No time for late mail in Victoria’s royal commission, with Crown needing to show it can act to the letter

Crown will have to prove that its actions speaks louder than its words as Victoria’s royal commission into the troubled casino group begins.

Commissioner Raymond Finkelstein AO QC during Victoria's royal commission into Crown Casino, in Melbourne. Picture: AAP Image

The smart money would bet Crown Resorts would be embarking on a charm offensive with regulators in not only NSW but also Victoria and Western Australia.

But as Victoria’s royal commission into the James Packer-backed casino group began on Wednesday, commissioner Ray Finkelstein revealed he was still waiting for a reply to the second letter he sent to Crown.

Snail mail is something Australians have got well used to, particularly after Australia Post began delivering every other day in metro areas last year.

But with Crown’s licence to run its flagship Melbourne casino at stake, you expect the company to pull out all stops – expensive couriers, encrypted messaging, heck even homing pigeons sent direct from executive chairman Helen Coonan’s new corner office in Barangaroo. Anything to appease the commissioner tasked with deciding its fate.

Already, US private equity group, Blackstone, is nipping at its heels with an “opportunistic” $8bn cash takeover offer, underlining the importance of Crown being able to smooth any regulatory risk across its operations.

But instead Mr Finkelstein said he was awaiting “with interest” Crown’s response. He also warned that delays in providing documentation to the $10m Victorian inquiry “would not be tolerated”.

The Crown Resorts Sydney casino development at Barangaroo. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Joel Carrett

After all, the clock is ticking, with Mr Finkelstein expected to deliver his findings by August 1. It’s an incredibly tight turnaround, given the NSW inquiry took 19 months – even when you account for interruptions from COVID-19.

But Mr Finkelstein is running a tight ship, with the NSW’s inquiry’s commissioner Patricia Bergin SC, doing most of the heavy lifting for him. He has no interest in retracing her steps.

That’s why he sent not one, but two letters to Crown.

“Following my appointment I wrote to Crown Melbourne inquiring, first, whether it accepts those findings, and second, whether it accepts that on the material before Commissioner Bergin, it was open for her to find Crown Resorts is not a suitable person to be an associate of Crown Sydney,“ he said.

But Mr Finkelstein said the James Packer-backed company was not entirely clear in its response.

“Crown‘s response was a little equivocal.

“The Crown companies do not accept in terms the findings made by commissioner Bergin. The aspect of the findings to which objections seem to be taken go to the deliberateness or wilfulness of the conduct concerned.

“On the other hand, the Crown companies do accept it was open for Commissioner Bergin to conclude that Crown Resorts is not a suitable person to be an associate of Crown Sydney.”

Adding to the confusion, is the fact that while Crown agrees that is not currently suitable to hold a licence for a casino that is yet to open in Barangaroo, it has stressed that it remains suitable to continue to run its Melbourne Casino, which it has operated for almost three decades.

The Crown Casino in Melbourne. Photo: AFP

This is despite the fact that the money laundering took place in Melbourne – an act that was foreshadowed in 1983 during former Supreme Court justice Xavier Connor’s inquiry into a potential Victorian casino.

Mr Connor concluded that there should be no casino in Melbourne, stating that the infiltration of organised crime in the casino would be difficult to control.

And while Crown has disagreed with Ms Bergin that it wilfully and deliberately facilitated organised crime, it has told Mr Finkelstein that the reforms it has underway make it suitable to continue to run its Melbourne casino. If it wasn’t wilfully facilitating organised crime then how can it enact the necessary reforms to stamp it out?

As Ms Bergin said in her report, there is as a big difference in accepting significant cultural and governance problems exposed during a public inquiry and having the “open-mindedness to detect the problems for oneself and remedy them”.

This is why the Victorian royal commission is necessary. As counsel assisting Adrian Finanzio said: “Given the seriousness of the matters raised and the findings of the Bergin inquiry, it will be necessary to test the veracity, effectiveness and adequacy of the measures, which Crown says have been taken to address the principal conclusions of commissioner Bergin”.

“The importance of this task cannot be understated, neither can the task of examining the suitability of the licensee and its associates more broadly, having regard to the legislative and contractual framework that governs Crown Melbourne’s operations here in Victoria.”

In other words, Crown will have to show that its actions speak louder than its words, and replying swiftly to any questions from Mr Finkelstein would be a good place to start.