AFL Players’ Association backs calls for league to be independently investigated for racism failings

The AFL Players association has backed First Nations families involved in the Hawthorn review and wants the AFL to open an investigation into its own racism failings.

AFL Players' Association CEO Paul Marsh.

Pressure has been heaped on the AFL to commit to an independent investigation of the league’s own racism failings.

Lawyers representing four Indigenous players and their families penned an open letter to AFL boss Gillon McLachlan and AFL Commissioners on Friday, saying their clients would only participate in the investigation of Hawthorn if the microscope was also turned on head office’s “failings”.

They have since committed to participate based on their confidence the AFL would follow through.

The AFL Players’ Association on Wednesday backed an industry review and declared it wanted to help shape what could be a game-changing and forensic look at racism in football.

“The AFL Players’ Association supports the statement from Arnold Bloch Leibler on behalf of the First Nations families they’re representing,” AFLPA boss Paul Marsh said.

“As we have said previously, ultimately the decision as to whether the players and their families are involved in the AFL‘s process is for the individuals to make, and we support their decisions to do so.

“They have, however, only agreed to take part in this process on the basis of the AFL agreeing to a wider industry review and response into racism.

“This position aligns with the AFLPA’s on this matter, and we expect to work with the AFL and other key stakeholders inside and outside the industry to determine the appropriate process and terms of reference to ensure accountability to the process and outcomes.”

Departing AFL boss Gillon McLachlan received a letter from lawyers representing alleged victims on Friday.

The league on Saturday was supportive of a wider industry response to racism, but did not specify what action would be taken.

“As we announced when we released the Terms of Reference for the independent Investigation (of Hawthorn), the AFL is committed to working together as an industry to coordinate a wider response that ensures we have a culturally safe environment across all our clubs and within the AFL industry,” the league said in a statement.

“It is important to note that the wider industry response that was previously announced is a separate piece of work that will continue to be worked on by the AFL and, while it will be informed by the Panel’s work, it is not part of the independent investigation process.”

The AFLPA and lawyers representing the complainants in the Hawthorn investigation have largely been in lock-step since the explosive allegations surfaced during grand final week.

Marsh said in September that the AFL should not oversee the appointment of the panel that is investigating the explosive claims because it was “conflicted”.

“This is not a tribunal hearing,” Marsh said.

“What we and the players want here is that it’s an independent, robust process. I don’t believe the AFL’s proposal here can work. It’s something that sits outside the industry.“

But the AFL forged ahead and hand-picked a four-person panel – Bernard Quinn KC, Palawa woman and barrister Jacqualyn Turfrey, barrister and member of the Yuin people Tim Goodwin and barrister and human rights specialist Julie Buxton – and set out the terms of reference.

Alastair Clarkson arrives to work on the first day of coaching at North Melbourne. Clarkson has always been keen to tell his story to the Hawthorn investigation.

Star witness ‘Amy’ – who has claimed key Hawthorn officials pressured her ex-partner to terminate their pregnancy – refused to participate because she felt the investigation’s framework was unsafe and was not independent of the AFL.

“The problem isn’t with the panel itself … the problem is this is an inquiry which has been instituted and commissioned by the AFL,” her lawyer Michael Bradley, a managing partner at Marque Lawyers, said last week.

“It selected the commissioners, it drafted the terms of reference, the report will go back to it. It will decide when and the circumstances under which it is released.

“Its own lawyers (Gordon Legal) are acting as the gatekeepers of evidence in this process.

“It's not independent in that sense, and that’s not to say the barristers who are conducting the investigation won’t do a great job and act completely independently and with integrity.”

Bradley said an independent body, such as the Human Rights Commission, would have been more appropriate, which echoed Marsh’s September comments.

“It’s set up in a way that undermines that independence,” Bradley said on SEN.