Part 70 of 70 — Original Chapter: Chapter 20: The Reaction to a Fruitless Inquiry
This article forms part of the serialised republication of Panthers, Passion & Politics – The Roger Cowan Years.
Barry Walsh recalled that Panthers had 20 people working night and day for months, assembling material for the Inquiry.
They were digging through files and going through archives, trying to put everything together, and the photocopier ran non-stop. We’d think we’d finished, there’d be another day of sittings and they’d want more.
The Inquiry eventually generated approximately 50,000 pages of documentation, filling some 200 lever-arch files. Most of the material was provided by Panthers.
The first sitting day was 8 June. The first witnesses, called for 15 June, were Barry Walsh and Roger Cowan. Walsh recalled being subjected to particularly rigorous questioning, which he considered at times amounted to badgering.
He says that every time he walked into the inquiry, he never knew what was coming.
I had no idea what I would be asked, and it was an extremely stressful time for everyone who was on the list to appear. They were asking you about things that happened sometimes twenty or more years ago, and to be perfectly honest, sometimes when you get older, you can forget some things. But they made it sound bad that you didn’t remember. Once you’d been there, you would worry night and day, waiting for the call to say that you had to appear again.
Walsh believed that the government was treating the five former directors who had made complaints as ‘Crown witnesses’. There were also rumours that members of the Footy Five met with DGR lawyers before giving evidence. Whether those meetings occurred, and what their purpose might have been, was not established.
Witnesses appearing before the Inquiry were subject to investigative powers that differed significantly from the procedures and evidentiary protections applying in ordinary criminal proceedings.
There was a period of frenzied activity at Panthers.
In the preamble to his final report, Ian Temby spoke of the legal requirements covering his appointment. He said that the one essential outcome was the provision of a report to the director of Liquor and Gaming stating his findings. If the director believed there had been a breach of the law in any Australian jurisdiction, or of any relevant act, he could then refer the matter to a law enforcement agency or any other interested body. The director could also order the Club to provide details on findings to all members, and to hold an election of the Board.
Temby also noted that the Royal Commission Act empowered him not just to summon witnesses. The Act states that witnesses shall not be excused from answering questions or producing documents on the grounds that doing so may incriminate them. These rules do not apply in a normal court of law. He added that under the Act, a person presiding at an inquiry such as this ‘is not bound by the rules or practice of evidence’. Temby reported,
While most of the evidence received by the inquiry was of the sort that would be admissible in an ordinary court, there were exceptions.
The Inquiry had extensive powers to compel witnesses to answer questions and produce documents, subject to the applicable legislation. Where second-hand or overheard remarks are inadmissible in a normal court of law, they were acceptable by Ian Temby under the rules of this Inquiry.
Some witnesses recounted conversations in which unnamed Panthers employees had allegedly claimed they were intimidated before an election. Those employees did not appear before the Inquiry, but the accounts were admitted into evidence. Their admission did not, of itself, establish that intimidation had occurred.
Staff intimidation was among the more serious allegations dealt with by the Inquiry. The way it was handled raises questions. One witness did appear, saying she felt that she had been intimidated before the October 2002 election. Her name was on a list of around 40 staff members that Panthers had provided to the DGR, at the DGR’s request. The DGR was given their names, addresses and contact phone numbers. Glenn Matthews says:
The names primarily came from attendees at the SCOT meeting1 [the team leaders’ meeting] and from some friends of the Footy Five who tried to insist that management were pressuring staff.
Two others from the list of 40 appeared as witnesses, both denied any intimidation.
Greg Evans claimed to have the names of employees who said they had been intimidated. However, the manuscript records no evidence that those names, or supporting statements from the employees concerned, were produced during the Inquiry.
We know that some of the Five signed letters to the DGR. Logically the Five would have been interviewed about such allegations. If they had names, or affidavits, to back up some of their claims, wouldn’t they have handed them over to the DGR? The evidence was never produced – but such allegations are on the record anyway.
Terrence Lynch asked DGR counsel in final submissions to the Inquiry – did any, or all of the remaining 39 employees2 on the list deny having been intimidated? Lynch argued that the absence of testimony from other employees raised serious questions about how the allegations had been investigated. If those employees could substantiate the claims, he questioned why they had not been called. If they could not, he believed their absence cast doubt on the objectivity of the investigation.3
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.
- [1] SCOT Meetings included all the team leaders at Panthers (approx. 50) and the focus of these meetings was the Synergy and Cooperation Of Teams (SCOT).
↩︎ - The original publication says “the remaining 379 employees”. That number makes no sense as Panthers had almost 1000 employees. This refers to the remaining employees who were on the list provided to the DGR.
↩︎ - In his final report, Temby criticised Glenn Matthews’ conduct at the September 2002 staff meeting, concluding that he had encouraged support for the management ticket. The Report distinguished this conduct from the broader allegations of employee intimidation. ↩︎
