What Is Best For The Sport Must Be The Number One Priority.

We have all seen the scene in Hollywood movies, where the protagonist walks into the distance leaving explosions and chaos behind them. Following the comment from the outgoing President of Hockey Australia, Melanie Woosnam that the High Performance program will move from Perth in 2024, it is fair to say that mayhem has been the end result.

This is in spite of claims by Ms. Woosnam that she “was misquoted,” but there has been no official statement coming from Hockey Australia to back up those claims. Some would say that this is the perfect smokescreen.

What is it they say, divide and conquer?

Since those comments, as was to be expected, and as has happened in the past, we have witnessed the various states jostling for position. Each understandably trying to put forward their case as to why their State should become the home of the Hockey High Performance program. This is nothing new. It comes around regularly, only slightly more regularly than the debate as to whether Western Australian should secede from the rest of Australia!

The truth is this should be reviewed. It should be reviewed regularly. This is all part of an organization having good governance. Unfortunately as we read in the parts of the review into the Hockeyroos that was shared publicly, there were concerns over the governance of the sport. Reviews not taking place and things not being followed up on.

Good governance will play a crucial part in the reaching of a decision on such an important issue as this. It is vital that all eventualities are thought about as well as their impact. Also how the sport is going to deal with the fallout from whatever decision is made.

There is far more to actually look at than simply where the majority of players come from and base any relocation around that.

Just as the “build it and they will come” approach is no guarantee.

For example it is fantastic that the Victorian Government chose to invest $64.6 million in upgrading the State Netball and Hockey Centre to become the Melbourne Sports Centres – Parkville Stadium.

Yet in a statement that goes against the whole push for Equality they state on the Government website that the investment “is the centrepiece of the Victorian Government’s record investment in women’s sport.” Is this exclusively for women’s sport?

The website goes on to claim “the upgrade will make Parkville the home for netball and hockey in Australia.” On what basis can they make that claim in relation to Hockey? Does this mean that promises have already been made? If so who made those promises? The official line is that no decision has been made yet, and that the whole process is being reviewed.

There is another issue that could play out related to this down the track. The current CEO of Hockey Victoria is rumoured to be one of the preferred candidates to fill the vacant CEO role at Hockey Australia. How will it look if one of the first major decisions and announcements made if he is appointed is to move the high performance unit to Victoria, and to a venue that he was involved with being upgraded? Especially when the following quote is attributed to him when the upgraded facility was opened, “the new high-performance facilities provide an opportunity for women and girls all around Victoria to develop, thrive and contribute to our global standings in world hockey.”

This is one reason why the selection panel for the appointment of the new CEO needs to be independent and not influenced by the current board, and especially not the out going President.

Issues such as this must be taken into consideration and how they will not only be perceived but how they will be handled, so that it does not appear that promises were indeed made and that the decision is the result of those promises, rather than being based on a sound assessment of what is the best for the sport and the athletes.

There is one other issue, which could impact this venue in Victoria and that is according to someone on the ground there, the fact that Netball is very much the major sport at the centre, and they will hold sway over the major decisions made there. Is that going to be good for Hockey? Surely the sport needs a stand-alone facility where they do not have to answer to anyone?

In truth, for the reasons touched on in “Is Location Really The Issue” it will be an uphill battle for Sydney or Melbourne to tick all of the boxes to become the preferred location.

What is interesting is that while The Victorian Government are making these claims there have been statements that the Women’s High Performance program will move to Brisbane. If the program was to move to Brisbane this proposal actually carries some weight. The Olympic Games in 2032 will be in Brisbane, and having the Hockeyroos based in Brisbane in the eight years or less leading up to the Olympic Games would be a great way to promote the sport, and would hopefully give them ideal preparation and the best opportunity to medal. History shows that the host nation in the Women’s game usually medals, only twice has that not been the case.

Yet to some there are still a number of factors that hold this bid back. One of these being the athletes’ ability to move to and from training to their studies. Also, will they be forced to defer a unit if they have to go and play in a tournament?

Then there is the fact that Hockey Queensland does not run the local league competitions. In fact both the Women’s and the Men’s competitions are run by a separate body the Brisbane Hockey Association and the Brisbane Women’s Hockey Association. While the Queensland Government may be happy with such a situation, to obtain Federal funding will suddenly become much harder.

In Western Australia there is some confusion too. The High Performance Program has been based at what is now Curtin University since 1984. To many looking in from the outside it has been a long and healthy relationship. The university has assisted and educated many of the athletes who have passed through Perth. They have understood that the players/students are not like regular students and have made allowances.

In 2019 the University started out on a $300m Master plan that they hope by 2030 will give the campus “a 365-day sustainable economy.” A great deal of this redevelopment is happening around the current hockey stadium, including a hotel; which would be ideal for visiting teams, and parents. The plan is also to attract businesses and commercial ventures on campus to make the campus more of ‘a real-life community.’ The hockey stadium is ideally placed to tap into this and pull in new supporters and sponsors.

There has been talk that Hockey WA wish to move from Curtin to the University of Western Australia’s McGillivray Oval and take with it the High Performance Program. Once there they hope that UWA will create a similar hub; however work on this, unlike at Curtin, has not commenced.

If true, there are question marks around such a decision. First of all at Curtin Hockey is a stand-alone sport. At McGillivray Oval it will be sharing the limelight with Basketball, The Western Force and Perth Glory. All of these are full time professional sporting organizations, which means that whether hockey likes it or not they will become the poor relation.

At McGillivray Oval hockey will have to start from scratch. At Curtin much of the infrastructure is already there, such as car parking and a public bus service. They have approvals and have started building new office buildings and accommodation.

Yes, the facilities as they are now are tired, yes, they need revamping, and there can be absolutely no argument on this. There is also no doubt that the Perth Hockey Stadium could do with some more stands to accommodate spectators in the way they have become accustomed to at other sporting venues. It is understood that funding would be available from the State Government to Hockey and Curtin to work together and make these improvements. There is even talk that the Federal Government may match the investment made by the State Government.

There is no doubt that just as in Western Australia there are pros and cons on the two venues there are pros and cons on the various cities proposing that the High Performance Program be moved to their state. However the posturing and fighting has to stop. This is detrimental to the game. Yet, sadly as mentioned, the division within the states will work to someone’s advantage.

Another factor that has not been raised is that currently to those overseas Perth is seen as the ‘home of hockey’ in Australia. What is more for most of the hockey playing nations it is a much shorter flying time than its Eastern States counterparts, and that makes it an easier sell when hosting games.

It was George Orwell who wrote, “Ignorance is strength.” Never has this been more true. Once again this comes down to Governance. When there is good Governance there is good communication.

The hockey community at large is being kept in the dark as to who is positioning for what and how the review of the High Performance program will be conducted.

If that community wants Australia to continue to be competitive on the world stage they need to take a more active interest. Sadly some of the reasons for this apathy is that many in club hockey no longer see the international players linked to their club ever play for that club, there is a very real disconnect; but that is another issue.

The key moving forward comes in three parts, learning, understanding and acceptance.

First of all there needs to be transparency. Hockey Australia needs to reveal what the key criteria is for the program to be moved and how they will be assessing whether it will be better off in another location. Next they need to publicly announce who will be on the committee that carries out this review. In an ideal world there will need to be some independent people on that review committee, who can bring an impartial opinion. However it also needs input from coaches and players who have been through the program.

For the ‘learning’ it is important that for those who care and are interested in the future of the sport and the international teams, that they have access to what is being proposed. Therefore all the States wishing to table a case for one or both of the programs being in their state should have to publically table their proposals. These can be made available via their website, or centrally on Hockey Australia’s.

It is vital that everyone understands that there are many factors relating to the decision, and they are not based purely on who has the best facilities or where the bulk of the national squad comes from as that will change over time. One of these may well be ongoing financial support from the State and Federal Government. One State may already be receiving large levels of sports funding from the Federal Government for other programs, and that could quite possibly prohibit Hockey’s ability to gain a slice of the pie down the track. All of these things need to be taken into consideration and understood.

This ‘understanding’ will enable the stakeholders, the clubs and the fee paying players across the country to be aware of what is being put forward, the costs and the impact it will have on the sport in their state.

As we have seen already these are the people who have seen their fees increased to help underwrite Australia’s participation in the Pro League, so they should be given the opportunity to understand why it is being proposed that the program move, and if the decision is to move why that decision was reached and also how it will impact on them and their clubs.

Once a decision is reached by the Committee and approved by the board that decision must be accepted. A time frame must be announced stipulating when the next location review will take place. The program itself will of course be subject to more regular reviews.

One thing to remember is that the current hockey program in Perth has been without doubt the most successful of any Australian sporting team at the Olympic Games since the High Performance unit was set up as part of the Australian Institute of Sport. The Kookaburras just made their third Olympic final since that time. In ten Olympiads since they AIS was set up the team has only failed to medal three times, and twice they lost the bronze medal match. So they have finished in the top four in nine out of ten Olympics, and won one gold, two silver and four bronze medals. We should not forget that the Women’s team has won three Gold medals since the women’s game was introduced to the Olympic games in 1980; a Games that Australia boycotted. So that is three Gold medals in ten appearances. Only one other country has won the Gold medal more than once in the Women’s event and that is the Netherlands having just won Gold for the fourth time in Tokyo. All of these medals have come since the High Performance Program started. In context the program has been hugely successful. Many sports would give anything to have such a record.

That success is worth remembering as the change has to be one that enhances rather than damages. This is not about politics or egos; it is about something far greater, a legacy. A legacy on which the value is unquantifiable to the sport as a whole.