Before the announcement on Tuesday evening, AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan briefed club presidents on the agreement reached between the league, the six complainants who took part in the independent process, and the panel assembled to investigate allegations into inappropriate conduct at Hawthorn.
After he detailed the outcomes including that “no adverse findings have been made in the independent investigation against any of the individuals against whom allegations have been made” and that “this agreement does not preclude the AFL from bringing a charge under AFL rules against Hawthorn FC with respect to the commissioning and oversight of the Binmada Report”, a club boss asked: “What has this achieved?”
Hawthorn president Andy Gowers speaks to the media on Wednesday.Credit: Wayne Taylor
It was a reasonable question, one that two people on the hook-up who preferred to remain anonymous confirmed was asked.
Although the deal extracted the AFL from the imbroglio, everyone immediately knew, not least of all Hawthorn, that the saga was not over.
The AFL, according to three industry and league sources who wanted to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the issue, is unhappy with how Hawthorn commissioned, then oversaw, the Binmada Report or “cultural safety review”, as they delved into an area that required significant expertise, care and sensitivity from, not only the consultants, but the club.
AFL legal counsel Stephen Meade will examine their governance in determining whether they can be found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute for the handling of the cultural safety review that may have begun with good intent but ended with explosive documents containing a set of untested, yet serious, allegations about former club officials.
A senior AFL source and a club source say it’s not the reputational cost that came when the allegations of inappropriate treatment of First Nations people at Hawthorn were aired publicly, nor the financial implications of assembling an independent panel in an attempt to get a fair hearing for all parties, that has the AFL reserving right to act against Hawthorn.
It’s the care – or potential lack thereof – afforded the respondents, who were asked – remember the club sought out respondents via an independent consultant – to detail their experiences while at the Hawks without necessary safeguards being put in place to minimise any potential trauma arising from the telling of their truth. Nor is it clear what plans were in place to follow what the club calls “welfare checks” if the anonymous respondents required further support.
Instead, the Hawthorn board received the Binmada Report, then handed it straight to AFL Integrity to investigate.
They did that before making any attempt to contact the former staff who were subject to serious accusations or accessing relevant information they possessed on file to cross-reference the accusations.
The first time that trio – Alastair Clarkson, Chris Fagan and Jason Burt – heard about the accusations was when the ABC contacted them for comment. They did not make comment but responded after the ABC published its report with all three strenuously denying the allegations in separate statements. Fagan, on Tuesday night, called the process a “travesty of justice”.
AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan announces the AFL Investigation has been concluded.Credit: Getty Images
Eventually, the independent investigation panel had Hawthorn go through 37,000 documents seeking relevant documents that may have shed light on the allegations.
As McLachlan said in his statement on Tuesday night: “From the moment that the Hawthorn Football Club’s Binmada Report was leaked without any opportunity for input from the persons against whom serious allegations were made, it has been a period of high distress for all parties.”
Hawthorn will be in dialogue with the AFL as Gowers – who was elected after the AFL appointed the independent panel – tries to limit the damage, saying he would be disappointed if they were subject to sanctions. Based on previous instances where clubs have faced AFL action for bringing the game into disrepute, the Hawks would have a chance to explain their actions if the AFL legal counsel decides they have a case to answer.
McLachlan did not appear in a forgiving mood on Tuesday when he made the point that the prospect of action being taken against Hawthorn under AFL rules remained alive.
Financial penalties, the loss of points, draft penalties or specific sanctions against individuals could be invoked if the club is found to have breached rule 1.6, which covers conduct that is found to be “unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the Australian Football League or to bring the game of football into disrepute”.
The other spin-off from Tuesday’s deal – in which the complainants agreed that the AFL would not be subject to any action in courts or the Australian Human Rights Commission – the Hawks, the complainants (who remain anonymous) and the respondents know there is still plenty to play out in a legal sense.
It’s why Gowers said he viewed Tuesday night’s agreement between the complainants and the AFL with mixed emotions as he knew that being party to a deal, which the club worked towards until the 11th hour, would have allowed the club to move forward.
“There are mixed emotions because although it was a resolution for one or two parties in a sense, it’s not a total resolution. We are not able to move on completely,” Gowers said.
It will only be after the Hawks are able to move on that the president’s question asking what has this all achieved will be answered.
