The poker-machine transaction examined in Part 24 did not disappear when the NSW investigation ended. Four years later, the same transaction surfaced in the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission’s 1990 report on gaming machines, where Cowan believed the facts were misstated and the implications left uncorrected.
Somehow the Queensland Justice Commission accepted the false proposition, from an undisclosed source, that Panthers had paid $7,000 per machine when the list price was only $5,300. Every piece of documentation Howe had seen had clearly shown that the club paid only $5,300.
The poker machine purchase from Len Ainsworth’s company, Aristocrat, was mentioned in the Commission’s 1990 report on gaming machines. The QCJC used the purchase to illustrate what it called the ‘Byzantine transactions’ that it said were common in the club industry at the time.
‘Various manufacturers are alleged to have engaged in the offer of inducements of one sort or another to buy gaming machines’, said the report. It continues, ‘There is room in such contorted transactions for any number of corrupt arrangements.’
It quotes the same information that was in the original NSW police allegations, including the listing of only 90 machines. It provides all the figures, and mentions Ainsworth’s subsidisation of the interest, without providing any explanation of the circumstances. The report emphasised the payment by Panthers of an inflated price of $7,000.
After the report was released, Cowan had a solicitor write to the Commission asking that the report be amended to reflect the true facts of the transaction – that Panthers paid $5,300, not $7000, and that the list price was $7000, not $5300. The request was ignored. A subsequent approach was also ignored. No response was ever received, and the false representation still stands in the records.
Although Panthers had been cleared of all the original charges, with no action taken by the NSW police or the Liquor Administration Board, here was the very same information finding its way into the QCJC report. Cowan is mentioned specifically in the same report, saying he ‘has come to the notice of NSW police on a number of occasions and had been unsuccessfully prosecuted once’. No evidence was ever recorded of any specific occasions on which Cowan had ‘come to the notice of police’.
Phil Bennett also read the report, and, knowing the real facts of the transaction, sent a personal response to the QCJC, explaining his own knowledge of the sale. He told the Commission: ‘It was clearly established that there was nothing illegal or improper about this transaction and no action was taken, nor was the matter raised as an objection in Ainsworth’s licence application.
The Commission’s suggestion that this transaction was an example of an inducement paid to people in exchange for their club buying machines is clearly not sustainable.
Bennett also noted in his response that the prices of poker machines quoted in the QCJC report were ‘a nonsense’.
The QCJC did nothing to rectify its erroneous report. The blatant untruth still stands in its records.
Related Topics
- Part 24 — Negotiating a Good Deal Becomes a Criminal Act
- Part 25 — Gotcha!
- Wires, Magnets and Monitoring
Related Themes
Financial Management · Governance · Licensed Club
To receive new Parts and occasional project updates by email, you may subscribe below.
Readers who hold recollections, documents, or material relevant to this history are welcome to contribute via the Commentary & Contributions page.
Project Updates
Receive updates when new parts are published.
Panthers, Passion & Politics - The Roger Cowan Years 