James Packer’s lawyers claim his reign as an influential figure at Crown is over, as the Perth Casino Royal Commission prepares to deliver its findings.
Billionaire James Packer’s lawyers claim his reign as an influential figure at Crown is over, as the Royal Commission tasked with determining whether Perth’s only casino should retain its licence prepares to deliver its findings.
Today marked the second and final day of closing submissions for the inquiry, called in the wake of a damning report that accused Crown of laundering money through subsidiaries’ bank accounts at its Perth and Melbourne operations.
Legal counsel for Mr Packer and his investment company Consolidated Press Holdings, Noel Hutley, took the opportunity to distance CPH and the former Perth casino chair from the entity.
In respect of the question of suitability, Mr Hutley argued that the resignation of senior management and directors, and the arrangements now in place, meant any influence Mr Packer or CPH had or may have had in the past was no longer.
“That matter can be taken further; not only is whatever influence those parties extant, that influence has ceased permanently, it is extinct, not merely dormant,” he said.
“Not only are we irrelevant to the current suitability inquiry, there is no reasonable prospect that we could ever again become relevant to it.”
Meanwhile, counsel for Barry Felstead told the commission he refuted some of the interim findings proposed, including references made to the arrest of 19 of Crown’s China-based staff for illegally promoting gambling.
His legal counsel insisted that he had never admitted in his evidence the organisation disregarded the welfare of its China-based staff or that he was aware of that.
Instead, he was under the impression the company had legal instruments in place to protect the welfare of those staff.
Don't deserve an ‘F’: Crown
In his closing submission, Crown’s legal counsel Kanaga Dharmananda pleaded with the commission to give weight to the steps taken by the casino giant to address the issues raised in its assessment as to its suitability to continue as licensee.
He told the commission that while a historical assessment of Crown's conduct may not earn it high distinctions across the board, it would receive distinctions in some areas and has demonstrated industry and effort on all fronts.
“In our respectful submission, Crown does not presently deserve an F in any field,” Mr Dharmananda said.
“The people, systems and procedures being assessed by the commision are fundamentally different to those in place when the cultural and risk-failing acts identified by the Bergin Inquiry occurred.
“Crown has a very different and improved corporate culture and risk management today and the commission should be satisfied that there is the competence, commitment and resources required to drive Crown's serious, well-considered reforms to their conclusion.”
Mr Dharmananda highlighted that many of those linked to the issues raised in the inquiry had since moved on, including Barry Felstead, Ken Barton and Joshua Preston, and more recently Lonnie Bossi.
He said the company was confident Crown was in safe hands regarding AML and CTF risks, with the appointment of a number of new recruits.
But Crown conceded its handling of possible conflicts of interest had fallen short in the past, accepting that it was open to the commission to conclude that chief casino officer Michael Connolly's friendships with its own managers of gaming, regulatory and legal compliance put Mr Connolly in a position of perceived conflict.
“In retrospect, more could and should have been done to manage the potential for a perception of conflict of interest to arise,” he said.
But counsel assisting the commission, Patricia Cahill, said broad assertions about Crown's remediated programs, including it being 'world-leading', may need to be put aside in the absence of any evidence about the path forward.
“Show no sympathy”: GWC
Yesterday, the state’s casino regulator urged the commission not to hold any sympathy towards officers of Crown, departmental officers or former members of its own body.
While careful not to imply that Crown's culture was so flawed it was irredeemable, the Gaming and Wagering commission’s legal counsel Paul Evans said it was critical the commission reviewed the reform program to determine whether it offered the real prospect of consistent, compliant behaviour across the organisation.
But Mr Evans left no doubt as to his position regarding how the commission should deal with those embroiled in contraventions of the law, telling the commission to be unsympathetic in its approach.
“The GWC urges no sympathy for Crown, or any past or present Crown officer, nor, indeed, regrettably to the extent it may be necessary, and only if it is necessary, departmental officers or former members of the commission (GWC),” he said.
But today, Ms Cahill said the inquiry into whether entities were suitable in respect of the activities designated to them warranted neither granting nor withholding of sympathy, and was instead about objective judgment.
“The exercise does not call for the granting or withholding of sympathy by the PCRC, nor the granting or withholding of punishment,” she said.
“The exercise is rather an objective one, albeit that it involves weighing a number of factors to reach a conclusion on those topics.”
Crown invited an assessment of the past and the future to assess the suitability, but Ms Cahill stressed that the terms of reference meant it was suitability as at the date of the delivery of the final report.
Mr Evans also outlined the ‘considerable improvements’ made in the interactions between the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries and the statutory body, one he described as essentially voluntary.
He used yesterday’s closing submissions to highlight the progression of a suite of new initiatives, particularly for strategic planning, measures he claimed the board of eight had been advocating for for ‘some time’.
Mr Evans told the commission the board, which has no more than seven members and a chair, was part-time and voluntary in nature, with resourcing and limited remuneration deemed a major constraint.
He credited the “searchlight glare” of the commission with forcing the government to relinquish more resources to improve its operations, but raised concerns about resourcing moving forward.
“It’s amazing what the searchlight glare of a Royal Commission will do to liberate resources within government,” he said.
“One of the issues for you, the commission, will be the resourcing on an ongoing basis to sustain the efforts of whatever regulatory body, in whatever regulatory framework, is recommended.”
Counsel for the department, Fiona Seaward, also outlined the changes it had made in the wake of the inquiry, including an updated conflict of interest policy and register of gifts and benefits.
The department has also vowed to increase the presence of inspectors at the casino and appoint an independent consultant to enhance its auditing capability.
The closing submissions end almost 60 days of public hearings and come exactly one month before the commission is expected to deliver its final report.
The state government first announced the royal commission in March, the first to be held in WA in two decades, with commissioners Neville Owen, Lindy Jenkins, and Colin Murphy appointed to lead the inquiry.
Commissioner Owen reiterated yesterday that it would be up to the state government, not the commission, to decide when and if the report will be made public.
