Senate Adjournment Debate
26 August 2002
Matildas
Tonight I wish to talk about some very serious and alarming issues relating to the Matildas, Australia’s representative women’s soccer team.
A number of serious allegations regarding the financial and ethical behaviour of the Australian Women’s Soccer Association and Soccer Australia have been brought to my attention.
These issues, I believe, warrant inclusion in the proposed inquiry into soccer in Australia, which Sport Minister Kemp announced in mid August.
I have written to Minister Kemp requesting him to investigate these matters as they relate to financial and ethical management of women’s soccer.
I have asked the Minister to include all the circumstances surrounding the filming of a television advertisement involving the Matildas.
I have also called on the Minister to investigate the expenditure and accounting of public and private funds which were allocated to the Australian Women’s Soccer Association in the lead up to the 1999 World Cup and the 2000 Sydney Olympics.
The Minister’s proposed inquiry into soccer should also investigate allegations that young female athletes were duped into appearing topless for this ad.
I take very seriously any allegations that young female athletes were duped into taking their clothing off for a television commercial.
I also take very seriously allegations that female athletes were pressured into appearing in this sort of ad because they were told the sport needed the revenue.
For instance, did the Australian Women’s Soccer Association inform the national coaches of the Matildas that a toothpaste ad to be filmed in Perth required young female athletes to appear in only a flesh-coloured G-string?
And how is it that only half the Matildas squad were made aware that the ad was to take place?
Furthermore, what was the process for picking players for the ad?
Who decided which members of the Matildas would be required to take part?
More importantly, why was it that players who were selected to take part in this ad were not told before hand that they would be required to appear without clothes?
Did the CEO, High Performance Manager, AWSA Board, Australian Institute of Sport or the Australian Sports Commission know prior to the ad that the girls would be required to take their clothes off?
And if so, did the Australian Sports Commission or the Australian Institute of Sport endorse the ad?
I am also gravely concerned that some of the Matildas may have been intimidated into signing a contractual agreement for the ad after the event.
What action was taken by Australian Women’s Soccer Association Board members – who were apparently present when the ad was being filmed – when these young girls informed them that they were unhappy with being required to appear naked?
Surely someone involved in women’s soccer must have signed an agreement for members of the Matildas to appear in this ad, knowing full well what it entailed.
It has been brought to my attention that not all members of the Matildas squad were informed of what was required of them, and that some players may have felt pressured into participating.
These allegations must be investigated as part of the government’s inquiry into soccer in Australia.
The Australian Sports Commission and the Australian Institute of Sport also have questions to answer in relation to the Matildas.
Knowing that women’s soccer was experiencing financial difficulties, did either the Commission or the Institute endorse the use of nude advertisements as a legitimate way of raising funds?
And what action did the Sports Commission take if and when they were informed of the players’ concerns?
I want to turn now to financial irregularities involving women’s soccer, some of which have already been reported in the media.
The Australian Women’s Soccer Association was recently liquidated in the ACT Supreme Court owing its lawyers $70,000.
This is unbelievable when you consider the amount government-funding women’s soccer has received.
In the past few years, women’s soccer received:
· $1.15 million for the financial year to June 2000,
· $710,000 leading up to the Sydney Olympics,
· $100,000 from the toothpaste ad,
· Income from the Matildas Calendar, and
· Ongoing grant monies.
How is it then that by July 2002, the AWSA is wound up in the Supreme Court with a debt of $70,000?
How is it that the Australian Women’s Soccer Association allegedly informed the Matildas coaches in March 2000, just prior to the Sydney Olympics, that only a budget of $28,000 remained?
Where did the funding they received through the Olympic Athlete Program in the years leading into the 2000 Olympics go?
The Australian Sports Commission must explain whether it is satisfied that all funding monies were expended appropriately.
It may be appropriate that an itemised breakdown of all expenses relating to the Matildas should be provided to the proposed inquiry into soccer.
During my inquiries I have also come across matters that, while not directly related to the issues I’ve raised, are connected to the broader issue of management and probity.
I have, with the agreement of the people who raised these matters with me, written to the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Customs Service asking them to look into these matters as they may be of a criminal nature.
Accordingly, it is not appropriate for me to talk further about these matters at this time.
If Senator Kemp’s inquiry is to be open and genuine, it must include the following terms of reference.
The expenditure and accounting of public and private funds allocated to the Australian Women’s Soccer Association (AWSA) in the lead up to the 1999 World Cup and the 2000 Olympics.
