David Penberthy: An affair is not an assault on women’s rights
THE AFL has tied itself in knots. Time for it to remember it exists to stage footy matches, not be at the forefront of social change, writes David Penberthy.
THE AFL has come to be a hated organisation among Australian conservatives, with its commitment to campaigning for the referendum to acknowledge our indigenous heritage, its Green Clubs program targeting climate change, special rounds set aside to celebrate multiculturalism, the role of women, and discussion around a LGBTIQ round to agitate for same-sex equality.
When it comes to the recent sex scandal, the AFL has more closely resembled the deeply conservative Festival of Light, with its moralistic, career-ending stance against the two senior executives who appear to be guilty of not much more than having a full-blown midlife crisis on company time.
Indeed this comparison might be a bit unfair to the Reverend Fred Nile, as Fred would have displayed more Christian forgiveness to these two silly blokes than Gill did, given the AFL chief’s lethal and brutal response to these regrettable instances of fornication.
Maybe I need to study up more on the definition of feminism, but I fail to see how an illicit yet consensual affair between grown adults has been conflated into an assault on women’s rights. Sure, there can be instances whereby senior men in the workplace use their position of authority either to blackmail women into putting out, or seduce them with the promise of promotions and payrises. But in the case of the former Football Operations boss Simon Lethlean and General Manager of Commercial Richard Simkiss, neither of these things have been established or even suggested. Both men have obviously got plenty of explaining to do to their wives and their families, but beyond that, there is no evidence to my mind that this became a workplace issue at all, save for the fact that the women in question happen to be AFL colleagues.
With his gushing talk last Friday of the AFL being on a cultural “journey”, one where questions of gender balance and power would be addressed, Gill McLachlan sounded more like some feel-good Women’s Studies lecturer than the clinically-minded head of a commercial organisation. By trying to be so politically correct, his actions have only invited more questions.
One of the weirdest of these questions goes to the glaring double-standard when it comes to the treatment these men received versus the manner in which the women were dealt with. Ignoring the old maxim that it takes two to tango, the AFL ensured that Lethlean and Simkiss paid for their peccadillos with the wholesale destruction of their careers. Yet the women continue to be employed by the AFL. Indeed in the case of Lethlean the pain is ongoing, as he has reportedly been forced aside from another position he holds at Champion Data in the past couple of days, the collection of statistics being apparently compromised by his horizontal pursuits.
It is hard to tell whether the AFL was most concerned by the question of gender, or the age of the women involved, or the fact that the women were lower-paid junior staff. As Joe Hildebrand put it so pithily in The Daily Telegraph this week: “it wouldn’t hurt to ask someone precisely what salary band they’re on as you’re dimming the lights at the Holiday Inn.”
We should ignore the AFL’s mealy-mouthed assertion that these two men went of their own volition, too. These were constructed dismissals by any measure, as the pair were clearly given no alternative but to walk away from the organisation they had served for a long time, with apparent distinction.
There are parallels with the AFL’s actions in these two cases elsewhere in the corporate world. Seven West Media has spent much of this year mired in media scandal and legal wrangling over the fallout from the affair between its chief executive Tim Worner and his seriously smited ex-mistress Amber Harrison. Perhaps the AFL was fearful that a similar, protracted drama could unfold as a result of the Lethlean and Simkiss transgressions, although, again, there was no evidence to suggest that was the case, even though the media had been sniffing around.
The extent to which this story blew up, and the manner in which it was handled, does stem in part from the initial nature of the media inquiries. The AFL had been facing questions for some days about the Lethlean affair, but mistakenly believed it was being asked about the conduct of Simkiss, or vice versa. As a result of this confusion, the AFL ended up unwittingly confirming details of both affairs, creating the immediate perception that life within AFL House is like a permanent re-run of Mad Men.
From what I know, based in some part on conversations with women who have been involved in the AFL over the years, I don’t think the AFL deserves this sleazy reputation at all. If anything, the conservatives are right — the AFL has been so progressive for so long that it has tried harder than any other league in Australia to address female representation and create a less blokey environment. The strange feature of this case is that it has gone so far towards this equality goal that it’s tied itself in knots, denied two men natural justice, and set a precedent that has even left some feminists scratching their heads. And to agree with the conservatives again, maybe it’s time that the AFL remembered that it ultimately exists to stage football matches, rather than being at the forefront of social change.