What they said ... `The AFL has earned a reputation as a pacesetter among Australian sports organisations on matters such as racial vilification' The Age editorial of April 8, 1999
'If you are going to be serious about stopping racism on the field, there has to be a penalty, just like there is for rough play' Professor Colin Tatz, the head of the Centre for Genocide Studies at Macquarie University.
The issue of racism in Australian Rules football has attracted media attention this year.
Three key incidents received particular attention.
On March 9, 1999, Carlton president, John Elliot referred to Aborigines as a `forgotten race' who avoided work in an address to the Institute of Accountants.
On March 25, 1999, co-host of The Footy Show, Sam Newman, darkened his face to imitate Western Bulldog's player Nicky Winmar and referred to him as going `walkabout'. Also present were Footy Show host Eddie McGuire, president of the Collingwood Football Club and John Elliot.
On April 4, 1999, Melbourne's Scott Chisholm complained to the field umpire that he had been racially abused by St Kilda's Peter Everitt. The umpire sent an official letter of complaint to the AFL's operations manager, Ian Collins.
These incidents have led to claims that racism remains an issue within the AFL and that stronger action needs to be taken against it.
Background
In 1995 the AFL introduced its Rule 30, relating to racial and religious vilification.
Under the terms of this rule mediation is to be used in an attempt to resolve any complaint of on-field racial abuse. Should this fail the matter is to be referred to the AFL's Tribunal. If found guilty by the Tribunal an offending player can be indefinitely suspended, fined or both. His club can be fined up to $50,000 if it is considered not to have adequately discouraged racism.
A number of events led to the introduction of Rule 30.
In April, 1993, Nicky Winmar, then playing for St Kilda, lifted his jersey and pointed to his skin in respond to racial taunts from spectators.
In April, 1995, Collingwood ruckman Damian Monkhurst was alleged to have called Essendon's Michael long a `black bastard'. This last incident was the particular spur for the AFL's new regulation.
By the end of 1997 ten complaints of racial vilification had been heard by the Tribunal but no player or club had been found guilty.
In the current controversy the AFL has indicated its Rule 30 may not give it the authority to take action against club officials such as Edie McGuire, whom it also does not consider the primary source of any racial abuse Nicky Winmar may have suffered.
With regard to Peter Everitt, it at first appeared that his case may go compulsorily before the Tribunal as this was the second time complaints of racial abuse had been levelled against him.
However St Kilda challenged this, claiming as the first accusations had been settled by private mediation without the intervention of the Tribunal.
In the event Everitt apologised for his remarks and volunteered to stand down for four league games and to donate $20,000 to any Aboriginal community scheme Scott Chisholm nominated.
The Tribunal accepted this as sufficient punishment.
Apparently under pressure from his sponsors and network, Sam Newman also apologised for the Nicky Winmar skit. However, he has since termed his apology a 'charade' and claimed the whole issue was a media beat-up.
There are a number of websites that deal with the issue of racism within the AFL and within Australian sport more generally.
The magazine Sports Monthly has an on-line site, SportsWatch. In 1998 it carried an article titled, Black Power, written by Gary Lester.
This is an interesting and informative six-page article which reviews the treatment received by Aboriginal athletes in a range of competitions from the 1800s through to the present. It includes comments on the treatment of Aboriginal players in the AFL competition and in rugby.
The article can be found at http://www.sportswatch.com.au/sm-html/26.blackpower.html
On April 9, 1999, Radio National's sports discussion and interview program, The Sports Factor, dealt with the issue of sport and cultural diversity.
The first seven pages of this ten page transcript are of general relevance to the racism and sport issue. Of particular interest is the interview with Tui Crumpen, a Project Officer with the Shepparton Koori Resource Centre in central-north Victoria.
Ms Crumpen outlines the efforts being made by the Rumbalara Football and Netball Clubs to overcome prejudice against their successful Aboriginal teams.
The transcript can be found at
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/sportsf/sstories/sf990409.htm
New Zealand's Network One News site carried an item on September 9, 1998, dealing with the first racial vilification case in which the National Rugby League board would act as mediator. This was the first time such a case had gone beyond the mediation level in Australian sport.
The article titled Historic hearing for race case can be found at http://tvone.co.nz/sports/stories/09Sep0723.html
Law Foor You is a highly accessible legal information site currently supplying information on the law as it operates in New South Wales and Victoria.
The site's main page can be found at http://www.law4u.com.au/index.html
A subsection of the site deals with 'footy law', including the operation of the AFL Tribunal. It makes some reference to how the Tribunal operates when a charge is brought under the League's Racial & Religious Vilification Rule.
This subsection of the site can be found at http://www.law4u.com.au/footylaw/footy_law_tribunal.html
The AFL Official Web Site has an archived news section carrying reports from a range of newspapers and television channels treating AFL-related issues. These are interesting and informative, however, you need to be aware that the content of the archives changes regularly and so the articles about to be referred to may not remain permanently available.
An article originally carried in The Herald Sun on April 7, 1999, can be found at http://www.afl.com.au/news/story_136175.htm
It is titled Petrol-sniff jibe may have sparked uproar and details Peter Everitt and St Kilda's initial attempts to deny or reduce the impact of the allegations
An article originally carried in The (Adelaide) Advertiser on April 10, 1999, and can be found at http://www.afl.com.au/news/story_136580.htm
It is titled $80,000 handshake ends racism row and details the settlement finally arrived at between Scott Chisholm, Peter Everitt and the AFL Tribunal.
Arguments against the AFL introducing stronger anti-racial vilification regulations
Those who argue in favour of the AFL's current anti-racial vilification regulations do some for a number of reasons.
Firstly it is noted that the AFL was a leader in Australian sporting competitions in introducing anti-racial vilification regulations and that the rule it has introduced has been used as a model by a number of other codes, including rugby.
This fact has been conceded in The Age editorial of April 8, 1999. The editorial stated, `The AFL has earned a reputation as a pacesetter among Australian sports organisations on matters such as racial vilification. The league acknowledged that the practice had been left unquestioned in the culture of the game for too long and developed disciplinary procedures to deal with it.'
Secondly, it has been claimed that the emphasis that Rule 30 places on mediation is appropriate.
According to this line of argument the mediation model is the one used in workplaces where charges of racial abuse are made.
It is further claimed that mediation is the only form of resolution possible where the matter frequently comes down to one player's word against another's.
In this context proof is not available. There are generally no witnesses who can confirm the nature of a supposedly offensive remark and so the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the player accused of the abuse.
Mediation is seen as a way of resolving this deadlock.
This position has also been acknowledged in The Age editorial of April 8, 1999, which stated that disciplinary hearings should not take place `if the complaint is a matter of one player's word against another's.'
Another argument offered in favour of mediation is that even where racial abuse has been overheard by an umpire who can therefore report it, the significance of the offence can be said to depend in part on the reaction of the player against whom the abuse was directed.
This point has been made by 1990 Brownlow medallist, Tony Liberatore.
Tony Liberatore has claimed, `When I'm called a "wog" it doesn't matter at all ... I don't even think about it. I don't see it as some massive insult.'
Under these circumstances it has been argued it is appropriate to have the person against whom the abuse was directed involved in determining what is an appropriate penalty. This is seen as one of the advantages of mediation.
It has also been noted that the nature of mediation is that a mutually acceptable resolution is arrived at.
Supporters of the current regulations note that although most disputes since 1995 have been resolved by mediation, this would not have happened had the resolution not been to the satisfaction of the player who had made the complaint of racial abuse.
This point has been made in relation to the most recent accusation levelled against Peter Everitt by Scott Chisholm.
Scott Chisholm has been reported to be satisfied with the outcome of his complaint against Peter Everitt.
Mr Chisholm has said, `we sorted this out man to man ... as we do on the football field.'
Michael McLean, a former captain of the Aboriginal All-Stars also expressed satisfaction with the result.
Mr McLean has claimed that all the AFL's Aboriginal players were `very happy' with the result.
It has also been noted that the severity of Peter Everitt's self-imposed penalty indicates that a mediated result does not have to be a soft option.
Finally, it has been claimed that mediation reduces the confrontationist attitudes that often follow the lodging of a complaint. It has been argued that mediation is a better means of ensuring mutual understanding and good will.
This point has been made by Peter Everitt, who has claimed, `I realised how hard it's been on Scott, his family, myself and I can see the effect it's had on my family and I've learned a lot from it. I think I've learnt over the last few days a lot more than I knew.'
Finally, with regard to suggestions that the AFL should take action against players or club officials who make racist comments off the field, it has been suggested that there are a number of constraints acting against this.
Firstly, with regard to John Elliott's comments, it has been noted that Mr Elliott was not acting as the president of the Carlton Football Club when he made his remarks. He was speaking to a group of accountants as a prominent Australian businessman.
It could also be claimed that as the remarks were not directed at any particular Aboriginal football player they were not really the concern of the AFL.
This point has been made by the Liberal Party, of which Mr Elliott was once president. A number of prominent Liberals, including the Prime Minister have stated that Mr Elliott was expressing his personal views and not speaking for either them or their party.
With regard to Eddie McGuire and John Elliott's involvement in Sam Newman's Aboriginal skit it would appear that the AFL considers the episode primarily the work of Mr Newman and further considers Mr McGuire's public apology adequate reparation for his level of involvement.
Arguments in favour of the AFL introducing stronger anti-vilification regulations
The primary complaint made about the AFL's Rule 30 against racial and religious vilification is that it gives too much prominence to mediation as a means of settling disputes.
It has been noted that to date Peter Everitt is the only player to have suffered a financial penalty or been suspended from games as a result of a racial vilification accusation. All other disputes have either been settled via mediation or accusations have been dismissed at a Tribunal hearing because of a lack of evidence.
It has been claimed that the emphasis on mediation allows players who fear that they may be found guilty at a Tribunal hearing to offer an apology and so escape any other penalty.
The concern of critics of the current rule is that these apologies are tokenistic and do nothing to modify the subsequent behaviour either of the accused player or of others who may be tempted to act similarly.
This point has been made by West Coast Eagles coach, Mick Malthouse, who has claimed that it is easy to say sorry in a mediation session and then forget about it. Mr Malthouse has gone on to claim that a suspension would help to make sure that players did not forget that racial abuse was not tolerated.
A similar point has been made by Professor Colin Tatz, the head of the Centre for Genocide Studies at Macquarie University.
Profesor Tatz considers the mediation or conciliation model `flawed' and argues that racial vilification offenders should face suspensions.
'If you are going to be serious about stopping racism on the field, there has to be a penalty, just like there is for rough play,' Professor Tatz has suggested.
A similar point was made in an Age editorial published on April 8, 1999.
The editorial acknowledges that the question of proof can be more difficult in accusations of racial abuse and it does not argue that penalties can automatically apply where it is a matter of one player's word against anothers.
However, the editorial argues that where the racial abuse accusation can be supported by an umpire then a Tribunal hearing and appropriate penalties should automatically follow.
The editorial states, `If the AFL is serious about sending a message that racial and religious vilification are unacceptable, umpires should have the power to treat instances of vilification in the same way as they would instances of striking.'
The underlying argument here is that racial vilification is not a trivial matter. Critics of the current regulations and their operation argue that racial vilification is verbal assault and deserves to be treated as seriously as physical abuse on the field.
This point has been made by Dr Diane Sisley, the chief executive of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission.
Dr Sisely has stated, `Make no mistake, verbal attacks can hurt just as much as physical ones ...
Sledging someone because of their skin colour or their private life hurts them where they live, encourages a climate where this kind of behaviour and worse is tolerated and is downright lousy sportsmanship.
It might have been tolerated in the past, but in today's world it is indefensible.'
A further complaint raised about Rule 30 is that its scope may not be wide enough.
According to this line of argument, if the rule does not allow the AFL to take action against club officials, or players, who make racist remarks off the field then it needs to be modified so that the AFL can inflict a penalty on those who behave in this way.
This point was made in The Age editorial of April 8.
The editorial stated, `The Footy Show raises a question about the scope of the vilification rules, which at present concern only incidents on the field. But what if a television presenter also happens to be a player or official, as is the case of The Footy Show's Eddy McGuire, who is president of Collingwood? It is hoped that the review of the vilification rules being undertaken by Ian Collins will allow those who infringe the rules off the field to be disciplined, too.'
The underlying argument here is that football players and officials are powerful role models and if they are able to make racist comments off the field with apparent impunity they help to create a climate where this behaviour is seen as acceptable.
Their capacity to act as role models is, it is suggested, further magnified when their comments are made on television or radio, or where they receive media attention.
This point has been made by Gatjil Djerrkura, chairman of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.
Mr Djerrkura claimed, `My fears ... that the lack of action by the AFL or Carlton against Elliot's remarks would lead to more trouble were quickly realised.
Little more than a week later Elliott appeared on the infamous episode of The Footy Show when he joined with Sam Newman in mocking the absence of footy star Nicky Winmar ...
The involvement of Eddie McGuire, Collingwood's president, and Elliott set an appalling example.'
Further implications
It would appear that the question of how best to address problems of racial abuse within the AFL has been at least temporarily held over. The general reaction to Peter Everitt's apology and self-imposed penalties was favourable both within the media and the Aboriginal community.
At one point it was reported that the AFL operation's manager Ian Collins was reviewing the operation of Rule 30. It is not clear whether, now that this particular complaint has been satisfactorily resolved, this review has gone ahead.
The next development is likely to be provoked by the next complaint about racial abuse on the field.
Some of the difficulties of dealing with the issue seem to be beyond the scope of regulation to fix. For example, it is difficult to see what, apart from mediation, can be recommended when an accusation and a defence boil down to one man's word against another's.
Some of the broader issues regarding the disciplining of club officials and what action, if any, can be taken against players and officials who make racist remarks off the field still remain to be addressed.
One interesting development has been the almost universally negative response which the remarks of both John Elliott and Sam Newman appear to have received.
Particularly in Mr Newman's case his Footy Show skit appears to have cost him a lucrative Ford sponsorship.
It may be that public disapproval and the consequent loss of financial endorsements may go some way toward regulating the behaviour of players and others, both on and off the field. It has been claimed, for example, that Peter Everitt's contract with Puma sportswear was under review following his racist remarks. Presumably, his apology, self-imposed fine and subsequent good behaviour may help him retain this contract.
Other players, club representatives and football commentators are likely to learn the same lesson.
Sources The Age
11/6/98 page 17 comment by Sophie Cunningham, `A sorry day for football'
6/3/99 page 6 (Extra section) comment and analysis by Stephanie Holt, `The importance of being Nicky'
8/4/99 page 14 editorial, `Vilification rules need to be tougher'
10/4/99 page 1 news item by Patrick Smith, `Everitt stands down for four'
The Australian
5/4/99 page 13 comment by Phil Cleary, `A white stain on football'
7/4/99 page 5 news item by Michael Davis, `Saints, AFL ruck over racism'
7/4/99 page 5 comment by Michael Davis, `Bigotry gets the bounce'
7/4/99 page 5 time-line, `A history of taunts'
8/4/99 page 5 news item by Tim Pegler and Michael Davis, `AFL tackles racism, dual complaints against Everitt'
19/5/99 page 5 news item by Benjamin Haslem, 1Newman dismisses apology "charade"'
The Herald Sun
7/4/99 page 7 time-line, `The color of conflict'
7/4/99 page 7 news item by Michelle Coffey & Mark Stevens, `New footy race claim'
10/4/99 page 1 news item by Scott Gullan & Michelle Coffey, `Sorry Saint"
10/4/99 page 8 news item by Elissa Hunt & Michelle Coffey, `Tears after race taunt'
10/4/99 page 9 comment by Mike Sheahan, `The day a tall man grew as a person'
10/4/99 page 9 news item by Michelle Coffey, 'Everitt's penalty cheered'
10/4/99 page 23 analysis by John Beveridge, 'War on racism'
16/4/99 page 19 comment by Gatjil Djerrkura, `Nail the heavies too'
23/4/99 page 19 comment by Diana Sisely, 'Clean up all our sport'
