Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the tabling of this unanimous community affairs committee report on the future of rugby union in Australia. I supported this reference because I believed that Western Force supporters deserved to know why their beloved team was culled so brutally and so inexplicably. It became clear to me over the course of this inquiry that the custodians of this game, the ARU, had little practical accountability to their grassroots—the very people they are custodians of this sport for.

As a senator for Western Australia, I saw and I felt the palpable depth of passion for this sport in my state—a sport that has actually been played in Western Australia since the 1860s. I was moved more than I can tell you by their anger, by their sadness and by the tears of the rugby union players themselves. There was sheer bewilderment at this inexplicable and this brutal decision. What strengthened my resolve—in fact, made me resolved—to seek this inquiry was the 8,000-strong crowd in Perth on 20 August. It absolutely demonstrated to me that the WA rugby community deserved an answer. Their pain and their despair on that day, and since then, has only been exacerbated by the failure of the ARU to even come and address them at that rally or subsequently, and provide them with the answers to this decision. All I can say is what poor custodianship of this great game and, in fact, what cowardice.

As I said in this chamber on 17 August, if the ARU had nothing to hide in their decision-making processes, they had absolutely nothing to fear from this inquiry. But not only did their cowardice indicate their unwillingness to account for their actions; this inquiry demonstrated to me just why they were so keen for it not to proceed. I promised at that rally to provide answers for supporters, for players and for their families but also for federal taxpayers who fund this sport through the Australian Sports Commission and, as a senator for Western Australia, for WA taxpayers who, in good faith, invested well over $100 million in infrastructure for this sport.

The Senate is a powerful forum for Australians to seek transparency and obtain answers to issues that they cannot possibly get in any other forum. I believe this inquiry has achieved that outcome. Initially, the committee had scheduled a single hearing in Perth, but it was very clear to me, to the chair, Senator Siewert, and to the other senators present that many more questions had arisen not just in relation to the axing of Western Force but also broader ones about the governance, about their due process, about player welfare and also about the long-term viability of this sport in Australia.

Consequently, we held two additional hearings which have gone somewhat towards providing a clearer picture of what happened. But, as Senator Siewert has just indicated, I think there are many more questions now for those who have been responsible for making these decisions to account for to the sport and to their grassroots but also to a range of other agencies that we've mentioned in this report. While there are now further issues for the committee to consider in relation to the evidence that we have already received, it is now over to the relevant agencies and also the rugby union community itself to review the report and to review all of the public evidence to determine the future of their sport.

I was personally very disappointed with the sport's custodians, the ARU. They had the opportunity to see this inquiry as a way of fully and transparently explaining the circumstances that led to the decision to save the Melbourne Rebels and cull the Western Force. Sadly, they did not. Even before this inquiry commenced hearing evidence, it was very clear that the ARU representatives were resentful. They were contemptuous and even publicly dismissive of this committee inquiry. I also believe there were inappropriate and highly misdirected attempts by ARU officials to stop this inquiry. But, for me, one of the greatest tragedies in this sad tale of ARU stewardship is that since 2008 at least 13 reviews were conducted into governance and grassroots engagement, but there was no discernible evidence provided to this committee throughout this inquiry that there was any discernible improvement to the health of the sport as a result of this continuous cycle of reviews. While the sport's administration was being endlessly reviewed, it was also clear in the evidence that it was being driven close to insolvency by the custodians of this sport, which, at the end of the day, according to the ARU, resulted in their decision to cull one Super Rugby team.

For me, there is a great deal of irony that these captains of industry who are the custodians of this sport have financially driven this great sport to the brink of insolvency. I was left thinking, 'In what universe does saving the worst-performing and most financially subsidised team make sense?' It clearly does not. These captains of industry gave a private company—a private company!—a deal of a lifetime. For $1 this company got a completely debt-free licence. They had $12 million-plus of loans waived, and all for $1. And, as we have now found out, there were extra secret payments made to the Super Rugby franchise owners for which there was no requirement for that money to be spent at all on the sport. The kicker is, after all of this, within two years this deal had only further exacerbated the financial woes not only of the Melbourne Rebels but also of the ARU. I still struggle after listening to all of this evidence to understand how you grow a sport by cutting it.

In light of the evidence, the committee has made, as Senator Siewert has said, eight recommendations to strengthen governance and accountability and to assist salvaging the future of this federally funded sport in Australia. Firstly, the committee recommends that the Australian Sports Commission consider a new principle in relation to the national sporting organisation, including a commitment and duty to player welfare. We heard utterly shameful evidence that the ARU paid absolutely no attention whatsoever to player welfare. This has to change, for rugby and for other sports. The committee also recommends that the ARU immediately transfer all trademarks and intellectual property back to Rugby WA, given that there are still teams around Western Australia that are utilising the branding. Here's my idea, ARU: how about you sell them back to the Western Force or Rugby WA for $1? Thirdly, the committee recommends the WA state government continue to review evidence now available to them and seek further legal advice on the assurances that were made to them by the ARU. The committee also recommends that all national sporting organisations learn from the ARU experience about how not to keep engaged with the grassroots. Finally, and probably most seriously, the committee recommends that ASIC review evidence on the process used in the Melbourne Rebels transaction and on the finances outlined in the ARU's annual reports. There is clearly, in our minds, a discrepancy.

As a nation, we have a long and proud sporting tradition. It's part of our culture. It's part of every fibre of who we are as a people. Having strong, sustainable and community focused sporting teams is in the national interest. Therefore, we as a committee believe it is only sensible that the Commonwealth government review world's best practice in funding and performance measures to strengthen the performance across our national sporting landscape.

In conclusion, I thank Senator Siewert for her masterful chairmanship throughout this inquiry. I also sincerely thank the committee secretariat for the work they have done, over and above, to deliver this report. I also thank all colleagues in this chamber who have supported this inquiry. I again acknowledge Senator Watt for his support and engagement in this process. As Senator Siewert has also done, I acknowledge and thank all of those who gave evidence in, as she described, often difficult circumstances. The committee will now further review the circumstances of the provision of this evidence and the content of the evidence. I look forward to having more to say on this in the future. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.