The AFL has replaced portraits of its past presidents with Indigenous art

The boardroom at AFL House and its imposing photos of the code's former chairmen and presidents.

The boardroom at Melbourne’s AFL House has always been an unremarkable, featureless space. Its few striking elements have ­included a dated carpet, a considerable oak table, and a gallery of austere-looking men whose imposing portraits lined an ­entire wall.

These paintings of past presidents have always resided in the boardroom, per convention, and depicted the code’s venerated patriarchs, from former chairman Mike Fitzpatrick to the late Ron Evans and SirKenneth Luke, among others.

Lately these artworks have become a delicate matter for the AFL, perhaps even a low-key source of discomfort. The subjects are all male, and they are all white. We hear at least one administrator remarked upon the lack of diversity on display and, as everyone knows, that’s a crime of the deepest dye for any sporting code.

Who made that comment? There are eight people on the AFL board led by Richard Goyder – three of whom are women – and we assume directors such as BGH Capital’s Robin Bishop and Square Peg’s Paul Bassat are consumed with matters of higher priority. Moreover, an untold number of AFL executives probably use the space, as well.

AFL Commission chair Richard Goyder. Picture: Getty Images

Regardless, the code seems to have quietly managed this concern. Margin Call has learned the portraits were ­removed during recent refurbishments of AFL House and replaced with lighter and brighter Indigenous art, seemingly for good.

We were told the former paintings were only removed for reframing purposes, but it doesn’t seem like there’s any rush to return them en masse to the boardroom. In fact, that’s extremely unlikely to happen; much more certain is that they’ll be deployed to alternative locations throughout the building. An AFL spokesman confirmed as much, saying the portraits were being reframed and would be “rehung in AFL House when they are returned”.

So was it aesthetics or was it ideology that ended this tradition? In any case, there are some family members of the men depicted in those paintings who are mightily displeased with the decision, with its taint of revisionism.

Has the AFL learned nothing from a recent survey of its fan base? It seems ideological decisions aren’t proving all that popular with supporters of the game, according to a poll published this month by the AFL Fans Association. It found that while most supporters back Pride rounds and efforts to rid the game of racism, about one in 10 preferred the code stay out of politics and avoid the “woke agenda”.

Turnbulls go greener

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and wife Lucy appear to be doubling down on their plays in the renewable energy sector.

Looks like they’ve made themselves directors and shareholders in a Turnbull Renewables Pty Ltd, a fresh venture that’s been recently established. Another company, Tortolin Pty Ltd, was created in mid-February.

Lucy and Malcolm Turnbull. Picture: Guy Davies

No surprise that the Turnbulls are enthusiastic supporters of clean energy. Turnbull is already chairman of Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue Future Industries (its Australian outpost) and has a stake in 5B Holdings, a solar tech company that secured a $20m injection from BP last year.

Turnbull’s on that share register alongside his son, Alex – still mounting a comeback in court against Pengana chief Russel Pillemer – and Climate 200 svengali Simon Holmes a Court and wife Katrina.

There’s also Turnbull’s shareholding in SunDrive Solar alongside Atlassian co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes. They are in esteemed company on that project, with funds tipped in by the CSIRO, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and VC firm Blackbird Ventures.

 

Hello and goodbye

Optus executive Sally Oelerich appears to have vanished from her scheduled role as a keynote speaker at the upcoming Corporate Affairs Summit, an annual gathering of flaks, press agents, spivs, suits and spinners to be held at Sydney’s International Convention Centre.

Margin Call reported last month that Oelerich was down as a headline speaker at the two-day summit, where she was expected to drop a few pearls about September’s cyber attack on the telco and the cyclonic PR disaster that ensued.

One industry figure queried with organisers whether Oelerich was a fitting choice to deliver a speech on crisis management given the company’s severe mishandling of communications. CAS officials said in reply that they “eagerly await Sally’s case study” and insights into “what to do and not to do in these circumstances”. As did we all.

But it’s since been brought to this column’s attention that Oelerich is no longer listed on the CAS speaker list, nor will she attend the summit to deliver a keynote address as telegraphed.

In response to questions from Margin Call, Oelerich confirmed that she was not participating in the summit but created confusion by insisting she was never slated to speak at the event in the first place.

Provided with a screenshot of listed speakers captured from the CAS website a few weeks ago, which included her name and photograph, Oelerich said: “That was their preliminary program. I had not confirmed with them. They have since changed it.”

That much is true, it’s certainly changed. We figured Oelerich’s account would be easy to corroborate with CAS officials themselves.

Alas, they asked for additional time to formulate a response, and then never replied to questions.

Data harvest alarm

Margin Call’s revelation that Commonwealth Bank staff are being data-harvested to establish whether or not they’re working hard (or hardly working) polarised opinion and, unsurprisingly, alarmed the Finance Sector Union.

Some readers sympathised with CBA’s behaviour; the whole point of the surveillance is to weed out suspected cases of freeloading. Yet others sense something afoul in the overzealous monitoring of the bank’s workers.

Julia Angrisano, the union’s national secretary, responded by calling on CBA to “cease all spying on our members”, and it seems even she was blindsided by the depth of the revelations and the scrutiny undertaken.

“Workers have a right to know how any data collected is being used and it should never be used as a tool to intimidate or to place pressure on employees to take leave,” she said.