Rinehart, netball & genocide

Rinehart, netball & genocide

- by Ranting Panda, 6 November 2022

'Those that've been assimilated into, you know, earning good living or earning wages amongst the civilised areas, that have been accepted into society and they have accepted society and can handle society, I'd leave them well alone. The ones that are no good to themselves and can't accept things, the half-castes, and this is where most of the trouble comes, I would dope the water up so that they were sterile and would breed themselves out in future and that would solve the problem'. 

- Lang Hancock 1984 (Australian Screen Office 1984).

These are the words of the late Lang Hancock, mining magnate, founder & former CEO of Hancock Prospecting, speaking of the so-called 'aboriginal problem'.  Upon Hancock's death in 1992, his daughter Gina Rinehart was appointed Executive Chairman of Hancock Prospecting, a position she continues to occupy. Rinehart, who has a majority ownership of the company. is currently Australia's richest person and among the 10 richest women in the world, with net worth of around $30.2 billion (Sandler 2022). 

In September 2022, Rinehart offered a $15 million sponsorship deal to Netball Australia. Part of the deal included listing the Hancock Prospecting logo on the players jerseys. Donnell Wallam, an Indigenous player for Australia's national netball team, the Diamonds, objected to wearing the logo of a company whose founder had proposed genocide of Indigenous people. The Diamonds stood behind Wallam and protested the sponsorship deal with Hancock Prospecting. As the furore erupted, Wallam decided she would wear the logo on her uniform for the sake of Netball Australia (News.com 2022).

Even with Wallam's concession, Rinehart threw a temper tantrum that a 4-year-old would be proud of. She immediately withdrew her $15 million sponsorship. To make things worse, Rinehart knew that Netball Australia was in dire financial straits and her withdrawal of the sponsorship deal could have caused the organisation to collapse, potentially resulting in significant disadvantage to netball players across the country. One of the world's richest women acted like a bully and a petulant child who can't handle criticism. Rinehart clearly showed she wanted to hide the ugly history of her company and her father's genocidal racism at the expense of a sport that does so much to benefit young women in Australia. 

Rinehart's puerile withdrawal of the sponsorship deal only made her look like a racist who agreed with her father's disgraceful statements. However, had she been willing to discuss the issue like an adult, she could have handled this easily by distancing herself from her father's comments. She wasn't asked to apologise for the comments because it wasn't her who said them. However, the statements by Lang Hancock are directly associated with the company she runs. Rinehart could have stated that she didn't agree with the comments and certainly didn't believe in genocide of Indigenous people. In fact, Rinehart had several cards she could have played here, including showing that her actions over the years have demonstrated she has never agreed with her father's proposed genocide. Rinehart has undertaken many philanthropic activities, including sponsoring scholarships for young, under-privileged girls in Cambodia to help them get an education, supporting some of Australia's Olympic athletes, sponsoring programs for domestic violence and at-risk youth, contributing to redevelopment of hospitals, and importantly funding social and education initiatives in Indigenous communities (Hancock Prospecting n.d.). 

In the wake of the Netball Australia sponsorship fiasco, it appears that Rinehart's philanthropy is just a smoke-screen to hide her ingrained racism. 

Why hasn't she ever disavowed the comments of her father? Particularly considering she sits at the helm of the company he founded and which still carries his name.

Not surprisingly, the issue galvanised Australia. Many conservative commentators, politicians, and sportspeople supported Rinehart. Apparently, the Diamonds should be grateful for the handouts; bowing down and kissing the feet of Rinehart, regardless of the abhorrent history of Hancock Prospecting. Many other people however, saw Rinehart as a petulant, entitled autocrat who expects sycophantic fealty in return for her self-serving philanthropy.

Immediately following Rinehart's withdrawal of the sponsorship deal, the Diamonds played a game against England in Newcastle, with debutante Wallam scoring the winning goal. Days later, the Diamonds played England at the Brisbane Entertainment Centre. Wallam was critical in this victory, scoring 25 points from 26 shots on goal, and securing Australia a 3-0 victory over England in the best-of-three series (AAP 2022).

As Netball Australia came to terms with the loss of the sponsorship deal, the Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews stepped up to the plate by generously providing a $15 million sponsorship from Visit Victoria (Hytner 2022). This deal will both support the game at elite levels, while encouraging grassroot participation, particularly in culturally diverse communities. Andrews' moral fibre is in direct contrast to the selfish and petulant Rinehart's lack of moral commitment.

Rinehart considered the stance by the Diamonds to be 'virtue-signalling' and that it was 'unnecessary for sports organisations to be used as a vehicle for social or political causes' (Whiteman 2022). Conservatives like to throw around pejoratives, such as virtue-signalling, whenever their myopic, racist, bigoted views are challenged. Why shouldn't athletes be involved in raising social and political issues? They have the public platform and profile to ensure they are heard. They represent their communities and their country. 

Australia is a multi-cultural and highly diverse country. Unfortunately, many conservatives have this naïve view that to be 'Australian' means everyone acting and thinking the same, without ever acknowledging the diversity of the population or daring to challenge Australia's history. Indigenous people are often told to stop living in the past by conservatives who are too gutless to acknowledge some of Australia's unsavoury and racist history. Conservatives certainly have a hard-time of saying sorry, so it is no surprise that they hide their cowardice and racism by hurling insults, such as 'virtue signalling' or 'do-gooders'. They fail to understand that there is still systemic racism in Australia's health, education, employment and legal justice systems. 

Athletes aren't there to be voiceless court jesters, entertaining the rich and privileged. They should speak up whenever they see injustice ... as should anyone. Virtue-signalling? Do-gooders? It is better they have virtue than bigotry. It is better they do good than do nothing, or worse, do harm. 

Source and references

Australian Associated Press, 2022, Wallam puts off-court drama behind her to lead Australia to England sweep, 4 November, viewed 6 November 2022, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/nov/03/wallam-puts-off-court-drama-behind-her-to-lead-australia-to-england-sweep

Australian Screen Office, Couldn't be fairer,  the clip is taken from the documentary Couldn’t Be Fairer (1984), a collaboration between prominent Aboriginal activist Mick Miller and filmmaker Dennis O’Rourke, https://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/couldnt-be-fairer/clip2/#. 

Hancock Prospecting, n.d., Philanthropy - Education and Community, viewed 6 November 2022, https://www.hancockprospecting.com.au/projects/philanthropy/education-and-the-community/.

Hytner, M, 2022, Victoria to sponsor Australian Diamonds netball team after Hancock Prospecting exit, 31 October, viewed 6 November 2022, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/oct/31/victorian-government-to-sponsor-australian-diamonds-netball-team-after-hancock-prospecting-exit.

News.com, 2022, ‘Really naive’: Lisa Wilkinson drops netball truth bomb, 24 October, viewed 6 November, https://www.news.com.au/sport/netball/really-naive-lisa-wilkinson-drops-netball-truth-bomb/news-story/cab88ba5e7536a285d5fd824672ff1a9.

Sandler, R, 2022, There aren’t many women billionaires, but the 10 richest are worth $401 billion, Forbes, 5 April, viewed 6 November 2022, https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2022/04/05/the-top-richest-women-in-the-world-2022/?sh=5d8c0514446a.

Whiteman, H, 2022, Billionaire dumps Australia netball team in dispute over father’s racist comments, 24 October, viewed 6 November 2022, CNN, https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/23/sport/australia-netball-rinehart-diamonds-sponsorship-spt-intl-hnk/index.html.

Scientists find the God Particle ... and it's in Queensland.

On the day that Queensland wins its seventh consecutive State of Origin series, scientists announce the discovery of the God Particle ... and it's in Queensland!

Scientists from the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) arrived at this momentous conclusion after smashing two protons together in the Hadron Collider in Switzerland and producing the Higgs Boson, which they believe 'may' be the God Particle; an elementary particle which gives mass to other elementary particles.

On the day of the announcement, two warrior teams in Australia went to battle in the ancient stadium of Lang Park. The subsequent brutal clash of these fierce fighters smashing each other resulted in Queensland securing a 1 point victory and a record breaking 7th consecutive State of Origin series. Some say that 7 is God's own number ... the scientists realised that the Hadron Collider was redundant when pitted against the primeval ferocity of State of Origin waged on the ground that is the origin of Origin.

The fall-out from these historic series as seen the likes of heroes who have become the building blocks of Queenslanders' basic 'never die' nature - they are the elementary particles that give mass, life & character to Queensland!. These heroes are of almost mythical proportions, such as Origin's 'first man', or the 'Adam' of Origin, namely the mighty Artie Beetson, followed by Gods and Kings such as Wally Lewis, Alfie Langer, Darren Lockyer and today's team of heroes, including Petero 'This is Sparta' Civoniceva who just played his 300th NRL campaign and his final State of Origin series.

Forget CERN, forget the Hadron Collider ...


Photo: Getty Images

Don't blame the Referee

I love sport! I love competition, whether it be me competing or someone else, I love the thrill of winning!

My favourite team sport is rugby league, followed closely and in descending order of preference, by Australian Rules football, soccer, rugby union and cricket.

Everyone loves a good, competitive game.  Whilst thrashing an opponent is great for stroking the ego, the thrill and satisfaction of winning in a close, hard fought match is unparalleled.

The disappointment when we lose of course, is devastating so we often look for excuses.  One of the most common is to blame the referee or umpire instead of placing responsibility for the loss squarely at the feet of the team.

The ref may have a shocker by incorrectly awarding penalties, or not awarding penalties, incorrectly awarding tries, or not awarding tries and so on; tailor it to your chosen sport.  These decisions may affect the game, but can we really blame the outcome on the ref? After all, the team is out there for the duration of the game.  For rugby league that is 80 minutes or more of brutal conflict. Technically, it is 160 minutes because both teams are supposed to play a full 80 minutes concurrently - there's no point taking turns in playing. Both teams must turn up and play in defence and attack.  For cricket it could be a day, it could be 5 days.  The team has to compete.  The team has to accept that refs and umpires do get decisions wrong.

A good example of futilely blaming the ref occurred in the local derby between the Brisbane Broncos and the North Queensland Cowboys on 9 March 2012.  I think both sides would say that many of the ref's decisions were suspect.  However, it wasn't the refs fault that either side missed tackles, most notably when Brisbane (leading by 4 points with 2 minutes to go) failed to tackle Matty Bowen who ran out of a scrum, where he had packed in at lock, bolted through the Brisbane line and scored under the posts. Brisbane had that game in the bag if they had maintained their defence. Yes, they could argue that in the 12th minute, they should have been awarded the chance for an 8 point try after Bowen appeared to go into a tackle with his knees.  However, the Cowboys could also have argued about some dubious calls with missed knock-ons and forward passes.  Both teams had their chances regardless of the refereeing.  Either way, both teams had played well enough to win the game. Had Broncos not blinked, the game would have been their's.

Some years ago I was listening to a match being called on the radio.  The North Queensland Cowboys were playing and the referee had made a number of incorrect calls against them.  The commentator stated "with the poor refereeing no-one could blame the Cowboys if they shut down during the second half". Was the commentator serious?  These are professional footballers.  They are paid a motza to not "shut-down" regardless of how disappointed they may be with a referee.  Their intense training surely includes how to stay motivated in the face of extreme adversity.  I have seen teams, even the mighty Broncos, up by 18 points with 10 minutes to go and still lose.  Conversely, I have seen the Broncos down by around 20 points, score 24 points in the final 12 minutes or so of the game to win.  Motivation is something that these players are paid to maintain.

And then there is the "equal opportunist": the fan who argues that the penalty count was one sided.  Since when did equal opportunity apply to penalties?  If your team infringes the rules, they have to expect to be penalised.  If the other team is playing by the rules and your team isn't, then it isn't fair to penalise the other team.  Certainly, it might be frustrating if the referee isn't applying the rules consistently to both teams, however, that doesn't mean that a team should shut down; they just need to play smarter and maybe change their tactics.  Fans pay very good money to watch their team compete, not to watch them carry on like spoilt school kids who give up because the ref "wasn't fair".

At the end of a game, we can always argue the "ifs and buts", however, the teams are there for the duration of the game and can win regardless of the refereeing.  Referees are a soft target and the scapegoat for many an athlete who isn't professional enough to admit their own short-comings.

Rather than blaming referees, teams must take responsibility for their performances.  They can't expect the ref to win the game for them.  In fact, relying on the referee to win the game is not a sustainable strategy.

Closely related to, and often a product of, criticising the referee are the claims around whether or a not team deserved to win. The winner deserves to win - simple as that. If they had the most points at the end of the game, then they deserved the win. The other team, for whatever reason, obviously wasn't good enough. Blame the ref, blame whoever, but the team who wins has done enough to deserve the win.

Fans have the luxury of criticising all aspects of the game without having to perform on the field. This is a luxury that the coaches and players do not have; they need to be professional enough to accept the decision and get over it.  If they don't it can dramatically affect their ability to perform.  What is more important? Winning the game or proving the ref got it wrong?

For example, in the lead up to the 2008 grand final, Melbourne Storm player Cameron Smith, was suspended for a grapple tackle on Bribane's Sam Thaiday.  Pundits argued the merits of the suspension.  Melbourne coach, Craig Bellamy, was highly critical of the NRL judiciary and was fined $50,000 for his disparaging comments.  This, in my opinion, had a dramatic effect on the Storm's preparation for the grand final.  Instead of focussing on the biggest game of the season, the Storm were embroiled in arguments over the judiciary's decision.  Bellamy should have accepted the decision and got on with preparing his team for the game.  Instead, he spent the week criticising and complaining at the expense of training.  It wasn't the suspension of Smith that caused the Storm to be thrashed 40-0 by Manly in that grand final, it was the focus on the fairness of the decision.  The fans had the luxury of complaining about the NRL, Bellamy didn't, and it cost Melbourne dearly. Manly took the field and played like a well-oiled machine. Melbourne played like fodder thrown to the wolves, they had no focus, no game plan and seemed to be still wallowing in their self-pity over Smith's suspension.  Whether the suspension was correct or not is of no consequence.  Melbourne had a team of champions who had played well all year.  They didn't need Smith to win that day.  It wasn't the judiciary's fault they lost, it was the Storm's fault alone.

Of course, we can take this approach into all areas of our lives, not just sport.  One thing we can be certain of in life, is that people will disappoint us.  Things that others do may cost us money, opportunity and so on.  But ultimately, we are still responsible for how we react to any situation in our life.  If we refuse to fight for the important things, fail to set goals or to keep focussed on our goals, then we set ourselves up to fail. We may need to reevaluate our strategies and goals, but we should not give up.  We have power over our own lives and the choices that WE make dictate how our lives play out.  The more we focus on the behaviour of others, the less control we have over our own lives and the more power that we give them to control our lives.

Whether it is in sport or our daily lives, do NOT blame the referee, the other team, the boss, the government or other people, but take responsibility ourselves; understand the laws, the rules, the obstacles, the opponent, evaluate what is needed to be successful and do it!

From Vegemite to Football - the Missing Link

Men face a quandary! Women accuse us of:

• not looking hard enough
• not asking for directions

Is anyone else seeing a dilemma here? A contradiction? Is anyone else seeing that men are in a no-win situation?

Let's face it: men suffer domestic blindness!  It doesn't matter how many times we go to the pantry we will NOT see the vegemite.  The final ignominy is when we tell our wife we are out of vegemite and she magically finds it within seconds.  Domestic blindness.

Whilst men like to hunt, we do not like to hunt in the lounge room!  So we ask our beautiful partner if she knows where the remote control is and the forth-coming answer is invariably: "have you had a good look?"

So here is the contradiction that men live with day in and day out:  if we ask for directions we are accused of not looking hard enough, if we look harder and harder we are accused of being too macho to ask for directions.

Maybe that is why men like to watch football - the goal-posts never change!  Of course this then raises a new criticism of us veging out on the couch watching Friday Night Football.  Veging in front of the footy is a response to the afore-mentioned ever changing playing field that has been the lot of men for centuries.

No wonder men have a shorter life expectancy.