Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes the allegations of Crown Resort's links to organised crime, illegal offshore activities, insider trading, money laundering, illegal modification of gambling devices, domestic violence and drug trafficking; and

(2) calls on the Australian Government to establish a Royal Commission to inquire into and report on Crown, including but not limited to:

(a) the allegations of criminal activity made by the Member for Denison in the House of Representatives in October 2017;

(b) the alleged criminal activity reported by Nine newspapers and 60 Minutes in July 2019;

(c) the allegations of criminal activity made by the Member for Clark in the House of Representatives in July 2019;

(d) the allegations of criminal activity made by the Member for Clark and the ABC in October 2019;

(e) the response to these allegations by state and federal agencies;

(f) the conduct of current and former associates of Crown including shareholders, managers and board members;

(g) the conduct of current and former federal and state politicians and party officials relevant to the Crown matter;

(h) specifically the Federal Government's and Opposition's refusal to endorse a motion, put by the Member for Clark on 15 October 2019, calling for a Royal Commission into the Australian casino industry; and

(i) any related matters.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Clark from moving the following motion forthwith:

That the House:

(1) notes the allegations of Crown Resort's links to organised crime, illegal offshore activities, insider trading, money laundering, illegal modification of gambling devices, domestic violence and drug trafficking; and

(2) calls on the Australian Government to establish a Royal Commission to inquire into and report on Crown, including but not limited to:

(a) the allegations of criminal activity made by the Member for Denison in the House of Representatives in October 2017;

(b) the alleged criminal activity reported by Nine newspapers and 60 Minutes in July 2019;

(c) the allegations of criminal activity made by the Member for Clark in the House of Representatives in July 2019;

(d) the allegations of criminal activity made by the Member for Clark and the ABC in October 2019;

(e) the response to these allegations by state and federal agencies;

(f) the conduct of current and former associates of Crown including shareholders, managers and board members;

(g) the conduct of current and former federal and state politicians and party officials relevant to the Crown matter;

(h) specifically the Federal Government's and Opposition's refusal to endorse a motion, put by the Member for Clark on 15 October 2019, calling for a Royal Commission into the Australian casino industry; and

(i) any related matters.

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

Just before I allow the member for Clark to continue, I draw his attention very briefly to the length of this motion. I'll allow it on this occasion, but I'm making the warning more generally. If it goes for more than a page and it takes a minute and a half for you to read and you get almost halfway through the alphabet, it's a sure sign it's too long, but I'll let him proceed.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Speaker. There is an urgent need to suspend standing orders to deal with this motion because the misconduct at Crown has reached such staggering proportions that it can be no longer ignored by this place. We now have such a long list of allegations—it probably does go through the alphabet, Speaker—serious allegations of organised crime; illegal offshore activities, in particular in China, resulting in the arrest of numerous Crown employees; insider trading, with the revelations that the company has given James Packer access to privileged information which he's not entitled to; money laundering; illegal modification of gambling devices; domestic violence; and drug dealing and trafficking. There is an urgent need to suspend standing orders and to deal with this because we cannot rely on the existing inquiries.

Currently—in fact, just today—the New South Wales Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority is continuing with its inquiry into whether Crown is fit and proper to hold the licence for Barangaroo. What remarkable work that inquiry is doing and what remarkable revelations have emerged, including, as recently as this morning, the chairwoman's admitting that money laundering is going on at Crown casino and being unable to explain the evidence presented by me last year of young people walking into gambling rooms at Crown casino with Aldi bags containing millions of dollars in cash which was being swapped for chips and then almost straightaway being cashed in so the money was effectively washed—money laundered.

The problem with the New South Wales inquiry is its terms of reference are simply too narrow to go to all of the matters we need to consider, including the conduct of governments and politicians and political parties. The Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, the VCGLR, is currently doing an inquiry, but that agency has shown itself to be worse than useless in recent years. In fact, its so-called inquiry at the moment is simple a show-cause asking Crown if it has been up to no good and accepting that Crown said, 'There's nothing to see here.'

Just yesterday it was revealed that the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, AUSTRAC, is finally on the job and is investigating allegations of money laundering at Crown, but, again, the remit of that organisation is just too narrow. It will only be looking at the money-laundering allegations. I regret to say that, as pleased as I am that AUSTRAC is now on the job, I don't have huge confidence in that organisation. Remember that the first allegations of money laundering were made over three years ago, but it was only yesterday that we learnt that AUSTRAC is actually conducting an investigation into Crown. I would add, when talking about AUSTRAC, let's not forget that last year I provided hard evidence in this place that between 90 and 95 per cent of club poker machine venues in New South Wales are not compliant with money-laundering and terrorism-financing allegations. When I reported that to AUSTRAC last year my concerns were batted away.

The Attorney-General said last year, when I called for a royal commission into the casino industry, that all was well and that the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity was on the beat and would look into it. Of course, ACLEI didn't find anything, and it didn't result in any action taken against Crown casino, despite all of the evidence then and all of the evidence since. So I regret to say that the ACLEI inquiry launched by the Attorney-General last year and which was supposed to hose down this whole issue with Crown was at best incompetent and at worst a whitewash.

What is needed is a royal commission, so there's an urgent need to suspend standing orders for everyone in this place to debate the merits or otherwise of having a royal commission to look specifically at Crown casino. There are no existing inquiries that will do the job, and neither can we have faith in the existing regulatory framework to clean up Crown or the casino industry more broadly.

Of course, one of the problems here and one of the challenges I have in convincing honourable members to support my motion is that the political class have been running a protection racket for Crown Resorts for years. How else to explain the fact that, about one year ago, when I called for a royal commission into the casino industry, with all of the evidence that was available at that time, neither the government nor the opposition supported that motion? But I suppose that's understandable when you consider the money that sloshes around in this matter. In fact, when I pull up the financials for financial year 2018-19, which, of course, is the 11½ months leading up to the 2019 federal election, I see that Crown Resorts donated $179,642 across 20 donations, all focused on the three states where it has casino licences. What a fabulous investment that was for Jamie Packer and his mates at Crown! For less than $200,000, they paid another one of their insurance policy instalments to ensure that the political class would continue to protect them. If my honourable colleagues in this place want to refute that allegation, if my honourable colleagues in this place want to show—

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

I say to the member for Clark I'm picking him out not on an aspect he's necessarily suspecting. He needs to be demonstrating why standing orders should be suspended, so he needs to relate his material to that. If they happen to be suspended, he's obviously free to have the debate, but the debate is about whether standing orders should be suspended or not.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Speaker. Yes, standing orders must be suspended and we must deal with this motion immediately because so much evidence, including as recently as this morning in the New South Wales inquiry into Crown, has now accumulated that it is clear that Crown Resorts is a festering sore that needs to be dealt with in this place at a political level. We can not any more rely on other inquiries or other agencies. Not only do we have to deal with it politically in this place; we need to do it urgently. We can't let this rot go on any longer. Every day we allow Crown Resorts to keep trading the way it's been trading for umpteen years is another day that it is breaking the law. It's another day that directors are not doing their duty. It's another day the community is not being protected from that lawbreaking. So it is patently clear, I suggest, that we need to suspend standing orders to deal with this.

We need to clean up Crown. We need to show immediately that we in this place believe in the rule of law and understand that a gross misconduct is going on at Crown casino, that we in this place understand that Crown is not a fit and proper organisation to be given a third casino licence, to operate at Barangaroo in Sydney. Unless honourable members back this motion, they will show again that they are part of the problem and not prepared to be part of the solution.

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

Is the motion seconded?

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

I rise to second the motion by the member for Clark on the urgent need to suspend standing orders. There is an inquiry going on at the moment with respect to Crown in New South Wales, and that is why there is such urgency today. Time is of the essence. The terms of that inquiry are too narrow and nobody is being held to account. What we need is a royal commission. That is why it is so urgent that we suspend standing orders today.

It's hard to believe that it was a year ago that I stood in this place and supported the member for Clark in his initial call for a royal commission. That was following video footage of alleged money laundering, with a bag of money, thousands of dollars in an Aldi shopping bag, going over the counter at Crown and then being returned as gambling chips and then going back as gambling chips with the money washed. We heard shocking allegations of junket operations and concerns around border security, prostitution and further money laundering. Those allegations have been made on Four Cornersand 60 Minutes.

Every day that we don't act is a day where further harm can be caused. That is unacceptable and that is why there is this urgency today. We have done very, very little in this place to address the harm caused by gambling, the harm caused by Crown casino. That is why I supported the member for Clark's motion last time, that is why I support his motion this time and that is why I support that the standing orders be suspended so that we can deal with this motion—because it is so incredibly urgent.

Last time there was a motion around Crown casino, both the major parties voted together. Why did they do that? It's hard to know because it isn't that often that everybody joins together in this place—the major parties, anyway. But then, today, I had a look again. I refreshed my mind as to the Australian Electoral Commission's list of donations—$1.47 million in the last 10 years has been gifted by the very generous Crown Resorts Limited to the major parties. More than $1.8 million is on the record with the AEC.

Harm caused by gambling affects everywhere. It is like a cancer. That is why we must suspend the standing orders today and debate this motion. Time is of the absolute essence. Looking at the obscene amount of donations, I am surprised we don't have a 'parliamentary friends of Crown Resorts' group in this place. The gambling industry is our NRA. We must address this as a matter of urgency.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the suspension of standing orders. The government will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders and the government doesn't support this motion. The suspension of standing orders is calling for a motion to be moved which self-evidently calls to refer a matter to a royal commission, so to create a royal commission. The government believes this is a completely inappropriate course of action.

These issues are not new to this chamber. Members would recall that in July 2019, when these serious allegations were first raised, the government referred them to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity under section 18 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission Act 2006. I can also advise the House that on 30 July 2020 ACLEI concluded its investigation, and its investigation report is publicly available on its website. The investigation considered three allegations: whether there was corruption by Home Affairs staff in relation to the provision of Australian visas for Crown VIPs; whether there was corruption by Australian Border Force staff in relation to the clearing of those VIPs at the Australian border; and whether an ABF staff member engaged in corrupt conduct while employed by a VIP junket operator. A significant investigation was undertaken by ACLEI in relation to each of these three corruption allegations. This investigation was looking for any evidence that staff members from Home Affairs or Australian Border Force engaged in corrupt conduct in the provision of visas for Crown VIPs or the clearing of those VIPs at the Australian border. The investigation also looked for evidence of corruption in relation to a particular ABS staff member who was also employed by a VIP junket operator. In investigating whether there was corruption by Home Affairs staff in relation to the provision of Australian visas for Crown VIPs, ACLEI's investigation included reviewing the arrangements Home Affairs had with Crown to support applicants for visas and for reviewing visa applications processed under that arrangement. The investigation did not find evidence of corrupt conduct by Home Affairs or ABF staff in relation to any of the three allegations.

As was stated in the House the last time the member for Clark sought to establish a joint parliamentary committee inquiry into allegations surrounding Crown casino, ACLEI was the most appropriate body to consider these allegations. It is worth reminding the member and the House that ACLEI is the specialist agency responsible for the investigation of corruption issues in Australian government law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Home Affairs. ACLEI is highly experienced in these types of investigations. In fact, it is better resourced to quickly and effectively commence an investigation into allegations of corruption than any other single body or envisaged body in the Commonwealth.

I might note for the member for Clark's benefit that ACLEI's investigative powers are essentially the same as a royal commission's, including the power to compel evidence. I might also note that it has covert powers, such as controlled operations powers, as well as the power of arrest. So, if ACLEI obtains admissible evidence of any criminal offence in the course of its investigation into this matter, it must, by compulsion, give the evidence to the relevant police or prosecutorial authority, including state or territory authorities. As noted, the ACLEI investigation has been completed, with the conclusion that there was no corrupt conduct.

It is also worth noting that the New South Wales state government has launched its own investigation, chaired by the Hon. Patricia Bergin. The Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority established an inquiry under section 143 of the Casino Control Act 1992 in New South Wales on 14 August 2019 regarding Crown Resorts' Barangaroo casino licence. Under its terms of reference, the inquiry has focused on the events in late May 2019 sounding Melco Resorts & Entertainment Ltd's share sale agreement with CPH Crown Holdings Pty Ltd to buy shares in Crown. Media reporting raising various allegations into the conduct of Crown Resorts, including money laundering and junket operators and whether it should continue to hold a restricted gaming licence, and ILGA's regulatory capability and domestic and international best practice on gaming operations and regulation. Hearings commenced on 24 February 2020 and will continue in the lead-up to the commissioner's report to the ILGA on 1 February 2021. I would also add that the Australian government's financial intelligence agency, AUSTRAC, has confirmed that it has commenced an enforcement investigation into Crown Melbourne and the enforcement investigation is as a result of an AUSTRAC compliance assessment that commenced in September 2019.

Standing orders should not be suspended to allow the member for Clark to move this motion. The government doesn't support the creation of a royal commission to conduct a simultaneous investigation into Crown casino when many of these issues have been addressed by ACLEI's investigation, while others are still subject to the ongoing New South Wales and AUSTRAC investigations.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor support the suspension of standing orders to facilitate this debate, but I should foreshadow that we don't support the substantive motion. The member for Clark hasn't given the opposition any advanced warning or consulted us on this motion. If he's serious about it, I'd encourage him to discuss it with us, particularly the shadow Attorney-General. Crown casino is the subject of a number of investigations at the moment, including in New South Wales. We look forward to the conclusion of those inquiries. If there is a need for further inquiries, the opposition has an open mind on this matter. The point needs to be very clearly made: anybody who thinks that corruption doesn't exist isn't looking. You can see evidence of that in New South Wales at ICAC now. Anyone who thinks that corruption doesn't exist at a federal level is just naive.

The minister at the table just mentioned ACLEI, a very good organisation, an organisation that I had the privilege to oversee as the Minister for Home Affairs in the previous Labor government. It was in working with that organisation that I saw corruption close up. I saw corruption at Sydney airport, with customs officials trying to bring drugs into the country. It was the work of that organisation that the minister just mentioned that helped to expose that and catch those individuals and prosecute them. Over that period of time, we expanded the remit of ACLEI. But it is fair to say that that, in itself, is not enough. We need an organisation that covers every department, every agency and all the politicians here in this building if we're going to make sure that, where corruption raises its head, it's caught and it's stamped out. The fact that we're debating here again a call for another ad hoc royal commission into allegations which, amongst other things—

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member needs to relate his material to why he supports the suspension of the standing orders in the member for Clark's motion.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct. You need to focus on why you're supporting the motion.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will always support motions that facilitate debate. This government all too often seeks to gag debate in this place. It doesn't like to hear alternative voices. It doesn't like to allow anybody from this side of the chamber to have their voice heard. Whenever the Leader of the Opposition stands at this dispatch box to suspend standing orders, he's almost automatically shut down. That is not good for public debate in this country. They don't let the parliament sit. It sat all too little this year. They don't like debate. Whenever the opposition leader, or any other member of the opposition, seeks to suspend standing orders, they get shut down.

They don't like scrutiny. What did the government do in response to the organisation that identified the sports rorts scandal and that identified a block of land bought in Western Sydney that was valued at $3 million but was purchased for $30 million? They cut the budget of the Australian National Audit Office. That's what happened two weeks ago. It was a $14 million cut to that organisation. The minister asked me to argue why the suspension of standing orders should occur. I'll tell you why. It's because we need a bit of scrutiny in this place. There's an organisation which, because of the budget cut two weeks ago, instead of doing 48 investigations into the way in which the government spends public money, will only be able to do about 38 next year. It doesn't like scrutiny.

This place is where scrutiny should occur, so that's why we support the suspension of standing orders and that's why we support the establishment of a National Integrity Commission. It's essential, and I thought both sides of the house agreed. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said that the government supported it. The current Prime Minister said that they support it. Now we're hearing that people on the backbench don't support it. If you're serious about weeding out corruption and if you're serious about good governance, then you allow debate, you encourage scrutiny, you fund organisations like the National Audit Office, you expand the remit of organisations like ACLEI and you set up a National Integrity Commission. Otherwise all you're going to get is more of what we've seen in New South Wales at ICAC last week, infesting federal politics—nobody wants that.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the member for Blaxland to correct the record. The motion was provided to the Manager of Government Business, the Manager of Opposition Business and to others well in advance of parliament sitting at 12 noon. I assume it was an unintentional misleading of the House, but I would ask the member for Blaxland to correct the record. The opposition had plenty of time to consider and form a view on this motion.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would the member for Blaxland like to make any other comment on that?

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I advise the member for Clark that the advice given to me is that we weren't given much advanced warning. I'm happy to be corrected if we were alerted to this earlier today. The substantive point I was making to the member is that, if he has a serious proposition here, calling for the establishment of a serious body, then I would urge him an the shadow Attorney-General—I'm sure I can speak on his behalf—to sit down and have a proper conversation with the opposition about it.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this debate has expired. The question is that the motion be disagreed 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.