Coach Alastair Clarkson IV - HFC Racism Investigation Discussion

[Del191229]

It's further evidence that footy fans, unlike Rocky Burnette, never get tired of toeing the line.

Its quite stunning how after being leading lights in bagging Essendon, the Hawthstain fans have gone even worse than them a few years later.

 

[Tiberius]

It's further evidence that footy fans, unlike Rocky Burnette, never get tired of toeing the line.

Quality obscure music reference! Well played.

 

[gokangas]

See - it's not Hawthorn's fault.

Jeff Kennett: It would be absurd for Hawthorn to pay compensation over ‘racism report’ fiasco​

The leaking of the Hawthorn report sparked a media firestorm and ultimately destroyed the investigation. The club would become a laughing stock if it paid compensation for a debacle it did not create.
Jeff Kennett

October 31, 2023 - 5:15PM


Rarely would I take issue with my fellow columnist Rita Panahi, but her article last Friday, headed “Hawthorn should pay up for racism report fiasco” must be answered.
Rita stated that Hawthorn Football Club vilified three of its former employees, and we should pay millions in compensation.
Absolutely incorrect.
Serious allegations were made public by Cyril Rioli and his wife through The Age. The allegations were serious, and the club board decided quickly, led by board member Ian Silk, that we should establish whether any other past or present Indigenous player or staff member had similar experiences.
Mr Silk then headed a committee that appointed Binmada, an Indigenous organisation headed by Phil Egan, assisted by Dr Meaghan Katrak Harris, to hear the experiences of Indigenous players and staff of their time at Hawthorn.
This was a cultural safety review.
Not all wished to participate.
Binmada had previously been engaged by the AFL, the federal government and others to work on Indigenous matters.

Phil Egan, who has is facing fraud charges, outside court. Picture: Nicki Connolly
Some of those who did talk to Binmada told of experiences that shocked the board. And some experiences were good.
On receiving the report, Hawthorn immediately informed the AFL, and referred the report to the AFL Integrity Unit as we were required to do according to the AFL Respect and Responsibility guidelines.
Before AFL Integrity could start its work, with the assistance of Hawthorn, to establish the correctness or otherwise of the allegations, some family members of the Indigenous players leaked their stories to the ABC.
That started a media firestorm.
In that and other media reports that followed, former employees Alastair Clarkson, Chris Fagan and Jason Burt were named, totally unfairly, as the process by AFL Integrity to check the allegations with the three had not even started.
The leaking of the allegations, for whatever reason, by the Indigenous family members destroyed the natural process of investigation.
Binmada was commissioned only to hear the stories of our Indigenous personnel. We never anticipated a report outlining such allegations. Binmada was not the appropriate organisation to seek to verify or otherwise investigate the allegations.
That was the role of AFL Integrity using any process it wished to adopt. So, Hawthorn did not, and would never, vilify its people. Those who went public vilified those they accused before the facts were established.
Rita says we should pay Clarkson a seven-figure payout as compensation.

Jeff Kennett and former Hawthorn coach Alastair Clarkson in happier times. Picture: Getty
It has now been suggested by the AFL that Hawthorn should pay both the Indigenous families who made the allegations, including those who leaked contents of the report, and the three former employees compensation just to settle the issue once and for all.
The fact that the Hawthorn board is considering such payments is absolutely absurd.
Worse, it sets a shocking precedent for all clubs in the future should any employees make unsubstantiated public claims simply to have them settled by mediation or agreement for financial gain.
Hawthorn has become the laughing stock of the legal profession that we might pay compensation for seeking to ensure we had a safe working place, when the normal process of establishing the truth was derailed by those who leaked the report.
When Gill McLachlan wound up his four-person panel on May 30 this year he said there were no findings against Clarkson, Fagan or Burt.
That said, it must also be correct that McLachlan or the panel had reached the conclusion that there was no substance in the allegations. I accept that at face value.
McLachlan also told me that the only reason the AFL was pursuing Hawthorn was to establish who leaked the report. Not to penalise Hawthorn in any way. Discussions between lawyers during the process accepted and said Hawthorn was not at fault for the process it had adopted and followed.
So why now would the AFL be demanding any compensation be paid to accusers and accused by Hawthorn? And what has Hawthorn actually done that warrants such payments? The AFL has not articulated an action or offence.
No wrong by Hawthorn has actually been established.
If the AFL argues the wrong was the public exposure that Clarkson, Fagan and Burt endured, that was not caused by Hawthorn, but those family members who leaked their stories, without giving AFL Integrity the opportunity to establish the facts.
I am sorry, Rita, but your vilification of Hawthorn is unwarranted and incorrect. On the evidence, no compensation should be paid by Hawthorn.
We have seen in the past that appeasement never works. We need strong, fair and accurate leadership at the AFL and its clubs.
Have a good day.

Jeff KennettContributor
Jeff Kennett was premier of Victoria from 1992 to 1999, served two stints as Hawthorn Football Club president and was the founding chairman of Beyond Blue.

 

[SpiderBurton22]

See - it's not Hawthorn's fault.

Jeff Kennett: It would be absurd for Hawthorn to pay compensation over ‘racism report’ fiasco​

The leaking of the Hawthorn report sparked a media firestorm and ultimately destroyed the investigation. The club would become a laughing stock if it paid compensation for a debacle it did not create.
Jeff Kennett

October 31, 2023 - 5:15PM


Rarely would I take issue with my fellow columnist Rita Panahi, but her article last Friday, headed “Hawthorn should pay up for racism report fiasco” must be answered.
Rita stated that Hawthorn Football Club vilified three of its former employees, and we should pay millions in compensation.
Absolutely incorrect.
Serious allegations were made public by Cyril Rioli and his wife through The Age. The allegations were serious, and the club board decided quickly, led by board member Ian Silk, that we should establish whether any other past or present Indigenous player or staff member had similar experiences.
Mr Silk then headed a committee that appointed Binmada, an Indigenous organisation headed by Phil Egan, assisted by Dr Meaghan Katrak Harris, to hear the experiences of Indigenous players and staff of their time at Hawthorn.
This was a cultural safety review.
Not all wished to participate.
Binmada had previously been engaged by the AFL, the federal government and others to work on Indigenous matters.

Phil Egan, who has is facing fraud charges, outside court. Picture: Nicki Connolly
Some of those who did talk to Binmada told of experiences that shocked the board. And some experiences were good.
On receiving the report, Hawthorn immediately informed the AFL, and referred the report to the AFL Integrity Unit as we were required to do according to the AFL Respect and Responsibility guidelines.
Before AFL Integrity could start its work, with the assistance of Hawthorn, to establish the correctness or otherwise of the allegations, some family members of the Indigenous players leaked their stories to the ABC.
That started a media firestorm.
In that and other media reports that followed, former employees Alastair Clarkson, Chris Fagan and Jason Burt were named, totally unfairly, as the process by AFL Integrity to check the allegations with the three had not even started.
The leaking of the allegations, for whatever reason, by the Indigenous family members destroyed the natural process of investigation.
Binmada was commissioned only to hear the stories of our Indigenous personnel. We never anticipated a report outlining such allegations. Binmada was not the appropriate organisation to seek to verify or otherwise investigate the allegations.
That was the role of AFL Integrity using any process it wished to adopt. So, Hawthorn did not, and would never, vilify its people. Those who went public vilified those they accused before the facts were established.
Rita says we should pay Clarkson a seven-figure payout as compensation.

Jeff Kennett and former Hawthorn coach Alastair Clarkson in happier times. Picture: Getty
It has now been suggested by the AFL that Hawthorn should pay both the Indigenous families who made the allegations, including those who leaked contents of the report, and the three former employees compensation just to settle the issue once and for all.
The fact that the Hawthorn board is considering such payments is absolutely absurd.
Worse, it sets a shocking precedent for all clubs in the future should any employees make unsubstantiated public claims simply to have them settled by mediation or agreement for financial gain.
Hawthorn has become the laughing stock of the legal profession that we might pay compensation for seeking to ensure we had a safe working place, when the normal process of establishing the truth was derailed by those who leaked the report.
When Gill McLachlan wound up his four-person panel on May 30 this year he said there were no findings against Clarkson, Fagan or Burt.
That said, it must also be correct that McLachlan or the panel had reached the conclusion that there was no substance in the allegations. I accept that at face value.
McLachlan also told me that the only reason the AFL was pursuing Hawthorn was to establish who leaked the report. Not to penalise Hawthorn in any way. Discussions between lawyers during the process accepted and said Hawthorn was not at fault for the process it had adopted and followed.
So why now would the AFL be demanding any compensation be paid to accusers and accused by Hawthorn? And what has Hawthorn actually done that warrants such payments? The AFL has not articulated an action or offence.
No wrong by Hawthorn has actually been established.
If the AFL argues the wrong was the public exposure that Clarkson, Fagan and Burt endured, that was not caused by Hawthorn, but those family members who leaked their stories, without giving AFL Integrity the opportunity to establish the facts.
I am sorry, Rita, but your vilification of Hawthorn is unwarranted and incorrect. On the evidence, no compensation should be paid by Hawthorn.
We have seen in the past that appeasement never works. We need strong, fair and accurate leadership at the AFL and its clubs.
Have a good day.

Jeff KennettContributor
Jeff Kennett was premier of Victoria from 1992 to 1999, served two stints as Hawthorn Football Club president and was the founding chairman of Beyond Blue.

Right on point from the Gollywog loving racist.

Blah, blah, blah.......It's the Indigenous families that are at fault here...... blah, blah, blah.

 

[Del191229]

Right on point from the Gollywog loving racist.

Blah, blah, blah.......It's the Indigenous families that are at fault here...... blah, blah, blah.

Unbelievable hey.

Not my fault as President, or Hawthorn as the legally responsible institution it's those shifty indigenous types.

What an arseh*le

 

[danj]

Unbelievable hey.

Not my fault as President, or Hawthorn as the legally responsible institution it's those shifty indigenous types.

What an a-hole

Wash your hands Jeffrey

 

[hsquid]

Spoiler: Jeff's comments

Jeff Kennett: It would be absurd for Hawthorn to pay compensation over ‘racism report’ fiasco​

The leaking of the Hawthorn report sparked a media firestorm and ultimately destroyed the investigation. The club would become a laughing stock if it paid compensation for a debacle it did not create.
Jeff Kennett

October 31, 2023 - 5:15PM
Rarely would I take issue with my fellow columnist Rita Panahi, but her article last Friday, headed “Hawthorn should pay up for racism report fiasco” must be answered.
Rita stated that Hawthorn Football Club vilified three of its former employees, and we should pay millions in compensation.
Absolutely incorrect.
Serious allegations were made public by Cyril Rioli and his wife through The Age. The allegations were serious, and the club board decided quickly, led by board member Ian Silk, that we should establish whether any other past or present Indigenous player or staff member had similar experiences.
Mr Silk then headed a committee that appointed Binmada, an Indigenous organisation headed by Phil Egan, assisted by Dr Meaghan Katrak Harris, to hear the experiences of Indigenous players and staff of their time at Hawthorn.
This was a cultural safety review.
Not all wished to participate.
Binmada had previously been engaged by the AFL, the federal government and others to work on Indigenous matters.

Some of those who did talk to Binmada told of experiences that shocked the board. And some experiences were good.
On receiving the report, Hawthorn immediately informed the AFL, and referred the report to the AFL Integrity Unit as we were required to do according to the AFL Respect and Responsibility guidelines.
Before AFL Integrity could start its work, with the assistance of Hawthorn, to establish the correctness or otherwise of the allegations, some family members of the Indigenous players leaked their stories to the ABC.
That started a media firestorm.
In that and other media reports that followed, former employees Alastair Clarkson, Chris Fagan and Jason Burt were named, totally unfairly, as the process by AFL Integrity to check the allegations with the three had not even started.
The leaking of the allegations, for whatever reason, by the Indigenous family members destroyed the natural process of investigation.
Binmada was commissioned only to hear the stories of our Indigenous personnel. We never anticipated a report outlining such allegations. Binmada was not the appropriate organisation to seek to verify or otherwise investigate the allegations.
That was the role of AFL Integrity using any process it wished to adopt. So, Hawthorn did not, and would never, vilify its people. Those who went public vilified those they accused before the facts were established.
Rita says we should pay Clarkson a seven-figure payout as compensation.

It has now been suggested by the AFL that Hawthorn should pay both the Indigenous families who made the allegations, including those who leaked contents of the report, and the three former employees compensation just to settle the issue once and for all.
The fact that the Hawthorn board is considering such payments is absolutely absurd.
Worse, it sets a shocking precedent for all clubs in the future should any employees make unsubstantiated public claims simply to have them settled by mediation or agreement for financial gain.
Hawthorn has become the laughing stock of the legal profession that we might pay compensation for seeking to ensure we had a safe working place, when the normal process of establishing the truth was derailed by those who leaked the report.
When Gill McLachlan wound up his four-person panel on May 30 this year he said there were no findings against Clarkson, Fagan or Burt.
That said, it must also be correct that McLachlan or the panel had reached the conclusion that there was no substance in the allegations. I accept that at face value.
McLachlan also told me that the only reason the AFL was pursuing Hawthorn was to establish who leaked the report. Not to penalise Hawthorn in any way. Discussions between lawyers during the process accepted and said Hawthorn was not at fault for the process it had adopted and followed.
So why now would the AFL be demanding any compensation be paid to accusers and accused by Hawthorn? And what has Hawthorn actually done that warrants such payments? The AFL has not articulated an action or offence.
No wrong by Hawthorn has actually been established.
If the AFL argues the wrong was the public exposure that Clarkson, Fagan and Burt endured, that was not caused by Hawthorn, but those family members who leaked their stories, without giving AFL Integrity the opportunity to establish the facts.
I am sorry, Rita, but your vilification of Hawthorn is unwarranted and incorrect. On the evidence, no compensation should be paid by Hawthorn.
We have seen in the past that appeasement never works. We need strong, fair and accurate leadership at the AFL and its clubs.
Have a good day.

Cough cough. Ok Jeff. Here are a few holes in that convenient reconstruction:

The indigenous families leaked the report
Before AFL Integrity could start its work, with the assistance of Hawthorn, to establish the correctness or otherwise of the allegations, some family members of the Indigenous players leaked their stories to the ABC.

False. The first media reports include detailed descriptions of the report. This report would not have been available to the indigenous families. It must have been leaked by a) Binmada/Egan b) Hawthorn or c) the AFL.

Spoiler: Details

"While Russell Jackson’s story reports on the existence of the external review commissioned by Hawthorn, and some allegations made within it, his story was not based on that review and does not quote its contents."

"Not based on that review" Hmm, let's see:

Headline:” Hawthorn racism review to allege that former coaches separated First Nations players from families and demanded a pregnancy termination"

First paragraph starts: "An external review commissioned by the Hawthorn Football Club will reveal allegations..."

Second paragraph starts: "The review document, handed to Hawthorn's senior management two weeks ago and now with the AFL integrity unit, will allege that..."

Third paragraph starts: "It is believed the review was similar..."

Fourth paragraph starts: "According to the families of three players interviewed by ABC Sport, the incidents at the centre of the review..."

Fifth paragraph starts: "Hawthorn had more than 20 First Nations players in the period of the review."

There follows very similar (the same?) stories as detailed in the review, presumably sourced separately.

So still a lot of unanswered questions on the reporting side:

• if the story is not based on the review why is the headline and the first five paragraphs describing the review?
• Why, in all the references to the review, did you not mention that its terms of reference did not include investigation into facts, incidents or individuals and that its methodology was based on non-critical listening? Do you think that omission could mislead readers into believing the accusations had been tested and/or could be substantiated with other evidence?
• Why did you not report that the review recommended reparations to the identified individuals based only on their stories? Do you think that omission could have hidden from readers a potential important interest of the ex-players?
• Did you share the identities of the three players with the accused? If so, why did Gil McLachlan not even know their names? If not, how can you say you shared 'all relevant information'?
• Did the accused have permission from the ex-players to reveal their confidential and personal information to a journalist? If not, how were they intended to respond?
• Did you do any investigation as to the truth of the allegations? Or are you prepared to publish unverified allegations?

The Binmada report was an appropriately constituted "cultural safety review"

False. The Binmada report was obviously flawed and not in a state to be shared externally:

• It made 'findings' despite supposedly only being a listening exercise
• It innapropriately named specific individuals as committing "human rights abuses" without any due process
• It recommended reparations despite recommendations not being included in the ToRs.
• It strangely only named former staff members and said all was well today, without any of its own recommendations having been followed.
• It's terms of reference were oddly time specific to exclude the Presidency of one J. Kennett.
• It was run by the cousin of an aggrieved former staff member who was a central player in the issues described (and whose name was suspiciously omitted in the leak, hinting at the identity of the leaker)

Spoiler: Details

Reading the report findings it becomes a lot clearer what has gone wrong with the process.

1. Hawthorn commissions a study into the experiences of indigenous players, any support they need and what they can do better.
2. Phil Egan has 'semi-structured' interviews with a self-selected set of indigenous players to hear their experiences.
3. Phil makes a strange mishmash of findings and recommendations, focused on historical grievances that blur the lines between allegations and fact with literally no effort at establishing facts. More on this below.
4. Hawthorn doesn't act on the report before it is leaked. Appropriate action would have been to coordinate with the AFL Integrity Unit about the possible need for a broader fact-finding investigation.
5. Journalist reports the findings of the report combined with his own similar-content interviews. Names names without any attempt at establishing facts.
6. Mess

Specifically, Phil's findings are problematic because:

1. The first recommendation says "The findings of alleged negligence and human rights abuses towards First Nations HFC players, as found by this review, committed by ....[Clarkson, Fagan, Burt]...". This is written as a finding, not an allegation, even if the word 'alleged' is in there. It's meaningless to have a 'finding' of 'alleged' human rights abuses. As mentioned, the TOR do not expect any 'findings' of fact at all. In no way should any names be named at this point without any fact-finding investigation being done.
   [Additional legal nerd point: In general people can't commit human rights abuses: Only states can. It's what human rights means, rights against states]
2. It makes sense to refer the results to the AFL Integrity Unit (Recommendation 1) or for Hawthorn to do further investigations (Recommendation 3) but not both without coordination. The recommendation should have been to share the results with the AFL Integrity Unit and agree how and whether to investigate specific individuals or incidents more deeply.
3. It makes no sense to recommend reparations and restitution or apology without any fact-finding (as imagined under point 2) and simply as a result of individual testimonies.

Less critically:

1. He recommends major investment in indigenous understanding (a General Manager, compulsory training and review of current training, a Cultural Safety and Self Determination Framework) without identifying anything at all wrong with the current set up. "All current and recently retired players felt Culturally Safe at HFC"
2. He recommends Hawthorn paying more indigenous consultants (i.e himself / conflict of interest alert) to provide education on the impact of trauma, without saying who needs that education and why.
3. He says there was virtually no response to Hawthorn's email to everyone and that it was only because of his 'profile and respect' that people were prepared to be interviewed (implying there are many sensitive things unrecorded and meaning inputs are skewed to his friends) but seems to contradict himself when he says they all feel culturally safe.

All these are issues of process and recommendations and apply no matter what the accuracy of the reported facts. These process failings bypass the checks and balances that would normally exist and thereby increase the chances of exactly the present kind of cluster**** in which there are incredibly damaging unaccountable, untested allegations out in the wild without any process to test them.

No findings against Clarko means no findings against Hawthorn
When Gill McLachlan wound up his four-person panel on May 30 this year he said there were no findings against Clarkson, Fagan or Burt. That said, it must also be correct that McLachlan or the panel had reached the conclusion that there was no substance in the allegations. I accept that at face value.

False False False. There was no statement regarding Hawthorn's culpability in this and to suggest otherwise is the wishiest of wishful thinking. The terms of reference for the investigation are strangely clear about this - perhaps at Jeff's insistence. While the panel looked at Hawthorn's handling of the investigation, they were not empowered to make any recommendations beyond the individuals. It's hard to believe Jeff doesn't know this and yet is cynically painting the absence of a finding as the same as being cleared.

Spoiler: Details

2. The ‘Matters for investigation’ focus on Hawthorn as a club and yet the only recommendation required is whether to subject individuals to disciplinary action.

There is a strange disconnect between section C “Matters of Investigation” and D “Recommendations”.

Spoiler: C Matters of Investigation

The Investigation will investigate, consider and report on and in relation to the following
matters:

1. Whether during the Relevant Period (or any part thereof) HFC engaged in any conduct which involved or included Inappropriate Conduct directed towards players, their families and/or their intimate partners.

2. Specifically with regard to First Nations players, whether during the Relevant Period (or any part thereof) HFC engaged in Inappropriate Conduct directed towards any First Nations players, their families and/or their intimate partners which involved or included demands, duress or pressure in relation to, or interference with:
a) the living arrangements of First Nations players (including where and with whom they lived and whether they were counselled or encouraged to alter existing living arrangements);
b) the intimate relationships of First Nations players (including whether the First Nations players were counselled or encouraged to end intimate relationships);
c) the reproductive choices or health of intimate partners of First Nations players (including whether they were counselled or encouraged to terminate pregnancies or which impacted on or affected pregnancies);
d) the freedom of movement of First Nations players (including whether they were counselled or encouraged not to visit family and friends interstate, or to limit the frequency or duration of such visits); or
e) the freedom of communication of the First Nations players (including whether they were counselled or encouraged not to communicate with their families, their intimate partners and/or their friends, or to limit such communication).

3. If Inappropriate Conduct is found to have occurred during the Relevant Period (or any part thereof) in respect of the Matters for Investigation:
a) whether any Inappropriate Conduct identified was known and countenanced (and if so to what extent) by any and who of the senior management and/or Board of HFC;
b) whether any Inappropriate Conduct identified ought to have been known (and if so to what extent) by any and who of the senior management and/or Board of HFC;
c) whether and to what extent HFC provided appropriate support for players, their families and/or intimate partners with respect to trauma, harm or distress arising from any identified Inappropriate Conduct;
d) whether and to what extent HFC provided mechanisms for the performance review of persons involved in any identified Inappropriate Conduct or reprimands, warnings, counselling or education to those persons; and e) whether HFC provided appropriate and culturally safe support for the First Nations players, their families and/or intimate partners including with respect to trauma, harm or distress arising from any identified Inappropriate Conduct.

4. Whether the HFC appropriately supported the First Nations players, their families and/or their intimate partners in the period immediately following the cessation of their employment by the HFC during the Relevant Period, including by the provision of assistance in the relocation back to their home communities.

5. Whether the ‘Cultural Safety Review’ commissioned by HFC and undertaken by Mr Philip Egan of Binmada Pty Ltd (Binmada Report) was an appropriate mechanism and/or adopted appropriate procedures for the matters Mr Egan was engaged to review and/or ultimately investigated.

The investigation is very focused on Hawthorn rather than individuals. i.e. did HFC engage in inappropriate conduct, specifically [all the things we know about from the report], did they provide sufficient and appropriate support, was the Binmada report appropriate. There are only two items that indirectly look at individuals [3a&b] which look at what ‘senior management and board’ knew or should have known about the issues.

Spoiler: D “Recommendations”] The final report addressing the Matters for Investigation above, will set out: a) Recommendations as to whether any persons who engaged in, were involved in and/or were aware of any Inappropriate Conduct should, in the view of the Investigation Panel, be subject to disciplinary action pursuant to AFL Rules and commenced by persons so authorised under AFL Rules. b) Any other recommendations connected to the Matters for Investigation that may be considered by the Investigation Panel to be appropriate. [/QUOTE][/SPOILER][QUOTE="hsquid, post: 77216174, member: 128002

In contrast there is only one specific recommendation required: whether any individuals should be subject to disciplinary action by the AFL. It’s hard to know what to make of this. It could just be an anomaly. Or it could imply that the focus on individuals is only part of the whole report and there is an emphasis on the senior management / board and what they knew or should have known. Perhaps the area of "what senior management should have known" is the area where there is the most concrete evidence and the most scope to make a clear adverse finding: I would be nervous reading this if I were Andrew Newbold. The one shocking and undisputed fact from all of this is his dismissive and disdainful response to multiple distressed emails from a players partner.

We know Andrew Newbold was horrible to one of the partners and she was brushed off. We have his emails. We know Hawthorn carried out a highly flawed process - see above. We know the report was formulated and leaked in a way and at a time that would maximise damage to Clarkson at a time when the club had just been forced to pay him a million dollars it had tried to get out of. We know there was bad blood between the racist, yet unmentioned and conveniently out of the country person who commissioned the report and the person who it damaged most.

We know that the most senior club officials behaved appallingly to at least some indigenous families and to their own former staff. Maybe that's why they will be paying.

 

[the big lebowski]

Spoiler: Jeff's comments

Jeff Kennett: It would be absurd for Hawthorn to pay compensation over ‘racism report’ fiasco​

The leaking of the Hawthorn report sparked a media firestorm and ultimately destroyed the investigation. The club would become a laughing stock if it paid compensation for a debacle it did not create.
Jeff Kennett

October 31, 2023 - 5:15PM
Rarely would I take issue with my fellow columnist Rita Panahi, but her article last Friday, headed “Hawthorn should pay up for racism report fiasco” must be answered.
Rita stated that Hawthorn Football Club vilified three of its former employees, and we should pay millions in compensation.
Absolutely incorrect.
Serious allegations were made public by Cyril Rioli and his wife through The Age. The allegations were serious, and the club board decided quickly, led by board member Ian Silk, that we should establish whether any other past or present Indigenous player or staff member had similar experiences.
Mr Silk then headed a committee that appointed Binmada, an Indigenous organisation headed by Phil Egan, assisted by Dr Meaghan Katrak Harris, to hear the experiences of Indigenous players and staff of their time at Hawthorn.
This was a cultural safety review.
Not all wished to participate.
Binmada had previously been engaged by the AFL, the federal government and others to work on Indigenous matters.

Some of those who did talk to Binmada told of experiences that shocked the board. And some experiences were good.
On receiving the report, Hawthorn immediately informed the AFL, and referred the report to the AFL Integrity Unit as we were required to do according to the AFL Respect and Responsibility guidelines.
Before AFL Integrity could start its work, with the assistance of Hawthorn, to establish the correctness or otherwise of the allegations, some family members of the Indigenous players leaked their stories to the ABC.
That started a media firestorm.
In that and other media reports that followed, former employees Alastair Clarkson, Chris Fagan and Jason Burt were named, totally unfairly, as the process by AFL Integrity to check the allegations with the three had not even started.
The leaking of the allegations, for whatever reason, by the Indigenous family members destroyed the natural process of investigation.
Binmada was commissioned only to hear the stories of our Indigenous personnel. We never anticipated a report outlining such allegations. Binmada was not the appropriate organisation to seek to verify or otherwise investigate the allegations.
That was the role of AFL Integrity using any process it wished to adopt. So, Hawthorn did not, and would never, vilify its people. Those who went public vilified those they accused before the facts were established.
Rita says we should pay Clarkson a seven-figure payout as compensation.

It has now been suggested by the AFL that Hawthorn should pay both the Indigenous families who made the allegations, including those who leaked contents of the report, and the three former employees compensation just to settle the issue once and for all.
The fact that the Hawthorn board is considering such payments is absolutely absurd.
Worse, it sets a shocking precedent for all clubs in the future should any employees make unsubstantiated public claims simply to have them settled by mediation or agreement for financial gain.
Hawthorn has become the laughing stock of the legal profession that we might pay compensation for seeking to ensure we had a safe working place, when the normal process of establishing the truth was derailed by those who leaked the report.
When Gill McLachlan wound up his four-person panel on May 30 this year he said there were no findings against Clarkson, Fagan or Burt.
That said, it must also be correct that McLachlan or the panel had reached the conclusion that there was no substance in the allegations. I accept that at face value.
McLachlan also told me that the only reason the AFL was pursuing Hawthorn was to establish who leaked the report. Not to penalise Hawthorn in any way. Discussions between lawyers during the process accepted and said Hawthorn was not at fault for the process it had adopted and followed.
So why now would the AFL be demanding any compensation be paid to accusers and accused by Hawthorn? And what has Hawthorn actually done that warrants such payments? The AFL has not articulated an action or offence.
No wrong by Hawthorn has actually been established.
If the AFL argues the wrong was the public exposure that Clarkson, Fagan and Burt endured, that was not caused by Hawthorn, but those family members who leaked their stories, without giving AFL Integrity the opportunity to establish the facts.
I am sorry, Rita, but your vilification of Hawthorn is unwarranted and incorrect. On the evidence, no compensation should be paid by Hawthorn.
We have seen in the past that appeasement never works. We need strong, fair and accurate leadership at the AFL and its clubs.
Have a good day.

Cough cough. Ok Jeff. Here are a few holes in that convenient reconstruction:



False. The first media reports include detailed descriptions of the report. This report would not have been available to the indigenous families. It must have been leaked by a) Binmada/Egan b) Hawthorn or c) the AFL.



False. The Binmada report was obviously flawed and not in a state to be shared externally:

• It made 'findings' despite supposedly only being a listening exercise
• It innapropriately named specific individuals as committing "human rights abuses" without any due process
• It recommended reparations despite recommendations not being included in the ToRs.
• It strangely only named former staff members and said all was well today, without any of its own recommendations having been followed.
• It's terms of reference were oddly time specific to exclude the Presidency of one J. Kennett.
• It was run by the cousin of an aggrieved former staff member who was a central player in the issues described (and whose name was suspiciously omitted in the leak, hinting at the identity of the leaker)

False False False. There was no statement the culpability of Hawthorn's culpability in this and to suggest otherwise is the wishiest of wishful thinking. We know Andrew Newbold was horrible to one of the partners and she was brushed off. We have his emails. We know Hawthorn carried out a highly flawed process - see above. We know the report was formulated and leaked in a way and at a time that would maximise damage to Clarkson at a time when the club had just been forced to pay him a million dollars it had tried to get out of. We know there was bad blood between the racist, yet unmentioned and conveniently out of the country person who commissioned the report and the person who it damaged most.

We know that the most senior club officials behaved appallingly to at least some indigenous families and to their own former staff. Maybe that's why they will be paying.

I could be wrong but he also says that hawthorn decided to commission the report because of what the rioli’s say in the age article. Then sets a time period for investigation that doesn’t cover when the rioli’s allege they were racially bullied by Kennett himself?

 

[r_boy]

Can't stand that bloke.

Just comes across as a megalomaniac

 

[Samsquanch]

Cough cough. Ok Jeff. Here are a few holes in that convenient reconstruction

Hsquid doing God's work.

I'm sure Robbo in the Herald Sun will do a scathing tear down of the Kennett fairy tale as well.

 

[Only Forwards]

I'm sure Robbo in the Herald Sun will do a scathing tear down of the Kennett fairly tale as well.

The media are the real winners here.

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

Wash your hands Jeffrey

Quality 70s reference

 

[gokangas]

Wash your hands Jeffrey

With the Solvol Jeffrey.

 

[Del191229]

I went and had a squiz at the bain moard thread and it is quite interesting to see the notion espoused by Chief and many that Clarkson and Fagan have never taken up their right of reply and used legal action to shut the investigation down is still prevalent and being deployed as an insinuation of guilt.

(Important to note here Chief I haven't tagged you for point scoring etc, I want a genuine discussion)

But this is inaccurate now.

Clarkson IS engaging with the Australian Human Rights Commission process. He's not hiding from the players or a genuine legally bound process - he's engaged with it at the first opportunity.

What Clarkson DIDN'T want to do was enter into some bodgy AFL process that was going to manufacture an outcome. That process was completely stalled when Fagan decided he'd had a gutful of it and exercised his legal rights, at which point the AFL blinked.

Clarko has been around long enough to understand the dangers of the bodgy AFL process that still had ambulance chasing lawyers involved and of course the AFL desperate to ensure image came before facts or justice

That he didn't engage Jackson's piece is not important now and never really was, Jackson had no intention of ever presenting a balanced story.

But the AHRC hearing has been listed AFAIK and Clarkson is on the record as saying he's going to take part.

Doesn't this change the whole thing dramatically?

And isn't it the final proof that had Hawthorn (and Jackson/ABC) handled this properly and professionally it is what should and would have happened from the get go?

 

[Del191229]

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/news/hawthorn-to-delay-awarding-expresident-jeff-kennetts-life-membership/news-story/3d2a31292cc02eddfaa3364aa1c4f80d

Hawthorn has moved to hold off the awarding of former president Jeff Kennett’s life membership amid fallout from footy’s bitter racism affair.

Current Hawks boss Andy Gowers contacted Kennett on Monday, telling him the board had decided not to present the honour at next month’s annual general meeting.

Kennett says he was told it would be “inappropriate” to bestow the award at this time because of the ongoing racism investigation controversy.

What an embarrasing rabble.

Just send them to Tassie full time and be done with it.

They're a stain on the competition.

 

[Del191229]

The triumphant return of Kennett to the Hawthorn presidency is going to be so truly hilarious.

 

[The acurate one]

My ‘critical aura’ may have been the result of me realising just exactly who she was: View attachment 1840181

Oh she had a fairly large estate about 3 minutes drive from me. It’s been empty for many years.
The grounds are kept though
Apparently in the auditorium there’s a massive portrait of her on a wall

Would make a great B&B me thinks or restaurant.

Id go there , blonde barstaff etc.

 

[Del191229]

Hawthorn greats have accused the club of “pettiness”, “hypocrisy” and “incompetence” for suspending former president Jeff Kennett’s life membership award amid fallout from footy’s bitter racism affair.

Dermott Brereton described the Hawks’ controversial call as “thoroughly disappointing” while Don Scott said it was “just the tip of the iceberg of what is going on down there”.

It came after the Herald Sun revealed on Tuesday that Hawks boss Andy Gowers had informed Kennett the board would not be presenting him the honour at next month’s annual general meeting.

Kennett slammed the decision, saying: “It’s immature. I’m not interested in personal recognition – never have been – but the awarding of life membership is within our constitution after 10 years’ service ... but they haven’t got the courage to present it.”

Five-time Hawthorn premiership legend Brereton said: “As a club we have bigger things to think about than holding off someone’s life membership.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/news/hawthorn-to-delay-awarding-expresident-jeff-kennetts-life-membership/news-story/3d2a31292cc02eddfaa3364aa1c4f80d?utm_campaign=EditorialSB&utm_source=herald+sun&utm_medium=facebook%2Btwitter&utm_content=SocialBakers

 

[KekiRoo]

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/news/hawthorn-to-delay-awarding-expresident-jeff-kennetts-life-membership/news-story/3d2a31292cc02eddfaa3364aa1c4f80d?utm_campaign=EditorialSB&utm_source=herald+sun&utm_medium=facebook%2Btwitter&utm_content=SocialBakers

Kennett & Brereton demonstrating how bad they are at reading the room.

Yikes.

 

[Samsquanch]

Kennett & Brereton demonstrating how bad they are at reading the room.

Yikes.

And yet when I see him strutting around Bunnings in Frankston soaking up the admiring glances and "Hi Dermie's" from all of the girls I reckon he thinks he's got a chance with every last one. His stride and ear-to-ear grin while doing a second lap of the timber and nails section indicates that he is extremely confident of his read of the room.

I have never seen Kennet in Frankston Bunnings to assess his demeanour however.

 

[Spud11]

Damn, I’ve liked Dermie in the past.
Besides the fact that whenever I see him in Bunnings I think I’m half a chance when he gives me that twinklie-eyed grin… He’s always been pretty fair on the football team I support.

 

[KekiRoo]

And yet when I see him strutting around Bunnings in Frankston soaking up the admiring glances and "Hi Dermie's" from all of the girls I reckon he thinks he's got a chance with every last one. His stride and ear-to-ear grin while doing a second lap of the timber and nails section indicates that he is extremely confident of his read of the room.

I have never seen Kennet in Frankston Bunnings to assess his demeanour however.

While I'm not sure where Kennett shops, I can't think of a better ambassador for Total Tools.

 

[Ashley B]

I knew I had seen him somewhere before

 

[Del191229]

View attachment 1861910
View attachment 1861912
I knew I had seen him somewhere before

Is Lucky Phil up before the beak today?

 

[blackshadow]

Damn, I’ve liked Dermie in the past.
Besides the fact that whenever I see him in Bunnings I think I’m half a chance when he gives me that twinklie-eyed grin… He’s always been pretty fair on the football team I support.

Last time I saw Dermie he was up the front at The Prodigy at Future Music Festival in 2013.