Senator CARR(9.55 a.m.) —Only this morning Sir Laurence Street called for national rules and national regulations for casinos in this country. Sir Laurence Street was the person who undertook the inquiry into the casino in Sydney. His views, I think, are widely respected in terms of the approach that he took towards the investigations concerning allegations involving the casino in Sydney. The behaviour of the New South Wales government in regard to the Sydney casino quite sharply contrasts with the behaviour of the Victorian government.

Sir Laurence Street's call this morning places in sharp focus the very great need for this inquiry to proceed. In regard to Victoria, it is said that the Crown Casino is the biggest game in town. Of course, the Victorian public may now believe the description best applies to the conduct of the government in that state. Damning allegations have repeatedly been made about the legitimacy of the process employed in Victoria to award the operating licence to Crown Casino.

These allegations have been persistent and widespread. They have come from bureaucrats and they have come from other bidders who were involved in the tender process. The Victorian government has dismissed these claims and has alleged that they are merely a matter of `sour grapes from losers' and `anonymous, vexatious and unsubstantiated slurs from disgruntled operatives'.

Nothing could be further from the truth. ITT Sheraton is claiming that they were disadvantaged in a bid for one of the major casinos in this country. ITT Sheraton is an international firm of high repute which was disadvantaged because, somehow or other, bidding information was transferred to other bidders in the process. That is, in essence, the allegation that is being made.

The media has consistently attempted to examine the issues raised, but has been seriously hamstrung by the onerous secrecy provisions of the Casino Control Act which was put in place in 1991. They have also been hampered by the ongoing refusal of the Victorian Premier to subject himself and his administration to open and balanced public scrutiny of any of these matters concerning his government.

It is no coincidence that the ABC and the Age newspaper in Melbourne—the two media outlets responsible for raising the questions of interference in the bidding process—have been subject to persistent and sustained attack by the Victorian Premier. The Premier has steadfastly rejected calls for a Victorian inquiry into the bidding process and, quite clearly, a royal commission would seem to be the best way to proceed.

These are substantive matters; they are not vexatious matters. They are substantive matters which go to the question of Australia's international reputation in terms of business confidence. These matters have a profound effect on the capacity of firms to undertake tender processes and to have a reasonable expectation that they will be treated fairly without being close to government. The essence of this matter is whether or not you can get a fair go in terms of your business dealings in this country.

The public has never been given the opportunity to assess the alternatives in regard to the Las Vegas style casino and gambling theme park in Melbourne which has been established on the banks of the Yarra. The Premier of Victoria complains about the prospect of a Senate inquiry that would involve the opportunity for witnesses to take the protection of in camera evidence. What could be more ridiculous than this claim coming from a premier who has undertaken a process which has been highlighted by its behind closed doors nature?

The whole process in Victoria has been based on secrecy and behind closed doors manoeuvring. This is in contrast with the casino act which provided the opportunity for the various bids to be put on public display so that the public could make some assessment of what was happening to their city and what was happening in terms of the processes that were being undertaken.

Legal questions arising about the tendering process were handicapped by the secrecy surrounding that whole bidding process. Was it really a competitive tendering process? Why was the design and operation so substantially altered after the announcement of the successful bid? Why was there an increase from 260 rooms to 1,000 rooms in the hotel? Why was there an increase in the building from 22 floors to 34 floors—a substantial altering in the concept from the original and announced public position of the government in Victoria to have a smaller rather than a massive complex? Why was that done after the arrangements were made, in complete contravention of the normal planning processes that one would expect to have been undertaken? Why shouldn't alternative bidders have been advised that that was the case before the tenders were closed?

Why was the number of gaming tables substantially increased at a cost to Crown which was far lower in comparison to other casino arrangements in New South Wales and Queensland? Were secret arrangements en tered into to ensure that Hudson Conway had a special advantage and were rewarded in return for various concessions entered into, particularly for the Liberal Party? Why did the Premier so publicly expose his support for those changes prior to their consideration by an independent casino control authority?

Consistently, the Premier has attempted to convince the public that the bidding process was above reproach. But the allegations have continued, fuelled by the incestuous alliance between the principals of Crown Casino, Jeff Kennett and the Liberal Party. These allegations of cronyism create unanswered questions about the undermining of community confidence in the proper conduct of government and business in Victoria, which ultimately has an effect on the consideration of Australia's reputation at large. They are seriously undermining business confidence both inside and outside Australia.

It is imperative that these allegations are addressed, not to indulge in petty political point-scoring, but to protect investment and jobs for all Australians: not to appease bad losers, but to defend our democratic institutions and protect the freedom of the media and the public's interest and the public's right to know.

Because of the despotic dismissiveness of the Victorian Premier and his contempt for even minimum standards of accountability, the responsibility to put the record straight has fallen to the federal parliament. A properly constituted statutory and public examination of these issues has been supported by all reasonable members in this chamber, of course, transcending party lines. The Senate inquiry will provide an opportunity to clear the air in Victoria and will also provide a critical review of casino licensing processes nationally.

The Victorian Premier has characteristically condemned such an inquiry as a `McCarthyist witch-hunt'. Those of us who are familiar with Victorian politics would find that behaviour by the Premier familiar treatment of anybody that raises issues of public concern. He has said that this is an inquiry based on rumour and innuendo and challenged me—in the public position that I have put on such matters—to produce one factor to justify such an inquiry.

I can say categorically that the current and indisputable facts are that disturbing and collaborating allegations have emanated from a range of sources that challenge the credibility of the Victorian government's probity to the very core of the cabinet inner circle, that is, ministers Stockdale, Storey, Birrell, McNamara and Maclellan. These allegations have not been resolved and their fallout continues to destroy business confidence and community confidence. They foul the casino industry with the stench of collusion and corruption.

As far as I am concerned, there are a number of broader issues that require a much thorough and balanced public examination. Why did the Premier believe a cabinet subcommittee was necessary to watch over the casino control authority and the tendering process when the authority had two expert internal committees to evaluate the planning and the financial issues plus a board and a chairman with the skills and expertise to make the necessary judgment?

Why, contrary to the normal public service practice, were the deliberations of the subcommittee not minuted, thus bypassing the scrutiny through the freedom of information act? Why did the Victorian government act so differently from the governments in Queensland and New South Wales in the process of granting casino licences?  It is quite apparent, in the case of Showboat, where in 1994 the builder of the Sydney casino, Leightons Consortium, was forced to hand over its shareholding to a trustee after its principals were found to be not of good repute. They were later convicted of making false statements during building tenders to obtain a financial advantage.

Sir Laurence Street, who I referred to earlier, made it very clear that the proper process was to ensure that you do not have to wait for criminal inquiries to be proceeded with. The very fact that those matters are under investigation means that the casino authority has an independent responsibility to ensure that due probity is followed. Of course, once again, the practice in Victoria could not be further from what actually occurred in New South Wales.

It is public knowledge that Ron Walker, as I read in the press, has a personal worth of the substantial figure of $125 million. According to public records, he has raised over $45 million for the Liberal Party in recent years and is reported to have personally guaranteed the $10 million overdraft from the National Australia Bank to fund the campaign commitments of the Liberal Party's federal office. From memory, on the night that John Howard claimed victory, Ron Walker was one of only two people he thanked from the organisation. Ron Walker has a central role in these allegations. We saw just yesterday with the `tower of power' in Melbourne, through Hudson Conway's distribution of favours to the Liberal Party hierarchy in Victoria, that Ron Walker has a central role to play in the way in which these operations were run.

There are serious questions about the way in which the TAB was removed from the consortium in Melbourne. Very important questions arise where Mr Williams was a board member as well as a director of Hudson Conway. I should have thought that, at the very least, he had a substantial conflict of interest that should have been explained publicly.

I have been receiving correspondence on such matters from citizens in Victoria. They have been raising very serious matters about the TAB shares, which had an initial part in the bid of some 30 per cent. If time had allowed, the TAB would have been in a position where, I would have thought if it had been part of the Crown consortia that was successful in gaining this tender, its value would have been quite substantially greater than it was when it was sold off by the Victorian government. The Victorian taxpayers were the direct losers as a result of the removal of the TAB from that consortia.

I would have thought that the timing of the TAB's withdrawal from the tendering consortia should have been subject to public investigation. It is important to highlight that the TAB was involved with this bid, with Mr Williams being a critical player in both Hudson Conway, the beneficiary of taking over the TAB shares, and a member of the TAB board. It seems to me, at the very least, that there was a very substantial conflict of interest in that regard. This is a matter that has not received serious consideration in Victoria. There is also the issue of the removal of Federal Hotels from the bidding process. They were removed from the consortia. Very substantial issues have arisen which will require very thorough investigation by a select committee.

Some pretty basic issues have been raised about the probity arrangements undertaken by the Casino Control Authority. Why is it that there has been no proper investigation in Victoria into the quite demonstrable two-way contact between senior members of the Victorian government and the authority which escalated during the period when the Crown bid was redrafted? Why were the probity checks at the authority, which you would expect would be required in any proper process, not followed? Why was documentation of all external contacts—the substance of which raises very serious questions about whether or not it was a clean process in regard to the granting of this licence—not kept?

It seems to me that there is a very uniquely Victorian view operating at the moment on what is arms length when it comes to the Kennett government's administration of casino licences. You have to contrast that quite sharply with, for instance, the treatment of John Darcy Duggan. Do senators recall John Darcy Duggan, a member of that board? The standard of probity demanded from the casino was particularly high when it came to Chief Justice Darcy Duggan.

He was sacked as a member of the gaming commission and control authority because he took a free 20-minute flight in the United States, which was provided by a Nevada poker machine manufacturing company of dubious record. It is intriguing that he was removed from the gaming authority but not the parole board. I wonder whether these allegations would have surfaced or whether these events alluded to would have occurred if there was a man of his integrity about. There is a real issue about the way in which the control authority was altered in such a way as to provide the opportunity for these events to occur.

The Casino Control Authority requires holders of operator licences to be of substantial character in terms of honesty and integrity.

I think these matters ought to be considered in the light of the fact that Crown Casino principal and Hudson Conway Director, Ron Walker, has a reputation as a hardnosed business opportunist concerned with profit rather than public interest. He has shown himself to be unconcerned by protocols of process and conflict of interest provisions in his role as federal treasurer of the Liberal Party—I say that particularly in relation to the arrangements entered into by the National Australia Bank to finance the Liberal Party election campaign—and as a member of the Committee for Melbourne. We are seeing this in the way in which he has run the major events company in Melbourne and the way in which the granting of the grand prix was kept secret for so many months before the tender arrangements were announced.

Quite clearly the question arises as to whether or not there was insider trading. This inquiry will look at the adequacy of the Commonwealth's corporations and security law in relation to this matter. Lloyd Williams, a fellow principal of Crown and Director of Hudson Conway, has barely managed to avoid prosecution as a property developer and has provided self-confessed benefits to a union official in breach of the Crimes Act. His recorded business dealings demonstrate absolute contempt for proper process. The validity of the damaging allegations concerning Hudson Conway are still to be determined by the legal system. These allegations include—

Senator Alston —Civil action, you are talking about?

Senator CARR —They involve criminal actions, as you well know, Senator Alston. There is the issue of whether or not benefits were derived by a former chief executive of Coles Myer, arising from the company's lease of headquarters from Hudson Conway. There is also the issue of the attempted theft by deception by Gleem Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Hudson Conway, against the Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria. There is the question of whether or not the Victorian Premier himself derived a benefit from Hudson Conway through the major renovations to his private residence during 1994-95.

This Senate inquiry will provide witnesses with immunity from prosecution under the various stringent and oppressive provisions of the Victorian Casino and Gaming Act. It will enable those individuals with the knowledge of and concerns about the bidding process to publicly substantiate their claims. It will attack the climate of fear, jingoistic vilification and intimidation within Victoria which has been imposed by the Kennett government. It will uphold the right of the media to undertake legitimate investigations of government actions, which one would expect from any independent media operating within the public interest.

This latter role of the media has been crucial to uncovering the many allegations surrounding Crown Casino. In October 1994, the SBC Dominguez Barry report was released. SBC Dominguez Barry were the financial advisers to the Casino Control Authority. They prepared two reports, one in June 1993 and one in September 1993. The reports disclosed that the key feature of the bids was that the initial bids were received by Crown Casino, Jupiters and ITT Sheraton in June 1993. Jupiters placed a low bid and dropped out. Crown Casino's bid was substantially less than ITT Sheraton's initial bid. In August 1994, according to the SBC Dominguez Barry report, ITT Sheraton marginally lowered their bid. Crown Casino increased their bid substantially to match the ITT Sheraton bid so that it could be said there was no significant or substantial difference between the two bids.

Jim Gallagher, who has been the spokesperson for ITT Sheraton, has always maintained that during the bidding process Crown Casino obtained an unfair advantage. ITT Sheraton was led to believe that they would be successful—

Senator Alston —Who by?

Senator CARR —That is a very interesting point, Senator Alston: who by? It demonstrates that right from the beginning the processes were the subject of quite serious doubt. Crown Casino knew that they had to increase their bid. How did they know that? How did Crown Casino know that they had to change their bid? How did Crown Casino know how much they had to change their bid by?

The Kennett government has always maintained that nobody had access to the bids apart from the Casino Control Authority. Terry McCrann and Stephen Mayne of the Herald-Sun have both reported that a Treasury minute prepared for the Treasurer at, as I understand it, the Treasurer's request disclosed the bids—

Senator Alston —You understand it.

Senator CARR —That is what it says, Senator Alston—and that the details of the bids have been forwarded to Treasury officials by the Casino Control Authority. Sally Neighbour of Four Corners and more recently Russell Skelton of the Age have reported that they have identified four independent sources who claim that details of the bids were forwarded to the Casino Subcommittee of Cabinet, which comprised Mr Kennett, Mr Stockdale, Mr Birrell, Mr McClellan, Mr Storcy and Mr McNamara. Not all of those are ministers.

I am sure an inquiry such as this would be able to ask them whether or not they can assist in that respect. The inquiry will also allow for the examination of the adequacies of the Commonwealth legislation in relation to casino licensing, particularly the effectiveness of the Corporations Law and the need for uniform legislation on casino licensing. It will also allow for an assessment of the adequacies of the Financial Transactions Act in regard to transactions in casinos.

An inquiry will also provide an opportunity for an assessment of whether the granting of casino licences has affected Australia's international reputation. It will also provide, very importantly, the opportunity for an assessment of whether a full judicial inquiry, a royal commission or another inquiry is needed into the Crown Casino with particular reference to the tendering process and whether Australia's interests have been protected, particularly in regard to the record and reputation of tenderers.

There is a climate of fear and intimidation in Melbourne directed at those who have criticised the Victorian government. Why shouldn't there be, given the oppressive prohibitions of the Casino Control Act and of course given the long record of this government in Victoria in terms of the way in which it has dismissed critics and removed the normal protections of a democratic society that people are able to put forward views and have protection by the law?

What we have seen in Victoria is that judges have been sacked. We have seen the head of the Children's Court removed. We have seen the removal of the DPP. We have seen the removal of the Commissioner of Equal Opportunity. We have seen numerous changes to the Victorian constitution which close off the normal provisions of legal appeal. We have seen that in regard to school closures, for instance. Appeals to the Supreme Court of Victoria are being blocked. We have seen legal prohibitions placed on public servants, school teachers and others from publicly drawing attention to inadequacies in government policy.

This would be absolutely intolerable in any normal society, but in Victoria there is a simple rule: the government is above the law. We have seen with KNF Advertising that when they are caught out they change the law. The Victorian government are in contempt of the Victorian people and the normal democratic processes. As far as I am concerned, the Australian parliament has a very real and legitimate interest in the very serious allegations that have been raised concerning the Crown Casino. It has a duty to allow citizens to put their views, to assess their claims and to clear the air on the ever-lengthening shadow of allegations surrounding Crown Casino.

I believe that if people have nothing to hide they will come forward. They will tell the truth. They will put on the public record their views and they will allow their claims to be assessed. In that way we can determine whet her or not what occurred in Victoria was above board and was clean. We can then tell the world that the processes in Australia are in fact proper. We can say that you can get a fair go when you go for a contract. The alternative is to allow these rumours and these allegations and facts to continue to go unassessed. That is totally inappropriate if we are trying to get to the bottom of these matters. I have every confidence that this important inquiry will legitimately revolve around what remains a fundamental issue of government probity in this country.

Senator Alston —Will you be on it?

Senator CARR —Senator Alston has asked whether I will be on it. The answer is no. I will not behave like you did in the way you stalked this country seeking to dig and to impugn the reputations of people in this country. What I will do is put a position and a case that there ought to be an inquiry. I will allow others to properly assess the validity of these claims and allow this Senate ultimately to come to a position in terms of the merits of the allegations that have been made.

Senator Alston, I will not degenerate the way you did when you sought to use inquiries to harangue and attack the civil liberties of Australians. I will not allow that to occur, though I will say to you, Senator, that there is a legitimate role for the Senate in these issues. It is proper that these allegations be investigated thoroughly and that there be a proper and, as much as possible, open—the emphasis being on open—process of disclosure. I ask the Senate to support this proposition.