An extraordinary silence lingers as major parties go missing on Crown

Updated

Let's just refresh our memories, shall we?

Over the last week, there have been allegations published by Nine that Australian consular officials fast-tracked visas for Chinese gamblers, that a Border Force official was moonlighting by providing security for someone wanted by Interpol and that at least two ministers and an MP had lobbied the Department of Home Affairs to help get high rollers into the country more easily.

There were allegations, summarised in Federal Parliament, that mammoth Australian company Crown Casino had "links to organised crime, money laundering, the improper activity by consular officials, tampering with poker machines, and domestic violence and drug trafficking on Crown property".

There's been plenty more, of course, rolling out over the course of the week.

Lucky, you would think, that Federal Parliament was sitting, so that the Government was in Canberra, available to be asked questions about these shocking revelations, and of course, to spring into action to do something about them.

Five days later, the extraordinary silence from the major parties on the issue on Monday still lingers as loudly over federal politics as if someone had let off a very large cannon.

Major parties distracted

The Coalition's main focus for the sitting fortnight remained trying to wedge Labor. The Opposition's main focus was on trying to pin corruption allegations on a government minister which, while important to pursue on accountability grounds, didn't quite rate on the same scale as the imputation of systemic corruption involved in the Crown allegations.

The Government played down the controversy. The Opposition didn't even think they warranted any questions.

The questions instead eventually came from the crossbench, led by the Greens.

Greens MP Adam Bandt asked the Prime Minister whether ministers had lobbied the Department of Home Affairs to ensure "high rollers" could jet into Australia and gamble at Crown with as few checks as possible.

Scott Morrison told the House on Monday that "in relation to the specific matters that were raised by the member, there has been nothing presented to me that would indicate there are any matters there for me to address".

The sense that the gravity of these allegations might actually require a response only seemed to take hold on Tuesday when the crossbench pushed for a parliamentary inquiry.

Crossbenchers unite

Independent MP Andrew Wilkie moved for a joint select committee to investigate the allegations, but specifically, "the relationship between Crown Casino and governments, including the role of former members of state and federal parliaments".

Wilkie, Bandt, and fellow crossbenchers Rebekha Sharkie and Zali Steggall gave powerful speeches in the House about both the allegations and how they fitted into the broader political discourse.

Central to their case is the relentless and growing pressure for a national integrity commission.

The push for a national anti-corruption body was gaining considerable momentum last year with Labor behind it. But it was a crossbench holding the balance of power in the House of Representatives that pushed it to the status of an issue the Government had to actually address.

It did so reluctantly and weakly, eventually promising a national integrity commission model which most informed observers think would lack any real bite.

Scott Morrison announced the move in December, insisting the Government had been working on the plan since January last year — when Malcolm Turnbull was still prime minister.

He denied the Coalition had been forced into making the announcement after going into minority government after Mr Turnbull left the Parliament.

Despite all that work, which you would think had put the Government into a position to move swiftly on the new body, nothing further has happened.

Revelations have exposed shortcomings

When 7.30 reported on the continuing pressure on the issue a couple of weeks ago, the Government was indicating it would probably be the end of the year before any legislation to establish it would emerge.

The Crown revelations this week have exposed for all to see the problems with the existing structures for investigating corruption at a national level.

As a response to the crossbench call for a parliamentary inquiry, Attorney-General Christian Porter came into the House of Representative on Tuesday to announce an inquiry by the Australia Law Enforcement Integrity Commission into the allegations.

He argued that the ALEIC inquiry would have greater powers to investigate than a parliamentary inquiry.

His argument might have some justification, if it were not for the fact it constrains the investigation to the bureaucracy and not to politicians or, for that matter, to Crown.

The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission had indicated it is investigating the so-called junket operators operating in Australian casinos that are at the heart of much of the Crown allegations.

And the Victorian regulator has been sent in to have another look too.

But there are obviously downsides in separate investigations by separate bodies. And that has always been one of the powerful arguments put about the need for a national anti-corruption body.

The fact that the Government looked like it had only called the inquiry to head off a parliamentary inquiry didn't help appearances either.

It didn't really have to worry, though, as Labor was more than happy to accept the Government's arguments that a parliamentary inquiry would be, altogether, a bad idea.

The dynamics have changed

The push for a parliamentary inquiry may have failed but the revelations have changed the dynamics of the Parliament nonetheless.

The crossbench in the Senate and the House now have a cause on moral grounds, and a pragmatic interest in using the issue of an anti-corruption body to both reinforce to voters the value of their presence in the Parliament to raises issues the major parties won't — classic "keep the bastards honest" territory — and as a bargaining chip for the Government's legislative program.

Get a wrap of the key stories and analysis from the ABC's chief politics writer Annabel Crabb. Sign up

View Privacy Policy More Newsletters Download the ABC News app

Given that ex-politicians from both sides of politics have ended up working for Crown, it has not been a good week for dismissing the appearances of massive conflicts of interest, at the least, between our political parties and investigating what now appears to be, at the least, systemic abuse, if not corruption, of our border security processes.

Ah yes, border security.

The spectre of a Government policy that officially sanctioned the streamlined processing of figures associated with organised crime, at the same time it hysterically suggested asylum seekers were murderers and rapists who had to be kept out of the country, has its obvious deficiencies.

Adam Bandt told the House this week:

"Never again will I take a lesson from this Government about the need to stop criminals from coming into this country and the need to have tough border protection policies.

"What we hear from the Government is: 'If you're fleeing war and persecution, we'll lock you up. But if you come here with a bag of cash, we'll open the gate for you so you can go and find the drugs and gamble at the casino.'"

There is lots of talk about freedom of speech and freedom of religion abroad in politics just now. But freedom from corruption and hypocrisy would probably satisfy a lot more voters.

Laura Tingle is 7.30's chief political correspondent.

Topics: government-and-politics, federal-government, australia

First posted