Thursday, 10 December 2020

Crown Casino

Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (14:26): My question is to the minister for gambling, but once again she is not in attendance in question time, so I will ask the Premier. Last month I asked the Premier why Crown still holds a casino licence in Victoria given evidence of its illegal behaviour revealed by the New South Wales inquiry. The Premier said these are just allegations, not findings or proof. However, since then Crown itself has admitted it very likely allowed money laundering to occur at its Melbourne and Perth casinos, and the New South Wales regulator considers this so serious it has refused to allow Crown a licence to operate in New South Wales. In light of this evidence and admissions by Crown itself I would like to ask the Premier again: does he believe Crown is still fit to hold a casino licence here in Victoria?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:27): I thank the member for Melbourne for her question. At the outset can I indicate that the minister’s title is the minister for gaming. I did not think we needed to play word games. We all know that the member for Melbourne and her political party are opposed to all gambling of any sort, any kind, anywhere. We all know that. We do not need to play those games. We know and understand that that is their view. That is not the view in broader policy terms of many, many Victorians, who regard it as a legitimate form of recreational activity. They also regard taking care of those who have a gambling problem as very serious work, and that is why this year’s budget, like every budget that we have had the honour of presenting, provides additional supports to those for whom gambling is a powerful addiction, an evil thing. That is the first point I will make.

Given that the questioner has in effect acknowledged that this is not the first time she has asked this question, I will refer her again to my answer when last she inquired in almost precisely the same terms. Just beyond that, though, can I add to that by saying that the honourable member is right when she says—I do not have a time line in front of me, but I believe she is right—that since the last time she asked me this question not only have there been closing submissions by counsel assisting an inquiry in another state but also in the running of that inquiry evidence has been led where admissions have been made. Those admissions are well known and well understood to the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation. They will be, I am very confident, assessed by our gaming and liquor control regulator here in Victoria. We do take these matters seriously, but at this stage we retain confidence in all licence-holders. Submissions and admissions are serious matters. We will wait and see what the inquiry says and we will wait and see what work our regulator brings forward in terms of findings of fact. They are serious matters; there is no debate about that—at least I would hope not.

The only debate that could possibly be had on the seriousness of these matters would be one to create mischief, because the fact of the matter is our regulators take these matters very seriously. Probity and integrity, not just in this market but in all markets where any players operate, any licence-holders operate, have always been important and they will always be important. I am not able to perhaps give the member for Melbourne what she really wants, and that is perhaps a declaration of a change in policy that there shall be no casino anywhere in Victoria ever. I cannot do that. But I can confirm for her that despite the word games as to the minister’s title, we as a government and a public sector more broadly take the administration of the highest standards in these industries very, very seriously.

Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (14:30): I thank the Premier for his answer. I note that he said, ‘We will wait and see what the inquiry and the Victorian regulator say’. More than a year ago I asked the previous minister about Crown and allegations of money laundering, and she said there would be an urgent inquiry by the regulator into these allegations of illegal behaviour by Crown. That urgent inquiry never reported. I also asked the Premier about this last month. He said that he would follow it up, but we have heard nothing. Premier, what happened to the urgent inquiry from more than a year ago?

Members interjecting.

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:31): On form, I thought you might have been having a go—what an amazing conclusion for me to draw that the Leader of the Opposition might well have been negative. What an unfair conclusion for me to draw! What a terrible thing. Shame on me that I might have assumed that every day and twice on Sundays this one is all about the politics—and negative. But I digress.

Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, we know the Premier has demonstrated over this year that he can be a little forgetful at times—‘Why did I say “security guard” in my press conference?’—but we just talked about this yesterday. You must use titles and you must not use question time as an opportunity to attack the opposition; okay? We just talked about this yesterday.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrandyte will address his point of order to the Chair.

Ms Ryan: On a further point of order, Speaker, I think the member for Melbourne actually asked a very succinct question, and the Premier has used 40 seconds of 1 minute to simply delay making any kind of response to the member for Melbourne. On the issue of relevance, more than half of his allotted time has expired, and he is clearly using an attack on our side of the Parliament as a diversionary tactic because he does not want to answer the question from the member for Melbourne. I would ask you to bring him back to answering the member for Melbourne’s question.

The SPEAKER: Order! There was a discussion over the table. I do now note the Premier will come back to answering the question.

Mr ANDREWS: The member for Melbourne has asked me a question, and I am more than happy to refer to the minister for gaming to write to the member for Melbourne. I apologise if there has been a commitment given to respond to you and that has not happened. It is my expectation that when a matter is referred that you would get a prompt and detailed response.

Ms McLeish interjected.

Mr ANDREWS: Well, for those that have never been so much as an acting minister let alone a minister, let me explain how this works. I will take it, I will refer it and I will make sure the member for Melbourne gets an answer.