Full secret ICAC recordings of former Renewal SA boss John Hanlon and Georgina Vasilevski revealed
Did they go to the Melbourne Cup, stay in the same hotel room and who did they meet? Read what Renewal SA’s former boss and a female executive have to say in their own words.
SA News
Don't miss out on the headlines from SA News. Followed categories will be added to My News.
In 2020 former Renewal SA boss John Hanlon was charged by the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) Bruce Lander with multiple offences including abuse of public office after investigations triggered by whistleblowers.
Mr Hanlon has always maintained his innocence of allegations he spent $15,000 of taxpayer funds on personal interstate and overseas trips.
He claimed the reports were fabricated because he disciplined four people in his office for bullying a young woman.
The allegations were thrown out of court in June 2021, resurrected four months later and dropped in November 2022 following revelations about ICAC’s conduct.
SCROLL DOWN FOR THE FULL TRANSCRIPTS
In court and under oath, two ex-investigators conceded they were told their interviews with witnesses in Germany had breached international law and were inadmissable.
They also conceded they did not disclose that knowledge to prosecutors, nor did they disclose evidence that was consistent with Mr Hanlon’s claims of innocence.
A review of the investigation and prosecution of Mr Hanlon followed and in June 2023, ICAC Inspector Philip Strickland SC found the watchdog’s decision to investigate Mr Hanlon over the allegations was reasonable and appropriate.
However, he also found its institutional failures led to “maladministration” and “substantial mismanagement” in the investigation itself.
Mr Strickland’s review of ICAC’s investigation includes transcripts of covert recordings of conversations between Mr Hanlon, fellow Renewal SA executive Georgina Vasilevski — who also faced charges which were dropped – and other employees.
The charges related to trips to Melbourne and Germany in 2017.
These are excerpts from Mr Strickland’s 203 page review tabled in state parliament.
The editing of each reference to surveillance devices transcript adopts how Mr Strickland referred to the material in his report.
MELBOURNE TRIP
ICAC officers sought a warrant to use four surveillance devices (SD) under section 17 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2016, to obtain evidence for use in the investigation of Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski.
The application specified that Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski were suspected of having “committed offences of abuse of public office and deception” during a trip to Melbourne in 2017.
The application was supported by a comprehensive 24-page affidavit of ICAC investigator Ms Amanda Bridge dated August 22, 2018.
Mr Strickland’s report notes: “I have read the affidavit of Ms Bridge. It does not contain misrepresentations or embellishments of the evidence,” as claimed by Mr Hanlon.
Investigators also successfully sought to install telephone interception devices.
The warrant for the SDs was issued by the Hon Justice Kelly of the Supreme Court of South Australia on August 23, 2018.
In August 2018, SDs were secretly installed in the offices of Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski at Renewal SA.
The SDs commenced monitoring the offices on August 26 and finished on September 25, 2018, recording multiple conversations between Mr Hanlon, Ms Vasilevski and others.
Mr Strickland’s report notes “Employee A”, Ms Vasilevski and Mr Hanlon met in Mr Hanlon’s office in September 2018 to discuss Ms Vasilevski’s movements in Melbourne which the SDs recorded.
At this point, Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski knew there was an ICAC investigation in relation to the Melbourne trip.
Mr Strickland notes: “It was open to ICAC investigators to form a view that Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski were colluding about their movements in Melbourne”.
Following that conversation, the SDs in Ms Vasilevski’s office recorded Ms Vasilevski, Mr Hanlon and Employee A discussing the Melbourne trip.
The conversation related to what Employee A should tell ICAC when they provided a statement.
On the same day, before the conversation referred to above, the SDs in Mr Hanlon’s office recorded the following conversation between Mr Hanlon, Ms Vasilevski and Employee A regarding where Ms Vasilevski stayed while in Melbourne.
During the course of ICAC’s search of Renewal SA’s premises on September 24, 2018, Ms Vasilevski was interviewed under criminal caution by ICAC investigators Michael Clissold and John Kourabas.
During that interview, Ms Vasilevski stated she only had accommodation documentation for one night of her November 2017 trip to Melbourne because she stayed “with family” for the second night.
a subsequent interview of Employee A conducted by Ms Bridge on October 18, 2018, Employee A advised ICAC investigators that Ms Vasilevski had told her she stayed with a family member in Melbourne, who Employee A thought was her “stepbrother”.
Inquiries by ICAC investigators with Ms Vasilevski’s brother revealed he was not in Melbourne the week of November 6, 2017, and that he did not own a house or rental property there at the time.
Mr Vasilevski’s brother also advised Ms Bridge that he thought Ms Vasilevski had a “few relatives” in Melbourne but that he did not have any contact details for them.
The following day, on September 19, 2018, the SDs in Mr Hanlon’s office recorded a further conversation between Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski regarding the Thursday night in Melbourne.
Mr Strickland noted: “It was open to ICAC investigators to interpret these conversations as Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski colluding about their movements in Melbourne and what they were going to say to ICAC investigators.
“I do not find that this was the only explanation of any of the conversations, but it was one that was reasonably open to ICAC investigators at this stage of the investigation.”
On the same day, the SDs monitored Mr Hanlon and Employee C discussing the meeting between (ICAC investigator) Ms Bridge and Employee A.
They then discussed Mr Hanlon reimbursing Renewal SA for his accommodation at the Grand Hyatt Hotel.
Mr Hanlon directed Employee C to explain to the Accounts Department at SA Renewal that he had always intended to reimburse the payment, stating:
Employee C explained in an affidavit dated February 15, 2019 that Mr Hanlon’s accommodation at the Grand Hyatt Hotel was paid for using his Renewal SA credit card, and at no time during the monthly reconciliation of the transactions on Mr Hanlon’s Renewal SA credit card did Mr Hanlon indicate he wished to reimburse Renewal SA for one night’s accommodation.
On September 19, 2018, Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski discussed an invoice from the Grand Hyatt Hotel for Mr Hanlon’s Melbourne trip which contained incorrect dates.
Employee C explained that around mid-June 2018, Mr Hanlon asked Employee C for a copy of the Grand Hyatt Hotel invoice from his trip in November 2017 and indicated that he had to repay one night’s accommodation.
After Employee C obtained a copy of the invoice, Mr Hanlon wrote on the invoice and dated his handwritten note December 5, 2017.
At around the same time in mid-June 2018, Mr Hanlon directed Employee C to prepare a memorandum stating the invoice for the Grand Hyatt Hotel with his writing on it dated December 5, 2017 had been found in the office and it needed to be reimbursed.
Employee C prepared the memorandum and backdated it to May 31, 2018.
Employee C then explained that in the week of September 18, 2018, they were called into Mr Hanlon’s office where Mr Hanlon appeared angry because the printed date on the tax invoice for the Grand Hyatt Hotel on which Mr Hanlon had written was dated February 5, 2018 (that is, after the date that Mr Hanlon had inserted in his handwritten note).
The SDs recorded a conversation between Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski about this note, with Ms Vasilevski commenting:
Employee A then entered the office and joined the conversation, stating:
EMPLOYEE A whiteout on the dates, and just photocopy it again
Mr Hanlon then told Employee A to alter the original Grand Hyatt Hotel invoice with Employee C the next day, stating:
EMPLOYEE A Um you do that with [Employee C] tomorrow, whatever you have to do, alright.
VASILEVSKI You’d do that to the original....I don’t want, I don’t want to be involved
On September 20, 2018, the conversation referred to in Employee C’s affidavit between Employee C and Mr Hanlon was recorded by the SDs.
Mr Hanlon referred to the Grand Hyatt Hotel invoice and asked
On September 20, 2018, Ms Bridge requested that Employee A provide documentation surrounding the Melbourne trip.
The SDs captured Mr Hanlon, Employee A and Employee C organising the paperwork that Employee A needed to take to her meeting with (ICAC investigator) Ms Bridge.
In the same recording, Mr Hanlon appeared to instruct Employee A on talking points in relation to who he visited in Melbourne.
On September 21, 2018, Employee C and Mr Hanlon appeared to have a discussion
about the ICAC investigation, which, Mr Strickland’s report notes, “was open to be interpreted as an admission (express or implied)”.
Mr Strickland noted: “Ultimately, the material recorded on the SDs led (ICAC investigator) Ms Bridge to suspect that Mr Hanlon influenced others to commit offences, including telling his staff to falsify and backdate records to assist him with inquiries from ICAC.”
Mr Strickland went on to further note: “I make no findings that the recorded conversations prove that Mr Hanlon engaged in corrupt conduct or in any criminal offence.
“I do find that the interpretation placed on those recorded conversations by ICAC was reasonably open to its officers.
“The evidence of those conversations shaped ICAC’s investigations into Mr Hanlon and they were relevant in ICAC’s decision to refer the Melbourne allegations to the DPP for adjudication.”
GERMAN TRIP
In March 2019, Ms Bridge completed a review of the extraction report of Mr Hanlon’s phone and identified the following communications between Mr Hanlon and his daughter, Ms Kate Hanlon, on June 14, 2017.
Mr Hanlon received approval to travel to the Europe Business Mission for September 7-19, 2017 but later cancelled the trip due to other work commitments, and a SA delegation left without him.
He was then rebooked on a flight to Berlin on September 19, with the itinerary recording travel to “Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Munich and Berlin between 21 and 28 September 2017”.
ICAC investigator Ms Bridge’s analysis of data from Mr Hanlon’s phone revealed Mr Hanlon arrived at Kate Hanlon’s home in Berlin on September 20, 2017 and Mr Hanlon’s wife and daughter arrived in Berlin on September 21, 2017.
It showed from September 20-28, 2017, Mr Hanlon’s telephone contained photographs and communications which indicated he only stayed in Berlin until leaving for Frankfurt late on September 28, 2017; and that night he stayed overnight at a hotel at Frankfurt Airport with his wife and daughter.
Ms Bridge stated in her affidavit: “The review of Hanlon’s mobile phone for the period 20 to 29 September 2017 did not provide evidence of him travelling outside of Berlin or meeting with any of the companies or persons listed on the itinerary prepared by [Employee D] on 15 September 2017”.
Ms Bridge stated in her affidavit: “Hanlon had travelled to Berlin, Germany on 19 September and returned to Adelaide on 30 September 2017. This trip was represented by Hanlon to Renewal SA staff as an official business trip, however it is alleged the trip was a family holiday for Hanlon to visit his pregnant and expecting daughter, Kate Hanlon in Berlin, Germany.
“As a result of my review of the extraction of Hanlon’s iPhone, I suspected from the information that the conduct could give rise to potential issues of corruption in public administration that the ICAC may wish to investigate.”
THE COURT CASE
In November 2022, just before the case before Mr Hanlon was dropped, the issue of mobile phone records was raised in the District Court.
His counsel revealed an ICAC analysis of Mr Hanlon’s phone, conducted in August 2019, matched cell towers near multiple German businesses he insisted he visited a year earlier.
The court heard it also shows Mr Hanlon’s phone “kilometres apart” from those of his wife and daughter – contrary to prosecution claims he was on a taxpayer-funded personal trip.
David Edwardson KC, for Mr Hanlon, said that document was only provided to his client’s legal team last week – 32 months after his client was charged.
“This is critical exculpatory evidence that should have been disclosed and, to our horror, has never been disclosed,” he said.
“What’s even more troubling is ICAC had this information even before its investigators left to travel to Berlin.
“It is, quite frankly, deplorable that this information was only disclosed for the first time on Friday.”
THE REVIEW TABLED IN PARLIAMENT
Mr Strickland’s review noted: “The inquiries raised reasonable suspicions about the purpose of Mr Hanlon’s Germany trip and gave rise to a potential issue of corruption in public administration, particularly considering the investigation that was being undertaken into the Melbourne trip, which involved similar alleged conduct.
“Mr Lander’s decision to investigate the Germany trip was reasonable and appropriate in circumstances where the Commissioner reasonably assessed the evidence as giving rise to a potential issue of corruption in public administration.”
REPORT CONCLUSIONS
In his report’s conclusion Mr Strickland stated: “My role is not to examine whether Mr Hanlon was guilty of corrupt or criminal conduct.
“Mr Hanlon has not been convicted of any offence arising out of the ICAC investigation which was the subject of referrals to the DPP.
“Mr Hanlon is entitled to the presumption of innocence and nothing in this report should be construed as inculpating him in the commission of any criminal offence. I make the same point in relation to Ms Vasilevski.”
Regarding ICAC’s investigation of Mr Hanlon’s Melbourne trip, Mr Strickland concluded: “The decision by Mr Lander to investigate Mr Hanlon’s Melbourne trip and the report by the employee of Renewal SA about the use of public funds was justified and appropriate in the circumstances as the report was reasonably assessed as giving rise to a potential issue of corruption in public administration.
“Further, the investigation into Mr Hanlon’s Melbourne trip was not conducted with any unreasonable delay, or in a manner that caused undue invasion of privacy or undue prejudice to the reputation of any person.
“The conversations recorded on the SDs strengthened the need for the investigation. It was an appropriate decision by ICAC to investigate the Melbourne trip to achieve the objective of detecting corruption in public office.
“I find that there was no evidence that the complaints that gave rise to the investigation of the Melbourne trip were vexatious or motivated by bad faith. Further, I do not accept that the allegation was trivial because it only involved $4500 of public funds.
“I am also satisfied that ICAC’s decision to seek SD warrant, TI warrants and search warrants were appropriate in light of the evidence available to ICAC investigators at the time of those applications.”
With regard to the investigation of the trip to Germany, Mr Strickland concluded: “I find that ICAC’s decision to investigate Mr Hanlon’s Germany trip was based on a reasonable and appropriate consideration of the evidence giving rise to a potential issue of corruption in public administration.
“Having formed that view, the Commissioner was obligated to investigate or refer under section 24(1) of the ICAC Act. It was reasonable in the circumstances for ICAC not to refer the Germany trip to SAPOL.”
However, he was scathing of the investigators’ actions including failure to contact the Australian Embassy or the AFP prior to travelling to Germany and then ignoring their advice, as well as failing to obey German law.
“Their failure to do so constituted an infringement of Germany’s sovereignty. The conduct also had the potential to cause diplomatic embarrassment to Australia or South Australia,” his report states.
Mr Strickland’s report ends by stating: “I have found that there was sufficient evidence to justify the investigation by ICAC into Mr Hanlon’s Melbourne and Germany trips. I have also found that the referral of those allegations to the DPP were appropriate and reasonable.”
He also noted there was “substantial mismanagement in relation to ICAC’s official functions resulting from incompetence or negligence” but has “regard to the measures ICAC has now put in place to prevent such deficiencies from happening in the future.
“I consider those measures are appropriate and reasonable.”
SA in mourning after shock death of ‘Australia’s nicest bloke’
Australians far and wide have come together for the grieving family of Adelaide man Tommy Oswald, who has died suddenly aged 33.
Rain bomb alert: Wet start to school term with 80mm on the way
Don’t put your brolly away! A wet week has been forecast for Adelaide and parts of SA – with the chances of a massive downpour over the weekend.