Open Letters

19 November

Open Letter

Dear Triathlon Australia CEO, National Performance Director, TA President, Board of Directors & Lex Sportiva,

Via Email 

I write an open letter, because on 6 October, Triathlon Australia sent me a letter via a Lex Sportiva, signed by an Ian Fullagar, stating that Triathlon Australia will not respond to correspondence I send them. 

In this same letter, Lex Sportiva informed me – 

“Whilst this investigation is underway, TA has resolved in the best interests of all parties, that your membership is suspended. This suspension remains in place until the investigation and any subsequent actions and/or processes are completed. We have requested that SIA expedite its investigation."

Shortly following this letter, a member of the ‘Senior Leadership’ staff in the Triathlon Australia High Performance program with the title ‘Performance Programs Manager’ sent one of my athletes, an email saying they would no longer email me and only email the athlete directly because of Triathlon Australia’s purported suspension of my membership.  My athlete was then reassured ‘this will not affect you personally’.

This position of the High Performance team at TA need to be reversed immediately and the person or persons responsible for constructing and sending the email to my athlete and those responsible for invalidly suspending me, severely sanctioned.  The purported suspension of me is invalid.  The constitution and by-laws do not provide that I can be suspended except by a particular process that has not been followed by Triathlon Australia. 

Furthermore, I am entitled to be afforded natural justice and at the very least, be informed exactly what I have done to require being suspended, and given an opportunity to be heard by the sanctioning body on it, and probably be afforded the right to appeal any decision of the sanctioning body to the members in general meeting if the suspension is not a power the board or members in general meeting can delegate. 

Being published to an athlete of mine, the publication may be defamatory, besides which, the suspension is in breach of the Australian Consumer Law in so far as it was contrived to attempt to affect the conduct of my business. 

Consequently, I require the Triathlon Australia Board of Directors to declare that the suspension wasn’t made according to the rules and is withdrawn. 

My Athletes name must remain confidential, because, TA need to start respecting athletes and stop using their excessive disparity of power over the athletes as a way at getting at me – who dares to question Triathlon Australia’s failings.

I would like this done in reasonable time and I give Triathlon Australia 14 days.   

Regards,

Emma Carney

17 November

Open Letter

Dear Triathlon Australia CEO, TA President and TA Board Directors,

Via Email: 

President TA Michelle Cooper to distribute TA Board of Directors

TA CEO Miles Stewart

Ian Fullagar

On 6 October, Triathlon Australia (TA) President and Board Directors released an open letter to ‘Triathlon Members and the Triathlon Community’ regarding a ‘campaign of destabilisation’ from a ‘retired elite athlete who is also a current coach and member’.  Members assume it was me – Emma Carney. On the same day, and in direct contradiction to the TA open letter, I (Emma Carney) received a rather aggressive letter from an ‘Ian Fullagar’ alleging I had been suspended by TA.  

In this letter I was informed - 

“Whilst this investigation is underway, TA has resolved in the best interests of all parties, that your membership is suspended. This suspension remains in place until the investigation and any subsequent actions and/or processes are completed. We have requested that SIA expedite its investigation."

A number of members have raised concerns that TA have merely sent this letter in an attempt to intimidate me.  Members have looked at the TA Member Protection Policy (MPP) and couldn’t find anything anywhere that would allow TA to take disciplinary action against a member, without following some process that would allow the member to respond prior to the action being taken. Furthermore, members believe TA therefore acted in a unilateral authoritarian manner which highlights the go to behaviour of TA generally as a failing National Sporting Organisation (NSO). Members are concerned that TA’s inability to follow their own process is an example of how the athletes, coaches, technical officials, staff and members as a whole are treated and a demonstration of why Triathlon in Australia is in such a mess.  Without fair and transparent processes, and the trust they will be followed, the sport of Triathlon will only end up in the position it now finds itself in – absolute decline.

To illustrate, members draw the TA CEO, President and Board Directors to the TA MPP – (here on the TA website here -

On reading the TA Member Protection Policy, Members have noted the policy states:

"Following an internal investigation into a formal complaint to establish the facts and the position of the parties to a formal complaint, the Involved Organisation may determine that it is appropriate to appoint an Investigator to review the circumstances of the formal complaint and conduct an independent investigation. Where an Investigator is appointed, the steps set out below should be followed. 

Any internal or independent investigation process conducted must occur concurrently with any external organisation process, as long as the internal or independent investigation process is placed on hold should an external organisation request the Involved Organisation to do so."

Members therefore have the following questions – Has a formal complaint been raised and documented to or by TA?  Have TA appointed the SIA as an Independent investigator on their behalf or as an external organisation process that should run concurrently with the internal or independent process?

If SIA are acting as an external organisation rather than an independent investigator appointed by TA, have they requested that an internal or independent investigation be put on hold? 

If they have requested any internal or independent investigation be put on hold members ask why and would suggest that reflects poorly on their confidence in TA to be able to follow a fair process. 

More importantly it raises the question as to how disciplinary action can be taken by TA when they have been requested to put their investigations on hold, this would go against all principles of natural justice. 

If they haven’t asked for any internal or independent investigation to be put on hold then the MPP states the following:

"In conducting an independent investigation, the steps below should be followed.

4.1.1 Investigation

c) The key details of the formal complaint should be conveyed to the Respondent(s). The Respondent(s) must be given sufficient information to enable them to properly respond to the formal complaint.

d) The Respondent(s) should be interviewed by the Investigator and given the opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Respondent’s response to the formal complaint should be documented in writing by the Investigator. The Respondent is entitled to have a support person present during any interview, subject to the support person never having been admitted as a lawyer or barrister.

g) A report documenting the formal complaint, the investigation process, evidence, finding(s) and, if requested, recommendations, should be given to the Involved Organisation which may, in consideration of the report of the Investigator, either:

(i) take disciplinary action against either the Respondent, Complainant or any other person/persons involved in the formal complaint in accordance with ‘Sanction’ below
(ii) refer the formal complaint to a Hearing Tribunal (which will take place in accordance with the Hearing Tribunal procedure (item 4.2 below)) to determine what, if any, further action to take
(iii) take no further action and close the formal complaint under this Policy.

h) Within 14 days of the Involved Organisation receiving a report of an Investigator, a report (Report) must be provided to the Complainant(s) and the Respondent(s) that summarises the investigation process and documents key points that were found to be substantiated, inconclusive, unsubstantiated or mischievous."

Given that this is published policy, members ask:

1.     Who has made the formal complaint and when are the specific details of the individual(s) complaint(s) going to be passed to me (the respondent) such that sufficient information is available to enable a proper response?

2.     Given that formal disciplinary actions (suspension of membership) have been undertaken it would be fair to assume that pursuant to section 4.1.1 g a report documenting the formal complaint(s), the investigation process, evidence finding(s) have been provided to TA to allow the enforcement of disciplinary action as an option as described in 4.1.1.g (i). Has this report been compiled?

3.     If TA are following (and using) their own member protection policy to justify the sanction of membership suspension and have completed the report from the previous question, why has this not been provided to the respondent (me) since the policy clearly states that this should be within 14 days of being received? For disciplinary action to have been take on the 6th of October, this report can have been produced no later than that date and therefore is well outside the 14 day timeframe detailed in the member protection policy. 39 days and counting.

4.     TA states that they have resolved, in the best interest of all parties, to suspend my membership. Members have asked, specifically who has authorised the suspension of my membership given that due process clearly has not been followed? Is it the CEO by himself, the President, the whole board? They are keen to know who specifically has signed off on this abuse of power and blatant act of intimidation and bullying.

Members also note that token mentions of reaching out mentioned in the 6 October Open Letter, may be misinterpreted as attempts at mediation as per section 4.4 Grievance Resolution Procedure and would highlight the following quotes from the policy:

"Mediations should be applied in the first instance to resolve any matter or grievance that does not involve a breach of rules or other matter attracting investigation or disciplinary action."

"Serious allegations should not be mediated, even if both parties would like to attempt mediation."

"Mediation may be recommended only if: b) the Involved Organisation dealing with the grievance or formal complaint does not believe that any of the allegations warrant any form of disciplinary action"

"There are some situations where mediation will not be appropriate, including: c) when there is a real or perceived power imbalance between the people involved"

Members are left in no doubt that the alleged suspension of me (Emma Carney) as a TA Member is merely symptomatic of the larger deficiencies destroying our sport in Australia and a prime example of why elite athletes, coaches and members are struggling to perform and are scared to speak out. Not only does TA impose ridiculously punitive and improper athlete agreements on them, but if they are prepared to step out of bounds and ignore the basic principles of their own publicly available member protection policy what will they be prepared to do behind closed doors out of the public view to athletes being mistreated if they speak up?

Clearly, it does not matter whether you are an elite athlete or a regular member, TA will behave in a manner that they see fit, regardless of whether that follows published policy or not. A better example of how they bully, intimidate and lie to people I couldn’t have asked for - when they do your work for you…..over to you SIA!

TA, your attempt at intimidation does not work on me.  The members are also sick of it.  As Board Directors, in your position as TA President and as TA CEO, you should all be ashamed of the way you have driven this sport into the ground.

Members continue to call for a full independent review, and for each of you to resign.  Please do so.  Triathlon in Australia needs saving from you all.

Regards,

Emma Carney

15 November 2021

Open Letter – Member Protection Policy request 

Dear Grant Cosgriff and Triathlon Victoria Board,

Today (15 November) marks 28 days have lapsed since Grant Cosgriff confirmed receipt of my 15 October letter of response to Triathlon Victoria’s 5 October letter, regarding my initial Member Protection Policy investigation request, dated 30 September, under the Triathlon Australia Member Protection Policy (MPP) that has been adopted by Triathlon Victoria. 

This is an extensive delay in the MPP process. 

In Part 4 section 4.1 detailing the Independent Investigation Procedure, the policy states the following: 

"For Formal complaints lodged under this Policy, the Involved Organisation may conduct its own internal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the allegation(s) Please refer to individual STTA’s Constitutions Disciplinary or Investigation Procedure. If the individual STTA does not have a Disciplinary or Investigation Procedure highlighted in their individual STTA Constitution please refer 4.1.1.” 

Whilst reviewing the Triathlon Victoria constitution (adopted October 2013 and updated on 1st October 2018) that is published on the Triathlon Victoria website, it can be seen that this document contains details of disciplinary action and the formation of a disciplinary subcommittee but makes no reference to investigative procedures.

Members have therefore raised these simple questions:
1) Are Triathlon Victoria adopting the Investigation Procedures as outlined in the Triathlon Australia Member Protection Policy?
2) If the answer is no, please can Triathlon Victoria provide detail of the procedures they are following was there is nothing to be found on the policy section of your website.

If the answer is yes, and you are adopting the Triathlon Australia Investigation Procedure then members note the following in the MPP: 

"Following an internal investigation into a formal complaint to establish the facts and the position of the parties to a formal complaint, the Involved Organisation may determine that it is appropriate to appoint an Investigator to review the circumstances of the formal complaint and conduct an independent investigation."

This raises the following questions from members -

1.     Has an internal investigation been undertaken and completed?

2.     What are the timelines that you are working to in respect to updating and keeping complainants informed?

3.     Has an investigator been appointed in this case?

4.     If an investigator has not been appointed, are members to take it that derogatory references to mental illness are to be condoned and allowed under both Triathlon Victoria’s constitution and Triathlon Australia’s MPP?

If Triathlon Australia and a member state cannot even follow their own published policy around independent investigation of member protection concerns, how can members have any faith in Triathlon Australia and Triathlon Victoria?

As stated in my 15 October reply to the 5 October letter from Triathlon Victoria ‘It is reassuring to hear that you take member protection seriously and are keen to have my grievance in this particular matter addressed properly.’

Does Triathlon Victoria take member protection seriously, or are the problems reported to Sport Integrity Australia regarding Triathlon Australia’s member protection problems also rife in Triathlon Victoria?

Members have a number of questions outstanding from Triathlon Victoria, and would like open, transparent, truthful responses in a timely manner.  Is that really too much to ask as a member?

Can all members requesting a MPP investigation expect the same level of response from Triathlon Victoria?  Member hope not. 

Regards,

Emma Carney

15 October letter is found below - .scroll to 15 October Letter to Triathlon Victoria letter

8 November 2021

Open Letter

Dear Triathlon Victoria Executive,

Via Email: Grant Cosgriff TV CEO 

CC: State and Territory Triathlon Associations (STTA) Executive

As my STTA, I contact you.  I am writing on behalf of concerned Triathlon Australia members.

Members first asked Triathlon Australia on 26 October and have raised the question a number of times since, regarding the latest amendment noted as ‘September 2021’ on the cover page of the TA Constitution.  There are a number of changes that have been made also noted on the cover page, but the most recent is the most pressing concern to members, due to the lack of advice or announcement regarding its detail. 

The document can be found here.

Members have not received any information or reply from Triathlon Australia, but in the meantime have reviewed, in accordance with (IAW), the Triathlon Australia Constitution, The Companies Act 2001 (Commonwealth) and The Associations Incorporations Acts of the ACT, NT, SA, Tas, Vic and WA.

Members have studied each of those references in detail, and have established:

a.         Triathlon Australia cannot make any change to its Constitution other than by a Special Resolution passed by a General Meeting (which means by an Annual General Meeting or by a Special General Meeting) under the Companies Act.

b.         Only the eight STTAs can vote at any General Meeting.

c.         Neither the Triathlon Australia President, nor the Chair of the TA Board, nor the Board members (Directors) can cast a vote on a Special Resolution, but they can speak and debate the Special Resolution before the vote is called to be cast.

d.         The Triathlon Australia Board is responsible for calling for, and taking and distributing draft minutes of General Meetings of its participants, calling for comments of participants on the draft, and promulgating the agreed minutes to the participants.

e.         The participants of the Triathlon Australia General meeting (the STTAs) are responsible for promulgating to their members (be they clubs or individuals) the detail of changes to the Triathlon Australia Constitution and, if STTAs see applicable, the ramifications thereof for their members as discussed in the General Meeting.

Given the above points, members would like to know - was Triathlon Victoria called to a Triathlon Australia General Meeting in September 2021?

Regards,

Emma Carney

5 November 2021

Open Letter

Dear Triathlon Australia Board Directors,

Via Email: TA President to be distributed to TA Board Directors

CC: STTA executives to distribute to STTA Board Directors

I write on behalf of concerned Triathlon Australia (TA) members.

Firstly, it is important all TA Board Directors understand that TA is a member Based Organisation.  

Members believe TA should make the AGM available to members.  Members are aware TA has constructed their constitution to regard triathlon clubs as members, but this directly contradicts TA selling membership to individuals directly.  Why does TA sell memberships directly to individuals, then ignore those same individuals with regard to governance?

TA maintains it passes individual members to STTA’s to provide their voice and vote, but clearly that is inadequate and a quite undemocratic process lacking in transparency.  Members who do not belong to a club have zero voice and for those that do, an STTA is not required to pass on any details to clubs anyway.

TWA is the only STTA who recognises individual members.  Members ask – do you have to live in WA to be a TWA member?  

Because TA collects membership fees direct from individual members, a direct TA/individual member relationship is established.  TA recognises this in the collection of fees, but will not recognise this relationship when it comes to governance.  Why is that?

Let’s have a look at how the process worked this year, by looking at STTA AGM Dates –

·       21 August 2021 – Triathlon Tasmania AGM

·       28 August 2021 – Triathlon South Australia AGM

·       2 October 2021 – Triathlon Western Australia AGM

·       10 October 2021 - Closure date for Nominations to TA Board 10 October

·       18 October 2021 – Triathlon QLD AGM

·       27 October 2021 – Triathlon VIC AGM

·       30 October 2021 – Triathlon ACT AGM

·       13 November 2021 – Triathlon NT AGM

·       22 November 2021 – Triathlon Australia AGM

·       24 November 2021 – Triathlon NSW AGM

If, according to TA, STTA’s receive votes from clubs whose members provide their preferences for Board Director Nominations at the TA AGM every club needs the opportunity to provide their club vote at each STTA AGM.  Therefore, given the above timeline of STTA’s AGM’s, it is quite obvious the STTA’s are not providing members the ability to vote through their clubs according to the TA Constitution.  The glaringly obvious problems are - 

·       When Nominations to the TA Board closed 10 October 2021, considering Triathlon TAS, SA and WA held their AGM before the TA Board Nomination closure date, how could clubs provide member votes in these states possibly vote for 3 vacant board positions?  TA had not collected the nominations prior to their AGM.

·       When Triathlon NSW’s AGM is 2 days after TA’s AGM, how can Triathlon NSW clubs lodge member vote for 3 vacant TA Board Director positions?  They were filled 2 days earlier.

·       When nominations closed for the 3 vacant TA Board Director positions on 10 October 2021.  Triathlon QLD held its AGM just 8 days later on 18 October 2021.  This would leave TQ with just 7 days to distribute a list of all nominations to the TA Board, along with the CV of each nominee, to each QLD club, who in turn would distribute this list to club members, who would then need to lodge their vote with their club, who then collates all votes to pass onto TQ at the TQ AGM.  All this in 7 days.  This would appear to be unrealistic.

·       The only 3 states and territories that would, from a timeline perspective, be able to offer their members a vote – but only those individual members who belong to a club - would be Triathlon VIC and ACT and Tri NT.  Tri Vic and Tri NSW had at least had 16 to 19 days to achieve what Triathlon QLD had 7 days to do.  It has been confirmed neither STTA’s had the TA Board Director positions as an agenda item at their AGM.  

·       Therefore, Tri NT may be the only STTA who can provide individual member voices given its timing of its AGM.

This lack of regard for individual member votes is absolutely appalling.  This is right up there with the alleged match fixing cloud hanging over TA.  

Triathlon Australia claims their processes follow the constitution.  

‘Triathlon Australia is fully compliant with the Corporations Act and relevant accounting standards. TA’s governance structures are consistent with many national sporting organisations and its governance practices are reviewed by Sport Australia on an annual basis and have been recognised as exceeding the national standard among national sporting organisations. ‘

Open Letter Triathlon Australia 6 October 2021 

This is at a time when all Sports are requested by the Australian Sports Minister Richard Colbeck to align with Sport Integrity National Framework so 

‘The National Integrity Framework, established earlier this year by the Australian Government, is a vital tool to ensure all sporting participants are treated with respect,”.

Federal Sports Minister Richard Colbeck, Equestrian Australia Press Release November 2021  

Triathlon Australia, an email was sent on 2 September 2021 from TA President Michelle Cooper to me (Emma Carney) in this email, to TA President referred to the governance standards at TA with the following statement – 

‘Triathlon has existed in its current federated model of governance for more than three decades, a structure which is very common in sporting organisations around the country.’

Triathlon Australia, while you continue to argue your processes are run according to a model – which is over 30 years out of date - and you do not align with the present day and the Sport Integrity framework, members know your processes are not meeting current best governance standards.  Quite simply TA your processes are lacking transparency, integrity and have poor ethics.  Individual members are not stupid and are tired of the poor attitude and regard TA has towards them.  This has probably been a significant contributing factor why TA membership has declined by more than 25% over the past 5 years. 

The AGM of a company should be public and be available for all members to attend, either in person or by video link.  Members, should be entitled to attend an AGM in person or by video.  In fact, TA should encourage and welcome members to attend and actively participate every AGM.  There is no indication when buying a TA membership that the member will have no personal access to governance of the sport.  This lack of member access should be provided to each member in detail whenever a member joins or renews membership.

The constitution provides the general details of calls for nominations for TA Board Directors, and TA recently amended the constitution to rename Board Directors and also add a nomination committee.  The by-Laws and amendments are not on the TA website, and there is no published detail of who is on the nomination committee and why this was created.   Why is there no transparency around the process?

Members request that TA

• Advise all members of the venue, date, and time of the TA AGM on the TA website and send to each individual member.

• Send a copy of the TA AGM agenda to every individual member

• Send all members the names, CV and any message Board Nominees may want to send to individual members, so that informed decisions can be made by members to individually decide who they should vote for. Members understand TA can remove personal contact details from the CV’s but relevant experience and details should be made public. This is a public position and nominees are aware of this.

• Advise all individual members how to vote, to whom the completed voting form should be sent, electronically, by post or in person.

• Advise all individual members the closing date for voting, how the votes cast with a club will be counted and how the votes sent to STTA’s will be counted. Included in the advice should be the process of both secrecy of a member’s vote and the integrity protocols that must and will be followed by both club officials and by STTA’s to ensure the vote at the AGM is both complete and accurate.

• Ensure the voting form includes all other agenda items so that at all times every vote by STTA’s is an accurate reflection of individual members voting intentions.

• Provide the login details to all individual members to enable them to observe the whole TA AGM. Also ensure the Board discussion is clearly visible and audible at all times.

• The TA Board of Directors should be providing the information and content of the TA AGM and then post the video on the TA Website.

• Amend the TA constitution so it works for the benefit of individual members. Publicise the amendment.

Now TA, let’s assume the current process works, and individual members have it wrong.  Let’s assume the STTA’s are sending individual members the list of nominees’ members have the following questions – 

·       If an individual member was given the opportunity to vote, where can they find the process of voting for Board Directors in the upcoming AGM? 

·       Is voting confidential by each STTA? 

·       There is reference to a ‘ballot’ in the TA constitution, what type of ballot is this – Secret?  Exhaustive?  Can TA provide details. 

·       When members refer to the TA constitution for clarification, item 27(g) references to itself (see screen shot in Annexure 1).  Is this an error?  Has the TA Lawyer made so many amendments to the constitution it has now lost control of tracking the document changes? The current complete TA constitution is attached to this email to allow you to reference the extract.  The document is no longer on the TA website, it seems TA have removed the document – possibly making yet another amendment?  

·       Where is the information on voting for individual members? 

·       Are votes made for 3 nominees only or all nominees? 

·       It is preferential voting? 

·       Is it online voting? 

·       Are votes made in advance, when are votes due? 

·       How can votes be made when the CV’s of each nominee are not published.  How do members know the expertise of each nominee?

·       Who is on the Nominations Committee? This was recently added to the constitution and It has clearly already been formed and is operating. Why are the names not on the TA website? 

·       When will TA publish the by-laws on the TA website?

·       Why hasn’t TA published the voting process?

TA – can you see there are so many questions and the silence from TA is only making the process murkier...

If we refer to my personal membership, the TA President in her 2 September 2021 email to me notified me – 

‘State and Territory Associations (STTAs) are the voting delegates of Triathlon Australia. They represent the members, who are clubs, in their states (except for WA where individual members, not clubs, vote). The TA Constitution is the remit of STTAs to approve, not the organisation nor directors of TA. The Constitution is based on a standard sporting association format with respect to the relevant governance rules and responsibilities.

To engage in this process, I encourage you to go through the appropriate channel of the club you are a member of who is your voting representative in Victoria.’

My situation is – as many members of Triathlon Australia – I do not belong to a club.  When my membership is renewed however, there is no notice from TA that I have no voice.  Members who so join a club are provided with a voice apparently – but as we saw above, this is not actually provided by STTA’s.  Why is that Triathlon Australia?  Is this not misleading and deceptive conduct – to sell a membership – without notice that individual member voting is ignored by TA or ignoring it anyway?  Is this not misleading to sell a membership, collect the money then ignore the individual member, any member?  

Compare this to me as an AUS Cycling member.  I do not belong to a club, but I receive an email containing the AGM Date, details, agenda and how to register to attend (as a non-club member).

The difference in how AUS Cycling and TA conducts itself with regard to notification to members around their respective AGM’s makes you wonder how on earth TA makes such public statements as – 

‘….TA’s governance structures are consistent with many national sporting organisations and its governance practices are reviewed by Sport Australia on an annual basis and have been recognised as exceeding the national standard among national sporting organisations. ‘

Open Letter Triathlon Australia 6 October 2021 

TA – stop kidding yourself.  Members are not falling for it anymore and that is why they are leaving.

Triathlon Australia, your Board Director nomination process is appalling.  It lacks transparency and does not meet current best governance practices in Australian Sport.  The result will not be a reflection of member preferences due to the complete inadequacies of the entire process.  The hypocrisy of TA in collecting membership fees directly from individuals and then ignoring them with regard to governance is appalling.  Given the poor attitude and disrespect individual members are given by TA, it is not surprising members are walking away by over 5% every year.

Triathlon Australia, your processes are embarrassingly murky, insufficient and provide zero transparency to members.  It is quite obvious Triathlon in Australia needs saving from those overseeing the governance of Triathlon Australia.  Triathlon Australia needs a full independent review - TA is failing the sport of Triathlon, its members and Australian Sport.

It is time Triathlon Australia were held accountable for what they have done to triathlon in Australia.   

Regards,

Emma Carney

31 October 2021

Open Letter – STTA Executives 

Dear STTA Executive and Board Directors,

Via Email: STTA’s 

To be distributed to STTA Executives and Board Directors

I write this Open Letter on behalf of concerned Triathlon Australia members.  

Triathlon Australia is a member-based organisation and although membership reduced last year by a further 6.1% and given STTA’s are seen as members (apart from WA) the remaining members views should be voiced by the STTA’s to TA if the TA constitution has any value.

All STTA’s must be aware that members have been calling for a full independent review of TA.

It is a fact that several STTA’s favour acceding to the members request and have this tabled for the TA AGM. 

The process that should then follow is TA requests, in response to members, the Federal Sports Minister to appoint an Independent Chair and a panel of respected and knowledgeable independent experts to conduct a full and independent review of TA.  This will be done independently of TA and TA partners.  This is vital for the future of the sport of Triathlon in Australia.

Triathlon Australia have tried to cloud this call for a full independent review, with their recent announcement of the AIS led High Performance Review. 

This review is absolutely inadequate for several reasons.   

• A High Performance review is just that – a High Performance review, led by the CEO of the AIS who has also moved on from the AIS.  The last involvement in justifying the allocation of tax payer funding before his position is vacated.

• The review is not independent, despite the TA President stating in their announcement press release - “Importantly, these reviews will be undertaken by independent expert facilitators”.  

The same press release then announced The Project Steering Group (PSG) which TA proudly boasts:  

‘The Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) and Triathlon Australia are jointly undertaking a comprehensive review of triathlon’s Olympic and Paralympic high performance programs, with the aim of resetting for future success.  

Therefore, the review will be TA and the AIS reviewing themselves.

This is totally inappropriate and insufficient.

• A High Performance Review has the aim of ‘resetting for future success’. 

With the number of athletes safeguarding issues, member protection concerns and governance integrity issues, will continue because they are not being reviewed.  High Performance internal reviews will do nothing for Triathlon in Australia.  It is glaringly obvious Triathlon Australia needs a full independent review.  

 If you need further evidence, the TA Accounts provide the very close working relationship between the AIS and TA.

Those involved as the eloquently named ‘Project Steering Group’ of the AIS led review are dominated by the AIS, Sport Australia and TA Executives and Directors many of who all have been involved in the extensive problems residing in the TA High Performance program.  The panel and review is quite simply inadequate given the state TA is in.  Regardless of the outcomes of this closed internal review, a High Performance review will only scratch the surface of the problems that reside at TA.

The extent to the close relationship TA and the AIS can be illustrated by the 2020-2021 Financial Statements of Triathlon Australia.  These have at this stage only been submitted to ASIC and were obtained by a member with a specialist in forensic accounting.  TA is yet to release these with their yearly Annual Report. 

Some very creative accounting sits amongst the scheduling of these accounts which members are wondering what the necessity of this is.  You can read on through the facts presented as Annexure 1 attached, but the information is dry.  What the information shows is the TA reporting process creates confusion, and a key part of this centres around the lack of transparency of Government Grant funding.

In the 2021 TA Financial Statements, Grants are reported under 5 different names.  They are (along with the pages on the financial statements) – 

·       Grants revenue. Page 25

·       Unearned Revenues.  Page 21

·       Grants Funding received.  Page 19

·       Reciprocal Contributions from the Government.  Page 17

·       Receipts from Customers.  Page 13

Members don’t understand why TA doesn’t state the money received is given to TA, described as grants in the Financial Statements by AIS and the name the other organisation giving Grants.  Then advise the amounts from the AIS and the other organisation and the amounts for each specific purpose.  Simple, clear, and obviously what any reasonable organisation would do.

Triathlon Australia, in all its defence of its reporting procedures has stated -  

‘TA has not used high performance grant funding to build reserves but has accumulated these reserves through non-government grant funding sources and prudent financial management.’

And

‘The AIS approves detailed high performance budgets and receives regular reporting on spending against grants provided. In addition, all grants are subject to an annual, formal acquittal process whereby TA acquits expenditure against each specific grant. The acquittal documents are independently audited by an auditor and approved by the AIS.’

And

‘Triathlon Australia is fully compliant with the Corporations Act and relevant accounting standards. TA’s governance structures are consistent with many national sporting organisations and its governance practices are reviewed by Sport Australia on an annual basis and have been recognised as exceeding the national standard among national sporting organisations. ‘

Open Letter Triathlon Australia 6 October 2021 

While these are all wonderfully constructed statements from TA, that actually provide no details, facts or referencing documentation, they also fail to recognise the glaring problems currently residing in Australian Sport.  Specifically, these statements fail to recognise the problems regarding the integrity of National Sporting Organisations (NSO’s) that is adversely affecting the governance of sport.  In a recent press release, following Equestrian Australia’s signing onto the Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) Framework, the Federal Sports Minister Richard Colbeck commended Equestrian Australia for aligning with SIA with the following statement - 

‘The National Integrity Framework, established earlier this year by the Australian Government, is a vital tool to ensure all sporting participants are treated with respect,”.

“It marks an important step for participants in any sporting organisation - offering confidence and a reassurance that matters will be handled independently and fairly. This is a great step forward for Equestrian.”

Federal Sports Minister Richard Colbeck, Equestrian Australia Press Release 

So obviously, despite TA claiming to 

‘…have remained in close contact with the Federal Minister for Sport…’

Paragraph 2 Open Letter Triathlon Australia 6 October 2021

It seems TA are not actually doing what the Federal Sports Minister recommends.

NSO’s are currently being advised to sign onto the SIA Framework, because the governance processes are failing Australian Athletes, Sporting Members and allowing a lacking integrity of Governance.  TA needs to do this and comply properly using a full and transparent process with current best practice Governance.

Back to the 2021 TA Financial Accounts (and with reference to Annexure 1) – 

It is doubtful any reasonable person would object to the AIS making prepayments of many millions of dollars to TA, if there are sound reasons for doing so, but when the transactions are apparently camouflaged with the use of words, ‘Debtors’, ‘Unearned Revenues’, ‘Reciprocal Contributions’ and the like members wonder – Why?

With such a close working relationship it is inappropriate that a review of TA would be undertaken by a ‘Project Steering Group’ consisting of AIS and TA staff members as they would be, in essence confirming what both parties had agreed throughout the year (and presumably earlier years).

There is a responsibility upon TA and the STTA’s to fully explain to members the various transactions between TA and the AIS and ask the members if they believe a Project Steering Group comprising TA and AIS staff or if they believe a full independent review of TA is needed.  Evidence to date suggests a full independent review is being demanded by members.  

There are many more issues to be reviewed at TA, but the lack of transparency surrounding the AIS taxpayer funded Grants is cause for concern, particularly when the only review agreed to in the sport of Triathlon at this point is one done between 2 parties who are sharing and apparently not fully disclosing clearly the details of the large sums of taxpayer money.  

The STTA’s are all now faced with a challenge to stand up for the ever reducing number of members, make things better for athletes, and make a move to improve Triathlon in Australia.  Alternatively, STTA’s can remain silent and allow TA to continue to drive the decline of the sport in Australia, while worldwide, triathlon is continuing to grow and develop as a sport.  

TA Members call upon each and every STTA to stand up and be counted, effect change at the TA AGM, 22 November 2021 and ensure part of that change is to vote to ensure the Federal Sports Minister is requested to initiate an Independent and full review of Triathlon Australia.

Triathlon in Australia needs saving from Triathlon Australia.  

It is time Triathlon Australia were held accountable for what they have done to triathlon in Australia. 

Regards,

Emma Carney 

Annexure 1

• In 2019/20 TA Grants revenue was $4,729,793 (73% of total TA income)

• In 2020/21 TA Grants revenue was $4,158,518 (75.9% off total TA income). In last year’s Annual Report, the Financial Statements were incomplete and following the transactions was not possible. What is not known – yet – is if TA will present incomplete Financial Statements again in the 2020/21 Annual Report as it did in the 2019/2020 Annual Report.

• The two figures of Grants revenue were reported in the Segment Reporting Schedule (page 25) of the 2021 TA Financial Statements.

• The Total Income for both the 2019/20 and 2020/21 was described in the Segment Reporting schedule as both Revenue and Total Income in the Statement of Comprehensive Income (page 10 of the 2021 Financial Statements).

• The ‘Revenue’ refers to note 2 of the Financial Statements (page 19 2021 TA Financial Accounts), which shows different numbers, described as follows:

• The Statement of Cash Flows (page 13 of the 2021 Financial Accounts) reveals

Members ask – who are the TA ‘Customers’?

• These Customers are making such large payments amounting to many millions of dollars annually to TA?

• Reference to note (i) Revenue (page 17 of the TA Financial Statements) is not particularly clear on the subject, but the entries in the TA Financial statements start to become clear (possibly).

• Section (i) is a very wordy section, referring to accounting standard AASB15. On review, AASB15 applies to all contracts with customers, except for contracts covered by other Standards (Typical TA – murkier by the minute), it is then suggested to google AASB15 for anyone who is still awake.

• Section (h), makes a reference to the AIS? Grants, stating: ‘…Triathlon Australia Limited receives reciprocal contributions from Government and other parties for no or a nominal value…’

What is not clear, if TA is receiving contributions for no or nominal value then the ‘contribution is either a gift (Grant) or a Loan.  It is not a Loan so, it must be a Grant, which in section (h), noted above is described as a ‘reciprocal contribution’.  

Essentially the explanation of revenue, in typical TA fashion, does not explain who ‘customers’ are.  What is clear however, is the size of the receipts from customers suggests the receipts are from the AIS.  

What members find unclear is why.

·       $6.5 Million receipts by TA in 2020/21 and $5.5 million in receipts in 2019/20 is recorded as receipts from customers when Grants revenue/income reported in the TA Financial Statements (also presumably from AIS) was $3.78 million and $4.48.

When trying to decipher this from the 2021 TA Financial Accounts, Part of the (i) Revenue explanation included as part of the TA Financial Statements is as follows:           

‘...Revenue from the sale of goods is recognised upon the delivery of goods to customers..’  BUT Section (h) has stated grants received (non-reciprocal contributions) by TA for ‘…no or nominal value…’. 

Why does TA not explain where ‘customers’ enter into the picture?                            

‘Grants include financial support and assistance provided by the Government agencies together with the Government COVID-19 pandemic stimulus payments.  Grant revenue is recognised in the statement of comprehensive income when the entity obtains control of the granting it is probable that the economic benefit gained from the grant will flow to the entity and the amount of the grant can be measured reliably.’

‘If conditions are attached to the grant which must be satisfied before it is eligible to receive the contribution, the recognition of the grants as revenue will be deferred until those conditions are satisfied.’

‘When grant revenue is received whereby the entity incurs an obligation to deliver economic value directly back to the contributor, this is considered a reciprocal transaction and the grant revenue is recognised in the statement of financial position as a liability until the service has been delivered to the contributor, otherwise the grant is recognised as income on receipt… ‘

That explanation of revenue seems to confirm the large sums of Money reported in the Statement of cash flows were substantially from the AIS and would explain the very large cash ($3,042,582) that TA is holding in Bank account(s) refer note 4, page 19 and Term Deposits ($4.27 million), refer note 5, page 19.  

The other side of the transaction is included as part of Current Liabilities, Trade and other payables, refer note 9, page21.  The heading Unearned Revenues ($3,614,010) would seem to be the prepayment at balance date (30 June 2021) that AIS has made to TA.

What is unclear is 

·       Why the Grants paid in advance to TA by the AIS were so large?

·       Why they were pre-paid? 

·       Why the TA Financial statements did not state in simple terms that the large cash amounts of more than $5.7 million were substantially prepayments of Government grants to TA and explain the reasons why they were prepaid?

Clearly the AIS and TA have a very close relationship and it seems from the Note 9 that the review of and the drawdown of prepayments by TA is agreed by both parties at the time of drawdown of the prepayment.

With that close working relationship it is inappropriate that a review of TA would be undertaken by a project Group consisting of AIS and TA staff members as they would be, in essence confirming what both parties had agreed throughout the year (and presumably earlier years).

25 October 2021

Open Letter Triathlon Australia Board Directors

Dear Triathlon Australia Board Directors,

Triathlon Australia Board Directors.

President: Michelle Cooper

Vice-President: Stuart Corbishley

Natalie Edwards

Nicole Donegan

Alex Gosman

David Tucker

Marlene Elliott

Via: Email, Triathlon Australia President to be distributed to Directors.

All State and Territory Triathlon Associations (STTA’s) 

I write on behalf of concerned Triathlon Australia (TA) members (those that are left after more than 25% of members have walked away).

The 2021 Triathlon Australia Financial Statements raise more questions than answers.  Far too many to put into one open letter.  Members will ask many questions over the next few weeks and as TA Board Directors, who have so far ignored over 50 open questions, members assume you will all continue to remain silent and refuse to respond, while continuing to make motherhood statement along the lines that TA complies with all standards, governance requirements, etc. 

This is all very well, but members are demanding each and every one of you take your legal, professional and moral obligations seriously in your very privileged positions at TA.  What you are all doing is collectively failing to both realise and understand that TA only exists because of athletes and members.  Without them, there would be no TA.  

What is also absolutely vital all TA Board Directors understand, is that while you may all look down on athletes and members as a single group, each and every individual athlete and member is experiencing your disregard daily.  Athletes have one chance in a career that has a finite time limit.  You are wasting this window of opportunity they have by overseeing a toxic culture in a High Performance program that is destroying their ability to perform to their best. You are overseeing a culture that is ruining their careers.  Young athletes are being driven out of the sport by a complete lack of regard for their care. This is killing the sports future. You are also overseeing a culture that is forcing members away from a sport which was once growing rapidly.  A sport that once inspired a nation. 

You all should be ashamed of your involvement in the absolute decline of our once great Sport.  

This is all so clearly illustrated in the TA 2021 Financial statements.  Once again, TA has reported declining membership.  In 2020/21 TA membership fell by another by 6.1% to 15,874.  

TA membership was 21,592 in 2015/16 and now sits at 15,874 - that is a decline in membership of 26.5% and 5,718 previously loyal members have been lost to the sport of triathlon.  

More than one quarter of all TA members have chosen to walk away from Triathlon.  

This decline is staggering.  This represents a decline in all years 2016/17 to 2020/21 inclusive of more than 5% every year.  The decline of 6.1% in the year just ended was only the third largest decline, so presumably TA will make the claim of being successful because the decline in membership was a lower rate of decline than in 2016/17 and 2017/18.  

Members walk away from TA for a variety of reasons, but when they walk away every year the overriding reason is because they do not have faith in TA to run the sport of Triathlon, there is no benefit of being a member, there is inspiration provided to become a member or they have lost interest.  Interestingly, even a TA Board member, Alex Gosman has stated in his CV on the TA website that he ‘... has been an avid ‘surburban’ triathlete for the past 30 years, although he is now more focused on ocean swimming…’.  Great - there is a TA Director stating he is losing or has lost interest in Triathlon.  

The decline in membership has implications in many ways, including:

• Lower income to TA though membership fees.

• A smaller number of age groupers competing in triathlon races around the country. The reduced number of participants in races has implications

  • Race organisers struggle to make a profit from staging races

  • Lower participation numbers attracts less sponsorship income to race organisers

  • Race fees rise, leading to less people racing

  • TA membership declines because people are no longer racing.

• It is a downward cycle to oblivion, yet other than make yet another motherhood statement in the discredited TA Strategic Plan, no action is taken to remedy the malaise that exists at TA.

Members ask if the TA Board have determined to what level of membership is the minimum needed to have a functioning organisation?  In other words, what is the minimum number of members needed to prevent the total collapse of TA? 

Has the Board considered the extreme embarrassment to Australian Sport Internationally if an Olympic sport fails, particularly when just a few years ago Australia was the undisputed World Leader?

The existing TA Board and TA Executives have all presided over the very alarming decline in membership.  This is shown in the following table - 

The lack of accountability of the problems at TA by the Board Executive is of a further concern.

On 6 October, TA released an Open Letter to Triathlon Members and the Triathlon Community.  The full member response can be found here - https://www.emmacarney.com/membersresponse, . Unfortunately, the letter did little to respond to member questions.

Contained in this letter was an accusation that ‘...a former elite triathlete…’ was running a ‘... concerted campaign to destabilise Triathlon Australia,..’

Members understand TA Board Directors are entitled to express their opinion, but, when every single Board Director and the CEO have presided over a decline in TA membership during their term of office it would be more logical that it is in fact the TA Board Directors and the TA CEO who are responsible for ‘destabilising TA’.  

As a collective group as the TA Board Directors, you have all overseen (along with the TA CEO) – 

• More than 26.5% decline in TA membership numbers 

• Athletes safeguarding concerns

• Athletes unable to perform to their potential due to the appalling culture, and abuse of power from TA HP staff, led by the NPD

• A decline in Junior pathways and development to the extent they do not exist – therefore a dire future of the HP program

• A decline in a national race series for elite, age group, para and participation members

• A lack of transparency in governance

• A lack of integrity in governance

• A culture of bullying in the sport

• Rising Member Protection complaints and concerns

• No plan or leadership out of this mess TA finds itself in

What is the plan to turn this around?  

How are you – the TA Board Directors going to persuade the lost 5,718 members to return to triathlon? 

What is the plan to ignite the excitement and desire to want to join the sport of triathlon and revitalise the sport so that it one again us the world’s leading triathlon Nation?

It is quite obvious you have nothing.  There is no leadership at TA, no vision.  Nothing. 

There are 4 Board members due to retire at the 2021 Board meeting Nicole Donegan, Natalie Edwards, David Tucker and Marlene Elliot.  

Members ask each of you – please do NOT nominate for another two year term.  Triathlon in Australia needs saving from Triathlon Australia and you as a TA Board Director are the problem.  TA needs an Independent review, renewal.  TA needs to be run for the benefit of members, athletes, and Australian Sport.  Please take Michelle Cooper, Stuart Corbishley, Alex Gosman and the TA CEO Miles Stewart with you.

You have been all part of the destabilising process you are trying to reflect onto members, who actually care about the future of Triathlon in Australia.

The best way to serve remaining members is to go, go quickly and advise the Federal Sports Minister that an independent review of TA is an urgent priority. 

Triathlon in Australia needs saving from the Triathlon Australia Board Directors and the TA Executive.  

Regards

Emma Carney

On 18 October anOpen letter was sent the the Triathlon Australia National performance Director asking him to resign.

18 October

Open Letter – Triathlon Australia National Performance Director

Dear Justin,

Via Email 

To Michelle Cooper Triathlon Australia President

CC State and Territory Triathlon Association 

To be Distributed to 

Triathlon Australia Board of Directors

Triathlon Australia High Performance Key Staff listed on Website

I write on behalf of Australian athletes, coaches and concerned members of Triathlon Australia (TA).

In June 2017, Triathlon Australia posted a media release entitled ‘Justin Drew Appointed Triathlon Australia’s new National Performance Director’

In this media release the following statement from TA was made – 

He brings a wealth of experience to the Triathlon High Performance team.  Drew is looking forward to the opportunity to again work in the sport of triathlon and the challenge it brings.

Followed by the following from yourself – 

“The history and medal success that Australia has experienced in triathlon is outstanding and the opportunity remains for our athletes and programs to once again set benchmarks for sport performance globally, 

I believe the sport is in an excellent position to continue moving forward with the short-term focus about maximising the outcomes from the 2018 Commonwealth Games as we prepare for Tokyo 2020.

There is also an immediacy to ensuring we capitalise on the talent and resources the sport has including the appropriate positioning and support of paratriathlon athletes as important contributors to TA’s expected Australia’s Winning Edge outcomes.

I want to see Australians consistently on the top of the medal dais with an increased focus on the daily training environments of our best, and potentially best athletes as well as significant emphasis placed on building relationships throughout the HP network.

I look forward to using all my experience and drive to position the Triathlon Australia High Performance and National Team program as the world leader.

The opportunities in Japan are exciting and I will be utilising my experience there to assist with maximizing medal performances come the Tokyo Games.”

Members were wondering, given you stated at your appointment that the sport of Triathlon was ‘in an excellent position to continue moving forward’. 

• How and why have you managed to completely destroy the sports athlete pathways, athlete development, coaching programs, racing calendar, coaches and athletes? 

• How have you managed to isolate so many athletes and coaches?

• How and why have you managed to create a culture that is lacking in Athlete Safeguarding, yet full of bullying, stand over tactics, and abuse?  

• How and why have you created such an appalling disparity of power of TA over athletes and coaches to the extent that athletes and coaches are unable to perform to their full ability?

• Why have you set about setting up a staff list that is consuming 93% the funding allocation provided to TA from the AIS and Sport Australia for High Performance sport, thereby only allowing 7% at most (because we know staff also incur travel costs and other work costs) to athletes?

• Why are you requiring athletes to sign away their basic human rights through Athlete Agreements you distribute?

• Why do you think in your position that you can make athlete selection and athlete categorisation decisions as you feel, with no transparency and no regard for integrity or ethics?

• Why do you think in your position that you can destroy a High Performance program as dramatically as you have and not be held accountable for this?

• Why have you limited and restricted the ability of athletes to attain starts in World Triathlon events, specifically Continental Cup, World Cup and WTCS despite athlete quotas not filled at these events?

• Where on earth did you come up with the nonsense that restricting athlete’s ability to race and gain international experience is going to develop our athletes?

• Why are Para athletes not properly provided pathways, support and opportunity?

• Why were Para athletes not properly and adequately supported leading into the Tokyo Games, at the games and during the event itself?

• Why is there a match fixing scandal hanging over the sport of Triathlon in Australia?

Justin, you not only have destroyed the sport, but you have also created a massive gender imbalance in the TA HP Program, with less than 20% women involved.  

There are so many athletes and coaches walking away from the sport, our athlete development and pathways are almost dried up.  How does this in any way in align with your statement – 

“I want to see Australians consistently on the top of the medal dais with an increased focus on the daily training environments of our best, and potentially best athletes as well as significant emphasis placed on building relationships throughout the HP network.”

Justin, before you blame the athletes, it is quite obvious your program would have to be the worst run High Performance program in Australian sport.  You and your team, pushing your agenda of bullying, intimidation and abuse of athletes should all be ashamed.  You all seem to think that only the athletes need to be held accountable and any failings are the athletes fault.  The fact is Justin, without the athletes you have no role, nor does your staff.  In reality the athletes should have the power, and the athletes and coaches have had enough.

Triathlon Australia is a National Sporting Organisation, it is not a coaching organisation.  Triathlon Australia’s purpose is to provide support and opportunity to Australian triathletes, not force them into rigid centralised coaching programs that are far from world class.  As the Triathlon Australia NPD you should leave Australia’s talented triathlon coaches and athletes to grow the sport in their home based environment and allow them to perform.  You should be asking them ‘How can I help you?’.  Instead you force athletes from their home programs into a rigid centralised program with a fancy sounding name.  Athletes are forced to either enter this program to make team selection or remain on the ‘outer’ for the rest of their career.

The ‘outer’ is a place where athletes can be further disadvantaged by increased bullying, intimidation, increased requirements to sign agreements of a stricter nature and left be without support or detail with regard to the essentials of travel, team selection, program details and basic level support.

Athletes are so controlled under the current HP program led by you, to simply have sponsor logos on their race kits they must first show any contract up to a certain value for you to approve.  Justin this abuse of power is disgusting, conflicts directly will all workplace laws and you should hang your head in shame.  Do you really think that you have the right to veto an athlete’s personal sponsor and impact on their ability to earn a living?

If members turn attention to your staff, no one can work out what your 19 staff do.  Take the past few months for example.  There were 6 Able Athletes who raced in Tokyo, and 11 who raced at the World Champs, 1 female U23, 2 male U23, 5 Female elite and 3 Male elite.  So, there were 17 athlete starts in total for Australia at the Olympics and World Champs.  Then just a single WTCS race in Hamburg in Sept where Australia entered 2 Male and 4 Female competitors.  There were also 6 Para Athletes in Tokyo, but it is widely understood you didn’t bother to remain in Tokyo to support them.  Only one Para Athlete has continued to travel and race. 

With 19 High Performance staff listed what does everyone do?  

Meanwhile, while the athletes struggle unsupported overseas, back in Australia, there is no high performance race calendar finalised, so must also be far from published.  The next major games are just over 8 months away and the selection policy is a mess.  The Triathlon Australia athlete categorisation is several years out of date (although members did note after their recent complaints some comments have been added alongside names of athlete who have retired.). The Para athletes are so neglected it is appalling.  Athletes – both Able and Para - are overseas with none or inadequate financial support while back in Australia 19 staff are all being well paid on time - for what?

Justin what does your 19 HP staff members do other than impose ridiculous restrictions on athletes and coaches to inhibit performance?

Justin, we go back to another comment at the time of your appointment stating that you

“.. look forward to using all my experience and drive to position the Triathlon Australia High Performance and National Team program as the world leader.”

An athlete recently summed up how you have approached this task rather aptly with the following comment - 

 ‘..he runs a shit program and the world is laughing at us all…’

Justin, please do Australian Sport a favor and resign.   

Regards,

Emma Carney

On 30 September, I (Emma Carney) requested Triathlon Victoria to call on the Member Protection Policy (MPP) to investigate the creation of a meme which could only have been made through privacy leaks from Triathlon Australia - given the content.

As expected, Triathlon Australia and Triathlon Victoria brushed off the request for an investigation, as they do to all MPP complaints.

My reply below (the Triathlon Vic reply below that) and the original letter scroll to 30 September letter below.

15 October

Open Letter – Member Protection Policy investigation request

Dear Triathlon Victoria,

Via Email – 

Grant Cosgriff, Triathlon Victoria CEO

Please distribute this letter to all Triathlon Victoria Board Directors

Thank you for your initial 5 October response to my 'Open Letter - Member Protection Policy investigation request’ of 30 September. It is reassuring to hear that you take member protection seriously and are keen to have my grievance in this particular matter addressed properly.

I note with interest the following paragraph in your letter – 

'The MPP aims to establish a transparent process that strikes a fair balance between complainants and respondents. It sets out Triathlon’s commitment to ensure that every person involved in Triathlon is treated with respect and dignity and protected from Discrimination, Harassment and Abuse. Equally, respondents to a complaint are entitled to be told who makes the complaint, the factual context of the complaint and other relevant factual material. That is a basic principle of natural justice where the respondent must be given an opportunity to respond to specific allegations.'

In the interest of transparency, something I’m sure you’re aware I have been advocating for, please could you detail the exact steps, stages and timeframes of the investigative process you will follow or have conducted so far so I can be assured that the above statement will be held true in this case. I ask for clarification simply due to the lack of transparency within the published MPP around timelines for responses to complaints and investigations other than for the appeals procedure.

You then make the following statement – 

'In regard to your Concern 3 and your complaint generally, I have been informed by Triathlon Australia that the phone number you have referenced as having communicated the meme (page 2 of your correspondence) is not recorded in the membership database, or staff register, and as such the sender is unknown to Triathlon Victoria at this time.'

In pursuance to Section 1.3 of the MPP – 

'1.3 WHO IS BOUND BY THIS POLICY? This Policy binds everyone who is involved in Triathlon including but not only: a) persons appointed or elected to boards, committees and sub-committees b) volunteers c) support personnel d) all Members, including State Associations, Affiliated Clubs, individual members, life members e) any other person involved in Triathlon including but not limited to participants, parents, guardians, spectators, sponsors and licensees and other contracted parties to the full extent possible. This Policy will continue to apply to a person, even after they have stopped their association or employment (subject to this Policy’s terms) with a Triathlon Entity, if disciplinary action against that person has commenced.’

This leads me to question the relevance of your statement and your reason for raising it as it would seem to be at odds with the published MPP?

You then write the following:

'Please address the following questions so that the matter you raise can be properly assessed, and addressed, as per the MPP.

1. Against whom is the complaint being made? (i.e., who will be required to respond to the complaint)

2. Whilst I note the references to bullying in your letter, what is the specific nature of the complaint? (i.e., what has the individual or organisation done that has breached the MPP (Section 1.5 (page 5))'

In respect to question 1: Can I infer from this question, that you are only prepared to investigate an MPP grievance if the instigator is not anonymous? Does it not concern you that privileged information that would only have been known to persons in position of authority (PPA) have either been used to create the supplied meme or provided, in beach of confidentiality, to others to enable the creation of said meme?

For question 2: I would highlight the fact that the meme includes reference to a diagnosable and treatable medical illness in a manner that for those who suffer from it would find derogatory. I’m sure your intention was not this but are you seriously suggesting that in response to the picture that I have supplied, containing potential evidence of a data breach by a PPA as well as non-inclusive language and derogatory use of a mental illness, that I have to clarify which points of Section 5 of your MPP this breaches? Is non-inclusive language and mockery of illness ok in the eyes of Triathlon Victoria and Triathlon Australia?

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and I look forward to seeing you commit to your undertaking of addressing my grievance properly.

Kind regards,

Emma Carney.

10 October 2021

Open Letter to all Triathlon Australia Board Directors

This is an open letter because as part of my apparent TA membership suspension a Lawyer engaged by TA advised me.

 ‘…TA, its Board, staff, STTA boards and staff will not be entering into any further correspondence with you on any matters.  You are requested to cease communication with any and all of the aforementioned groups immediately…’  

On the same day, a separate Lawyer, engaged by TA notified me to 

‘…immediately desist from engaging in further publications…’ and ‘…we are instructed to demand that you immediately cease and desist from any further publications…’.   

In other words, the legal threats to me were - do not say another word or TA and each of the Board members and associated individuals will sue me for defamation.  With regard to having no contact with TA Board Directors, I can see Directors are looking directly at my social media accounts, so they are seeking the information I write from members.  I welcome that, and I thank those TA Board Directors who – while they remain inactive in resigning and also resist in taking action against the problems at TA - they do show an interest to what members have to say.

My final point on the matter is, I understand truth is a defence against defamation action.   

Open Letter to all Triathlon Australia Board Directors

Dear Triathlon Australia Board Executive,

Via Email president@triathlon.org.au to be distributed to TA Board Directors listed below.

Michelle Cooper, TA President

Stuart Corbishley, TA Vice President

Natalie Edwards

Nicole Donegan

Alex Gosman

David Tucker

Marlene Elliott

CC – STTA Executive

Thank you for finally breaking your silence.  Members appreciate you taking the time to speak to them from your privileged positions at Triathlon Australia.  

I note that in your open letter dated 6 October, you make reference to a ‘former elite triathlete (who is also a current member and accredited coach)’.  It is quite obvious you refer to me, Emma Carney. Given this was posted after I received a letter to tell me my membership had been suspended, and as your letter is written from you personally, I am contacting you directly. I write on behalf of Triathlon Australia members.

Members have provided a full response to your 6 October Open letter here - https://www.emmacarney.com/membersresponse

Members would like it known that they appreciate your time as a ‘volunteer’, but also request that you do not hide behind the claim that as a volunteer you are immune from public comment and criticism.  The fact is, in your privileged positions of power, governance decisions and control over the sport of triathlon, your position as a Board Director puts you front and centre of any problems uncovered in the sports decision making. 

According to the constitution of governance of triathlon, it is the Board Directors who have the final decision across the Sport.  All TA members have asked is that all TA Board Directors take their professional, legal and moral obligations seriously.  Members appreciate you are a volunteer, but when decisions you are involved in are destroying athlete’s careers, ruining the sport and now sunk to a new low of questioning the integrity of sporting competition, you really must ask yourself - Should I really be here? Do I want to be a part of this? 

Today, News Corp released that three unnamed and respected triathlon coaches have claimed races scheduled by TA were used to contrive race results for Olympic qualifying spots.  Given the fact that TA has only 5 High Performance coaches listed in its last annual report – then over 50% of TA High Performance coaching staff are aware – and brave enough – to speak out about it. What is concerning, is that the coaches have, to date stayed anonymous, stating investigations are ongoing.  

Would it be more likely the coaches are afraid to disclose their identity because of fear of retribution by TA?  

Contrived race results is a sporting sin.  The pure essence of competition and sporting integrity lies with fair competition, and to manipulate outcomes is a disgusting blemish on our Sport.  For TA to be implicated in this scandal that had a direct impact upon the Tokyo Olympics competition schedule and athlete numbers - the very pinnacle of sport competition where fair play is paramount. It is an awful allegation - and if correct, is a direct failing upon the TA Board Directors, not to mention those TA staff members both directly and indirectly involved.

A TA spokesperson is quoted in the News Corporation newspapers, therefore the conclusion must be that you, as TA Board Members would also have been aware of the accusations.  It is inconceivable that as Board Directors of TA you would be unaware of the allegations by the coaches.  

Members ask - 

·       How long have known of the accusations by coaches? 

·       How long have you been silencing athletes?  

·       What have you done individually and collectively to investigate the matter? 

·       Who, of the TA executives have you questioned on the matter and what conclusions you have reached, both individually and collectively?

If you claim not to know of the accusations of result fixing, as reported by News Corp you would all know that as Directors of TA, you should have been aware, therefore that excuse would not be acceptable.  

However, while you did or should have known, you were aware TA engaged in a social media campaign to try to bully and silence me (Emma Carney), instructed Lawyers to write to me threatening legal action by TA and each Board member and then contradicted this in your Open letter to announce my membership is suspended.  

Members ask – 

·       Was that action of the Board and TA executives a feeble attempt to somehow deflect or prevent today’s media revelation from seeing the light of day?  

·       Was it an attempt to show any athlete, coach, race director or official that if they speak out they will also be silenced?

·       Just what, both collectively and individually have you been doing (not doing)?  

Have you still not realised that all I have been doing is calling for a full independent review of TA.  This is beyond High Performance.  Go ahead with your AIS/Sport Australia review, do a High Performance review.  Look at Tokyo and plan for Paris 2024 and LA2028.  

A High Performance review ignores the real member concerns.  Triathlon Australia is a sporting organisation, a member based organisation and governs the sport in its entirety.

Members want a full independent review of Triathlon Australia which covers, amongst other issues, the matters regarding basic Human Rights, ethical governance, the integrity of Competition, member protection in a sporting organisation and the deep investigation of the culture that rots TA to the core. A High Performance review should be included, to ensure athletes receive support and opportunity, but those individuals involved in the High Performance decision making must also be reviewed, they cannot be on the review panel.

TA should welcome this if there is nothing to hide.

My call is not an isolated call.  It is quite obvious for everyone to see TA is a mess.  Every which way you look TA is underperforming.  

There are so many more damaging allegations, and you would be aware there so many more have been presented by aggrieved members to Sport Integrity Australia.  

Members would like you to know, all TA Board Directors have failed TA members, athletes, coaches, race directors, Australian sport and Australian sporting integrity.  It is long past the time you should have resigned, it is far past the time you should have supported members and requested the Federal Sports Minister initiate a full Independent Review of Triathlon Australia.  

Triathlon does not need the shame and stench of the various claims against TA, the members concerns of TA accusations are extremely serious, yet you, individually and collectively have accused me of ‘…a relentless, unfounded, concerted campaign of destabilisation…’ on your 6 October Open Letter.  You then used the exact same means to spread your open letter, proving your own hypocrisy.

At the very least, you should all stand down, immediately, and request the Federal Minister for Sport immediately instigate a full independent review of TA of all actions and complaints raised by members.  

Regards,

Emma Carney

1 October

Open Letter to Nicole Donegan, Triathlon Australia Board Director

Dear Nicole,

Via Email:
Michelle Cooper, Triathlon Australia President
All State and Territory Triathlon Associations (STTA’s) 

I write on behalf of Triathlon Australia (TA) members.

Members have had a look at your bio on the website, and like that you enjoy triathlons.  Members do too.  Is this the sole reason you attained your position?  Members have also read that you are serving your third term on the TA Board.  Given the continued devastating decline of the sport during your tenure, members suggest you step down.  Members appreciate you are a volunteer, but when decisions you are involved in are destroying athletes careers, you really must ask yourself  - should I really be here?  Do I want to be a part of this?

Members are wondering if you (and your fellow Board Directors) are aware Sport Australia (who are, along with the AIS the major financial contributor to TA) provides TA with a document entitled ‘Governance Principles’.  This document provides Sporting organisations with a guide to helping -

‘…sporting organisations to deliver more positive sport experiences more regularly.’

Members are concerned Triathlon Australia have interpreted this to mean the sport executives and staff are to receive larger salaries, have TA pay for their MBA’s or provide free trips to events.  

The positive Sport experiences Sport Australia is referring to are for MEMBERS not staff.  The positive outcomes are for the Sport itself.

In this detailed document, Sport Australia clearly says GOVERNANCE IS: 

• The ‘brain’—the thinking and monitoring part of an organsiation

• Leadership in terms of purpose, strategy and values

• The structures and processes for decision-making in an organisation

• Ongoing, deliberate and proactive

• A set of checks and balances for managing risks

• A method for evaluating organisational performance

And that GOVERNANCE IS NOT 

• The ‘body’—the doing and running of an organisation

• A recognition of long-term service to a sport

• An organisation’s day-to-day and week-to-week activities

• A secondary, sporadic thing to be done when time permits

• A reactive process when things go wrong

• Box-ticking to receive funding

The document also provides the Governance Principles, did you know there are 9?  They are - 

• Principle 1: The spirit of the game— values-driven culture and behaviours 

• Principle 2: The team—aligned sport through collaborative governance 

• Principle 3: The game plan—a clear vision that informs strategy 

• Principle 4: The players—a diverse board to enable considered decision-making 

• Principle 5: The rulebook—documents that outline duties, powers, roles and responsibilities 

• Principle 6: The playbook—board processes which ensure accountability and transparency 

• Principle 7: The defence—a system which protects the organisation 

• Principle 8: The best and fairest—a system for ensuring integrity 

• Principle 9: The scorecard—embedded systems of internal review to foster continuous improvement

Members are sure you are aware of this document.  The TA President has repeatedly claimed to ‘follow all the Sport Australia Governance requirements.’

Members were wondering then why Triathlon Australia is in such disarray.  Do you all disagree with the document.  After all TA does appear to do a lot of ‘box ticking to receive funding’, which Sport Australia specifically asks TA NOT to do…

Co-existing with the governance mess, the TA High performance program is a failing program providing a culture where athletes of the sport are treated without respect or dignity and are subjected to bullying, discrimination, harassment and abuse.  World Class performances in this culture are becoming increasingly difficult for the athletes.  Opportunities to perform are also being reduced as the funding is allocated into the wrong areas.  Age Group athletes are also over charged and left feeling taken advantage of by their own sport.

While the sport is declining, Government funding provided to triathlon Australia has increased substantially.  The allocation of this funding has increased in the areas of administration and employee benefits with no demonstrable positive outcome in athletic performance.  In fact during this time athletic performance has declined significantly, despite the enormous increase in funding and additional staff numbers.  There has been a growth in money reserves at Triathlon Australia, which raises the question as to the correct allocation of Government Funding and whether this is according to its purpose.

As you are a ‘keen triathlete’, members thought perhaps a focus on athlete concerns may resonate with you.  Some of these include – 

·       The decline of international results.

·       Failing National Performance Director, his staff and program.

·       Triathlon Australia High Performance Program Problems, particularly bullying, standover tactics and stripping of athletes’ basic human rights.

·       An appalling disparity in power of staff over athletes.

·       Funding Trends and Allocation focussing on staff not athletes.

·       Triathlon Australia lack of governance transparency with regard to financial reporting.

·       Athlete Safeguarding Concerns.

·       Triathlon Australia High Performance Program Integrity Concerns.

·       Triathlon Australia High Performance Staff Ethical Concerns.

·       Triathlon Australia Athlete pathway concerns.

·       Triathlon Australia Gender Inequality.

·       Triathlon Australia centralised coaching skill concerns.

·       A lack of racing opportunities for all level of athlete

To be honest Nicole, members are quite sick of the silence from Triathlon Australia.  Sport integrity has now taken over 5 weeks to sift through the complaints.  Members want a full independent review.  Our elite athletes deserve so much better.  Why are they being bullied into signing appalling athlete agreements with clauses that wouldn’t stand up in court anyway?  Why is Triathlon Australia using standover tactics?   Why is money spend on so many ‘experts’ in high performance with such poor results?  Why are age group athletes charged exorbitant fees to race for Australia? Why is the President flown to races and then competes?  Why is TA paying for the CEO to complete an MBA?  

TA is NOT a coaching organisation – it is the custodian of our sport.  TA has a role in providing opportunities and support to its members.  TA is not a junket for the senior staff.

Have you noticed that during your term on the Board that TA is in a far bigger mess than when you started? Does it worry you that members are now deserting TA in droves? Is the lack of transparency in TA financial reports - the information provided to members – a concern to you at all? Do you even care that the High Performance program is a shambles?

Members read on your bio you want to watch the Ironman World Championships in Kona.  Is that because there are so few races in Australia? Why has Triathlon Australia destroyed the racing calendar?  What is the purpose of destroying the most important aspect of opportunity and involvement – the races?

Members do not know what you have achieved after three terms on the board and would like you to resign - and on departing, please call for a full independent review.

Regards,

Emma Carney

30 September

Open Letter – Member Protection Policy investigation request

Dear Triathlon Victoria,

Via Email

Grant Cosgriff, Triathlon Victoria CEO

Please distribute this letter to all Triathlon Victoria Board Directors

I would like to submit a member protection complaint and draw upon the Triathlon Victoria member protection policy (which is the Triathlon Australia Policy) as instructed is the procedure on the Triathlon Victoria website.

As my State Triathlon Association, I request Triathlon Victoria (and Triathlon Australia) fully investigate the creator of this meme, by initiating a member protection investigation according to your stated policies.

Attached to this letter is the meme (page 2) which has details and content that only an individual within Triathlon Australia can provide.  The details are so precise, the individual has to be very close to the TA CEO and TA President or both. Possibly a previous and recently left TA Board Director.

Concerns I have are the following -  

1.     This is a possible data breach. How does the individual know I haven’t let any members submit Triathlon Australia Board Director nominations to Triathlon Australia yet?  This is a blatant data breach and should result in disciplinary action in itself regardless of the content.

2.     This is a member protection issue. Whilst I have publicly stated I cannot be bullied in this fashion, it is still bullying behaviour and in retaliation to my efforts to request an independent review of Triathlon Australia. One action is not equal of the other. Whilst no-one can question my strength and determination, this may not be the same for someone else and if they are prepared to send this, knowing that it was likely to go public, what else are they prepared to say and do to others behind the scenes? I am a fully paid up Triathlon Australia member and should be afforded the same member protections as others and demand as such.

3.     Given the nature of the meme and its bullying nature, is the author in any area of influence within the triathlon community? Do they have access to vulnerable adults or children, do they have any influence in the governance of the sport?  Separate to the first two points, Triathlon Australia need to investigate this to ensure that a person with questionable decision making is not able to exert any influence over any vulnerable members of the community.

If no action is taken then Triathlon Victoria and Triathlon Australia are implicitly endorsing this behaviour and demonstrating that my – and members - comments around the lack of transparency, integrity, bullying and intimidating practices rotting Triathlon Australia and leaking into our STTA’s are true.

Attached Meme below 

Sincerely, 

Emma Carney

Phone number used to communicate meme 0434 894 324.

29 September 2021

Open letter to Miles Stewart, Triathlon Australia CEO

Dear Miles,

Via Email:

Miles Stewart, Triathlon Australia CEO
Michelle Cooper, Triathlon Australia President
All State and Territory Triathlon Associations (STTA’s) 

I write to you on behalf of Triathlon Australia (TA) members.

Members have a number of concerns around TA as an organisation, its bullying culture, lack of transparency, lack of accountability, poor member protection and failing athlete safeguarding.  

Members would like to know what you have achieved over the past 6 years in your role as Triathlon Australia CEO.

Regards,

Emma Carney

28 September 2021

Open letter to Michelle Cooper, Triathlon Australia President

Dear Michelle,

Via Email:
Michelle Cooper, Triathlon Australia President
All State and Territory Triathlon Associations (STTA’s) 

I write to you on behalf of Triathlon Australia (TA) members.

Members have a number of concerns around TA as an organisation, its lack of transparency, accountability, member protection and athlete safeguarding.  As President of TA, it is your role to ensure the sport is overseen with absolute care for its growth now and into the future.  

Members believe you are failing in this role, as are all TA Directors.

Members would like to make the following points and ask you respond – after all that is the ultimate purpose of your role.  

TA currently has a Strategic Plan 2021-2025, with three pillars identified.  Members would like to address each pillar and understand how ‘success’ is measured at TA, because every strategic pillar identified by TA is misaligned with reality.

One of TA’s Strategic Priorities is listed as:

‘Working in Harmony’

 “Working in Harmony, working together through aligned structures, systems and behaviours, to grow an industry-leading national sports business”.

Members are intrigued by the objective of TA‘…to grow an industry leading national sports business…

There are numerous definitions of Industry, but all seem to focus upon the following:   A group of productive enterprises or organizations that produce or supply goods, services, or sources of income. In economics, industries are generally classified as primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary; secondary industries are further classified as heavy and light.

Likewise there are many definitions of Business, but the following is common amongst definitions:   ’ A business is an entity that seeks to profit from a product or service. An entity that seeks to profit is a business, whether or not it succeeds in obtaining profits. The three main categories of business are service, manufacturing, and retail.; 

Or, another definition of business can be: ‘A business is defined as an organization or enterprising entity engaged in commercial, industrial, or professional activities.  The term "business" also refers to the organized efforts and activities of individuals to produce and sell goods and services for profit.’ 

Members would like you, all Board Directors, and TA CEO to know - there is and is no ‘industry’ of TA or around the World.  TA set NOT set up as a business to make a profit or sell a service.  There are no shareholders in TA, there is no distribution of profits or a need to generate large reserves.  There is a need for TA to be financially secure, so that the sport can develop and grow, but reserves larger than are necessary to support the sport of triathlon in Australia are quite unnecessary. 

It is important that the TA Strategic Plan recognises that TA is the custodian of triathlon in Australia for the International Triathlon governing body – World Triathlon.  It is also important that TA needs to acknowledge that without members and athletes there is no need for TA to exist.  In essence therefore the most important people involved in Triathlon in Australia are the members.  It is not possible to grow the sport of triathlon in Australia without increasing the number of members.  It doesn’t appear you understand this very simple principle that applies to TA.  

You have presided over what is the most dramatic decline in TA Membership in the history of TA in Australia, at a time when funding of Triathlon by Sport Australia and the AIS has never been so high.  Losing members is a very clear and very public statement of disharmony.  It is also quite clear from your strategic plan you don’t even understand the significance of this.

To add to the member discontent, another area this ‘Working in Harmony’ strategic pillar is failing dismally. This is with regard to member protection – both athletes and coaches.  Athletes and coaches of all levels, junior, Youth, U23, Elite, Able, Para and Age Group - many have a story to tell of bullying, harassment, neglect and unfair treatment suffered at the hands of TA, especially TA’s CEO and National Performance Director (NPD).  

TA’s NPD is a failure.  With the worst results on record, will the TA National Performance Director be removed?  Is there any accountability?  In failing to hold staff accountable, the entire TA executive is a failure.

You need to resign, the TA Board Directors need to resign, the CEO needs to resign, the HPD needs to resign, the executive need to resign.  You all need to go and new people are needed, people with open minds, people who understand the role and purpose of TA, people who believe in transparency, integrity, do not agree with and will not accept bullying need to be any part of running TA, or in a few years new people will be the founding members of a new national governing body for Australian Triathlon when TA inevitably will be closed down, or quite simply collapse.  

Moving onto the second of 3 pillars, of TA’s Strategic Priorities identified – 

‘Winning when it matters’ - “Performance driven, athlete focussed, optimised and supported programs”

Members are unsure of which strategic pillar is more misaligned with reality, the ‘working in harmony’ or this ‘winning when it matters’.  In fact both are just ‘Motherhood Statements’ containing no substance whatsoever.  They are nothing more that ‘it would be nice if that could ever happen, but really we have no vision for achieving these motherhood statements, no specific timeline for their achievement and what is equally important no plan regarding just how those statements could ever be fulfilled – because we just don’t know how to achieve those dreams.’

Members would like to point out that a country does not suddenly lose talent, but a regime governing a sport can ruin an athletes’ career.  

With this fact in mind, Members have the following suggestions on how TA can provide the support and opportunities to allow athletes to perform again as Australian Athletes can.

• In achieving an effective HP Pathway is to actually have a Pathway.  TA has been employing a Pathway Manager for the last 16 months, when are we going to see a Pathway;

• Simply employing new TA Athlete Pathway Leads around the country will achieve nothing, because the NPD overseeing the entire program is already a failure.  More staff, same leader…same result.  Failure.  Repeat tomorrow what failed today and tomorrow is a guaranteed failure.

• As was noted in the NTA information booklet, circa 2012/13, and referred to previously, investment in Juniors and pre-elite development is critical to future success.  TA cannot continue to ignore its Juniors and expect long term success.

• ·Offer more race opportunities.  Elite Australia athletes are lucky to see perhaps 6 races a season.  Did you know in Europe, between the ETU / Continental Cups, French Grand Prix, German Bundesliga, and each countries’ National Championships, there are over 50 races athletes could choose from in any full season.  All of these races are available for Australian Development athletes to race, BUT TA refuses to fund development athletes, refuses them starts, refuses them development opportunities.  What an absurd approach.  Ignore the future.  Was this designed by the failing NPD and the TA CEO, and then approved by the TA Board Directors?

• How about spending more on athletes and less on staff.  TA’s expenditure of staff is 57% of total expenses, compared with leading countries such as France, GBR and USA who each spend between 13% and 35%.

• Michelle, you are overseeing this train wreck.  You have a privileged role of caring for Triathlon in Australia now and into the future.  What you are currently overseeing is appalling.

Moving onto the third of 3 pillars, of TA’s Strategic Priorities identified - 

‘A sport for everyone’

Making triathlon and multisport easier to access, more relevant and more rewarding for more people of all backgrounds, ages, genders, sexual orientations and ability levels.  

This is yet another Motherhood Statement.

Members ask - What does this mean?  Members did struggle through the accompanying ‘Proof Points’ in the Strategic Plan, but were really left none the wiser.  

Does this statement really mean – ‘A sport for everyone, as long as everyone does what TA says and doesn’t have an opinion on anything?’

Again, members ask - how will TA know when it has achieved this?  What are the measurables in this strategic goal of TA?

Members’ also noticed the Behavioural Framework contained within TA’s strategic plan.  In particular, the framework lists five behaviours that define TA’s character and guide how TA behaves.  I want to draw your attention to 1 particular behaviour – ‘Accountability’

Members are a little tired of the lack of accountability, lack or transparency and lack of integrity shown by TA.  Some examples (and remember this list in not exhaustive) -  

• Slow progress on One-Management Model – what is the current state, and when will members receive details on the structure?  What is the secrecy?

• Declining membership revenue – members are aware TA have restructured memberships to try to boost numbers, because they have been in decline for years.  Will TA report membership numbers and revenue with transparency?

• Accounting and figures lack of transparency.  Audited accounts missing notations and cross reference numbers.  Why is this?  Why the increasing lack of detail of reporting in recent years?

• Increasing staff expenses – 97% of AIS and Sport Australia funding to Staff salaries…Members understand the TA CEO has had his MBA funded by TA, why was over $1.1m spent on travel and accommodation in a lockdown year?  What was the money spent on and for what purpose.

• The Financial Statement included $233, 058 described as ‘Other Expenses’.  Almost a quarter of a million dollars of members funds with no adequate explanation.  Just how does TA spend that much of members funds and not have a reasonable description of what the expenditure related to?

• No clarity to members on roles and responsibilities of TA staff - what do all 18 staff in HP actually do?  Why does the CEO have a PA – is this necessary? Small to medium size sport CEO’s don’t require this.

• Company Secretary failures - why aren’t the by-laws published?

• High performance results – why is the NPD not removed?  He is a failure.  Athletes have voiced their lack of confidence in his failing program.

• Olympic Selections (team and reserve/s) – why was the top ranked female not selected.? Why select older athletes and not allow younger males the experience?

• General administration (including errors in policy documents, website not up to date, media reports patchy and not covering everything for members)

• Athlete agreements stripping all athletes of basic human rights. Widespread athlete abuse, bullying

• TA standing over coaches and bullying their athletes.

• Categorisation - retired athletes still on the list.  Proven athletes not Categorised.  Categorised athletes not racing but being funded. Retired athletes categorised.  Why so few Para athletes supported?  Out of date constantly.

• Lack of communication to members - no feedback on the member survey undertaken 18 months ago

• Not adopting the National Integrity Framework

• Cancelling the Townsville Multi Sport World Championships over a year before the event 

• Appalling member protection policy record

• TA Board Directors failing dismally in their responsibilities of – 

  • Oversight of the development of appropriate policies within which the organisation should operate

  • Appoint and evaluate the performance of the CEO – is this done ever?

  • Engage and communicate with stakeholders in triathlon and broader sport community

  • Identify … risks/threats for triathlon and sport generally

• Apparent ‘reviews’ being planned while no transparency of who has called for the review, no published terms of reference, no commencement date, no complement date, no public announcement, and the review board has the TA CEO, yourself, Board members and a select few handpicked TA supporters.  This type of review is a coverup.

When is the TA Board going to take its legal, professional and moral obligations seriously and actually take an oversight role to keep TA’s CEO and NPD in order, or better still remove them.  It appears they are the cause of much of this disharmony from members?  Is the CEO calling the shots?  Is the bullying staff, coaches and athletes complain of also at the executive level?  Many members are saying ‘the fish rots from the head’.  Are you part of the rot Michelle? Are you causing the rot?

How does the TA executive know when they have achieved their strategic objectives?  There is no way of measuring this.  This vital detail is omitted again.  Again, no accountability.

Michelle, your tenure as TA president will go down as the most appalling in the history of Triathlon in Australia.  That is quite a feat.  If you had any regard for TA, its members and the future of the sport you would resign, and call for a full independent review from the Federal Sports Ministers Office.  Given the absolute failings of the sport of Triathlon under your tenure, the lasting memory your name will only provide to the sport is potentially the only President to be removed from office.  Members are Triathlon Australia, without their support TA and those in positions of leadership are nothing.

Do the honourable thing by the sport of Triathlon and resign.

Sincerely,

Emma Carney

25 September 2021

Open Letter to David Tucker, Triathlon Australia Board Director 

Dear David,

Via Email:
Michelle Cooper, Triathlon Australia President
All State and Territory Triathlon Associations (STTA’s) 

I write on behalf of Triathlon Australia (TA) members.

The skills, knowledge and experience that you can bring to the TA Board of Directors are not readily apparent from your bio on the TA website.  There is the nebulous description of ‘…having held senior sports marketing with Nike in Australia and the UK…', selling Manchester United merchandise and then joining the now defunct and Football Federation Australia as head of commercial, before joining an online sports merchandise business and ‘….forming…’ a ‘…sports consultancy business…’.  All that during a 20 year career working in the sports industry.

Members believe there is no mention of leadership, no mention of strategic thinking and no mention of very much really.  A lot of selling stuff for others, and being told what to think and do… Is this how it is on the TA Board Executive – do what the CEO says, be bullied by the President?

It would be fair to say that anyone can sell Manchester United Football shirts, shorts, caps, socks and the like.  Because – Manchester win, and the club management focus on success both on and off the field.  Just as TA Board Directors should.

Managers note, with your involvement with Football Federation Australia well, this was never particularly successful, has typically struggled to attract valuable sponsors and valuable TV rights (which apparently was your area of expertise at FFA).  When looking for a more revealing bio of your skills and achievements members couldn’t even find a sports consultancy business TCA through a simple google search…puzzling.  

David, what is not clear to members, is 

·       What specific skills you have bought to TA as a Board member?

·       What leadership qualities do you possess that you can then strongly debate with your fellow Board members to effect change?

·       What is your position on advocating for and on behalf of members - do you endorse the bullying culture of TA? 

·       Do you advocate transparency and high integrity on all issues? 

·       Do you believe that 93% of taxpayer funded Government grants provided to TA by the AIS/SA should be spent on the bloated bureaucracy of TA?

·       Do you endorse and approve the failed and broken HP program?

·       Do you believe that it is right there is no National Race Series?  There are no development pathways, juniors remain unsupported and athletes have no opportunities?

·       Do you agree that athlete contracts are written in such a way that to qualify to represent Australia every athlete must sign away all basic human rights and if, for one moment an athlete challenges any decision of TA or the HP Program an athlete can be forced to refund all past TA financial support AND endure punitive punishment such as being forced to engage in community service work?

·       Do you understand that TA only exists because there are members - it is a member based organisation - and if you do - why do you not, as a Board member, challenge the lack of transparency, the bullying, the toxic culture of TA and make sure it is stopped?

You worked for a company, Nike, that since its very beginnings in 1971 always supported the rights of athletes.  It is part of the ethos of Nike, yet you are now a TA Board Director of a member based sporting body that trashes members rights, has disregard for members opinions, will try to financially ruin members who have the temerity to challenge the culture of TA, impose a HP program that is failed and broken on athletes which inhibits their ability to be successful internationally as Australia’s world standing in triathlon continues to decline.  Did you not learn and understand from your time at Nike one of the fundamental reasons for their success was to always support the athletes because without athletes there is no sport, without members there is no TA? 

David the members would like to know what you stand for as a Board member, when, how and what you advocate for them, the members.

You have been silent during the call for an independent review of TA.  When considering your fellow TA Board Directors - Marlene Elliot works for an organisation that embraces regular independent enquiries, Stuart Corbishley is the Principal of a Sports law firm that advises on  ‘…governance and integrity matters…’, Nicole Donegan is the Principal of a strategy business advising on many areas including corporate member satisfaction, client and stakeholder research, corporate governance and strategic planning, but less is known of Alex Gosman other than he is a long term Canberra resident who now prefers Ocean swimming to triathlon and yourself, other than you have spent over 20 years in the sports industry .  

Most of your fellow TA Board members has espoused some fine words, but no demonstrable results are evident to members.  There is no evidence of such fine words from you in your bio – a pity and notable omission.  Nevertheless, it is integrity and accountability members seek, and you all equally lack these qualities.

What the members would like you to do is resign immediately and as you depart request the Federal Sports Minister initiate an independent review of TA.

Members thank you for your time, but your time is well and truly over.   

Regards, 

Emma Carney 

24 September 2021

Open Letter to Alex Gosman, Triathlon Australia Board Director

Dear Alex,

Via Email: 

Michelle Cooper, Triathlon Australia President

All State and Territory Triathlon Associations (STTA’s) 

I write to you on behalf of Triathlon Australia members.

Your bio listed on the TA Website does not reveal very much about why you are a Board member of TA or what specific skills and knowledge you bring to Board of Directors of TA - granted you were once President of TACT for 3 years.  

Members wonder - was your Presidency during the period when the TACT membership peaked at more than 1,000 or was your Presidency during the period of decline in membership more than 17% (which is almost as terrible as the decline in TA Membership of 23% over the same period).

Other than a ‘3 year stint as President of TACT’, all members can obtain from your bio is that you were once an ‘…avid suburban triathlete…’ (whatever that means).  Now you claim you are more interested in Ocean swimming and coaching.  

Members find this change of interest from you very disappointing.  Why does your interest in Triathlon wane during the period you are a Triathlon Australia Board Director? 

Members believe it is very contradictory that you have a decreasing interest in Triathlon, yet remain a Triathlon Australia Board Director all at a time when Triathlon in Australia - 

·       Is losing members at over 5% a year, despite spending a fortune on a new membership portal that is failing to increase member revenue.

·       Has a failing high performance program with regard to international results, athlete safeguarding, pathways, development, support and opportunities, and Para athlete support

·       Is spending 93% of taxpayer grants received from the AIS and SA, provided to develop the sport, on a bloated, inefficient staff list. (Yes, that figure is 93%, which means just a miserable 7% is available for athletes.  That must be a World Record proportion of administration spending and misallocation of the purpose of specific grants – well done).

·       Is in a period when Triathlon Australia has an appalling –

o    Member Protection Policy

o    Culture where athletes are treated with distain and bullied while the High-Performance staff are allowed to submit the athletes to this culture

Your bio also makes reference to 30 years of ‘...extensive industry experience…..including leadership of several industry associations and executive positions...' with two companies, plus being an AFL umpire.  I suggest that many people who have been working 30 years would have similar achievements during their careers, but that does not necessarily make them qualify to be a Board Executive of an Olympic sport assuming the responsibility as custodian of the sport for the duration of their Board membership.

Members believe the specific skills you bring to the Board of TA are not readily evident to provide a reason for your position or appointment.  You are a Director during the worst period of governorship, integrity and results in the history of TA.  

Members would like to know is exactly what are you doing and what contribution are you making to the Board Directors discussions and decisions to effect changes at TA so that it becomes an efficient, focussed NSO, treating all members with respect and support, is athlete centric, no longer accepts the bullying standover culture, and removes the focus from staff to athletes with regard to funding.

The members do not know what you do at TA, have seen no evidence of you effectively working to achieve a positive change and ask that you resign immediately, but before departing request the Federal Sports Minister initiate an independent review of TA.  

Regards,

Emma Carney

23 September 2021

Open Letter to Marlene Elliott, Triathlon Australia Board Director

Dear Marlene,

Via Email: 

Michelle Cooper, Triathlon Australia President

All State and Territory Triathlon Associations (STTA’s) 

VUCA 

I write to you on behalf of Triathlon Australia members.

Members note from your BIO on the TA website that you are an Associate Director with VUCA Trusted Advisors, who are a boutique advisory firm providing governance, strategy, board performance review and executive search services.

Members draw to your attention therefore to the following extracts from the VUCA website, and point out that what your firm advocates as traits of good corporate governance seems to be in complete contrast to the practices of TA.

Statement 1 (found on VUCA’s website):

“Good corporate practice means great boards undertake regular, independent and external reviews of their own performance.”

https://www.vuca.com.au/services/#Board

Member question.  

As the firm at which you are an Associate Director lists this as a characteristic of good corporate practice, can we assume therefore that, as TA will not agree to engaging an independent review.

The AIS is claiming it will review TA.  The AIS and Sport Australia (SA) are not independent – they are the Principal Partners of TA.  The AIS provides significant funding for the triathlon High Performance program. This Sport Australia partnership also provide dedicated funding to develop increased participation opportunities.  Clearly with such a close relationship the AIS/SA are unable to provide an independent review as those organisations are certainly not independent and the results of any review by the AIS will, as you would be well aware, fail to pass any test of governance and integrity and just as important, would fail the pub test.  

If, as members are certain you agree, based upon the ‘Statement 1’ above, where you clearly advocate regular independent and external reviews, why have you not insisted, along with other TA Board members with strong expertise in both governance and integrity that the members call for an independent review be both acknowledged and accepted and requested the Federal Minister for Sport initiate such and independent review forthwith.    

As an aside, members have pointed out the AIS has been recorded as the ‘Principle’ Partner on the TA website. Can you please advise (because members have no voice to do this) to correct the spelling to ‘Principal’ Partner.  Please also ask for members that TA thoroughly edit their website for spelling mistakes, as I am sure VUCA do.  

Statement 2 (found on VUCA’s website):

“To genuinely improve client experience, it is essential you seek client feedback to measure your performance to truly understand your clients, their expectations, challenges and future business needs.  The program (VUCU’s program) will … improve client experience … deepen relationships with stakeholders … increase client retention and growth …”

https://www.vuca.com.au/services/#External

Member question.  

Your organisation runs programs designed to improve client experience, yet TA does not appear to care whatsoever about what its clients (TA members) think.  In fact, TA’s constitution gives no voting rights or voice to its members.  Remember Marlene, without members, TA is nothing.  So Marlene, can you please tell members what the Board and Executive are doing to ‘improve client (member) experience’, what TA is doing to ‘deepen relationships with stakeholders (members)’ and what TA is doing to ensure ‘client retention and growth’, considering the membership numbers have declined materially for each of the last 4 years.  Please let me give you a clue to the first step TA should be taking – treat members with respect at all times. 

Furthermore, members note in its Annual Report for 2013, 2014 and 2015, TA published results of stakeholder satisfaction surveys undertaken presumably to help, as you say, … improve client experience … deepen relationships with stakeholders … increase client retention and growth.  Then, from 2016, no more.  Can you please explain to members why TA no longer sees the need to undertake such surveys, especially considering the importance that you and your own organisation places on improving client experiences?  Is TA not listening to you and VUCA’s advice?  It is interesting to note the TA Annual Reports show that immediately TA stopped listening to in 2016 the membership began to decline.  Can you please also confirm if that was the same year that the current TA CEO commenced in the role. 

 Statement 3 (found on VUCA’s website):

“Boards and individual directors have a vital role to play in continually improving, risk and strategy oversight of their organisation for long term sustainable growth. Critically the role extends to Boards providing ongoing and effective cultural stewardship.”  

So, can you please answer these questions for members Marlene - 

·       How effective would VUCA rate the cultural stewardship TA’s current Board is providing? 

·       What justification can you and the Board provide for overseeing and approving TA’s increase in staff expenses from 18% of total expenses in 2012 to 57% of total expenses in 2020? 

·       Can you please tell members how TA now spending more on staff than it does members will lead to ‘long term sustainable growth’?

Also, if a company’s Board and directors play a vital role in achieving continual growth, then considering the fact that the TA membership numbers have seen constant decline over the previous four years, does that mean TA’s current Board and directors are failing in this area too?  

·       Marlene, do you see a correlation between the decline in membership numbers and the fact TA no longer seeks members’ satisfaction levels?  

·       If you were advising your clients who had experienced a similar decline as this, at what point would your organisation (VUCA) suggest it may be time to let go of those underperforming directors and executives, immediately implement and independent external review and bring about a cultural change?  

Marlene, as does Natalie’s (your fellow Board Director at TA), your BIO appears quite impressive.  So are you actually practicing what your firm preaches and unfortunately being shut down by TA, or is what we see in your BIO all just hot air.

Members would like you and all TA Board Executives to take your legal, professional and moral obligations seriously and step down.  When stepping down make the responsible call for a full independent review of Triathlon Australia through the ministerial office.

Members would like to know why, when you strongly advocate that both:

·       “Good corporate practice means great boards undertake regular, independent and external reviews of their own performance”, 

·       “To genuinely improve client experience, it is essential you seek client feedback to measure your performance to truly understand your clients, their expectations, challenges and future business needs. 

Yet, you continue to be a Board member that does neither.  

Why do you do that?  

Do you engage in robust conversation, putting forward strong arguments and reasons? 

Why are the principles you advocate strongly on the VUCA website not being adopted by the TA Board members?  

You have fellow Board members who are experts in integrity and governance who the members believe would have a similar view as is espoused on the VUCA website.  

Why do you stay on a Board that will either not accept or listen to what you say or you remain silent on, despite your experience? 

Why do you remain silent when members are asking for an independent review of TA?

Why do you not hear and listen to members? 

Marlene, despite the quite inspiring words on the VUCA website actions will always be more effective and telling of any persons commitment to their true beliefs.

Marlene, you have failed the members of TA, it is time to leave, immediately. On the way out please do as you claim is necessary for good corporate practice and request the Sports Minister initiate an independent review of TA and cancel the cosy ‘review by the Principal Partner and major source of funding of TA – the AIS.  

Members believe you and those other Board members of TA that have expertise in Governance and Integrity would have similar views as you and you should join with them in calling for an independent review of TA as the final thing you do before resigning as a TA Board member.

Regards,

Emma Carney

22 September 2021

Open Letter to Stuart Corbishley, Triathlon Australia Vice-President

Dear Stuart,

Via Email: 

Michelle Cooper, Triathlon Australia President

All State and Territory Triathlon Associations (STTA’s) 

I write to you on behalf of Triathlon Australia members.

Members have noticed that your bio on the TA website is impressive, but not as impressive as that on the Corbishley Sports Law website corbishleysportslaw.com.au.  The Corbishley Sports Law website boasts the following - ‘Our Principal’, with

"Stuart is an experienced sports lawyer and administrator who advises state, national and international governing bodies on a range of legal, commercial, governance and integrity matters. Stuart headed up the legal teams at the Delhi 2010 Commonwealth Games and at AFC Asian Cup Australia 2015, and was involved in establishing Cricket Australia’s men’s and women’s Big Bash Leagues, Netball Australia’s Suncorp Super Netball competition and Athletics Australia’s Nitro Athletics”.

What is of particular interest to members of TA, a small organisation compared with some of the impressive sporting bodies you have been associated with, is the statement - 

"Stuart is an experienced sports lawyer and administrator who advises…..on a range of legal, commercial, governance and integrity matters…”

Unfortunately, members note that as Vice President of Triathlon Australia (a position that desperately requires these skills), and ask, just what are you doing to ensure the areas of your speciality skills are being effectively utilised? 

Members are concerned about many issues at TA, that align exactly to your area of expertise and skills, namely legal, commercial and integrity matters.  Your role as a senior Director of TA, your level of engagement and you influence on the TA Board should be significant.  

What troubles so many members - and these should also alarm you, given your expertise - include the following (noting this is not an exhaustive list) -

·       The lack of transparency at TA, 

·       The lack of athlete safeguarding at TA, 

·       The abhorrent and disgraceful neglect of Para athlete pathways and support by TA,

·       The appalling lack of transparency with regard to Athlete Agreements, Selection Policies and Athlete Categorisation at TA,

·       The abuse of power over athletes, the forced loss of athlete human rights and the standover tactics used by HP staff over athletes, (As an expert in governance and integrity matters, members ask surely you cannot condone TA acting in such a manner……surely you cannot?),

·       Obvious Conflicts of Interests with regard to both the President and CEO (and probably others),

·       The lack of member protection at TA, 

·       The appalling bullying of athletes, members, staff and coaches at the hands of TA,

·       The failure of the High Performance (HP) program, in the vital area of athlete pathways, 

·       The failure of the HP program regarding two basic necessities for athletes - support and opportunities at TA, 

·       The failure of the HP program entirely in attaining world class results for the sport of Triathlon,

·       The excessive over expenditure on TA salaries and staff costs, 

·       The absurd financial costs to triathlon Australia such as the high travel costs when the possibility of travel due to a worldwide pandemic was impossible, 

·       The failure of disclosure in the TA financial statements, 

·       The implementation and high cost of a mew membership system which has failed, continued to see a 5% compound reduction in TA membership and revenue and left members overcharged is many instances,

·       The failure of TA to provide a race calendar inclusive of all members,

·       The failure of TA to respond to member concerns,

·       The failure of TA to adequately assess the CEO on a regular basis,

·       The complete failure of TA in the management of the sport with regard to the three strategic pillars identified in the TA Strategic Plan – member growth, member inclusion and World leading, ‘Winning when it matters’ HP program results,

·       The appalling lack of transparency with regard to TA financial statements, the massive overspending, the inability of members to attend the AGM, to vote and be fully informed of decisions being made by TA Executives and Board members, plus so may more issues, all of which you would be well aware in your elevated and lofty position as Vice president….

So many problems and so many more issues where TA are failing members, failing the Sport of Triathlon, failing Australian Sport and failing tax-payer funding.  Surely, a man of your experience, you do understand the importance of your role on the TA Executive Board?

Do you listen to members?  Do you care for Athletes?  

Without both, TA would not exist.  Athletes have no power in the current structure. Members have no say in the current structure.  All policies are written in TA’s favour.  Have you had your leadership hand in approving all this, as the Professional Lawyer on the TA Executive Board?  Have you turned a blind eye to the bullying?

Members and athletes should have a voice, all matters at TA should be transparent to members and athletes at all times and TA should work to the highest integrity levels at all times.  You and the current Board of Directors do not listen to members.  The numbers of members quitting TA every year illustrates you and your fellow Board of Directors do not listen, are not transparent and do not have their interests as a priority in a member’s based organisation.  

Sport and sport organisations continue to grow in Australia, yet TA continues to decline.

Stuart, members demand you apply the same quality of leadership that you have claimed to apply to other sporting organisations so that TA could benefit from all your apparent skills, knowledge and expertise.  Sadly, it seems despite rising to the senior executive role of Vice President at TA, the problems of TA and the disengagement with members because of all the issues previously mentioned it is time for you go.  

Do not tarnish the reputation you have established through your stellar career, instead maintain that reputation by calling for an independent review of TA as you go.  On doing this, you will demonstrate leadership and integrity to all members and the remaining Board members that are silently sitting on their hands endorsing the failed governance practices of TA.  You have a leadership role and you should exercise that for the benefit of all members and for a renewed future of TA.  

Ask yourself a simple question – am I part of the problem or part of the solution.  If you are unsure, remember the more than 5% compound loss of members year by year is the silent vote by past members of their loss of total lack of confidence in the TA Board, individually and collectively, the TA CEO, the TA President and TA senior staff.   Those members have turned their back on you all, may never return when you have finally gone and a restructured triathlon National Federation is in place.

Finally, yourself, the TA President, your fellow Executive Board members, the TA CEO, and leadership staff at TA have all demonstrated a quite amazing ability to disenfranchise both the membership and the athletes.  TA in its present form is beyond being saved.  Your role and those of your fellow Board Executive is one of custodian of the sport of triathlon.  Your time associated with triathlon, as with your fellow Board Executives, President, CEO and staff will be brief, but triathlon will endure, will remain a part of Australian sport forever - as all great Australian sports.   

There are just three possible ways all of you, and those in senior positions will be remembered at TA.  

1. A very small and select few will be remembered for their outstanding contribution to the sport

2.  A larger number will be remembered for really screwing things up and damaging triathlon

3. The vast majority of those custodians will just be forgotten because they were inept, faceless, made no positive contribution and were just a waste of time during their custodianship.

Ask yourself how you would like to be remembered and then act accordingly.

Regards,

Emma Carney 

21 September 2021

Open Letter to Natalie Edwards, Triathlon Australia Board Executive

Dear Natalie,

Via Email: 

Michelle Cooper, Triathlon Australia President

All State and Territory Triathlon Associations (STTA’s) 

Members note in your Bio on the TA website you are a ‘qualified chartered accountant’.  You will no doubt therefore be familiar with the mandatory professional obligations imposed on all Chartered Accountants by the Accounting Professional & Ethical Standards Board (APESB).  If not, members are happy to remind you of some of these requirements, and also raise a few questions concerning your views/compliance with such requirements.

Question regarding financial statements

Requirement 220.4

“When preparing or presenting information, a Member (you Natalie) shall:

R220.4(c) describe clearly the true nature of business transactions or activities, and (d) not omit anything with the intention of rendering the information misleading.”

Requirement 220.7

“When a Member (you Natalie) who intends to rely on the work of others (your reliance on TA reports) the member shall exercise professional judgement to determine what steps to take, if any, in order to fulfil the above responsibilities (to describe clearly the true nature of TA’s business transactions or activities).” 

Members questions therefore of you Natalie are, as a Chartered Accountant who has a professional obligation to comply with the above requirements, what are you doing to ensure TA’s financial statements ‘describe clearly the true nature of business transactions or activities’, and what steps have you taken to ensure TA’s financial statements achieve this.  Whilst you personally may or may not have been involved in the preparation of TA’s accounts, as a director, you are responsible for these accounts.  The buck stops with you and the other TA Board members. 

And, before you say these financial statements are in accordance with the relevant requirements, as we’ve heard the same rhetoric before, the fact that members cannot determine from the financial statements the nature of the funding, including for what purpose it was spent, how much was spent on staff and staff travel, how much was on which particular athletes, etc. TA is wrong, and you are wrong.  TA’s financial statements do NOT ‘describe clearly the true nature of business transactions or activities.’

Question regarding TA’s review by either Sport Australia or the AIS

Natalie, this question is more around your views and actions as a Chartered Accountant to enforce the fundamental concept of independence when it comes to a future review of TA by either the AIS or Sport Australia (SA).

Part 4B of your professional obligations imposed by APES 110 (APES Board) state that:

“The concept of Independence is fundamental to compliance with the principles of integrity and objectivity”…. “There are some situations in which threats can only be addressed by declining or ending the specific Professional Activity”.  

Requirement 900.14

A Firm performing an Assurance engagement shall be independent.

Members comment.  Whilst the AIS or SA may not meet the definition of ‘A Firm’, the principle of this requirement is very much applicable.  Professional regulations state someone reviewing TA should be Independent.  Furthermore, if the person(s) from SA/AIS are also members of one of the three professional accounting bodies, they will not be permitted to review TA as they cannot comply with their professional obligations relating to independence.  

Natalie, members would sure hope therefore that you are strongly advocating for a full INDEPENDENT review because your ‘ethical obligations’ tell you that SA and AIS cannot perform an independent review of TA.

Requirement 920.4

“A Firm (for the sake of this question is SA/AIS) shall not have a close business relationship with an Assurance Client (TA, the recipient of SA/AIS’ review) … unless any Financial Interest is immaterial and the business relationship is insignificant to the client or its management.”

According to SA’s report, it provided TA with $3,647,286 in funding in 2020, representing 56% of TA’s total revenue.  According to TA’s website, the AIS and therefore Sport Australia (SA) is the principal sponsor of TA.  Natalie, how on earth can you, as a Chartered Accountant, feel that the AIS / SA can conduct an independent review of TA?

Before you say SA/AIS does not meet the definition of ‘A Firm’, let me stop you there by agreeing with you.  However, the principle (and Members know you take your ethical responsibilities seriously) remains unchanged.  Natalie, as a Chartered Accountant, members are sure you are well aware of and in support of the professional obligations around Independence, you will be in no doubt that SA/AIS cannot achieve an independent review of TA, and you will be fighting tooth and nail to pressure TA into arranging for a full independent review.

In closing, Members would like to make comment on the various committee’s within TA.

Your expertise as a Chartered accountant would obviously provide you with the skills to chair the Finance, Audit and Financial Risk Committee, overseeing all of the matters noted above.  What is surprising is unlike the normal procedure for any company TA does not list the chair, nor the members of each Board Committee.  Why do you permit this to occur?

There appear to be 4 Board Committees and one, the Equity, Diversity and inclusion advisory Group does not carry the word ‘Committee’.  The subject matter is important, and deserved of a committee.  Why isn’t it used?  The remaining two Committees are Elite Selection committee, which the members understand is chaired by the CEO and the other member is the HPD.  Do you really think the positions of the CEO and HPD makes for a transparent decision making committee? 
The other Committee is the Nomination Committee.  Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain to members the functions and make-up of the Nominations Committee and the make-up of the committee - and also for all TA Committees, after all, the members have a right to know.     

Members also understand the Elite Athlete Group is permitted access to Board Meetings and for the first time this is to occur.  Why has it taken until now for this to occur? Are athletes not important to the TA Board of Directors?

Members would like you and all TA Board Executives to take your legal, professional and moral obligations seriously and step down.  When stepping down make the responsible call for a full independent review of Triathlon Australia through the ministerial office.

Regards,

Emma Carney 

11 September 2021

Open Letter to Triathlon Australia Board of Directors 

Dear Triathlon Australia Board of Directors,

Triathlon Australia – Interested Directors.

President: Michelle Cooper

Vice-President: Stuart Corbishley

Natalie Edwards

Nicole Donegan

Alex Gosman

David Tucker

Marlene Elliott

Via: Email, Triathlon Australia President to be distributed to Directors.

I write on behalf of members, current athletes and individuals concerned about the future of our sport, Triathlon.

I also write to you personally, as a concerned Triathlon Australia (TA) member.  I have been involved in Triathlon in Australia for over 30 years, and never have I seen TA in the deplorable state it is currently in with regard to its governance, transparency, accountability and athlete care.

You all need to step down.  Immediately.  You have all failed dismally.

As a TA director, you all appear to have misunderstood your responsibilities and obligations, some of which include (noting this list is not exhaustive) – 

• Being responsible for the overall governance, management and strategic direction of TA and for delivering accountable corporate performance in accordance with the organisation’s goals and objectives;

• Providing strategic direction to TA and deciding upon the organisation’s strategies and objectives in conjunction with the CEO;

• Monitoring the strategic direction of TA and the attainment of its strategies and objectives in conjunction with the executive;

• Monitoring the operational and financial position and performance of TA;

• Driving TA organisational performance so as to deliver member value benefit and inclusion;

• Ensure a prudential and ethical base to TA’s conduct and activities having regard to the relevant interests of all Members, including all Athletes – Able, Para, U23’s, Youth Juniors and all Age Groups athletes.

• Ensuring Government funding is distributed and allocated in the manner and intention it was provided to TA for;

• Reviewing and approving the organisation’s internal and external compliance and control systems and codes of conduct;

• Ensuring TA’s financial and other reporting mechanisms are designed to result in adequate, accurate and timely information being provided to the Directors (yourself);

• Appointing and, where appropriate, removing the CEO, monitoring other key executive appointments, and planning for executive succession;

• Overseeing and evaluating the performance of the CEO, and through the CEO, receiving reports on the performance of other individuals holding lead roles in the context of TA’s strategies and objectives and their attainment;

• Ensuring that TA’s affairs are conducted with transparency and accountability.

Considering that you – a TA Director - has overseen a decline in Membership, a decline in High Performance results, a decline in a national race series and pathway (providing a lack of development of future athletes) and a loss of sponsors support it seems clear you have not performed in your role.   In this time of decline of the sport, Government funding provided to TA has increased substantially.  The allocation of this funding has increased in the areas of administration and employee benefits with no demonstrable positive outcome in the Sport.  This is simply unacceptable. 

TA is suffering an obvious loss of transparency, a loss of accountability and a decline in the position of Triathlon as a sport in Australia.  This has all take place at a time when Athletes and Staff within Triathlon Australia and the various State and Territory Associations (STTA’s), along with the athletes are putting forward complaints of suffering bullying, intimidation and abuse from TA.

It is quite clear you – a TA Director - has not effectively carried out your duties and responsibilities.  The TA Directors have been silent during the call for an independent review of TA.  Have you been similarly silent during the decline of Triathlon in Australia? While membership has declined?  While Staff salaries have increased to more than 52% of TA’s revenue? Why are you allowing an obvious growth in staffing costs, causing TA to divert valuable resources from members and athletes?  The disgusting lack of support for Para athletes should have you ashamed in itself.  How do you allow this to not only take place, but continue to take place?

What have you been doing in your Director position at TA? 

Where is the leadership? 

Where is the integrity?

Where is the conscience of TA?  

Where is the care?  

Why are you silent in not supporting a call for an independent review?  

Does the Board have no idea what is happening to TA? 

The questions from members are endless.  You can find list of questions from members here

·      https://www.emmacarney.com/ta-questions  

This list grows by one question every day.  

Members have asked for the date and corresponding minutes for the upcoming TA AGM.  TA have fallen silent.  If you believe TA do not need transparency for members, look how GBR Triathlon conduct themselves as a comparison here – 

·      https://www.britishtriathlon.org/about-us/governance/board-meeting-minutes/meetings-and-minutes

World Triathlon also provide this transparency of governance.

Why on earth do TA Directors not require this transparency for members?  

What is there to hide?

In Australia, STTA’s apparently are to be notified by TA when the TA AGM is, then provide notice to its members.  Members then have 21 days to respond to their STTA, assuming their STTA’s will actually notify their members.  The STTA then is to act according to its members but do they?  Can they?..  because, remember many have complained of bullying from TA…can STTA’s actually respond to its members?

Are all TA Directors endorsing the current state of Triathlon in Australia? 

Whatever the reason for the silence from the Board, it is unacceptable.  

You – the current individuals occupying any position as a Director of TA - should resign because you either failed to perform your functions, both individually and collectively or, because you are all just unaware.  

Either way, you have all failed TA members, athletes, supporters, the Australian tax payer and Australian Sport.  You have all failed in the performance of your duties and responsibilities and should resign forthwith.  

The departing TA Directors should request Sport Australia and the AIS appoint a temporary independent and skilled Chair and Board of Directors to review and reorganise, refocus and re-establish a strategic plan for a better and positive future for Triathlon in Australia and all of its members so that Triathlon can operate in a fully transparent manner at all times.

Members thank you for your time, but your time is over.

Regards,

Emma Carney

6 September 2021 

September 6, 2021

Open Letter

Dear Triathlon Australia, Sport Australia and Australian Institute of Sport,

Miles Stewart, CEO TA

Michelle Cooper, President TA

Greg Thompson, Auditor TA

Josephine Sukkar, Chair Sport Australia

Peter Conde, CEO AIS

cc. 

Richard Colbeck, Federal Minister for Sport

David Sharpe, Sport Integrity CEO

Via: Email

This question is addressed to each of you due to the fact that Triathlon Australia (TA) will not allow members to debate issues at its AGMs, nor is anyone within TA, Sport Australia or the AIS willing to provide transparency.  I was hoping between each of the parties included in this email, someone may be willing to provide a response.

I have copied Sports Minister Richard Colbeck and Sport integrity CEO David Sharpe due to the fact that if my concerns are correct, it is millions of dollars of Australian taxpayer funds, and the allocation of such, that Australians have a right to know whether such is being spent correctly and equitably.  I believe Minister Colbeck is providing Australian Sport great support through federal government funding. However, I also hold very grave fears should National Federations such as Triathlon Australia be allocating funds inappropriately, and unchecked by those distributing and overseeing the programs the funding supports.  Despite the fact that TA is required to review their governance by Sport Australia, this process appears somewhat useless.  TA, in submitting any self-reviewed information to Sport Australia, does just that.  This information is not checked or even reviewed by Sport Australia – just accepted.  Where on earth is the accountability in that?

The purpose of this correspondence is to attempt to ascertain just how TA is spending our taxpayer funds, provided to TA in the form of Sport Australia Grants, and whether this funding is being allocated for the purpose it was obtained, and/or in an equitable manner.  If my concerns, outlined below, are correct, it would appear one of the three of your organisations may appear to have some questions to answer.  

I have obtained records of Sport Australia funding provided to TA from 2012 to 2021 (from Sport Australia’s website) which shows an increase from $1,850,000 in 2012 to $4,632,954 in 2021 (250% increase).  These figures do not include some of the smaller funding amounts for which I was not able to determine their purpose.

I have also obtained records from TA’s audited financial statements which shows the total wages/staff expense for this same period increasing from $636,668 to $3,386,116 (532% increase).  Note this wages/staff expense figure is for the 2020 financial year as TA’s audited financial statements for 2021 have not been released as of today’s date.

As I am not entirely sure how the Sport Australia funding process works, I can only assume it works similar to any other Commonwealth Funding.  Please forgive me if my assumptions are incorrect, and I welcome your clarification and correction.

If TA was to receive the same funding in the form of a Commonwealth Funding Grant, it would be required to apply to the Commonwealth, and in this application it would state the purpose of the funding would be to fund ‘X’, or to fund ‘X, Y and Z’.  If successful, the Commonwealth Grant(s) would be provided on the basis that TA provided:

(a) An audited acquittal report in which the independent auditor would provide assurance that TA had spent the money for the purpose it said it would in the Grant application; and

(b) An audited financial report to provide assurance that TA’s financial statements are in accordance with the relevant criteria, which for a Large Public Company Limited by Guarantee, would be compliance with the relevant Australia Accounting Standards (AASB). 

After reviewing the 2020 financial statements it is questionable as to whether the financial statements are actually in accordance with AASBs, but with the limited access I have to the underlying financial information, that is something that cannot be determined.  The main purpose of this correspondence is however to discuss point (a) and whether the Sport Australia funding works in a similar way that a Commonwealth Grant funding arrangement would work, and to have a number of questions answered. 

Therefore let’s assume TA submits an application for $3.65 million dollars, which is approximately how much funding Sport Australia provided in 2020 (I note it increased by close to $1m in 2021).  I imagine TA would have to state the purpose of the funding will be to provide ‘X’, or ‘X, Y and Z’ services.

Questions (These are hypothetical questions.  I am not making accusations, rather asking questions)

1. What is ‘X’?  What are the purposes for which TA sought Sport Australia funding?  Hypothetically, if ‘X’ was for the purpose of providing nearly $3.4m in TA wages, does Sport Australia question this, asking why so much Australian Taxpayer funding is being spent on Staff, with very little going to the actual athletes (in referring to Athletes I am referring to both Able and Para)?    Especially considering TA’s wages expense increased by 532% from $636,668 in 2012 to $3,386,116 in 2020.  Especially considering TA’s wages expense represents 52% of TA’s total income across all income sources (British Triathlon 28% and Triathlon NZ 33%).  

When auditing TA for the purpose of its acquittal report, it may likely be the auditor will find the money was spent on wages, and therefore TA may possibly have met its contractual obligations under the Sport Australia funding arrangement.   i.e. TA said it would spend $3.4m on wages, and that’s exactly what it did.  But then that throws the spotlight on Sport Australia.  Why would Sport Australia provide $3.65m to TA if TA stated the purpose would be to fund Staff, with none if it going to athletes?

If this is in fact the case, Sport Australia surely must be held jointly accountable along with TA for a possible inequitable use of Australian taxpayer funding, and for not acting in the best interest of Triathlon Australia members.

2. Another possibility is that when TA applied for $3.65m in funding from Sport Australia TA said it would be used for the purpose of ‘X, Y and Z’.  If Sport Australia was satisfied that ‘X, Y and Z’ purposes represented a fair and equitable allocation of Australia taxpayer funds, across the appropriate group of TA members, and therefore approved the funding, what were these purposes?  These purposes are not known to members.  However, what is clear, is that the level of assistance our athletes receive has diminished materially over the last 9 years.  

Also, if we assume purposes ‘X, Y and Z’ include assistance to athletes, such as assistance with National and International travel costs to represent Australia at the highest level, coaching costs, sports science testing, physiotherapy, dietician costs etc. plus other athlete focussed expenditure, then why has the level of assistance in these areas dropped significantly over the years, and why has this not been detected.   

If, in its application to Sport Australia, TA stated the purpose was to provide assistance to our HP athletes, did this application specify what assistance TA would actually provide athletes?  Did TA specify which HP athletes would receive assistance, and what assistance would they receive?  Did the application make reference to Elite Junior and U23 athletes, or just the elite seniors?  Or was the purpose of the application left so broad that it would be impossible to fail an audit?  If the application simply stated the funding would be spent to assist elite athletes, TA will then just argue by employing 18 staff in the HP program (up from 6 in 2012) will assist HP athletes.

To conclude, it is unfortunate that TA is not transparent with regard to its spending of Australian taxpayer and Triathlon Australia membership funds.  Members are not invited by TA to attend TA’s AGM, rather the constitution requires each STTA (State Body) to notify members of the AGM.  TA abdicates its responsibility for this communication to the state bodies.   TA’s constitution does not allow individual members to vote or debate at TA’s AGM.  

To date TA has refused to provide responses, neither in private nor public to these questions.  What I, and many other members are after is for someone, whether that be TA, Sport Australia, the AIS to be more transparent and accountable.   By reaching out to each of you it is hoped this hope may be achieved.  It is also hope that by scrutinising TA’s spending of Australian taxpayer funding may help ensure more funding is actually spent on the athletes, than TA staff.

I am available to discuss any of the above, my contact details are provided on my email.

Kind regards,

Emma Carney