Incident Report: Super Netball Grand Final Performer Selection

Executive Summary

A significant controversy emerged following the Super Netball grand final, where a selected musical performer was revealed to have a prior history of domestic violence charges. This incident has been identified as a serious misalignment with the sport’s values and its public commitment to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The Australian Netball Players’ Association (ANPA) expressed profound disappointment, citing the event as undermining their extensive advocacy work. Netball Australia has acknowledged a failure in its vetting process and committed to strengthening its institutional protocols.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goal 5: Gender Equality

Contradiction of Efforts to Eliminate Violence Against Women (Target 5.2)

The selection of an individual with a history of domestic violence charges to perform at a premier women’s sporting event directly contradicts the principles of SDG 5, which aims to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. Specifically, it conflicts with Target 5.2: “Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres.”

The ANPA stated the decision caused “genuine hurt among the playing group” and undermined their consistent efforts to champion this goal. Player-led initiatives to support SDG 5 include:

• Wearing purple armbands during matches to raise awareness of violence against women.
• Producing advocacy videos reaffirming their commitment to being part of the solution.
• Developing further initiatives aimed at creating a safer society for all.

Institutional Accountability and SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Breakdown in Vetting Protocols (Target 16.6)

The incident highlights a critical failure in institutional governance, a key focus of SDG 16. Netball Australia’s admission of a procedural breakdown points to a lack of “effective, accountable and transparent institutions,” as called for in Target 16.6. The sequence of the oversight was as follows:

1. Netball Australia engaged a third-party agency, Universal Music, to supply entertainment talent.
2. The performer, Siala Robson, was selected for the halftime show.
3. Netball Australia relied solely on the agency for background checks, a process that proved insufficient.
4. The governing body was unaware of the performer’s legal history until after the grand final match.

Commitment to Strengthening Institutional Processes

In response, Netball Australia has taken responsibility for the “serious oversight.” The organisation issued a statement reaffirming its “zero-tolerance position on violence” and its active campaigning against domestic violence. It has committed to immediately strengthening its event risk management protocols to ensure institutional accountability and prevent a recurrence, thereby working to better align its operations with the principles of SDG 16.

Legal and Partnership Context

Details of the Charges

The performer, Siala Robson, appeared in a Queensland court in 2021, where the following occurred:

• Charges: Two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm in a public place while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance.
• Plea: Guilty.
• Outcome: No conviction was recorded. Robson was ordered to pay $1,000 in compensation and complete a 60-hour community service order.

Partnership Failures (SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals)

This incident also serves as a case study in the challenges of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The partnership between Netball Australia and its third-party talent supplier failed to ensure that all activities were aligned with the sport’s core values and social responsibilities. The reliance on the partner without sufficient oversight demonstrates a weakness in the collaborative framework. Future protocols will require a more robust and shared commitment to due diligence from all partners to ensure that public-facing events uphold the standards expected by the athletes and the community, particularly concerning critical social issues like gender-based violence.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  The article directly addresses issues of “violence against women” and “domestic violence,” which are central to achieving gender equality. The players’ union explicitly states its “strong and ongoing commitment to ending domestic violence in Australia” and mentions a campaign to “raise awareness of violence against women.”

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This goal is relevant through its focus on reducing violence and promoting accountable institutions. The article discusses an individual being found guilty of “assault occasioning bodily harm,” which relates to reducing violence. Furthermore, it highlights an institutional failure by Netball Australia, which admitted to a “serious oversight” and committed to strengthening its “event risk management protocols,” thereby addressing the need for accountable and effective institutions.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The article illustrates the importance of effective partnerships. Netball Australia’s statement that it “relied on the third-party agency we partnered with to supply the talent” and that “This was not sufficient” points to a breakdown in a public-private or civil society partnership. The incident underscores the need for robust and responsible collaboration to uphold shared values.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres. The article’s core theme is the response to an individual’s past conviction for “domestic violence charges” and “assault occasioning bodily harm in a public place.” The players’ union and Netball Australia both reaffirm their commitment to ending “violence against women” and “domestic violence,” directly aligning with this target.

2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The players’ advocacy and initiatives are aimed at “making Australia safer for all,” which is a direct contribution to the reduction of violence as called for in this target. The specific mention of “assault” and “violence” connects the article’s content to this goal.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. Netball Australia’s public admission of a “serious oversight” and its pledge to “immediately strengthen its event risk management protocols” is a direct example of an institution taking responsibility for its failures and working to become more accountable and effective.

3. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships. The article provides a case study of a partnership that failed in its due diligence. Netball Australia, a sporting body, partnered with Universal Music, a private entity, and the resulting oversight demonstrates the need for more effective partnership protocols to ensure that the actions of all partners align with the core values of the primary organization.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for SDG 5

   • The article implies indicators related to the prevalence of violence against women (Indicator 5.2.1). While it does not provide statistics, the mention of “domestic violence charges” and “assault occasioning bodily harm” refers to the types of incidents that this indicator measures. The players’ campaigns to “raise awareness” are aimed at reducing the prevalence of such violence.

2. Indicators for SDG 16

   • The article implies indicators related to the prevalence of physical violence (Indicator 16.1.3). The court case involving “assault” is a specific instance of the physical violence that this indicator tracks.
   • Progress towards accountable institutions (Target 16.6) is qualitatively indicated by Netball Australia’s public statement accepting responsibility and its concrete commitment to “strengthen its event risk management protocols.” This action serves as a measure of institutional accountability.

3. Indicators for SDG 17

   • The effectiveness of partnerships (Target 17.17) is qualitatively indicated. The “serious oversight” resulting from relying on a “third-party agency” serves as a negative indicator of partnership effectiveness. Conversely, Netball Australia’s decision to review and strengthen its protocols is a positive indicator of progress toward building more robust and responsible partnerships in the future.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: theguardian.com