Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 12 November 2020] p7906a-7921a Dr Tony Buti; Mr Dean Nalder; Mr Simon Millman; Mrs Lisa O'Malley; Mr Peter Rundle; Mr David Michael; Mr John McGrath; Mr Mick Murray; Mr Bill Marmion; Mr Peter Katsambanis; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr Shane Love PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE Seventeenth Report — “More Than Just a Game: The Use of State Funds by the WA Football Commission” — Tabling DR A.D. BUTI (Armadale) [10.27 am]: I present for tabling the seventeenth report of the Public Accounts Committee titled “More Than Just a Game: The Use of State Funds by the WA Football Commission”. I also present for tabling the submissions to the inquiry. [See papers 3980 and 3981.] Dr A.D. BUTI: Football, or Aussie Rules, has played a significant role in the lives of Western Australians for more than 130 years. As former Premier Dr Geoff Gallop remarked, “No sport has had such a critical impact on our social and cultural development as Australian Football.” Football is a game that develops tribal loyalties and arouses passions, but it is also more than just a game. As noted by Dr Neale Fong, a former chair of the West Australian Football Commission, the history of football in Western Australia is not only about footballers, clubs and supporters, it also involves relationships with networks of politicians, governments, businesses and personalities involved in the game. The West Australian Football Commission, established in 1989, is the body charged with responsibility for the overall development and strategic direction of football in this state. The creation of the West Australian Football Commission is unique to WA. No other jurisdiction has a similar government-created body responsible for the management of football. The WAFC receives funding from several sources, including the two Western Australian-based AFL teams—the West Coast Eagles and the Fremantle Dockers. A considerable proportion of its funding also comes from the public purse, directly and indirectly. The catalyst for this inquiry was a series of stories in The West Australian reporting on concerns over salary expenditure in the organisation and unease across the football community with some of the commission’s activities. There was concern that public funds provided to the WAFC were not being used to best effect. These concerns led to the Public Accounts Committee resolving to inquire into the WAFC’s use of state funds. However, as the inquiry proceeded, other issues and criticisms of the WAFC were revealed and articulated. As the premier audit risk committee of the WA Parliament, we could not ignore these revelations and thus have looked into them and made subsequent findings and recommendations. We have made 58 findings and 23 recommendations dealing with issues around the behaviour and responses by the WAFC during this inquiry, state funding of football, elite talent and grassroots football development, the composition and election of WAFC commissioners, and the transparency of the commission. The rationale, analysis and commentary behind our findings and recommendations are contained within our report. The committee has worked collaboratively throughout the process of receiving and considering the evidence. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and contributions of my fellow committee members: the deputy chair, the member for Bateman; the member for Mount Lawley; the member for Bicton; and the member for North West Central. Further, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our secretariat, principal research officer Dr Alan Charlton, and research officer Dr Sam Hutchinson, for their excellent assistance and dedication throughout this inquiry. Before continuing, I would like to note that although many witnesses to the inquiry had criticisms and concerns about the WAFC, there was also acknowledgement that the commission has done many things well. There was also broad recognition that the oversight role of the WAFC is necessary and important for the ongoing success of football in WA. In the submissions and testimony from the WAFC and the West Coast Eagles CEO, Mr Trevor Nisbett, there was a mistaken view that the funding that the commission received from the state government was in effect football money. Any proper reading of the terms of the funding agreement between the WAFC, the AFL and the state shows that the funds received by the commission under the agreement are state moneys. The agreement guarantees the WAFC funding of around $11 million per annum for the first 10 years, which accounts for around one-third of the annual budget for the commission. The state also took over a residual loan of $5.6 million as part of the move to the new Perth Stadium, having paid down $14.5 million in 2005. In addition to this substantial funding and support from the government to the WAFC, the state also provided $23 million over the last five years to individuals, clubs, local governments, and associations connected to supporting grassroots football. We also note that the state provided $10 million each to the West Coast Eagles and the Fremantle Dockers to assist them in building training and administration facilities. The level of state funding provided directly and indirectly to the WAFC and to football in general in Western Australia means that the WAFC is not above scrutiny by government and Parliament. In our interactions with the WAFC, we at times observed a resistance to making information public and a restricted view of transparency. The WAFC sought to have the agreement withheld from public view. Although the WAFC argued this was required under the [1] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 12 November 2020] p7906a-7921a Dr Tony Buti; Mr Dean Nalder; Mr Simon Millman; Mrs Lisa O'Malley; Mr Peter Rundle; Mr David Michael; Mr John McGrath; Mr Mick Murray; Mr Bill Marmion; Mr Peter Katsambanis; Ms Rita Saffioti; Mr Shane Love terms of the agreement, it was disappointing that at 2.46 pm on the day before the scheduled hearing with the WAFC, the committee’s secretariat received a request from the commission to discuss — ‘how the Committee will deal with the confidential nature of the WAFC Funding Agreement’. This appeared to us to be mischievous timing by the WAFC. The WAFC did itself no favours in countering the view that it sought to restrict transparency when it withheld information requested by the committee about the AFL draftee skill history. Further, the attempt to hold inexperienced staff members responsible for failing to provide this information when requested does not reflect well on the leadership of the WAFC. The commission withheld requested information from the committee, and the leadership of the WAFC must accept responsibility for this. The information was provided, but only after prodding by the committee. The committee heard repeated claims that in a meeting of WAFL and WAFC talent managers, WAFC executive manager, Mr Simon Moore-Crouch, referred to our inquiry as a “dog and pony show”. Mr Moore-Crouch refuted the claims and, due to apparent concerns about reprisals, whether or not they were warranted, we received no further corroborating evidence about those statements and could not make a definitive finding on the matter. More troubling was the behaviour of the WAFC commissioner, Mr Grant Dorrington. We found that he interfered in the inquiry process by seeking to persuade the Swan Districts Football Club from making a submission to the inquiry. This finding against Mr Dorrington could have resulted in the committee raising the matter of contempt of Parliament in the Legislative Assembly. However, in light of the fact that the club in the end did make a submission and that its CEO and president appeared before us, although not diminishing the seriousness of the actions taken by Mr Dorrington, we have decided not to raise the matter in the Assembly. It was also concerning that Mr Nisbett, when given two opportunities by the committee at a public hearing, did not refute allegations that at a meeting organised by the WAFC and attended by WAFL representatives and others, he said, “If we do not work together, we could lose our government funding.” The fact that Mr Nisbett was either unable or unwilling to refute this allegation is troubling. It does nothing to dispel the perception that the WAFC and other prominent players in the WA football ecosystem were overly concerned with seeking to restrict information being provided to the inquiry and that the views of the WAFC should be the only views presented to the committee. Notwithstanding the serious concerns raised, we were pleased to receive 21 submissions from across a wide range of participants and organisations. We received formal submissions from eight WAFL clubs, although there was a hesitancy among some about making their submissions public. One club initially sought to keep its submission private, although later agreed to make it public. The only WAFL club not to make a submission was West Perth Football Club. The process to elect the WAFC commissioners is overly complex and restrictive, and the WAFC board is not fully representative of all parts of the football community. Currently, the two WA-based AFL clubs hold 40 per cent of the votes for the appointment of commissioners, which combined with the existing commissioners who also vote, makes up a 60 per cent voting bloc in the determination of new commissioners. The WAFL clubs have 30 per cent of the votes, and the affiliates, which include the metropolitan and non–metropolitan regional football development councils, the Perth Football League, the Metro Football League, the WA Country Football League, the WA Women’s Football League and the AFL Masters, share only 10 per cent of the vote. It should be noted that the affiliates have no say in the final secret ballot on endorsed candidates.