A report on the WA Football Commission has criticised its boss Grant Dorrington and West Coast chief Trevor Nisbett, while also suggesting the AFL draft age should be higher.
A report on the WA Football Commission has criticised its boss Grant Dorrington and West Coast Eagles chief executive Trevor Nisbett, while also suggesting the AFL draft age should be higher.
The Public Accounts Committee in August launched an inquiry into the way the WAFC spent its money after The West Australian published a series of stories concerning the salaries of some of the organisation’s members.
The report, published today, highlighted transparency issues in reporting by the WAFC with particular regard to a funding arrangement between the commission, the state government and the AFL.
The committee found that the WAFC withheld information about AFL draftees, and that its commissioner Mr Dorrington had interfered with the inquiry process by seeking to persuade the Swan Districts Football Club from making a submission to the inquiry.
Swan Districts nonetheless made its submission, and the committee did not raise the matter with the Legislative Assembly.
The committee also found that Mr Nisbett, when given two opportunities at a public hearing, did not refute allegations related to a meeting between the WAFC and WAFL representatives.
Mr Nisbett at that meeting said "If we do not work together we could lose our government funding", the committee found.
Tony Buti, who chaired the inquiry, said the fact that Mr Nisbett did not refute the allegation was 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," Dr Buti said.
The committee has made 23 recommendations, which include WAFC becoming more transparent and open to scrutiny, as well as raising the AFL draft age to allow for more education and training opportunities before players enter the AFL system.
"The WAFC has done many things well but there are many concerns and problems that need to be addressed, including a concerning level of distrust between the WAFC and many stakeholders," Dr Buti said.
He said that, due to the high number of football clubs in the state (more than 460), there should also be a closer working relationship between the state’s department of sport and the WAFC “to deliver the greatest accountability and assurance to parliament and the public”.
Sport and Recreation Minister Mick Murray and the Department of Local Government Sport and Cultural Industries are the state’s representatives in the major football funding arrangement with the AFL.
Under the agreement, the WAFC receives about $11 million each year, generated from income at Optus Stadium.
That accounts for about a third of the annual budget for the commission, the report said.
WA is the only state with a government-created body responsible for managing its two AFL teams, as well as the state league (WAFL) and the broader football community.
The WAFC gets most of its revenue from the state government, followed by funds provided by the AFL and royalties from the West Coast Eagles and the Fremantle Dockers, which it owns.
Outside of its funding arrangement with the WAFC, the state government provided $5.6 million to support the move to Optus Stadium in 2018 and a further $23 million over the past five years to support grassroots football.
It also put $20 million towards training facilities for both Fremantle and West Coast, which was matched by the federal government.
Dr Buti said, given the level of funding, the WAFC was not above scrutiny.
“In our interactions with the WAFC, we have at times observed a resistance to making information public and a restrictive view of transparency,” he said.
“The WAFC sought to have the agreement withheld from public view.”
Dr Buti said the WAFC, one day before its scheduled hearing with the Public Accounts Committee, had questioned how the PCA would deal with the confidential nature of the footy commission’s funding arrangement.
“This appeared to us to be mischievous timing by the WAFC,” Dr Buti said.
"The WAFC must accept that it is the beneficiary of significant state funding and thus must be more open and transparent to scrutiny, both from government and parliament.
"We were disappointed by the apparent disinclination to transparency we found throughout our inquiry."
Part of the solution, Dr Buti said, would be that the WAFC board become more representative of the football 'ecosystem'.
The committee has recommended the WAFC work to devolve its service delivery work, in particular increasing the role of WAFL clubs in talent development and control of the Colts competition.
WAFC should also simplify its internal election processes and extend board membership to affiliates, Dr Buti said.
"This needs to change to create a fairer voting system among the wider football family, specifically to ensure that the affiliates have greater representation on the WAFC board," he said.
