Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak further about what I view as a serious and unacceptable threat to the vital democratic principle of parliamentary privilege. Yesterday I raised this matter in the House in accordance with standing order 51, and I look forward to the Speaker's careful consideration of the matter.

The issue at hand is a judgement made on Tuesday 1 June 2021 by Justice Yates of the Federal Court of Australia, which granted leave to ClubsNSW to obtain all items of correspondence between whistleblower Mr Troy Stolz and my office. ClubsNSW is suing Mr Stolz for breaching confidentiality obligations, including in relation to his communication with me. This included the provision of documents. The judgement allows ClubsNSW to use this material as evidence against Mr Stolz. It is my sincere belief that the judgement is a direct and potentially devastating challenge to democracy. Indeed, there is a real risk that this judgement threatens both the sanctity of parliamentary privilege and the ability of Australian whistleblowers to safely communicate with their elected representatives. There is also a real risk that if the centuries-old concept of parliamentary privilege is diminished by this parliament's inaction then the repercussions will be felt in parliaments right around Australia and, indeed, right around the world.

The background to all of this is that in 2019 Mr Stolz came to me with information about widespread illegal activity that was being ignored by relevant authorities. Specifically, Mr Stolz revealed widespread noncompliance with anti-money-laundering laws among the 770 member clubs of ClubsNSW. Mr Stolz was looking to me and the absolute privilege that I enjoy to tell the Australian people that billions of dollars were passing through New South Wales clubs and that ClubsNSW was privately admitting that it didn't know how much of that money was being laundered by criminals. Having tried unsuccessfully as an employee to get ClubsNSW to address this issue, Mr Stolz felt he had no choice but to find another way to bravely share this information with the Australian people.

On Thursday 13 February 2020 I delivered a speech in the House citing a 2019 ClubsNSW board paper that explicitly detailed how 90 to 95 per cent of New South Wales clubs were not complying with money-laundering legislation, which is unlawful and could facilitate all sorts of illegal behaviour. I also spoke to the issue as yet another example of the failure of our federal and state regulatory agencies to do their jobs in relation to money laundering. In other words, Mr Stolz acted in the public interest and did the right thing.

It's my understanding that section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 prevents ClubsNSW from using the correspondence between me and Mr Stolz in its suit against Mr Stolz. Yet we have a decision of the Federal Court actually allowing ClubsNSW to use the correspondence between Mr Stolz and my office in its litigation against Mr Stolz, and that is truly remarkable. Interestingly, at a directions hearing Justice Yates indicated that it was improper for someone other than parliament to assert its privilege, despite the very clear wording of the privilege act that it's unlawful for privileged material to be used. Surely this can't be right. Surely it was not the view of the lawmakers back in the day that parliament must attend every court case relevant to privilege. The practical implication of that is ludicrous.

I have been told by lawyers that the documents provided to ClubsNSW can be used only in these particular legal proceedings, but there are many things in these documents that may be of interest to ClubsNSW, including the names of other whistleblowers. Who can read something and then deliberately forget what they just read? Let that sink in—other whistleblowers will be put at risk if parliamentary privilege is not protected. In other words, allowing ClubsNSW to possess these documents and read them will guarantee that they are used, consciously or subconsciously, in the future. That would be a significant betrayal of the trust Mr Stolz and other whistleblowers have put in me, put in us and put in the parliament of Australia.

It's obviously our job to know what's going on and to vote and advocate accordingly. It's my understanding that elected members are able to conduct private communication with members of the Australian public about matters of public interest without that member of the public being punished for this communication. I believe it's the view of many or all of my parliamentary colleagues that elected members should be able to do so. Since being elected by the people of Denison, now Clark, in 2010, I've worked hard, informed by brave whistleblowers, to shine a light on the significant role the gambling industry plays in numerous criminal matters. Just about every time, I've hit brick walls put up by any number of regulatory and law enforcement authorities, such as the AFP, state and territory police forces, the VCGLR and other state and territory gambling regulators, AUSTRAC and others.

As far back as 2017, parliamentary privilege allowed me to reveal evidence from three former Crown staff that poker machines had been tampered with to reduce payouts, that money was being laundered and that drug running and domestic violence were regular occurrences at Crown Melbourne. There was also the ex-Crown driver who allowed me to reveal that international high rollers were flying in and out of the private terminal at Tullamarine without border security checks, accompanied by highly suspicious volumes of luggage presumably containing cash, guns, drugs and it's anyone's guess what else. More recently, I revealed in this place the existence of the video evidence of an Aldi bag full of millions of dollars that was being laundered inside the Suncity junket room at Melbourne's Crown casino. This subsequently formed part of the compelling case considered by the New South Wales casino inquiry which found Crown unfit to hold a casino licence at Barangaroo.

Without these brave whistleblowers coming forward, we would not be seeing the startling extent of the illegal behaviour now being laid bare before the Hon. Ray Finkelstein QC as part of the long-awaited royal commission into Crown in Victoria, nor would we be seeing the royal commission in Western Australia. That is the power and importance of whistleblowers. With just a handful, you can ultimately deliver three desperately needed royal commissions in three different states, seeking to crack down on criminality on a grand scale. Is there anyone in this country who would rather not know about the crimes in the gambling industry? Is there anyone who would claim that the insights of whistleblowers are not in the public interest? I don't think so. But, in the absence of competent and clean regulatory and law enforcement agencies, the only way for our whistleblowers to safely reveal their insights is in our parliaments. If we don't have parliamentary privilege to protect whistleblowers, we don't really have a whole lot. Clearly, any erosion of parliamentary privilege in this country would be devastating.

Moreover, given the recent appalling attacks on the freedom of the media in this country, parliament may well represent the very last safe place for whistleblowers to inform the Australian people about matters of public interest. I'm a staunch defender of media freedom and lament the current dreadful circumstances being experienced by journalists. But, given the current absence of proper protections for journalists in this country, we surely can't also now accept any degradation whatsoever of the protection offered to whistleblowers by the parliamentary privilege that members of parliament enjoy. Yes, Australia desperately needs a media freedom act to balance the nation's security and other legislative frameworks. We also need to urgently implement the long awaited reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act. But even more important right now is that we deal immediately with the matter in front of us, and that is to do everything in our power to safeguard the centuries-old democratic principle which serves and protects free speech in the parliament.

I obviously have grave concerns about the consequences of the interlocutory judgement in the Stolz matter. In particular, I am deeply worried about the chilling effect that this decision potentially will have on those brave Australian whistleblowers who are compelled to raise concerns with their elected representatives. Surely, it cannot be allowed to stand. I urge the parliament to intervene in the matter immediately, because if everyday Australians cannot speak with parliamentarians, safe in the knowledge that their communication and correspondence are protected by parliamentary privilege, many will choose not to speak at all. And if we allow whistleblowers to be silenced, democracy as we know it will be greatly diminished for ever.

See this speech in context