Citing “overall evidence” given by submissions and witnesses throughout the proceedings, counsel assisting found it is not in the public interest that Crown Melbourne continue to hold the casino licence in Victoria.

“The only way in which Crown Melbourne can return to a position of suitability is if those regulating its affairs (VCGLR and government) are prepared to give Crown Melbourne the time that it needs to implement the necessary reforms and are prepared to trust that Crown Melbourne will diligently pursue those reforms, and that the end result, whatever form it might take, is something that will be acceptable,” the closing submission noted.

“It is open, on all of the evidence before this Commission, for those regulating Crown Melbourne’s affairs to doubt whether they could ever trust Crown Melbourne again.

“Having regard to the nature and extent of Crown’s failings, the task of reform is enormous, the path is uncertain, and the outcomes are speculative.”

The closing submission acknowledged that while evidence suggests a reform “may be possible” it flagged that it would be a “complicated” task and that “nothing short of complete, holistic, bottom up and down reform is required”.

Earlier this year saw the stepping down of key Crown board members, including executive Ken Barton, directors Andrew Demetriou, Michael Johnston, Guy Jalland and Harold Mitchell when the Andrews government confirmed it’d be pressing ahead with the royal commission following damning reports of illegal behaviour.

Elsewhere in the closing submission made by counsel assisting was the fate of two key associates: current Crown Resorts executive chairman Helen Coonan and current chief executive of Crown Melbourne Xavier Walsh.

VIEW ALL

Counsel assisting found both Ms Coonan and Mr Walsh to not be suitable associates of Crown Melbourne.

The former, counsel assisting wrote, was a director of Crown Resorts during the events that were the subject of consideration in the Bergin inquiry and “the evidence regarding her involvement in the underpayment of gaming tax matter raises issues of character and integrity”. The Bergin inquiry, led by former Supreme Court judge Patricia Bergin, SC, examined serious allegations of suspected money laundering and eventually found the Crown was unfit to hold the licence for its Sydney-based waterfront casino. 

Meanwhile, counsel assisting said the latter and his “involvement in the Bonus Jackpots underpayment of gaming tax matter”, which goes back to mid-2018, is a key element in its reason for finding Mr Walsh as unsuitable.

Counsel assisting added that Mr Walsh’s “recent handling of the underpayments of tax issue and the manner in which it was not brought to the attention of this Commission is of deep concern and raises issues of character and integrity”.

Counsel assisting found that due to the nature of what both Ms Coonan and Mr Walsh had done, it is unable to cite specific action as to what would be required for them to become suitable.

Conclusion and next steps

In wrapping up the executive summary, counsel assisting noted that if the commission is prepared to recommend that Crown be entrusted with a chance to regain its suitability, subject to proper supervision, “it would seem that the real test of whether Crown has achieved its aspirations for reform will be the suitability review slated for 2023”.

“It would be for the regulator then to decide whether Crown Melbourne has reformed, and is, at that point in time, suitable,” counsel assisting said.
Before making a recommendation that the casino licence should be cancelled, counsel assisting said the commission should consider the effects such a move would have.

First, cancellation of the casino licence with immediate effect “would be highly disruptive – having the potential to cause significant harm to many third parties who have had no involvement whatsoever in the misconduct of Crown Melbourne over the years,” counsel assisting wrote.

“The impact of immediate cancellation would likely have inestimable negative consequences for many people, at least in the short term,” counsel assisting said.

Secondly, counsel assisting said any cancellation of the casino licence “would need to provide adequate time for adjustment, including but not limited to, the conduct of an application process for a new licensee”.

“A deferral of the date of cancellation could provide for a period within which a more orderly transition to a new licensee can be achieved – say a year to 18 months,” counsel assisting said.

“Crown Melbourne could reapply for the casino license at that time, by which time it would need to be able to demonstrate that it is suitable, rather than on the path to suitability.”

Lastly, counsel assisting noted that leaving Crown in effective control of the casino, a licensee found to be unsuitable, “cannot occur unless that control were subject to supervision of some kind – whether a manager under section 22, or a monitor, which would need to be implemented by legislative amendment to create the office of a supervisor”.

Pictured: commissioner Ray Finkelstein AO QC