report on investigation into conduct concerning the ......report on investigation into conduct...

Report on investigation into conduct concerning the Woodward Park project

ICAC report

ICAC report


ii

ICAC©

ISBN 1 920726 60 8

© February 2003–Copyright in this work is held by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Part III,

Division 3 of the Commonwealth Copyright Act 1968 recognises that limited further use of this material can

occur for the purposes of 'fair dealing', for example; study, research or criticism etc. However, if you wish to make

use of this material other than as permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, please write to the Commission at GPO

Box 500, Sydney NSW 2001.

This report and further information about the Independent Commission Against Corruption can be found on the

Commission's website at www.icac.nsw.gov.au

This publication is available in other formats for the vision impairedupon request. Please advise of format needed, for example largeprint or as an ASCII file. This publication is also available on theICAC website in HTML format, www.icac.nsw.gov.au

Contacting the ICAC

ICAC: Level 21

133 Castlereagh Street

Sydney NSW 2000

Post: GPO Box 500

Sydney NSW 2001

Phone: 02 8281 5999

Toll free: 1800 463 909

Facsimilie: 02 9264 5364

Website: www.icac.nsw.gov.au

Email: [email protected]

ICAC report


iii

ICAC

©

The Hon. Meredith Burgmann MLC The Hon. John Murray MP

President Speaker

Legislative Council Legislative Assembly

Parliament House Parliament House

SYDNEY NSW 2000 SYDNEY NSW 2000

Madam President

Mr Speaker

In accordance with s.74 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 I am pleased to present

the Commission’s report on its investigation as to whether any person engaged in corrupt conduct in relation to

a proposed development at Woodward Park, Liverpool.

I presided at the hearings in this investigation and my findings and recommendations are contained in the

report.

I draw your attention to the recommendation that the report be made public immediately in accordance with

s.78(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act.

Yours faithfully

The Hon. John Slattery, AO QC

Assistant Commissioner

ICAC report


iv

ICAC©

ICAC report


v

ICAC

©

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................1

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1Investigation outcomes .............................................................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................2

What is this report about? ......................................................................................................................... 2How did the investigation come about? ..................................................................................................... 2Why did the Commission investigate? ....................................................................................................... 2The Investigation – conflicts of interest ...................................................................................................... 2Conducting the investigation ..................................................................................................................... 3The hearings .............................................................................................................................................. 4Who was involved? ................................................................................................................................... 4What are the investigation outcomes? ........................................................................................................ 4Section 78(2) recommendation .................................................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER 2 - WOODWARD PARK AND LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL .......................................6

LCC considers the project .......................................................................................................................... 6The Commercial Agreement ...................................................................................................................... 7The Early Construction Agreement ............................................................................................................. 8Changing role of Macquarie Bank .............................................................................................................. 9Payments to Football Club players ........................................................................................................... 10Selection of ADCO ................................................................................................................................. 11Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 11

LCC and the commercial arrangements .............................................................................................. 11Payments to Football Club’s players ................................................................................................... 11Selection of ADCO ............................................................................................................................ 11

CHAPTER 3 - HOW DID THE ISSUE OF A DONATION ARISE? .................................................12

Gaming machines ................................................................................................................................... 12Land transfer ............................................................................................................................................ 13When was a donation first mentioned? .................................................................................................... 14Discussions prior to Noble House luncheon ............................................................................................ 14The Noble House luncheon ..................................................................................................................... 15

Examining Mr Constantinidis’ evidence ................................................................................................... 16Naming the building company ........................................................................................................... 16Method of making a donation ............................................................................................................ 16Mention of Mr Obeid ......................................................................................................................... 17

Mr Hagan’s Evidence ............................................................................................................................... 17What Mr McIntyre, Mr Coorey and Mr Nelson say .................................................................................. 18Conflicting recollections – mistake or fabrication? ................................................................................... 18Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 19

CHAPTER 4 – TELLING POLITICIANS ABOUT THE PROJECT.....................................................21

Meeting with the Premier ........................................................................................................................ 21Mr Moss’s reaction .................................................................................................................................. 21Arranging a meeting at the Wentworth Hotel ........................................................................................... 22The presentation ...................................................................................................................................... 23Post-presentation discussion between Mr McInytre and Mr Coorey .......................................................... 24Mr Moss’s reaction to the Wentworth presentation .................................................................................. 25Other discussions involving Mr Moss ...................................................................................................... 26

ICAC report


vi

ICAC©

Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 27Meeting with the Premier ................................................................................................................... 27Arranging the Wentworth Hotel presentation ...................................................................................... 27The Wentworth Hotel presentation ..................................................................................................... 27Mr McIntyre’s discussion with Mr Coorey .......................................................................................... 27Matters arising from the discussion between Mr Constantinidis and Mr Moss ..................................... 28

CHAPTER 5 – LIZARD ISLAND ...................................................................................................29

Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 31

CHAPTER 6 – THE MANLY CONFERENCE .................................................................................32

An issue arising from Mr McIntyre’s presentation..................................................................................... 33Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 33Atrium Restaurant dinner ......................................................................................................................... 35

CHAPTER 7 – THE ATRIUM DINNER AND RAZORBACKS GAME ............................................ 35

What Mr Constantinidis says ................................................................................................................... 36What Mr McIntyre says ............................................................................................................................ 37What the Wilkinsons say ......................................................................................................................... 37The Razorbacks game............................................................................................................................... 37Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 38

CHAPTER 8 – OTHER EVENTS ....................................................................................................39

Meeting with ‘Mr S’ ................................................................................................................................ 39Comments to Bulldogs officials ............................................................................................................... 40Was Mayor Paciullo told? ........................................................................................................................ 41Tony Akkari ............................................................................................................................................. 41Dinners at Dynasty Chinese Restaurant .................................................................................................... 42Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 42

Meeting with Mr S ............................................................................................................................. 42Comments to Bulldogs officials .......................................................................................................... 43Mr Paciullo ........................................................................................................................................ 43Mr Akkari ........................................................................................................................................... 43Dinners at Dynasty Restaurant ............................................................................................................ 43

CHAPTER 9 - DISCUSSION AT CANLEY HEIGHTS HOTEL ........................................................ 44

What Mr Moss says ................................................................................................................................. 45What Mr McIntyre says ............................................................................................................................ 46What Mr Constantinidis says ................................................................................................................... 46What Mr Coorey and Mr Nelson say ........................................................................................................ 47What the others say ................................................................................................................................. 47

Mr Cadee ........................................................................................................................................... 47Mr Brooks .......................................................................................................................................... 47Mr Lander .......................................................................................................................................... 48Mr Looby ........................................................................................................................................... 48Mr McLeod ........................................................................................................................................ 48Mr Watson ......................................................................................................................................... 48

Further evidence of Dr Larkin ................................................................................................................... 48Evidence of Mr Kalmath and Mr Levitt ..................................................................................................... 50Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 50Section 74A(2) statement ......................................................................................................................... 51

APPENDIX 1 — THE COMMISSION’S ROLE................................................................................ 52

APPENDIX 2 — CORRUPT CONDUCT DEFINED AND

THE RELEVANT STANDARD OF PROOF ....................................................................................53

1

ICAC

©

ICAC report


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

This report deals with an investigation by the

Independent Commission Against Corruption (the

Commission) into whether any person engaged in

corrupt conduct in relation to a proposed development

at Woodward Park, Liverpool. This development

included construction of a club and hotel facility for

the Bulldogs League Club Limited and a mixed

residential/commercial/leisure development known as

‘Oasis’. The project required the acquisition of certain

NSW Government land and was in part predicated

on the club facility being granted a number of gaming

machine licences.

The investigation focussed on two main issues:

• whether any person solicited or offered to make a

financial contribution to the Australian Labor Party

in return for obtaining NSW Government support

for any aspect of the development, and

• the involvement of Liverpool City Council (LCC)

in the development and in particular whether any

LCC officer or other person acted corruptly in

relation to that involvement.

In relation to the first issue there was an allegation

that a NSW Government Minister, the Hon. Edward

Obeid MLC, had attempted to solicit a $1million

payment in return for promising NSW Government

support for the project.

INVESTIGATION OUTCOMES

This investigation, which included both private and

public hearings involving the persons listed in Chapter

1 of this report, found evidence of discussions at

various times between Mr Gary McIntyre, the Chairman

of the Bulldogs League Club, and others associated

with the project concerning the issue of making a

donation to the ALP in return for obtaining NSW

Government assistance in relation to aspects of the

Woodward Park project. The evidence does not

establish to the requisite degree that any such donation

was ever seriously contemplated by Mr McIntyre.

There is no evidence that any donation was made to

the ALP in relation to the project. No findings are

made that Mr Obeid ever solicited such a donation.

Further, the investigation found no evidence that any

LCC officer or other person had acted corruptly in

relation to LCC’s involvement with the Woodward Park

project.

Consequently, this report makes no findings that any

person engaged in corrupt conduct within the meaning

of the Independent Commission Against Corruption

Act 1988.

A recommendation is made in the report that the

Director of Public Prosecutions consider the prosecution

of one of the witnesses who gave evidence, Dr Stephen

Larkin, for an offence under s.87 of the ICAC Act of

giving false or misleading evidence.

ICAC report


2

ICAC©

WHAT IS THIS REPORT ABOUT?

This is the report on the Independent Commission

Against Corruption (the Commission) investigation into

whether any person engaged in corrupt conduct in

relation to a proposed development at Woodward Park,

Liverpool. This development included construction of

a club and hotel facility for the Bulldogs League Club

Limited (the League Club) and a mixed residential/

commercial/leisure development known as ‘Oasis’. The

project required the acquisition of certain NSW

Government land and was in part predicated on the

club facility being granted a number of gaming machine

licences.

The purpose of this report is to set out what happened

and the findings arising from the evidence obtained

by the Commission.

HOW DID THE INVESTIGATION

COME ABOUT?

Media reports of breaches of salary cap rules by the

Bulldogs Rugby League Club Limited (the Football

Club) surfaced in early August 2002. These were not

of interest to the Commission as any such breach did

not relate to the exercise of public official functions

and therefore could not involve corrupt conduct within

the meaning of the Independent Commission Against

Corruption Act 1988 (the ICAC Act). Subsequent

media reports sought to draw a link between payments

to the players and the Woodward Park project, with

suggestions that the payments came from LCC’s

financial contribution to the Woodward Park project.

If public monies had been misappropriated or any

public official misled in relation to the exercise of public

official functions then corrupt conduct would become

an issue. Accordingly, the Commission took an interest

in ascertaining what had occurred.

Subsequently the Commission became aware of an

allegation that a Government Minister, the Hon.

Edward (Eddie) Obeid MLC, had attempted to solicit

a $1million payment for the ALP in return for

promising NSW Government assistance to overcome

some of the hurdles facing the Woodward Park project.

If such conduct occurred it would clearly be corrupt

within the meaning of the ICAC Act.

WHY DID THE COMMISSION

INVESTIGATE?

In the present case there was a suggestion that a

donation of $1million had been sought for the ALP in

return for the NSW Government giving favourable

consideration to the proposed project. It was alleged

the issue of making a donation had emanated from a

Government Minister, the Hon. Eddie Obeid MLC,

and had been communicated to the chairman of the

League Club, Mr Gary McIntyre, through a mutual

friend, Mr Arthur Coorey. Although there was no

suggestion any payment had actually been made to

the ALP, the allegations were serious. Canvassing of a

donation in return for the promise to favourably

exercise public official functions or urge others to do

so would amount not only to corrupt conduct within

the meaning of the ICAC Act but also involve a criminal

offence. Such an action goes to the core of the integrity

of the political process in NSW. There was a clear

public interest for such allegations to be thoroughly

investigated to determine if they were accurate and if

so, to identify those involved.

The possible misuse of public funds in relation to the

payment of the Football Club’s players and the possible

misleading of LCC officials in relation to the obtaining

of any funds were also matters of serious concern.

These allegations also warranted further investigation

to ascertain what had happened and to identify any

person who may have acted corruptly.

THE INVESTIGATION –

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

On 29 October 2002 the Hon. John Hatzistergos MLC,

Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on the ICAC,

wrote to me about various issues raised by Mr Barry

O’Farrell MP concerning the Commission’s initial handling

of the inquiry. These issues related to claims that Deputy

Commissioner Kieran Pehm should not have any

involvement in the investigation due to a potential conflict

of interest in that his partner was chief of staff to the

Hon. Robert Debus, MP, Attorney General and Minister

for Emergency Services and the Environment in the NSW

Government.

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

3

ICAC

©

ICAC report


In response to Mr Hatzistergos’s request, I indicated that

as part of my inquiry I would examine these issues and

report upon the allegations of conflict of interest made

against the Deputy Commissioner. In this regard I will

briefly set out a chronology of events leading up to my

appointment as Assistant Commissioner.

On Friday 23 August 2002, Commissioner Irene Moss

AO issued a media statement advising the Commission

would investigate whether any public funds had been

misused in relation to the Woodward Park development.

At that time she directed the Commission’s Executive

Director of Strategic Operations, Mr Mal Brammer, to

undertake inquiries.

Having identified the involvement of Macquarie Bank in

the Woodward Park project, on Monday 26 August 2002

Commissioner Moss (whose husband is the Managing

Director of the Macquarie Bank) declared a potential

conflict of interest and assigned overall responsibility for

the investigation to Deputy Commissioner Pehm. Mr

Brammer retained day-to-day control of the investigation

and, with other investigators under his direction, undertook

an active role in the investigation. He kept Deputy

Commissioner Pehm informed of progress.

While the investigation was continuing, on 27 September

2002 Deputy Commissioner Pehm directed that inquiries

be made for the engagement and appointment of a

suitably qualified person as an Assistant Commissioner

to take over and carry on the investigation. On 3 October

2002 the Solicitor to the Commission contacted me and

inquired as to my availability and willingness to take on

this role. Having confirmed my availability and

acceptance of the position the Commission wrote to the

Premier on 4 October 2002 formally requesting my

appointment as Assistant Commissioner. On 9 October

2002 her Excellency the Governor approved my

appointment as an Assistant Commissioner effective from

10 October 2002 when I first attended the Commission’s

offices and was given a briefing on progress in the inquiry

to that time.

On 18 October 2002 Mr O’Farrell wrote to Commissioner

Moss referring to suggestions of Deputy Commissioner

Pehm’s apparent conflict of interest arising from his

personal circumstances that I have referred to earlier. Mr

O’Farrell asserted that on this basis Assistant

Commissioner Pehm should not have any involvement

in the investigation. While there was some further

reference to Deputy Commissioner Pehm’s situation in

subsequent media reports and in Parliament, this letter

from Mr O’Farrell appears to have been the first occasion

the Commission became aware of claims of this kind

said to touch upon the integrity of the inquiry. As already

indicated, by this time I had assumed overall responsibility

for the conduct of the inquiry and been delegated the

necessary powers under the ICAC Act to carry out this

function. Since that date I have directed the investigation,

conducted the hearings and I am responsible for this

report.

In order to ensure there could be no perception of any

conflict of interest in the conduct of the investigation,

Deputy Commissioner Pehm decided to no longer receive

reports on the progress of the investigation and removed

himself from any further involvement in it.

In undertaking the investigation, and in accordance with

what I indicated to Mr Hatzistergos in my letter of 4

November 2002, I have examined what investigative

actions were undertaken from the time the Commission

began to first investigate the matter up until my

appointment in light of the suggestions of conflict of

interest as outlined above. I am satisfied those actions

were appropriate.

CONDUCTING THE

INVESTIGATION

The Commission’s first investigative step was to ascertain

whether there was any evidence to substantiate the

allegations. To this end the Commission conducted

lengthy recorded interviews with a number of persons

identified as having relevant information. Any

documentary evidence required was identified and

obtained.

An analysis of this material indicated there was some

corroboration for the allegation that an approach had

been made to obtain a donation for the ALP in relation

to the Woodward Park project. Although at this stage it

appeared unlikely that there had been any corruption

involving LCC, further evidence was required to clarify

what had happened in relation to payments to the

Football Club’s players.

In these circumstances, I made a decision to conduct

a series of private hearings.

ICAC report


4

ICAC©

THE HEARINGS

The ICAC Act provides that for the purposes of an

investigation the Commission may hold hearings.

These may be conducted either in public or in private.

In reaching the decision as to whether a hearing should

be in public or private, the Commission is obliged to

have regard to any matters which it considers to be

related to the public interest.

Persons who are summonsed to appear at the

Commission to give evidence must answer all questions

honestly and truthfully. Serious penalties are provided

if false or misleading evidence is given.

These hearings were conducted in private to protect

the integrity of the investigation and to enable me to

determine if there was sufficient probative evidence to

warrant further investigation and to conduct public

hearings. Initial private hearings were conducted over

five days, with evidence being taken from seven

witnesses. Subject to some suppression orders, the

transcripts of this evidence have now been made

public.

Given the importance of the issues involved and the

nature of evidence gathered, I determined on 24

October 2002 that it was in the public interest to hold

public hearings.

Evidence was taken in public hearings over 11 days,

commencing on 6 November 2002. During this period

evidence was taken from 15 witnesses. Some witnesses

gave evidence on more than one occasion and over a

number of days. In addition, during this period and as

the need arose further private hearings were held. These

were conducted over six days, on some of which public

hearings were also held, and involved 13 witnesses,

some of whom also gave evidence in public hearings.

These hearings related to the allegations concerning

Mr Tony Akkari and those made by Dr Stephen Larkin

which are set out in Chapters 8 and 9 respectively of

this report.

Mr David Staehli acted as Commission counsel in the

hearings.

WHO WAS INVOLVED?

A number of people were involved in this investigation

and are referred to in the report. For ease of reference

those principally involved and the position they held

at the time the events outlined in the report occurred

are listed below:

Mr Brian Carr General Manager of LCC

Mr Achilles Constantinidis Consultant

Mr Arthur Coorey Director, Football Club

(resigned)

Mr Robert Hagan CEO, Football Club

(resigned)

Dr Stephen Larkin Company director

Mr Jeffrey Locke Macquarie Bank

executive

Mr Gary McIntyre Director and Chairman,

League Club (resigned)

Mr William Moss Macquarie Bank

executive

Mr Barry Nelson Chairman, Football Club

(resigned)

The Hon. Edward Obeid MP Minister for Mineral

Resources and Fisheries

The Hon. George Paciullo Mayor of LCC

Mr Mark Wells Public relations

consultant

WHAT ARE THE INVESTIGATION

OUTCOMES?

In considering what findings to make, I adopted the

principles set out in Appendix 2 to this report.

There was evidence of discussions at various times

between some of those associated with the project

concerning the issue of making a donation to the ALP

in return for obtaining NSW Government assistance

in relation to aspects of the Woodward Park project.

There is difficulty in establishing to the requisite degree

of satisfaction when such a discussion first occurred

5

ICAC

©

ICAC report


and what was said. There is no direct evidence,

however, that any suggestion of a donation emanated

from Mr Obeid or any other public official.

The most that can be established to the requisite

standard is that in a discussion he had with Mr Coorey

in November 2000, Mr McIntyre understood (perhaps

mistakenly) Mr Coorey to be suggesting that a donation

of one million dollars to the ALP might overcome

some problems facing the Woodward Park project.

Mr McIntyre said he did not entertain any such

proposition and he did not understand Mr Coorey to

be advocating such a course of action. On a number

of subsequent occasions he repeated to others what

he believed he had been told. The evidence does not

establish to the requisite degree that Mr McIntyre ever

seriously contemplated making such a donation.

There is no evidence of any such donation having

been made to the ALP in relation to the Woodward

Park project. No findings are made in the report that

Mr Obeid ever solicited such a donation.

No findings are made in the report that any person

engaged in corrupt conduct.

A recommendation is made in Chapter 9 of this report

that the Director of Public Prosecutions consider the

prosecution of Dr Stephen Larkin for an offence under

s.87 of the ICAC Act of giving false or misleading

evidence.

SECTION 78(2)

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to s.78(2) of the ICAC Act the Commission

recommends that this report be made public

immediately. This recommendation allows the

presiding officer of either of the Houses of Parliament

to make the report public, whether or not Parliament

is in session.

ICAC report


6

ICAC©

The League Club is a registered club previously known

as Canterbury-Bankstown League Club Limited. It was

incorporated in 1956 and became a registered club in

1957. The Football Club has been fielding teams in

the NSW Rugby League Premiership competition since

1935 and now competes in the National Rugby League

Premiership competition.

The League Club has carried on business at Belmore

premises since 1960. With the changes to the National

Rugby League (NRL) competition and a reduction in

the number of competing teams, together with perceived

demographic changes in the Canterbury-Bankstown

area in recent years, the League Club has been looking

to expand its membership and the Football Club’s

supporter base to the west, and in particular to the

Liverpool area.

Woodward Park is located approximately 800 metres

to the south-west of the Liverpool central business

district in the south-west region of Sydney. The site

has an area of 20.3 hectares and is roughly square in

shape. It currently contains the Whitlam Recreation

Centre and the LCC administration centre. The site

also contains community halls, sports fields, a pre-

school centre and also formerly contained the disused

Olympic swimming pool.

In 1993, LCC released a strategic plan. Part of this

plan involved developing Woodward Park as a site for

major sporting events and as a focus for the city.

Over the years a number of proposals were made for

the re-development of Woodward Park. The most recent

was launched by the League Club in March 2000. Mr

Achilles Constantinidis, who had been involved in a

previous proposal, played a central role in formulating

this new proposal. For the purposes of this report, the

proposal (which for ease of reference is referred to as

the Woodward Park project) can be divided into two

elements. They are:

• the Palms Club and hotel, and

• the Oasis development.

As proposed, the Palms Club component would

constitute new club premises together with a new hotel

to be built contiguous to the new premises. The land

for the proposed Palms Club is the former site of the

Olympic swimming pool. It was purchased from LCC

by the League Club in 1998.

In May 1999 an agreement was signed between the

League Club and Macquarie Bank relating to the

construction and funding of the Palms Club. An

independent hearing and assessment panel considered

the application for demolition of existing structures

on the proposed Club site and erection of the Palms

Club and hotel facility. The panel recommended that

delegated authority be given to LCC staff for approval

of the application, subject to certain identified

conditions of consent. The Development Application

for the club was approved by LCC on 24 August 1999.

The Oasis development is a separate development to

the Palms Club. It involves a residential and

commercial development as well as the construction

of various sporting and recreational facilities. The

profits from the residential and commercial

developments are needed to help fund the sporting

and recreational facilities.

It was estimated that expenditure of $1billion would

be required to complete all proposed components of

the Woodward Park project.

LCC CONSIDERS THE PROJECT

On 26 April 2000, following consideration of a report

prepared by its General Manager, Mr Brian Carr, LCC

agreed to support in principle the Woodward Park

project. The report noted that LCC would need to

assess and apply due diligence processes to the

commercial agreements which the development would

entail to ensure community objectives were maximised

and due process followed.

In a closed session on 6 July 2000, LCC resolved to

support in principle entering into a Commercial

Agreement in relation to the Oasis development,

subject to a further report on:

1. probity issues of the proposed agreement;

2. due diligence review of all commercial arrangements

and social impacts including, but not limited to,

those identified in the report;

CHAPTER 2 - WOODWARD PARK AND

LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL

7

ICAC

©

ICAC report


3. ability to fund the purchase of land owned by the

Crown; and

4. obtaining all relevant consents for rezoning and

reclassifying and release of any restriction on use

where applicable.

LCC sought and obtained legal and commercial advice

respectively from Abbott Tout, solicitors, and

PricewaterhouseCoopers in relation to the proposed

Commercial Agreement. Probity advice was provided

by Ernst & Young. These reports were favourable to

LCC entering into the proposed Commercial

Agreement. In his evidence to the Commission, Mr

Carr said that as a result of receiving these reports he

believed that appropriate steps had been put in place

to mitigate risks to LCC and accordingly it was

reasonable for LCC to enter into the proposed

agreement.

These reports, together with a lengthy report prepared

by Mr Carr, were considered by LCC in closed session

on 5 February 2001. At that meeting LCC accepted

Mr Carr’s recommendations that:

(a) his report be received (including the independent

reports from Abbott Tout, PricewaterhouseCoopers

and Ernst & Young);

(b) LCC enter into the Commercial Agreement;

(c) tenders for entering into the contractual obligations

contained in the Commercial Agreement not be

invited because in LCC’s opinion a satisfactory

result would not be achieved by inviting such tenders

(reasons given).

THE COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT

On 12 February 2001 LCC entered into the

Commercial Agreement with the Bulldogs Sports and

Community Foundation Ltd (the Foundation), the

League Club, the Football Club and Macquarie Bank,

in relation to the Oasis development.

One of the main objects of the agreement was to

establish Woodward Park as a world class sporting,

entertainment, cultural, educational and recreational

precinct.

The Foundation is a non-profit organisation primarily

responsible for carrying out the development. Although

provision was made for LCC to appoint some of the

directors of the Foundation, it did not do so at the

time due to concern about a conflict of interest until

such time as all planning issues had been finalised.

The role of the League Club was to provide

management and operational expertise to the

Foundation as well as to provide stipulated funding.

The Football Club was to assist in administering and

managing the Foundation. The role of Macquarie Bank

was to arrange project funding to meet the costs of

the various components of the development and to

provide development, management and other skills

and expertise.

LCC had a number of roles under the agreement. Apart

from considering relevant planning applications and

undertaking relevant re-zoning, it was also required to

provide certain land for the project and to provide a

financial contribution towards construction of the

basketball arena and general infrastructure. Once the

balance of the land had been acquired by LCC it was

to be leased or sold to the Foundation.

It was also a condition precedent to the agreement

that once LCC had acquired the relevant lands they

be classified as ‘operational land’ so as to allow

construction of the project.

The agreement provided the Oasis development would

be carried out in the following order:

1. A central business district (CBD) development (near

Woodward Park);

2. Woodward Park residential development;

3. Basketball arena;

4. Waterpark;

5. Village (commercial zone between arena,

Waterpark and stadium);

6. Residential development (opposite Woodward Park);

7. Commercial development (opposite Woodward

Park);

8. Minimum stadium (with seating capacity up to

35,000);

9. Car parking station;

10.Ultimate stadium (a further development of the

minimum stadium).

ICAC report


8

ICAC©

The Commercial Agreement provided that the

Foundation and the League Club would not be obliged

to fulfil their obligations in respect to the arena, water

park or stadium unless certain stipulated Licensing

Court approvals were obtained. These included

Licensing Court approval for the extension of the

League Club’s current Certificate of Registration so

as to include the proposed Palms Club premises and

the grant of authority to operate the number of poker

machines specified in the League Club Development

Application approved by LCC on 26 June 2000.

Mr McIntyre gave evidence that in the original

Development Application (DA) made to LCC reference

was made to 1,000 gaming machines. LCC approved

the DA for the proposed club on 24 August 1999. An

amended DA approved by LCC in June 2000 referred

to 600 machines on opening of business gradually

increasing to a maximum of 800 machines.

THE EARLY CONSTRUCTION

AGREEMENT

By late August 2001, a number of the conditions

precedent set out under the Commercial Agreement

had not been achieved. In particular, the Licensing

Court application had yet to be determined and LCC

had not obtained the transfer of the relevant Crown

lands. There appears to have been, however, a general

desire to bring forward construction of the proposed

basketball arena.

In 1997, the West Sydney Razorbacks (formerly known

as the West Sydney Slammers) was awarded a

National Basketball League (NBL) licence and has

competed in the competition since October 1998. As

part of the Razorbacks’ admission to the competition,

LCC undertook to provide a 5,500-seat arena. The

Razorbacks were initially located in the Whitlam Centre

at Woodward Park. They were required to move from

the Whitlam Centre for the 2000-01 season because

of NBL requirements and played that season at the

State Sports Centre.

Apart from providing a home base for the Razorbacks,

it was also intended the arena would be equipped with

an ice rink on which it was hoped a Bulldogs-sponsored

ice hockey team, to be called the Rhinos, would play

in a projected national competition.

Provision was made, by means of the Early

Construction Agreement, to bring forward construction

of the basketball arena.

Prior to entering into the Early Construction

Agreement, LCC obtained legal and commercial advice

from Abbott Tout, solicitors, and

PricewaterhouseCoopers respectively. A probity report

was commissioned and received from Walter Douglas

Consulting. Each of these reports was favourable to

LCC proceeding with the proposed agreement.

These reports, together with the LCC General

Manager’s report, were considered by LCC in closed

session at an extraordinary meeting on 31 August 2001.

At this meeting LCC agreed to accept Mr Carr’s

recommendation that it enter into the Early

Construction Agreement. It did so in September 2001.

The other parties to this agreement were the

Foundation, the League Club and the Football Club.

Macquarie Bank was not a party to this Agreement.

Under the Commercial Agreement, the Foundation

undertook to construct the arena at an estimated cost

of $33million. Of this amount the League Club was

to provide $10.75million and LCC the sum of

$10.25million, both amounts to be paid into an

account called the Arena Trust Account. The balance

of $12million was to be provided by the Foundation

at the commencement of the construction of the

arena. LCC was to provide an additional $12million

for general infrastructure associated with the Oasis

development as a whole. At the time of entering into

the Early Construction Agreement the Foundation did

not have $12million. It was therefore decided to use

LCC’s $12million infrastructure payment, with the

Foundation meeting the infrastructure costs when (or

if) the conditions precedent to the Commercial

Agreement were met or waived. Accordingly, under

the Early Construction Agreement LCC was to provide

$22.25million for the construction of the arena. This

amount was to be paid into the Arena Trust Account

in stages between 1 September 2001 and May 2002.

The balance of the cost of the arena was to be met by

way of a loan of $10.75million from the League Club

to the Foundation, also to be deposited into the Arena

Trust Account. Provision was made for the League

Club to increase the amount of this loan in order to

cover any extra construction costs.

9

ICAC

©

ICAC report


CHANGING ROLE OF

MACQUARIE BANK

Although a party to the Commercial Agreement,

Macquarie Bank was not a party to the Early

Construction Agreement. Evidence differed as to why

Macquarie Bank was not a party to the latter

agreement. Evidence on this issue was mainly taken

from Mr McIntyre, Mr William Moss, Chief Executive

and Group Head of the Banking and Property Group

at Macquarie Bank, and Mr Jeffrey Locke, who at the

time of these events was a director of the Bank’s

Property Investment Division.

Mr McIntyre said differences arose with Macquarie Bank

in early February 2001 over ‘side agreements’ which

were desired by Macquarie Bank. Mr McIntyre believed

they would have had the effect of transferring control

of major aspects of the project to the Oasis

Development Corporation Pty Ltd (ODC), which

provided project management services for the Oasis

development. He said it was proposed that profits from

a 5% fee on the project would be split by way of 40%

each to Macquarie Bank and the Bulldogs and 10%

each to Mr Constantinidis and the project architect.

He said he refused to sign the agreements as he did

not believe they were in the best interests of the project.

He believed any surplus should be transferred back to

the Foundation. He said that by May 2001 the League

Club and Macquarie Bank had been unable to resolve

their differences.

Mr McIntyre said that although LCC approved entering

into the Commercial Agreement on 5 February 2001,

Mr Bill Moss did not want to sign until the other

agreements had been executed. He said eventually Mr

Locke agreed the Bank would sign the Commercial

Agreement.

Mr Locke told the Commission that Macquarie Bank

undertook initial work to provide advice on the

commercial viability and other aspects of the project.

The bank did not charge for this work. He said this

work was done on the understanding that if the project

became a reality, Macquarie Bank would be given the

opportunity of providing investment banking services

and participating in the overall delivery of the project

at a management level. These were services for which

the bank would charge.

He said that during the process of finalising the

Commercial Agreement the bank sought to document

the relationship with the League Club, Football Club

and the architects through a shareholders’ agreement

in relation to ODC. It was the Bank’s intention to

finalise those arrangements at the same time as the

Commercial Agreement was entered into. He said that

although these agreements had not been signed by

the time LCC approved the Commercial Agreement

‘Mr McIntyre allayed our concerns in that regard by

acknowledging the key points … and it was on that

basis that I agreed and got support from the Bank

that we should sign a Commercial Agreement. We

signed that on 12 February 2001 and then continued

over the course really of the next three months to

finalise the detail of the Shareholders’ Agreement.’

Mr Locke said Mr McIntyre came to have concerns

that the architects and Macquarie Bank were putting

themselves in a position where they would receive more

payment for providing services than might otherwise

be due. Mr Locke said he understood these concerns,

but did not agree this would be the effect of the

scheme proposed by the Bank.

Although entitled to appoint four directors to the Board

of the Foundation, Mr Locke said he did not proceed

with doing so until finalising the ODC shareholders’

documentation. In hindsight he believed that had been

‘a manifest error’ on his part because ‘… as it turned

out later that year the Foundation resolved to amend

the constitution of the Foundation and remove the

ability of Macquarie Bank to nominate any of the

directors and essentially that removed any leverage or

any implied right that the Bank had to participate in

the project long term.’

Mr Locke said he only became aware in August 2002

that the Early Construction Agreement had been

signed.

One of the reasons ascribed by Mr Moss for the falling-

out related to the Bank’s proposal that the directors

of ODC not be paid. He said that Mr McIntyre wished

to be paid as an ODC director and also wished to be

a director ‘in perpetuity’.

Mr Moss also said that he was concerned that Mr

McIntyre was resistant to the bank having a 40%

shareholding in ODC with joint rights to make all the

major decisions in relation to the project. Mr Moss

ICAC report


10

ICAC©

said he had expressed to Mr McIntyre his concern about

their selection and tendering process for builders and

his concern that the project could not be run by Mr

McIntyre and Mr Constantinidis alone. Mr Moss gave

the following evidence:

Well, basically, Gary McIntyre kept moving the

goalposts and wanted to change the delivery

structure – ODC, and he progressively wanted

to remove Macquarie from the position where

it controlled the project to a position where it

acted for the Bulldogs in merely providing

finance and that was something that I had dug

my heels in and said, ‘There is no way that we

will have our name associated with this project

unless we have the standard Macquarie Bank

compliance and prudential regulations that we

can overlay on it.’

Mr Moss said that as a result of Mr Locke not being

able to come to an agreement with Mr McIntyre he

suggested that the Bank ‘… stand in the wings and

wait for the whole thing to collapse’.

He said, however, he insisted that they speak to Mr

Paciullo to relate to him the Bank’s concerns. A meeting

was held in late April 2001. Mr Carr attended towards

the end of the meeting and they repeated their concerns

to him.

He said he heard nothing from Mr Paciullo or Mr Carr

after the meeting.

Mr Paciullo recalled the meeting with Mr Locke and

Mr Moss. He could not recall exactly what they said.

He did recall them being negative about Mr McIntyre

and Mr Constantinidis. It was clear to him, after the

meeting, that there was a bad relationship between

the Bank and ‘Bulldogs’ management. Although he

assumed these difficulties would need to be addressed

he did not do anything about addressing them.

He was aware that after the falling-out Macquarie

Bank was excluded from having a role in the

Foundation, leaving ‘the Bulldogs’ essentially in control

of the Foundation. He said he had no particular

concern about this development.

Mr Carr said he understood there were two issues

leading to the falling-out between ‘the Bulldogs’ and

Macquarie Bank. One was who would have the casting

vote on the Foundation and the other was the fees to

be charged by the Bank. He said these were the issues

as related to him by Mr McIntyre. He thought he was

aware of this at the time of the meeting with Messrs

Paciullo, Moss and Locke.

He agreed that Macquarie Bank’s involvement with

the project, in the early stages, had been a positive

issue for the project. He said the fact they seemed to

be stepping back from involvement in the project was

a matter of concern which led him to write to

Macquarie Bank in September 2001 with a view to

trying to get the parties together to resolve differences.

Nothing appears to have come from this initiative.

PAYMENTS TO FOOTBALL CLUB

PLAYERS

During the course of its investigation, the Commission

gave consideration to whether any person had engaged

in corrupt conduct, as defined by the ICAC Act, in

relation to payments to Football Club players.

There was clear evidence that payments had been

made to players in breach of NRL salary cap

requirements. This of itself, however, would not amount

to corrupt conduct within the meaning of the ICAC

Act. To be corrupt, the conduct must relate to or affect

the exercise of official functions by a public official.

Members of the Football Club and the NRL are not

public officials for the purposes of the ICAC Act.

Accordingly, the issue of corruption could only arise if

it could be shown that LCC had been misled in any

way in relation to payment of its contribution under

the Early Construction Agreement and any

misappropriation of those payments.

Clause 11 of the Early Construction Agreement sets

out a strict timetable for payments to be made by

LCC into the Arena Trust Account. Clause 12 provides

‘no payment may be made from the Arena Trust

Account unless authorised in writing by three directors

of the Foundation’. Solicitors from Clayton Utz and

Abbott Tout were appointed as trustees of the Arena

Trust Account.

It is important to note that the Commercial Agreement

provides that once monies are paid by LCC into the

Arena Trust Account those monies become the

property of the Foundation. The Early Construction

11

ICAC

©

ICAC report


Agreement provides that no payment may be made

from the Arena Trust Account unless authorised in

writing by three directors of the Foundation. LCC is

entitled to audit the Arena Trust Account.

From documentation available to the Commission, it

is apparent that the Arena Trust Account trustees

approved a number of payments authorised by

Foundation directors. These included payment of

development management fees to ODC. ODC also

received an amount of $500,000 by way of loan from

the Foundation.

Mr McIntyre gave evidence to the Commission that

two payments were made to Football Club players

from the ODC account. One payment of $220,000

(including GST) was made to a company associated

with Mr Braith Anasta. A further payment of $30,000,

by way of loan, was paid to an account associated

with Mr Mark O’Meley. This evidence was confirmed

by documentation obtained by the Commission.

SELECTION OF ADCO

One of the issues canvassed in the media, prior to the

Commission’s hearings, was the circumstances

surrounding awarding of a contract, in relation to the

basketball arena, to the building construction

company, ADCO. It was reported that ADCO was a

sponsor of the Football Club and had agreed to make

bonus sponsorship payments depending on the value

of work it was awarded.

These issues were touched on during the course of

evidence given to the Commission. In particular, Ms

Judith Brinsmead, a director of ADCO, confirmed

ADCO had been a sponsor of the Football Club since

1999. She said the company had previously carried

out substantial construction work on the League Club

premises at Belmore. The company had then been

contracted by the Foundation to undertake construction

management at the Oasis site. She also said that in

early 2001 Mr Constantinidis became a paid consultant

with ADCO.

FINDINGS

LCC and the commercial arrangements

Prior to entering into the Commercial Agreement and

the Early Construction Agreement LCC obtained legal,

commercial and probity advice. This advice, together

with reports from its General Manager, Mr Brian Carr,

was properly placed before LCC councillors for

consideration and decision whether to enter into the

agreements. There is no evidence to suggest any LCC

officer acted corruptly or improperly in relation to the

decision to enter into these agreements.

Payments to Football Club’s players

I am satisfied there is no evidence to indicate that any

public official was misled or that the exercise of public

official functions was or could have been adversely

affected in relation to payments made by ODC to the

Football Club’s players. To the extent that any LCC official

exercised a public official function, it was in relation to

payment of monies into the Arena Trust Account. Under

the Early Construction Agreement the monies then

became the property of the Foundation. Once monies

were paid from the Arena Trust Account to ODC (with

approval of the Foundation), those monies became the

property of ODC. Given that ODC is not a public

authority and its directors are not public officials, any

use it made of monies it received to pay Football Club

players cannot involve corruption within the meaning of

the ICAC Act.

Selection of ADCO

Ultimately, the issue of what sponsorship arrangements

were entered into between ADCO and the Football Club

is not a matter which comes within the Commission’s

jurisdiction. Payments made by one private organisation

to another private organisation do not involve the exercise

of public official functions. Similarly, the engagement of

ADCO by the Foundation to provide construction

management services for the Oasis development does

not involve or affect the exercise of public official

functions.

There is no evidence that anyone at LCC was involved

in the selection of ADCO. Indeed, under the scheme of

arrangements set out in the various agreements, LCC

had no role to play in the selection of contractors for the

site. This would remain the case at least until LCC took

up its right to appoint directors to the Foundation.

ICAC report


12

ICAC©

During the course of its investigation the Commission

obtained evidence of a number of conversations in

which it was alleged an approach had been made to

secure a donation for the NSW branch of the ALP.

The Commission was concerned to ascertain if such

statements had been made and if so, the circumstances

in which they were made. Any solicitation or offer of

a donation to the ALP in return for the NSW

Government or individual politicians undertaking to

do something to facilitate the proposed Woodward

Park project would constitute corrupt conduct.

There were two areas in particular where problems

had emerged in relation to the Woodward Park project

where NSW Government action could be potentially

decisive. These were in relation to the provision of

gaming machines for the proposed Palms Club and

the transfer of Crown land to LCC so that construction

of the Oasis section of the project could proceed.

GAMING MACHINES

On 24 October 1999 the League Club lodged an

application with the Licensing Court for approval of

extension of its existing club licence to include the

proposed additional licensed club premises at

Woodward Park. At this time there was no restriction

on the number of poker machines that a licensed club

could operate.

On 28 March 2000, the Premier announced a 12-

month freeze on the purchase of new poker machines.

Shortly thereafter, on 9 May 2000, the Gambling

Legislation Amendment (Gaming Machine Restrictions)

Act 2000 came into force. This made legislative

provision for the freeze commencing at 12:00pm on

28 March 2000 and ending at a time (not earlier than

12:00pm on 28 March 2001) to be appointed by

proclamation. The legislation also provided that a

social impact assessment would be required to be

furnished by any applicant in connection with various

applications to the Licensing Court, including the type

of application previously lodged by the League Club.

The purpose of the social impact assessment was to

assess the likely impact on the local community of the

granting of an application. This Act was repealed on

17 July 2001.

Mr McIntyre gave the following evidence about the

effect of the freeze:

When the freeze came in on 28 March 2000,

you know, we were all held in great suspense

for twelve months whilst this freeze was on, it

was made clear in the announcement that that

twelve month period would be utilised by the

Government in consultation with the club

industry to decide what would be the on-going

gaming reforms for the industry. So whilst we

were concerned when the freeze came in on

28 March 2000, you know, we weren’t terribly

– we were just hoping that in the end a good

result would come out when the Government

announced its final reforms in twelve months’

time. It did not announce those reforms until

six months later on 26 July 2001.

Those reforms were also, so far as you were

concerned, a very bad result for the project?—

Yes, we had just completed our Licensing Court

application – I am sorry, if I might go back.

The initial legislation, freeze legislation, was

expressed to be retrospective. When our

application had been before the Licensing Court

for six months in normal terms [it] would have

been allowed to be completed. We’d spent ten

million dollars on the project and the freeze

legislation contained a provision that prevented

any claim for damages so there were – the signs

weren’t good there at the time of the initial

freeze on 28 March.

Between March and May 2001, the Licensing Court

heard the League Club’s application. According to

Mr McIntyre, proceedings were conducted on the basis

that the League Club would require 600 gaming

machines when the new club premises opened in three

years’ time, gradually increasing with demand over

the ensuing years to a maximum of 800 machines.

The Licensing Court handed down its decision on 8

October 2001. It rejected the application on social

impact assessment grounds. Subsequently, the club

lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court. This appeal

had not been determined at the time of the

Commission’s hearings.

CHAPTER 3 - HOW DID THE ISSUE

OF A DONATION ARISE?

13

ICAC

©

ICAC report


The provisions of the Gaming Machines Act 2001 came

into force in early 2002. This Act provided for a

maximum of 104,000 gaming machines in hotels and

registered clubs in NSW. It also provided for a

maximum of 450 gaming machines to be authorised

on any of the premises of a registered club. Provision

was made for those registered clubs which had in excess

of 450 machines to gradually reduce the number of

such machines until they reached the prescribed limit.

Mr McIntyre said he regarded the limit of 450 machines

as being ‘… quite crippling to the club industry and in

particular to the Liverpool project’. However, he

believed it would be still possible for the Palms Club

to proceed with 450 machines. The difficulty, as he

saw it, was in acquiring the required number of

machines given the overall capping of numbers. He

gave the following evidence:

You can’t go and buy new ones – sorry, except

to replace what you’ve got in areas as you can’t

go and buy additional new machines. So the

only way you can get them is if some club falls

over or wants to sell them.

He believed the likely cost of acquiring 450 licences at

up to $100,000 per licence to be potentially prohibitive.

Mr McIntyre was adamant that the club could not be

built without gaming machines. According to Mr

Constantinidis, Mr McIntyre ‘… made it his business

at all times to suggest or imply that unless the club

got the go-ahead the Bulldogs Club would not be

funding its contributions to the [Oasis] project.’

LAND TRANSFER

As indicated in the previous chapter, it was a condition

precedent to the Oasis project proceeding that LCC

would acquire various parcels of Crown land within

Woodward Park. LCC entered into negotiation with

the relevant Government departments but at the time

of the Commission’s hearings it had not succeeded in

obtaining the requisite land. Although part of the

basketball arena was to be built on Crown land,

construction was ultimately able to proceed as the

Department of Land and Water Conservation (which

owns the relevant land) granted consent to the

Development Application, including the issuing of a

Building Certificate and commencement of

construction.

The evidence taken indicated that LCC was responsible

for dealing with Government in relation to the land

transfer issue. Neither the Clubs nor the Foundation

entered into negotiations with Government in relation

to this issue. Mr McIntyre gave the following evidence:

I had no dealings with any department in

relation to the acquisition of the land at all. That

was handled – Council was the one that had to

acquire that land and we were irrelevant.

That was a matter that you left up to Council

as far as dealings with Government were

concerned?—Yes.

Mr Brian Carr said he kept Mr McIntyre informed as

to what progress was being made by Council in

acquiring the land. He said Mr McIntyre ‘… was getting

quite frustrated about the length of time’.

Mr Paciullo also recollected Mr McIntyre being ‘very

unhappy about the delays’.

One issue for the NSW Government to consider in

relation to the proposed transfer of land was to ensure

that it did not breach the Stadium Australia Project

Agreement which placed a significant liability on

Government if it provided financial or other assistance

to a competitive venue. For this reason it was

important not only that the stadium be limited in

capacity to less than 35,000 seats but that any transfer

of land be at appropriate market rates.

Other issues also arose. These were summarised in a

letter to LCC from the Premier’s Department dated

29 January 2002. In this letter LCC was advised that

the Government would only consider the transfer of

Crown land required at Woodward Park on certain

conditions. These were that:

(i) LCC produces a sound business case for the

development;

(ii) LCC must demonstrate to the NSW Government

that the entire project is funded and a timetable to

complete the project has been accepted;

(iii) the NSW Government is to be satisfied that the

arrangements are within the terms and the spirit of

the ‘Competitive Stadiums’ provisions in the

Stadium Australia Project Agreement;

ICAC report


14

ICAC©

(iv) consideration of the transfer of Crown land must

be subject to the payment of market rates for the

entire lands transferred to LCC; and

(v) the Department of Local Government is to be

satisfied that the intentions of LCC in relation to

the future of the subject Crown lands are in

accordance with the provisions that govern the

operations of local councils.

The Commission reviewed a number of Government

departmental documents relating to those

departments’ dealings concerning the Woodward Park

project. They do not indicate any attempt by anyone

to interfere improperly with due process of the matters

requiring consideration by those departments.

WHEN WAS A DONATION FIRST

MENTIONED?

There was conflicting evidence as to the circumstances

and timing of the suggestion that a donation be made

to the ALP in order to overcome problems confronting

the projects.

Mr McIntyre said the suggestion that a donation be

made to the ALP arose in a conversation he had with

Mr Arthur Coorey at the Wentworth Hotel on 13

November 2000. This is dealt with in Chapter 4 of

this report. Both Mr Constantinidis and Mr Hagan,

however, said the matter had been discussed prior to

this occasion. They gave evidence of a discussion which

took place at a luncheon at the Noble House

Restaurant earlier in 2000. Mr Constantinidis said that

prior to this luncheon he had discussed this issue with

Mr Coorey and Mr McIntyre.

DISCUSSIONS PRIOR TO NOBLE

HOUSE LUNCHEON

Mr Constantinidis said his first discussion with Mr

Coorey on this subject occurred at the Wentworth Hotel

where Mr Coorey had a clothing shop. He said the

issue came up in the context of a discussion concerning

the problems confronting the project. He believed the

discussion took place sometime prior to the 2000

Olympics and a matter of weeks after the March 2000

freeze on poker machines was announced. He believed

it occurred one week or 10 days before the luncheon

at the Noble House Restaurant.

When first interviewed by Commission officers, on 20

September 2002, Mr Constantinidis said Mr Coorey

told him the ‘… proposal would get through if a

particular payment was made to the ALP’. He said

he questioned this with Mr Coorey and ‘… I wasn’t

given many direct answers by Arthur about it, but I

did get out of him, and I was told by him for instance

that it would involve them – and when I say “them” I

don’t know who “them” is but I assume it was the

Labor Party picking a building contractor of their

choice, and his interest in raising it with me was the

fact that ADCO had already signed up to be the builder.

So it had to be someone other than ADCO. So that

would be in conflict and how would it work and things

like that. It wasn’t a singular event that I could say it

was – because this conversation I probably had five

times with Arthur at various times, but it was made

clear to me by Arthur that it was something that he

had spoken to Eddie Obeid about and along the way

also the (name of company) would be the building

company that they would prefer.’

When he gave evidence in private hearing on 21

October 2002 he was asked to provide more details

as to what he was told by Mr Coorey on the first

occasion they discussed this issue:

Basically it was along the lines that it wasn’t all

doom and gloom. There should be a solution

that could be reached. I had indicated to him

that I had read the press release and it seemed

pretty black and white, the issue about a freeze,

because to me I suppose it was a critical

ingredient to the club, and hence, in terms of

the support it would give to Oasis to proceed. I

suppose I pushed the question about the detail,

but he wasn’t very forthcoming about it and

that’s why I say, I know it wasn’t the first

meeting that he – that he made the noises that

it would be okay. But, obviously hearing that

from him I then went to Gary and tried to

pressure the answer out of him.

He said on the first occasion he and Mr Coorey

discussed this issue the latter did not specify what the

‘solution’ was to which he had referred.

Mr Coorey confirmed that from time to time in 2000

Mr Constantinidis dropped into his shop at the

Wentworth Hotel and they discussed the Woodward

Park project. However, he did not recall discussing the

15

ICAC

©

ICAC report


effect of the poker machine freeze on the proposed

club development. He denied ever mentioning to Mr

Constantinidis making a donation to the Labor Party

or discussing solving the problems of the proposed

development.

Mr Constantinidis said he followed up with Mr

McIntyre what he had been told by Mr Coorey:

I said to him that I’d been through and seen

Arthur and I know that Arthur and he spoke

five times a day probably, and I said I’d been

through, I heard from Arthur that you know

he might have some news of a solution. Gary

came around to indicating to me what that –

you know, he knew that Arthur had met with

him. He’d indicated that there was a suggestion

that if a donation was made, a substantial

donation, that things could be smoothed over.

Obviously there was a reference to the limits

on gaming machines, because the freeze

essentially meant no machines. There was –

there was no talk of 600, 450, 800 – there was

no number on the total, except a blanket freeze

and as I recollect I think the – the freeze was in

place for a definite period, I think it was twelve

months, which was then extended and nothing

could happen in that period, so technically the

whole project would stand still. That was – that

had pretty significant ramifications for what we

were doing, so I wanted to know what this

solution was, so I just pushed Gary to the point

where he said to me it would be a contribution

made via – via a building company, and I said,

Well how can you make a – you know, a

donation through a building company, a rather

obvious question. And it was suggested that

there would be a – a building company

nominated that would be competitive or price

competitive for the work and an amount would

be added to the contract to cover this donation

component and that’s all we’d need to know.

In his subsequent public evidence Mr Constantinidis

said that he had heard from Mr McIntyre, prior to the

luncheon, that a donation of $1million was probably

required to ‘assist to remove the logs’ in the way of

the project.

When put to him in evidence, Mr McIntyre did not

accept he had discussed this matter on these occasions.

For his part, Mr Constantinidis did not believe that a

donation would provide a solution to the problems

confronting the project ‘… because I don’t believe

that’s the way it works’.

THE NOBLE HOUSE LUNCHEON

It was agreed on the evidence that from time to time Mr

McIntyre, other League Club officials, Mr Constantinidis

and Mr Coorey would have lunch at the Noble House

Restaurant.

Initially, Mr Constantinidis said the relevant luncheon

occurred in about April/May of 2000. Subsequently, he

said it could have been anywhere between that time and

up to 12 September 2000. Apart from himself and Mr

Coorey, he said Mr McIntyre, Mr Hagan and Mr Nelson

were present.

In his private evidence in October 2002, Mr Constantinidis

said Mr Coorey went into more detail about what was

proposed at the luncheon. He said Mr Coorey arrived

late at the luncheon:

…and he basically came in and outlined that if we

could find a way of making a donation of one

million dollars to the Party or somehow to get it

to the Party he believed that the poker machine

issue would not be an issue. It would be addressed.

He understood Mr Coorey had come from a meeting

with Mr Obeid to discuss the gaming issue. He was asked

whether he understood Mr Coorey to be relating a

proposal that had been made by Mr Obeid:

No, I’m not clear on that except I understood

very clearly though that they had met and that

was the result of the meeting. Now, who put it up

I can’t categorically say that.

Mr Constantinidis said that he remembered Mr McIntyre

being quite strongly against the proposal.

Mr Constantinidis said he was concerned that if another

construction company was brought in there would be a

conflict with the existing construction, particularly in regard

to sponsorship rights. He said he discussed this potential

conflict with Mr Coorey and Mr McIntyre around the

time of the luncheon.

Mr Constantinidis said that apart from at around this

time he did not have any further discussions with Mr

Coorey on this issue.

ICAC report


16

ICAC©

EXAMINING MR

CONSTANTINIDIS’ EVIDENCE

In cross-examination, it was put to Mr Constantinidis

that there were a number of inconsistencies in the

evidence he gave at various times. These are examined

below.

Naming the building company

Mr Constantinidis said initially Mr Coorey would not

tell him which building company he had in mind. He

said that at the time of his initial discussion with Mr

McIntyre the name of the building company was not

mentioned.

When giving evidence in private hearing in October,

Mr Constantinidis said that Mr Coorey did not indicate

the name of the building company at the luncheon.

However, he recollected getting the name out of ‘Arthur

(Coorey), and Barry Nelson after Arthur left …’ the

luncheon. His evidence on the timing of when he was

told by Mr Coorey was not clear from this passage of

his evidence. However, it appears that, having learned

the name of the company from Mr Nelson at the

luncheon after Mr Coorey had left, he subsequently

put the name to Mr Coorey. This interpretation is

consistent with the evidence he gave that he

subsequently visited Mr Coorey’s shop and let it be

known to Mr Coorey that he knew the name of the

company being proposed.

When Mr Constantinidis gave public evidence in

November 2002 he confirmed it was at the luncheon

that he first became aware of the identity of the building

company, however he said it was mentioned by Mr

Coorey. He agreed that in his private hearing he had

said that it was not from Mr Coorey that he first

ascertained the name of the building company but

from those who were left at the luncheon after Mr

Coorey left. He attempted to explain the apparent

inconsistency thus:

That is completely inconsistent with all the other

evidence you’ve given, isn’t it, that Mr Coorey

was the person who mentioned the name, (name

stipulated), at the Noble House lunch?—No, Mr

Coorey came and mentioned it at the Noble

House lunch. He spoke to Gary, I – I was there,

I had left, we came back – he came back. I

confirmed the mechanism of how it would be

done and confirmed it with Arthur Coorey

afterwards.

It does not appear from his evidence that he was

claiming Mr Coorey had mentioned the name of the

company at the luncheon in his absence.

Under cross-examination it was pointed out to Mr

Constantinidis that when interviewed by Commission

officers on 3 October 2002 he had said, in relation to

the name of the construction company, that he had

been told by Mr Coorey ‘in his menswear store as

early back as pre-Olympics the first time’. Mr

Constantinidis explained this by saying that the first

mention was at the Noble House luncheon but he

followed it up with Mr Coorey in his shop later. In his

private evidence Mr Constantinidis had said that after

the luncheon, on one of his visits to Mr Coorey’s shop,

he had told Mr Coorey he knew the identity of the

building company. It was pointed out to him that it

would not be necessary for him to tell this to Mr Coorey

if it had been Mr Coorey who had named the

company. He said he confirmed it with Mr Coorey but

also got it out of Mr McIntyre at the luncheon. It was

then pointed out to him that in answer to previous

questions in his public evidence he had nominated Mr

Coorey as the person who mentioned the name of the

construction company. He then said that Mr Coorey

had mentioned the name at the luncheon and it had

subsequently been confirmed by Mr McIntyre.

In further cross-examination Mr Constantinidis

maintained that Mr Coorey had told him and the others

present the name of the construction company at the

luncheon.

Mr Constantinidis’ evidence on this point was, to say

the least, confusing. While I do not accept he was

intending to give false or misleading evidence, the

inconsistencies are of great concern in relying on his

recollection of events as accurate.

Method of making a donation

When interviewed on 3 October 2002 Mr

Constantinidis said he was first told by Mr Coorey

how the donation would be funded.

17

ICAC

©

ICAC report


I persisted in trying to find out how it would

operate and I was told that it would be an

addition added on to the building contract, an

additional amount that would be added onto

the building contract.

The record of interview is not clear as to the timing of

this conversation but it appears to have been held

prior to the Noble House luncheon.

He said he subsequently discussed this with Mr

McIntyre. In his public evidence he said that in a

discussion with Mr McIntyre prior to the luncheon he

had been told the donation ‘… would be done in an

appropriate manner’. He said he had not been told

what was the ‘appropriate manner’.

He gave the following evidence in public hearing as to

what was said at the luncheon:

Arthur indicated that the payment would be

made via a construction contract in that the

parties would tender for the project and an

amount would be added to that contract.

He adhered to his earlier evidence that prior to the

luncheon ‘… the notion of a building company had

come up …’, but that he had not been told the

mechanics of how it would be done.

In cross-examination Mr Constantinidis confirmed he

had been told by Mr McIntyre prior to the luncheon at

the Noble House Restaurant that the donation was to

be made through a building company. He believed

the conversation occurred on the telephone.

I do not consider there is anything arising from this

evidence which could be regarded as adverse to Mr

Constantinidis’s credit as a witness.

Mention of Mr Obeid

When giving his evidence in public hearing, Mr

Constantinidis said he had not heard mention of Mr

Obeid’s name in the context of donations to the ALP

prior to the luncheon. This evidence appeared

inconsistent with his evidence in private hearing that

Mr McIntyre had given Mr Coorey the job of meeting

with Eddie Obeid. He was asked to explain the

apparent inconsistency:

Eddie – this meeting that Gary had given Arthur

was in relation to the club proposal which was

not the Woodward Park project, that was the

Oasis project [which] was still in hibernation in

April 2000. That was a different project and

that’s what I meant.

It was pointed out to him that the issue of donations

was raised in relation to the licensing and poker

machine matters concerning the Palms Club. He

nevertheless maintained the distinction he had drawn

in his evidence, although agreeing he did not have

any doubt that Mr Coorey’s proposal at the time

extended just to the Club proposal, rather than the

project as a whole. The distinction he drew in

explanation of the apparent inconsistency is an

unsatisfactory one.

MR HAGAN’S EVIDENCE

Mr Robert Hagan was the former CEO of the Football

Club. He could not be any more precise as to when

the Noble House luncheon occurred other than to say

it was some time between November 1999 and

November 2000.

Mr Hagan was interviewed by the Commission on 3

October 2002. He said he first heard mention of

payment of donations to the ALP at the Noble House

Restaurant ‘probably two years ago’. He nominated

himself, Mr McIntyre, Mr Nelson, Mr Coorey and Mr

Constantinidis as being present. He said ‘… there was

a suggestion that there was a method that the ALP

could use to, you know, gain some advantage by an

amount of money being sourced through another

building company and should that ever take place then

perhaps a lot more co-operation would be there

between the Government and the Bulldogs project’.

He could not recall who raised the topic.

He did not believe there was any acceptance of the

proposal by anyone at the luncheon.

He said he assumed the suggestion had originated in

discussions between Mr Obeid and Mr Coorey but he

had no direct knowledge of that fact. He could not

recall if Mr Obeid’s name was mentioned.

ICAC report


18

ICAC©

He understood the proposed donation was to

overcome problems arising from the poker machine

freeze and the rezoning of land for the project. He

said that it was assumed by him that Mr Obeid would

be the person to be approached to assist in overcoming

these problems.

Mr Hagan gave evidence in public hearing on 13

November 2002. He relayed what he said Mr Coorey

had told the meeting:

He made a – you know, he said that he had

been made a proposition that there could be a

way that we could solve a lot of our problems

in so far as making a donation to the Party and

the method by doing it would be to involve a

particular construction company who would

tender for the project and increase the price by

a million and a million dollars would then be

diverted to another source.

Mr Hagan said that the announcement came as a

surprise and there was an air of disbelief about the

proposition at the luncheon. There was no suggestion

from the other people at the luncheon that the proposal

should be acted on.

When initially interviewed Mr Hagan said the name of

a company was nominated and it was discussed that

$1million would be added to the price of the contract

and that this money would eventually find its way to

the ALP. However, in his private evidence later in

October 2002 he could not recall whether the name

of the company was mentioned at the luncheon. In

his subsequent public evidence he said he believed Mr

Coorey had mentioned the name of the company at

the luncheon.

It should be noted that Mr Hagan gave evidence that

due to a current medical condition and the resultant

treatment he has fairly poor short term memory.

Despite this condition, he said he was ‘absolutely’

certain that the events that he related in relation to

the Noble House luncheon had occurred.

Mr Hagan denied having discussed the Noble House

luncheon in recent times with Mr Constantinidis.

WHAT MR MCINTYRE, MR

COOREY AND MR NELSON SAY

Both Mr McIntyre and Mr Coorey denied ever

attending a luncheon at the Noble House Restaurant

during which a proposal of a $1million donation being

made to the ALP had been discussed. Mr Nelson said

there was never any discussion in his presence at the

Noble House Restaurant concerning political donations

and he had never heard mention of a construction

company in the context of political donations.

Mr McIntyre said Mr Coorey did mention the name of

a building construction company to him, but not in

the context of donations. He thought the company

was mentioned as a prospective builder for the project

or possibly also in relation to extensions planned for

the existing club building at Belmore. He was not sure

of the name of the company mentioned but said that

he was given some material concerning the company.

He was not sure what happened to the material; saying

he had either thrown the material away or passed it

on to the project manager.

Mr Coorey confirmed he had heard the name of the

company that Mr Constantinidis claimed had been

nominated as the conduit for the making of a donation

to the ALP. He said he had lunch with some people

associated with the company who handed him

information on the company. He said they were

interested in quoting for the extensions at the Belmore

club premises. He said he provided the material to Mr

McIntyre and a copy to Mr Ballesty who was the CEO

of the League Club. He said he did not have any

subsequent conversations with Mr McIntyre, Mr

Ballesty or other directors of the League Club regarding

that company.

CONFLICTING RECOLLECTIONS

– MISTAKE OR FABRICATION?

Given the conflicting recollections on this issue, the

question arose as to whether this was merely due to

faulty recollection or something more sinister. Various

explanations were offered.

Mr McIntyre said a possible motive for Mr

Constantinidis to lie about these occurrences was that

Mr McIntyre was responsible for terminating his

19

ICAC

©

ICAC report


involvement in the Woodward Park project. It was clear

on the evidence that the relationship between Mr

Constantinidis and Mr McIntyre had greatly

deteriorated in the course of the first half of 2002.

Mr Coorey attributed Mr Constantinidis’s allegations

to the circumstances of their falling-out.

In cross-examination by counsels for Mr Coorey and

Mr McIntyre, it was suggested to Mr Hagan that he

had motives for fabricating evidence against their

clients. In relation to Mr Coorey, it was said these

motives arose from Mr Coorey’s opposition to various

matters in which Mr Hagan had involved himself as

CEO of the Football Club and Mr Coorey’s accusations

of financial and other mismanagement of the Football

Club involving Mr Hagan. In relation to Mr McIntyre,

it was suggested that he had claimed Mr Hagan had

been financially incompetent in the performance of

his duties and had been instrumental in procuring Mr

Hagan’s resignation as CEO. In relation to the latter,

there was evidence that Mr McIntyre had played a

major role in securing a generous financial settlement

for Mr Hagan.

Mr Hagan denied any wrongdoing in relation to his

duties as CEO of the Football Club. He also denied

he had made false accusations as a result of these

issues.

None of these suggested motivations was established.

At best, it could be inferred that the circumstances

leading to their cessation of involvement in the project

and resignation respectively, and their falling out with

Mr Coorey might have given rise to disgruntlement.

Ultimately, I am not satisfied that either Mr

Constantinidis or Mr Hagan was motivated by feelings

of revenge to knowingly fabricate their evidence.

FINDINGS

There is no evidence that the company alleged to have

been nominated as the conduit through which a

donation would be made was ever a party to, or ever

considered being a party to, such a scheme. In these

circumstances I have decided to maintain the order I

made pursuant to s.112 of the ICAC Act prohibiting

publication of the name of the company.

There are competing and contradictory accounts of

whether there were discussions concerning the

possibility of making a donation to the ALP both before

and during a luncheon at the Noble House Restaurant.

Mr Constantinidis and Mr Hagan each say there was

a discussion at the luncheon involving the making of

a donation to the ALP. Mr McIntyre, Mr Coorey and

Mr Nelson denied any such discussion took place. While

the latter may have obvious motives for their denials

it was also submitted that Mr Constantinidis and Mr

Hagan also have motives for making such allegations.

I must also take into account the inconsistencies in

aspects of their evidence.

Ultimately, I am unable on the evidence before me to

determine to the requisite standard whether or not such

discussions occurred.

Even if I was inclined to make a finding that

discussions concerning the making of a donation had

taken place it would not necessarily follow that any

person had engaged in corrupt conduct.

In relation to Mr Obeid, I am not satisfied to the

requisite standard that his name was mentioned in

connection with the donation. Mr Hagan says he

assumed the suggestion of a donation originated with

Mr Obeid but he had no actual recollection of Mr

Obeid’s name being even mentioned at the luncheon,

let alone as the proponent of the donation. The

inconsistencies in Mr Constantinidis’s account are such

that, in the face of the denials of Mr McIntyre, Mr

Coorey and Mr Nelson, an adverse finding could not

be made on his uncorroborated evidence. Even putting

aside these inconsistencies, the lack of precision in

what he claims was said in relation to Mr Obeid would

make it difficult to determine in what context Mr Obeid

was mentioned and, in particular, whether that context

was capable of incriminating Mr Obeid.

In any event, any statement that might incriminate

Mr Obeid and said to have been made by Mr Coorey

would be hearsay. It could not be used in a court as

evidence of the truth of the statement, unless such

evidence was given by Mr Coorey himself. In the

circumstances of Mr Coorey’s denial, there would be

no admissible evidence against Mr Obeid. Reliance

on the truth of information in statements made about

others by persons (who do not give evidence of the

statement) in civil or criminal proceedings is permitted

only in very narrow circumstances, excluding

ICAC report


20

ICAC©

admissions against interest. Here, there is an absence

of reasonable evidence, outside what Mr Coorey is

alleged to have said, of common purpose between

him and Mr Obeid in relation to the joint commission

of a crime. In such circumstances, the evidence of Mr

Constantinidis concerning what Mr Coorey has said

about Mr Obeid, assuming it was found that he did

mention Mr Obeid in an incriminating context, could

not be admitted against Mr Obeid in criminal

proceedings (see R v Ahern (1988) 165 CLR 87 at 93

and s.87 of the Evidence Act 1995). The effect of the

operation of s.9 of the ICAC Act would be to exclude

a finding of corrupt conduct when the only version of

what occurred is of a hearsay nature. Such a

conclusion is consistent with the principles in

Briginshaw as outlined in Appendix 2 to this report.

As to whether what was suggested by Mr Coorey at

the lunch could constitute corrupt conduct by him, a

different question must be asked. For the purposes of

s.9 of the ICAC Act his conduct must constitute or

involve a criminal offence before it can be categorised

as corrupt (see Appendix 2 to this report). Offences

relating to corrupt commissions or rewards are

contained in Part 4A of the Crimes Act 1900. There

is no offence of merely talking about the opportunity

to corruptly give a benefit as an inducement for doing

something. For such activity to be criminal, it must

constitute a conspiracy, an attempt or an incitement

to commit an offence. The evidence as to what was

allegedly said by Mr Coorey is not sufficiently detailed

to demonstrate an intention on his part to actually

induce a corrupt act.

In any event, it is clear that, whatever was said at the

luncheon, no action was ever taken to make any

donation to the ALP. Both Mr Constantinidis and Mr

Hagan agree that there was no acceptance by anyone

at the luncheon of the proposal to make a donation.

21

ICAC

©

ICAC report


Two meetings were organised with politicians for the

purpose of outlining the Woodward Park project. The

first was a meeting with the Premier on 7 August 2000.

Subsequently, another presentation was made to a number

of Ministers on 13 November 2000.

MEETING WITH THE PREMIER

Approximately five months after the announcement of

the poker machine freeze a meeting was organised to

explain the nature and benefits of the projects to the

Premier. This meeting occurred on 7 August 2000 and

was attended by Mr McIntyre, Mr John Ballesty, the

General Manager of the League Club, Mr Jim Bosnjak

(the Chairman of the Greater Western Sydney

Development Board and also a Director of the

Razorbacks) and Mr Alan Jones, the radio personality.

Mr McIntyre said he believed the meeting was arranged

by Mr Jones.

Mr McIntyre provided the Commission with a copy of

the presentation. The poker machine freeze is noted as

an issue affecting the proposed club. The document

touches briefly on the land acquisition issue in the context

of noting advice from the Department of Land and Water

Conversation to LCC on 31 June 2000 that any financial

transaction with LCC would need to reflect normal

market considerations so as not to contravene the

provisions of the Stadium Australia Project Agreement.

Mr McIntyre said the purpose of the meeting was to have

an opportunity to speak to the Premier personally and

explain to him ‘the enormous benefits of the project’. At

the time Mr McIntyre was concerned that the changes

made to the legislation in relation to the poker machine

freeze were placing obstacles in the way of the project.

Mr McIntyre gave the following evidence:

The purpose was mainly to enlighten him on a

wonderful project and hopefully he would take

this into consideration in the ensuring 12 month

period when he formulated and announced the

final gaming reforms. In other words this was an

enormous opportunity for western Sydney and

maybe the legislation could be formed in a way

that recognised and preserved this wonderful

project.

He was asked about the Premier’s response:

Was the response which you received a positive

one?—I thought he was more interested in hearing

what Alan Jones had to say, actually. But the

answer to your question, he did say he thought it

was a great project, but he didn’t indicate anything

one way or another. He did make comment about

the matter that concerned him was the public

outlook on the amount of gaming in NSW.

That is that there was too much of it?—He

believed that, yes.

Mr McIntyre also said the Premier indicated he could

not understand how the club could be involved with Mr

Constantinidis given his falling-out with the former Prime

Minister, the Hon. Paul Keating, over the piggery incident.

Mr Keating was and still is patron of the Football Club.

Mr McIntyre however said he did not form the view from

this that it would assist progress of the project if Mr

Constantinidis was no longer involved.

MR MOSS’S REACTION

Mr Bill Moss subsequently became aware of this meeting.

He said he became angry as he had made a presentation

to the League Club Board in June 2000 in which he had

listed the risks, as he understood them, to the project.

One of the risks he listed was public scrutiny and he had

emphasised to Mr McIntyre that if there were any meetings

with Government officials either Mr Moss or an

independent lawyer should be present. He gave the

following evidence:

Well, I saw this project as, you know, a very

transparent project. It was a project that had to

be handled very delicately because the press

wanted to write about it and everything had to be

done with a high standard of probity.

And what was the inconsistency between probity

or public scrutiny and Mr McIntyre and others

seeing the Premier?—Well, I was concerned that

a meeting with the Premier would be construed

as a discussion about poker machine licences and,

you know, I didn’t want that to happen. I was

concerned that essentially we would have a

newspaper story that would have said, ‘Bulldogs

have secret meeting with Premier’.

CHAPTER 4 – TELLING POLITICIANS

ABOUT THE PROJECT

ICAC report


22

ICAC©

Despite Mr Moss’s concerns there does not appear to

have been any adverse publicity concerning this

meeting, nor did the meeting result in any action being

taken by Government, or Government departments,

to facilitate the project in any way.

ARRANGING A MEETING AT THE

WENTWORTH HOTEL

A presentation was organised for certain NSW

Government Ministers at the Wentworth Hotel on 13

November 2000. The Ministers present were the Hon.

Eddie Obeid, the Hon. Craig Knowles, the Hon. John

Della Bosca, the Hon. Carl Scully and the Hon. Morris

Iemma. Mr Paciullo, Mr McIntyre, Mr Nelson, Mr

Hagan, Mr Ballesty, Mr Ricky Stuart, Mr Arthur Coorey,

the League Club IT Manager, and the project architect

also attended.

Mr Coorey gave the following evidence as to how the

meeting at the Wentworth Hotel came about:

Gary and George Paciullo, the Mayor of

Liverpool and some other people had been to

see the Premier earlier on in the year, and the

Premier just I believe killed it, wasn’t interested

in it at all and some time after that I think

George knew that I had a relationship with

Eddie. Him and Gary said to me, ‘Do you think

you could get Eddie to get some Ministers to

look at this, maybe you know if we throw a

different light on it, show them what – what it’s

all about, we can warm them to it’. George

said he’d look after Craig Knowles. He’d get

Craig Knowles who was a previous Mayor of

Liverpool. So I – I asked Eddie and we got

some Ministers there to have a look at it.

Mr Coorey said he asked Mr Obeid to get together

some Ministers for a presentation on the project. He

said he did not think the project was of particular

interest to Mr Obeid other than it being ‘… something

that the government could do for the people of

southwest Sydney’. He said he left it up to Mr Obeid

to organise which Ministers would attend. Mr Coorey

booked a conference room at the Wentworth Hotel

and organised the catering arrangements. Although

he assisted in organising the meeting and attended,

he said he did not take any part in the actual

presentation, nor did he have discussions with any of

the Ministers about political donations.

He said Mr Obeid did not tell him prior to the meeting

who would be attending. However he had confidence

that Mr Obeid would arrange for other Ministers to

attend. He had told Mr Obeid that Mr McIntyre, Mr

Ballesty, Mr Nelson, Mr Hagan, Mr Ricky Stuart and

the project architect would be present as well as Mr

Paciullo. In relation to Mr Moss, he said Mr Obeid

said, ‘Let’s just keep it between the club people and

the guys that I’m going to bring down, please, no

consultants or bankers, we don’t want, you know, to

have consultants and bankers there, we’ll just have a

look at what you have got and we’ll see what happens

from there.’

Mr McIntyre said he was also told by Mr Coorey that

the Ministers did not want any bankers at the

presentation and this explained why no one from

Macquarie Bank was invited.

Mr McIntyre confirmed he asked Mr Coorey to arrange

the meeting. He said this was the only meeting with

Ministers organised by Mr Coorey in relation to the

Woodward Park project.

He was questioned why he asked Mr Coorey to arrange

the meeting:

Arthur was well known in Parliamentary and

Rugby League circles. He had three stores in

the city. I was aware that he came into contact

with a lot of people in government circles and

– and I knew that he did know some of them

reasonably well and I thought it was – he was

the appropriate person to bring about a meeting,

if it was possible.

What conversations did you have with him

before that meeting in relation to organising

such a meeting?—As I said before, it would be

good if we could have a meeting and explain

the Oasis project to people in the government

because I had – I had three months earlier had

a meeting with the Premier and Alan Jones went

with me and two other people. I just believed

that we were getting nowhere with this

magnificent project and I felt if we could speak

to a wider range of Ministers and that’s – that’s

what happened.

23

ICAC

©

ICAC report


Mr McIntyre said he left it up to Mr Coorey as to

which Ministers should be invited. Although he had

known Mr Coorey for about 20 years, he said his belief

that Mr Coorey had significant contact with politicians

only arose as a result of Mr Coorey’s involvement in

organising this meeting. From then he saw him as a

person who had access to the corridors of power.

Mr Paciullo could not recall how the meeting came to

be arranged and could not recollect who made the

presentation. Mr Brian Carr said he only found out

about the presentation after it occurred.

Mr Obeid has been a Member of the Legislative Council

since September 1991. He became Minister for Mineral

Resources and Fisheries in April 1999.

He said he first became aware of the Woodward Park

project through newspaper reports in late 1999. He

said that he was not aware of the August meeting

with the Premier and prior to helping organise the

Wentworth Hotel presentation had not spoken to

anyone concerning the project.

Mr Obeid said he had been invited to the presentation

by Mr Coorey and Mr Paciullo. He had known Mr

Arthur Coorey for approximately 25 years. He said he

co-ordinated the date so that it suited those who were

to attend. Contrary to Mr Coorey’s evidence, Mr Obeid

said that those Ministers whose attendance was desired

by Mr Coorey and Mr Paciullo were indicated to him.

He said he made no arrangements for the Minister

responsible for gaming to be present. He understood

that:

… the desired Ministers that they wanted to be

there, were mainly the people in that particular

area, and that had an association with the sport,

in particular, because they felt that they would

want to listen to what they’ve got to say.

He was asked why he involved himself in organising

the meeting:

Well, I’m a fan of Rugby League, I’ve followed

Rugby League all my life. I thought Canterbury

were doing a great job, they’re a good club, a

good football team and I thought any

expenditure of one million dollars out in the

west was something that an elected

representative should listen to.

He was asked whether he had specified that no

bankers should be present:

I don’t recall the exact words but I was keen to

have – to impress on them that it was purely a

private presentation by the club to these

Ministers and we only had limited time.

He said, however, it would not have troubled him if a

representative from Macquarie Bank had attended.

THE PRESENTATION

The two most important issues which Mr McIntyre

said he had in mind in relation to the presentation

were the effect on the club of the freeze on poker

machines and the need to transfer Crown land to

enable the Oasis development to proceed.

He did a PowerPoint presentation to the Ministers

explaining the Oasis project and its benefits. A copy

of the presentation was provided to the Commission.

Under the heading ‘Status Report on the Club and

Hotel’ Mr McIntyre noted the then current poker

machine freeze and the proposition that the club could

not proceed without poker machines. He agreed that

he had pointed out that the League Club was not

prepared to provide funds for the construction of the

Oasis development and for subsequent support of the

sporting teams if it was denied an opportunity to have

a licensed club at Liverpool for the benefit of its

members, players and supporters. He gave the

following evidence:

This is before signing of the Commercial

Agreement, but that was what was indicated to

the government, that our view was that we

weren’t going to go out there and spend millions

and millions on sporting facilities that we didn’t

own if we weren’t going to have a club facility

next door where all the players, officials and

supporters could fraternise together as part of

the club environment.

He also raised the need to acquire the Crown land

and for that land to be rezoned for the project to

proceed.

Mr McIntyre said he thought the Ministers were

receptive to the presentation and although there was

only some limited discussion at the end he believed

ICAC report


24

ICAC©

the feedback had been positive. He said, however,

that no requests were made of the Ministers to do

anything in relation to the project.

Mr Obeid told the Commission Mr McIntyre made

‘an excellent presentation’, not many questions were

asked and they then retired to have some refreshments.

He said Mr McIntyre did not raise the issue of poker

machine permits, but focussed on the positive aspects

of the project.

He was taken to the presentation folder provided by

Mr McIntyre. This indicates issues affecting the club

included the liquor licence and poker machines. Mr

Obeid said he had no recollection of these matters

being discussed. He said as far as he was concerned if

the project depended on the licensed club and poker

machine permits ‘it was never going to happen’. He

did not express this view to Mr McIntyre or others

associated with the Woodward Park project.

He said that because this matter was not within his

portfolio he did nothing after the presentation to assist

in advancing the project. He had not subsequently

discussed the matter with Government members nor

with the Minister for Gaming. He could not recall

subsequently discussing the Woodward Park project

with Mr Coorey.

He denied ever suggesting to anyone that a donation

to the ALP might assist in respect of problems

confronting the projects.

Mr Hagan was present at the presentation. He said

there were no discussions in his presence regarding

the making of political donations.

POST-PRESENTATION

DISCUSSION BETWEEN MR

MCINYTRE AND MR COOREY

Mr McIntyre initially said that after the Ministers left,

he left the hotel and had a discussion with Mr Moss.

Later that day he had a discussion with Mr Coorey.

On reflection, Mr McIntyre said he believed his

discussion with Mr Coorey preceded that with Mr Moss.

In his statement to the Commission, Mr McIntyre

outlined his version of his discussion with Mr Coorey:

Later on 13 November 2000 I had a discussion

with Arthur Coorey about how political

donations to the Labor Party prior to the 1995

State Election (when Labor came into office)

had resulted in hotels and shopping centres

being given the right to have poker machines

and that this had a serious impact upon the

club industry.

During the course of that discussion, Arthur

Coorey said words to the effect of ‘if you give a

million dollars to the party you will probably

also get what you want at Liverpool’. To which

I replied, ‘That’s a bribe. There is no way in

the world that I will get involved in anything

like that.’

He said at no time during this discussion was Mr

Obeid’s name or that of any other politician

mentioned.

In his later evidence he said the reason for his reaction

to what Mr Coorey had suggested was that he

considered giving money to somebody to get a decision

a ‘bribe’.

During the course of his private evidence in October,

Mr McIntyre expanded on how the discussion had

come about. He said he was venting his frustration

about the difficulties encountered over the previous

four years in getting the projects underway and the

fact that there had been no assistance from the State

Government. He said he went on to say:

I said and here we can have a situation where

in 1995 and the Labor Government – whether

I’m correct or not, it was my information, that

one of the things it had – a deal that it had

done prior to the ’95 election, was to guarantee

the hotels that they were going to get poker

machines and, as you know when they got in

and soon after they got in, they gave the poker

machines to the hotels and they also gave – put

them in shopping centres. Just absolutely crazy,

you know. I mean to say, those gambling facilities

should not be given to private enterprise … It

was against the background of all that I was

saying, look see what happened. They – the

25

ICAC

©

ICAC report


hotels and the AHA have done their deal and

got their donations and look after themselves

and they’ve been treated very, very well in – in

– since then and – and that was bad enough,

but on top of that the club industry was getting

bashed around – bashed from pillar to post on

a lot of issues and which I don’t have time to go

into. So, I was talking about that, how unfair

this was and it was in the context of that that

this conversation occurred …

In addition, Mr McIntyre said that Mr Coorey:

… might have mentioned they can pay it

through a builder or something, you know. He

may have said something, ‘Oh, they pay it

through builders’ or something like that. He

may have, but I can’t be one hundred percent

certain about that, but I – once again I can’t –

it was never a specific proposal. If it was, if you

do what they did, you could probably get it

too.

He said he did not ask Mr Coorey what he was talking

about, and no name of a building company was

specified.

Mr McIntyre said there was nothing in what he

understood Mr Coorey to have said to indicate that

Mr Coorey was seeking to have Mr McIntyre make a

donation. He thought of what Mr Coorey said as ‘…

a throwaway. It was an impromptu statement made

by him in reply to a whinge by me.’

Mr McIntyre said this was the only discussion he had

had with Mr Coorey concerning the making of

donations. He did not think he could be mistaken as

to the words used by Mr Coorey.

In his public evidence in November, Mr McIntyre said

he believed the conversation had occurred in the bar

at the Wentworth Hotel. He believed Mr Nelson was

in the vicinity ‘… but I know that he wasn’t there

when the actual words were said to me’. He was not

sure whether Mr Hagan was also in the vicinity.

In his evidence Mr Coorey maintained he never

suggested to Mr McIntyre that a $1million donation

to the ALP might assist with the projects at Liverpool.

He was adamant that he had never asked for or

suggested the possibility of making a donation to the

ALP. He gave his version of the conversation:

Gary came to me after we had the showing

with the Ministers and said to me that the

Government’s stuffed up. They were giving too

many poker machines out. Now they’re

frightened to give out any more because of

public outcry and the papers won’t get off their

backs and that they’re – they’re frightened it’s

really stuffed us up and – and he said that the –

the hotels have got what they wanted and I said

to him ‘Gary, the hotels pulled themselves

together before the election. They put in a fund

of somewhere between one million and one and

a half million dollars. Lobby the Government

and they got what they wanted’. That is a

discussion I had with Gary. Now if he perceived

that to be me asking him for a million dollars

for the Labor Party, it definitely did not happen

that way.

He said his reference to $1million to $1.5million was

in relation to what he understood to be a fighting fund

established by the hotels lobby.

Mr Coorey said that Mr McIntyre responded to these

comments by saying, ‘I reckon that’s a bribe’. Mr

Coorey said he did not ask what Mr McIntyre meant

by this comment.

Mr Nelson said he never heard any conversations

between Mr McIntyre and Mr Coorey about political

donations.

MR MOSS’S REACTION TO THE

WENTWORTH PRESENTATION

Mr McIntyre said he and Mr Nelson subsequently met

with Mr Moss at an outdoor coffee shop next to the

Macquarie Bank offices. He understood Mr Moss was

angry about not being invited to the presentation. He

said he had only been able to calm Mr Moss down by

advising him that he had been told by Mr Coorey that

the Ministers did not want bankers involved in the

presentation.

He was not sure if he mentioned to Mr Moss what he

understood Mr Coorey had told him about the

possibility of making a donation. He recalled the

possibility of some passing remark but was not sure if

this may have occurred subsequently when on an

overseas trip with Mr Moss.

ICAC report


26

ICAC©

Mr Moss was told of the meeting by either Mr Hagan

or Mr Nelson after it occurred. He said he went

‘absolutely ballistic’. His concern was the lack of

independent parties present to witness what occurred

at the meeting and the consequent lack of

transparency. What made him particularly angry was

being told that the Ministers did not want him in

attendance. He did not believe this would have been

the case and was concerned that he was being pushed

out of the picture.

He said:

I felt I was trying to run a team on a world class

project, a very complex project, where everyone

was running off and doing what they wanted to

do themselves, without any regard for strategy.

In retrospect, his concerns at perceptions at probity

and public scrutiny arising from such a meeting were

prescient.

Mr Moss said there was no mention of political

donations in his conversation with Mr McIntyre, Mr

Hagan or Mr Nelson.

OTHER DISCUSSIONS

INVOLVING MR MOSS

When interviewed by Commission officers in October,

Mr Constantinidis said he had a conversation with Mr

Moss in which the latter actively discouraged the

making of political donations. Later, in his private

evidence, Mr Constantinidis said there were two

conversations with Mr Moss on the subject of political

donations. Both involved Mr McIntyre. He said he

thought Mr McIntyre informed Mr Moss about the

approach that had been made through Mr Coorey

and he believed he had named Mr Obeid as the

politician who had raised this issue with Mr Coorey.

Mr McIntyre denied having any discussion with Mr

Moss on this subject in the presence of Mr

Constantinidis. Mr Moss also denied having a

conversation concerning donations with Mr McIntyre

in the presence of Mr Constantinidis.

In his evidence, Mr Moss said he had a telephone

conversation with Mr Constantinidis some time

between 13 and 19 November 2000, when he left for

overseas. Mr Moss complained to Mr Constantinidis

about not having been invited to the meeting. He said

Mr Constantinidis told him, ‘Arthur had been trying to

get in Gary’s good books by trying to do a deal with

the State Government … the deal was that they were

to donate two million dollars, as I recall, two million

dollars to the Labor Party and that money would be

donated through a building company.’

Mr Moss said he was intrigued by this proposition

because:

… I couldn’t understand it and I recall saying

to him, that nobody donates two million dollars

to a political party, and I can remember saying,

‘All donations to political parties are on the

record and transparent’, and that’s when he

told me, ‘They do it through a builder’. And I

questioned him on that and I said, ‘How does

the builder get the money into the Labor Party?’

and he gave me an explanation that I never quite

understood. He basically said, ‘It involves

hundreds of people, the money going to

hundreds of people at the branch level’. And I

never quite understood how that money – how

all those people could be involved and the

money could get there.

As a result of what he was told Mr Moss decided to

question Mr Coorey and Mr McIntyre about this on

their forthcoming trip to Europe.

He said he first spoke to Mr Coorey at the airport and

told him he wanted to talk with him about the meeting

he had with Ministers. Mr Moss said Mr Coorey’s

response was, ‘I know nothing. I want nothing more

to do with this project.’ He said that given this response

he did not pursue the issue with him further. When it

was subsequently put to Mr Moss that Mr Coorey had

not left Australia at the same time as him he said that

this conversation may have occurred subsequently, at

an airport in Europe. In any event, nothing arises from

where the conversation occurred.

Mr Moss said that he sat next to Mr McIntyre on the

flight from Sydney to London. He did not put what

Mr Constantinidis had told him directly to Mr

McIntyre. Instead, he asked Mr McIntyre whether the

Leagues Club had ever donated money to the ALP or

whether it intended to donate money to the ALP. The

response to both questions was, ‘No’. Mr Moss asked

him whether Mr Coorey had tried to encourage him to

27

ICAC

©

ICAC report


donate money to the ALP. Mr Moss said that Mr

McIntyre said this had occurred but that he had rejected

it because ‘it was a nonsense’ and had gone on to

say, ‘There’s no way we will be donating money to

anybody’. Mr Moss then asked him whether he had

any preferences for builders to which the response was,

‘No’.

He did not put to Mr McIntyre specifically what Mr

Constantinidis had told him because he did not believe

money could be donated to the ALP through a building

company.

Mr Moss was satisfied that there was no active

proposal to make a donation.

FINDINGS

Meeting with the Premier

There is no suggestion that there was anything

improper or untoward in relation to or arising from

the meeting with the Premier on 7 August 2000.

Arranging the Wentworth Hotel

presentation

Mr Coorey assisted in organising the presentation by

contacting Mr Obeid, who he knew, for the purpose of

arranging for him and other Ministers to attend.

There is an apparent conflict between his evidence

and that of Mr Obeid concerning how the other

ministerial attendees were selected. Mr Coorey says

he left it up to Mr Obeid to decide who to invite. Mr

Obeid says Mr Coorey and Mr Paciullo indicated they

wanted Ministers from the local area and those who

had an association with sport. Mr Paciullo could not

recall how the meeting came to be arranged. Nothing

arises from this difference on the evidence.

There is of course nothing wrong with anyone

organising or attending a presentation on a proposed

project. There is no evidence to suggest that anything

that was done in organising the attendance of

Government Ministers at the presentation was improper

or that anyone acted corruptly.

The Wentworth Hotel presentation

There is no evidence of anything improper occurring

at the presentation on the Woodward Park project on

13 November 2000. Further, there is nothing improper

in Government Ministers attending such a presentation.

Mr McIntyre’s discussion with Mr Coorey

There is a clear conflict in the evidence between Mr

McIntyre and Mr Coorey as to what Mr Coorey told

Mr McIntyre after the presentation. Unfortunately there

was no third person present who heard the

conversation and who might therefore assist in resolving

the conflict.

Both men agree that Mr McIntyre responded to what

he had been told by Mr Coorey by saying, ‘that’s a

bribe’. However, Mr McIntyre’s version of the

conversation differs in significant respects from that

of Mr Coorey.

Mr McIntyre’s version is consistent not only with what

Mr Moss says Mr McIntyre told him on the flight to

Europe but also what Mr McIntyre told others in later

conversations which are dealt with in following

chapters. However, while this is evidence as to Mr

McIntyre’s understanding of what he was told by Mr

Coorey, it does not necessarily follow that this

understanding was in fact correct or that I should

accept his version over that of Mr Coorey.

It is possible, as Mr Coorey claimed, that Mr McIntyre

incorrectly perceived what Mr Coorey said. Both are

clear they never subsequently discussed the issue so if

there was any misunderstanding it would not, on their

evidence, have subsequently become apparent.

Even if I was to accept Mr McIntyre’s version of the

conversation such acceptance would not, on the

evidence before me, lead to a finding of corrupt

conduct against Mr Coorey.

As submitted by counsel assisting, a reference to

making a donation to the ALP, if made by Mr Coorey,

was made in response to comments raised by Mr

McIntyre, it was not acted on, and it was not followed

up. As such it could be construed as a statement of

opinion about the likely effect of a donation, based

on Mr Coorey’s unsubstantiated belief about the effect

of previous donations made by the hotel industry. Even

ICAC report


28

ICAC©

were I to accept Mr McIntyre’s version of the

conversation there is insufficient evidence to

demonstrate that Mr Coorey had the necessary

improper intent for his conduct to meet the mental

element requirements of s.8(1) of the ICAC Act (see

Report on Purported Termination of Employment of

Jeffrey Horner and Edwin Chenery by Southern

Mitchell Electricity, January 1996, pp. 23-25) or come

within the terms of s.8(2) of the ICAC Act.

Matters arising from the discussion

between Mr Constantinidis and Mr Moss

It is evident from Mr Moss’s recollection of the

conversation between them that Mr Constantinidis was

either aware of or suspected that something had been

said concerning a donation to the ALP. However the

evidence as a whole does not allow a determination

to be made as to when he obtained this information,

the circumstances in which he obtained it, or the

precise content of the information.

Although having doubts about what he had been told,

Mr Moss made enquiries with Mr Coorey and Mr

McIntyre which satisfied him that there was no intention

to make a donation to the ALP in relation to the


Mr McIntyre’s response to whether Mr Coorey had

tried to encourage him to make a donation is consistent

with his understanding of what Mr Coorey had said to

him on 13 November 2000. His advice to Mr Moss

that he had rejected the proposal is consistent with

his evidence to the Commission.

29

ICAC

©

ICAC report


The Commission had before it evidence of a number

of discussions subsequent to 13 November 2000

concerning political donations to the ALP in relation

to the Woodward Park project. The Commission was

interested to explore what was said on each occasion,

particularly the evidence from Mr Constantinidis that

Mr McIntyre’s attitude towards the making of a

donation changed from opposition to preparedness to

explore the possibility.

There is no evidence that subsequent to 13 November

2000 Mr Coorey had engaged in any discussions with

Mr McIntyre regarding this issue. There was also no

evidence Mr Obeid engaged in any discussions with

anyone concerning donations to the ALP in connection

with the Woodward Park project.

One of the occasions on which it was said Mr McIntyre

raised the matter of a donation was on Lizard Island

where, between 29 November and 2 December 2001,

he was the guest of ADCO executives. Also at Lizard

Island were Mrs McIntyre, Mr & Mrs Hagan, Mr &

Mrs Nelson and Mr Constantinidis.

Since May 1999 ADCO has been one of the corporate

sponsors for the Football Club and has also carried

out some construction work for the Belmore premises

of the League Club. It appears the purpose of ADCO

funding the trip was to celebrate the success of the

Bulldogs football team.

One of the ADCO executives present was Ms Judith

Brinsmead, the Executive Director of ADCO. She

provided a statement to the Commission and

subsequently gave oral evidence concerning a

conversation she said occurred during the course of

evening drinks on the deck of a boat. In her statement

she said Mr McIntyre said words to the effect:

Bob Carr’s attitude to poker machine numbers

makes things difficult.

The poker machine numbers should not stop

the Oasis project going ahead.

The biggest issue facing the project is the NSW

Government’s inability to make a decision on

the sale price of the land that the project needs.

The easiest thing maybe [is] to give them a

donation, everyone else does it.

Ms Brinsmead was unaware of the identity of the

persons referred to as ‘them’ and said there was no

mention of any government official in connection with

the mention of a donation. She did not hear any of

the ADCO executives either join in or take the

conversation any further. She said there was no prior

or subsequent mention of these matters.

When giving evidence in the hearing she said the

conversation arose from Mr McIntyre commenting on

his frustration concerning the poker machine number

freeze. She said she responded by asking him whether

that would stop the Oasis project proceeding to which

he responded, ‘No’. She said he then said:

Judy, the more frustrating thing about the Oasis

project is this key piece of land that we need to

make it all work. We can’t get a price out of the

government and I can’t do my feasibility

properly until I get that price and we need the

block of land.

She described the conversation as ‘light hearted and

a throwaway line’.

Mr Robert Hill, another ADCO director and Ms

Brinsmead’s husband, has given a statement to the

Commission confirming he was present at the

conversation and overheard words said by Mr McIntyre

to the effect of those stated by his wife in her statement.

Mr McIntyre recalled the Lizard Island trip but believed

the conversation occurred over dinner.

In his statement to the Commission he said he had

discussed with Mr Hill the difficulties of obtaining the

required rezoning and development approval from

Canterbury Council in relation to a proposal to

construct apartments above the Belmore club premises.

He said during the course of this discussion reference

was made to the fact that the likely contributions to

be required by Canterbury Council under s.94 of the

Local Government Act would be in the vicinity of

$1.9million. He said he and Mr Hill discussed the

possibility of the club doing something for the local

community such as agreeing to construct a new library.

During the course of this discussion he recalled the

CHAPTER 5 – LIZARD ISLAND

ICAC report


30

ICAC©

discussion he had had about political donations with

Mr Arthur Coorey. He said he then said words to the

following effect:

I’ve always thought of donations to political

parties and councils as being a sort of bribe –

criminal corruption – but I now realise it is part

of the real world – part of the system – but I

still regard it as a form of political corruption

even though it does not actually amount to

criminal corruption.

Mr McIntyre expanded on the conversation in his

private evidence to the Commission on 23 October.

I raised it again, the issue we had – I think I

well, I did raise it about political donations again,

you know, and – and that was probably the day

that I had – had a slightly different view on –

on these donations, because in the – 12 months

earlier I’d called it a bribe, you know, and I still

call it a bribe, but – but I now realise it’s not a

criminal matter. It’s a political matter. … I said,

‘after all I’ve been put through, after so many

things, I’m just wondering whether my view has

been – whether my view, being so hard and –

hard about all these things, whether our club

has been disadvantaged over it. Maybe the club

industry should have gone in and done what

the AHA [did] and see if they could lobby for a

better deal for the clubs and we’d just sit back

and hope – hoped everything would happen

decently and naturally’. But it didn’t and it’s in

that context that it was said.

Mr McIntyre said he had used words similar to those

recounted by Ms Brinsmead in her statement. He said

the comments made by him were said in frustration

and were a ‘throwaway’ line.

In his record of interview with the Commission on 3

October 2002 Mr Constantinidis recalled the

conversation at Lizard Island. He also believed it

occurred during the course of a dinner. He said:

… a comment was made by Gary about his

belief that maybe he would have been better

off in going down the path, which had previously

been offered to him to make a veiled donation

to the ALP to get things happening and

discussion obviously sitting at the table with a

builder centred around the fact that it was

another builder that had been identified, that,

you know, would be nominated by – I knew

from my discussions to be (name of company)

through Arthur Coorey and what he had advised

me in Sydney many months before, and Gary’s

view that he would have been better off having

gone down that path to not have spent the time

and the effort and the cost of reaching a position

that was literally static and the licensing matter

on appeal sitting in the courts.

In his private evidence on 21 October Mr

Constantinidis confirmed that he understood Mr

McIntyre had indicated he had doubts as to his

previous attitude of not entertaining a substantial

donation. Mr Constantinidis said this was the first time

that he had heard Mr McIntyre blatantly entertain the

thought of making a substantial contribution.

He also said he had been requested by Mr McIntyre to

use his contacts to canvass the feasibility of making a

donation. The following evidence was given:

So when was it last year that Mr McIntyre asked

you to use your contacts to ascertain whether

in fact it would be feasible to make donations

to the ALP in return for getting some progress

in some of these matters?—The first time that

I was asked bluntly to do that was on Lizard

Island. That’s when I understood clearly that

his view had changed.

However when he gave evidence in public in November

he said that he noticed a change in Mr McIntyre’s

view after the Lizard Island visit. In cross examination

he initially denied that Mr McIntyre had asked him at

Lizard Island to make contact with people to ascertain

whether or not a donation would be reasonable or

feasible or might be effective. He was taken to his

previous private evidence and asked which answer was

untrue. He gave the following evidence:

When I was answering Mr Waldon, I think as I

go through the previous part of the page, it was

to do with – that had to do with the club

matters not to do with the Oasis matters. That’s

the only thing that I can – that changes that.

…

31

ICAC

©

ICAC report


When I asked you the question to the effect

that it would be completely untrue to suggest

there was any discussion at Lizard Island

whereby Gary McIntyre asked you to use your

contacts to see whether it would be feasible to

make donations in return for overcoming some

problems, you agreed, didn’t you?—If I did – I

– I was wrong.

You were lying weren’t you?—I wasn’t lying.

…

You say, do you, on your oath that in the

presence of Bob Hill, Judy Brinsmead, Gary

and someone else who was at the table, and his

wife, that Gary bluntly told you to use your

contacts to ascertain whether in fact it would

be feasible to make donations to the ALP in

return for getting some progress on some of

these matters?—Yes.

That is something you never said one word of,

is it, when Mr Staehli asked you about Lizard

Island yesterday?—I don’t remember that.

Mr Constantinidis had made no mention in his record

of interview of Mr McIntyre asking him at Lizard Island

to use his contacts for this purpose. He said he may

have overlooked mentioning this matter when being

interviewed.

In his record of interview Mr Constantinidis said Mr

McIntyre mentioned the name of the building company

through which it had been proposed the donation be

made. He did not repeat this evidence in his evidence

in chief. He was cross-examined on this omission but

maintained there had been a discussion about the

building company as a conduit.

Neither Mr Hagan nor Mr Nelson could recall any

discussion at Lizard Island concerning the issue of

political donations.

Mrs McIntyre was interviewed by the Commission. She

said that apart from recent media reports she had

never heard any mention of the possibility of making

a donation to a political party in connection with the

Oasis project.

FINDINGS

Mr McIntyre agreed he raised the issue of making a

political donation at Lizard Island. There is a dispute

on the evidence as to whether the conversation

occurred on a boat or over dinner. For present purposes

it is not relevant to resolve this dispute.

Mr McIntyre conceded he used words to the effect

that ‘the easiest thing may be to give them a donation,

everyone else does it’. Both he and Ms Brinsmead

agree that such comments were a throwaway line.

This comment may also explain Mr Constantinidis’s

belief that Mr McIntyre was seriously entertaining the

thought of making a donation.

Mr McIntyre, Ms Brinsmead and Mr Hill agree that

there was no discussion about actually making a

donation. Apart from the evidence given by Mr

Constantinidis, there is no evidence that Mr McIntyre

sought, at this time, to have Mr Constantinidis use his

contacts to ascertain whether in fact it would be

feasible to make a donation to the ALP in relation to

progressing the Woodward Park project. Although Mr

Constantinidis says this request was made in the

presence of Ms Brinsmead and Mr Hill, neither of them

recounted such a conversation.

In the absence of corroboration of the evidence given

by Mr Constantinidis, and given the variations in his

evidence, I am not satisfied to the requisite standard

that he was asked by Mr McIntyre to so use his

contacts.

In the circumstances where there was no serious

suggestion of making a donation and where there is

no evidence that a donation was in fact made, I am

satisfied there was no intention on the part of Mr

McIntyre to either make such a donation or to canvass

the possibility of so doing. Rather, he appears to have

been merely recounting the approach he understood

had been made to him by Mr Arthur Coorey in

November 2000.

In these circumstances, I am satisfied that neither Mr

McIntyre, nor any other person present at the discussion

at Lizard Island, engaged in corrupt conduct.

ICAC report


32

ICAC©

The League Club had a conference at Manly between

3 and 5 December 2001. There was evidence that Mr

McIntyre mentioned at this conference that a donation

had been canvassed.

Initially there was some confusion in the evidence of

Mr Constantinidis and Mr Hagan as to where the

conference had been held.

When interviewed by the Commission on 20 September

2002 Mr Constantinidis nominated the conference as

having occurred in 2001 at Terrigal. He related what

occurred:

I attended one afternoon to give a presentation

on Woodward Park and where it was at and this

was a year ago and while I was sitting there

Gary did get up and tell the whole Board – the

Leagues Club Board he – not the football club,

it was the Leagues Club annual conference. He

got up and just told them about the fact that,

you know, they have been approached and if

they were to have made a payment you know

they would facilitate their club getting the

approval. That was at the Terrigal conference.

Mr Constantinidis said that apart from Mr McIntyre

and himself, Mr Nelson, Mr Hagan and other League

Club officials, being Mr Keith Lotty, Mr Ken McDonald,

Mr Martin Puckeridge and Mr John Ballesty, were

present. Mr Coorey was not present as he was a

Director of the Football Club.

When interviewed on 3 October Mr Constantinidis

expanded somewhat, advising that the comments

made by Mr McIntyre were made in the context of Mr

McIntyre relating ‘… having spent over a million dollars

in legal costs, applications, studies, reports and

whatever …’.

In his public evidence on 7 November 2002 Mr

Constantinidis explained that ‘it was just in the context

that, you know, we had been asked to consider a

donation. We refused and it was just an advice to the

other Directors, I think.’

By this stage of his evidence Mr Constantinidis was

unsure whether the conference had taken place at

Terrigal or in the Blue Mountains. When it was

subsequently put to him in cross examination that there

had been no Board meeting at Terrigal after 1999 Mr

Constantinidis advised the meeting may have been at

Manly.

Mr Constantinidis recalled that he was present at the

conference waiting to give a presentation. It was put

to Constantinidis that he did not attend the Manly

conference. The agenda for the 2001 Manly conference

confirms that Mr Constantinidis was scheduled to

give a presentation at 4:30pm on 3 December,

subsequent to a number of presentations by Mr

McIntyre.

When interviewed by Commission officers on 3

October 2002 Mr Hagan recalled the issue of a

donation was mentioned at a planning conference

which he believed was held at Terrigal in 2000. He

recalled the full League Club Board together with Mr

Ballesty and Mr Levett were present.

Mr Hagan said the mention arose in the context of Mr

McIntyre discussing:

… the hurdles that were in front of the project

and that one proposition had been put to the

organisation that this may be a way around it.

It was never ever viewed, you know, it was never

put as a proposal that they were going to go

down that track … like there was all sorts of

issues being brought forward in so far as getting

the land rezoned and the licensed club running

into problems and then the poker machine

capping and you know, there was a whole range

of things.

Mr Hagan said he understood the proposal had come

from the Labor Party or the Government. An amount

of $1million was mentioned.

In his private evidence on 23 October 2002 he

confirmed the planning meeting had occurred in early

December 2000.

He identified the ‘hurdles’ referred to in his record of

interview as the rezoning and the poker machine issue.

He was also asked to relate what was said in relation

to the ‘proposition’ he said had been mentioned by

Mr McIntyre:

It was generally in the terms that I had previously

outlined that if a certain contractor was given

CHAPTER 6 – THE MANLY CONFERENCE

33

ICAC

©

ICAC report


the go ahead then there was this opportunity

for the price to be altered to – and that money

would change hands in some place at some

other time.

Can you be a bit more specific about that? It’s

somewhat vague:—Well, I mean as a – as a

solution to the problem and it was discussed,

as I say, numerous times that McIntyre would

– had suggested that a proposition had been

put to him through Coorey that if a builder – a

specific builder was given the contract then that

contract would be inflated by a million dollars

and the million dollars would find its way to the

ALP.

He said the name of the contractor was nominated.

This was inconsistent with other evidence he had given

that the question of the construction company had

not been raised after the luncheon at the Noble House

Restaurant which he had placed as occurring sometime

between November 1999 and November 2000.

He said Mr McIntyre did not make any suggestion

that the club should agree to the proposal.

When he gave evidence in public hearing on 13

November Mr Hagan said that after reading media

reports on the evidence over the internet he had come

to the conclusion the conference had occurred at

Manly.

Mr McIntyre did not dispute he mentioned the proposal

at the conference at Manly at the end of 2001.

He made available to the Commission a copy of his

presentation to the conference. This does not make

reference to any suggestion of a payment of a donation

to the ALP. It noted the difficulties caused to the

project by the gaming machine restrictions and

advanced the proposition that the relevant legislation

was ‘specifically designed to stop the Liverpool project’.

Mention was also made of the difficulties in obtaining

the requisite Crown land.

Others nominated in evidence as being present at the

conference either do not recall any mention by Mr

McIntyre of the donations issue or have denied such

discussion occurred. Messrs McDonald, Murray and

Puckeridge recalled McIntyre mentioning the issue on

other occasions. Their evidence on this point is dealt

with in Chapter 8 of this report.

AN ISSUE ARISING FROM MR

MCINTYRE’S PRESENTATION

The copy of the presentation provided by Mr McIntyre

included a reference to ‘District Court judge approaches

and advises of political interference in Licensing Court

proceedings’. He was asked what gave rise to this

reference.

Mr McIntyre said he was told by Mr Constantinidis,

about two weeks before the licence application was

due to be heard, that a District Court judge had told

him there had been ‘an improper approach to the

magistrates’ who would be handling the application.

He said he was told by Mr Constantinidis that ‘they’re

crapped off’ or ‘they’re dirty’ and that the application

would be determined on its merits. The judge was not

named.

Mr McIntyre said he doubted what he had been told.

Although the subject is referred to in the presentation

folder he said he did not mention it when making his

verbal presentation.

When asked about this Mr Constantinidis denied ever

having such a conversation with Mr McIntyre and said

it was ‘bizarre’. He denied having any association with

any judge.

Enquiries with the Licensing Court indicated that

nothing occurred in relation to the proceedings which

would fit the description of what Mr McIntyre said he

had been told. In these circumstances the matter could

not be taken any further.

FINDINGS

The evidence of Mr McIntyre, Mr Constantinidis and

Mr Hagan is consistent that Mr McIntyre relayed at a

conference that an approach had been made to make

a donation to the ALP in connection with the


It is clear from the evidence that the relevant

conference occurred at Manly between 3 and 5

December 2001. Although initially both Mr

Constantinidis and Mr Hagan believed the conference

had occurred elsewhere, I do not regard their evidence

on this point as anything other than faulty recollection.

ICAC report


34

ICAC©

On the evidence, there is no basis for a suggestion

that in mentioning this matter, Mr McIntyre was

seriously entertaining or suggesting that a donation

should be made to the ALP or anyone else in return

for anything to do with the Woodward Park project.

He was merely relating what he understood had been

previously suggested to him by Mr Coorey. In these

circumstances no issue of corruption arises.

35

ICAC

©

ICAC report


Mr Mark Wells is an independent public relations

consultant. He was engaged by Mr McIntyre to provide

public relations services in relation to the Woodward

Park project. His period of engagement was from 22

November 2001 to the end of April 2002. Mr Wells

outlined what he understood his role to be:

… in a nutshell it was to try and embarrass the

State Government into handing over a small

parcel of land at Woodward Park which was

holding up basically the whole development and

we put certain press releases and - … in place

to try and put pressure on – on particularly

Bob Carr to make him see sense and be

reasonable about selling this small piece of land.

He said he had two discussions with Mr McIntyre on

the subject of a possible donation to the ALP. The

first occurred at a dinner on 21 November 2001. He

said there was a later discussion at a Razorbacks game

in early 2002.

ATRIUM RESTAURANT DINNER

The purpose of the dinner was to discuss the

engagement of Mr Peter Wilkinson, Mrs Claire

Wilkinson and Mr Wells to handle promotion and

media activity for the Woodward Park project.

When interviewed by Commission officers in

September 2002, Mr Wells related what Mr McIntyre

had told him at the dinner:

We were basically being briefed by Gary

McIntyre as to where the project was at that

stage. What the obstacles were and how it had

come to be that those obstacles were in place.

Now in part of that conversation it was outlined

that these have – all these things had happened

up to that date and one of the comments that

Gary McIntyre made and I will say in front of

Al Constantinidis, Peter Wilkinson and Claire

Wilkinson words to the effect that Obeid had

offered him an opportunity to pay the Labor

Party a million dollars in return for the project

going through and in – and the further comment

was if he’d known what he’d known now he

wished he had just paid it.

Mr Wells said he categorised the comments as ‘a

throwaway line’.

He asked Mr McIntyre if anyone else knew about this

matter, to which Mr McIntyre replied, ‘Oh, I don’t know’.

Mr Wells said he spoke to Mr Wilkinson at the time about

how this information could be used to the advantage of

the proposed public relations campaign. He could not

recall Mr Wilkinson’s response. He said he also had

conversations with Mr Constantinidis after the dinner to

see if there was any way it could be confirmed that the

offer had been made because he regarded it as ‘dynamite

for me and I had a journo that would run it on the spot.

If I could get some substantiation of the fact that the

offer had been made … especially as it was Eddie Obeid

who had made the comment himself …’.

Mr Wells gave evidence in private hearing on 23 October.

He essentially reiterated the information he had provided

in his record of interview. In particular, he repeated that

Mr McIntyre had indicated he had been:

… approached by Mr Obeid and that Mr Obeid

had asked him to make a donation to – of a million

dollars to the Labor Party and that the land deal

would all go through, sail through. And in

hindsight, as a throwaway line as I have said before,

as a throwaway line, Gary McIntyre added, ‘In

hindsight I wish I’d just paid it.’

And later:

But I stand by what I said. It was definitely Gary

McIntyre who said that he’d the conversation with

Obeid about the million dollars though.

This evidence was significant as it was the only evidence

of any direct contact between Mr McIntyre and Mr Obeid

concerning the solicitation of a donation. This evidence

was one of the factors I took into account in deciding to

hold public hearings.

In his initial evidence in the public hearing on 11

November, Mr Wells reiterated his previous evidence:

… I’m just asking you how certain you are that it

was the name Obeid and no other that was

mentioned in the context of that person

approaching McIntyre for the money?—Yes, I am

– I am confident that it was.

CHAPTER 7 – THE ATRIUM DINNER AND

RAZORBACKS GAME

ICAC report


36

ICAC©

However, his evidence on this significant point changed

in cross-examination. He said Mr McIntyre never said

that he had had a conversation with Mr Obeid.

He was taken to his previous evidence. He conceded

his previous evidence read as a direct assertion that

McIntyre had told him he had a conversation with Mr

Obeid about the million dollars. However, he claimed

it was ‘a misinterpretation’. The following evidence

was then given:

What is the truth, Mr Wells? Did Mr McIntyre

tell you that he himself had had the conversation

or not?—The conversation at the dinner that

night, sir, was that he’d been approached to

make a political donation of over a million dollars

and as a result of that donation the Oasis project

would be seen favourably and that would be

the best account I can give you of it.

Why on your oath today did you suggest …

that you had never said that Mr McIntyre had

told you that he himself had a conversation with

Mr Obeid about this matter?—Quite frankly,

sir, I don’t know the answer to that question.

He gave the following evidence in an attempt to clear

up the discrepancy:

I can see how that can be misleading. The

intention of my evidence was that a conversation

had taken place on two occasions with Mr

McIntyre at which time he made it clear to me

that an approach had been made, to make a

political donation to the Labor Party of one

million dollars, no more, no less.

THE COMMISSIONER: No source was

mentioned?—No sir. No source was mentioned.

Obeid’s name was mentioned in both times in

connection with it, yes sir. But he certainly didn’t

actually say that Obeid has asked him.

Mr Wells also said he and Mr Constantinidis had had

discussions with Mr Quentin McDermott of the Four

Corners program about the possibility of making a

program on the Oasis project. He said he could not

recall specifically what he told Mr McDermott but it

was mentioned that the offer had been made. He said

he told Mr McDermott that Mr Obeid’s name had

been mentioned. He said there was just the one meeting

with Mr McDermott. Mr McDermott has told the

Commission that his discussion with Mr Wells was ‘off

the record’ and he considers himself bound by the

Australian Journalists Association Code of Ethics to

respect the information provided in confidence.

Although Mr Constantinidis has indicated he is

prepared to waive any confidence, Mr Wells has

declined to do so. Given Mr Wells’ effective retraction

of his evidence that Mr McIntyre said he had been

approached by Mr Obeid it was not necessary to take

this matter further.

WHAT MR CONSTANTINIDIS

SAYS


September 2002, Mr Constantinidis said Mr McIntyre

mentioned the offer of paying $1million to the ALP

and that it was a payment he should have made as,

in retrospect, it would have been cheaper than the

$3million it had cost him so far in fees and

submissions.

Mr Constantinidis said he had subsequently

approached Mr Wilkinson about what Mr McIntyre

had said but Mr Wilkinson had responded, ‘I’d rather

not remember’.

In public hearing he said the conversation came up in

the course of Mr McIntyre outlining the historical

background of the project. He expanded on what was

said:

Mr McIntyre informed everyone sitting at the

table, Mark and myself in particular, he was

talking to Mark he was sitting across from me,

that previously there had been a suggestion of

a political donation for a million dollars and

that he had rejected that particular notion. In

the discussion he also said that the donation

had been sought from – you know – the highest

level if – I don’t remember exactly the word,

but certainly that’s my recollection of it – and

the Minister’s name Obeid was brought up.

37

ICAC

©

ICAC report


Mr Constantinidis had not previously mentioned, in

his record of interview, that Mr McIntyre had named

Mr Obeid. In his record of interview Mr Constantinidis

had been asked whether Mr McIntyre mentioned a

particular person in relation to the donation. His

answer had been:

No, he said to the Labor Party, yeah, but clearly

it was – it was the conduit that Arthur Coorey

had. There’s no doubt about that.

He was cross-examined on this point:

I’m saying that a donation was sought from the

highest level. I’m also – went on to say the

Minister’s name was brought up, I’m not saying

in what context. We were there for a number

of hours talking about this.

He could not offer any explanation as to why he had

not mentioned Mr Obeid’s name in the record of

interview. He denied that he had recently invented his

claim that Mr Obeid’s name was mentioned by Mr

McIntyre.

He was clear that Mr McIntyre had not said that Mr

Obeid had sought the donation.

WHAT MR MCINTYRE SAYS

In his statement, Mr McIntyre confirmed he had

attended the dinner with Mr and Mrs Wilkinson, Mr

Wells and Mr Constantinidis on 21 November 2001.

He said during the course of the dinner he elaborated

in some detail on the difficulties that confronted him

over the previous four years in relation to the

Woodward Park project. He said he vented his

frustration about what he had had to put up with and

made the comment, ‘I would have been better off

paying a million dollar bribe’. He said he was not

serious in making the comment.

He said that at no time did he say he had been asked

by Mr Obeid or anyone else to make a donation of

$1million or any other amount to the ALP and did

not believe he even discussed Mr Obeid at the dinner.

He maintained this position in his later evidence. He

described as ‘garbage’ the claim by Mr Wells that he

had said words to the effect that Mr Obeid had offered

him an opportunity to pay a $1million donation to

the Labor Party and that the land deal would then

sail through.

WHAT THE WILKINSONS SAY

Neither Mr nor Mrs Wilkinson had any recollection of

any mention of this matter at the dinner. In his evidence,

Mr Wilkinson conceded it was possible the matter had

been discussed and he had forgotten. He also conceded

it was possible he had had a discussion with Mr Wells

about the matter and had forgotten that conversation.

In relation to the claim by Mr Constantinidis that Mr

Wilkinson had told him he would ‘rather not remember’

the conversation, he said it did not sound likely and it

would have been inconsistent for him to have said

such a thing given that when spoken to by a journalist

he had denied the conversation occurred. Nevertheless,

he ultimately conceded it was possible that he may

have had such a conversation with Mr Constantinidis.

THE RAZORBACKS GAME

Mr Wells said Mr McIntyre also mentioned this topic

at a Razorbacks game which Mr Wells placed as having

occurred on one of three dates, being 6 January 2002,

1 February 2002 or 15 February 2002.

In his private evidence on 23 October, Mr Wells outlined

what he was told:

To the best of my knowledge, the words he’s

likely to have used was, ‘Obeid offered me a

million dollars to pay – offered me the

opportunity to pay a million dollars to the ALP

and I’d wished I’d paid it. In hindsight I wish

I’d paid it’. In fact, I can recall one comment I

didn’t make before which he did say to me. He

was exasperated by the fact he couldn’t pay it.

He said, ‘How am I going to justify a million

dollar payment out of the club’s coffers? No, I

just can’t do that.’

Mr Wells gave further evidence on this matter to the

Commission in public hearing on 11 November. He

said he believed the comments were made by Mr

McIntyre ‘… more in frustration than intention to

actually do it’.

ICAC report


38

ICAC©

However, in his public evidence, he said there was no

mention of any politician’s name. In cross examination

he was taken to his previous private evidence on this

matter:

Having said the evidence you just gave, do you

say that it’s not untrue to say that it was definitely

Gary McIntyre who said that he had had the

conversation with Obeid? Do you say that that’s

not an untruth?—Sir, I admit that I said that. It

is – excuse me, I admit that I said that. I

understand —

Do you say it’s not an untruth was my question

to you, Mr Wells?—In the context that you are

putting it, yes, it is untruthful. However in the

context of everything else being considered,

nothing else about that statement is untrue. The

fact remains that a conversation did take place

and I believe that you know, sir, that a

conversation took place.

On subsequent re-examination by counsel assisting the

Commission, Mr Wells said that the conversation at

the Razorbacks included a reference to Mr Obeid.

For his part, Mr McIntyre denied having any discussion

with Mr Wells on this subject at a Razorbacks game.

There was no evidence from any other witness

concerning discussion of this topic at the Razorbacks

game.

FINDINGS

It was suggested that Mr Wells had a motive for

fabricating evidence given that he had ceased to be

engaged as a public relations consultant in relation to

the project. He said, however, that he had parted on

reasonably good terms with Mr McIntyre. It was also

put to him that he had a desire to embarrass the NSW

Government. Although he said his politics are ‘right-

wing Liberal’ he said he bore no animosity towards

any member of the NSW Government.

It is difficult to identify any compelling reason for Mr

Wells to falsely nominate Mr Obeid’s name as having

been mentioned at the dinner in the context of

donations. The motives suggested to him in cross-

examination, which he denied, are unlikely to justify

any false nomination of Mr Obeid.

There are serious inconsistencies between Mr Wells’s

statements in his record of interview, his private hearing

evidence and his public hearing evidence concerning

mention of Mr Obeid’s name by Mr McIntyre. Mr

Constantinidis’s evidence concerning the mention of

Mr Obeid’s name at the Atrium Restaurant is imprecise.

In these circumstances I am of the opinion that it is

not open to me to make a finding that Mr Obeid’s

name was mentioned by Mr McIntyre as a person who

had asked him to make a donation of a million dollars

to the Labor Party in connection with the Woodward

Park project.

Mr Wells’s evidence concerning what Mr McIntyre said

at the Razorbacks game is subject to similar

inconsistencies in relation to the mention of Mr Obeid’s

name.

Excluding reference to Mr Obeid’s name in what Mr

McIntyre said to Mr Wells at the Atrium Restaurant,

there is little difference between Mr Wells’s version of

the conversation and that of Mr McIntyre. At neither

the Atrium Restaurant or the Razorback’s game did

Mr Wells regard Mr McIntyre as making a serious

proposition that a donation should be made or was

being seriously contemplated. The conversations are

again consistent with Mr McIntyre relating what he

understood he had been told by Mr Coorey in

November 2000. The recounting of that discussion

does not amount to corrupt conduct by Mr McIntyre.

39

ICAC

©

ICAC report


The Commission received evidence of other occasions

on which it was claimed the issue of making a donation

to the ALP in connection with the Woodward Park project

was discussed. The Commission was also made aware

of two functions held in mid 2002 at the Dynasty Chinese

Restaurant at the League Club’s Belmore premises at

which Mr McIntyre and NSW Government Ministers were

present. These occasions were explored by the

Commission.

MEETING WITH ‘MR S’

Mr Constantinidis and Mr McIntyre met at the Gold

Coast on 1 March 2002. Their meeting occurred some

time after a Valentine’s Day function attended by Mr

McIntyre, Mr Arthur Coorey and their wives. Mr

Constantinidis told the Commission he was asked by Mr

McIntyre to use his contacts in Government to ascertain

whether a donation would advance the project.

He said Mr McIntyre:

… told me that he had probably changed his mind

about the issue of a political donation in view of

the fact that the whole exercise of approvals and

not just any approval just approvals had taken a

lot longer and cost a lot [more].

He said he was told that Mr Coorey would be ‘…

handling the political side of the club’s needs …’ from

now on in order to establish the position in respect to

‘the primary issues’ affecting the club and ‘… to generally

find out what the status of the respective major issues

were’. He related what was said:

Gary asked me directly whether I thought a

political donation would assist in going forward

on – on what appeared to be the stalemate issues,

and I answered that I didn’t think so, it was basically

the same information I gave him previously, and

I said I just couldn’t see how it could be handled

in the circumstances, being a club, and certainly

I saw it being unable to be accommodated through

a third party.

He said Mr McIntyre asked him to ‘…check with my

sources if the political donation was a real thing or not

and to report back to him’. He understood Mr McIntyre

was interested in ascertaining whether, if a donation was

made, it would secure any advantage in addressing the

outstanding issues affecting the project.

He said Mr McIntyre gave him some handwritten notes

setting out a number of issues which Mr Constantinidis

undertook to raise with his contacts. The Commission

obtained these notes. There is nothing in them relating to

the possibility of making a donation.

Mr Constantinidis said he subsequently contacted a

person who is now deceased. A suppression order was

made pursuant to s.112 of the ICAC Act and continues

in force in relation to his name. For the purposes of this

report he will be referred to as ‘Mr S’.

Mr Constantinidis said he met Mr S at Level 41 in the

‘Government Tower’ at Farrer Place, Sydney. He said

the meeting lasted for about an hour and a half. He gave

the following evidence about what occurred:

I basically raised in substance most of the points

on the list that Gary McIntyre had given me, to

try to get some answers. He gave me his views. I

didn’t go prepared for a lengthy meeting, however,

I was there for an hour and a half. I got his views

and reported to Gary initially on the phone. He

was – he was still away, and I met Gary about a

week later and discussed it in detail.

Mr Constantinidis said Mr S appeared familiar with the

project and advised him that a Cabinet sub-committee

had been formed for major events and sporting venues.

Mr Constantinidis said he raised with Mr S the issue of

making a political donation and told him representations

had been made through Mr Obeid. He said Mr S told

him not to get involved.

He said Mr S asked him whether there was any possibility

of having a presentation on the project. Mr Constantinidis

said they had a subsequent telephone conversation during

which he advised Mr S that he had passed on the request

for a presentation to Mr McIntyre.

Mr Constantinidis said that after Mr S’s death he did not

raise the issue with anyone else in Government.

Mr McIntyre denied that he had ever indicated any interest

in exploring the possibility of making a donation to the

ALP in order to obtain Government support for the

projects.

CHAPTER 8 – OTHER EVENTS

ICAC report


40

ICAC©

The date of his meeting with Mr Constantinidis at the

Gold Coast coincided with a meeting between LCC

and representatives of the Premier’s Department over

the land required to ensure the project could proceed.

Mr McIntyre said he outlined to Mr Constantinidis his

concern as to whether the Government was going to

stop the project by not allowing the land to be

transferred. He said Mr Constantinidis then said that

he had ‘a friend’ who he thought would be helpful in

finding out what was happening. He identified the

friend as Mr S. Mr McIntyre said he was told by Mr

Constantinidis that he had previously spoken to Mr S

who was going to ring him that day and tell him when

he could come and see him. Mr McIntyre said, ‘Well,

if you’re going to go and see this man I better give you

some material.’

Overnight he wrote out some notes which he gave to

Mr Constantinidis. He gave the following evidence as

to what he understood the purpose of the meeting

with Mr S to be:

The purpose of the meeting was to get to the

bottom of my concern as to whether or not the

Government was really delaying this – this land

acquisition or was actually – the real purpose

was to stop the project, it was to get to the

bottom of that issue, was that the real reason

or was it tied up with bureaucracy.

He denied however that he had any conversation with

Mr Constantinidis about the possibility of ascertaining

from Mr S whether, if a political donation was made

to the ALP, some of the problems associated with the

project might be overcome.

He said Mr Constantinidis subsequently said he met

with Mr S who had invited Mr McIntyre to make a

presentation to him. The presentation was not made

as Mr S subsequently died.

Mr Constantinidis said he gave Mr McIntyre a copy of

his notes from his meeting with Mr S. Mr McIntyre

confirmed that he had seen the notes. There is nothing

in these notes to confirm there was any discussion

with Mr S concerning donations to the ALP.

Mr McIntyre agreed that Mr Constantinidis had said

that Mr S told him not to get involved with Mr Obeid.

He said he did not ask Mr Constantinidis how that

topic arose in his conversation with Mr S. He thought

Mr Constantinidis told him this because of his jealousy

concerning Mr Coorey:

It was his way of letting me know, ‘Don’t go –

don’t get involved with these people, I’m the

one who’s got the ear to what’s happening up

on Level 41, and I’m the one that can help

you’, so he was trying to down the other people.

I’ve seen that before.

Mr Coorey confirmed that he and his wife had dinner

with Mr and Mrs McIntyre on Valentine’s Day. He

said they ‘more or less spoke of the politics of the club

about some things that I wasn’t happy with and just –

just things like that.’ He gave evidence about a

number of matters discussed, none of them relating

to a possible donation to the ALP.

Mr Obeid said that he knew Mr S but had never been

in contact with him to speak about the Woodward

Park project.

COMMENTS TO BULLDOGS

OFFICIALS

There was evidence of a number of other occasions

on which it was said Mr McIntyre had mentioned the

issue of a donation to the ALP. There was no

suggestion in any of this evidence that Mr McIntyre

was proposing such a donation actually be made.

Mr Hagan said that in a recent conversation which

occurred in a bar Mr McIntyre had told him that

‘perhaps if we had done what was proposed at that

time we wouldn’t be experiencing the difficulties we

were experiencing now’. He said it was just a passing

comment.

Mr Kenneth McDonald is a director of the League Club.

He recalled one occasion in 2001 in the Atrium

Restaurant after a Board meeting when Mr McIntyre

said, ‘There was a rumour that if we paid one million

dollars to the Labor Party as a political donation, that

we would get the green light for Liverpool, but we

would never do that’ or words to that effect. He said

the comments were made in a jocular manner.

Mr Martin Puckeridge is a director of the League Club.

He recalled Mr McIntyre, on one occasion, saying

something to the effect that they could have secured

41

ICAC

©

ICAC report


the project if they had paid $1million but they would

not go down that track. He said it was a ‘jocular

throwaway line’ and did not mean anything as far as

he was concerned. He was unsure if the conversation

occurred at a Board meeting or at a luncheon

subsequent to a Board meeting. It was possible the

conversation occurred some time in 2001.

Mr Cyril Murray is a director of the League Club. He

also recalled that during a luncheon Mr McIntyre said

words to the effect that if a donation had been given

to the ALP it may have been easier to get the project

through. He also believed the comment was made in

a jocular manner and not taken seriously. He said Mr

McIntyre said, ‘There is no way that we would do

that’.

Initially Mr McIntyre said there were only about three

occasions in which he mentioned this issue. One was

at the Atrium Restaurant on 21 November 2001, the

discussion which occurred on Lizard Island in late

November/early December 2001 and once, shortly

thereafter, at an annual conference. He also allowed

he would have discussed the issue with his son.

However, he conceded that he could also have

mentioned the issue ‘in passing’ to other directors of

the League Club.

WAS MAYOR PACIULLO TOLD?

When giving private evidence in October, Mr

Constantinidis said that he was aware Mr McIntyre had

raised the issue of a donation to the ALP with the LCC

Mayor, Mr George Paciullo. He said he was present when

this occurred at a dinner, at Gemelles Restaurant at

Liverpool, towards the end of 2001. He said Mr Nelson

and Mr Hagan were also in attendance.

He said there was no discussion about how the donation

would be made.

He said that about a month later he discussed the matter

with Mr Paciullo. He said he told Mr Paciullo he did not

think there was any substance in the suggestion. He said

Mr Paciullo expressed relief.

In his public evidence Mr Constantinidis said Mr McIntyre

told Mr Paciullo that an option for a political donation

had been put to him but rejected. He put this conversation

as occurring in the early part of 2001. In cross-

examination he accepted that his account of the

conversation occurring at a restaurant was a

reconstruction.

Mr McIntyre denied that he ever raised the matter with

Mr Paciullo. Mr Paciullo said he could not recollect

such discussions.

TONY AKKARI

In his statement to the Commission Mr McIntyre

outlined a series of allegations said to have come to

his notice after they were told to an officer of LCC.

The allegations related to an alleged act of extortion

on Mr Antoine (Tony) Akkari, the manager of an

earthmoving company, Le Rocks Pty Ltd, which was

in the process of carrying out various works at the

Woodward Park site.

Mr McIntyre said he had been told by an LCC officer

that Mr Constantinidis had claimed he had been told

by Mr Akkari that he had, in association with the

League Club, given $300,000 to $400,000 to Mr

Obeid and another Minister in order to obtain

favourable treatment for the Oasis development. This

appears to have been a misunderstanding on the part

of Mr McIntyre. In his evidence to the Commission,

Mr Akkari denied he told Mr Constantinidis anything

about a payment to Mr Obeid and another Minister.

Mr Constantinidis also denied, when subsequently

interviewed by Commission officers on 19 November

2002, that Mr Akkari had ever told him such a thing.

The LCC officer’s notes of his conversation with Mr

Constantinidis concerning Mr Akkari do not refer to

any such allegation.

In fact, the essence of the allegation made by Mr Akkari

was that he had been threatened by Mr Coorey and

Mr Bechara Khoury with not getting further work on

the site if he did not pay them $50,000. This payment

was said to be in return for them having arranged for

him to get work on the site in the first place.

Mr Akkari initially confirmed the allegation to Mr

McIntyre. He subsequently retracted the allegation and

signed two letters addressed to Mr McIntyre, each dated

31 July 2002, to that effect.

ICAC report


42

ICAC©

In his evidence to the Commission, Mr Akkari agreed

he had initially confirmed the allegations to Mr

McIntyre. He said they were in fact false.

He said he had paid Mr Bechara Khoury $30,000 but

this was in relation to other consultancy work not

related to the Woodward Park site.

Mr Akkari’s explanation as to how he came to make

the allegations was not particularly satisfactory. He

said they grew from a misunderstanding by Mr

Constantinidis of what he had told Mr Constantinidis,

the latter’s supposed hatred for Mr Bechara Khoury,

and his desire to please Mr Constantinidis by not

correcting the assumptions and misunderstandings

which he knew Mr Constantinidis had reached. He

said he did not think that Mr Constantinidis knew the

allegations were false.

DINNERS AT DYNASTY CHINESE

RESTAURANT

Two functions were held at this restaurant in mid 2002

at which Mr McIntyre and certain Government

Ministers were present.

The first occasion occurred on 18 June.

Mr McIntyre said that subsequent to a 6pm meeting

of the Football Club he accompanied the other

directors to the restaurant. On his arrival he was made

aware that Mr Ballesty was having dinner with Mr

Obeid, Mr Iemma, Mr Norman Tasker and Arthur

Coorey. He said he went to their table and had a

discussion with them relating to the Government’s Arab

Youth Partnership initiative for which the Ministers were

in the process of organising a function at the League

Club on 7 August.

Mr McIntyre said he also showed the Ministers a

document signed earlier in the day by five of the

executive banning Mr Constantinidis from any further

involvement with the League and Football Clubs and

Razorbacks. He also told them that steps would be

taken to have ODC terminate Mr Constantinidis’s

consultancy.

He said only passing reference was made at the dinner

as to progress with regard to the Palms Club and Oasis

project.

On 7 August an Arab Youth Partnership function was

held at the Belmore premises of the League Club. Mr

McIntyre said that, following the function, the Premier

and Ministers Obeid and Iemma had dinner at the

Dynasty Chinese Restaurant with club officials and

Mr John Chalk, the NRL chairman. He said there was

no discussion whatever about the Woodward Park

project.

Mr Coorey said he had no discussions with Mr Obeid

about the Woodward Park project on either occasion.

He said on the second occasion they discussed how

well the Arab Youth dinner had progressed and how

the League Club building looked.

In his evidence Mr Obeid confirmed that he and Mr

Iemma had been told by Mr McIntyre that Mr

Constantinidis was to be relieved of his association

with the Clubs and showed them a document to that

effect. He said at that time he did not know anything

more about the problems which the project was facing

and did not know what stage it had reached. He said

he had no particular interest to know what was

happening.

FINDINGS

Meeting with Mr S

Unfortunately Mr S is dead and therefore cannot relate

what he was told by Mr Constantinidis. That leaves

the evidence of Mr Constantinidis and Mr McIntyre.

There are substantial areas of agreement in their

evidence. Both say that it was agreed Mr Constantinidis

would meet with Mr S, both agree Mr McIntyre

provided a list of issues to raise with Mr S and both

agree that Mr Constantinidis reported back to Mr

McIntyre after the meeting. They disagree, however,

on the substantive point of the reason for the meeting.

Mr Constantinidis says it was essentially to sound out

whether making a donation to the ALP in return for

getting Government progress on some of the

outstanding issues affecting the project would be

feasible. Mr McIntyre denies this was the purpose.

43

ICAC

©

ICAC report


The notes made by Mr McIntyre and Mr Constantinidis

do not assist in resolving this conflict. Even had Mr

McIntyre asked Mr Constantinidis to explore the

possibility of making a donation to the ALP it is highly

unlikely he would have made explicit reference to this

in the handwritten notes he provided. The fact that

there is no direct reference to donations in the notes

of the meeting with Mr S written by Mr Constantinidis

does not demonstrate that the subject was not

discussed.

In the absence of corroborative evidence one way or

the other, I am unable to resolve the conflict in the

evidence as to the purpose of the meeting with Mr S.

It is, however, apparent from the evidence that nothing

eventuated from the meeting as regards donations to

the ALP.

Comments to Bulldogs officials

The evidence indicates that, on occasions, Mr McIntyre

related to others his understanding that a proposal

had been made to him to make a donation to the

ALP to obtain NSW Government support for aspects

of the Woodward Park project. The evidence indicates

these were comments in passing and were not made

with the intention of giving any effect to the proposal.

They are reflective of his again recounting what he

understood to be the effect of the conversation he

had with Mr Coorey in November 2000. No issue of

corrupt conduct arises in relation to these comments.

Mr Paciullo

The evidence of Mr Constantinidis does no more than

identify the possibility of Mr McIntyre saying something

similar to that which he accepted he said to others at

other times. Given the competing versions of whether

or not the incident actually occurred and in particular

whether it occurred at the restaurant as alleged, I am

not satisfied that such a conversation occurred in the

circumstances alleged by Mr Constantinidis.

Mr Akkari

There is no independent evidence to substantiate Mr

Akkari’s original allegations which have in any event

been subsequently withdrawn by Mr Akkari. He has

also specifically denied having made any allegation

about payments involving any NSW Government

Minister. This is confirmed by the evidence given by

Mr Constantinidis in his record of interview on 19

November 2002. In these circumstances no issue of

corrupt conduct arises for determination.

Dinners at Dynasty Restaurant

No allegations of corrupt conduct are made in relation

to these dinners.

ICAC report


44

ICAC©

On 14 November 2002, subsequent to the

commencement of public hearings on 6 November, the

Commission received a letter from Dr Stephen Larkin

dated 11 November. In his letter Dr Larkin advised he

had information that he believed would be of interest to

the Commission’s investigation.

As a result of this letter Dr Larkin was contacted and

agreed to be interviewed by Commission officers on 14

November 2002.

Dr Larkin was a director of a hotel property development

company currently in liquidation and receivership. Mr

William Moss of Macquarie Bank was associated with

the business and a friend of Dr Larkin’s until their falling-

out in early 2001.

In his record of interview, Dr Larkin said that he and Mr

Moss had been present at what he described as ‘a full

Board meeting of the Bulldogs’ at the Canley Heights

Hotel in February 2001. The meeting occurred over dinner

and commenced between 7pm and 7:30pm, ending

about midnight. He nominated Mr McIntyre, Mr Arthur

Coorey, Mr Constantinidis, and Mr Nelson as also being

present. He also believed another Board member whose

name he could not recall had been present.

He said the meeting came about because Mr Moss was

proposing that the Bulldogs sponsor and promote a bar

at the Canley Heights Hotel. It was conducted in the

general restaurant area of the hotel. No minutes were

taken of the meeting. He said the proposition of making

a donation to the ALP was discussed and the Board

members unanimously voted in favour of the proposal.

He said during the course of the discussion Mr Moss

addressed the Board about it acquiring other licensed

premises with gaming opportunities such as small clubs

and hotels in the catchment area of the Oasis project.

There were also discussions about the current proceedings

before the Licensing Court. He said Mr Moss offered

that they provide to Mr McIntyre the ‘environmental

impact statement’ which had been prepared for the

Canley Heights Hotel. Dr Larkin said he subsequently

delivered this to Mr McIntyre.

Dr Larkin said the issue of donations came up in a

conversation concerning the difficulties the League Club

was having in relation to the Licensing Court proceedings

and the general reluctance of the Government to approve

a development involving 600 poker machines. There was

evidence that the Licensing Court commenced its hearing

in March 2001.

Dr Larkin could not recall who raised the subject but he

said that Mr Moss nominated himself to be the conduit

for a donation to the ALP through Mr Obeid as he was

extremely close to Mr Obeid, having lived next door to

him as a neighbour and being ‘an extremely close friend’.

According to Dr Larkin, Mr Moss said words to the effect

‘probably the best person to handle that would be me as

I know Eddie very well’. He also believed Mr Moss said

something like ‘he owes me quite a [few] favours’.

Dr Larkin said that a figure of $1million was mentioned

as the amount of the donation. He understood the figure

had emanated from Mr Obeid. He said this was discussed

by Mr McIntyre, Mr Constantinidis and Mr Moss. He

could not recall whether it was discussed by Mr Coorey

or Mr Nelson.

He said Mr Moss’s suggestion was greeted with

acceptance ‘… in that they thought he would be, being

a close friend and knowing this man very well and due to

the fact that he said he owed him some favours they

thought he was the perfect man to be the conduit. So it

was accepted.’

Dr Larkin said the finer details of the offer were not

discussed at great length but he believed comment had

been made by Mr McIntyre and Mr Moss that an

indication had been given that $1million would be the

amount which would facilitate approval of the project

by the Government.

Dr Larkin was asked about subsequent conversations he

had with Mr Moss. He thought there were two discussions

between the meeting at the Canley Heights Hotel and

his last meeting with Mr Moss. He gave the following

evidence:

Moss and I spoke almost daily about our matters,

our various licensing court matters, and getting

our hotels up and running, and he used to

occasionally let me know how the Bulldogs matter

was going. Sometimes I would ask. Sometimes

he would proffer the information and it was on

probably a couple of occasions mentioned, or I

asked or he proffered, I can’t remember, how the

CHAPTER 9 - DISCUSSION AT CANLEY HEIGHTS HOTEL

45

ICAC

©

ICAC report


Obeid contact was going and he had just passed

some comment to the effect of ‘It’s all under way.

It’s all under control.’

According to Dr Latham, Mr Moss had told him, ‘I’ve

made contact with Obeid and everything is under

control’. He said there was never any discussion as to

whether a payment had actually been made.

Dr Larkin said that approximately six weeks after the

meeting at the Canley Heights Hotel he met with Mr

Moss at a hotel in the city. This was their last meeting.

He said Mr Moss put to him the proposal that they

should sell their hotels to the Bulldogs. Dr Larkin said

he rejected the proposal. As a result they had fallen

out and ceased to be friends. Subsequently they

became involved in litigation.

He believed in the early part of this discussion there

was some mention of the fact that the Bulldogs project

was pretty well assured of going ahead and that Mr

Moss said words to the effect ‘Well, the government’s

on side now’.

At the conclusion of his interview Dr Larkin handed

Commission officers a copy of a submission dated

June 2001 which he said had been forwarded to

various Government agencies and which outlined the

reasons for the falling-out between himself and Mr

Moss. There is no mention in the document of any

issue relating to potential donations to the ALP.

Reference is made in this document to a meeting at

the Canley Heights Hotel to discuss the creation of a

‘Bulldogs bar’. The date of the meeting is given as 10

January 2001. This was drawn to Dr Larkin’s attention

prior to him attending his hearing.

WHAT MR MOSS SAYS

As a consequence of the information provided by Dr

Larkin, Mr Moss was summonsed to give evidence in

a private hearing on 18 November 2002.

He confirmed that in early 2001 there had been a

meeting at the Canley Heights Hotel, which he said

was jointly owned by Dr Larkin and one of Mr Moss’s

family trusts, to discuss branding one of the bars as a

Bulldogs bar. He believed that apart from himself and

Dr Larkin, Mr McIntyre, Mr Coorey, Mr Constantinidis,

Mr Nelson, Mr Tony Looby, Mr Robert Cadee and the

hotel Manager, Mr Phillip Brooks, were present.

He doubted if Mr Obeid’s name was raised during the

course of the discussion. However, he was definite that

there was no discussion about donations and in

response to the suggestion that the matter of donations

to the ALP had been discussed at the dinner replied,

‘No, that’s nonsense.’

He was asked about being a conduit for donations to

the ALP through Mr Obeid:

Then it has also been suggested to the

Commission that you would somehow be

involved in the – such a donation because of

your closeness to Eddie Obeid?—That’s an

absolute lie.

He conceded it was possible there may have been

discussion about donations at the meeting that he did

not hear.

He could not recall any discussion about the League

Club proceedings in the Licensing Court. When he

was asked whether there had been any discussion

about the environmental impact statement or social

impact assessment prepared in respect of the Canley

Heights Hotel he recalled that Dr Larkin had a

discussion with Mr McIntyre about social impact

studies but was not sure if it occurred at this meeting

or subsequently.

He denied there had ever been any discussion with

anyone about whether or not the Canley Heights Hotel

might be sold to the Bulldogs and said it was ‘nonsense’

to suggest such a thing.

Mr Moss confirmed there had been a substantial

falling-out between himself and Dr Larkin which

involved ongoing litigation. He claimed that Dr Larkin

had stolen money from their company. He described

his current relationship with Dr Larkin:

I should just say Mr Larkin and myself have got

a very bitter relationship that’s very deep.

In his record of interview Dr Larkin said Mr Moss had

expressed a desire to obtain options on properties

surrounding the Oasis site with a view to them investing

in the properties. Dr Larkin said Mr Moss had told

him that Mr Constantinidis had given him information

from LCC that once the project went ahead there would

a rezoning of some of the surrounding residential

properties to commercial. Dr Larkin said Mr Moss asked

ICAC report


46

ICAC©

him to ‘do the prospecting for those and to try and tie

those properties under options which was something I

was experienced in. But we never got around to doing

it.’

Mr Moss, in his evidence, denied ever speaking with

Dr Larkin in relation to rezoning issues.

WHAT MR MCINTYRE SAYS

Mr McIntyre said he had been to the Canley Heights

Hotel on two occasions in early 2001.

He believed that at one of these meetings, apart from

himself, Mr Moss, Mr Nelson, Mr Coorey, Mr

Constantinidis and Dr Larkin had been present. He

recalled the hotel Manager, whose name he did not

recall, was present. He was not sure whether Mr Looby

or Mr Cadee were present although he believed it was

possible that Mr Cadee, as Chief Executive Officer of

the Razorbacks, may have been present given that the

matter being discussed was getting support for the

Bulldogs and Razorbacks players utilising the hotel

venue. He could not recall whether Mr Moss had been

present on both occasions.

He said there was a discussion about setting up a

‘Bulldogs bar’. He confirmed the discussion occurred

over a dinner.

He said it was ‘totally untrue’ that Mr Moss and others

had talked about donations to the ALP at the meeting,

although he allowed there may have been discussion

about the topic in negative terms. He denied there

was any mention of Mr Obeid’s name at the meeting

or any mention of Mr Moss being a conduit to Mr

Obeid in the context of political donations. He said

there was no mention of $1million in the context of

donations and if such mention had been made by Mr

Moss at the meeting he would have recalled it.

He said there was never any discussion, at any time,

of the League Club acquiring the Canley Heights Hotel.

He agreed that there had been discussion with Dr

Larkin about obtaining a copy of the Canley Heights

Hotel social impact assessment and that subsequently

Dr Larkin had sent him a copy.

WHAT MR CONSTANTINIDIS

SAYS

Mr Constantinidis recalled having attended the Canley

Heights Hotel on three occasions.

On the first occasion he was in the area and noted the

hotel being constructed. He recalled walking through

the construction site.

On another occasion he attended a sponsorship

meeting and he had dinner at the hotel. He explained

he understood the hotel had set up a Razorbacks

supporters club and they wanted pictures and

memorabilia. As he was a director of the Razorbacks

at the time he went to the hotel with Mr Cadee.

He recalled another occasion when Mr Moss and Dr

Larkin were present together with Mr Coorey, Mr

McIntyre, Mr Nelson and possibly Mr Cadee. He

thought the purpose of this meeting was to set up a

supporters base for the Razorbacks.

He did not remember there being any discussion about

political donations and denied there had been any

discussion about Mr Moss being the best person to

handle donations to the ALP in respect to the project.

He said there was no mention of $1million in the

context of political donations.

Mr Constantinidis said he had never heard of any

proposal for the Bulldogs to acquire the Canley Heights

Hotel.

He was asked whether he had any discussions with

Mr Moss about rezoning of residential areas

surrounding the Oasis site.

Not specifically but the rezoning – any rezoning

discussions that I had was in the context of the

LEP that was being mooted by Council and it’s

clearly identified. There’s two zones on the

southern boundary of Woodward Park that have

been earmarked for rezoning from the first

proposal. That was done in conjunction with

the Council officers.

…

47

ICAC

©

ICAC report


Did you ever discuss with Mr Moss the

desirability of acquiring options over such

properties for the potential gain that might be

involved?—I myself to gain, or —

Yes, yourself or Mr Moss?—No.

WHAT MR COOREY AND MR

NELSON SAY

Mr Coorey said he had been to the Canley Heights

Hotel on one occasion at the invitation of Mr Moss.

Others present were Mr McIntyre, Mr Nelson, Dr Larkin

and possibly Mr Hagan and Mr Constantinidis. He

was not sure if Mr Cadee or Mr Looby were present.

The purpose of the visit was to discuss setting up a

‘Bulldogs bar’.

He said there was definitely no discussion about

political donations at the table and that it was ‘an

utter lie’ that Mr Moss had suggested he could be the

conduit or the way in which political donations could

be made to the ALP because he was close to Mr Obeid.

Mr Nelson said he had visited the Canley Heights Hotel

on one occasion, on 9 January 2001. He recalled those

present as being Peter Lander, Robbie Cadee, Mr

Moss, Dr Larkin, Mr Constantinidis, Mr Coorey, and

possibly Tony Looby.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss setting up

a Bulldogs and Razorbacks bar.

He said there was no discussion in his presence about

political donations, nor did Mr Moss talk about Mr

Obeid in that context. He thought it doubtful that he

would not have heard such a discussion given they

were all seated around one table.

He said there was no discussion about the prospect of

the League Club acquiring other licensed premises with

gaming opportunities in the Liverpool area.

WHAT THE OTHERS SAY

Mr Cadee

Mr Robert Cadee is the Chief Executive Officer of the

West Sydney Razorbacks. He was nominated as being

present by Mr Moss and Mr Nelson. Mr Constantinidis

thought he may have been one of the attendees.

He said he had been to the Canley Heights Hotel on

two occasions in relation to potential sponsorship deals

for the Razorbacks.

Apart from himself, those attending the first meeting

were Mr Nelson, Mr Hagan, Mr Arthur Coorey, Mr

McIntyre, Dr Larkin and Mr Moss. The hotel manager,

Mr Philip Brooks was also present, as was Mr

Constantinidis. He said Mr Looby and Mr Watson were

not present. Mr Lander could have possibly been

present.

He said there was no discussion that he heard

concerning the question of political donations nor did

he hear anything about Mr Moss discussing such an

issue at the dinner. He did not recall any discussion

about whether the League Club might acquire other

hotels or licensed clubs in the Liverpool area.

On the second occasion the purpose was to work out

the details of the sponsorship. Also present was his

marketing manager, Mr John Watson; the coach, Mr

Gordon McLeod; and Mr Constantinidis. Dr Larkin

was also present. He also believed the hotel Manager

was present. There was no discussion at the second

meeting about political donations.

Mr Brooks

Mr Philip Brooks was and remains the General

Manager of the Canley Heights Hotel. Mr Moss and

Mr McIntyre had nominated him as being present at a

meeting at the hotel..


November 2002 he said he was present at a meeting

at the hotel during which there was a discussion about

sponsorship involving the Bulldogs football team and

Razorbacks basketball team. He recalled Dr Larkin,

Mr Moss, Mr Cadee, Mr McLeod, Mr Watson, Mr

McIntyre, Mr Nelson, Mr Constantinidis and Mr Arthur

Coorey were present.

ICAC report


48

ICAC©

He said he could not recall any discussions about

donations of money to the ALP and he heard no

references to politicians or donations.

He thought speculation over the meeting ‘… was

raised by Dr Larkin in a bid to try and smear other

people for some reason because he had been caught

out. That’s how I see it. But whether that’s right or

wrong, I don’t know’.

He gave evidence in private hearing on 21 November

2002. His evidence was along the lines of that given

in his record of interview.

He confirmed there was discussion at the meeting

about the social impact assessment. He said there

was no discussion about whether the League Club

might acquire hotels or other licensed clubs in the

Liverpool area. He said there was no discussion about

or mention of political donations. He did not hear

any mention of the sum of $1million in connection

with such a donation.

Mr Lander

Mr Peter Lander is a director of the Football Club. Mr

Nelson and Mr Cadee nominated him as being present

at a meeting at the hotel.


one occasion in early 2001. Apart from himself, Mr

Moss, Dr Larkin, Mr Nelson, Mr Arthur Coorey, Mr

Gary McIntyre, Mr Constantinidis and possibly Mr

Cadee were present.

He understood the purpose of the meeting was to

discuss the opening of a Bulldogs bar and the desire

of Mr Moss and Dr Larkin to obtain memorabilia for

the proposed bar. He said he did not hear any

discussion about political donations or Mr Obeid. He

said nothing was said in his presence about Mr Moss

believing himself to be the best person to facilitate

donations to the ALP because of his closeness to Mr

Obeid.

Mr Looby

Mr Tony Looby is associated with the Razorbacks.

Although nominated by Mr Moss and Mr Nelson as

having possibly been present he said he had never

been to the Canley Heights Hotel.

Mr McLeod

Mr Gordon McLeod is the coach of the West Sydney

Razorbacks. Mr Brooks nominated him as being present

at a meeting at the Canley Heights Hotel.

He recalled going to a meeting at the hotel with Mr

Cadee. He recalled Dr Larkin and another person were

present. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss

using the hotel as a supporters club for the basketball

team. He said Mr Moss was not present at this meeting.

Mr Watson

Mr John Watson is the Business Development

Manager for the Football Club and Razorbacks. Mr

Brooks nominated him as being at the meeting.


about six occasions. However, he had never been

present at the hotel when there were representatives

of the League Club present for the purpose of a

meeting or when Mr McIntyre had been present.

FURTHER EVIDENCE OF DR

LARKIN

Dr Larkin was called to give evidence in private hearing

on 21 November 2002.

He said that on checking his records he believed the

date of the meeting at the hotel was possibly 10

January 2001 rather than February 2001.

He thought it was possible the other person present

was Mr Peter Lander. He also believed Mr Cadee had

been present. He did not think either Mr McLeod or

Mr Watson had been present.

His evidence was consistent with what he had

previously told the Commission when interviewed.

He said the topic of donations to the ALP arose:

… in the first hour of discussions. I think one

of the first things discussed was the Bulldogs

bar concept and I think the second general

matter of discussion was Mr Moss’s proposal

that the Bulldogs should attempt to acquire

other licensed premises and Mr McIntyre gave

a brief report on how they were going with that

49

ICAC

©

ICAC report


and I think I mentioned something about a –

what he quoted about a small bowling club that

they thought they had under control et cetera

and he gave a brief talk on that and then it was

after that that the question of political donation

[arose].

He said he could not recall who originally raised the

subject but Mr Moss made himself very clear and vocal

on it and at one stage got very angry about the issues.

As to the context in which the discussion occurred, he

gave the following evidence:

Yes, that (the licensing application) was

discussed by the group generally, it wasn’t a

discussion that I participated in because I wasn’t

privy to how they were getting on in the

Licensing Court but that probably was the

beginning of the discussion which subsequently

led to talks of political donations. They were

very frustrated at the – at the frustration of the

whole project, and Mr Moss particularly, because

of, as he said, Macquarie Bank’s joint venture

position in the whole thing, the question of –

we had spent considerable money preparing a

social impact assessment for our hotels, to

enable them to get poker machines in the very

latter part of the night I think it was, Mr Moss

asked me if I would be happy as his partner to

give a copy of that to Mr McIntyre, and it was

discussed with Mr McIntyre, there and then,

and it was agreed and subsequently, a few days

later I dropped a copy of – a major document,

two volume document off to Mr McIntyre’s

home.

He confirmed he could not recall who first mentioned

the word ‘donation’ or the amount of $1million in the

conversation. He said, however, the word ‘conduit’

was a word used by Mr Moss.

Mr Larkin said that Mr Moss’s tone of voice was high,

there were no other guests at the hotel and there was

no background music so it was not very difficult to

hear what was being said.

He confirmed Mr Obeid’s name had been mentioned

by Mr Moss and some of the others present:

Moss certainly mentioned it, and highlighted the

fact of his relationship with Mr Obeid and the

fact that he had been a next door neighbour

and that Mr Obeid owed him favours, and that

he had been able to organise finance through

Macquarie Bank for a number of Mr Obeid’s

friends who had had difficulty getting finance

elsewhere in town, that was the general thrust

of the mention of Mr Obeid.

He was asked if there was any discussion about what

it was the donation would achieve:

As I mentioned to the Commissioner it was felt

that the Government was not supportive of the

proposal because of the large number of poker

machines involved. There was discussion about

the fact that the hoteliers in New South Wales

had been able to successfully achieve their goals

with a number of poker machines et cetera.

That was raised a number of times with different

parties. There was a mention that there was a

thought that the hoteliers had been able to make

some political donation to achieve what they’d

achieved and that the political donation was felt

would be able to achieve the same thing for the

hoteliers. In other words that the Government

would look favourably on a project that had

600 poker machines.

He said the word ‘bribe’ was never used.

There was no discussion as to where the $1million would

come from. He said there was nothing in the discussions

that led him to believe Mr Obeid was to be the ultimate

recipient of the money. He understood the money was

to ultimately go to the ALP.

He said in subsequent conversations Mr Moss indicated

he had spoken to Mr Obeid about the matter. However,

he said Mr Moss did not provide him with details and at

no stage did he say that a payment had actually been

made.

Dr Larkin confirmed that he had not previously raised

this matter with any Government agency until his letter

to the Commission. He confirmed it was not mentioned

in his draft submission to the various Government

agencies which he had provided to the Commission. He

said, however, he thought he had discussed it with his

solicitors at the time that document was being drafted.

He nominated a Mr Kalmath and a Mr Stewart Levitt.

He said he did not wish to waive privilege in relation to

his conversations with them.

ICAC report


50

ICAC©

EVIDENCE OF MR KALMATH

AND MR LEVITT

Mr Asheesh Kalmath had previously acted as a solicitor

for Dr Larkin. He said he had never taken direct

instructions from Dr Larkin in respect of anything that

had occurred at the Canley Heights Hotel meeting.

He said Dr Larkin had never told him anything about

a discussion at that meeting which involved the

question of a donation to be made to a political party.

Mr Stewart Levitt had also previously acted for Dr

Larkin as a solicitor. It appears that Mr Levitt was

primarily responsible for drawing up the June 2001

submission to various Government agencies.

He said he had no knowledge of any suggestion made

by Dr Larkin that a donation had been discussed at

the Canley Heights Hotel in the context of changing

the NSW Government’s view about a freeze on poker

machines or on the number of poker machines which

was or might have been affecting the continuation or

development of the Oasis project.

FINDINGS

There is no dispute on the evidence that there was a

meeting at the Canley Heights Hotel in January 2001

attended by Messrs Larkin, Moss, McIntyre, Coorey,

Nelson, Brooks, Constantinidis, and possibly others.

Nor is there any dispute that the purpose of the meeting

was to discuss opening a themed Bulldogs bar at the

hotel. It also appears that there was a discussion about

the League Club’s pending licensing application.

There is a clear dispute, however, on whether there

was any discussion about Mr Moss approaching Mr

Obeid for the purpose of offering or making a

substantial donation to the ALP in connection with

the Woodward Park project. On the one hand, Dr

Larkin says such a conversation did occur, while all

the others who were present said it did not. Indeed,

many vehemently denied any such thing was said.

The fact that all except Dr Larkin say the subject was

not discussed does not mean I should reject Dr Larkin’s

evidence. Rather, it is necessary to carefully weigh the

evidence as a whole, including examining the possible

motives of those who gave evidence.

It has been submitted that Dr Larkin has powerful

motives for fabricating evidence to implicate Mr Moss

in wrongdoing. These motives stem from the

circumstances of his falling-out with Mr Moss and their

subsequent litigation. I am also mindful of the fact

that Dr Larkin did not report this incident to the

Commission at the time it occurred in 2001 but only

after the commencement of public hearings in

November 2002. By then, he could have been aware

of media reports of the evidence that could have

provided him with some of the details concerning the

donation which he could have utilised to fabricate an

allegation.

Dr Larkin has submitted that none of the others present

would find it in their interest to agree that the issue of

a donation to a political party was raised. It could be

argued that Messrs Moss, McIntyre, Coorey and Nelson

have obvious motives for falsely denying that the

conversation alleged by Dr Larkin occurred.

However, it is not clear from the evidence what

advantage Mr Moss would gain from making such a

proposal sufficient to justify him acting not only

corruptly but also criminally.

Mr Brooks was also present and denied the matter

was discussed. He impressed me as a reliable witness.

However, it may be argued that being dependent for

his continued employment on Mr Moss, who is the

current owner of the hotel, he is not a completely

independent witness.

It is significant that Mr Constantinidis also denies any

conversation occurred in which Mr Moss was

mentioned as the best person to handle a donation to

the ALP. Given his evidence on other discussions

concerning the donation issue, it would be reasonable

to conclude that if it had been discussed at the Canley

Heights Hotel he would have mentioned it in his

records of interview or subsequent evidence. In the

unlikely event the occurrence had slipped his memory

it would be expected that having been told of Dr

Larkin’s evidence his memory would have been

refreshed.

Taking into account these matters, the evidence as a

whole, and the demeanour of the witnesses who gave

evidence before me, I am satisfied to the requisite

degree that there was no proposal made during any

discussion at the Canley Heights Hotel of making a

51

ICAC

©

ICAC report


donation to the ALP through Mr Moss and Mr Obeid

in order to assist with or facilitate any aspect of the

Woodward Park project. I am not satisfied that any

subsequent conversation on this subject occurred

between Dr Larkin and Mr Moss.

In these circumstances I am satisfied that no person

engaged in corrupt conduct in relation to the matters

that were discussed at the Canley Heights Hotel in

January 2001.

SECTION 74A(2) STATEMENT

Section 74A(2) of the ICAC Act provides that a report

must include a statement as to whether or not in all

the circumstances the Commission is of the opinion

that consideration should be given, among other

matters, to the prosecution of a person for a specified

criminal offence.

Although having made a finding to the effect that I do

not accept the evidence given by Dr Larkin, it does

not automatically follow that I should make a

recommendation that consideration be given to his

prosecution for an offence of giving false evidence.

The basis on which a finding of fact is made, differs

somewhat from that on which a s.74A(2)

recommendation is made. In considering the latter, I

must take into account whether there is a sufficiency

of available admissible evidence to justify the

institution of proceedings. I must also be satisfied that

there would be a reasonable prospect, based on the

evidence, of proceedings being instituted.

In the present case, evidence would be available from

the others who were present at the meeting. The

evidence given by Dr Larkin would also be available

for consideration. In these circumstances, there is

sufficient available admissible evidence to support

consideration of the taking of proceedings against Dr

Larkin for a criminal offence.

I also take into account both the seriousness of using

Commission proceedings to raise false allegations in

pursuance of personal vendettas and also the public

interest in sending a clear message that such

reprehensible conduct will not be tolerated.

Accordingly, pursuant to s.74A(2) of the ICAC Act I

am of the opinion that the Director of Public

Prosecutions should give consideration to the

prosecution of Dr Stephen Larkin under s.87 of the

ICAC Act for an offence of giving false or misleading

evidence in relation to his allegations that there was a

discussion at the Canley Heights Hotel during which

Mr Moss volunteered to contact Mr Obeid for the

purpose of offering or making a substantial donation

to the ALP in connection with the Woodward Park

project.

ICAC report


52

ICAC©

The Independent Commission Against Corruption Act

1988 is concerned with the honest and impartial

exercise of official powers and functions in, and in

connection with, the public sector of New South Wales,

and the protection of information or material acquired

in the course of performing official functions. It

provides mechanisms which are designed to expose

and prevent the dishonest or partial exercise of such

official powers and functions and the misuse of

information or material. In furtherance of the

objectives of the ICAC Act, the Commission may

investigate allegations or complaints of corrupt

conduct, or of conduct liable to encourage or cause

the occurrence of corrupt conduct. It may then report

on the investigation and, when appropriate, make

recommendations as to any action which the

Commission believes should be taken or considered.

The Commission can also investigate the conduct of

persons who are not public officials but whose conduct

adversely affects or could adversely affect, either

directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial exercise

of official functions by any public official, any group

or body of public officials or any public authority. The

Commission may make findings of fact and form

opinions based on those facts as to whether any

particular person, even though not a public official,

has engaged in corrupt conduct within the meaning of

the ICAC Act.

The ICAC Act applies to public authorities and public

officials as defined in s.3 of the Act. Liverpool City

Council is a public authority.

The Commission was created in response to community

and Parliamentary concerns about corruption which

had been revealed in, inter alia, various parts of the

public service, causing a consequent downturn in

community confidence in the integrity of that service.

It is recognised that corruption in the public service

not only undermines confidence in the bureaucracy

but also has a detrimental effect on the confidence of

the community in the processes of democratic

government, at least at the level of government in

which that corruption occurs. It is also recognised that

corruption commonly indicates and promotes

inefficiency, produces waste and could lead to loss of

revenue.

The role of the Commission is to act as an agent for

changing the situation which has been revealed. Its

work involves identifying and bringing to attention

conduct which is corrupt. Having done so, or better

still in the course of so doing, the Commission can

prompt the relevant public authority to recognise the

need for reform or change, and then assist that public

authority (and others with similar vulnerabilities) to

bring about the necessary changes or reforms in

procedures and systems, and, importantly, promote

an ethical culture, based on an ethos of probity.

The principal functions of the Commission, as specified

in s.13 of the ICAC Act, include investigating any

circumstances which in the Commission’s opinion

imply that corrupt conduct, or conduct liable to allow

or encourage corrupt conduct, or conduct connected

with corrupt conduct, may have occurred, and co-

operating with public authorities and public officials

in reviewing practices and procedures to reduce the

likelihood of the occurrence of corrupt conduct.

It is not part of the Commission’s role to prosecute for

offences that an investigation undertaken by the

Commission may reveal. However, the Commission

may form and express an opinion as to whether or

not any act, omission or decision which falls within

the scope of its investigation has been honestly and

regularly made, omitted or arrived at, and whether

consideration should or should not be given to the

prosecution or other action against any particular

person or persons, be they public officials or not.

APPENDIX 1 — THE COMMISSION’S ROLE

53

ICAC

©

ICAC report


Corrupt conduct is defined in s.7 of the Independent

Commission Against Corruption Act as any conduct

which falls within the description of corrupt conduct

in either or both subsections (1) or (2) of s.8 and which

is not excluded by s.9 of the ICAC Act. An

examination of conduct to determine whether or not

it is corrupt thus involves a consideration of two

separate sections of the ICAC Act.

Section 8 defines the general nature of corrupt

conduct. Section 8(1) provides that corrupt conduct

is:

(a) any conduct of any person (whether or not a public

official) that adversely affects, or that could

adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the

honest or impartial exercise of official functions by

any public official, any group or body of public

officials or any public authority, or

(b) any conduct of a public official that constitutes or

involves the dishonest or partial exercise of any of

his or her official functions, or

(c) any conduct of a public official or former public

official that constitutes or involves a breach of public

trust, or

(d) any conduct of a public official or former public

official that involves the misuse of information or

material that he or she has acquired in the course

of his or her official functions, whether or not for

his or her benefit or for the benefit of any other

person.

Section 8(2) specifies conduct, including the conduct

of any person (whether or not a public official), that

adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either

directly or indirectly, the exercise of official functions

by any public official, any group or body of public

officials or any public authority, and which, in addition,

could involve a number of specific offences which are

set out in that subsection. Such offences include:

• official misconduct (including breach of trust,

extortion and imposition) (s.8(2)(a));

• bribery (s.8(2)(b));

• obtaining or offering secret commissions (s.8(2)(d));

and

• any conspiracy or attempt in relation to any of the

above (s.8(2)(y)).

Section 9(1) provides that, despite s.8, conduct does

not amount to corrupt conduct unless it could

constitute or involve:

(a) a criminal offence, or

(b) a disciplinary offence, or

(c) reasonable grounds for dismissing, dispensing with

the services of or otherwise terminating the services

of a public official, or

(d) in the case of conduct of a Minister of the Crown

or a Member of a House of Parliament—a

substantial breach of an applicable code of conduct.

Three steps are involved in determining whether or

not corrupt conduct has occurred in a particular matter.

The first step is to make findings of relevant facts.

The second is to determine whether the conduct, which

has been found as a matter of fact, comes within the

terms of s.8(1) and/or s.8(2) of the ICAC Act. The

third and final step is to determine whether the conduct

also satisfies the requirements of s.9 of the ICAC Act.

In applying the provisions of s.9 of the ICAC Act it is

appropriate to recall the approach outlined by Priestley

JA in Greiner v Independent Commission Against

Corruption (1992) 28 NSWLR 125. His Honour said

that the word ‘could’ was to be construed as meaning

‘would, if proved’. In the course of discussing the

proper construction of s.9(1)(a) of the ICAC Act, he

said:

Despite s.8, conduct does not amount to

corrupt conduct unless, in the case of a criminal

charge which could be tried before a jury, the

facts found by the ICAC as constituting corrupt

conduct would, if the jury were to accept them

as proved beyond reasonable doubt, constitute

the offence charged …

Such a construction is applicable to ss.9(1)(b), (c) and

(d).

A finding of corrupt conduct against an individual is a

serious matter. It may affect the individual personally,

professionally or in employment, as well as in family

and social relationships. In addition, there is no right

of appeal against findings of fact made by the

Commission nor, excluding error of law relating to

APPENDIX 2 — CORRUPT CONDUCT DEFINED AND THE

RELEVANT STANDARD OF PROOF

ICAC report


54

ICAC©

jurisdiction or procedural fairness, is there any appeal

against a determination that a person has engaged in

corrupt conduct. This situation highlights the need to

exercise care in making findings of corrupt conduct.

In Australia there are only two standards of proof:

one relating to criminal matters, the other to civil

matters. Commission investigations, including hearings,

are not criminal in their nature. Hearings are neither

trials nor committals. Rather, the Commission is similar

in standing to a royal commission and its investigations

and hearings have most of the characteristics

associated with a royal commission. The standard of

proof in royal commissions is the civil standard, that

is, on the balance of probabilities. This requires only

reasonable satisfaction as opposed to satisfaction

beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in criminal

matters. The civil standard is the standard which has

been applied consistently in the Commission. However,

because of the seriousness of the findings which may

be made, it is important to bear in mind what was

said by Dixon J in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60

CLR 336:

... reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind

that is attained or established independently of

the nature and consequence of the fact or facts

to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation

made, the inherent unlikelihood of an

occurrence of a given description, or the gravity

of the consequences flowing from a particular

finding are considerations which must affect the

answer to the question whether the issue has

been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of

the tribunal. In such matters ‘reasonable

satisfaction’ should not be produced by inexact

proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect

inferences. (at 362)

This formulation, as the High Court pointed out in

Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd

(1992) 67 ALJR 170, is to be understood:

... as merely reflecting a conventional perception

that members of our society do not ordinarily

engage in fraudulent or criminal conduct and a

judicial approach that a court should not lightly

make a finding that, on the balance of

probabilities, a party to civil litigation has been

guilty of such conduct. (at 171)

Also relevant are Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR

517, the report of McGregor J into Matters in Relation

to Electoral Redistribution in Queensland in 1977 and

the report by the Hon W Carter QC into An Attempt

to Bribe a Member of the House of Assembly

(Tasmania) in 1991.

As indicated above, the first step towards considering

a finding of corrupt conduct is to make a finding of

fact. Findings of fact and determinations set out in

this report have been made applying the principles

detailed in this Appendix.

report on investigation into conduct concerning the ......report on investigation into conduct...

Documents