SAJC--report of inquiry into suitability of close associates - Portellos ...

Inquiry into the suitability of certain close associates of the
South Australian Jockey Club
Report
Mr Naffine was asked about a request made by solicitors Griffin Hilditch (on behalf
of Bill Spear) demanding that relevant election documents be preserved. He recalled
the issue and that he had delegated its handling to Mr Pedler. He agreed that he could
have contacted the returning officer and directed him to retain all documents. He did
not do so because he had not been advised to do so by Mr Pedler.
Mr Naffine was asked about the SAJC board process by which all payments over
$10 000 are reported to the board. Mr Naffine regarded this process as giving the
board an opportunity to identify exceptional payments, and to otherwise monitor its
costs. He agreed that it would be wrong for a payment of more than $10 000 to be
broken into smaller payments so that they would not be reported to the board.
Mr Naffine was asked about a set of cheques aggregating $21 000 as the net payout to
the CEO in respect of accrued but non-payable long service leave. He said that Mr
Ploubidis had approached him for an advance payment in respect of his long service
leave because he needed the money for personal reasons. Mr Naffine stated that Mr
Ploubidis did not state the nature of the personal reasons. He regarded it as not being
uncommon to assist a senior employee who has asked for help. Mr Naffine was
unaware that the long service leave had been paid by cheque or that the cheques had
been cashed at Morphettville Junction.
Mr Naffine was asked whether the board had approved the payment and whether there
was any record of such approval, noting that Lipman Karas could not identify a
related board minute. Mr Naffine responded:
No, and that’s correct, and I explained that to Mr Lipman. Because it was of a personal nature,
I wanted to discuss it with my board personally. So I asked the executive team to leave the
room. I did not want Mr Ploubidis to be embarrassed in front of his staff that he had a personal
need.
I raised it, I put it to the board, and they approved it, and the fact that Bill Spear to this day
doesn’t remember it—he could have been asleep again.
He accepted that, notwithstanding this, a number of staff members would inevitably
find out about the payment because the cheque would have to be raised. He also
accepted that, as it was ultimately cashed in the gaming machine venue, it would have
come at least to the attention of the gaming manager.
He agreed that, in retrospect, a minute simply reciting the decision should have been
made.
Mr Naffine was asked about the CEO’s salary sacrifice arrangements. He responded
that he did not know what the arrangements were, he does not use salary sacrifice in
his own business and, once he had become aware of it, it was something he was
minded to reverse. When the Lipman Karas investigation commenced he spoke to the
financial controller about whether there were any issues likely to arise.
So far as Mr Naffine was aware, the contract with the CEO did not make express
reference to salary sacrifice.
Mr Naffine told the Authority that, once the financial controller had told him that
there were issues with Mr Ploubidis’s salary sacrifice, he had directed Mr Ploubidis to
19