The royal commission, which was first confirmed earlier this year, has heard vast evidence from current and past stakeholders surrounding damning allegations put forward with respect to illegal activity being carried out over several years.

When noting the Crown’s unsuitability to continue its license, counsel assisting set some groundwork for the commission to consider if Crown should hope to resume its licence.

“If the Commission finds that Crown is not suitable, and/or that it is not in the public interest for it to continue to hold the casino licence in Victoria, the Commission is asked to do two things: (a) inquire into and report on what action (if any) would be required for Crown Melbourne to become suitable, or for it to be in the public interest for Crown Melbourne to continue to hold the casino licence in Victoria?; (b) make any recommendations that the Commission considers appropriate arising from its inquiry,” counsel assisting said.

“For the reasons already advanced, counsel assisting submit that, having regard to all of the evidence, it is open to find that Crown Melbourne is not presently suitable, and that further, it is not in the public interest that Crown Melbourne continue to hold the casino licence in Victoria,” counsel assisting added, noting that evidence shows instances of “grave, systemic breaches of the law, and equally importantly, sustained breaches of the trust and confidence reposed in Crown Melbourne to administer the casino licence”.

Counsel assisting noted that Crown will remain in a state of “present unsuitability” for up to five years.

What needs to happen?

According to the closing submission, the only way in which Crown Melbourne can return to a position of suitability is if those regulating its affairs, i.e. The Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) and the 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”.

VIEW ALL

“Trust in the licensee is at the core of the legislative framework regulating casinos in Victoria,” counsel assisting said.

“Crown Melbourne has betrayed the trust reposed in it time and again over many years. In substance, Crown Melbourne accepts that to be the case, and is asking to be given a second chance.”

Taking that into consideration, counsel assisting flagged that Crown Melbourne is capable of making recommendations to facilitate the path back to suitability.

“To that end, one option would be to recommend the appointment of an independent monitor to closely scrutinise and report upon Crown Melbourne’s progress of reform, similar to that which occurred in relation to the Licensee of the Sydney Casino following the Bergin Inquiry,” counsel assisting said.

“Alternatively, [the commission could] conclude that, in combination, the past failings of Crown Melbourne are so great, and the path to redemption so enormous, involved, unpredictable and time consuming, that neither the VCGLR nor the State of Victoria could have the required confidence that the casino operator will reach a satisfactory state of suitability, or that the required trust and confidence in the licensee could be restored, within an acceptable time frame – and that as a consequence the casino licence should be cancelled.”

Counsel assisting also pointed to problems surrounding the current Crown directors as a key issue to address if there was any hope to ensure its suitability in retaining a licence.

“The current directors are spread thin across the business and are involved much more in management issues than is ordinarily desirable for directors,” counsel assisting said.

“There is difficulty and delay in securing the right people for key roles, particularly while the company is under the scrutiny of inquiries probing into its affairs. That is not a situation which will end soon.

“There remains the Western Australian Royal Commission. Whatever else might flow from these inquiries, ongoing close scrutiny of present and past conduct should be expected, with the potential for further revelations of poor conduct.”

Conclusion

In respect of the licence suitability, counsel assisting concluded that “there is a reasonable basis for saying this complete reformation is possible – in the sense that corporate reforms have been known to occur in the past, that change of personnel, approach and culture has been known to be achievable”.

“Given what has emerged in this hearing, the path back to suitability is less clear because of the breadth and depth of Crown’s current problems,” counsel assisting said.

“Suitability will not be achieved simply by Board renewal. Board renewal itself has been difficult to achieve in the current environment. Structural reform is required. The extent of the cultural problems which exist within the organisation create a high degree of uncertainty about how much time is required before reform and a self-sustaining culture will be achieved.

“The exploration of issues and evidence by this Commission has uncovered inappropriate conduct, sometimes illegal conduct, certainly not conduct befitting a suitable person. In the limited time that this Commission has had to explore Crown’s affairs it has unearthed significant examples of poor behaviour, on occasion accidentally.

Counsel assisting added: “The evidence does not elucidate a clear pathway with certain outcomes, beyond the observation that with the right people and the right commitment the required change can be achieved.

“The only ‘action’ which could be described with any certainty, is that if Crown Melbourne is permitted to keep the casino licence, it cannot and should not be trusted to implement the reform process unsupervised.

“A monitor with extensive powers to closely scrutinise the reform process, with powers to look into every aspect of Crown Melbourne’s affairs, past and present, is the only conceivable way, having regard to Crown Melbourne’s track record, that any confidence could be gained that the reform process was progressing appropriately. The powers of a monitor should be extensive and include powers to obtain access to documents and advice, and to interrogate staff.

“This will be best implemented by legislative amendment to create the office of a supervisor.”