aim is to ensure people remain in the clutches of addiction no matter what the social and economic cost may be. Neither party has come to this issue with clean hands, but they have a chance to redeem themselves today with this motion. How can any member in this place not want a joint select committee inquiry into the serious allegations that have been raised? How can any member in this place not support this motion? If the House does not support this motion then the only conclusion that the public could draw is that the major parties are indeed beholden to the gambling industry.

Every day in this place—every single day—we are given yet another reason why we need a federal integrity commission right now. We need one that is well funded and that is not kicked further down the road. We need it now. I commend this motion from the member for Clark. Isn't it unbelievable that it's the crossbench that has to bring this to the parliament? I commend this motion to the House. I urge every member in this place to read the motion, vote with their own conscience and not be blindly held by their party's addiction to the gambling industry.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the members for speaking to the motion. The government does not intend to support the motion. I'll explain why in detail.

Obviously it's the case that the Australian government takes all allegations of illegal activity very seriously. Everyone must abide by the Australian law. That's particularly the case for any members of our law enforcement, immigration or customs authorities. They, of course, as part of the broader Australian law enforcement community, hold very privileged positions and, as such, are expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism at all times. A strong integrity and professional standards culture is fundamental to public confidence in their work and the Australian government's work.

I have considered the allegations that have been raised in the media, particularly as they touch upon allegations which are either directly or tangentially relatable to Commonwealth officers. It's my view that sufficient concerns have been raised to at least warrant further investigations.

I might note for the benefit of the members that were speaking to this motion that saying that there are sufficient concerns to warrant me, as the Attorney-General, to refer this matter for consideration under section 18 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 is not to say that I have before me, or that is otherwise available, any obvious evidence that supports allegations against law enforcement, immigration or customs authorities. Rather, it's the case that section 18 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act might be called a precautionary referral provision—and I already enacted that provision earlier today.

I can inform the House that I have already referred this matter—these allegations—to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI, under section 18 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006. Under that referral provision, it is now open for ACLEI to decide whether or not to launch an investigation. If they determine not to, that would be a matter that they would need to inform me about as to what it was that they considered was appropriate. If it was 'no further action' then they would need to advise me of that. Obviously that's advice that I would relay publicly.

I might say to members who have supported this motion and spoken in favour of it that ACLEI is a very appropriate—in fact the most appropriate—body to consider the allegations. They have very significant investigatory powers, stronger than those of a parliamentary committee, including the ability to apply for search warrants and issue notices that attract a criminal penalty if not complied with. I would note that ACLEI also has the ability to hold hearings, exercise coercive powers and seize evidence. It is highly experienced in these types of investigations and indeed in considering prima facie allegations to determine whether or not a full investigation is necessary. It's better resourced to quickly and effectively consider the need for an investigation and to conduct that investigation into any alleged corruption if that is required.

In addition to the observation that ACLEI is clearly the best placed body to consider these allegations I also offer the observation that a parliamentary committee of the type you now seek to have formed is totally ill-equipped to deal with an inquiry of the nature you envisage or that may be required in a matter of this type. I also offer the observation that it would be significantly detrimental to have some form of parliamentary inquiry running parallel to a potential ACLEI inquiry. Significant legal issues and risks could very likely arise for any witnesses called before both hearings. In fact a parliamentary committee inquiry would likely cause enormous difficulties to the efficacious running of ACLEI's inquiry if they determine to undertake one.

I'd also note that, if ACLEI uncovered any conduct by any other public service officers outside those determined in its remit as law enforcement officers, or by civilians or employees of a commercial organisation who don't fall within ACLEI's jurisdiction, ACLEI can refer information and allegations to the AFP for further investigation. I note that, as these allegations have earlier today already been referred to ACLEI under the section of the act I've nominated, it would not be appropriate to comment any further on the substance of the allegations.

I would say, though, that I think the member for Mayo's comment—that anything other than support for the motion before the House reveals the major parties are somehow beholden to the gambling industry—is a frankly absurd contention to put. This has now been referred to ACLEI, as I have noted. I think that is the appropriate course of action. I also note for the benefit of the House that I did advise the member for Clark of the fact that I had already sent this matter to ACLEI, as I am able to under section 18 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act. My observation is that it was probably the better course to withdraw the motion in those circumstances but it is up to the member for Clark to determine what he considers is the appropriate course. With the matter having been referred to ACLEI, the body appropriately placed to investigate it, pursuing a motion to set up a parallel parliamentary committee is wrongheaded. It would discourage and withdraw efficacy from the ACLEI investigation, but if the motion is not going to be withdrawn it would be the government's view that it should be opposed, and we'll oppose it on the basis that this has already been referred to the appropriate authority.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will be opposing this motion as well on the basis that the government has referred this matter to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner under section 18 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act. We think that the government has taken an appropriate course and thank the government for taking this course. An inquiry by the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner is likely to be much more effective, with all respect to my colleagues in this House or the other place, than a parliamentary committee attempting to inquire into this matter with very broad terms of reference, limited resources and a limited time in which to undertake that inquiry.

Under the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act, in effect, ACLEI has the powers of a standing royal commission. For those unfamiliar with the existence of ACLEI, or of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner, it's a body that, as the name suggests, exists to look at corruption in law enforcement. It's a body that exists to ensure integrity in law enforcement, and I'm looking forward to that inquiry being undertaken. As the Attorney-General has reminded the House, if wrongdoing or corruption is uncovered by others—not police officers and not law enforcement agencies but by others—ACLEI can refer the matters of corruption that it uncovers in relation to those others to the Australian Federal Police for further investigation and inquiry and, if necessary, prosecution.

I join with the Attorney-General in suggesting that the comments that have been made by those crossbench members who are putting forward this motion—to the effect that voting against this motion in some way amounts to turning a blind eye or that voting against this motion in some way amounts to support for wrongdoing and support for corruption—are entirely wrong. I reject that on behalf of the opposition and prospectively on behalf of all members of the House who are going to vote against this motion. I would simply make the point that there's a range of ways in which allegations of corruption can be investigated and dealt with.

Of course, these are shocking allegations of corruption that have come to light in the reports in The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald and on Channel Nine and 60 Minutes in the last few days. Of course, they should be further investigated because they are shocking. But to vote against the establishment of a parliamentary committee should not be taken by anybody in this place, nor should it be taken by any member of the Australian community, as in the least condoning of the allegedly shocking behaviour that has occurred in relation to Crown Casino. I say again that the opposition will join with the government in voting against this motion on the basis that the matter has now been referred to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner for further action.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This parliament is running a protection racket for ministers and former ministers who have ties to Crown Casino. It is welcome news that the crossbench—and I commend the member for Clark and the member for Mayo—have dragged the government kicking and screaming, together with investigative journalists, to take some steps to refer matters for investigation. But, in the short time that we've had to look at the agency that's going to look at it, what is clear is that ministers won't be caught in that, certainly with respect to the code of conduct.

There are two questions here. One is: have people broken the law? The second is: have ministers and former ministers acted ethically and properly and in accordance with the code of conduct, given that there are reports that ministers are lobbying government departments on behalf of Crown Casino, so that people who are wanted international criminals can bring in their mates to sit at the high-rollers table? Yesterday, we heard very, very clearly in the reports in the papers and on the TV claims that two ministers have been pressuring the Department of Home Affairs to make it easy to bring in high-rolling gamblers even when they've got criminal connections. That in and of itself would be a breach of the code of conduct and potentially corruption. We don't have an independent commission against corruption, a national federal watchdog, to refer those matters to. Those matters may in and of themselves not be crimes but they are certainly wrong. If ministers in this government or in former governments are trying to prevail on public servants to let in people who have criminal connections with the minimum of visa checks just because they've got a bag of cash that will go straight to the Crown bottom line, then we need to know about that. This latest investigation that has been launched under pressure from the government is not about whether ministers have done the right thing. It turns a blind eye to ministers.

Yesterday when presented with this the Prime Minister said there was nothing before him to warrant his attention. If you have claims with some credibility that ministers have been pressuring public servants to allow people to come into this country, even when they are wanted criminals, because it might benefit the bottom line of Crown Casino, I would have thought that would be enough to warrant your attention. There is a ministerial code of conduct. If it meant something, at a minimum the Prime Minister would be asking his ministers—and should be conducting an investigation and getting a briefing from the department— about whether those allegations are true.

The Attorney-General today said there is a basis for referral for investigation. If that's right then there is certainly a basis for inquiring into whether ministers have basically acted as an arm of Crown Casino in pressuring the Department of Home Affairs to let wanted criminals and their associates into this country. The first way we will find that out is by having a federal ICAC—but we don't have one of those. The second way we can find that out, given that Labor and the Liberals seem intent on stopping an inquiry into it, is by the parliament setting up its own inquiry to ask the ministers and the department: 'Who has been pressuring the Department of Home Affairs? Who has been setting up the emergency hotlines that we've been reading about in the papers? Just how high and how close to the top does this connection with Crown Casino go?' These are legitimate questions, and there is no reason to believe it is going to be looked at in this inquiry which, under pressure, the government and the opposition have agreed on. We need to make ministers answer questions. And the Prime Minister needs to answer questions as well. If these allegations are not enough to raise a prima facie case that ministers have done the wrong thing then what is? What do you need to do in this country to get an investigation into you as a minister? If a minister saying, 'I want a fast-track entry into this country for people who have associations with criminal activity and triads,' is not enough, then what is?

I commend the member for Clark and the member for Mayo for raising this. I was the only one in question time in the House of Representatives yesterday who asked the Prime Minister a question about it, and it is becoming increasingly clear why. It is that we know where former ministers go when they leave this place. They go and work for Crown Casino—Labor and Liberal. So we know there is a massive unwillingness from the major parties to ask questions about this.

The Greens in Victoria have found out the hard way what happens when you stand up to the gaming industry. At the last election, the pokies industry spent $1 million, split between the Labor and Liberal parties, to try and keep the Greens from having the balance of power in the Victorian election. And we are seeing again here today the old parties and the gambling industry lining up to stop sunlight from being shone onto this scourge.

Never again will I take a lesson from this government about the need to stop criminals from coming into this country and the need to have tough border protection policies. What we hear from the government is: 'If you're fleeing war and persecution, we'll lock you up. But if you come here with a bag of cash, we'll open the gate for you so you can go and find the drugs and gamble at the casino.' That is the allegation that has been put before the parliament by the member for Clark—and we haven't heard a single denial from the government. This government does not care about border security. This government only cares about beating up on refugees and using border security as a way of winning votes. But if you are someone who has high connections, potentially with criminal organisations in other countries, this government will bend over backwards to fast-track you into this country, drive you through the open gates at the airport, as we have heard, and take you straight to Crown Casino—perhaps via a brothel along the way. And this government will turn a blind eye. And if there are ministers involved then the government doesn't care, and it seems the Labor Party doesn't care.

So: if we want to have an investigation into whether particular officials have done the wrong thing and whether there have been breaches of laws by our agencies, then good! There should be an investigation into whether or not agencies are complying with the law. But the question is: who is going to look into the ministers and the former ministers? Who is going to hold to account the politicians—the ministers who sit here making decisions on behalf of the country and then go and work for Crown Casino? Who is going to look into them? We don't know. We don't know who has done what, but we have heard the allegations being made and we, the parliament and the public, are entitled to an answer.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the members from the government backbench jumping in and intervening and saying there's no case to answer. Well, people think there is a case to answer. If you'd watched 60 Minutes or you'd read the papers, you would've seen the strongest of allegations being made against ministers. And, when those allegations are being made, unless every minister in here is in a position to stand up, hand on heart, and say they did nothing wrong, and unless the Prime Minister is in a position to say: 'I have conducted a full and thorough investigation and none of my ministers have done anything wrong'—unless that is the case, which I suspect it won't be—we are entitled to an answer.

So I commend this motion. And, if this motion fails, as it's likely to do, if there's no change of heart, if the protection racket for ministers and former ministers continues, then we will press ahead in the Senate, because there is the possibility of a Senate inquiry as well. But if we don't get a parliamentary inquiry—because that is the way to hold ministers to account—then this parliament will have exposed the links between the gambling industry and the highest levels of government in this country, and we will not rest until the same standards that this government wants to impose on refugees and Newstart recipients are imposed on their very own frontbench as well.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend this motion. It raises such extremely serious questions that I don't think anyone who has sat here listening to them can listen without a serious pause for thought. What exactly is going on? It highlights the need for two very important aspects, I believe, of good governance. It highlights the freedom of the press to be able to highlight these events and these allegations; without their investigative powers, we would not have these stories and would not be alerted. I think it also highlights the need for a national anticorruption commission. We need to have the power to properly investigate. All the members in this place should feel that their reputations in fact are at stake if these kinds of allegations can be aired. We need to be able to investigate and clear them appropriately. The Australian public deserves to have confidence that no-one is above the law—that everyone is ultimately held to account for their actions.

In my short time in this parliament, I've certainly heard the government talk forcefully of the need for our strong borders and for us to be extremely vigilant as to who is allowed into Australia. We've seen the passing of legislation in relation to holding Australian citizens from coming back, due to their activities. We've certainly seen a strong approach to poor refugees in dire need of medical treatment, and there are all sorts of allegations made in relation to criminal behaviour or that they are not persons that we would want in Australia—never mind the fact that they're not actually trying to come and stay in Australia but simply to come for medical treatment. Yet we have allegations here being raised of persons of seriously questionable character and criminal background being allowed to come to Australia without the proper scrutiny. No one person is above the law, and we, in this place, have a responsibility to make sure that it is applied equally to everyone.

There have been over the last, say, 12 months a number of incidents and allegations raised from both sides of the aisle here about really questionable conduct and deals that highlight the need for a Commonwealth integrity commission. We have heard commitments from the government that this will be pursued but no real indication as to what teeth such a body would be given. In the 2019-20 budget, the government allocated $104.5 million over four years to establish the commission. These are all steps in the right direction but, again, there have been a number of events raised that require this to be dealt with urgently. This isn't something that should take time.

The Australian public has just come through campaigning over several months, with lots of allegations and issues. We had the $444 million contract granted to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation without tender or due diligence; we had the $420 million contract awarded to the Paladin Group, again without tender or competition; we had past and present politicians helping Liberal Party donors Helloworld win a $1 billion contract for federal government travel; and we had the appointments of former politicians and ministerial staffers to the AAT by the government. Meanwhile, Labor is not blameless. It is under fire for the influence of the unions over its policy and direction and how union fees are collected. We have bills before this House in relation to that.

So members of the federal government have the opportunity for nepotism, favouritism in appointments and the granting of contracts, the misuse of confidential information, conflicts of interest, misuse of entitlements, decisions that favour political donors, and crossover appointments between industry lobbying and parliament, yet there is no criminal sanction against these actions. Clearly, we need action. I commend this motion. It is a step in terms of serious criminal behaviour that needs to be investigated, but we also need the proper investigation of ministers and other members.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance.

Debate adjourned.