ParlInfo - Expenditure - House of Representatives Standing Committee - The way we p(l)ay: Commonwealth assistance for sport and recreation - Report, dated 30 November 1983, together with copies of minutes of proceedings, transcript of evidence and submissions authorised for publication [Report only printed] (Print Version)

Expenditure - House of Representatives Standing Committee - The way we p(l)ay: Commonwealth assistance for sport and recreation - Report, dated 30 November 1983, together with copies of minutes of proceedings, transcript of evidence and submissions authorised for publication [Report only printed]

The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia

THE WAY WE P(L)AY

Commonwealth Assistance for Sport and Recreation

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure

November 1983

Presented and ordered to be printed 8 December 1983

Parliamentary Paper No. 311/1983

The Way We P(l)ay:

Commonwealth Assistance for Sport and Recreation

Report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure

November 1983

Sport

Recreation

Individualized

Non-Sport Recreation

Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia

THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

THE WAY WE P(L)AY:

Commonwealth Assistance for Sport and Recreation

Report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure

November 1983

Australian Government Publishing Service Canberra 1983

Â© Commonwealth of Australia

Printed by C. J. THOMPSON , Commonwealth Government Printer, Canber ra

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Chairman: Deputy Chairman: Members:

Secretary: Inquiry Secretary: Specialist Adviser:

Mr L.B. McLeay, M.P. Mr S.A. Lusher, M.P. Mr P.J. Baldwin, M.P. Mr R.J. Brown, M.P. Mr R. V. Free, M.P.

Mr B.J. Goodluck, M.P. Mrs R.J. Kelly, M.P.l Mr A.A. Morris, M.P. Mr J.G. Mountford, M.P. Mr C.W. Tuckey, M.P. Hon. I.B.C. M.P.

Mr M. E. Aldons

Mr D.E. Worthy Mrs S.M. Harlow

1 Nominee of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, who, in accordance with Clause (2) of the Resolution of Appointment, is a member of the Expenditure Committee.

(iii)

Foreword

Although an inquiry on Commonwealth expenditure on

sport and recreation was commenced by the Expenditure Committee in late 1982, a number of factors, including a Federal

Parliamentary election, prevented the inquiry from beginning i n earnest until June 1983. Within six months much has been

achieved: the Committee has considered 170 submissions and spoken to 81 witnesses. In line with its commitment on taking

Parliamentary Committees to the people, the Committee .took

evidence and made inspections in all the States and the Northern Territory.

The Committee is particularly grateful to the

representatives of Commonwealth, State and local government, of sporting and recreational organisations and the individuals who gave so generously of their time and energies to assist in the

inquiry.

As Chairman, I would like to thank my fellow Committee

members who travelled throughout Australia to take evidence. It was difficult, in many instances, for members to fit the

additional work into busy schedules but their commitment has made possible the production of this report in such a short time.

Thanks are also due to the Committee Secretariat: particularly David Worthy, the Sub-committee Secretary, who worked long hours preparing numerous drafts. Peter Ratas, Dianne Morrison,

Jan Burgess and Betty Williams always made themselves available to meet deadlines. The depth and breadth of this report has been enhanced

by the knowledge of the Committee's Specialist Adviser,

Mrs Sue Harlow, whose skill in drawing together the threads of

the evidence and setting a cohesive framework for our ideas made the final shaping of the report so much easier.

I am grateful to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education

Commission for agreeing to second Mrs Harlow to the Committee for three and a half months. However, their decision not to extend

the secondment for a further four weeks hampered the final

deliberations of the Committee and delayed the drafting of the report. Action such as this by Government Departments and

authorities only harm the harmonious relations between the

Parliament and the bureaucracy.

I am most grateful to Mrs Harlow for generously giving

her private time to assist in the final hearings of the

Committee.

( i V)

I believe this report will make an

contribution to the development of a more cohesive

Recreation Policy by governments in Australia.

important Sport and

The report highlights the lack of a coherent recreation policy at the Commonwealth level and makes recommendations that rectify this problem.

Leo McLeay Chairman

(v)

Contents

Forward List of Recommendations

Chapter

1 THE SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE INQUIRY

Scope of the Inquiry Objectives of the Inquiry

2 THE PATTERN OF SPORT AND RECREATION PROVISION AND COMMONWEALTH INVOLVEMENT

The Pattern of Sport and Recreation Provision in Australia The Growth of Commonwealth Involvement

3 THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIFIC COMI-10NWEALTH PROGRAMS IN SPORT AND RECREATION

Page No ( iv) (viii)

11 17

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs 25

National Aboriginal Sports Foundation 27

Sport and Recreation Grants-in-Aid 31

The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism 34

Sports Assistance Programs 34

Sport, Recreation and Fitness Programs 35

Sports Development Program 38

Priority Accorded to Assistance with Administration 40

Special Funding Requirements of Sporting Organisations 42

Incentives for 'Self Help' 45

The Application of Assessment Criteria 46

National Athlete Award Scheme and National Coaching Accreditation Scheme 46

Commonwealth Games - Team Preparation and Participation Costs 47

Australia Games 47

Program of Assistance for Sport and Recreation for Disabled People 48

International Standard Sports Facilities (ISSF) Program 52

Australian Olympic Federation Grants 57

Grants-in-Aid to Life Saving Associations 58

The Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) 61

Sports Studies Course 72

(vi)

Overview of Programs Funded through the Department of Sport,Recreation and Tourism 73

Evaluation of Sport and Recreation Programs 73

National Sports Commission 75

The Depa rtrnent of. Terri tor ies and Local Government 7 8

4 INDIRECT COMMONWEALTH ASSISTANCE TO SPORT AND RECREATION

Measuring the Total Level of Non-Government Activity sources and Forms of Non-Government Assistance The Contributions of Participants

Membership Fees In-Kind Assistance Donations The Public at Large

User Charges Business Revenue Gambling Revenue The Corporate Sector

Commercial Sponsorship Tobacco Company Sponsorship of Sport

5 THE SUCCESS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF OVERALL COMMONWEALTH INVOLVEMENT IN SPORT AND RECREATION

The Success of Commonwealth Sports Assistance The Future Development of Sports Assistance The Question of Recreation Conclusions

Endnotes

Appendices

I Conduct of the Inquiry

II Witnesses

III Submissions IV Exhibits

82 83 84 84 85 88

92 92 93 93

96 96 98

103 106 107

117

119

131

131 133 139 158

(vii)

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Department of Education and Youth Affairs

1. the Commonwealth Schools Commission seek from all schools authorities, both government and non-government, information on the extent to which existing school sport and recreational facilities are used by the outside community and the reasons for any lack of use especially in areas where there is a shortage of sport and recreation facilities,

(Paragraph 1.15)

2. the Commonwealth Schools Commission, in co- operation with the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, undertake or commission an evaluation of Â·

established community access projects. For the purposes of a more thorough-going evaluation, it may be desirable for the Commission to fund a limited number of pilot projects in

selected schools involving, for example, the employment of caretaker/managers for the trial period; (Paragraph 1.15)

3. the Commonwealth Schools Commission, in conjunction with other relevant Commonwealth agencies including the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism and with the co-operation of government and non-government education authorities, actively encourage the adoption of school building concepts and designs which are conducive to community

recreation use. The subject should be placed on the agenda for an early future meeting of the Recreation Ministers' Council.

(Paragraph 1.15)

Department of AbOriginal Affairs

4. all programs of assistance for Aboriginal sport and recreation be brought under the control of single agency, perhaps with the additional

responsibility for Aboriginal art and

(viii)

culture, responsible to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and separate from the Aboriginal Development Commission; (Paragraph 3 . 19)

5. that agency, in consultation with the National Aboriginal Conference and the National Sports Commission, formulate a comprehensive national plan for Aboriginal sport and recreation among whose objectives should be the maximum

participation of local Aboriginal communities and the active involvement of State and local government authorities in a balanced sport and

recreation program; (Paragraph 3.19)

6. as a prerequisite of that plan, a

national survey of the sporting and recreation needs of Aboriginal people be undertaken; (Paragraph 3.19)

7. the agency develop a wider range of

funding options to encourage greater participation of Aboriginal people . in sport and recreation opportunities; (Paragraph 3.19)

Department of Sport. Recreation and Tourism Sports Assistance Programs

8. the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism encourage national sporting organisations seeking assistance to identify in their grant applications the funding requirements of any specialist

bodies they claim to represent and that these be recognised by the Department in grant allocations; (Paragraph 3.31)

9. the Department should organise a series of workshops and/or the production of a handbook aimed at those organisations without full time administrative staff

to be held in State capitals with a view to promoting better program understanding and administration; (Paragraph 3.40)

(ix)

10. the Department should offer approved sporting organisations a rolling four year program for the salaries of national executive directors and

national coaching directors. A recipient organisation would in addition to its cash allocation in any one year, be guaranteed a level of funding for the following three years with the level of funding in the fourth year being decided at the same time as the current year cash allocation. Approved organisations should be offered a guaranteed constant level of assistance for the period 1984-85 to 1987-88;

(Paragraph 3.43)

11. similar four year rolling programs should be extended to approved national sporting organisations for assistance with:

(a) participation in international competition and meetings overseas, and

(b) the staging of international competitions and meetings in Australia; (Paragraph 3.43)

Australia Games

12. before a firm commitment of Commonwealth funding for the Australia Games is entered into, the objectives and scope of the Games be clarified;

(Paragraph 3.55)

Program of Sport and Recreation for Disabled People

13. a larger proportion of funds allocated to the Program of Sport and Recreation for Disabled People should be earmarked to promote the participation of disabled people in mainstream as well as disabled sport and on recreation programs for the disabled;

14.

â¢

(Paragraph 3.57)

the Australian Institute of Sport be encouraged to provide, where practicable, facilities and scholarships

(x)

for disabled athletes to participate in both elite mainstream and elite disabled sport; (Paragraph 3 .58)

15. the National Athlete Award Scheme should be extended so that a proportion of the funds are used to assist promising or outstanding disabled athletes with some of the costs to them of participation in

elite mainstream or elite disabled sports; (Paragraph 3.5 8)

16. all sport and recreation facilities to which the Commonwealth contributes funds for new construction must be fully accessible to disabled people;

(Paragraph 3.5 9)

17. the Commonwealth Government should provide assistance for the staging of the 1988 International Disabled Games should Australia be chosen as the host

country;

(Paragraph 3.59)

18. the membership of the National Committee on Sport and Recreation for the Disabled should include in future one member with experience in working with the

intellectually handicapped; (Paragraph 3.63)

19. the funding arrangements proposed in Recommendations 10 and 11 be extended to cover the Program for Sport and Recreation for the Disabled;

(Paragraph 6.64)

20. in connection with these changes, a series of workshops and/or a booklet should be produced for the recipients of grants under the Program for Sport and Recreation for the Disabled in

conjunction with those proposed in Recommendation 9; (Paragraph 3.64)

International Standard Sporting Facilities Program 21. the scope of the International Standard Sporting Facilities (ISSF) Program should be expanded to include capital

(xi)

assistance for international and national standard sport and recreation facilities equitably and rationally distributed among the States and

regions;

(Paragraph 3 .69)

22. before any monies were allocated under such an expanded program there should be a study to identify what international and national sport and recreation facilities were required in Australia and what were the appropriate locations of such facilities;

(Paragraph 3.69)

23. in line with Recommendation 21, the program funding arrangements should be sufficiently flexible to allow local government authorities and sporting organisations to provide, with State governments, up to fifty per cent or more of project funds;

(Paragraph 3.69)

24. before family leisure centres were given further consideration, a full evaluation of earlier initiatives in this field should be undertaken to define their purpose and to determine their benefits to the local community and the appropriate role of the Commonwealth;

(Paragraph 3.70)

25. the ACT should not be eligible for

assistance under the present or expanded ISSF program while major construction work at the National Sports Centre is in progress;

(Paragraph 3. 71)

Grants to Life Saying Organisations

26. grants-in-aid to life saving organisations be brought under the full control of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism; Â·

(Paragraph 3.84)

27. eligibility for assistance to life saving organisations should be widened to include organisations such as ski patrol and volunteer coastguard organisations;,

(Paragraph 3.84)

(xii)

Australian Institute of Sport

28. the National Training Centre Program should be expanded to give non-resident athletes and teams greater access to the Australian Institute of Sport's

facilities;

(Paragraph 3.94)

29. further decentralisation of team or individual sports from the Australian Institute of Sport should take account of the need for a strong central core in

Canberra;

(Paragraph 3.96)

30. the Commonwealth should establish a program which will meet the cost of an administrator of any newly established State institute of sport for a limited

period of three years; (Paragraph 3.97)

31. a limited number of scholarships similar to those made available at the Australian Institute of Sport should be made available for

(a) athletes of national standing or

potential who participate in sports not catered for by the AIS (b) athletes of national standing or

potential who would qualify for a scholarship at the AIS but who are unable to attend the AIS

and tenable at State institutes of sport or other approved training centres; (Paragraph 3.97)

32. the Australian Institute of Sport should take the initiative in establishing closer links with existing State institutes of sport;

(Paragraph 3.97)

33. the clearinghouse functions currently carried out by the Australian Clearinghouse for Publications in Recreation, Sport and Tourism (ACHPIRST)

should be taken over by the Australian National Library within the next three to five years and should be designated a high priority by the National Library;

(Paragraph 3.98)

(xi ii)

34. during that three to five year period,

the service provided by ACHPIRST should be maintained on a joint Commonwealth/State shared funding basis; (Paragraph 3.98)

35. the sports information collection and dissemination activities of the Australian Institute of Sport should be strengthened and its development

co-ordinated with that at the Australian National Library; (Paragraph 3.98)

36. should the Sports Studies course at the Canberra College of Advanced Education be assessed to be successful, funding for the course should be transferred to

the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission as from the 1985-87 Triennium and administered through the normal tertiary funding machinery;

(Paragraph 3.102)

Departmental Administration

37. all programs funded by the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism should be subjected to regular evaluation; (Paragraph 3.110)

38. where information essential for evaluation is not freely available, provision of this information by the recipient should be made a condition of the provision of the assistance;

(Paragraph 3.110)

National Sports Commjssjon

39. as an interim measure, a Recreation Advisory Council be established responsible to both the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and the Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment and charged with the tasks of

(a) examining the needs of those

recreation activities not included under the sports or arts umbrellas,

(b) identify'ing a role for the

Commonwealth in that field,

(xiv)

(c) advising on appropriate consultative machinery involving the Commonwealth, State and local governments and recreational organisations, and

(d) acting as a focal point for

recreation interests; (Paragraph 3.115)

40. the terms of reference of the National

Sports Commission should include recreational sport as well as elite sport; (Paragraph 3.116)

41. if a National Sports Commission is to be

established, it should have: (a) legislation to define and protect its existence, (b) fixed terms for statutory office

holders,

(d) separate funds to enable it to

carry out its own investigations,

(e) a clear and separate existence from

the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism so that it is not

dependent upon the Department for administrative or research support to carry out its functions,

(f) the requirement that any specialist committees, such as the National Committee for Sport and Recreation for the Disabled should be

subordinate to the Commission rather than separate bodies providing competing or parallel advice;

(Paragraph 3.117)

(xv)

Department of Territories and Local Government

42. Recommendation 25 should be conditional upon satisfactory arrangements being made to guarantee community access to the National Sports Centre after the needs of

the programs for Australian Institute of Sport athletes have been met; (Paragraph 3.121)

Indirect Commonwealth Assistance for Sport and Recreation General

43. grant conditions should continue to ask recipients for evidence of: (a) self help, and

(b)a democratic decision-making process; (Paragraph 4.9)

44. any Commonwealth assistance to sport and recreation should not discourage voluntary effort and organisation; (Paragraph 4.9)

45. the National Sports Commission should, as soon as possible, inquire into the equity of the current revenue raising efforts of assisted sporting organisations bearing in mind the principle that all participants should be expected to make an appropriate contribution towards the cost of their sport whilst mechanisms are developed to ensure that the participation of the economically disadvantaged is not

restricted;

(Paragraph 4.9)

Taxation Concessions

46. the existing sales tax exemptions in the sport and recreation field should not be extended and the current exemptions for schools and universities should be

reviewed for their cost and effectiveness in increasing participation; (Paragraph 4.17)

47. the National Sports Commission should be asked to report on:

(xvi)

(a) the effectiveness of a number of

means, including taxation concessions, of reducing the costs of participation in sport and recreation to people living in

isolated regions, (b) the economic circumstances of professional sportspeople in Australia with a view to

identifying any inequities in present taxation arrangements; (Paragraph 4.17)

48. the extension of the general gift

provision of the Income Tax Assessment Act should not be extended to sporting organisations at the present time; (Paragraph 4.27)

Own Revenue Sources

49. sport and recreation facilities which have received Commonwealth funding assistance should be encouraged to recoup from users operating costs wherever it is feasible;

(Paragraph 4.29)

50. the conditions attaching to grants of financial assistance to sport and recreation organisations should not discourage these organisations from exploiting what opportunities exist for

trading revenue provided such revenue is used to the benefit of sport and recreation; (Paragraph 4.30)

National Sports Lottery Proposal

51. a national sports lottery should not be introduced as either an alternative or as a supplementary form of assistance to sport and recreation;

(Paragraph 4.36)

Commercial Sponsorship

52. commercial sponsorship of sport is acceptable to the extent that it shows a clear benefit to the development of the sport;

(Paragraph 4.42)

(xvii)

General

53. if the Commonwealth Government were to make it a condition of the granting of Commonwealth assistance that sporting organisations not accept tobacco company

sponsorship, the Commonwealth should offer compensation to those sporting organisations which were affected adversely;

(Paragraph 4.54)

54. the Commonwealth Government should not co-sponsor sporting events with tobacco companies; (Paragraph 4.54)

55. the Australian Broacasting Tribunal's draft guidelines with respect to incidental advertising by tobacco companies should be adopted;

(Paragraph 4.54)

56. the National Coaching Accreditation Scheme be expanded to strengthen coaching at the regional and local levels. (Paragraph 5.14)

Recreation

57. the Commonwealth fund a Regional Recreation Catalyst Scheme in co-operation with State, local and regional authorities and with broadly based community organisations and that

this scheme should involve the employment of regional recreation officers; (Paragraph 5.33)

58. the Regional Recreation Catalyst Scheme should have access to an innovation program fund administered by the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism which would make available a limited number of small grants for

innova.tive community recreation purposes with priority being given to disadvantaged areas; (Paragraph 5.33)

(xviii)

59. a worthwhile amount of Commonwealth Government funds provided for recreation purposes should be set aside for use as research grants to be administered by the

Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism; (Paragraph 5.36)

60. the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism should investigate ways of encouraging employers to provide work-place related recreational

opportunities which promote the health and fitness of their employees; Â·

(Paragraph 5.37)

(xix)

CHAPTER 1

The Scope and Objectives of the Inquiry

Scope of the Inquiry

l.l In October 1982 the House of Representatives Standing

Committee on Expenditure agreed to conduct an inquiry into

Commonwealth Youth, Sport and Recreation expenditures with the following terms of reference:

'To review the efficiency and effectiveness of Commonwealth Government expenditure on Youth, Sport and Recreation with specific attention to -

the procedures for the allocation and

distribution of funds available for

Youth, Sport and Recreation through the Commonwealth Budget

the i mpact of present levels of

expenditure in achieving Commonwealth policy objectives in Youth, Sport and

Recreation

any changes in the organisation and

delivery of Assistance for Youth, Sport and Recreation that would promote

greater efficiency in administration and effectiveness in policy outcomes.' 1.2 The scope of the inquiry was to be restricted to

expenditures classified under the Youth, srort and Recreation sub-function in the 1982-83 Budget papers. $26.7 million was allocated under this heading in the 1982-83 Budget. The

following table provides a detailed breakdown on these

expenditures for 1982-83 .

TABLE 1

Details of Co!mnonwealth Q.ltlays on Youth, Sport and Recreation 1982-83 ($ million)

A. Youth

Grants-in-aid to youth organisations and for international youth exchanges.

Australian Institute of Sport Capital Works Net Operating Expenses AIS/ CCAE 'Sports Studies' Course

International standard sports facilities

Sports Assistance Program Sports Developnent Program

Assistance Program for Sp:>rt and Recreation for Disabled People

Australia Games

Australian Commonwealth Games Association grant for team preparation

Australian Olympic Federation

Grant for team preparation, 1984 Olympic Games

National Aboriginal Sports Foundation

C. Recreation

Aboriginal CUlture and Recreation

Life Saving (Grants to Surf Life Saving Association, Royal Lifesaving Society)

TOTAL

Sources: 1983-84 Budget papers Department of Aboriginal Affairs Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism

7.984 4.505 ...LJ.l]_

3.186

0.191

0.180

0.800

12.806

4.909

3.712

0.500

0.897

0.800

22.211

1.3 Classified under the Youth, Sport and Recreation

headiny in 1982-83 were some minor expenditures on youth

($600 000 in 1982/83); specifically grants-in-aid to youth

organisations and for international youth exchange some

administered by the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. The Committee regarded the , inclusion of these expenditures in its inquiry as anomalous since the expenditures have no relation to the sport and recreation expenditures which made up the bulk of the category and the vast proportion of Commonwealth

expenditures on assistance to youth, for example the Community Youth Support Scheme, are excluded. For these reasons the

Committee decided to exclude from the scope of the inquiry the

expenditures on youth classified under the sub-function.

1. 4 The report thus focuses on the sport and

expenditure of the Commonwealth Department of Sport, and Tourism. There are, however, three significant sources:

(i) funds distributed to the National

Aboriginal Sports Foundation and as grants-in-aid to Aboriginal

communities and groups for

recreational and sporting

activities which are administerea by the Department of Aboriginal

Affairs;

recreation Recreation additional

( ii) expenditure by the National

Capital Development Commission on facilities at the National Sports Centre at Bruce (ACT); these

facilities are subsequently

managed by the Department of

Territories and Local Government and leased to the Australian

Institute of Sport; (iii) indirect assistance to sport

recreation provided through Commonwealth's regulatory taxation systems.

and the and

1.5 In adopting this focus, the Committee is aware that

although the direct Commonwealth expenditures and indirect assistance levels involved are relatively small, other indirect Commonwealth exi?enditures which cover a wider field have an

enormous influence on the sporting and recreational aspirations of Australians. The Committee noted during its hearings that

much evidence was given by witnesses about the relative emphasis placed on 'sport' or 'recreation' or 'elite sport' or 'high

performance sport' or 'recreational sport'. Definitions for such terms abound but the Committee, in taking evidence became aware less of the distinctions between the terms than of the high

degree of overlap between activities to which they referred and the extent to which any particular activity can have a different meaning for the indiviaual engaged in it: tennis can be a means

of earning a living for a tennis professional, a chance to

represent his country for a Davis Cup player, a competitive

activity for a club player, a step towards fitness or simply an

entertaining social activity.

l. 6 One method of representing the pluralistic nature of

sport and recreation is expressed in the diagram below. The

diagram represents total sport and recreation activities in

Australia. The smaller circle represents sport; the larger

represents recreation. The area of overlap between the two

circles (B) represents recreational sport and the area of the

sports circle which does not overlap (A) represents elite sport or sport at its highest competitive level. The shaded lower area of the recreation circle (D) represents highly individualised, non-sport recreation such as reading a book or watching

television.

Figure 1

Sport

Recreation

Diagramatic Representation of Sport and Recreation Activity in Australia

Elite Sport

Individualized Non-Sport Recreation

l. 7 It is important to note that, although the Commonwealth

expenditure focussed upon by the Committee falls heavily into the sector of elite sport (A) and to a lesser extent on (B), all

other sectors are effected by Commonwealth expenditure through a variety of programs not addressed by this Inquiry. For example, people pursuin<:J individualised non-sport recreation (D) may find they have their opportunities to enjoy a wider variety of

television programs or books as a result of increased

Commonwealth expenditure on the Australian Broadcasting

Corporation or of the activities of government sponsored

activity to promote inter-library lending. 1.8 With less individualized recreational activities (C),

people may find they are able to enjoy a greater variety of

artistic performances, Australian films and national parks

because of Commonwealth expenditure or financial concessions in this area. In the area of recreational sport, the Commonwealth

makes a particularly significant contribution to sporting

opportunities for young people through its provision of funds for secondary and tertiary education, some of which are for the

builaing of recreation and sporting facilities and others which meet the recurrent costs of sport and recreation programs.

1.9 The high level of Commonwealth expenditcire on education

led the Committee to seek advice from the Commonwealth

Department of Education and Youth Affairs regaraing the extent to which funds provided to schools and tertiary education

institutions oy the Commonwealth were used for the construction of recreational facilities, particularly sporting facilities, and the extent to which such facilities could be used by the

community. The Committee was advisea that, although Commonwealth funds spent on sporting facilities at tertiary education

institutions can be identified, funds for schools are made

available in such a way that no estimate can be made of

expenditure on school sporting facilities. With regard to the community use of sporting facilities, the Committee was informed that each State and Territory education authority and

non-government schools authority had their own policy.2 The Commonwealth funding agencies although supportive of the

concept, did not wish to attempt to impose its preferences on

the State, Territory and non-government authorities.

1.10 The Commonwealth Schools Commission has stated the view that the community shared use of schools is a positive

development which can be justified on educational and community development grounds. 3 The Commonwealth Schools Commission considered that to be effective the policy required community participation in management and responsibility. With a view to

promoting greater community participation, the Commonwealth Schools Commission intenoed in the 1982-84 Triennium to document the present situation regarding community/school facilities ana decision-making and planning processes. Other action being

considered included:

changing aspects of funding arrangements to facilitate participatory planning processes and shared facilities;

support to encourage States to appoint

support staff such as community liaison

officers to overcome J?rocedural and le(jal difficulties inhibiting effective

development of community sharing in the use of facilities;

â¢ encouraging professional groups participatory planning techniques; to use

â¢ collecting and disseminating information to assist those moving towards shared use

facilities.

The Committee was advised that little in a practical sense had

been achieved so far. One useful development was a seminar

sponsored by the Commonwealth Schools Commission on Schools and Community Facilities helo in Sydney in February 1981.4

1.11 The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission had

formulated no views on the community use of sports ana

recreation facilities in tertiary education institutions and regarded the matter as one to be left to individual

institutions. It aid advance the view that, where adopted,

community use should be on a user pays basis so that operating

costs are met.

1.12 The Committee's attention was drawn to the potential

for community use of facilities at educational institutions by several witnesses.S Some tertiary institutions and one school in Sydney commented on the suitability of education based

recreational facilities for wider use. One of the most important suggestions was that additional funds from within the education budget be made available to selected tertiary education

institutions to enable further development of sporting and

recreational facilities for use by the student population, the wider community and possibly as venues for high standard

competition. 6 The question of use of tertiary education

institution facilities as training centres for elite athletes was also raised.

1.13 The Committee accepted that there were advantages in

promoting wider use of expensive facilities and it was impressed by the efforts of, for example, the Angle Park community in

South Australia to fully utilize its combined school/community centre. However, it noted that an essential feature of community facilities was a location convenient to large numbers of people in a region and considered that although schools often met this criteria, relatively few tertiary education institutions were

suitably located to be suitable community centres even though some could possibly be appropriate as regional sports venues. Moreover, the Committee acknowledged that making the facilities available itself was not sufficient to ensure their use. There were instances of community accessible school facilities being

used infrequently because of the availability of alternative venues or simply because of the negative attitudes toward

schools themselves held by some people. The latter factor ought not to be underestimated.7

1.14 The question of community use of sporting and

recreational facilities at schools and tertiary education

facilities was a large issue which the Committee could not hope to cover adequately in its present inquiry. The Committee

agreed, that further examination of the issue than had so far

been given was needed and that the examination should take into account:

â¢ the need for a Commonwealth policy on

community use of schools;

â¢ a close examination of possible conflicts

between student and community use;

â¢ an assessment of 1 ikely costs of community

use and of the most appropriate means of

meeting these costs;

â¢ consideration of the accessibility to the

community of sporting and recreational

facilities, particularly those at tertiary education facilities, before any

recommendation of funding for community use was made;

â¢ the importance of ensuring that funds

allocated by the Commonwealth are used for their intended purpose; but also â¢ means of promoting the fullest use of

facilities funded in full or in part by the

Commonwealth.

1.15 The Committee believed that immediate positive action

in this field can and should be taken by the Â·commonwealth. The

success of any Commonwealth initiatives required the

co-operation and support of the schools authorities and the

local communities. The Committee therefore recommends that:

1. the Commonwealth Schools Commission seek from all schools authorities, both

government and non-government,

information on the extent to which

existing school sport and recreational facilities are used by the outside

community and the reasons for any lack

of use especially in areas where there

is a shortage of sport and recreation

facilities; 2. the Commonwealth Schools Commission in co-operation with the Department of

Sport, Recreation and Tourism, undertake or commission an evaluation of

established community access projects. For the purposes of a more

thorough-going evaluation, it may be

desirable for the Commission to fund a

limited number of pilot projects in

selected schools involving, for example, the employment of caretaker/managers for the trial period;

3. the Department, in conjunction with

other relevant Commonwealth agencies including the Department of Sport,

Recreation and Tourism and with the

co-operation of government and

non-government education authorities, actively encourage the adoption of

school building concepts and designs

which are conducive to community

recreation use. The subject should be

placed on the agenda for an early future

meeting of the Recreation Ministersâ¢

Council.

The Committee noted that the Commonwealth Schools Commission has a School and Community lement in its Projects of National

Significance Program and that approximately $2 million had been spent on School and Community projects since 1973 with current annual levels of expenditure of the order of $100 000.

1.16 The Committee received information from submissions and during hearings and inspections on the desirability of

Commonwealth promotion of additional recreational opportunities through an expansion of funding to the Arts and national parks.8 Some consideration of the Commonwealth role in the funding of

national parks is included however in Chapter 5 of this report.

The Committee is conducting a separate inquiry into Commonwealth funding of the Arts.

1.17 Against this background, it can be seen that the

specific programs of sport and recreation assistance examined in detail by this Inquiry are only a relatively small component of the support provided by the Commonwealth Government.

Objectives of the Inquiry

1.18 In examining expenditure on sport and recreation, the

Committee has sought to answer the following questions:

( i)

(ii)

(iii)

do the individual programs in this field achieve their specific

objectives efficiently and

effectively and what alterations to existing administrative

arrangements and procedures would improve individual program

efficiency and effectiveness?

what forms of alternative,

indirect assistance are available and how do they compare with

existing direct programs?

how well do existing programs

taken together achieve the

Commonwealth's overall aims for

sport and recreation?

and

(iv) is the Commonwealth's present role

in sport and recreation

appropriate given community

preferences and expectations?

1.19 The first of these questions is examined in Chapter 3.

Programs are examined individually. Most of the issues raised in this chapter arise from submissions received and evidence given at hearings to the Committee. The comments of the clients and

potential clients of programs have indicated a number of

shortcomings in administrative arrangements and procedures and where it considered they were appropriate the Committee has

recommended changes.

1.20 Question two concerning the merits of alternative forms

of indirect assistance ' delivered through the non-government sector is investigated in Chapter 4. During hearings the

Committee's attention was frequently drawn to alternative models of government sport and recreation administration proviaed by other countries. The Committee believed, however, that

international comparisons were because of the often

large differences between the size, social and economic

organisation of Australia and these other countries. The

Committee therefore decided to not attempt a detailed

investigation of overseas models of sport and recreation

administration in this report. Of course, Governments need t .o keep themselves informed of overseas developments to allow

themselves the opportunity to adopt certain aspects of overseas programs which appear relevant to Australian conditions.

1.21 The thira and fourth questions are considered in

Chapter 5, The Committee's response to the questions

necessitated consideration of how Commonwealth objectives for sport and recreation and their priorities had changed in recent y ears. The fourth and final question was introduced in response to the concern expressed by a large number of participants in

t h e inquiry about the balance between sport and recreation

provision and between the responsibilities of the three levels of government in the federal system. The growth and present

pattern of sport and recreation provision in Australia is

d e s cribed in Chapter 2. The appropriate future role for the

Commonwealth is examined in Chapter 5.

CHAPTER 2

The Pattern of Sport and Recreation Provision and Commonwealth Involvement

The Pattern of Sport and Recreation Provision in Australia

2.1 Traditionally, sport organisation in Australia has

focused on recreational sport and has been based on clubs with

elected, unpaid officials and a high level of voluntary work. In some sports, such as squash and ten pin bowling, the provision

of facilities has been a private, commercial initiative; in

others, particularly golf and lawn bowling, members themselves have provided the facilities although support from local

government authorities in the form of access to land has

sometimes been available at a nil or low cost to sporting

organisations. GamblingÂ· revenues, particularly poker-machine income in New South Wales has helped some private clubs to

establish excellent facilities for both recreation and

recreational sport. 2.2. The most significant providers of sp0rt recreation

facilities have been local government authorities and State

governments. These, for most Australians, have been responsible for providing and maintaining the community centre, public

hall, the municipal swimming pool and the local library as well as parks and gardens and camping sites. They have maintained the beaches and developed national parks and historical sites. In New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia,

Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital

Territory the Committee spoke to representatives of State and Territory departments which have responsibility for sport and recreation matters.l Submissions and evidence were also received from local government authorities and from the Australian

Council of Local Government Associations (ACLGA) .2

2.3 The ACLGA arew to the Committee's attention

unpublished data compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) on expenditure by the three levels of government on

recreational facilities and services. The graph in Figure 2

shows the growth of gross outlays on recreation facilities and services sourced to Commonwealth, State and local government revenues during the period 197 0-71 to 1980-81. The expenditure figures comprise outlays on the provision and maintenance of facilities such as parks, playgrounds, athletic fields,

stadiums, beaches, swimming pools, botanical and zoological gardens, community centres and public halls and other facilities serving purposes primarily related to leisure-time activity and outlays on the support of organisations engaged in the provision and promotion of recreational services. Inter-governmental

transfers for specific recreation purposes have been allocated to the source authority, not to the authority spending the

money. To facilitate comparability, the expenditures have been expressed in constant terms (1979-80 dollars) and outlays on

recreation facilities and services in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territoiy have been excluded. Care should be exercised in drawing inferences regaraing changes in the

overall level of involvement in recreation

provision. The data presented in Figure 2 do not reveal the

effects on State and local Government outlays on recreation

facilities and services of any shifts in Commonwealth general purpose revenue and capital payments to State and local

governments. The graph in Figure 3 shows changes in the real

level of Commonwealth general purpose revenue and capital

payments to State and local governments during the period

1970-71 to 1980-81.

Figure 2

Gross Outlays on Recreational Facilities and Services by Leyel of Government, by source, 1970-71 toÂ· 1980-81 (1979-80 dollars)

:-Â· 1 Â· 300

__ ; ___ _

250

200

1 50

Â·Â· Â·-- -;Â·ao - --

!7o i ----\ 60 "" ---1 -iso .J4o . I 30 ! --- _!20 -115 10 i 5 J

--jÂ·

. 'T Â· "T' : "'I" ! 'T

$ million

76 ,77 . neâ¢ . 78/ 179 :

I i , '"("

Note: Excludes outlays on recreational facilities and services in the A.C.T. and the N.T.

SOURCE: Australian Bureau of Statistics, unpublished data.

Figure 3

Commonwealth General Purpose Payments to State and Local Governments, 1970-71 to (1979-80 dollars)

$ million

(Logarithmic Scale)

300 t.a

20 0 tl

100 "'

0 I

70/ 71 71/72 72/73 73/74 74/75 75/76 76/77 77/78 78/79 79/80 80/81

Note: 1) Includes recurrent and capital payments 2) Excludes payments to the N.T.

Source: Budget Papers, 1973-74, 1975-76, 1978-79 and 1982-83.

.â¢

2.4 The conclusion the Committee drew from the above

information was that most of the recreational facilities ana

services used by ordinary Australians to enrich their leisure time are provided from State and especially local government revenue sources. Evidence given to the Committee by State and

local governments emphasised the important role that these

authorities have in providing recreational opportunities as well as sporting facilities. As shown in Figure 3 the Commonwealth

provides substantial general purpose assistance to State and local governments. With respect to general purpose revenue

machinery has been put in place, in the form of the

Commonwealth Grants Commission and the six State Grants

Commissions, to enable this assistance to be distributed among the States and among local government authorities in accordance with their relative revenue capacities and expenditure needs. At the local government level where outlays on sport and

recreational services are significant budget items, the assessed relative needs for these services may have a significant impact on the tax-sharing entitlements of some local government

authorities. It could well be pertinent for discussion between relevant Commonwealth and State Ministers that a local

authority's Grants Commission assessed needs for sport and

recreation services together with the actual level of the

authority's outlays on sport and recreation services be taken into account when specific purpose assistance to local

government for sport and recreation is determined.

2.5 Although these authorities generally supported the

Commonwealth Government's involvement in funding sport at the national level, almost all were critical of the fact that

Commonwealth initiatives did not include assistance for

recreation. Recreation in the past has received Commonwealth support through such programs as 'Life. Be In It', the Community Assistance for Leisure Facilities Program and national fitness funding. This is no longer available and provision of recreation

facilities and programs is now the province of local and State

governments. Several States had expressed the view at the

Recreation r-Iinisters Council (RMC) in 1976 that although

recreation should primarily be the responsibility of the States, there was a need for a Commonwealth presence in the recreation

field.3 The evidence presented to the Committee on this matter is examined in greater detail in Chapter 5 where the Committee

supported the view that existing Commonwealth recreation

programs are inadequate and outlined its own views of the

directions a greater Commonwealth involvement in recreation should take.

2.6 The Committee was impressed by the attempts of various

State and local government authorities to put Commonwealth

assistance to sport into perspective. Commonwealth assistance focuses on training and assisting athletes who are already at, or are close to the standard required to represent Australia in international competition. The Commonwealth Government provides

some funds to assist in the administration of sport but these

are directed to the national associations or organi s ations

responsible for Australian involvement in international

competition. Government support for other levels of sport

(inter-State competition, intra-State and regional competition and local competition) is carried out largely on facilities

provided and maintained by States and local government.

2.7 Although the provision and maintenance of sporting

facilities has been to a major degree the responsibility of

governments, the traditional model of sport organisation, as noted above, has been based on clubs with voluntary, elected

officials. In most sports these clubs have for med district,

regional, State and national organisations. such bodies have haa the responsibility for organising competitions and often for arranging selections for overseas competition. They have rarely , until fairly recently, had access to sources of funds other than membership levies and assistance from government authorities in

the form of provision of facilities at a low cost. Despite this

limited financial base, amateur sport in Australia ha s

accomplished a great deal.

2. 8 Our ing the last decade, however, changes have beg un to

occur. State governments have, in some instances, provided

office accommodation and related assistance for sporting

associations; private sponsors have, increasingly, provided support, often in the form of equipment or uniforms or travel

assistance; local governments have provided sub sidised

activities for groups with special needs; and the Commonwealth has provided funds for coaching, administration at the national level and national and international representation. As well as this some segments of sport have become increasingly

professionalised in recent years. High profile sports . such as cricket, golf, tennis and some football codes attract large

numbers of spectators and derive income from this source. Such sports also attract the major proportion of commercial

sponsorship. Among those sports or levels of sport which attract crowds of spectators and a high level of commercial sponsorshi p there are many which have become substantial business

undertakings providing, it might be considered, a form of high standard, professional entertainment. This should not be

interpreted as a criticism since there is a valuable place in

Australia for this kind of activity. For the purposes of

government policy however, a strong distinction has to be drawn between these sports or levels of sport and those sports with a

lower public profile and those levels of sport undertaken by

individuals for enjoyment, a satisfying level of competition, fitness and, frequently, for recreation. 2.9 These changes have dramatically affected the way in

which sport is organised. The changes are not unique to

Australia; if anything, Australia lags behind other countries. Nevertheless the changes have been far-reaching: a large number of sports now have full-time, paid organisers at least at the

national level; the frequency and standar d of competition is

higher; the opportunities for coaching assistance and training are generally much greater; and umbrella organisations, notably the Confederation of Australian Sport (CAS), and some State

SI?Orts federations are exerting a growing influence over sport. The CAS claimed in their submission that they were the umbrella organisation for 121 national sporting associations and

represented 6 million sportspeople.4

2.10 Many witnesses saw the increasing organisation of sport

as an important factor in promoting Australian success in

overseas competition, in developing less well known sports and in increasing membership in sports generally. 5 However, others criticised the changes seeing them as the cause for increasing bureacracy in sport, increasing the financial costs to players,

causing administrators to spend a greater proportion of time

seeking sponsors and also stimulating increased demands from the owners of facilities.6

2.11 A number of national and State sporting organisations

including the Australian Soccer Federation, the Australian

Ladies Golf Union and West Australian Sports Federation

questioned the role of such large organisations as CAs.? It was suggested that umbrella organisations adopted were prone to 'empire building' or a 'big business' approach which ignored the wishes of members or the'grass roots' participants in sport and

that there was a danger that smaller, low profile sports would

be discriminated against. Nonetheless, the CAS believed that it had a vi tal role to play in representing Australian sport and

that, if sufficient Commonwealth funds could be made available to release staff members from very time consuming fund raising activities, the CAS could make a far greater contribution.B 2;12 The Commitee saw this growth pattern in Australian

sports organisation as inevitable. Such growth will make demands upon all levels of government and upon participants and

spectators and the Committee believed one of the most important questions it had to address was the necessity for balanced

provision of sporting This expansion of sport has

been paralleled by increasing interest in recreational

opportunities of both a sporting and non-sporting type and the Committee was frequently reminded of this interest in recreation in submissions and during its hearings.9

The Growth of Commonwealth Involvement

2.13 The Commonwealth has no constitutional authority for

providing assistance to sport and recreation. Its involvement in this field stemmed from a concern for national health and

fitness as related to defence needs. The National Fitness Act

(1941) established the Commonwealth Council for National Fitness to advise the Government on national fitness matters. The

Council was administered by the Department of Health and

included repr.esentatives from National Fitness Councils which had been established in all States.

2.14 Commonwealth funds for national fitness were allocated

to State Councils which administered fitness programs and, after World War II, camping and wider recreational programs. Funds

were also made available to selected institutions for the

development of physical education courses. As well as this the Commonwealth provided, from 1951, assistance to life saving

organisations, and special grants were provided to assist with the Olympic Games in Melbourne in 1956 and the Commonwealth

Games in Perth in 1962.

2.15 In the early 1970's Commonwealth and State governments

established departments with responsibility for sport and

recreation matters. At the Commonwealth level the Department of Tourism and Recreation was established in December 1972. This Department concentrated on:

sports development;

â¢ fitness;

â¢ community recreation;

â¢ youth affairs; and

â¢ tourism.

2.16 The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism

indicated in its submission that the major sport and recreation initiatives of the Department of Tourism and Recreation were: â¢ the introduction of a Sports Assistance

Program aimed at assisting amateur sporting and competitive recreation organisations to attend national championships and

international events; to help with the

administration costs of international

events in Australia; and to help bring

international sportsmen, sportswomen and coaches to Australia;

â¢ the expansion of grants to the Royal Life

Saving Society and the Surf Life Saving

Association;

â¢ the establishment of a Sports Advisory

Council;

the establishment of the Recreation

i"linisters' Council which superseded the

Commonwealth Council for National Fitness;

â¢ the inclusion of sport as part of the

Cultural Exchange Program administered by the Department of Foreign

â¢ the preparation of reports on the

development of a national sports institute, and the priori ties and development of

recreation;

the introduction of a capital assistance

program for the development of leisure

facilities (CALF), (including sports

facilities, parks, drop-in centres,

multi-purpose community facilities) with project costs shared between Commonwealth, State and local Governments;

â¢ conduct of a National Leisure Seminar and a

National Coaches Seminar; and

â¢ increased financial National Fitness

implementation of campaign.lO

contributions to the

movement and the

a Fitness Australia

2.17 In 1975 the Department of Tourism and Recreation was

abolished and its sport and recreation functions were transfered to the Department of Environment, Housing and Community

Development. The Commonwealth's role in sport and recreation was then examined by the Administrative Review Committee which

highlighted the need to co-ordinate Commonwealth and State

programs more effectively, to define clearly national

objectives, to rationalise appropriate leyels of government responsibility and to conduct programs which stimulated 'self helpâ¢.ll A further review of the Commonwealth's role in this

field was carried out by the Task Force on Co-ordination in

Welfare and Health following the 1976 Olympic Games.l2

2.18 Both of these reviews 'indicated that sport and

recreation were legitimate and worthwhile areas for Commonwealth involvement, particularly where the national and international interest is served, the objective and reason for involvement is clearly defined, and where duplication does not occur with other

levels of government.â¢l3

2.19 The Recreation Minister's Council (RMC), established in 1973, also considered the relative roles of State and

Commonwealth governments in 1976. At a RMC meeting in 1976,

State and Territory Ministers expressed the opinion that, while recreation should primarily be the responsibility of the States, the following areas could only be effectively and economically handled at the national level:

â¢ national and international ventures

â¢ information dissemination

â¢ research

eaucation for recreation workers

co-ordination to ensure effective use of

resources.l4

2.20 The following list of significant Commonwealth funded

developments in sport and recreation during the period 1977 to 1983 was provided by the Department of Sport, Recreation and

Tourism and indicates clearly that it was the views of the Task

Force, at least with respect to sport, that have prevailed in

the formulation of Commonwealth sport and recreation policy. The initiatives attributed to the 1977 to 1983 period by the

Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism were:

the introduction of a Sports Development

Program to provide financial assistance to national sporting bodies and other major

sports-related organisations; the appointment of a Sports Advisory

Council (SAC) to advise the Minister on

matters relating to the development of

sport in Australia and allocation of grants from the Sports Development Program;

â¢ the introduction of a National Athlete

Aware Scheme which provides grants to

individual elite athletes;

â¢ the development of the Australian Institute of Sport;

increased financial assistance for

Commonwealth and Olympic Games;

â¢ the development of the National Coaching

Accreditation Scheme;

â¢ the provision of funds on a dollar for

dollar basis with the State and Territory

Governments for the construction of

international standard sports facilities; increased financial assistance to the 1 if e saving organisations;

â¢ the provision of funds for the development

of the Australia Games;

the introduction for sport and

people;

of an assistance program recreation for disabled

the funding of the Sports Studies Course at the Canberra College of Advanced Education;

â¢ the introduction of scholarships to allow

athletes from developing Con,monweal th

countries to attend the Australian

Institute of Sport; the development of the Institute as a

National Training Centre.lS

It should be noted that the first two initiatives listed above

were continuations of existing arrangements rather than new

initiatives. 2. 21 The responsibility for provision of Commonwealth

assistance to sport and recreation was transfered to the

Department of Home Affairs and Environment in 1978 and, in 1983 a further change in administrative arrangements led to the

establishment of the Department of Sport, Recreation and

Tourism. This latest change came about as a result of the

election of a new Government and reflected the commitment of

that Government to the creation of a separate Ministry of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Other undertakings in this field include commitments to:

ensure that Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) funds are sufficient to complete

proposed facilities and accommodation;

â¢ improve sports education in schools, with

emphasis on water safety skill development;

increase grants bodies sport;

funding in the general sports

area to enable national sporting

to adequately administer their

â¢ maintain dollar for dollar funding to the

States for international standard sports facilities; â¢ provide direct grants to local Government

bodies to construct basic sporting and

passive recreation facilities;

â¢ provide funds to local and State

Governments on a dollar for dollar basis to

build family leisure centres;

â¢ ensure sufficient funds are

enable more highly talented

gain international experience;

available athletes to

â¢ institute a national Inquiry to assess the

community's present and future needs in the provision of passive outdoor recreation

â¢ provide financial support for the biennial Australia Garnes;

â¢ implement a tax-averaging

sportsmen with short careers contact sports, and

scheme for

in high body

form a National Sports Commission to

oversee provision of Federal assistance to sport and recreation at every level (in the

1983-84 Budget funds were made available

for an Australian Sports Commission to be

created and it is expected that this will

be in operation by 1984) .16 .

2. 22 In the 1983-84 Budget the Ninister for Sport,

Recreation and Tourism announced an increase of fifty-four per cent or $7 920 000 over 1982-83 in expenditure Â·on . sport and

recreation programs under his portfolio. Included in that

increase was an additional $2 869 000 for 'sport, recreation and fitness' programs and $274 000 for the setting up of the

Australian Sports Commission. The Minister's Budget Statement listed the following initiatives in sport and recreation for

1983-84:

â¢ the Sports Development Program will be

expanded to

increase assistance for full-time

national administrators and coaches provide new directions for sport at

community level identifyi assist and develop talented

athletes;

â¢ additional funds for sport and :recreation

for disabled people will

assist the pre-event training for high

performance disabled athletes provide more opportunities for pilot

recreation projects for disabled people;

â¢ increased funds for the

Association of Australia $600 000 in 1983-84 will

Surf from Life Saving $400 000 to

provide increased grants to local surf

clubs to upgrade rescue equipment stimulate a number of new national

initiatives;

â¢ increased Society 19 83/84 courses

funds to the Royal Life Saving

from $200 000 to $225 000 in

will help promote life saving

more widely around

â¢ funds provided will allow investigation

into the implementation of new approaches to fitness and

â¢ funding will be made available to national

recreation

â¢ a decentralised branch of the Australian

Institute of Sport to cater for hockey will be established in

â¢ funds for the national training centre

program at the Australian Institute of

Sport will be doubled, allowing more

national squads to

scope will be available for prov1S1on of

sport and recreation facilities under 'wage pause' and Community Employment

â¢ there will be

tax averaging

consideration of scheme for high

a possible performance

â¢ consultation will be entered into with

State Government Departments on provision of sport and recreation facilities at

community

â¢ proposals will be developed for inquiry into present and future the provision of passive outdoor

consideration will be given

extension of the International

Sports Facilities

a national needs for

recreation

to the

Standard

â¢ the special sport and

particular groups in

will be and

recreation Australian needs of

society

consideration will be given to proposals

for a Sports Development Plan.

2.23 The Interim Committee of the Australian Sports

Commission was announced on 13 September 1983. In making the

announcement, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism said that the Interim Committee had been asked to consider and

report on within three months:

â¢ the roles and powers of

Commission (including coverage of aspects of

the proposed Sports the extent of

recreation as well

details of the structure of its membership and the responsiblities of its members; anri

â¢ its relationships with

the Minister for Sport, Recreation and

Tourism the Department . of Sport, Recreation and Tourism sports bodies/associations, including the Confederation of Australian Sport institutions, such as the Austral ian

Institute of Sport, and other levels of government.l7

The role of the proposed Sports Commission is examined in

Chapter 3.

CHAPTER 3

The Efficiency and Effectiveness of Specific Commonwealth Programs in Sport and Recreation

3.1 In Chapter l of this report the focus of the

Committee's attention was described as the sport and recreation expenditure of the Commonwealth Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism and two other major programs: the funds distributed by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for Aboriginal

recreational activities; and expenditure by the National Capital Development Commission for facilities at the National Sports Centre in Canberra. This Chapter seeks to examine each of the

programs that fall within this group and to answer the first of

the questions set by the Committee as an objective of the

inquiry:

'do the individual programs in this field

achieve their specific objectives efficiently and effectively and what alterations to the

existing administrative arrangements and procedures would improve individual program efficiency and effectiveness?' 3.2 Each program, its aims and objectives and the funds

available to it, is described separately. Issues raised in

submissions to the Committee and during its hearings are explored in some detail. Specific Committee recommendations are made for each program.

a. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs

3. 3 The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has in recent

years provided for Aboriginal sport and recreation through two primary channels:

(i) a grant-in-aid program to Aboriginal

communities for sport and recreation facilities and services administered by the Welfare, Arts and Community

Affairs Branch of the Department; and

(ii) grants to Aboriginal sports people and sporting organisations for recurrent purposes administered by the National Aboriginal Sports Foundation (NASF).

In addition the Department makes a few 9rants to State or

Territory governments for sport and recreation purposes. These outlays have been included under (i) in the following

discussion.

3.4 The Department described the activities of the two

programs in its submission as follows:

'The types of sport and recreation activities funded by the Department vary. Sports and

recreation facilities supported include the construction of basketball and netball

courts, football and cricket ovals, change

rooms, as well as the installation and

maintenance of sprinkler systems. The funding of sports/recreation co-ordinators is also supported as is the funding of organisations for sports and recreation equipment.

Community centres have been constructed or purchased; those are often multi-purpose and not confined solely to youth sport and

recreation activities. Recreational camps and excursions have also been funded.

The NASF has played an important role in the

development of Aboriginal participation in sport. It is incorporated in the Minister for

Aboriginal Affairs portfolio as an

independent body under the Aboriginal

Councils and Associations Act. The NASF is

funded by the Department and is composed

entirely of prominant Aboriginal sportsmen and sportswomen. It provides financial

assistance and equipment to Aboriginal

groups, organises competitions and tours, and provides awards for outstanding performances. The NASF is not involved in programs

administered directly by the Department.â¢!

3.5 Table 2 below shows the expenditures on these two

programs for 1980-81 to 1982-83. On 4 October 1983 the NASF was abolished and its functions were transferred to the Aboriginal Development Commission. The 1983-84 allocation for Aboriginal sport hence will be determined according to the Commission's own priorities and have not yet been finalised.

TABLE 2

Department of Aboriginal Affairs Expenditures on Sport and Recreation, 1980-81 to 1982-83

1980-81 1981-82 1982-83

NASF 263 276 284 000

Other Sport and Recreation (716 264) (813 133) (896 732)

Facilities 265 089 241 731 319 400

Equipment 3 079 4 611 40 000

Community Centres 269 246 362 725 247 627

Sport/Recreation Co-ordinates 9 600 20 000 177 403

Miscellaneous* l69 25Q Q66 112 3Q2

TOTAL :Zl6 l O:Z6 l l8Q :zn

* includes recreational camps, excursions and a Girl Guides program.

Source: Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Submission Evide-nce.

3.6 The Department of Aboriginal Affairs

objectives of overall Comntonweal th assistance sport and recreation as:

â¢ the acquisition of excellence in sport;

the provision of sporting skills;

described the for Aboriginal

â¢ the increased access of Aboriginal people

to sporting competition; and

â¢ general community development in terms of

social cohesion and health improvement.2

ObJectives (l) to (3) are seen as being served by the NASF while

the fourth objective is considered to be served by the sport and

recreation grants-in-aid program administered by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

National Aboriginal Sports Foundation

3.7 The NASF provided the following kinds of assistance:

cash awards to senior and Junior

Aboriginal sportspeople;

â¢ grants to Aboriginal sporting or community organisations or groups

the purchase of sporting equipment, to staging of sporting carnivals, and travel to sporting events (in limited

cases only).

Some grants were made to organisations involved in alcohol and

drug dependence rehabilitation for purchases of sporting

equipment. The NASF did not make grants for capital purposes. A breakdown of NASF expenditures on these various categories of assistance is not available. Table 3 below sets out NASF

expenditures on grants and administration for 1980-Bl and

1981-82.

TABLE 3

National Aboriginal Sports Foundation Expenditure on Grants and Administration, 1980-81 and 1981-82

1980-81 1981-82

Grants 137 645 133 657

Administration (salaries, members' travel, etc.) .1.:1.2 588 l20 122

TOTAL 233 J 83

Source: National Aboriginal Sports Foundation, 1980-81 and 1981-82 Annual Report.

3. 8 The NASF pointed to a number of achievements of its

programs: expansion of assistance to Aboriginals through the

Australian Institute of Sport, affiliation of the NASF with the Confederation of Australian Sport and some measure of

international recognition of the NASF. 3 The NASF, however, had encountered several problems since it was established on an

independent basis in 1979. The NASF itself believed that the

present programs of assistance for aboriginal sport and

recreation suffered from several shortcomings â¢ â¢ there was insufficient liaison between

the NASF and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs; â¢ a small NASF membership and secretariat had a large task vetting requests for

assistance from communities across

Australia; and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was

unable or unwilling to provide assistance through its own area and regional staff.4

3.9 In evidence given to the Committee Mr Brian Dixon, the

Chairman of the NASF, referred to a number of other problems

encountered by the NASF.s In response to concern at the high cost of administration of the NASF especially members' fees and travel expenses, the number of members was cut from ten to four. The

Department of Aboriginal Affairs had expressed concern about the level of funding of sports carnivals (a Darwin sports carnival in 1980-81 had cost over $83 000 out of a total grant allocation of

$137 600). Funding of sports carnivals had been suspended in

1982-83 pending a review of this category of assistance. The

National Aboriginal Conference reviewed the NASF last year, a copy of its report was attached to the NASF submission. 6 That

report noted the lack of administrative support for the NASF and canvassed a number of options for absorbing the NASF in a larger

body such as the National Aboriginal Conference itself, the

Aboriginal Development Commission and the Department.

3.10 Mr Dixon told the Committee of his concern about the

future of the NASF and expressed the view that it should remain

autonomous and indeed be given more responsibility. The NASF's submission recommended that the Foundation be given full funding responsibility for Aboriginal sport and recreation and be given increased staff for this task and to overcome the co-ordination

and administration problems referred to previously. Specifically, the NASF wanted a project officer located in the NASF to liaise

with the Department of 1\.boriginal Affairs, an Aboriginal liaison officer in the Confederation of Australian Sport and two

Aboriginal sports development officers in the Northern

Territory.?

3.11 As mentioned previously, the functions of the NASF have

been assumed by the Aboriginal Development Commission. A three member advisory committee comprising representatives of the Department, the Aboriginal Development Commission and the

National Aboriginal Conference has been appointed to supervise program continuity. In making the transfer, the Minister for

Aboriginal Affairs considered that the function would be better served by the greatly increased administrative support that could be provided by the regional network of offices of the Aboriginal Development Commission and by the greater flexibility of funding made possible by the increased resources that the Government has

made available to the Commission. 8 Future funding options made possible by the new arrangements could include the provision of capital grants and forward funding commitments for employment programs similar to those provided by the Sports Development

Program administered by the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism.

3.12 The Committee considered that some of the administrative problems which had arisen with the NASF could be resolved by the absorption of the Foundation in a larger administrative unit.

However, it had reservations about the merits of transferring the function to the Aboriginal Development Commission. Assistance to

sport would have to compete for funds with other Commission

undertakings in fields such as housing, business enterprises.The Aboriginal Development Commission also had no apparent expertise in or clear commitment to Aboriginal sport. The Committee

believed that responsibility for Aboriginal sport and recreation should remain with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It was

government policy to retain most programs of specific assistance to Aboriginal people under the control of the Minister for

Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister had a special responsibility for the development of Aboriginal communities. The Committee considered that at some future date it may be appropriate to

integrate Aboriginal sports assistance with other Commonwealth s ports assistance. In the interim, however, it seems that only

elite level Aboriginal sport should be fully integrated. The

Committee considered that, ideally, responsibility for the

administration of all Aboriginal sport and recreation programs should reside in a single agency which would be charged also with responsibility for Aboriginal art and culture because of the

overlap between recreation and culture and the importance of

Aboriginal identity in each.

3.13 In addition to the specific difficulties which had

befallen the NASF, the Committee was concerned about a number of general aspects of assistance to Aboriginal sport:

â¢ the lack of co-ordination with other

programs of assistance to Aboriginal sport and recreation provided by the Department and those programs administered by the

Department of Sport, Recreation and

Tourism;

shortcomings in financial control. Apart from expenditure acquittal requirements, there was no evident monitoring of program performance and follow up activity.

Adequate review machinery would need to be established especially if forward funding commitments were to be extended to sports

assistance programs;

â¢ the paucity of objective needs assessment

criteria and priority setting.

The Committee was advised by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs that an Aboriginal Sports Advisory Committee, compr1s1ng the Chairman of the National Aboriginal Conference, the Chairman of the Aboriginal Development Commission and the Deputy Secretary of the Department, . had been established recently to formulate

Aboriginal sports policy and to ensure rationalisation and

co-ordination of Aboriginal sports assistance programs. The Committee was unable to form a judgment as to the effectiveness

of this new committee.

Sport and Recreation Grants-in-Aid

3.14 With the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA)

grants-in-aid programs, the provision of sport and recreation facilities, including community centres, has been accorded the highest priority. This can be seen in Table 2 and in Table 4

below which shows the number of Aboriginal communities receiving grants-in-aid under the different categories of assistance.

TABLE 4

Department of Aboriginal Affairs Aboriginal Communities Receiving Assistance under the Sport and Recreation Grants-in-Aid Program

1980-81 1981-82 1982-83

Facilities 8 10 l3

Equipment 2 3 5

Community Centres 36 23 29

Sport/Recreation Co-ordinators l l 10

Miscellaneous _6_ _a

TOTAL .5..l i.5.. H

Source: Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Submission evidence.

The DAA Grants-in-Aid program, in contrast to the NASF program, provides assistance largely of a capital nature and with a large recreation element. This is the kind of assistance which is

provided to the non-Aboriginal population by local government.

3.15 Unlike the NASF program also, the DAA grants-in-aid

program benefits from the network of area and regional officers of the Department. Needs are identified and priorities set

through consultations between Aboriginal communi ties, members of the National Aboriginal Conference and the area staff of the

Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Like the NASF program no

explicit selection criteria are applied. Grants are usually of fixed amounts for specific purposes. There are a small number of matching grants- involving State and local governments. Grant recipients are required to submit audited statements of

expenditures once a year with often the additional requirement of periodic financial statements throughout the year.

3.16 The NASF was critical of the Department's sport and

recreation grants-in-aid program. It considered that the program lacked a national perspective and was not guided by any clear

policy . Consultation with communities was a phil o sophy

not a policy.9 The Department was aware of a number of specific

shortcoming s with its program. It referred the Committee's

attention in its submission to the results of a review of the

effic iency and effectiveness of Departmental y outh, sport and recreational programs undertaken . by Regional Directors of the Department in June 1983. The Regional Directors concluded that:

the present low level of expenditure, which reflected the low priority accorded in the Department to sport and recreation, had had only a minor impact in achiev ing

objectives;

â¢ co-ordination with other agencies was poor; and

â¢ there was a need for a comprehensive sports

assistance program,lO

The Reg ional Directors also referred to pressure from Abori ginal comm unities for increased funding flexibility through the

provision of small, 'one-off non-accountable' grants. Th e

communi ties c onsidered that the amounts of money involv ed were not s i gnificant enough to warrant the acquittal procedures

requir ed. The Department informed the Committee that it

considered the acquittal procedures were not onerous and should be ma i n t a ined to safeguard the interests of both, g rantor and

grantee. An alternative means of increasing funding flexi bility was s uggested by Regional Directors and involved the provision of a bul k allocation for small tied grants similar to the NASF

program.ll The Regional Directors had considered that the NAS F program was v e r y effective in increas ing Abori ginal involvement in sport.

3 .17 The Committee concluded that the Department had

identified the major shortcomings of the sport and recreation

grants-in-aid program. The Committee could not accept the view that the Commonwealth's expenditure on Aboriginal sport and

recreation was. too .small to make a tangible impression. In the

t erms of overall Commonwealth expenditure on sport and recreation i n recent years, the programs to assist Aboriginal sport and

r e creation are significant. For example, in 1982/83, such

e xpenditures were equal to 37 per cent of funds made available

f or the Commonwealth Department of Sport, Recreation and

To ur ism 1 s Sports Development Program. This latter program

pr ovides assistance to over 80 sports by assisting with

admi nistrative expenses, coaching, athletic scholarships and relevant overseas travel. Although the Sports Development Program has not been formally evaluated, it was clear to the Committee

from the submissions it received and from the accounts given by witnesses, that this program had made an impression. It seemed

unlikely that a program of one-third the size aimed exclusively at the Aboriginal population could fail to have an impact unless

there were problems other than lack of funds. This gives strength to the arguments advanced by both the Department and the NASF for greater co-ordination.

3.18 There was little evidence available to Committee to

allow it to gauge the success of existing programs of assistance for Aboriginal sport and recreation or to assess what superior

forms of assistance might be available. The Committee nonetheless believed that the existing programs have had a favourable impact on the opportunities of both talented Aboriginal sportspeople and many Aboriginal communities. While the administrative problems which have been experienced could be overcome to some degree by

absorbing these programs in a larger administrative unit or by

devolving to local government authorities, the Committee was not convinced that such changes would improve their effectiveness given the isolation of many Aboriginal communities, the extent of the need and the importance of self-management.

Recommendations

3.19 The Committee recommends that:

4. all programs of assistance for

Aboriginal sport and recreation be

brought under the control of single

agency, perhaps with the addi tiona!

responsibility for Aboriginal art and

culture, responsible to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and separate from the Aboriginal Development Commission;

5. that agency, in consultation with the

National Aboriginal Conference and the National Sports Commission, formulate a national plan for

Aboriginal sport and recreation among whose objectives should be the maximum participation of local Aboriginal

communities and the active involvement of State and local government

authorities in a balanced sport and

recreation program;

6. as a prerequisite of that plan, a

national survey of the sporting and

recreation needs of Aboriginal people be undertaken;

7. the agency develop a wider range of

funding options to encourage greater

participation of Aboriginal people in

sport and recreation opportunities.

b. The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism

3.20 The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism was

established in March 1983. The sport and recreation functions of the Department were, between 1975 and 1983, administered in

departments which grouped together a wide range of dissimilar

activities. During the period 1977 to 1982, several significant programs were introduced to assist sport. There were, however, no rn aj or initiatives to assist recreation and Commonwealth support

for earlier programs which focused on recreation such as the

' Life. Be In It' program and the Capital Assistance for Leisure

Facilities (CALF) Program, was discontinued. The question of

whether the current range of programs is adequate collectively to meet the Government's policy objectives is discussed separately in Chapter 5. The objective of the analysis in this Chapter is to

examine each of the existing programs and to comment,

particularly in the light of information received by the

Committee in submissions and during hearings, on the extent to

which each program meets its stated objectives and on the

e fficiency of the Department's administration of the programs.

Sports Assistance Programs

3.21 In 1982/83 four previously discrete programs were

amalgamated to become the Sports Assistance Programs. These were:

the Sports Development Program (which

includes the National Athlete Award Scheme and the National Coaching Accreditation

Scheme as well as the Sports Development

Program);

â¢ Commonwealth Garnes funding;

Australia Garnes funding; and

â¢ the Program of Assistance for Sport and

Recreation for Disabled People.

Allocations to the components of this program have, in the past, been determined separately in the Budget process.

3.22 A further adjustment to the structure of this area of

Commonwealth assistance was announced in the 1983/84 Budget, this was the separation of the allocation into: â¢ Sport, Recreation and Fitness Programs; and

â¢ Sport and Recreation for the Disabled.

Separate amounts for these two programs were announced by the

Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism at that time.

3.23 Expenditure on Sports Assistance Programs in 1982/83

was $3 711 877 which represented approximately 27 per cent of

sport and recreation expenditure by the Department of Sport,

Recreation and Tourism and 17 per cent of all direct

Commonwealth expenditure on sport and recreation, that is,

including expenditure by the National Capital Development

Commission on facilities at the Australian Institute of Sport and expenditure by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The

1983/84 Budget indicated that the relative significance of these programs would be increased: it is estimated that approximately $6.8 million, or 32 per cent of the Department's sport and

recreation allocation will be spent on them in 1983/84. These

programs were the major focus of over 50 per cent of the

submissions received by the Committee and were mentioned in many other submissions. The Committee believed that the Sports

Development Program in particular, had among existing programs, the most effect on Australians who participate in sport as

recreation. The development of a recreation and fitness stream in this program will widen this effect.

3. 2 4 As noted above, there have been changes to the names

and administrative arrangements for this group of programs in 1982/83 and 1983/84. The following examination will use current names and, where necessary, indicate previous program titles.

a. Sport, Recreation and Fitness Programs 3.25 This group of programs incorporates those previously

called the Sports Development Program, the Program of Assistance for Sport and Recreation for Disabled People and assistance to the Commonwealth Games and to the Australia Games. In the

1983/84 Commonwealth Budget a new assistance program for

recreation and fitness was announced and is scheduled to be

introduced to this group of programs in the near future. As

noted, funding to this category of programs increased from $3.7 million in 1982/83 to $6.8 million in 1983/84. Table 5 below

sets out expenditure on this group of programs in recent years

and estimated expenditure in 1983/84. Also included in this

table is assistance to Australia's involvement in the Olympic Games. Although this is allocated separately, it has much in

common with other items in this category such as grants to

assist the Commonwealth Games and the Australia Games. 3.26 Table 6 sets out expenditure on these programs from

197-77 to 1982-83 in constant terms (1979/80 dollars) and

indicates that expenditure on sport and fitness programs

increased moderately in real terms between 1976/77 and 1980/81, declined in 1981-82 and recovered slightly in 1982-83. It is

clear that the projected 1983/84 expenditure on these programs represents a significant real increase. Amounts allocated to Olympic, Commonwealth and Australia Games varies in a cyclical pattern affected by the timing of the games and, of course, by

the location if an Australian city is involved as Brisbane was

in the 1982 Commonwealth Games.

w 0"\

TABLE 5

Details

Commonwealth

Expenditure on

Sports

Development,

Recreation

and

Fitness

and

Games

Preparation,

1976-77

1983-84

Sports

Development

Progran

Fitness

Progran

Sport

and

Recreation

Prograns

for

the

Disabled

SUB

'IOTAL

Commonwealth

Ganes

Assistance Australia

Games

Assistance Olympic Ganes Assistance 'IOTAL

(a}

1976/77 $'000 366 600 966 225

1 191

1977

/ 78 $'000 998 600

1 598

1978 /

$'000 1

333 600

933 100

033

1979 /

$'000 2 000 650

650 745

395

1980 /

$'000 2 885 700

585 115 525

225

1981 /

1982 /

$'000 $'000 2 885

3 1 8 6

200

191

085

377

185

155

180 500

320

4 212

1983 /

$'000 (est.}

400 6

790 (b) (c) 900

690

(a}

This

does

not

include

capital

allocations

which

totalled

$10m

over

the

1978 /

1981 /

period.

(b)

allocation

i s

be made

for

Canrnonwealth

Games

Assistance

1983 / 84.

(c)

allocation

expected

made

for

Australia

Ganes

assistance

1983/

84 from

the

Sport,

Recreation

and

Fitness

allocation.

Source:

Department

Sport,

Recreation

and Tourism, submission

evidence.

w -...)

TABLE

Commonwealth

Expenditure

on Sports

Development,

Recreation

and

Fitness

and

Games

Preparation, 1976-77

1982-83

(1979-80

dollars)

1976 /

$'000

1977 /

$'000

1978 /

$'000

1979 /

$'000

1980 /

$'000

1981 /

1982 /

$'000 $'000

Sports

Development Program

Fitness

Program

Sport

and

Recreation

Programs

for

the

Disabled

SUB

'IOTAL

Commonwealth

Games

Assistance Australia

Games

Assistance Olympic

Games

Assistance 'IOTAL

(a)

461

998

333

755

698

656

216

858

2 113

283

109

500

858

222

000

885

186

650

623

157

137

650

194 1

910

2 418

102

146

111

129

745

468

358

3 395

764

2613

016

(a)

This

does

not

include

capital

allocations

which

totalled

$10m

over

the

1978 /

1981 /

82 ];â¬riod.

(b)

allocation

be made

for

Canrnonwealth

Garnes

Assistance

1983 / 84.

(c)

allocation

expected

made

for

Australia

Garnes

assistance

1983 /

84 from

the

Sport,

Recreation

and

Fitness

allocation.

Source: Table

ABS

'Quarterly

Estimates

National

Income and

Expenditure'

June

Quarter

1983,

{catalogue

No.5206.0) Government

final

consumption

ex];â¬nditure

implicit

price

deflator.

The Sports Development Program

3.27 No allocation to the Sports Development Program has yet

been made from funds provided for the Sport, Recreation and

Fitness Programs in the 1983/84 Budget. At the time of the

writing of this report, no information was available to the

Committee as to what funds would be available to this program

and how the new recreation and fitness programs announced in the Budget would operate. The Committee has therefore focused its attention on the Sports Development Program as it has o p erated between 1976/77 and 1982/83.

3.28 The objectives of the Program were described by the

De partment of Sport, Recreation and Tourism as:

â¢ to contribute towards improving the

standards of performance of Australian

athletes in international competition, and to increase the opportunities for such

competition at home and abroad;

to support national and to upgrade the

throughout Australia;

voluntary standard associations of coaching

â¢ to co-operate with other levels of

government, national sporting associations and the private sector in assessing the

needs of sports and determining how best to allocate resources. 3.29 To achieve these objectives, financial assistan ce has

been provided to national sporting organisations and other

organisations in the following broad areas:

â¢ international competition in Australia and overseas;

â¢ general administration of national sporting organisations;

â¢ employment of national executive directors and coaching directors;

â¢ assistance for the National Coaching

Accreditation Scheme;

national coaching schemes and development projects;

â¢ grants under the National Athlete Award

Scheme; and

attendance at international meetings by

Australian delegates and members of

international sporting organisations. 3.30 This program, as noted earlier in the report, drew a

disproportionately high level of attention in submissions

received by the Committee. Almost all of the submissions

supported the program. Exceptions to this were from organisations which had not received support under the program because support had gone to a competing organisation, or from those which

represented a sub-category of a sport where funds had been given to an association representing the overall category. One example of the difficulties that such divisions can impose was outlined for the Committee by Mr John Whitehouse, Honorary Secretary of

the Australian Water Polo Association at the Committee's public hearings in Hobart on Friday, 15 July 1983.12 Mr Whitehouse

explained that water polo had broken from the Amateur Swimming Union of Australia (ASUA) in August 1982 to form a separate

association and explained that one of the most important rea s ons for this was that people involved in water polo believed they had not received full representation or an adequate share of

financial assistance through the ASUA. Against this must be

balanced the views of witnesses such as Mr M A Nunan, Director of the South Australian Sports Institute, who argued that there

should be some rationalisation of activities eligible for

assistance and suggested that a maximum of 45 activities should be supported by the Commonwealth Government, as is the practice in several European countries, rather than the 83 separate

activities funded through the Sports Development Program in

1982/83.13

3.31 The Committee was concerned to ensure that assistance to

national sporting organisations neither encourage the undue fragmentation of sports into highly specialist disciplines nor restrict the development of various specialist sports which

receive their funding through block grants paid to umbrella

organisations. The Committee recommends therefore that:

8. the Department of Sport, Recreation and

Tourism encourage national sporting

organisations seeking assistance to

identify in their grant applications the funding requirements of any specialist bodies they claim to represent and that

these be recognised by the Department in grant allocations.

3.32 Administration of the Sports Development Program was

criticised in a number of submissions received by the Committee for one or other of the following reasons:

â¢ the high priority accorded to assistance

towards the employment of administrators;

â¢ a failure to take account of

funding requirements of

organisations;

â¢ the lack of sufficient

incentives for self help; and

the special sporting

'in built'

, an apparent

criteria,l lack of

applying clarity and/or

grant selection

Priority Accorded to Assistance with Administration 3.33 Assistance for administration clearly enJoys the highest priority. Table 7 below, provided by the Department of Sport,

Recreation and Tourism and including expenditure on Aboriginal SfJOrt and recreation, breaks Commonwealth expenditure on sports development down by functional categories of assistance. It

indicates that, over the 1977/78 to 1982/83 period, Commonwealth grants for administration increased by almost five times. During the same period assistance for athletes to compete

internationally doubled but declined from 55 per cent of total

assistance provided to 32 per cent. At the same time, the actual

and proportional expenditure on research and information

dissemination fell from $48 600 (4.9 per cent of total

expenditure) in 1977/78 to $41 000 (1.4 per cent) in 1980/81 (the

last year for which separate figures are available).

*"' ,_.

TABLE

Conloonwealth

Expenditures on

Sport

Developnent

by Category

Assistance,

1977-78

1983-84

TYPE

1977-78 197&-79

1979-80 1980-81

1982-83 1983-84 (Est)

ACI'IVITY

$ $ $ $ $ $

ASSISTED International Competition

547

040

54.8

550

650

41.3

864

407

43.2

976

200

33.8

957

700

33.2

009

300

Administration Grants

800

6.5

000

3.5

171

000

8.5

209

500

7.3

206

500

7.2

255

000

Einployment

138

750

13.9

313

421

23.5

433

533

21.7

575

000

19.9

633

810

22.0

737

000

Coaching Projects

100

7.3

135

639

10.2

126

500

6.3

280

300

9.7

116 316

4.0

171

500

Einployment

500

6.2

141

710

10.6

202

500

10.2

' 307

000

10.6

343

950

11.9

403

000

Develot:ment

900

3.1

000

0.2

400

3.6

376

500

13.1

Research and

)

514

757

17.8

475

500

Information Dissemination

600

4.9

89 300

6.7

229

3.8

000

1.4

International Meetings

740

3.4

280

4.0

150

2.7

119

500

4.1

111

800

3.9

138

700

Expenditure 998

430

333

000

999

719

885

000

885

000

190

000

Appropriation

000 000

333

000

000 000

885

000

885

000

190

000

NOTE:

Funding

for

the

NCAS

has been

included

since

its

establishment

1979 under Coaching

Projects

and

the

allocation

the

NAAS

(established

1980)

has been

included

the

Development

category.

Source:

Department

Sport,

Recreation

and Tourism, submission e v

iden

ce .

31.7 8.0 23.1 5.4 12.6 14.9 4.3

3.34 Concern was expressed in some submissions about the

priority accorded administration as opposed to coaching for

example and about the additional costs to sporting oranisations of having full-time administrators.l5 Nonetheless, the Committee was not told that the level of funding of administration

therefore should be reduced. On the contrary, many witnesses

argued that the present allocation was inadequate and that sport at the national level suffered because of the limited security of tenure and career structure offered sports administrators. The Committee considered that, on balance, the priority accorded

administration was warranted in the early stages of the Sports Development Program and that many national sporting organisations now have an enhanced capacity to be self-supporting.

Special Funding Requirements of Sporting Organisations

3.35 The Committee encountered two oft-repeated criticisms of the Sports Assistance Programs in this regard, 'budget-lag'

problems associated with the timing of the disbursement of funds and the inadequacy of existing forward obligation arrangements.l6

3.36 The Committee was advised that applications were sought

in April/May for the following financial year (July/June). It was said that funds were then allocated in the Commonwealth Budget in August, considered by the Sports Advisory Council which made

recommendations to the Minister by September and that funds did not begin to flow to associations until October or even November. The submissions and witnesses argued that associations could thus spend three months of a financial year without funds. It was said that this was particularly damaging for winter sports which held championships during the July/September period and for sports which had heavy overseas competition commitments at that. time of

the year. It was suggested that funding should be based on a

calendar year system so that funds announced in August coula be

paid in November or December for the following year. This

solution was opposed by some associations on the grounds that it would make necessary the prediction of funding requirements

18 months in advance.

3.37 The Committee sought the views on this and other aspects

of the funding machinery from the Def.>artment of Finance as well

as the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. The

Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism said only two or

three sports had approached it about problems in this area and it believed the existing provisions for interim funding of programs in the Supply Acts together with the system of forward

obligations allowed associations some continuity .17 The existing Supply procedures f.>ermit the Department to f.>ay during the

July/September period an amount based on funding sought for

competitions scheduled to be held in the July/September period and a proportion (usually 5/12 although it could be increased to

6/ 12) of assistance toward the employment of staff. Funds for

general administrative costs are not paid during thi s period and associations which receive smaller general grants are more

significantly affected. Under the Sports Development Program two and three year forward obligations are entered into for the

employment of administrative and coaching personel and two year fo r ward obligations are entered into for international

competition.

3.38 It seemed surprising to the Committee, in view of the

number of comments it had received on the difficulties created by 1 budget-lag 1 , that the Department was not more aware of the

extent of dissatisfaction with the existing system. The Committee believed that this reflec.ted the general lack of evaluation of Departmental programs. This problem is discussed in greater

detail later in this Chapter. 3.39 The Committee is of the view that the 1 budget-lagâ¢

problem can be overcome by the application of the existing

â¢supply 1 provision described above and the forward obligation arrangements. The Committee was informed by the Department of Finance that calendar year funding could be accommodated in the Budget process. However, the Committee was inclined to share

Financeâ¢s view that because of the availability of the Supply and forward obligation arrangements, little would be gained from the introduction of calendar year funding.l8 The Committee had

something more to say about the use of forward obligations later in this chapter.

3 . 40 The Committee noted, however, that smaller organisations

receiving small grants for general administration did not benefit from the Supply period .and forward obligation arrangements. It was from these organisations, which usually did not have

full-time administrative staff, that criticism of program

procedures was received and a lack of understanding of the

Commonwealth Governnientâ¢s aims in providing funds was most

evident. The Committee recommends that:

9. the Department should organise a series

of workshops and/or the production of a handbook aimed at those organisations without full time administrative staff to be held in State capitals with a view

to promoting better program

understanding and administration.

3.41 The Sports Development Program has attained a high level

of forward obligation approval as can be seen from Table 8 (whi ch was based on information provided by the Department of Finance).

TABLE 8

Sports Development Program

Appropriation and Forward Obligations 1981-82 and 1982-83 ($'000)

Appropriation

19 81-82 19 82-83 2 885

3 725

Supply

1 200

1 202

Approved Undischarged Obligations

End of

llM

2 540

3 000

To be discharged

1982-83

1 547

1983-84

993

1 820

1984-85

1 180

Source: Department of Finance, submission evidence.

As can be seen in Table 8, the level of forward obligated funds

decr e ases in successive years. It was the view of the Department

of Finance that this tapering serves to contain the overall level of obligated funds in the Budget and hence ensure an adequate

de gree of budgetary flexibility.l9 However, a number of sporting organisations considered that the forward obligation arrangements were inadequate to the needs of professional national sports

administration and suggested the level of forward obligated funds be increased and/or the time period be extended from three to

four or five years.20

3.42 The Committee agreed that forward obligation

arrangements had improved the effectiveness of the Sports

Development Program 1n developing national administration and national coaching by creating a more stable planning environment for these organisations. Private sector sources of income,

especially commercial sponsorship and donations may be quite unstable especially in the 'set up' period of a national

organisation. The Committee agreed, however, that the

effectiveness of the Sports Assistance Programs could be improved further by extending the level and scope of forward obligations to national sporting organisations. In the first place, approved sporting organisations should be given a guaranteed constant level of assistance for a four year period. The period of four

years was selected at the suggestion of the Australian Olympic Federation who indicated that the period fitted within the

Olympiad commitment. These organisations would be able to enter into new four year employment contracts without the present

uncertainty that the level of Commonwealth support would vary over the contract period. Problems of Budget flexibility and

expenditure control could be overcome by instituting a rolling funding arrangement. The level of Commonwealth assistance in the fourth year would be decided at the same time as the current year

and would be subject to evidence of need as well as of

satisfactory program performance. In the second place, the

Committee

considered that the scope of this increased level of forward

obligation should be extended, wherever possible, to

international competition and meetings in Australia and overseas. 3.43 The Committee recommends therefore that:

10. the Department should offer approved

sporting organisations a rolling four

year program for the salaries of national executive directors and national coaching directors. A recipient organisation would in addition to its cash allocation in any

one year, be guaranteed a level of

funding for the following three years

with the level of funding in the fourth

year being decided at the same time as

the current year cash allocation.

Approved organisations should be offered a guaranteed constant level of assistance for the period 1984-85 to 1987-881

ll. similar four year rolling programs should be extended to approved national sporting organisations for assistance with: (a)

(b)

participation competition and and

the staging

competitions Australia.

in international

meetings overseas,

and

international meetings in

These recommendations should remove a good deal of the funding uncertainty about which sporting organisations have complained but at the same time provide them with a firm inducement to use

the enhanced planning to exploit other revenue sources.

Incentives for 'Self Help'

3.44 In examining the Sports Assistance Programs,

particularly the Sports Development Program, the Committee wa s keen to ascertain whether the programs developed dependence upon external financing in the organisations they assisted. Present assessment criteria for the program stress the importance of

encouraging self help. A number of submissions indicated that th e existing funding arrangements did not encourage an appropriate level of self help and suggested matching funding arrangements.2l

3. 45 Grants to national sporting organisations are of a flat

or fixed kind. The size of the grant varies with the category of

assistance and the assessed needs of the recipient organisation

but are restricted to monetary limits based on a percentage of

the anticipated cost of the project. The assistance seldom

provides for full Commonwealth funding of the project and

recipient organisations need to meet either a proportion of the project costs and/or all the ancilliary costs from their own

sources. These funding arrangements also have the advantage to the Commonwealth of being relatively less costly to administer and allowing more budgetary control and flexibility than

alternative matching grants. The form in which financial

assistance was provided to sporting organisations hence did not appear to inhibit significantly self help. The Committee received no evidence suggesting that there were significant difficulties in the operation of these funding arrangements and saw no reason

to change them.

The Application of Assessment Criteria

3. 46 The Committee received a large amount of evidence which

showed that national sporting organisations, both large and

small, did not understand the criteria used for the allocation of grants under the Sports Development Program.22 In its submission the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism made J?.Ublic for the first time the criteria used in grant allocation.23 At the

Committee's instigation the Department now proposes to make the criteria known to all applicants. It was drawn to the

Department's attention during the Committee hearings that the criteria as submitted to the Committee did not fully explain the variation in grant levels. 3.47 The Committee accepted that with limited funds not all

applications which met the Department's criteria could be funded and that it was reasonable for the final judgement as . to which

organisations should receive funds to be made by the Minister on the advice of the Sports Advisory Council. It is not known

whether the National Sports Commission, when it is established, will take over this role. The Interim Committee of the National

Sports Commission has been asked by the Minister to report on the future Commission's role and powers by the end of the year. The

proposal to establish the National Sports Commission and its role is considered in greater detail later in this Chapter. National Athlete Award Scheme and National Coaching Accreditation Scheme

3.48 Two other sub-programs which fall within the Sports

Development Program, the National Athlete Award Scheme and the National Coaching Accreditation Scheme both attracted support in submissions made to the Committee and from witnesses who appeared at public hearings. The Committee noted the lack of any mechanism

to evaluate these programs and agreed that this was part of a

wider problem which is discussed below.

Commonwealth Garnes - Team and Costs

3.49 The Committee noted that $10m a four year period

had been provided by the Commonwealth Government to assist in the preparations for the Commonwealth Garnes in Brisbane in 1982 and believed that these funds contributed significantly to these

enormously successful Garnes.

3 .SO The Committee that funding of team

and costs for Commonwealth Garnes was an

use of Commonwealth funds and that allocation of these

funds in block to the Australian Commonwealth Games

Association for was an effective and efficient

method of administering the funds.

3.51 The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism

suggested that the effectiveness of the program could be assessed against the of the 1978 and 1982 Commonwealth Games where

Australia won 84 and 107 medals respectively. When the response of spokespersons for the Australian Institute of Sport to

criticisms of the performance of P..IS athletes competing at the

World Athletic Championships at Helsinki is recalled , it would appear that this evaluative method is clearly rejected by some

sporting authorities. 24 The Committee would suggest that

Commonwealth funding was only one of several factors contributing to the Australian team's success and medal counts should not be

used as a yardstick of program performance. Should the Australian medal count at the Commonwealth Games in 1986 be lower than 107, this would constitute a valid argument neither for increased

Commonwealth assistance nor for the cessation of such assistance.

Garnes

3.52 The ObJective of grants to the Australia Games

Foundation of $50 000 in 1981/82 and $180 000 in 1982/83 has been

to provide assistance for the conduct of the Australia Garnes as a means of stimulating additional top level competition for

Australian athletes. Funds provided by the Commonwealth

Government have been specifically for the secretariat costs of the Directorate of the Australia Garnes Foundation.

3. 53 The first Australia Games wer;e scheduled to be held in

Sydney in January 1984. Mr David Mazitelli, Federal Director of the Australia Garnes Foundation, informed the Committee at its public hearing in Sydney on 20 - July 1983 that these inaugural

Garnes had been deferred 'as a result of a number of factors, not

the least being the inability of the board of management of the

Foundation to elicit all the responses and of

financial support from the various partners involved' ,25 It is

now expected that the first Australia Games will be held in

Victoria in 1985.

3.54 The Committee accepted that a major Australian

competition in the years between Olympic and Commonwealth Games would be of value to athletes and could act, as the Foundation

plans, as a culmination of regional games throughout Australia. At the Recreation Ministers Council held in June this year, the

Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism indicated that the

Commonwealth could make $1 million available for the first

Australia Games based on an estimated total games cost of

$2 million. 26 Of the remaining $1 million needed to finance the

Games, $250 000 to $300 000 would be sought from State

governments. The Australia Games Foundation would be responsible for the remainder but would seek to have some or all of the funds

underwritten by the Australian Olympic Federation, the Australian Commonwealth Games Association and the Confederation of

Australian Sport. The Foundation would expect to raise $350 000 from gate receipts and the remaining $350 000 to $400 000 from

donations and sponsorships.27

3.55 Although the Committee supported the concept of the

Games, it was surprised to find so much uncertainty about the

form the Games could take, the sports which would be included and the attitudes of governments and major sporting organisations from which the Foundation would be seeking financial support. The Committee was advised that the Victorian Government believes that

the objectives and scope of the Australia Games have now been

formally clarified in Cabinet submissions to both the Victorian Government and the Commonwealth Government. They have indicated that the Games will form the major component of Victoria's

Sesquicentenary celebrations. The Committee has not had access to those submissions and therefore recommends that:

12. before a firm commitment of Commonwealth funding for the Australia Games is

entered into, the objectives and scope

of the Games be clarified.

Program of Assistance for Sport and Recreation for Disabled People

3.56 Since 1981/82 special assistance has been given to this

program which aims to assist the best disabled athletes to

compete at national and international levels and to integrate

disabled persons with the rest of the community in all sport and

recreation activities. The program seeks to achieve these

objectives by providing assistance to national sport and

recreation organisations for disabled people for:

â¢ administrative expenses, employment of personnel; including

â¢ administration of national championships;

â¢ travel to international competitions;

the

â¢ travel to international meetings and

seminars;

and by providing assistance to organisations for projects which h ave national application or significance including:

â¢ demonstration projects designed to

encourage or enhance participation by

disabled people in recreational or

non-competitive activities;

â¢ research into aspects of the participation of disabled people in sport and recreation; and

â¢ projects designed to integrate disabled

sportspeople into national (mainstream) sporting organisations, coaching programs and national competitions.

Table 9 below sets out expenditure on this program in 1981/ 82 and 19 82/ 83.

TABLE 9

Program of Assistance for Sport and Recreation for Disabled People Details of Expenditure, 1981/82 and 1982/83

19 81-82 1982-83

$ $

Administration - general 54 850 69 820

National Championships 10 000 14 150

International Meetings 12 500 13 000

International Competitions 64 000 34 500

Integration 1 000

Recreation Projects 16 900 42 000

Research 10 700 12 000

Seminars 30 504 9 53Q

TOTAL 199 454 196 QQQ

Source: Department of Recreation and Tourism, submission

evidence.

3.57 The Committee believed that expenditure under this

program has focused unduly on sport and believed that greater

emphasis should be given to recreation opportunities for the

disabled. Two of the objectives of this program were the

integration 1 of disabled sportspeople into national mainstream sporting organisations, coaching programs and national

competition ; and recreation programs for the disabled. The

Committee found that only a small proportion of program

expenditure went to integration and to recreation while most went to funding separate sports programs for the disabled. While

acknowledging the worth of these latter programs and accepting the fact that the feasibility of integration in the sense of

equal participation with the mainstream was limited for many

disabled people in many sports, the Committee considered that there were a number of sports where the disabled can compete,

with assistance, on an equal basis with the mainstream and that elements of existing programs for the mainstream could and should be made more accessible to the disabled. The Committee recommends therefore that:

13. a larger proportion of funds allocated

to the Program of Sport and Recreation

for Disabled People should be earmarked to promote the participation of disabled people in mainstream as well as disabled sport and on recreation programs for the disabled.

3.58 The Committee saw that one method of achieving this goal

was to ensure that disabled athletes had access to scholarships at the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) and had access to the

National Athlete Award Scheme (NAAS). The Committee therefore recommends that:

14. the Australian Institute of Sport be

encouraged to provide, where

practicable, facilities and scholarships for disabled athletes to participate in both elite mainstream and elite disabled sports; 15. the National Athlete Award Scheme should

be extended so that a proportion of the

funds are used to assist promising or

outstanding disabled athletes with some of the costs to them of participation in

elite mainstream or elite disabled

sports.

3.59 A major obstacle to integration, as many witnesses

before the Committee noted, was that many sporting facilities are not physically accessible to disabled people. Conflicting

evidence was received by the Committee regarding the

accessibility of major new centres such as the Chandler Complex in Brisbane and the National Sports Centre in Canberra.28 The

Committee visited both of these sites. It noted that disabled

groups were sufficiently confident of the accessibility of the National Sports Centre to have mounted a campaign to have the

1988 International Disabled Games staged there. Nevertheless, the

problems of physical accessibility to sport and recreation

facilities remains of paramount importance to disabled people. The Committee recommends that:

16. all sport and recreation facilities to

which the Commonwealth contributes funds for new construction must be fully

accessible to disabled people1

17. the Commonwealth Government should

provide assistance for the staging of

the 1988 International Disabled Games should Australia be chosen as the host

country.

3.60 Although the Committee, as indicated above, strongly

supports the integration of mainstream and disabled sport and recreation, it does not oppose the continuation of support t o

separate programs for the disabled as it accepts the view put by

some witnesses that integration for a significant proportion of the disabled population would not be practicable.29

3. 61 Evidence was presented to the Committee regarding the

funding of the Program of Assistance for Sport and Recreation fo r Disabled People.30 There were three main areas of criticism:

forward commitments for administrative grants were not available; an inadequate share of funds was allocated to the intellectually handicapped compared to funds made available to the physically

disabled; and the total funds made available by the Commonwealth Government sport and recreation for the disabled was too low.

3.62 With regard to total funds available to this program,

the Committee noted with satisfaction that the level of funds

allocated in 1983/84 was twice the 1982/83 allocation. The

Committee believed that sport and recreation opportunities made available to disabled people have the potential to improve the

lives of these people by a degree which is often greater than the

effect on other people. This program had the Committee's strong support. The Committee noted,however>that the States have a role in this field and that Commonwealth and State programs for the

disabled should be compatible. Increased funding by the

Commonwealth should not be seen as providing the States with the opportunity to reduce their funding.

3. 6 3 The question of balance between funding for the

physically disabled and the intellectually handicapped was one the Committee found difficult to resolve. The evidence it

received was conflicting and interpretation difficulties were compounded by the fact that physically disabled people were able to speak on their own behalf while intellectually handicapped people had to rely on others to articulate their needs. 31 The

needs of the intellectually handicapped have not been ignored. For instance, in 1982-83 the NCSRD allocated $12 500 (out of

total grant allocations of $196 000) to the Australian

Association for the Mentally Retarded for projects designed to increase the sport and recreation involvement of the mentally handicapped. However, the Committee believed that the the NCSRD should be conscious of these criticisms when it is formulating

its recommendations for allocations under this program and that the Department should ensure that advice to the Minister

indicates the need for balance between assistance to

intellectually handicapped and physically disabled. To assist this process the Committee recommends that: 18. the membership of the National Committee on Sport and Recreation for the Disabled should include in

future one member with experience in working with the intellectually handicapped.

3. 64 Funding options under the Program of Sport and

Recreation for the Disabled had been restricted largely because of the small size of the program. With the expansion of the

program in the 1983-84 Budget, the Committee considered it

appropriate to expand funding options to line up with those

available under the Sports Assistance Programs. The Committee recommends that:

19. the funding arrangements proposed in

Recommendations 10 and 11 be extended to cover the Program for Sport and

Recreation for the Disabled;

20. in connection with these changes, a

series of workshops and/or a booklet

should be produced for the recipients

of grants under the Program for Sport

and Recreation for the Disabled in

conjunction with those proposed in

Recommendation 9.

International Standard Sports Facilities (ISSF) Program

3.65 This program was announced in October 1980. The

Government's intention was to provide $25m over a three year

period for the construction of international standard sports

facilities. The funds were to be provided on a dollar-for-dollar basis with State and Territory governments and the announcement stressed that the facilities supported with these funds would be planned and constructed in co-operation with these governments. The first of the approvals were announced in Ja;lUary 1981.

3.66 The objectives of the program are to provide

international standard sports facilities in Australia to enable Australian athletes to train and compete on a similar basis to

their overseas counterparts and to enable Australia to be more successful in attracting international competition.

3.67 Table 10 below sets out commitments and expenditure

under this program at June 1983; two and a half years after the

first of the approvals were announced. Although 90 per cent of

the $25m had been committed by June 1983, only 34 per cent of the

available funds had been spent. During the Committee's hearings serious doubts were expressed about the possibility of an early resolution of problems that have beset the development of the

motor racing circuit planned for Victoria and the aquatic centre planned for South Australia.32 Together these account for 25 per cent of the unspent balance of committed funds. It is therefore

most unlikely that even 50 per cent of the available $25m will

have been spent within the three years originally scheduled for the program.

TABLE 10

International Standard Sports Facilities Program Funding Position at 17 June 1983

STATE/ALLOCATION/ PRQJECT

($8.9M)

Indoor Sports Centre -Homebush Bay

Yi& ($6.55m) *State Hockey Centre *State Equestrian Centre *Olympic Park No 1

Ground Motor Racing Circuit SUB TOTAL

.QU1 ($797 500) *Belmont Rifle Range *Olandler Velodrome Lighting *QE II Stadium -

Upgrading SUB TOTAL

.sA ($3.75m) Aquatic Centre

liA ($1 902 500) *Baseball Centre other projects to be submitted

.IllS ( $1. 5m) Feasibility Study - Canoeing/Rowing Rowing Centre Velodrome Baseball Facility )

SUB TOTAL

m ($1.0m) Indoor Centre

N:J:. ($l.Om) Projects not yet submitted

.225m TOTAL

* Projects completed

DATE (X)MMJ.t-WEAL'IH APPROVE!) COOMI'IMENI' $

28.7.81 8000000

10. 4.81 815 000

10. 4.81 750 000

10. 4.81 2 050 000

18.10.81 2 935 000 6 550 000

15. 1.81 260 000

9. 9.81 207 500

9. 9.81 330 000

797 500

10. 2.81 3 750 000

30.10.81 480 000

3.10.81 5 000

545 000

2.12.82 . 550 000

400 000 1 500 000

23.10.81 1 500 000

PAID TO DATE $

2 226 474

815 000

750 000

2 050 000 40 320 3 655 320

260 000

195 335

328 669 784 004

355 288

480 000

5 000

5 773 526

2 894 680 2 894 680

12 165

...J._]ll

13 496

3 394 712

197 721 347 279

550 000 400 000

202 721 1 297 279

835 073 664 927

22 577 500 8 538 880 14 038 620

Source: Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, submission evidence. 54

3. 68 These facts alone raise serious doubts about the

administration of this program. During the Committee's public hearings the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism

mentioned that the program had experienced difficulties regarding lead time required for planning such large facilities,

definitional problems as to what an international standard

facility was and avoidance of duplication of facilities if the

program was to be continued. Most importantly, the Department

indicated that there had been little planning and co-ordination of the projects to be funded before the program was announced.33 State government representatives generally supported the program although some commented on the lack of suitability of this

program for small States where the need for venues of the size

supported by this program was limited. 34 States and Territories with small populations cannot fully utilize large international facilities and have, rather, a need for regional facilities. It

was suggested to the Committee by representatives of the Division of Recreation of the Tasmanian Department of Education that the ISSF Program would be of greater value to that State if local

government interests were met.35 The representatives of the

Australian Council for Local Government Associations also

expressed this view. 36 Similarly, a number of national sporting associations argued in submissions and at hearings that there would be great value in widening the funding arrangements for

this program so that funding responsibilities could be shared

between the Commonwealth Government, State governments, local government and sporting associations.37 Difficulties could be experienced with the administration and maintenance of facilities established with funding from several sources but the Committee

did not believe such problems were insurmountable.

3.69 The Committee accepted the worth of a program which

provided needed sporting facilities and venues which were beyond the capacity of individual States to provide and noted the

Government's intention to extend the duration of the present

International Standard Sporting Facilities Program. The Committee considered , however J that the present program suffered serious shortcomings. There had been a general lack of planning and

co-ordination in the selection and execution of the projects and, in the smaller States, the program criteria had been

'interpreted â¢ to allow the construction of facilities of a scale more appropriate to a relatively small population base. The

Committee considered that, in line with the general thrust of its findings, the scope of the program should be expanded, more care should be exercised in the selection of projects and more

flexibility permitted in funding arrangements. The Committee recommends therefore that:

21. the scope of the International Standard

Sporting Facilities (ISSF) Program should be expanded to include capital assistance for international and national standard

sport and recreation facilities equitably and rationally distributed among the

States and regions; 22. before any monies were allocated under

such an expanded program there should be a study to identify what international

and national sport and recreation

facilities were required in Australia and what were the appropriate locations of

such facilities;

23. in line with Recommendation 21, the

program funding arrangements should be sufficiently flexible to allow local

government authorities and sporting

organisations to provide, with State

governments, up to fifty per cent or more of project funds.

3. 70 The Committee also noted the Government 1 s intention to

assist with the funding of family leisure centres. Funds had not been allocated yet for such a purpose. Although the Committee was impressed by such facilities as the Parks Community Centre in Adelaide and the Fremantle Arts Centre which had been established

under previous Commonwealth initiatives in this area, it believed that a full evaluation of such expensive projects should be

undertaken before funds were allocated for similar new projects. The Committee recommends therefore that:

24. before family leisure centres were given further consideration, a full evaluation of earlier initiatives in this field Â·

should be undertaken to define their

purpose and to determine their benefits to the local community and the

appropriate role of the Commonwealth.

3. 71 The ACT House of Assembly is giving consideration to

the selection of an appropriate project to be funded as the ACT's share of the present ISSF Program. The Committee considered 1

however i that through the funding of the National Sports Centre the ACT already had acquired outstanding sporting facilities and recommends that:

25. the ACT should not be eligible for

assistance under the present or expanded ISSF program while major construction

work at the National Sports Centre is in

progress.

Australian Olympic Federation Grants

3. 7 2 For some time the Commonwealth has made grants to the

Australian Olympic Federation to assist the sending of

Australian teams to the Olympic Games. Table ll shows

Commonwealth assistance provided to the Australian Olympic Federation in respect of each Olympic Games since the 1960

Olympics.

TABLE 11

Commonwealth Assistance to the Australian Olympic Federation 1960-1984 Olympic Games

1960 1964 1968 1972 1976

1980 1984

Rome Tokyo Mexico City Munich

Montreal Moscow Los Angeles

$40 000

$60 000

$80 000

$250 000 $800 000 $1 400 000

Source: Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, submission evidence.

3. 7 3 The assistance has been provided in the form of a

block grant which the Federation has subsequently allocated to the eligible national sporting bodies and individuals. In recent years the Federation has allocated part of its Games budgets for team preparation in addition to the costs of the Australian

Olympic team's participation in the Games i.e. outfitting,

transport and accommodation costs. Of the $4.4 million which the Federation has budgeted for the 1984 Summer and Winter Olympic Games, $1.2 million has been allocated for team preparation.

$500 000 of the Commonwealth's $1.4 million contribution towards the 1984 Olympic Games has been earmarked for team preparation.

3.74 The Commonwealth's grant for the 1984 Olympics

represents about 35 per cent of the Australian Olympic

Federation's 1984 Games budget. The Federation's own

fund-raising activities are extensive and, for 1984, involve a television 'telethon', the 'sale' of rights to the use of the

Federation's emblem and a financial arrangement with the 1984 summer Games official Australian broadcaster.

3.75 One submission questioned the relatively generous

level of Commonwealth assistance provided to the Federation and to Olympic sports generally, suggesting that:

Olympic sports had 'two bites of the

cherry', through the Sport Development Program and through the grants to the

Australian Olympic Federation;

the Australian Olympic Federation and

many Olympic sports enjoyed a large

measure of community supP.ort and could

well look after themselves.38

The Federation told the Committee that it supported the

principle of self help which was necessary to preserve its

independence. Despite the Federation's careful budgeting and ext ensive fund- raising efforts, it believed there was a need for continuing government financial support.39

3. 76 The Committee agreed that Olympic sports as a group

benefitted more than non-Olympic sports from the present

Commonwealth programs of assistance to sport and that they

enjoyed a significant level of non-government financial support. However, the Committee believed that the priority accorded

Olympic sports and the present level of Commonwealth assistance were warranted in the context of present sports policy

objectives and community attitudes. Despite the overlap of

Commonwealth funding sources for Olympic (and Commonwealth Games) sports, the Committee saw no compelling reason to change the present separate system of block grants funding for the

Olympic (and Commonwealth) Games. Commonwealth financial assistance had been effective in increasing the size and scope of Australian participation at the Olympics. The Committee

believed this should be as important a program objective as the Australian Team's medal tally.

Grants-in-Aid to Life Saving Associations

3. 77 Included under this heading are grants-in-aid to the

Surf Life Saving Association of Australia and the Royal Life

Saving Society of Australia. The aims of these organisations

each concern the provision of a life saving service and the

education of the community in life saving, water safety and

resuscitation techniques. 3.78 Under the program funds are allocated to the Surf Life

Saving Association for:

â¢ administration of its National Council;

â¢ dollar for dollar equipment subsidies for

surf clubs;

â¢ grants to needy clubs;

and to the Royal Life Saving Society for:

â¢ administration of its national office;

â¢ support for the National Technical

Directorate and award schemes.

The amounts allocated to this program have been quite generous in Commonwealth terms and have increased from $340 000 in

1977/78 to $600 000 in 1982/83 and it is expected that $825 000

will be provided for these grants in 1983/84.

3.79 These programs are distinct in two ways from the other

programs administered by the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Firstly, until the expansion of the Sports Assistance Programs to comprehend national fitness and recreation and, with the the modest exception of the Program of Assistance for Sport and Recreation for the Disabled, they represent the sole element

of expressly recreational funding. Secondly, the assistance is provided by grants-in-aid which are administered independently of the Department's other sport and recreation programs and

outside the effective control of the Department.

3.80 Under the Commonwealth grants-in-aid arrangements,

applications for grants-in-aid must first gain the support of the appropriate Minister who then submits the proposal for

consideration by the Standing Interdepartmental Committee ( IDC) on Grants-in-Aid. This Committee consists of representatives of the Departments of Special Minister of State, Finance and Prime Minister and Cabinet. The recommendations of the IDC are

considered jointly by the Special Minister of State and the

Minister of Finance. Sponsoring Ministers have the opportunity to make representations on recommendations. In 1983-84, 44

grants-in-aid, totalling $2.5 million, were approved. 3.81 The Surf Life Saving Association of Australia was not

happy with the present grants-in-aid arrangements and claimed that the year by year, 'stop and start' funding was counter

productive. 40 The Royal Life Saving Society of Australia did

not make a submission to the inquiry. The Australian Ski Patrol Association suggested to the Committee that the 'one-off' nature of grants-in-aid assessment procedures and the separation of these grants-in-aid from the specific sport and recreation

programs of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism may have resulted in anomalous funding situations and hence

restricted the effectiveness of Commonwealth sport and

recreation policy. 41 The Committee sought details of the

assessment criteria applied under the grants-in-aid procedures from the Department of Finance.

3.82 The Australian Ski Patrol Association claimed that

repeated attempts to secure modest Commonwealth financial

support had been unsuccessful. The Association argued that it provided a service analogous to that provided by the life saving associations and suffered demonstrated hardship.42 The

difficulty for the Association appeared to be the lack of an

appropriate 'pigeon-hole' in existing sports programs and the difficulty, almost impossibility, of successful applications for new grants-in-aid, the only avenue of assistance available. It would appear that) in the rna tter of Commonwealth assistance to

recreational safety services the Australian Ski Patrol

Association is not alone. The volunteer coastguard organisations also have found Commonwealth assistance impossible to secure. 43 As the Department of Finance advised the Committee, 'it is

e asier, in a practical sense as well as in the context of f irrn

budgetary constraints to decline to provide funds for a new

grant-in-aid proposal than it is to terminate an existing

g rant-in-aid.â¢"214

3.83 The Committee believed that there was a clear case for

bringing all sport and recreation outlays under the one

administration and concluded that assistance to life saving organisations should be included in the expanded Sports

Assistance Programs. The merits of the claims for assistance of the Australian Ski Patrol Association or the volunteer

coastguard organisations were not the reasons for corning to this view. The Australian Ski Patrol Association may well benefit under the expanded scope of the Sports Assistance Progam.

Rather, arrangements should allow all similar life sav1ng

activities to be considered within the one budget allocation, against common criteria and under a single set of priorities.

Inclusion in the Sports Assistance Program would also give these organisations access to forward obligation provisions not

available for grants-in-aid and help overcome the difficulties experienced by the Surf Life Saving Association. The Committee therefore recommends that:

26. grants-in-aid to life saving

organisations be brought under the full

control of the Minister for Sport,

Recreation and Tourism;

27. eligibility for assistance to life saving organisations should be widened to

include organisations such as ski patrol and coastguard organisations.

In making these recommendations the Committee does not wish to imply that the level of assistance to the presently funded life saving organisations is inappropriate.

3.84 The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism

believed that:

'Commonwealth Government assistance has enabled development of consistent and sound safety and equipment standards, rescue and resuscitation techniques and has enabled

acquisition of necessary rescue equipment. National co-ordination of training programs has improved standards throughout

Australia.' 45

This view was supported by the evidence taken by the

Committee.46 The Committee agreed that the grants had

substantially assisted the provision of a valuable service and promoted the safe use of leisure time by the large numbers of

Australians who choose to participate in water-related sports. Funds for surf life saving come from a variety of sources: the

Commonwealth Government, State governments, local governments, private sponsors and from the commendable voluntary efforts of many individuals. It should also be noted that the competitive aspect of surf life saving receives separate Commonwealth funds

through the Sports Development Program.

The Australian Institute of Sport (AIS)

3.85 The Australian Institute of Sport opened in January

1981. The Institute is located at the National Sports Centre at Bruce in the Australian Capital Territory. Existing and planned facilities for the Centre are set out in Table 12 below along

with cost estimates supplied by the National Capital Development Commission.

TABLE 12

Facilities at the National Sports Centre, Canberra FACILITIES

Main Athletic Stadium

Outdoor Tennis and Netball Courts and Sports Science Laboratory

National Indoor Sports Centre

Lighting, Athletics Stadium

Specialist Gymnastics Facility Outdoor Throwing Area

Indoor Swimming Centre

Indoor Basketball and Netball Courts

Indoor Weightlifting and Training Hall

Indoor Soccer Hall

Synthetic Soccer Oval

Sports Science Facility

Administration Building Residential Accommodation

World Cup Development Works

Indoor Athletics Centre

CURRENT POSITION

Completed 1977

Completed 1980

Completed 1981

Completed 1982

Completed 1983

Completed 6/83

Under construction) Completion 8/84 )

Under construction) Completion 3/84 )

In design-proposed) commitment 83/84 ) n n 11 )

n 11 n )

n II II

Proposed for design in 1983/84 and commitment in 84/85

COST $M

6.5

0.75

8.0

2.0

1.8

2.0

6.0

9.4

13.5

5.475

12.00

Source: Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, submission evidence based on information supplied by National Capital Development Commission.

3.86 The facilities at the National Sports Centre are

managed by the Department of Territories and Local Government. They are available for use by the public as well as for use by

the Australian Institute of Sport. Expenditure on these

facilities by the NCDC and their administration by the

Department of Territories and Local Government is examined later in this Chapter.

3. 87 The cost of

significant. Commonwealth recurrent costs has been:

$l.lm $2.7m $4.5m

running the

expenditure

1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 $5.4m (estimated)

Institute on the

has been

Institute's

Table 13 provides details of

1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84, Institute's operation. gross outlays on the AIS

the first full years of

for the

TABLE 13

Australian Institut e of Sport Details of Gross 0Utlays,l981-82, 1982-83 and 1983- 84 (Estimated)

1981- 82 1982-83 1983-84 (Est)

$ $ $

Salaries and allowances 948 293 1 435 700 1 781 400

Competition program and professional development 605 896 972 600 1 088 000

Board of Management expenses 15 821 30 742 26 000

Administrat ion and general expenses 141 932 203 994 192 700

Sports science/medical laboratory consumable items 30 400 50 100

Recruitment expenses 50 176 25 000 9 000

Professional servi ces 168 216 176 634 142 500

Schol arships 577 411 771 780 1 043 500

Hire of Facil iti es 72 666 23 500

312 677

Subvention for facil i t i es 350 000 400 000

Plant and equipment 359 257 183 300

Scholarships - Commonwealth Developing Countries 83 300

National Training Centr e Program 200 000 400 000

Decentralisation - Hockey 200 000

'IOTAL 2 820 422 4 712 073 5 540 000

Sources: 1) Australi an Inst itute of Sport, submi ssion evidence . 2) Mini ster for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, 1983 Budget Statement .

3. 88 Private funds for the Institute are also sought. The

1983-84 Budget Statement of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism indicates that, in 1982-83 sponsorships and other income received from private sources totalled $285 166. In

correspondence with the Committee the Institute advised that, of this amount sponsorships amounted to about $251 953, of which

about $50 657 represented sponsorship in kind. 47 The Committee noted that the cost of running the program to secure these

donations and sponsorships was surprisingly high: a marketing firm is responsible for arranging the sponsorship program and receives a flat fee of approximately $25 000 per annum for this

as well as a further sum, estimated at $13 000 in 1982/83, for

expenses; the Institute operates a program to support this fund raising effort which was estimated to cost about $70 000 per

year. 48 Representatives of the Institute also indicated at the Committeeâ¢ s hearings that the effectiveness of the sponsorship program was due to be evaluated early in 1984.

3.89 At mid-1983 the Institute catered for only eight

sports:

basketball;

gymnastics;

netball; soccer;

swimming;

tennis;

track and field and;

weightl ifting.

At that time there were only 188 athletes and 26 coaches at the

Institute. One hundred and nine athletes attending the Institute received full scholarship and the remaining 79 athletes received partial scholarships. In 1982/83 the Commonwealth provided $4.5rri for the running costs of the Institute in addition to capital

expenditures. On a per athlete basis these costs are very high,

even considering that they include the expenses of scholarships and necessary overseas competition experience. The per athlete costs appear to be significantly higher than, for example, per

student costs in and vetinerary science faculties at

universities although staff:student ratios in these faculties are similar to Institute coach:athlete ratios. The main reason for the Insti tuteâ¢ s high per athlete costs is clearly the relatively small number of athletes combined with the high coach:athlete

ratio.

3.90 The

objectives, as Association, are:

Institute provided is

for

an in

incorporated Clause 3 of

body and

its Articles

â¢ to promote, provide, encourage and develop opportunities for Australians to pursue and to achieve excellence in sport and

activities associated with sport; â¢ to arrange or provide for the pursuit of

this objective so that Australians,

particularly young Australians, are able to further their training or careers in

sport in conjunction with or as part of

their education or work; â¢ to provide, equip and conduct laboratories and other research facilities designed to assist in the pursuit of excellence in

sport or in activities related to sport; â¢ to make the courses, coaching and

facilities of the Institute available to

the sportsmen and sportswomen of other

countries, and to otherwise foster

international co-operation in sport; â¢ to encourage and assist sportsmen and

sportswomen 1 in their pursuit of personal improvement and excellence in their

sporting skills, to travel whether within Australia or overseas for the purpose of

seeking competition, training and

experience;

â¢ to conduct, commission or join in research

designed to assist in the pursuit of

excellence in sport or in activities

related to sport; â¢ to develop and disseminate and encourage

the development and dissemination of

sports science and sports medicine

information and undertake, co-ordinate and commission sports research;

â¢ to develop, encourage and provide improved coaching standards, better training and competition facilities so as to assist and encourage Australians to achieve improved

sporting skills;

its

â¢ to promote, organise and administer

sporting competitions, events, meetings and games of all kinds for the purpose of

developing the personal skills and

excellence of sportsmen and sportswomen:

â¢ to establish, administer and seek

donations to a fund or funds to be used to

promote excellence among Australians in sport, or in particular sports, and in

activities related to sport, or to

particular sports, by any means whatever, including the provision of financial

assistance to individuals, teams or

sporting bodies or the holding of

competition or the provision of facilities or equipment:

â¢ to act as trustee of any funds or to

administer any foundation established to promote excellence or achievement in

sport, or any particular sport or sports

or in activities related to any sport or

any particular sport or sports.49

3.91 Establishment of an Australian

originally recommended in the Report of Institute Study Group {the Coles Report) November 1975 and which argued that:

Sports Institute was the Australian Sports which was published in

â¢ sport is a universal value and it is

particularly important to Australians1 deterioration in fitness, active leisure sport participation and high-performance sport standards is evident;

â¢ if ..all Australians are to have the

opportunity to enjoy participation in

leisure or high-performance sport to the extent of their desire or skill, changes

are _ needed:

leisure sport are promotion, â¢ needs for facilities, appreciation;

â¢ needs for

coaching, organisation1

teaching/coaching, sports

high-performance facilities, sport are

research,

existing organisations are inadequate in meeting needs because they are

unintegrated, uneconomic and haphazard.50

However, it was not until January 1980 that a firm decision to

establish an Institute was announced by the then Minister for

Home Affairs, Mr Ellicott who said:

'In deciding to set up the Institute, the

Government has recognised that, if young

Australians are to have an opportunity to

pursue their interests in sport to a high

level, Australia would need to give

potential top class sports men and women

access to specialised coaching programs

while at the same time allowing them to

pursue their studies... if they are to have

full opportunities, our athletes must be

able to train and compete without

necessarily sacrificing their education or careers.' (Press release of 25 January

1980) â¢ 51

This statement emphasised the Government's interest in the second objective described above.

3. 92 Much of the evidence concerning the Institute received

by the Committee was critical, not of the Institute or its

achievements, but of the fact that its benefits were not spread

widely enough among the athletic community. The Committee agreed that the improvements in Australian achievements in sporting competition since the Institute's establishment were impressive and noted the high proportion of Institute athletes among those

representing Australia. A great deal had been achieved in getting AIS programs up and running in the relatively short period of

time since the Institute's establishment. Such successes, the Committee believed, served to illuminate the disadvantages

suffered by sports that were not represented at the Institute and to provide support for arguments put forward by witnesses and in submissions that the benefits of the Institute should be put to

greater effect.

3.93 This evidence suggested that the benefits of the AIS

could be put to greater effect by:

â¢ increasing access to AIS services and

facilities by non-resident athletes or for sports not catered for by the AIS;

the decentralisation of AIS services and facilities to other centres; and â¢ the development of affiliated State and

regional sports institutes.52

3. 94 Access to AIS services and facilities by non-resident

athletes has been facilitated by the establishment of the

Institute as a National Training Centre. Funding for this purpose was introduced in the 1982-83 Budget. Â· The National Training

Centre Program, by allowing use of Institute facilities by sports not currently resident there for squad training, national

selection trials, national team training, talent development programs, coaches seminars and workshops for sports officials, will open up the Institute for use by a wider range of sports and

sportspeople. This will answer many of the criticisms of the

Institute received by the Committee from sports not available at the Institute and also help to develop a more reasonable

administrative cost profile. In 1982/83 $200 000 was provided for the January-June 1983 period for direct Institute expenditures on the National Training Centre Program and $400 000 has been

provided in 1983/84. The Committee believed however that there was a need to expand the National Training Centre Program even

further than was presently proposed. The Committee recommends that: 28. the National Training Centre Program

should be expanded to give non-resident athletes and teams greater access to the Australian Institute of

facilities.

3.95 A further important issue raised during the Committee's

hearings and in submissions to the Inquiry concerned the

decentralisation of the Institute. Many witnesses argued that elements of the Institute should be decentralised to locations throughout Australia.53 The reasons for this included the

isolation of Canberra and reluctance of some athletes to go

there, the high standard of particular sports in some States, the availability of good facilities for particular sports in some States and the inadequacy of the Institute's performance to date.

3. 96 Although the location of the AIS had presented some

difficulties for individual athletes, the Committee considered that a single central location for the Institute, especially

during its formative years, had offered administrative and

identity advantages that a highly decentralised Institute could not. The disadvantages associated with a Canberra site were not significantly greater than those which would be found at

alternative locations. The Committee noted the Government's announcement of the location of the new AIS hockey program in

Perth. Such arrangements could be justified for those centres

where a particularly high standard for the sport prevails or

where very good facilities are available or for team sports where the team members are drawn largely from one centre or State. The Committee recommends therefore that:

29. further decentralisation of team or

individual sports from the Australian Institute of Sport should take account of the need for a strong central core in

Canberra.

3.97 One objective of this decentralisation should be to act

as a catalyst for the establishment of a strong system of State

institutes of sport. The Committee believed that the development of State and integrated regional level institutes would allow the Australian Institute of Sport as the strong central body to draw on a wider talent pool of athletes and would help to establish a

â¢ stepped â¢ structure for athlete development in Australia. There were some State institutes of sport in stages of development

varying from well established to merely planned. The Committee did not believe that the Commonwealth should completely fund these institutes nor did it believe that there should be a single model to which the institutes should conform. Rather, it argued

that State governments would be encouraged to support these

institutes if the Commonwealth were to provide some initial

support for administration. Moreover, the Australian Institute of Sport should be responsible for promoting interaction between the State and regional institutes and for developing networks of

coaches and athletes in concert with these institutes with a view to developing a wider base to the sports pyramid. At the same

time, the Committee was concerned to ensure that such

arrangements would not severely 'bleed' the AIS of talented

athletes. The Committee therefore recommends that: 30. the Commonwealth should establish a

program which will meet the cost of an

administrator of any newly established State institute of sport for a limited

period of three years;

31. a limited number of scholarships similar to those made available at the

Australian Institute of Sport should be made available for

(a) athletes of national standing or

potential who participate in

sports not catered for by the AIS

(b) athletes of national standing or

potential who would qualify for a scholarship at the AIS but who are unable to attend the AIS

and tenable at State institutes of sport or other approved training centres;

32. the Australian Institute of Sport should take the initiative in establishing

closer links with existing State

institutes of sport.

3.98 The Committee was concerned also to note that work had

progressed slowly at the Australian Institute of Sport on the

collection and dissemination of sports science and sports

medicine information and on the commissioning of sports

research. 54 Sports information collection and dissemination functions are being performed also by the Australian

Clearinghouse for Publications in Recreation, Sport and Tourism (ACHPIRST) established with Commonwealth and State assistance at the Footscray Institute of Technology. 55 The Committee believed that clearinghouse functions of this type should be ultimately the responsibility of the Australian National Library. Any

Commonwealth assistance to ACBPIRST should be regarded as an interim measure until the function can be taken over by the

Australian National Library. The Committee accepted that the Institute had an important role in the co-ordination of sports information and research and believed the Institute had not fully developed its potential in this field. While the Committee

considered that expansion of the Instituteâ¢s information services should be encouraged, it did not accept that the Institute should become the central clearinghouse in the field because of its lack of expertise in related recreation and tourism matters. The

Committee recommends therefore that:

33. the clearinghouse functions currently

carried out by the Australian

Clearinghouse for Publications in

Recreation, Sport and Tourism (ACHPIRST) should be taken over by the Australian

National Library within the next three to five years and should be designated a

high priority by the National Library;

34. during that three to five year period,

the service provided by ACHPIRST should be maintained on a joint

Commonwealth/State shared funding basis;

35. the sports information collection and

dissemination activities of the

Australian Institute of Sport should be strengthened and its development

co-ordinated with that at the Australian National Library.

3.99 The Committee believed that, in its busy brief period

of existence, the Australian Institute of Sport had established a substantial record of achievement and made significant progress towards achieving its objectives. The main criticisms of the

Institute brought to the Committee's attention were those of the limited range of sports at the Institute and of its

centralisation. The Committee believed that the introduction of the National Training Centre Program and the planned expansion of the Institute will meet some of these criticisms. It also

believed that, in the immediate future, elements of the Institute should be decentral ised only under very specific circumstances. Emphasis should, however, be given to strengthening State

institutes of sport and promoting these to improve opportunities for athletes and to ensure that Australian competitors are chosen from the widest possible pool.

Sports Studies Course

3.100 This course is a degree course in sports studies

conducted at the Canberra College of Advanced Education for

athletes attending the Australian Institute of Sport and other students who wish to study in this field.

3.101 The level of Commonwealth Government funding of the

course since 1980/81 has been:

1980/81 $130 000

1981/82 $235 Â· 800

1982/83 $317 200

1983/84 $324 000 (estimated)

The numbers of students who have entered the course between 1981 and 1983 are:

1981 intake 1982 intake 1983 intake

34 including 9 AIS 37 including 1 AIS 53 including 14 AIS

3.102 Unlike most other courses available at the College,

this course is funded through Â· the budget of the Department of

Sport, Recreation and Tourism rather than through the

Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. This special funding arrangement began when the course was established in 1981 and is scheduled to continue until 1984. At that time it is expected

that a separate evaluation of the course will have been carried

out and, if appropriate, funding will be transfered to the

Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for the 1985/87 triennium. The Committee recommends that:

36. should the Sports Studies course at the

Canberra College of Advanced Education be assessed to be successful, funding for

the course should be transferred to the

Commonwealth Tertiary Education

Commission as from the 1985-87 Triennium and administered through the normal

tertiary funding machinery.

3.103 The Committee did not seek separate evidence on t h is

program in view of the separate evaluation being conducted.

However, intakes from among non-Institute students have bee n

significant and are increasing. Enrolments among athletes fr om the Institute, the Committee noted, had varied substantially. It was also noted that the per student cost of the course o f

approximately $6 000 per annum seemed quite reasonable for a

course of this nature.

Overview of Programs Funded through the Department of Sport Recreation and Tourism

3.104 In reviewing the programs funded by the Department of

Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the Committee was concerned about two aspects of program management which had effects wider than any single program:

the lack of evaluation of programs: and

the role

Commission. of the National Sports

Evaluation of Sport and Recreation Programs

3.105 The Department

explaining the lack of

'factual and objective

programs is difficult, due

of Sport,

evaluation assessment to:

Recreation and Tour i sm, in

of programs, argued tha t

of sport and recreati on

the fact that final decisions on levels of

assistance are ultimately matters for

Government within total Budget outlays:

the difficulty in quantifying some program objectives such as improved efficiency in administratiuon of sporting organisations:

the philosophy of non-interference in the internal workings of national sporting

bodies which militates against the

Department requiring disclosure of certain information such as sources and levels of private sector assistance:

the newness of some programs. Observations of overseas experience lead us to believe that at least 10 years may be required

before government assistance programs

result in significantly improved standards of performance in international

competition:

the interrelationship between the overall objectives of encouraement of excellence and encouragement of participation in

sport and physical recreation activities;

the fact that State/Territory and local

Governments also provide assistance for sport and recreation;

the number of Commonwealth Departments that are, and have been, involved in

providing assistance for sport and

recreation, e.g. Aboriginal Affairs,

Territories and Local Government, Prime Minister and Cabinet and Education and

Youth Affairs;

the different size, nature and levels of

development of sporting bodies; and

the effect on some programs of changes in

Government.â¢56

3.106 The Committee accepted that evaluation of new programs and programs which had moved between various departments

presented special difficulties although it believed that these could be overcome to some extent by formative evaluation measures built into programs. However, the Committee specifically rejected a number of the reasons for the lack of evaluation put forward by

the Department.

3.107 Firstly, the fact that final decisions on levels of

assistance to programs are determined by the Government within the Budget context was hardly unique to sport and recreation

programs. It could be argued that evaluation of programs in these circumstances is of the highest priority in that it will assist

the Government to make appropriate decisions. Certainly this characteristic is common to a large number of programs,

particularly those in the social welfare field, many of which

have been successfully evaluated.

3.108 Similarly, the second objection put forward by the

Department, that quantification in this field is difficult,

implied that evaluation can only be made when quantification is possible. The Committee disputed this and did not regard it as a valid reason for lack of evaluation in any sense. 3.109 The third reason advanced by the Department was that

'the philosophy of non-interference in the internal workings of national sporting bodies â¢â¢â¢ militates against the Department requiring disclosure of certain information such as sources and levels of private sector assistance.' The Committee accepted that

the Commonwealth Government does not necessarily have the power

to direct national sporting bodies, particularly those which are formally incorporated, to release financial information. It

believed, however, that as one of the aims of the sports

assistance programs is to promote self-help, then it would be

appropriate for the Government to make grants conditional on

disclosure of information which would allow assessment of

progress towards this objective. The Committee understood that this requirement was acceptable within the legal framework which governs such programs.

3.110 The Committee did not regard the other reasons put

forward by the Department as overwhelming impediments to

evaluation. The Committee believed that effective evaluation of Sport and Recreation programs was possible and should include an assessment of both the direct and indirect (ie. catalyst or

multiplier) benefits of Commonwealth funding. It noted that the Department had included within its new administrative structure an evaluation sub-section. The Committee strongly supported this move and recommends that:

37. all programs funded by the Department of

Sport, Recreation and Tourism should be subjected to regular evaluation;

38. where information

evaluation is not

provision of this

recipient should be the provision of the

essential for

freely available, information by the

made a condition of

assistance.

National Sports Commission

3.111 In August 1983, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and

Tourism, announced that a National Sports Commission would be established and that an Interim Committee would be set up to

advise the Minister on detailed arrangements for the Commission. The Interim Committee has been asked to consider:

the proposed Commission â¢ s role and powers (including the extent of coverage of

aspects of recreation as well as

details of the

membership, and the

its and

structure of

responsibilities

its relationships with, for example;

its

- the Minister for Sport, Recreation and

Tourism, - the Department of Sport, Recreation and

Tourism, - sports bodies/associations, including the Confederation of Australian Sport,

- institutions, such as the Austral ian

Institute of Sport, and - other levels of government.S7

3.112 Within one month of the announcement that an Interim

Committee had been established, it met for the first time and was asked by the Minister to report on 1 the most appropriate way of

achieving a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to the

funding and management of sports development in Australia' and to make recommendations on the following issues:

recreational requirements for the elderly;

the funding of sport, including the

desirability, or otherwise, of a national sports lottery or a 'Sports Bonds' scheme; a national Sports Aid Foundation aimed at encouraging private sector involvement in

sport;

tax averaging for

women with short

sports;

those sports men

careers in high

an Australian Sports Museum;

and risk

ethnic communi ti tesâ¢ involvement in sport and recreation;

children and sport and

sport and recreational the education system;

the provision of

opportunities in

the role of sport and recreation in family life; women and sport and recreation;

the special requirements of the nation's elite athletes and coaches; and sport and recreation for the disabled.S8

3.113 It is apparently intended that the Sports Commission

will absorb the role of the Sports Advisory Council which will be phased out although it is noteworthy that the National Committee on Sport and Recreation for the Disabled (NCSRD) will continue to exist, despite the Minister â¢ s statement that the Interim

Committee has been asked to advise on 'sport and recreation for

the disabled â¢.

3 .114 The Commit tee had an open mind regarding the

desirability of establishing a National Sports Commission as an independent agency absorbing functions previously carried out by the Department. It acknowledged the calls made during the inquiry by a wide range of witnesses for stronger Commonwealth leadership

in the field of sport and recreation. To the extent that the

purpose of the Commission was to provide such leadership, the

Committee accepted the Commission's establishment. However, the Committee believed that a Commission structure was only one and not necessarily the best of a number of organisational models

including a department or an advisory committee which could

achieve the leadership objective. In the Committee's view

however, the need for leadership extended beyond sport to cover recreation. The Committee noted that an Interim Committee had been established to examine and report on the role and functions of the National Sports Commission. While the Committee did not wish to â¢ second guessâ¢ the Interim Committee, it felt bound to

make some remarks on the scope and operation of the National

Sports Commission.

3.115 The Committee looked extensively at the issue of

recreation and it was concerned that, in the activities of the

Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism;recreation would once again become the â¢poor relationâ¢. The Committee recommends

therefore that: 39. as an interim measure, a Recreation

Advisory Council be established

responsible to both the Minister for

Sport, Recreation and Tourism and the

Minister for Home Affairs and the

Environment and charged with the tasks of

â¢ examining the needs of those recreation activities not included under the

sports or arts umbrellas, â¢ identifying a role for the Commonwealth in that field,

â¢ advising on appropriate consultative machinery involving the Commonwealth, State and local governments and

recreational organisations, and â¢ acting as a focal point for recreation

interests.

3.116 The Committee was concerned however to avoid the

possibility that such an arrangement would institutionalise an unwanted distinction between sport and recreation and allow the National Sports Commission to continue the Commonwealth's

emphasis with elite sport. The Committee recommends therefore that, if there is to be a National Sports Commission:

40. the terms of reference of the National

Sports Commission should include

recreational sport as well as elite

sport.

3.117 The Committee believed that the Commission model, if

adopted, is one which should ensure its independence and hence its ability, if it so wishes, to give advice that may not be

attractive to governments. There is the danger that the

Commission's role could just as easily and more effectively be performed by a Department of State. The Committee therefore

r ecommends that:

41. if a National Sports Commission is to be

established it should have â¢ legislation to define and protect its

existence,

â¢ fixed terms

holders,

for statutory office

â¢ clearly defined terms of reference

which indicate the range of issues on

which it is expected to advise,

â¢ separate funds to enable it to carry

out its own investigations,

â¢ a clear and separate existence from the

Department of Sport, Recreation and

Tourism so that it is not dependent

upon the Department for administrative or research support to carry out its

functions, and

â¢ the requirement that any specialist

committees, such as the National

Committee for Sport and Recreation for the Disabled should be subordinate to

the Commission rather than separate

bodies providing competing or parallel advice.

c. The Department of Territories and Local Government 3.118 The Department of Territories and Local Government, as

noted above, is the body which owns the facilities at the

National Sports Centre in Canberra leased to the Australian

Institute of Sport. The Committee's examination of the

administration of the National Sports Centre by the Department of Territories and Local Government was limited to the extent that the Australian Institute of Sport was affected.

3.119 The income and outlays of the National Sports Centre

are set out in Table 14 below.

TABLE 14

National Sports Centre

Operating costs and revenue, 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1982/83

Expenditure

Electricity Security and Cleaning General Administration Repairs and Maintenance

Turf Maintenance Plumbing and other trades Mowing Labour incl. industrial staff

Salaries

Revenue

Australian Institute of Sport Sporting Events Commercial hirings Services incl. advertising,

catering

TOTAL

1979-80

161 000

21 400 7 000

11 600

40 000

1980-81

277 000

105 000 27 000 13 800

4 200

150 000

1981-82

63 300

53 900 46 100

14 700

31 500

26 500

11 700

109 700 150 300

507 700

250 000 41 000 63 900

24 300

379 200

Source: Department of the Capital Territory, 'National Sports Centre: Five Years On', 1982.

The table indicates that the subvention paid by the Australian

Institute of Sport meets about half the costs associated with

running the National Sports Centre.

3.120 The Department of Territories and Local Government

provided in its submission and at the hearings information about the extent to which the facilities at the Centre were community

facilities or primarily for use I2Y Institute athletes and the

National Training Centre Program. 59""" Both the indoor and outdoor stadiums at the Centre were built before the decision to establish the Institute was made and both were designed as spectator rather than training venues. Facilities constructed since then, such as

the swimming centre and the tennis and gymnastic halls have been designed with training needs as an important focus.

3.121 The priorities that must be assigned to competing

community and Institute needs appeared to have been difficult for the Department and the Institute to agree upon. The 1982-83 Annual Report of the Auditor-General commented on the Department's

management of the National Sports Centre and said:

â¢ the absence of a formal agreement with the

Australian Institute of Sport which is the

principal user and the failure by that

organisation to advise when facilities are not required has resulted in management's

inability to maximise use of the Centre. The Department advised that repeated efforts to formalise an agreement with the Institute

since November 1981 have been unsuccessful. A response dated 19 April 1983 was not

acceptable to the Department but negotiations are continuing.â¢60

The Committee agreed that this matter should be resolved and

recommends that:

42. Recommendation 25 should be conditional upon satisfactory arrangements being made to guarantee community access to

the National Sports Centre after the

needs of the programs for Australian

Institute of Sport athletes have been

met.

CHAPTER 4

Indirect Commonwealth Assistance to Sport and Recreation

4.1 The previous chapters have focused on the various

direct expenditures by the Commonwealth on sport and recreation. This chapter deals with the indirect assistance to sport and

recreation provided by the Commonwealth through the regulatory and taxation systems and which is not comprehended by an

examination of Commonwealth Budget outlays on sport and

recreation. These forms of assistance can be considered as either complements of or substitutes for programs of direct government assistance being actually delivered by the private sector. In a number of instances, of course, Commonwealth laws and regulations and taxation provisions may restrict the level of private sector funding of sport and recreation.

4.2 The impact of Commonwealth activity on non-government

outlays on sport and recreation is such a large and difficult

subject that the Commit tee could not hope, with the time and

resources available, to come to many firm conclusions. The

Committee chose, instead, to limit its objectives to three:

to identify the forms and magnitude of

non-government funding;

to specify the ways

activity can impact upon forms of assistance; and

Commonwealth these various

to assess the merits of a number of

proposals designed to expand the level

of non-government funding of sport,

namely the extension of taxation

concessions to sports persons and

sporting organisations and a national

sports lottery.

Measuring the Total Level of Non-Government Activity

4.3 An assessment of the overall size of sport and

recreation activity is a difficult task; in large part because of the nature of the 'product'. Sport and recreation describes a

spectrum of activity ranging from the highly organised and

sustained to the unorganised and episodic. One can reasonably be sure that the greater part of the sport and recreation 'output '

is not marketed but coriducted by unpaid or voluntary labour. 4.4 Broadly speaking, there are three possible ways of

assessing the level of non-government sport and recreation

activity, by measuring:

the physically active proportion of the population from census and other social survey data;

the number and membership

organisations operating in the

(e.g. from the client records

Government departments); and

field of

the share of national income spent on

sport and recreation goods and services.

Since many of these goods and services are not traded, we mal:J

have to impute values based on such partial indicators as the

outlays on sporting goods and equipment and from specif i c

Commonwealth and State taxation revenues.

4.5 The Committee was continually disappointed by the

paucity of such data for Australia. Information of sport

population participation rates was meagre, dated and often based on small sample surveys. Many Government authorities, at all

levels, neither collected nor had little ready access to more

than the most basic details (i.e. numbers) of client individuals, groups and organisations. Finally. the collection of economic statistics is hampered by the lack of compulsory or uniform

accounting procedures for the voluntary, not-for-profit

organisations which dominate the provision of organised sport and recreation in Australia. The status of most of the s e

organisations exempt them from income tax and hence they escape to taxation statistics collection 'net'.

Sources and Forms of Non-Government Assistance

4.6 Basically, there are three non-government sources of

funds for sport and recreation: the participants (i.e. players, officials and other club members); the public at large; and

business firms, Participants contribute both in kind by the

provision of voluntary labour and the purchase of fares and

sporting equipment, and in cash through fees and levies,

purchases of pennants, badges, books. etc and donations. Sporting organisations derive revenue from the public at large through admission charges at sports events and profits on the use of

club assets, for example, club entertainment, hiring out

facilities, etc. Financial support from the business community is earned from commercial sponsorship including, in a few cases,

from the sale of broadcasting rights. No doubt the list of

funding forms can be expanded but the above seems to include the

major components.

4.7 As indicated in the previous section the Committee

could acquire only a limited amount of information on the

magnitude of the funding sources. The Department of Sport,

Recreation and Tourism collects this kind of information from

national sporting organisations seeking financial assistance. However, the information is incomplete and is not easily

retrievable and varying accounting standards and practices means that the data is not very useful.

The Contributions of Participants

Membership Fees

4.8 For many national associations fees and other

memberships are the major source of funds. These charges can be

levied on individual members or players (capitation fees) or on affiliated clubs. The Committee experienced considerable

difficulty in obtaining extensive and comparable data on the

revenue of sporting organisations. However, evidence was taken from a number of national organisations which suggested that

membership fees varied greatly between sports; for instance, 20 cents in the case of the Australian Bowls Council to $6 for the

Men's Hockey Federation ,1 The Committee also noted evidence of membership fees increasing at a lesser rate than overall

outlays,2 The Committee attempted to ascertain whether other revenue so,urces (including government assistance) were being used to offset costs to members but found the task impossible because of the lack of good data. Sporting organisations have claimed

that attempts to increase fees have encountered objections from members of affiliated organisations (who often have

constitutional power to veto fee rises) and from players who feel their participation in the sport already imposes considerable costs. These factors greatly weaken the revenue base of national sporting organisations.

4.9 The question of the increasing availability to sporting

organisations of Commonwealth financial assistance providing disincentives to self help was addressed in Chapter 3. The

Committee had no way of ascertaining whether, overall,

participants increasingly contributed less. It believed however that current Commonwealth grant provisions forced a substantial fund-raising effort on sporting organisations. The Committee recommends that:

43. grant conditions should continue to ask recipients for evidence of: (a) self help, and

(b) a democratic decisionmaking process;

44. any Commonwealth assistance to sport and recreation should not discourage

voluntary effort and organisation;

45. the National Sports Commission should, as soon as possible, enquire into the equity of the current revenue raising efforts of assisted sporting organisations bearing

in mind the principle that all

participants should be expected to make an appropriate contribution towards the cost of their sport whilst mechanisms are . developed to ensure that the

participation of the economically

disadvantaged is not restricted.

In-Kind Assistance

4.10 The level of 'in kind' assistance given to the sport

is, by definition, impossible to quantify. But Â· an indication of its magnitude can be obtained by considering the large number of voluntary staffed organisations in the field and the relatively small budgets of all national sporting organisations in relation

to numbers of players. In many cases organisations do offset the costs to players for equipment and travel, largely via government grants and corporate sponsorship. A number of witnesses drew

attention to hardships imposed on players, especially by

cost!> of equipment and travel (especially in isolated areas) .s It was suggested that the Commonwealth could do more to help reduce these costs by:

(l) providing specific personal income

(2)

taxation relief for

participants in certain sports, and sports people in isolated regions; and

extending sales tax exemptions

sportinq goods and equipment.4 on

4.11 With respect to taxation concessions for certain

sportspeople, the Committee noted that the Sport and Recreation policy of the present Government includes a proposal to extend

'tax averaging' concessions to sportspeople with short careers in high contact sports. This proposal has been referred to the new

National Sports Commission for examination and recommendation. Although the policy mentions high contact sports, the intent

appears to be to cover all persons engaged in short-term sporting careers who cannot avail themselves of the opportunities for tax averaging available to people professionally engaged in such sports as tennis and golf . The cost of the proposal would be

difficult to calculate although it can be assumed to be

relatively small. The measure seems unlikely to provide a major inducement to talented players contemplating a professional career in such sports as football and cannot be seen as a major

element in a sport policy. Rather the measure can be seen as

attempting to remove a perceived inequity in the taxation system.

4.12 The proposals to extend other personal income tax

concessions for sporting purposes, such as rebates for players or parents of junior players in isolated regions, also warrant more attention than the Committee was able to give. Although the

proposals would lessen the disabilities faced by sportspeople in the more isolated regions of Australia, the Committee hesitated to recommend their adoption as an alternative or supplement to

programs of direct assistance. As will be made clear below, the

Committee considered that, as a general rule, direct expenditures were to be preferred to taxation concessions which entailed a

cost to the Commonwealth in terms of revenue foregone (so called taxation expenditures). Direct expenditures; for example, grants to sportspeople in isolated areas for assistance with travel,

could be more effectively targeted to specific areas of need and with considerably more equity than taxation concessions. As to supplementing existing programs of direct assistance to sport and recreation, the tax concession proposals would have to compete with similar proposals of assistance for education, health,

housing, etc in the priorities of government. The Committee saw this aspect - the adequacy of the . existing level of expenditure

on sport and recreation - as outside its terms of reference,

4.13 A number of sporting organisations and sportspeople

considered the level of sales tax on sporting goods and equipment to be working contrary to the Government's objectives for sport in Australia and suggested that the existing, limited exemptions be extended:

as a matter of principle; and

to directly benefit sportspeople and

sporting organisations 5

At present goods purchased 'to promote sport among students of universities and schools' are exempt from sales tax. The annual cost of this concession is not known.

4.14 The Committee in this and other inqu1nes has often

encountered the view that some proportion of the revenue from a particular tax should be returned to the benefit of the

particular group of taxpayers on whom the tax is levied. Neither the Committee nor successive Commonwealth governments have been inclined to accept the 'benefit' argument as a principle of

taxation. Taxes have generally been levied on a range of sources according to 'ability to pay' and the resulting revenue pooled

for allocation according to the objectives and priorities of

government. Apart from restricting the budgetary flexibility of governments, an application of the benefit principle would entail injustices, for example, in the allocation of welfare spending. 4.15 The case for extending sales exemptions on sporting

goods should be assessed on the relative merits of taxation

expenditures and direct expenditures in achieving a particular policy objective. As will be made clear in the following section,

the Committee considered that, as a general rule,

disadvantages of taxation expenditures outweighed

advantages. In the specific case of sales tax exemptions, were two further considerations:

the amount of subsidy given to a sporting

organisation by the exemption depends on the amount of income derived by the

organisation and not on any judgement as

to the particular organisation â¢ s value to the wider community or its independent

means; and

â¢ where commercial activities are pursued by such bodies in competition with taxpaying businesses, the latter are placed at a

competitive disadvantage; this leads to inefficient allocation of resources and detracts from the equity of the tax

system.6

the

their there

4.16 The Committee decided therefore to recommend against

the extension to existing sales tax exemptions on sporting goods and equipment or the introduction of income tax concessions for certain sports people as alternative measures to existing

Commonwealth programs of assistance to sport. The Committee considered that the Government's sports policy objectives would be more effectively and more equitably served by direct

government grants targeted to specific areas of need.

4.17 The Committee recommends that:

46. the existing sales tax exemptions in the sport and recreation field should not be extended and the current exemptions for schools and universities should be

reviewed for their cost and

effectiveness in increasing

participation; 47. the National Sports Commission should be asked to report on:

(a) the effectiveness of a number of

means, including taxation

concessions, of reducing the costs of participation in sport and

recreation to people living in

isolated regions, (b) the economic circumstances of

professional sportspeople in

Australia with a view to

identifying any inequities in

present taxation arrangements.

Donations

4.18 Donations refer to gifts in cash or in kind from

indiv iduals or firms made without any identifiable pecuniary benefit to the donor. This definition serves to distinguish it

from commer c ial sponsorship where some identifiable pecuniary benefit is returned to the sponsor by the recipient of the

a ssistance.

4.19 Under the general provisions relating to gifts in

section 78 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, gifts of the value

o f $2.00 a n d upwards to a range of institutions can be deducted

from the donor's taxable income. The general gift provision

applies to funds, authorities or institutions in areas such a s

s o c ial welfare, health, education, aid to developing countries and the arts. Although the coverage of the concessions has been

ex t e nded in recent years, activities and organisations in the

sport and recreation area are not covered by the provision. Many witnesses suggested that the general gift provision should be e xtended to sport, either to sporting organisations in general or to a specific 'Sports Aid Foundation' which would subsequently d isburse the monies to the various sports. 7 In support of these

p roposals these parties argued either that:

â¢ using the tax

private sector

effective form of direct government

system to

activity assistance outlays; or

encourage more was a more

to sport than

â¢ sport in these troubled

needed more support than

able to provide; or

economic times government was

â¢ sport had just as much right as the arts,

for instance, to the benef.its of tax

subsidised patronage.

4.20 The Committee considered that the question of usinq the

tax system to benefit sport and recreation was a significant

issue on which it, given its previous inquirv into taxation

e xpenditures, might be able to make a substantial contribution . In the Committee's view the case for tax deductible gifts to

sport, as well as other tax subsidies for sport, depended upon

the answers to two questions:

â¢ would the tax subsidy (e.g. the value of

the gift concession) induce an increase in the level of the subsidised activity

greater than the revenue foregone (i.e.

the taxation expenditure) and

â¢ even if so, might using the taxation

system for this purpose conflict with

other government policy objectives

concerning, for example, the equity of the taxation system or minimisinq the

oppoitunities for tax avoidance?

The Committee sought aav1ce on these two questions from the

Australian Taxation Office, the Treasury and the Department of Finance

4.21 On the first question, as the Department of Finance

pointed out, 'the answers cannot be predicted with any assurance, although a description can be given of the factors which would

determine the outcome'. 8 The Taxation Office was inclined to a negative view while Finance and Treasury were uncertain. On the second question. all were of the firm opinion that overall the

disadvantages of taxation expenditures outweighed their possible advantages,9

4.22 Empirical studies known to the Committee appeared to

offer no guidance on the magnitude of the inducement effect of

the tax subsidies. For a tax subsidy of a given size to

a greater increase in the level of subsidised activity would

require: i some 'new' donors, i.e . taxpayers who

would not have contributed if the

donations had not been deductible:

ii some existing donors makinq greater

contributions in after tax terms than they would if the donation were not tax

deductible, i.e. increasing their giving by more than the tax saving; and

iii the size of these new and/or increased

contributions to be greater than the tax

savings 'pocketed' by other existing

donors.

Other existing donors may either pocket the tax saving and give no more or 'share' the tax saving by giving more to the 'target

body' up to the point where they are no more out of pocket than

before. In the later case the level of subsidised activity is

increased but the increase would be no greater than the size of

the tax subsidy 10

4.23 The Committee concluded that while effect (ii) was

possible but improbable, effects (i) and (iii) were probable and hence the net impact of the extension of tax deductibility to

donations for sport on the level of assistance to sport was

likely to be favourable. The difficulties to be faced were the

complete uncertainty about the magnitude of the increase in

a s sistance (and its attendant cost to revenue) and the

distribution of the benefit between the target bodies within and with out sport. The level of the increased assistance to sport

and recreation obviously would depend upon the donors'

generosity and their marginal rates of tax, while the

di s tribution of that assistance would depend upon donors'

preferences and the fund raising efforts of the target bodies

themselves. The latter consideration was of particular concern to the Committee in the present inquiry. Tax subsidies may well t end to favour bodies with more public appeal or more adeptness at a dvertising, possibly at the expense of previously supported b o d ies outside sport and recreation.

4 .24 The Taxation Office, Treasury and Finance pointed to a

number of other general disadvantages with taxation expenditures v is a vis direct expenditures in addition to the lack of

certainty in targeting and control over cost, namely: â¢ tax expenditures have a similar impact on

the overall budget outcome and the

allocation of resources as direct outlays but have generally not been subject to the same detailed scrutiny in the budget

processes as the latter;

while some progress has been made in

recent years in upgrading the information provided on tax expenditures it has not

yet been possible for various reasons to

integrate information on tax expenditures into the Budget accounts; â¢ the existence of tax expenditures can

induce taxpayers to change their behaviour so as to avoid tax and thus receive

benefits from the public revenue unrelated to their need or the purpose of the

concession (the scope for similar

occurrences on the outlay side is very

much less);

â¢ tax expenditures may not be a cost

effective method of encouraging particular objectives because it could well be that

much of their cost does not support the

intended obiective but is lost in

benefitting those making expenditure which would have taken place anyway;

â¢ taxation subsidies may distort the flow of assistance to a pattern which is biased in

favour of the preferences of hiqher-income taxpayers as a result of their greater

capacity to make donations and their

higher marginal tax rate. For instance, a

taxpayer whose marginal rate of tax is,

say 60% and who makes a gift of $100 to an

eligible body in effect gives only $40

himself to the body and acts as an agent

in the giving of a further $60 from public

funds - that is, from other people who may

well be less able or willing to support

such expenditure; and

extending existing tax concessions may

give greater scope for tax avoidance.

Sporting and recreation organisations

might contemplate replacing or reducing membership fees and other fund-raising

devices by tax deductible donations as a

means of promoting their members' ana

their own financial interests. There may also be some scope under the existinq

general gift deduction provision for

organisations which do not have tax

deductibility status to make informal

arrangements with bodies which are

eligible so that donors may in effect

channel contributions to an ineliqible

body through an eligible one.ll

4.25 The force of these objections however is not

overwhelming. It needs to be borne in mind that donors to

eligible bodies do not receive any tangible personal benefit. Some of the above equity objections may be overcome or

qualified by placinq various restrictions on the concession such as substituting a rebate for a deduction, placing a dollar limit on the allowable deduction or restricting eligible

donations to a single target (the Sports Aid Foundation

proposals). Finally, tax expenditures may be preferable to

direct outlays on a number of efficiency grounds: â¢ provision of assistance through the tax

system can be less costly to administer

than equivalent assistance in the form of direct grants, depending on such factors as the comPlexity of eligibilitv rules,

the degree of verification required,

enforcement and so on;

â¢ a tax expenditure provision allows the

individual (or firm) to play a greater

part in determining how much the

particular activity should be supported and avoids the position where a government agency needs to decide in each case the

precise level of support; and

â¢ a positive relationship between the extent of benefit provided and the income of the

beneficiary as is frequently seen with

ta x concessions, may actually be desired in some circumstances, e.g. when the

objective of a program of assistance is to

concentrate assistance on the more

successful of the organisations that might be eligible.l2

4.26 The Committee concluded that, balance, direct

expenditures were likely to be a more effective instrument for achieving the government's objectives for sport and recreation. It did not dismiss the merits of particular concessions such as tax averaging for certain sportspeople nor did the Committee conclude that existing tax expenditures were necessarily

unwarranted. Allowing tax deductibility for donations to art institutions may be justified if it is believed that any

increase, however distributed, in the level of support for the

arts is desirable. The situation regarding the level of overall support for sport and recreation may be less parlous and there may be other areas of need which have a higher priority for

increased government support.

4.27 The Committee recommends therefore that:

48. the extension of the general gift

provision of the Income Tax Assessment Act should not be extended to sporting

organisations at the present time.

The Public at Large

User Charges

4 28 This heading covers revenue from admission tickets and

hiring fees for sport and recreation facilities. User charges

predominate in the commercial sector and appear to be used

increasingly in amateur sport and recreation. Control over these rev enues lies in the hands of the owners of these facilities,

largely local sporting clubs and local government. The scop e for Co mmonwealth action is limited to the conditions it can attach to any financial assistance made towards the construction or

operation of sport and recreation facilities

4. 29 A number of submissions suggested that Commonwealth

assistance to sport and recreation should be restricted to those sports or sporting organisations which do not levy admission

charges on the grounds that these organisations were less needy or that commercialism itself should be discouraged.l3 The

Committee considered that the levying of user charges was not a sufficient indication of lack of need or of commercialism. Given the widespread support of the principle of self help, the

Committee considered that sporting organisations should be

encouraged to employ user charges to defray operating costs. As a general rule, inequities in the market allocation of rewards, including access to sport and recreation facilities, can be more effectively addressed by direct government assistance and not by holding down prices. The Committee recommends therefore that:

49. sport and recreation facilities which

have received Commonwealth funding

assistance should be encouraged to

recoup from users operating costs

wherever it is feasible.

Business Revenue

4.30 This categorv refers to profits from a range of

trading activities conducted usually in an indirect association with sport and recreation activities; for example, the sale of

food and alcohol and club entertainment. The special case of

gambling revenue is considered separately below The level of

business revenue varies widely with the level and distribution of population and differences in local government building

regulations and State Government licensing laws. The extent to which these tradinq activities benefit sport or recreation

per se is open to question. Because of the apparent

insignificance of business revenue to national sport and

recreation organisations and the minimal scope for Commonwealth Government action, the Committee did not pursue this line of

inquiry. However, the Committee recommends that:

50. the conditions attaching to grants of

financial assistance to sport and

recreation organisations should not

discourage these organisations from

exploiting what opportunities exist for trading revenue provided such revenue is used to the benefit of sport and

recreation.

Gambling Revenue

4.31 Sport and recreation activities and organisations

benefit from gambling both directly (from the net revenue of

gambling operations from raffles to poker machines) and

indirectly (from allocations from earmarked State gambling taxation revenues). This area has been historically the sole

legislative and financial preserve of State governments. In

1979-80 the gambling taxation revenues of the six States

(including the net revenue from State lotteries) totalled $549.7 million. The revenue raising effort of the six States

varied markedly.l4

4. 3 2 The reason for the Committee's interest in gambli ng

revenue was the apparent widespread support expres sed in

s ubmi ssions to the inquirv for a national (i.e.

Comm onwealth-run) sports lottery.lS It was believed that the proposal would elicit a substantial expansion in overall

assi stance to sport and recreation with a minimal cost to

gove rnment. There are a variety of different types of national

spor ts lotteries. The type the Committee chose to examine was

the Pr ize Bond or Sportsbond Lottery recommended by the

cons ul ting firm Peak, Marwick, Mitchell Services in a

feas i bili t y study commissioned by the then Department of Home

Affair s i n 1979 and reported on in July 1980.16

4. 3 3 Under the Peat Marwick, Mitchell Services Sportsbond

propos al, interest payments on Commonwealth bonds purchased by participants would be pooled and prizes awarded in a routi n e

lott ery d raw. Participants thus would not lose their 'stake

money' . The consultant's report estimated that a Sportsbond

lottery would produce more than $500 million over ten years if

inter e s t payments were tax free. Accordinq to Peat, Marwick,

Mitchell Services, the Sportsbond Lottery had the additional benefit s of:

little adverse impact on State Lottery

revenues; and

â¢ incentives to national saving.l7

4.34 Although popular with a number of sporting

organisations, the proposal has received an unenthusiastic

response from State governments who consider that a national spo r t s lottery, of whatever type, would inevitably erode their

own lottery revenue bases. Net proceeds on State lotteries

amounted to almost $300 million in 1981-82.18 The negative

response of the States is the major practical obstacle in the

way of a national sports lottery. The Department of Finance made the following points in commenting on the proposal â¢

â¢ A national sports lotterv conducted by the Commonwealth in the States would appear to need legislative backing. No provision in the Constitution appears to grant the

Commonwealth the power to legislate with respect to lotteries or sporting matters In the absence of a reference of

power by the States a national sports

lottery may not therefore be possible for consitutional reasons â¢ â¢ The feasibility of any Commonwealth

initiated national sports lottery would crucially depend upon it having the

support of States and upon a formula

agreed between the Commonwealth and the States for controlling and apportioning funds generated.l9

4.35 The Committee sought the views of the Departments of

Finance and Sport, Recreation and Tourism on the merits of a

nationals sports lottery includinq the Sportsbond Lottery. The Department of Finance considered a national sports lottery was fraught with problems. Apart from the likely lack of necessary co-operation from the States indicated above, Finance argued

t hat, irrespective of the type of lottery proposed, the

'hypothecation' of funds from a revenue source for a particul ar pur pose had the following drawbacks:

â¢ funds for sport would be determined by the

quantum of subscriptions to the lottery,

rather than actual needs of the communi tv and the Government's own

such a proposal would, in effect put

expenditure on sport in a preferred

position vis-a-vis other expenditure

proposals, especially at a time when, for

major reasons of economic policy. the

Government is committed to continuing

restraint on public sector â¢ since expenditure proposals for sport

financed from lotteries would not be

subiect to normal budget scrutiny there

would be the risk that some of them could,

on an objective appraisal be considered

unnecessary and even wasteful; and

â¢ there appear no compellina reasons why

funds should be obtained in this way for

sport as distinct from any other program. Moreover, hypothecation for expenditure on sport could set a precedent which could

lead to pressures to hypothecate other

revenues to particular expenditure

programs.20

4. 3 6 The Commit tee concluded that a national sports

lottery was not feasible without the support of the States.

Even if the agreement of the States was forthcoming to a

modified scheme such as the Sportsbond Lottery proposal, the Committee was not prepared to recommend such a scheme. The

Committee could not bring itself to argue that sport and

recreation had such a high priority or that the level of sport

and recreation activity was so low as to warrant preferred

treatment over other areas of need such as health and welfare. The Committee recommends therefore that:

51. a national sports lottery should not be

introduced as either an al terna ti ve or

as a supplementary form of assistance to sport and recreation. The Corporate Sector

Commercial Sponsorship

4.37 By Commercial sponsorship, the Committee meant

assistance in cash or in kind to sport and recreation

organisations by business firms made in return for some tangible pecun i ary benefit to the firm. The assistance can take a variety of forms, some of which restrict the use of the assistance while

others allow considerable discretion to the recipient. Among the kinds of commercial sponsorship made available in Australia in recen t y ears for sport and recreation are:

â¢ awards- trophies and prizes;

â¢ apparel and equipment;

â¢ travel and accommodation of participants;

â¢ contributions to the costs of promoting

and staging events; and

â¢ specific grants, for

employment of staff

administration.21

exampleÂ or for

for the

general

4.3 8 The benefits acquired by the sponsor can range from an

exclusiv e right to the use of the activity for direct pecuniary

rewaro (for example, the broadcasting of the event or the sale

of f o od and drink at the venue) to various forms of advertising

(f or e xample, the public display of companv 'logos', the , naming of the event, or the use of sport or participant endorsement).

4.3 9 In addition to the pecuniary benefit of associated

goo dwill, advertising, sales promotion and sales rights, sports sponsor ship might be seen as also attractive to business because the outlays involved are by and large accepted as deductible

bus i ness expenses for income tax purposes (provided the

expenditure is not capital or directed to the production of

exemp t income) ,22 As was pointed out previously, donations to

sporting organisations are not tax deductible.

4. 40 Because of the variety of forms of sponsorshiP, the

ove r all magnitude of commercial sponsorship of sport and

recreation is very difficult to measure. The Confederation of Australian Sport told the Committee that commercial sports

sponsorship amounted to $47 million in 1982. If advertising

which used a sports theme were included then the amount would be about $200 million according to the Confederation.23 The

distr i bution of commercial sponsorship between sports and

between the various levels of sport is also difficult to

ascertain. The Committee heard a number of claims that

commercial sponsorship was of limited usefulness to sport and recreation in general.24 It benefited a small minority of sports or chiefly the elite level of sports. The Confederation of

Australian Sport estimated that four or five sports accounted for about 20 per cent of the $47 million of commercial

sponsorship last year.25 The Committee did not receive any

evidence that commercial sponsorship had had an adverse impact on sport and recreation in general.

4.41 The Committee sought in correspondence and in hearings

information on the size and pattern of commercial sponsorship of sport from the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian

Broadcasting Tribunal and the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. The Taxation Office collected no statistics on the amounts claimed by companies as deductions for sponsorship of sport while the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal held only data

from secondary sources which it had collected in connection with its review of the regulation of tobacco and alcohol advertising in the electronic media.26 The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tour ism had recently completed a study of tobacco company

sponsorship of sport and was able to provide valuable

information to the Committee. 27 The Committee gave particular attention to the issue of tobacco company sports sponsorship and the matter is addressed separately in the following section.

4.42 The Committee concluded that commercial sponsorship

provided clear benefits for sport at all levels in Australia.

Nonetheless, given the commercial nature of that assistance, the benefits were distributed somewhat unequally. It was not

surprising that the bulk of Commercial sponsorship should

gravitate to the so called 1 high profile 1 sports and in

particular the elite within them since these have the highest

attraction for the sponsors with the largest sponsorship

budgets. Commercial sponsorship can be significant at the lower levels of sport (and recreation) because of the opportunities

popular activities at this level provide for local business.

Moreover, many national sponsors also provide assistance to juniors and to local sporting organisations. Sport and physical recreation have wide appeal in Australian society and hence

offer a variety of opportunities for entrepreneurial activity, many of which can be used for the benefit of the broad mass of

participants. The Committee believed that sport and recreation organisations receiving Commonwealth assistance should not be discouraged from seeking out and exploiting opportunities for commercial sponsorship according to the wishes of their members. The Committee recommends therefore that:

52. commercial sponsorship of sport is

acceptable to the extent that it shows a

clear benefit to the development of the

sport.

4. 43 Commercial sponsorship cannot be regarded as a

complete alternative to Commonwealth (or other government)

programs of assistance to sport and recreation. Some sports or s porting bodies will find it difficult to compete for or attract the available sports sponsorship dollar because of the small

following or low spectator appeal of their sport or level of

competition. It may be difficult also for certain kinds of

sporting activity such as coaching or administration to attract commercial assistance. Many sponsors may prefer a more tangible or q uicker return for their money. However, this is not always

the ca s e. Some companies provide sponsorship monies to sporting organisati ons to a s sist with their general administration. The assi s tanc e cannot, of course, be regarded as a gift. Finally,

comme rcial sponsorship may be an unstable and short term form of assistance, varying in overall magnitude with the economic

climate and likely to be abruptly discontinued with changes in the perceived benefit to sponsors.

Tobacco Company Sponsorship of Sport

4. 44 Tobacco company sponsorship of sport is a sensitive

i ssue i n the sports community. The Anti-Cancer Council of

Vi ctoria claimed to the Committee that tobacco company

s ponsorship of sport helped to defeat a major purpose of

Commo nwealth assistance to sport and recreation, namely the

e ncouragement of more heal thy lifestyles among Australians. 28 Th e Council recommended that Commonwealth financial assistance be denied to sporting organisations which accepted tobacco

company sponsorship. There was some dissension of opinion on t h is matter among sporting organisations who gave evidence to t h e Committee. 29 A number of sporting organisations took the

v iew that they should be able to accept sponsorship from any

l egitimate s ource and that any restrictions on this source of

assistance would prove detrimental to sport in general. Other spo r ting o r ganisations had adopted a policy of either not

a c cep ting or not seeking tobacco company sponsorship. Some

o r ganisations extended this policy to cover other so-called

health risk products such as alcohol.

4.45 Public health objectives are one set of a number of

policy objectives for sport and recreation. Other objectives such as the improvement of the administration of sporting

organisations may be served well by tobacco company sponsorship. The question facing government is whether the harm to public

health or other policy objectives caused by continued tobacco company sport sponsorship outweighs these benefits to sporting organisations.

4. 46 Commonwealth and State Health Ministers have

r ecommended that tobacco company sponsorship of sport be

restricted by disallowing so called 'indirect advertising' at sporting fixtures. 30 The Commonwealth Department of Health, in a submission to the Committee, recommended that the Committee heed the recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare in its report on 'Drug Problems in Australia An

Intoxicated Society?'(l977):

'That the Commonwealth Government make any grants to sporting and cultural bodies

conditional on their not accepting money from manufacturers and retailers of

tobacco products and investigate the

possibility of indemnifying such bodies for loss of revenue, at least in the short

term' .31

4. 47 The Commonwealth Government has not yet formulated a

pol icy on tobacco company sponsor ship of sport. The rna tter has been raised in discussions between the Ministers for Health and Sport, Recreation and Tourism. The Australian Broadcasting

Tribunal released on 30 June 1983 for public comment draft

guidelines for the electronic media on the broadcast of

'incidental advertising' by tobacco companies. 32 (The Committee took evidence from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal at the public hearings in Canberra on 17 August 1983). The Tribunal

informed the Committee that the intention of the draft

guidelines was to discourage possible circumvention of the 1976 amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act which banned the advertising of cigarettes and cigarette tobacco from radio and television. The proposal did not constitute an attempt to

ban tobacco company sponsorship of sport. However, it may serve to reduce the attractiveness of sports sponsorship to tobacco companies. A number of sporting organisations, concerned at a possible loss of sponsorship revenue, have made representations

to the Tribunal about the draft guidelines.33

4.48 The Committee considered that, to be effective, any

eventual Commonwealth pol icy on tobacco company sponsorship of sport would need to address four questions:

â¢ Does tobacco company sports sponsorship

constitute a deliberate advertising

campaign in response to a loss of public

image or government action?

â¢ Would the removal

sponsorship have a

wholly or in part on

consumption?

of tobacco company

significant effect the level of tobacco

â¢ What would be the consequences for sporting organisations and sport generally of the

withdrawal of tobacco company sponsorship?

â¢ Why should tobacco products, out of a

number of alleged health risk products, be

singled out for special attention?

4.49 The Committee felt that the sponsorship of sporting

organisations by tobacco companies did amount, at least, to

indirect product advertising. Whether its current size reflects

,Â·

a deliberate circumvention of the 1976 ban on radio and

television advertising is a matter for debate. Data on

advertising expenditures for tobacco products indicates a switch to print media and outdoor advertising after 1976.34 A good test of the proposition may be the behaviour of the level of tobacco

company sports sponsorship following a promulgation of the

proposed Australian Broadcasting Tribunal guidelines.

4.50 The second question addressed the heart of the policy

issue. The Committee considered three possible answers to the question â¢

â¢ Advertising does not influence the level of consumption of tobacco but the market share of the advertised product. The overall

level of consumption is determined by

other, less tractable factors.

â¢ Advertising does consumption but advertising will effect. Reliance measures â¢

influence the level of

only marginally. Banning have only an insignificant should be placed on other

â¢ Advertising influences the level of

consumption significantly and banning

advertising, provided it is total, can have a significant effect. Education programs may be a necessary adjunct of the ban.

The evidence available to the Committee suggested that a total ban may have some effect but it was not conclusive. 35 In Norway

a total ban on tobacco advertising since 1975 has been

associated with a significant reduction in tobacco consumption. On the other hand, the evidence of a more recent total ban in

Singapore was not supportive.

4.51 It appeared reasonable to believe that a ban on

tobacco company sports sponsorship itself will have an minor impact on the level of tobacco consumption in Australia. The

reason for the attention being given to sports sponsorship

rather than overall tobacco company advertising seemed to be (a) a moral repugnance at the deliberate association of a public

good (sport) with a public bad (tobacco consumption) and (b) a

'gut feeling' that Government ought not to be seen to be saying

something is bad Â· and not be doing everything possible to stop

it. 4.52 As with commercial sponsorship generally, the level of

tobacco company sponsorship of sport is difficult to gauge. The Confederation of Australian Sport estimated tobacco company sports sponsorship at $10.8 million in 1982 and the Tobacco

Institute of Australia estimated it to be about $13 million per

100

annum.36 The basis of these estimates is uncertain but, if

accurate they would account for around 25 per cent of total

commercial sponsorship of sport in Australia. With respect to national sporting organisations which received Commonwealth financial assistance, the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism estimated that of approximately $3.4 million in total

commercial sponsorship reported by these organisations about $1 million was accounted for by tobacco companies.37 At first sight a withdrawal of the funding would appear to entail adverse

consequences for the operations of sporting organisations

in toto. In actual fact the consequences may not be that large

or of uniform adversity. Many sporting organisations do not

receive tobacco company sponsorship and other sponsors,

including new sponsors, may fill the space vacated by the

tobacco companies. However, in the short run at least, the

'pool' of commercial sponsorship funds .'llill be reduced and in

the ensuing increased competition for sponsorship dollars the lower profile sports are likely to lose revenue. This seems

especially likely if the thesis outlined in paragraph 4. 49 is

correct. In the long run the resulting lower 'price' of sports

sponsorship to sponsors may encourage more sponsors to sport.

4.53 Finally it needs to be made clear what characteristics

of tobacco consumption warrant the priority given to the policy. A number of legal products entail health risks to varying

degrees and in differing circumstances, some of which (alcohol in particular) are involved in sports sponsorship. As indicated previously, a number of sporting organisations have adopted

policies of not accepting or not encouraging alcohol company sponsor ship.

4.54 The Committee recognised that smoking was widely

accepted as bad for health. Members believed that, tobacco

advertising, when identified with sport, provided unsatisfactory role models and promoted a connection between the health and

glamour of sport and cigarette smoking which was misleading. The Committee could not agree on a recommendation concerning the denial of Commonwealth assistance to sporting organisations which accepted tobacco company sponsorship. The Cornmi ttee

believed that such action taken in isolation would not be

effective in significantly changing the level of cigarette

smoking. It was agreed, however, that should action be taken at some stage to deny Commonwealth assistance to sporting

organisations accepting tobacco company sponsorship, it should be based on a Government decision to have a broad program to

actively reduce smoking and its implementation should be broadly based and have a number of interrelated programs of which the

restriction of tobacco company sponsorship of sport would be one. The Committee therefore recommends that:

53. if the Commonwealth Government were to

make it a condition of the granting of

Commonwealth assistance that sporting

101

organisations not accept tobacco company sponsorship, the Commonwealth should

offer compensation to those sporting

organisations which were affected

adversely.

The Committee further recommends that, irrespective of any such Commonwealth Government action:

54. the Commonwealth Government should not co-sponsor sporting events with tobacco companies;

55. the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's draft guidelines with respect to

incidental advertising by tobacco

companies should be adopted.

102

CHAPTER 5

The Success and Future Development of Overall Commonwealth Involvement in Sport and Recreation

5.1 third

In this Chapter the Committee has sought to examine the and fourth questions raised in the objectives of the

inquiry:

â¢ how well do the existing programs taken

together achieve the Commonwealth's

overall aims for sport and recreation; and

â¢ is the Government's present role in sport

and recreation consistent with community preferences and expectations?

The Success of Commonwealth Sports Assistance

5.2 The Committee, in addressing the first of these

questions, was faced with the difficulty that there has been a

change of Government and some change of policy direction since the inquiry began. There are, however, major areas of overlap

between the objectives of the two Governments in this field and the Committee has sought, particularly, to examine the ability of continuing programs to meet the needs of these common objectives.

5.3 In 1977 the then Minister for Environment, Housing and

Community Development, the Hon. Kevin Newman, said, in a speech to the Australian Olympic Federation:

'The Government remains conscious of the fact that the voluntary principle is the basic

element of the Australian sports system and supports its expression through national

sporting associations. Government assistance will reinforce the principle of self help

manifested in the efforts of the sporting

community itself â¢â¢.â¢

The Commonwealth will become involved in

those projects of national significance

which, financially, are beyond the capacity of voluntary effort or which place

unrealistic burdens on sporting bodies or

individuals â¢â¢â¢

Generally the Government sees

assisting in the following areas: â¢ international competition

103

itself as

administration associations of national

â¢ national coaching schemes

sporting

â¢ development projects for national sporting associations

â¢ research and information dissemination â¢â¢â¢

The Government's role is to provide national leadership and co-ordination so that the

sporting community can develop its own

initiative and plan its activities in the

most effective and efficient way â¢â¢â¢ We wish to see sport developed for all

Australians, while at the same time,

assisting those who have the capacity,

potential and will to exce1.â¢l

5. 4 Although the present Government has endorsed several

different objectives, particularly those associated with

recreation, it has, in its statements and in the existing

programs for which support was provided in the Budget, given

de facto support for a number of the objectives outlined in the

a b ove statements. These areas of policy overlap can be described as :

â¢ support for voluntary associations;

â¢ commitment to the principle of encouraging self help for such organisations; â¢ support for projects of national

significance;

â¢ of assistance for participation

in international competition;

â¢ promotion of standards of coaching;

â¢ provision _of assistance for research and

information dissemination;

â¢ of leadership and co-ordination

at the national level; â¢ development of sport for all Australians;

and

â¢ special assistance for those with the

capacity, potential and will to succeed.

104

5.5 In essence, these common objectives focus on promoting

e xcellence in sport at the national level. Chapter 3 examined

these programs individually to see if each of them ach i eved its

own goals and found, despite some minor administrative and

coordination difficulties and a disturbing lack of evaluation that the programs were generally well run and achieving many of their objectives. However, the cumulative effect of these

programs, in the Committee's view has been relatively limited.

The Committee would not wish to suggest tha t the total

program has not had some very significant succe sses in the

sporting field. It has established a National Sports Centre

which, when the current building program is completed, will rank as an important sporting facility. It has developed the

Australian Institute of Sport which, when the National Training Program is in place and when addi tiona! sports a re available,

will be a significant asset to Australian sport as will the

facilities built under the ISSF Program. Current policies have also strengthened the development of national sporting bodies by providing assistance for professional administration, expanded coaching opportunities and expanoed opportunities fo r athletes to develop by providing an increased level of int ernational

competition for Australian athletes. Commonwealth assistance has also helped sportspeople in special r:-opulation groups notably Aboriginals and the disabled. The program has maintained the basic voluntary structure of sports organisation and it has not

unduly disturbed the principle of self hel p in these

organisations. The Committee has commented on thes e issues in detail in Chapter 3. 5. 7 From the evidence collected by the Committee , it would

appear that the participation and success rates of individual Australian athletes and national teams have i mproved'

opportunities for up-to-date coaching have increased , s ports science and sports medicine techniques have been widened, there has been some increase in the international standard s ports

facilities available to athletes, and a national strata of

professional sports administrators has began to augment l argely State-based voluntary associations. However, the s triking

feature of these achievements was that their effects have

predominantly been limited to assisting athletes who have

already achieved a high level of excellence in a particular

sport: the major effect has been, in other words, to help

athletes who are already outstanding to achieve at a higher

level. The Commonwealth Government has not done a great deal to increase the proportion of Australians who have the opportunity to excel in their chosen sport nor has it directly encour a ged a

younger generation of Australians to commit themselves to

achieving high levels of performance in sport.

5. 8 The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism stated

in its submission that it 'considered that assistance channell e d towards the objective of the encouragement of excellence will

105

"spillover" to encourage participation â¢â¢â¢ by all Australians in sport to the best of their ability.' 2The Committee agreed that

outstanding achievements by Australian athletes can have this effect. The desire to emulate Robert de Castella and the

knowledge that a scholarship to the Australian Institute of

Sport exist, ..lllSU[ help a promising athlete to do this and, in

turn, may lead to a larger number of higher standard Australian athletes in five or ten years' time. However, the Committee

could not help but ask whether such incentives would be more

effective if, for example, they were supported as one witness

suggested to the Committee, by a Commonwealth funded scheme

whi c h paid in full or in part for professional coaches at local

l evels.3

5. 9 The Committee agreed that the current program could

increase the aspirations of, for example, young athletes but it was equally convinced that for all but a handful of the people

whose aspirations were raised, existing Commonwealth programs provided little assistance in the achievement of a level of

excellence in sport commensurate with ability. In attempting to promote wider and fuller opportunities for Australians to pursue excellence in sport the Committee believed that the existing

package of Commonwealth Government programs had failed.

The Future Development of Sports Assistance

5.10 Two approaches to remedy this failure were seen as

necessary by the Committee: the expansion and development of State and supporting regional institutes of sports so that these could provide an infrastructure to support the work of the

Australian Institute of Sport at . a level more accessible to

prom1s1ng athletes 7 and the redirection of some of the

Commonwealth Government's expend! ture on physical sporting facilities to human resources. 5.11 With respect to the first of these, the Committee has

in Chapter 3 made recommendations regarding the development of State and supporting regional institutes of sport. The Committee believed that these measures will not only make the current work of the Institute more effective but will promote wider access

and be more visible at the local level. The Committee noted that the South Australian Institute of Sport had been located at a

tertiary education institution and had developed a high profile through several measures including television advertising. Such a model for a State institute of sport was attractive but the

Committee agreed other models had potential for success and that it did not wish to make recommendations about the types of

institutes most effective for States or regions. It did however make some recommendations about Commonwealth assistance which should be provided to these institutes. (see Recommendati ons 30, 31 and 32).

106

5.12 With respect to the question of balance in the existing

package of Commonwealth Government sports assistance programs , the Committee noted that the Government had shown itself willing to commit very large sums of money to the provision of sporting

facilities: over $65 million to the National Sports Centre

within a decade; and $25 million over a three year period for

the construction of international standard sports facilities. It was noted, further, that approximately 50 per cent of the $25

million for international standard sports facilities would

remain unspent at the end of the three year period. The

Government has, however, shown itself unwilling to commit

comparable amounts to the development of human resources. The Committee believed that there was a serious imbalance in this

pattern of expenditure.

5.13 With the expansion in assistance to sport and

recreation announced in the 1983-84 Budget, an opportunity has been provided to help reduce this imbalance. The Committee

considered that the further expansion of the National Coaching Accreditation Scheme would help to remedy what it sees as a lack of talent development which, in the long term, will not only

restrict the field of potential athletes and ensure that only a very narrow selection of people have the opportunity to achieve excellence in sport but also limit the opportunities for more

broadly based participation in sport.

5.14 The Committee believed this initiative, if taken with

the measures recommended in Chapter 3 to improve co-ordination and to improve information dissemination and research could significantly improve the opportunities for all Australians to excel in sport. It would, in doing this, widen the base from

which potential high performance athletes could be chosen and, additionally, it would constitute one step towards Commonwealth involvement in an area where the Committee found a singular lack of activity: the provision of assistance for recreation ,

including competitive recreation. The Committee recommends therefore that: 56. the National Coaching

expanded to strengthen and local levels.

The Question of Recreation

Accreditation Scheme be coaching at the regional

5.15 Many witnesses before the Committee argued that the

most significant gap in Commonwealth Government programing in this field was the absence of any form of assistance for

recreation. 4Neither so-called 'active' recreation nor 'passive' recreation was seen to benefit under existing Commonwealth

Government programs. Since the Committee conducted its public hearings for this inquiry, the present Commonwealth Government has announced that funding for recreation and fitness programs will be made available during 1983/84. The form that

107

these programs will take and the full extent of funds that will

be available to them had not been announced when this Report was prepared. However, the Committee believed that a significant Commonwealth Government commitment to programs in the recreation ar e a should be made.

5.16 The Committee, in coming to this view, paid particular

attention to the work of Professor John Bloomfield who, in 1973 produced a report entitled 'The Role, Scope and Development of Recreation in Australia'. In that report he suggested the

f o l l owing definition should be used for recreation:

'Recreation is the creative use of leisure.

It is the use of leisure for diversion,

self-expression, and cultural enrichment, and the promotion of physical, mental and

spiritual well-beingâ¢.S 5. 17 He suggested that 'recreation in Australia should be

fostered and promoted by the Federal Government in order to

c a ter for the present and future needs of Austral ian society.'

Professor Bloomfield went on to recommend the establishment of a national recreation program with these objectives:

the development of interests in order

increasing amount of society;

leisure skills and

to cater for the

leisure time in our

the promotion of dynamic health and

fitness for all Australian citizens; the encouragement of self-expression; and

opportunity for personal fulfilment.6

5.18 The Committee found that the goals set for a recreation

program by Professor Bloomfield had a surprisingly high degree of relevance almost a decade later. During that decade the

amount of non-work time available to particular segments of the Australian population has increased significantly and there is some evidence that it will continue to do so. For example, the

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has recently

estimated that 12 per cent of the population is aged 65 years or

over but that by 2021, 16 per cent of Australians will be in

this age group.? 5.19 Similarly, unemployment particularly among young people has increased during this period. The Committee would, of

course, wish to see an early reduction of unemployment and would not suggest that development of leisure skills and interests

could act as a substitute for employment opportunities.

108

Nevertheless, the Committee accepted that people of any age

group who have developed leisure skills and interests and who have the capacity for self expression will contribute to the

wider society in a more positive way, whatever their

circumstances, than individuals whose personal fulfilment

opportunities are more restricted.

5. 20 As well as this, the Committee accepted the importance

of recreation as a means to the promotion of health and fitness. Australian standards of fitness have, in several studies, been unfavourably compared to those in other Western countries.B The Committee did not specifically collect evidence on general

fitness levels but noted that community attitudes supported the view that moderate physical activity promoted health. For these reasons the Committee agreed that the Commonwealth Government should promote recreational opportunities for the Australian

population in general. The Committee believed that, in

concentrating on highly competitive organized sport,

Commonwealth Government programs had not met the recreation needs of the vast majority of Australians.

5.21 A number of studies have indicated that Australians

spend a considerable proportion of their private consumption expenditure on leisure pursuits and that these pursuits are

diverse and place surprisingly little emphasis on outdoor

organized sport. For example, a study in Western Australia

conducted by the Western Australian Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation and the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicated that the participation rates in various leisure activities among a sample of Perth residents during a two-week period in October

1978 was as follows:

109

TABLE 15

1978 Perth Survey of Community Recreation Patterns Participation Rates for Various Leisure Activities

% Sample

1. Television 94.5

2. Reading 79.0

3. Visiting friends 77.0

4. Gardening 61.5

5. Social 60.6

6. Home related 60.

7. Driving for pleasure 54.5

8. Informal outdoor 44.8

9. Shopping and show visit 44.5

10. Radio 43.6

11. Records 42.4

12. Spectator 40.9

13. Indoor sports and games 34.2

14. Walk and hike 33.3

15. Informal sport 23.1

16. Cultural 21.7

17. Service 18.7

18. Outdoor organized sport 13.6

Source: Western Austral ian Department of Youth, Sport and

Recreation, Exhibit No. 34.

This data was further amplified in the Department of Youth,

Sport and Recreation's 1979-80 Annual Report where the following graphs were presented.

110

Figure 4

1978 Pe rth Su rvey of Communi t y Recreation Pa t terns Age-Specific Participation Rates for Various Le i sure Activiti e s

160 150 140 130 120 110

100

;:: 90

rE 80

I(' 60

50 40 30 20

10 0

-- c--

1 OUTDOOR ORGANISED SPORT - 2 D RIVING FO R PLEASU RE - --3 W ALK AND H IKE 1-4 IN FORM AL SPORT f--5 IN FO RMAL -

r 6 IN DOOR SPORTS/ GAMES--.. ..

....,_

Â·.

' --.

, , ----::r-

...... ;:::-

...._;;:

65+

160 150 140 130

120 110

100

;:: 90

rE 80

g: 60

.ll. 110

0 9

ov 0 7

- r")( 1.(

17 G ARDENI NG I 8 WATCH IN G TV J, LIST ENING TO RADIO

10 LI STEN ING T O RE CORD S 11 READING

1- ..--

- _, - v -..... "-Â·- ,, - ,-

PERC ENTAGE

OF EA CH

AGE LEVEL

INVOLVED

IN ACTIVITY

GROUPINGS

160 150 140 130 120

0 w 11 100

l :

l/1 5

....J..ii.

w (.) o 14'

'\. ffi 7 0 Q. 6 0 5 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 Â·Â·.

12 H OM E REL:-c. -3 CULTURAL 4 SPECTATOR -

1 5 SOCIAL

Â·- - Â·Â· .. /

'fl.' \ .. ,_ -::...:: -...

......._

/ - r-... Â·Â· ....

--... ,.......__

"'-....

__,

160 150 140 130

120 110

100

;:: 9 o "'1'6 z w 0

g: 6

0 17'

0 -..J...9 o ...._

0 18

40 3

,;;;;>"

I I

16 VISITI NG FRIENDS 17 SHOPPI NGr--r--18 SERV IC E 19 OTHER

--- '\.

f..- ..........

-r---.. _,.._ ----.,_ - --I-' Â· --.

AGE !Â§ gQ Â§Q 65 â¢

19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64

s ource: Western Aust ralian De pa r t ment of Recreation, 1979- 80 Annua l Report.

111

Yout h , Sport and

The graphs indicate the way in which involvement in various

types of recreation changes with age. Similarly, recreation

patterns vary with sex, with income, with geographic location and, most importantly, with individual choice.

5. 22 In examining the variety of recreational participation

patterns, the Committee considered the factors which limited participation and those which promoted it. As part of this

consideration, the Committee commissioned a paper from Dr Glen watkins of the University of Western Australia. This paper is

included in the published evidence included in separate volumes. Dr Watkins has brought into his paper a local government

perspective on recreation which reinforces strongly the evidence received by the Committee, notably from representatives of State Departments with responsibility for recreation and from

organizations such as the Australian Institute of Parks and

Recreation but also from individuals.

5.23 Dr Watkins' paper, like the Perth data presented above,

indicates that the leisure time of individuals is dominated by private pursuits such as the watching of television, reading, visiting friends and gardening. Only a small amount of

recreational participation is devoted to outdoor organized sport where the major Commonwealth expenditure has been.

5.24 Obviously, the Committee did not believe it could

argue, in the context of examining Commonwealth expenditure on sport and recreation, for increased Commonwealth involvement in the most private of recreational pursuits such as visiting or

gardening. The Committee believed, however, that the

Commonwealth Government could, and should, be involved in

promoting recreational opportunities in categories other than organised outdoor sport, the least important of recreational preferences as ranked in the Perth study. Many of the

recreational preferences indicated above can be exercised in public facilities. Informal outdoor activities, with a

preference rating of 44.8 per cent, and walking and hiking (33.3 per cent) are likely to involve visits to local or State parks,

the use of national parks or bike trails in the city, and

perhaps excursions to picnic or barbeque facilities, or to

children's playgrounds. Similarly, indoor sports and games (34.3 per cent) and informal sports (23.1 per cent) are often pursued

in facilities provided by local government as well as in private commercial locations.

5.25 Factors which limit participation in recreation of this

kind include the availability of the facilities themselves.

Beyond this, however, participation may be limited by lack of

knowledge of the facilities, by poor arrangements for access to them, by improper location of facilities or inadequate transport systems, and also by direct or indirect costs associated with

the facilities. These factors will affect different groups

within the population to a greater or lesser degree. For

112

example, older people, as a group, have a lower level of

disposable income and are frequently more dependent on public transport than other population groups. Young people,

particularly those who are unemployed, may be similarly

affected. Some policies pursued by governments, such as user-pay financing of facilities or cut-backs in the maintenance of local parks and youth centres may have a significant limiting effect on recreational opportunities of people with low incomes and limited mobility. These effects will, therefore, be

disproportionately greater for groups within the population who are already at a disadvantage.

5.26 The Committee, when considering sport, noted that

people who were geographically isolated suffered disadvantages with respect to the availabililty of . sporting opportunities. Similar recreational disadvantages existed for these people because recreational facilities, like sporting facilities, have

been developed largely in areas of greatest population

concentration. Some of Australia's more remote communities also lack access to the most popular forms of recreation such as

television, radio and extensive libraries. An equally important restriction on participation noted by the Committee was the lack of knowledge about the availability of recreational

opportunities. This, the Committee believed, reflected an

imbalance between the provision of physical recreation

facilities and human resources to help to promote the full

utilization, even on an informal basis, of recreation

facilities. 5.27 The Committee thus agreed that a number of factors

which determined the level of access to recreational facilities could be isolated. These included:

â¢ the availability of recreation facilities;

â¢ the development

national parks

accessible;

of facilities such as

so that they were

â¢ the provision of 'human resources' so that

information on available resources could be spread and so that facilities could be

fully utilized; â¢ the siting of new recreational facilities

so that existing transport services were

compatable with the of

appropriate support services; and

the degree to which the costs of recreation opportunities, particularly those provided by governments, exacerbated the

disadvantage experienced by some sectors of the population.

113

5.28 The questions of the most appropriate form of

programming to promote the availability of recreation

opportunities and the role that the Commonwealth should play

were considered extensively by the Committee. It noted the of the Recreation Ministers Council which said, in 1976, that, while it believed that recreation was primarily the

responsibility of the States, some aspects, such as national

co-ordination and the education of recreation workers, should be handled at the national level.9 However, a further statement by the Council in 1978 said that the Council 'believes that

increased expenditure in the area of recreation will

significantly assist the enhancement of the social well-being of the community and in the containment of the costs of health and

welfare programs and therefore urges that all governments review their commitments and policies relating to recreation.â¢lO 5.29 During the Committee's public hearings and in

submissions to the inquiry, some State government departments with responsibility for sport and recreation argued strongly that the Commonwealth Government should be involved more

directly in provision for recreation. For example, the Western Australian Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation stated

that:

'it appears that the Federal Government has

opted for a policy of financially assisting

sport, mainly at the national association

level, to the total exclusion of programs and services that would assist the general

community in some sort of activity. However, it should be the responsibility of the

Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism to implement a balance between the sport and

recreation programs offered especially when the unorganised silent majority has no lobby potential to affect program or policy

changes... Federal Government sport and

recreation responsibilities are far wider

than the nation's sporting elite.â¢ll

5.30 The Committee accepted the view that the development of

suitable recreation programs will no doubt be the most important challenge facing the Department of Sport, Recreation and

Tourism. The Commonwealth Government's programs in recreation, as noted above have not yet been announced but Â· the Australian

Labor Party sport and recreation statement includes provision for making funds available for the construction of family

leisure centres. The Committee, as indicated in Recommendation 24, agreed that, if funds for family leisure centres were to be

made available, a thorough evaluation of projects funded under the earlier Commonwealth Assistance for Leisure Facilities

Program (CALF) should first be carried out. CALF projects

included leisure centres associated with schools and many

114

centres which offered innovative designs and combinations of facilities. The Committee would like to emphasise that it

supported the development of a family leisure centre program and that it believed properly planned and run centres could make a most significant impact on the recreation needs of Australians.

5. 31 It is in the area of funding for recurrent rather than

capital recreation programs that the Commonwealth Government's intentions are unclear. The Committee was impressed by some of the recreation services provided by State governments, in

particular the regional community recreational officers employed in some States. It agreed that such services were vital if

existing community recreation facilities were to be fully

utilised. This belief was consistent with the Committee's view expressed in the previous section that the Commonwealth

Government's program of assistance to sport should be balanced by the provision of human resources as well as sporting

facilities. 5.32 The Committee believed that the emphasis of the

Commonwealth's new fitness and recreation program should be on the provision of human resources to identify gaps in recreation provision and use, to disseminate information on recreational opportunities and to encourage the use of the existing stock of physical recreation resources. The first step in this direction

should be the extension and further development of the regional community recreation programs already provided in some States. The program would need to avoid the duplication of existing

State programs and use the resources of existing State and local government structures. For areas disadvantaged in the provision of recreational facilities, the program should have access to small grants for innovative capital purposes. As discussed in

the previous section, the program should be developed so that it is compatible with the expansion of the National Coaching

Accreditation Scheme proposed under Recommendation 56. It is envisaged that under a Regional Recreation Catalyst Scheme the Commonwealth would provide grants to authorities for the

employment of community recreation officers on a full-time

basis. Where some States already have such schemes, the proposal would enable these schemes to be expanded. New schemes would be created in States which did not have them. Up to one hundred per cent of salary costs for a recreation officer would be provided

by the Commonwealth government. State and local governments or regional authorities would be expected to meet office and

support costs.

5.33 The Committee recommends therefore that:

57. the Commonwealth fund a Regional

Recreation Catalyst Scheme in

co-operation with State, local and

regional authorities and with broadly based community organisations, and that

115

this scheme should involve the

employment of regional recreation

officers;

58. the Regional Recreation Catalyst Scheme should have access to an innovation

program fund administered by the

Department of Sport, Recreation and

Tourism which would make available a

limited number of small grants for

innovative community recreation purposes with priority being given to

disadvantaged areas.

5.34 An alternative option for recreation programs which was drawn to the Committee's attention in submissions and at

hearings was that of a national recreation campaign or perhaps further development of the 'Life. Be In It' Program.l2 The

Committee accepted that the 'Life. Be In It' Campaign had

achieved some recognition but noted the doubts raised by some commentators about the effects of the campaign in actually

increasing fitness levels rather than just establishing public recognition. These views have been summed up by Mr A W Robinson, Deputy Director of the Western Australian Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation in 'Leisure: A Priority', an address in

1980 to the Menzies Foundation, where he said:

'Previous experience and research indicates that most Australians are not attracted to

physical fitness campaigns, as such. The

'Life. Be In It' research (Task Quantum

Consultants, May 1975, "Attitudinal Study

Fitness and Recreation in Victoria') showed that fitness was a non-issue for about 80 per

cent of Australians. Research also shows that most Australians are not participating in

highly structured competitive physical

activities, except as spectators! Australians are, however, prepared to participate in the more informal sociable leisure activities, many of which, of course, have both physical

and mental components.â¢l3

5. 35 In recent years these views have been reinforced by

further studies and the Committee, as noted above, accepted the view that recreational and fitness related activities entered into by Australian people are highly diverse. Importantly, they are segmentalised to a considerable degree with activities

varying greatly between age groups and between males and

females. The Committee therefore believed that any recreation campaigns should be low key, localised, and aimed at particular segments of the population such as:

116

â¢ primary school children;

â¢ secondary school children;

people, particularly women, not in the paid workforce;

people in particular

workforce;

sections of the

â¢ older people, particularly those who have

recently retired.

5.36 The Committee believed that States have and should

continue to have the major responsibility for these programs but believed that the Commonwealth Government should share in this responsibility by co-ordinating information in the recreation and fitness field (see Recommendations 33, 34 and 35 regarding

Commonwealth funds for ACHPIRST). The Committee recommends therefore that:

59. a worthwhile amount of Commonwealth

Government funds provided for recreation purposes should be set aside for use as

research grants to be administered by

the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism.

5.37 One further aspect of recreation considered by the

Committee was workplace recreation particularly that which promoted health and fitness. The subject was not canvassed

extensively in submissions or in evidence received during the Committee's public hearings. Nevertheless, the Committee

considered that it was within the Commonwealth Government's power to promote health and fitness by assisting work place

related recreation programs provided by employers. The Committee recommends that:

60. the Department of Sport, Recreation and

Tourism should investigate ways of

encouraging employers to provide

workplace related recreational

opportunities which promote the health and fitness of their employees.

Conclusions

Sport

5.38 The Committee believed that the existing Commonwealth programs relating to sport have achieved a great deal. It

agreed, however, that these achievements could be significantly expanded by:

117

â¢ an increased emphasis on widening

assistance for the development of

athletes;

the new

â¢ developing a greater support network for

the Australian Institute of Sport;

â¢ redressing, to some extent, the imbalance

in Commonwealth Government funding which has, to date, favoured physical resources

at the expense of human resources; and â¢ providing funds for more local level rather than international level facilities.

Recreation

5.39 With respect to recreation, the Committee believed that

existing Commonwealth programs in this area were inadequate and did not meet the needs or expectations of Australians. The

Committee was particularly mindful of opinions and evidence which has typified Australia as a 'nation of spectators' and of the suggested national benefits of health promotion through recreation. It noted that funds for recreation and fitness

programs were set aside in the 19 83/84 Commonwealth Budget and had suggested some ends to which this new funding could be put.

5.40 The Committee's recommendations regarding recreation accepted that State and local governments will continue to have the most important governmental role in this area but envisaged greater Commonwealth commitment to:

â¢ co-ordination and dissemination of

information on recreation;

â¢ recreation research;

innovative recreation programming; and

â¢ workplace recreation.

30 November 1983

118

LEO McLEAY Chairman

ENDNOTES

Chapter l

l. Budget Paper No. l, 1982-83, pages 141, 142.

2. Department of Education and Youth Affairs, submission evidence, page 2539.

3. ibid, page 2541.

4. Commonwealth Schools Commission, Report of a Seminar on School and Community Facilities held at the University of New South Wales, 26 February 1981, submission evidence, pages 2542-2585 .

5. Mr W.F.F. Lawson, Knox Grammar School, Sydney, submission evidence, page 280. Mr David Jenkin, Phillip Institute of Technology, submission evidence, page 489. Ms Cheryl McKinna, University of Melbourne, submission

evidence, page 572. Mr D.R. Ellis, Monash University, submission evidence, page 592. Mr Forbes Carlile, Sydney, submission evidence, page lOll.

L. Eisenmenger, Brisbane, submission evidence, page 1551. Mr H. McCredie, Australian Universities Sports Association, submission evidence, page 153.

6. Submission evidence, pages 489, 572, 592, 1553.

7. See Dr Glen Watkins, submission evidence, pages 2824 2825 , 2846 , 2847 .

8. Mr E.T. Gleeson, Royal Australian Institute of Parkes

and Recreation, submission evidence, page 288. Department of Territories and Local Government, Canberra, submission evidence, page 1971.

11 9

Chapter 2

1. Hon. N. Robson, Tasmanian Government, submission evidence, page 94. Mr B.J. Taylor, South Australian Department of Recreation and Sport, submission evidence, pages 628, 771. M.J. Bryce, Western Australian Government,

submission evidence, page 1566. Hon. Marshall Perron, Northern Territory Government, submission evidence, page 1712. Hon. Cain, Victorian Government, submission evidence,

page 1925. Hon. L.J. Ferguson, New South Wales Government, submission evidence, page 1960.

2. Alderman K.V. McElligott, Townsville City Council, submission evidence, page 40. Mr J.R. Diffen, City of Coburg, submission evidence, page 141. Ms Llois Cutts, Australian Council of Local Government Associations, submission evidence, page 1056. Ms Robyn Saleh, City of Geelong West, submission

evidence page 1664. City of South Barwon, submission evidence, page 1751. Department of Territories and Local Government, submission evidence, page 1971. Mr Gary Storch, Darwin City Council, submission evidence, page 2768.

3. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, submission evidence, pages 1119, 1120.

4. Confederation of Australian Sport, submission evidence, page 296.

5. See, for example,

Mr Peter Quire, Australian Clay Target Association, submission evidence, page 199. Mr R. Staunton, Australian Basketball Federation, page 411. Mr Leslie Martyn, Sports Advisory Council, page 533

6. See, for example,

Dr James NcKay, submission evidence, page 100 Nr R.J. Clarke, submission evidence, page 273. Miss s. Faram, Australian Women's Cricket Council, pages 666 Â·- 663 .

7. Mr S.H. Hogan, Australian Ice Hockey Association, submission evidence, page 192. Dr J.W. Willey, Queensland Amateur Gymnastic Association, submission evidence, page 527. Mrs Dorothy Brown, Australian Ladies Golf Union, hearings evidence, page 320.

120

Senator Jack Evans, Western Australian Sports Federation, submission evidence, page 781. Mr B.J. Emery, Australian Soccer Federation, hearings evidence, pages 765, 766.

8. Confederation of Australian Sport, submission evidence, pages 291, 292 and see also submission evidence, pages 2132-2136.

9. See, for example,

Mr A.P. Millar, Institute of Sports Medicine, submission evidence, page 122. Dr J.A. Miller, Cumberland College of Health Services, submission evidence, page 212.

10. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, submission evidence, pages 1115, 1116.

11. ibid, page 1116.

12. ibid, Appendix E, pages 1176-1178.

13. ibid, page 1117.

14. ibid, pages 1119-1120.

15. ibid, pages 1117-1118.

16. ibid, pages 1118-1119.

17. PressRelease, Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, 13 September 1983.

121

Chapter 3

10.

11.

12. 13.

14.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs, submission evidence, page 25 87.

ibid, page 2586.

National Aboriginal Sports Foundation, submission evidence, pages 2376, 2377.

ibid, page 3278 and hearings evidence, pages 1042, 1043.

National Aboriginal Sports Foundation, hearings evidence, page 1042, 1046.

National Aboriginal Sports Foundation, submissions evidence, pages 2383-2425.

ibid, page 2378.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs, preliminary conclusions hearings evidence, pages 1508-1522.

National Aboriginal Sports Foundation, submission evidence, page 2378.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs, submission evidence, pages 2587, 2588.

ibid, pages 2591, 2592.

Mr J.D. Whitehouse, hearings evidence, pages 598, 599.

Mr M.A. Nunan, submission evidence, pages 375, 376 and hearings evidence, page 72.

Queensland Amateurs Gymnastic Association, submission evidence, page 527. Australian Paraplegic and Quadraplegic Sports Federation, submission evidence, page 760. Dr Frank Whitebrook, submission evidence, page 762. Western Australian Sports Federation, submission

evidence, page 781.

15. See, for example,

Australian Clay Target Association, submission evidence, page 13. Riding for the Disabed Association, page 282. Australian Gymnastic Federation, page 347. Australian Amateur Fencing Federation, page 355. Amputee Sporting Association of Australia, page 465.

122

Australian Squash Rackets Association, page 469. Amateur Athletic Union of Australia, page 540.

16. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, hearings evidence, pages 1264, 1265.

17. Department of Finance, submission evidence, pages 27 96, 27 97.

18. ibid, pages 2797, 2798, 2805, 2806.

19. See, for example,

Australian Clay Target Association, submission evidence, page 133. Australian Gymnastic Federation, page 347. All Australia Netball Association, page 662. Dr Frank Whitebrook, page 762.

20. Australian Squash Rackets Association, submission evidence, page 469 Australian Federation of Amateur Roller Skaters, page 605.

21. See, for- example,

Australian Amateur Fencing Federation, submission evidence, page 355. Australian Aerobatic Club, page 393. Australian Ladies' Golf Union, page 590.

Confederation of Australian Motor Sport, page 536.

22. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, submission evidence, pages 1254-1259, pages 1301-1308, pages 1350-1355.

23. Australian Institute of Sport, hearings evidence, pages 1359-1362.

24. Australia Games Foundation, hearings evidence, pages 805.

25. Ibid., page 805.

26. Ibid., page 822.

27. Dr J.O. Miller, National Committee on Sport and

Recreation for the Disabled, submission evidence, pages 212, 684. Australian Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Sports Federation, submission evidence, page 757 and Exhibits

70, 71.

28. See Dr J.O. Miller, hearing evidence, pages 1420,

1421.

1 23

29. Australia Sports Council for the Disabled, submission evidence, page 24 â¢â¢ Riding for the Disabled Association of Australia, page 282. Amputee Sporting Association of Australia, page 465. National Committee on Sport and Recreation for the Disabled, page 684. Australian Association for the Mentally Retarded, page

2369.

30. See Australian Association for the Mentally Retarded, hearings evidence, pages 1486-1488. Australian Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Sports Federation, submission evidence, page 761.

31. Confederation of Australian Motor Sport, hearings evidence, pages 365, 366. South Australian Department of Recreation and Sport, hearings evidence, page 17.

32. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, hearings evidence, page 1260.

33. Tasmanian Department of Education, Division of Recreation, hearings evidence, pages 552-554. Northern Territory Department of Health, Youth, Sport and Recreation Division, hearings evidence, pages 1069-1072.

34. Tasmanian Department of Education, hearings evidence, page 554.

35. Australian Council of Local Government Associations, hearings evidence, pages 1386, 1387. See also submission evidence, pages 1066-1069.

36. Adelaide Pistol Club, submission evidence, page 519. Australian Federation of Amateur Roller Skaters, page 605. Victorian Squash Rackets Association, page 681.

37. Australian Ladies Golf Union, submission evidence, page 590.

38. Australian Olympic Federation, submission evidence pages 1368, 1369 and hearings evidence, pages 1364, 1365.

39. Surf Life Saving Association of Australia, submission evidence pages 619, 620.

40. Australian Ski Patrol Association, submission evidence, pages 106-121, 2143-2299.

1 24

41. Australian Ski Patrol Association, hearings evidence, page 870.

42. ibid, page 873.

43. Department of Finance, submission evidence, page 2808.

44. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, submission evidence, page 1148.

45. Surf Life Saving Association of Australia, hearings evidence, pages 837-839.

46. See, for example,

Surf Life Saving Association of Australia, submission evidence, pages 619 and following.

47. Australian Institute of Sport, submission evidence, page 1944.

48. Australian Institute of Sport, hearings evidence, page 1319.

49. Australian Institute of Sport, submission evidence, page 1913.

50. Report of the Australian Sports Institute Study Group, Department of Tourism and Recreation, November 1975.

51. National Sports Training Institute to Open, News release by the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Bob F.llicott, 25 January 1980. 52. & 53. See, for example,

Mr M. Nunan, Director, South Australian Sports Institute, hearings evidence, page 75. Mr R. A. Elphinston, N. s. w. Department of Leisure, Sport and Tourism, hearings evidence page 632.

54. Information provided to the Committee by staff of the

Australian Institute of Sport during an inspection of the Institute.

55. Ms F.J. Hegarty, Australian Clearinghouse for Publication in Recreation, Sport and Tourism, hearings evidence, page 497.

56. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, submissions evidence, page

57. John Brown, Minister for Sport, Recreation and

Tourism, Press Release, August 1983.

125

58. John Brown, Minister for Sport, Recreation and

Tourism, Press Release, September 1983.

59. Department of Territories and Local Government, submissions evidence, page 1971, hearings evidence, page 1299.

126

Chapter 4

1. Australian Bowls Council, hearings evidence, page 414 . Australian Hockey Association, hearings evidence page 3 06.

2. See for example,

Australian Hockey Association, submission evidence, page 5 83 Australian Gymnastic Federation, hearings evidence, page 290-291.

3. See for example,

Mr B. Smith, submission evidence, pages 4-7 and hearings evidence, page 1191-1211 Mrs N.J. Besgrove, hearings evidence, page 1212-1217.

4. For example,

Mr G. Hartung, submission evidence, pages 236-272. Sportswomen's Association of Australia, submission evidence, pages 562-571. Australia Games Foundation, submission evidence

pages 669-677, and hearings evidence, pages 829-836. Australian Amateur Rowing Council, submission evidence, pages 586-589. Australian Women's Cricket Council, submission

evidence, pages 666-668.

5. Australian Aerobatic Club, submission evidence, pages 393-410. Australian Amateur Rowing Council, submission evidence, pages 586-589. Australian Rubgy Football Union, submission evidence,

pages 629-633.

6. Department of Finance, submission evidence, page 2791.

7. For example,

Mr G. Hartung, submission evidence, pages 236-272 Dr F. Whitebrook, submission evidence, pages 762-770.

8. Department of Finance, submission evidence, page 2784.

9. Ibid., page 2794

Department of Treasury, submission evidence, page 2799. Australian Taxation Office, submission evidence, page 2775.

127

10. See Department of Finance, submission evidence, pages 27 85-2788.

11. Ibid., pages 2789-2790.

12 . Ibid., pages 2792.

13. Dr J. f.lackay, submission evidence, pages 100-101. Mr R.J. Clarke, submission evidence, pages 273-279.

14 . Commonwealth Grants Commission, Report on State Tax Sharing Entitlements. 1981 Vol 11, Appenaix B.

1 5 . Mr G. Hartung, submission evidence, pages 326-272 Australian Rugby Football Union, submission evidence, pages 629-633. Australian Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Sports Federation, submission evidence, pages 757 - 761. Dr F. Whitebrooke, submission evidence, pages 762-770.

16 . Copy of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Services report was

provided to Committee on a confidential basis.

17 . News Release, Minister for Home Affairs, 27 November 19 80.

1 8 . Department of Finance, submission evidence, page 2799.

19. Ibid, page 2798.

2 0. Ibid. , page 2799.

21. Australian Taxation Office, submission evidence; page 2778.

2 2 . Ibid., page 2777.

23. Confederation of Australian Sport, hearings evidence, page 266.

24. For example,

Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, hearings evidence, pages 62-67. Australian Women's Cricket Council, hearings evidence, page 349. Australian Clay Target Association, hearings evidence, page 469.

25. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, submission evidence, pages 2666-2761.

27. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, submission evidence, pages 1414-1533.

1 28

28. Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria, submission evidence, pages 297-303, and hearings evidence, pages 522-530.

29. Contrast for example,

Confederation of Australian Motor Sport, hearings evidence, pages 355-371. AUSTSWIM, hearings evidence, pages 397-411.

30. Department of Health, submission evidence, pages 2763.

31. Ibid, page 2766.

32. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, submission evidence, pages 2666-2761, Section 3, Attachment D.

33. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, hearings evidence, pages 1437-1439.

34. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, submission evidence, pages 2666-2761, Section 4, Attachments A. B.

35. Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria, submission evidence, pages 297-355.

36. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, submission evidence pages 1414-1415.

37. Ibid., page 1415.

1 29

Chapter 5

1. Speech to the Australian Olympic Federation by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, the Hon. Kevin Newman, Melbourne, 18 August 1977.

2 . Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, submission evidence, paragraph 8.7 page 1158.

3. Forbes Carlile, MBE, Co-Principal Forbes and Ursula Carlile Swimming Organization, submission evidence pages 2140 to 2142.

4 . See, for example,

Mr John Miller, Executive Director Australian Council for Health, Physical Educatioin and Recreatioin Inc., submission evidence pages 1820-5. Ms Sally Jeavons and Ms Mary Jeavons, the Playgrounds and Recreation Association of Victoria, submission evidence pages 1817-19. Mr Bruce Mildenhall, Interim Community Recreation Council of Victoria, submission evidence pages 1646-50.

5. John Bloomfield, The Role. Scope and Development of Recreation in Australia, Department of Tourism and Recreation, Canberra, 1974, page 5.

6 . I bid. , page 5.

7 . Australian Population Forecasts: 1983-86 with Projections for Selected years to 2021, Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, October 1983, paÂ·ge 39.

8. See, for example, the summary of such studies in

Leisure and Recreation in Australia, David Mercer (ed. ) , Sonett 1977, page 13.

9. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, submission evidence, page 111 9

10 . As reported in the West Australian newspaper.

11 . Mr M.J. Bryce, Acting Premier of Western Australia,

submission evidence, page 1568.

12. See, for example

Dr Ian Bennett, 'Life. Be In It' Company,

submission evidence pages 1813-16.

13. Mr A.W. Robinson, Leisure: A Priority, address to the

Menzies Foundation, 1980 â¢

. 13 0

APPENDIX I

CONDUCT OF THE INQUIRY

Hearings and Inspections

The Committee resolved on 13 October 1982 to conduct an inquiry into Youth, Sport and Recreation. On 8 December 1982, a

s ub-committee comprising Mr Lusher (Chairman), Mr Braithwaite, Mr J .J. Brown, Mr R. J. Brown, Dr Edwards, Mr Hyde, Mr McLeay, Mr

Peter Horris, Mr Mountford and Mr Porter was appointed to conduct the inquiry. The inquiry was advertised in the national and major me t r opolitan press on 5, 6, 12 and 13 November 1982. Reference to

" Youth" was deleted from these and subsequent public statements about the inquiry and was removed from the inquiry terms of

r eference b y a resolution of the Committee on 1 November 1983.

The House was dissol ved on 4 February 1983 and the

inquiry was suspended pending decisions by a new Parliament. The Co mmittee was reappointed in the Thirty-third Parliament on 4 Ma y 1983. The Committee resolved on 11 May 1983 to resume the

inquiry. To assist the Committee with the inquiry, Ms Sue Harlow of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission was appointed a s specialist adviser. Ms Harlow assisted the Committee on a

f ull-time basis for the period 8 June 1983 to 30 September 1983.

The inquiry was re-adv ertised in the press on 3, 4 June

1983. A sub-committee comprising Mr McLeay (Chairman), Mr

Baldwin, Mr I.M.D. Cameron, Mr Free, Mr Goodluck, Mr Lusher, Mr A.A. Morris, Mr Mountford, Hr Tuckey and Mr I.B.C. Wilson was

appointed to take evidence at hearings and inspections. Public hearings were conducted in Adelaide (5 July 1983), Perth (6 July 1983), Melbourne (13, 14 July 1983), Hobart (15 July 1983),

Sy dney (19, 20 July 1983), Brisbane (21 July 1983), Darwin (2

August 1983), Townsville (5 August 1983) and Canberra (16, 17

August 1983). In association with these hearings the Committee conducted inspections of sport and recreation facilities in

Adelaide (6 July 1983), Perth (7, 8 July 1983), Brisbane (22 July 1983), Darwin (1 August 1983) and Canberra (18 August 1983).

A sub-committee compr1s1ng Mr McLeay (Chairman), Mr Free, Mr Goodluck, Mr A.A. Morris, Mr Mountford, Mr Tuckey and Mr I.B.C. Wilson was appointed to draft this report. The material

presented in submissions and at hearings was analysed and a set

of preliminary conclusions was formulated and circulated, on a confidential basis, to selected organisations. Comment was sought by submission and by discussion at an in-camera hearing in

Canberra on 28 November 1983.

1 3 1

About 170 submissions were received over the course of the inquiry. A wide variety of interested individuals and

organisations throughout Australia were given the opportunity to put their views on sport and recreation to the Committee. The

Committee received ev1aence from Commonwealth, State and local gover nment authorities, national, state and local sporting

o rganisations, recreational organisations, individual

sportspeople, academics and other private individuals.

132

APPENDIX II

WITNESSES

Dates of Appearance Before Committee

COMMONWEALTH DEPARTMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Mr Leo Terence Grey, Principal Executive Officer (Legislation) Mr John Gerard Quaine, Director,

Program Services

Australia Games Foundation Mr David Rodney Mazitelli, Federal Director

Australian Institute of Sport Mr John Baines Cheadle, Member, Board of Management Mr John Devitt, Member, Board of Management Mr Donald Malcolm Talbot, Executive

Director

Department of Aboriginal Affairs Mr Geoffrey Frank Bissaker, Director Welfare and Cultural Section Ms Marisa Gerussi, Clerk

Department of Sport. Recreation and Tourism Mr Paul Brettell, Acting Assistant Secretary, Programs and Facilities Branch Mr Graham Dempster, Acting First

Assistant Secretary, Sport and Recreation Division Mr Herbert Bruce MacDonald, Secretary

Department of Territories and Local Government Mr Rodney Andrew Lagle Bradford, Acting Assistant Secretary, Policy Co-ordination Mr Raymond Donnellan, Assistant Secretary,

Community Relations and Facilities Mr Gregory James Fraser, Assistant Secretary, Local Government Mr John Albert Turner, First Assistant

Secretary, Community Services

133

17.8. 83

17.8.83

20.7.83

16.8. 83 16.8. 83

16. 8. 83

16.8.83 16. 8. 83

16.8.83

16.8.83 16. 8. 83

16.8. 83

National Aboriginal Sports Foundation Mr Brian Edward Dixon, Chairman 2. 8. 83

STATE AND TERRITORY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

New South Wales Department of Leisure. Sport and Tourism Mr Robert Alexander Elphinston, Co-ordinator 19.7.83

Northern Territory Department of Health. Division of Youth. Sport. Recreation and Ethnic Affairs Mr Rhys Jones, Assistant Director, 2.8.83

Mr Raymond John Norman, Director, 2.8.83

South Australian Department of Recreation and Sport Mr Brian John Taylor, Acting Director 5.7.83

Tasmanian Education Department. Division of Recreation Mr Geoffrey Edward Frier, Senior Superintendent, 15.7.83

Mr Robin Kenneth Hood, Principal Recreation Officer (Sports Development), 15.7.83 Mr John Hubble, Senior Project Officer, 15.7.83

Victorian Department of Youth. Sport and Recreation Mr Perry Rothrock Crosswhite, Director, Recreation Development and Youth Affairs 13.7.83

Western Australian Department of Youth. Sport and Recreation Mr John Franklyn Fuhrmann, Acting Deputy Director 6.7.83

Mr Alexander William Robinson, Acting Director 6.7.83

Mr James Ross Sharp, Acting Principal Co-ordinator 6.7.83

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Australian Council of Local Government Associations Ms Llois Cutts, Director 17.8.83

Mr Richard Charles Osborn, Project Officer 17.8.83

Darwin City Council Nr Graeme Bruce Parsons, Community Recreation Officer

Townsville City Council Alderman Kenneth Victor McElligott, Deputy Mayor

134

2.8.83

5.8.83

SPORTING ORGANISATIONS

All Australian Netball Association Mrs Helen Edmund-Jones, National Executive Director Mrs Moira Joan McGuinnes, National

Secretary

Amateur Athletic Union of Australia Mrs Joan Cross, Honorary Treasurer Mr Richard Parnell, Executive Director

Amateur Swimming Union of Australia Mr Colin Barnes, National Executive Director

Amputee Sporting Association of Australia Mr Kenrick Douglas Bradford, National Secretary

Australian Amateur Fencing Federation Mr Endre Joseph Szakall, O.A.M., President

Australian Amateur Rowing Council Mr John Boultbee, Honorary Secretary

Australian Amateur Water Polo Association Mr John Whitehouse, Honorary Secretary

Australian Basketball Federation Mr Kenneth John Madsen, Treasurer

Australian Bowls Council Mr John Moore Dobbie, Honorary Secretary

19.7.83

19 . 7 . 83

21.7 . 83 21 . 7 . 83

1 9 . 7.83

21 . 7.83

14.7 . 83

20 . 7 .83

15.7.83

21 .7. 83

14.7.83

Australian Council for the Teaching of Swimming and Water Safety Mr John Thomas Kilpatrick, Victorian Delegate 14. 7 .83 Mr Leonard Walter Ernest Willmer, Council

Member 14.7.83

Australian Clay Target Association Mr Ian Christopher Hill, Executive Director

Australian Gymnastic Federation Mr James Edward Barry, President

Australian Hockey Association Mr Keith Robert Murton, National Executive Director

Australian Ladies Golf Union Mrs Dorothy Brown, Executive Director

135

14.7.83

13.7.83

13.7.83 13.7 . 83

Australian Olympic Federation Mr Phillip Coles, Executive Board Member 17.8.83

Mr Kevan Gosper, Vice-President 17.8.83

Mr Julius Lockington Patching, Secretary-General 17.8.83

Australian Soccer Federation Mr Brian Emery, Executive Director 20.7.83

Australian Sports Council for the Disabled Commissioner Graham Ernest Pryke, President 5.7.83

Australian Sports Medicine Federation Mr Robert David Quimby, Executive Director 20.7.83

Australian Sguash Rackets Association Mr Simon Laurentius Boegheim, National Executive Director 21.7.83

Australian Swimming Coaches Association Mr Paul James Quinlan, Honorary Secretary 21.7.83

Australian Women's Cricket Council Miss Sylvia Faram, President 13.7.83

Mr Raymond John Sneddon, Executive Director 13.7.83

Australian Women's Soccer Association Mrs Elaine Watson, President 21.7.83

Australian Yachting Federation Mr Anthony Joseph Mooney, Executive Director 19.7.83

Confederation of Australian Motor Sport Mr John Anthony Keeffe, Chief Executive Officer 13.7.83

Confederation of Australian Sport Mr Garry Jeffery Daly, Executive Director 13.7.83 Mr Noel Jeffrey Southey, Administration Manager 13.7.83

National Football League of Australia Ltd. Mr Edward William Biggs, General Manager 14.7.83

North Queensland Games Foundation Mr Robert McCullough, Chairman 5.8.83

Northern Territory Football Council Mr Hunter Chris Harrison, Chairman 2.8.83

Mr Darryl Dean Window, Secretary 2.8.83

Queensland Amateur Gymnastic Association Dr John Wilby, President 21.7.83

13 6

South Australian Olympic Council Inc. Mr Richard John Rodda, Secretary

South Australian Sports Institute Mr Michael Nunan, Director

Sports Federation of Victoria Mrs Betty Butcher, Secretary Mr Ken Oaten, Deputy Chairman

Sportswomen's Association of Australia Mrs Katherine Joy Dundon, President

Surf Life Saying Association of Australia Mr Barry Bede Staunton, National Executive Director

Townsville City Netball Association Mrs Joy Lake, Fixtures Officer Mrs Narelle Schofield, President

Townsville Rowing Club Mr Paul Cosgrove, President

Western Australian Sports Federation Mr Gary Aitken, Executive Senator Jack Evans, President Mr Charles Harper, Deputy President

OTHER ORGANISATIONS

Anti Cancer Council of Victoria Ms Sharon Marie Willcox, Research

5.7 . 83

14. 7. 83 14 . 7 . 83

5.7 . 83

20.7.83

5.8 . 83 5 . 8.83

5 . 8 . 83

6.7.83 6.7.83 6.7.83

Assistant to Director 14.7.83

Australian Association for the Mentally Retarded Ms Janet Bundy, Recreation Project Officer 17.8.83 Mr Harold Wilkinson, Executive Officer 17.8.83

Australian Clearing House for Publications in Recreation, Sport and Tourism, Ms Frances Joyce Hegarty, Co-ordinator 14.7.83

Australian Council for Health. Physical Education and Recreation Mr John Miller, Executive Director 5.7 . 83

Australian Ski Patrol Association Mr George Freuden, President

Institute of Recreation (Western Australia) Dr Glenn Gregory Watkins, Vice-President

137

20.7.83

6.7.83

Knox Grammar School Mr William Francis Frederick Lawson, Athletic Director

Life. Be In It. Company Dr Ian Bennett, Chief Executive Mr Arthur T. Smith, CARGO National Co-ordinator

Menzies Foundation Dr William Roy Johnson, Member, Executive Committee Mr Eric Clifford Wigglesworth, Executive

Officer

20.7.83

13.7.83

17.8.83

17.8.83 National Committee on Sport and Recreation for the Disabled Dr Jeffrey Owen Miller, Chairman 17.8.83

Royal Australian Institute of Parks and Recreation Mr Edward Thomas Gleeson, President elect 15.7.83

INDIVIDUALS

Mrs Nita Janice Besgrove, Kirwan, Queensland Mr Graeme Thomas Brewer, South Coogee, New South Wales Mr Forbes Carlile, Ryde, New South Wales Mr David Earnest Charles, M.P., Parliament House,

Canberra Dr Richard Ian Charlesworth, M.P., Parliament House, Canberra Mr Robert John Clarke, Moonah, Tasmania Mr Francis Ian Ford, Sans Souci, New South Wales Mrs Jan Ford, Sans Souci, New South Wales Mr David Clive Jenkin, Dept. of

Physical Education, Phillip Institute of Technology Mr Alan George Launder, Salisbury East, South Australia Mr Eamon John Lindsay, M.P., Parliament House,

Canberra Miss Sally Methven, Fairview Park, South Australia Mr Denis David Molyneux, Skye, South Australia

Mr Jack Ernest Pollard, Wollstonecraft, New South Wales Mr John Edward Reeves, M.P., Parliament House, Canberra Mr Barry Smith, Mount Isa, Queensland Mr Terence Edward Smith, M.L.A., Darwin,

Northern Territory Dr Frank Charles Whitebrook, Wollongbar, New South Wales Mrs Myra Williams, Adelaide, South Australia

138

5.8.83

19.7. 83 20.7. 83

14.7. 83

6. 7. 83 15.7.83 19.7. 83 19.7. 83

14.7. 83

5. 7. 83

5. 8. 83

5. 7. 83 5.7.83

19.7. 83

2.8.83 5. 8. 83

2. 8. 83

19.7. 83 5.7.83

APPENDIX I II

SUBMISSIONS

Submission No Persons/Organisations

l. Submission from Mr D.B. Walsh,

National Coaching Director, Australian Amateur Cycling Federation, received 24 November 1982.

2. Submission from Mr Barry Smith,

Mt. Isa, Queensland, received 25 November 1982.

4(a}

Letter from Dr D.F. McMichael Secretary, Department of Horne Affairs and Environment, received 30 November 1982.

Submission from Mr w. McLuckie, North Bondi, N.S.W., received 18 November 1982.

Further submission from Mr w. McLuckie, North Bondi, N.S.W., received 30 November 1983.

Submission from Mr G.S. Miller, Launceston, Tasmania, received 30 November 1982.

Submission from Commissioner G.E. Pryke, President, Australian Sports Council for the Disabled, received 14 December 1982.

Submission from Mrs E. Watson, President, Australian Women's Soccer Association (Inc), received 14 December 1982.

Submission from Mr Alan Bundy, Director, and Ms Fran Hegarty, Co-ordinator, ACHPIRST, Australian Clearing House for Publications in Recreation, Sport and Tourism, Footscray Institute of Technology Library, received 20 December 1982.

139

Page No

submission No Persons/Organisations

9. Submission from Alderman K.V. McElligott,

Deputy Mayor and Chairman, Recreation and Tourism Committee, Town Hall, Townsville, received 20 December 1982.

10. Submission from Mr Forbes Carlile,

Forbes and Ursula Carlile Swimming Organisation, Ryde, N.S.W. received 9 November 1982.

11. Submission from Mr N. Robson, Acting

Minister Responsible for Recreation, Hobart TAS., received 21 December 1982.

ll(a) Additional information, Tasmanian Department of Education, Division of Recreation, received 8 August 1983.

12. Submission from Mrs Judy Bahrend,

Secretary, Caloundra Amateur Swimming Club received 15 November 1982.

13. Submission from Dr James McKay,

Department of Human Movement Studies, University of Queensland, received 24 December 1982.

14. Submission from Mr G. Brewer,

Clovelly, N.S.W., received 23 November 1982.

15. Submission from Mr R.L. O'Donnell,

Secretary Australian Amateur Cycling Federation, received 10 November 1982.

16. Submission from Mr George Freuden,

President, Australian Ski Patrol Association received 12 November 1982.

17. Submission from Mr A.P. Millar, OBE,

Institute of Sports Medicine, Lewisham Hospital, Petersham, N.S.W., received 6 January 1983.

18. Submission from Mr John Gregson, Chairman,

Austswim, received 7 January 1983.

19. Submission from Mr Ian Hill, Executive

Director, Australian Clay Target Association, received 7 January 1983.

1 40

Page No

100

102

103

106

122

128

133

Submission No Persons/Organisations

20. Submission from Mr J.M. Dobbie,

Secretary/Treasurer, The Austr-alian Bowls Council, received 10 January 1983.

21. Letter from Mr J.R. Diffen, City

Manager, City of Coburg, received 10 January 1983.

2l(a) Submission from Mr J.R. Diffen, City

Manager, City of Coburg, received 28 October 1983.

22. Submission from Mr S.H. Hogan, National

Secretary, Australian Ice Hockey Federation, received 10 January 1983.

23. Submission from Mr Jim Sheedy, Figtree,

N.S.W. received 11 January 1983.

24. Submission from Mr G.R. Findlay, Hon.

Secretary, Corio Bay Rowing Club, Victoria, received 12 January 1983. 25. Submission from Mr Peter Quire,

National Coaching Director, Manager, Australian Clay Target Association, received 12 January 1983.

26. Submission from Mr Roger C. O'Neil,

North Parramatta, N.s.w., received 12 January 1983.

27. Submission from Mrs Betty Butcher,

Secretary, Sports Federation of Victoria, received 12 January 1983.

27(a) Further submission, Mrs Betty Butcher, Sports Federation of Victoria, received 11 August 1983.

28. Submission from Mr J.O. Miller,

Principal, Cumberland College of Health Sciences, received 12 January 1983.

28(a) Further submission from Dr J.O. Miller,

Cumberland College of Health Sciences, received 7 September 1983.

29. Letter from Mr J.D. Whitehouse, Hon.

Secretary, Australian Amateur Water Polo Association, received 12 January 1983 .â¢

141

Page No

137

141

142

192

194

196

199

202

207

210

212

23 0

235

Submission No Persons/Organisations Page No

30. Submission from Mr Greg Hartung, The

Daily Telegraph, Sydney, received 17 January 1983. 236

31. Submission from Mr R.J. Clark, Moonah,

Tasmania, received 13 January 1983. 273

3 2. Submission from Mr W.F.F. Lawson, Senior

Master (Athletic Director) Knox Grammar School, Wahroonga, N.S.W., received 14 January 1983. 280

33. Submission from Ms Maplestone,

Riding for the Disabled Association of Australia, received 14 January 1983. 282

34. Submission from Mr A.J. Mooney, Executive

Director, Australian Yachting Federation received 14 January 1983. 285

34(a) Additional information from Mr Mooney,

Australian Yachting Federation received 20 July 1983. 287

35. Submission from Mr E.T. Gleeson, Convenor,

Royal Australian Institute of Parks and Recreation received 14 January 1983. 288

35(a) Further submission from Mr E.T. Gleeson, Royal Australian Institute of Parks and

36.**

37.

3 8.

3 8 (a)

Recreation received 15 July 1983. 289

Submission from Miss V. Schaeffer, Hon. Secretary Australian Women's Hockey Association received 14 January 1983 (Confidential)

Submission from Mr Garry J. Daly, Executive Director, Confederation of Australian Sport, received 14 January 1983. 290

Submission from Ms Sharon Willcox, Research Assistant to Director, Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria, Victoria, received 14 January 1983. 297

Additional information from Sharon Willcox, Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria, received 22 July 1983. 304

1 42

Submission No

39.**

39(a)

40.

41.

42.

42(a)

43.

43(a)

44.

45.

46. **

46(a)

Persons/Organisations

Submission from Mr Robert D. Quimby, Executive Director, Australian Sports Medicine Federation, received 14 January 1983.

(Confidential)

Additional information from Mr Robert D. Quimby, Australian Sports Medicine

Page No

Federation, received 22 August 1983. 336

Submission from Mr H.C. Harrison, Chairman Northern Territory Australian Football Council, received 14 January 1983. 343

Submission from Miss Peggy Browne, Executive Director, Australian Gymnastic Federation, received 14 January 1983. 347

Submission from Mr Endre J.V. Szakall O.A.M. President, Australian Amateur Fencing Federation, received 14 January 1983. 355

Additional information from Mr E.J.V. Szakall, Australian Amateur Fencing Federation, received 12 September 1983. 359

Submission from Mr M.A. Nunan, Director, South Australian Sports Institute, received 14 January 1983. 371

Additional information from Mr M.A. Nunan, South Australian Sports Institute, received 20 July 1983. 379

Submission from Ms Manuela Yager, Secretary, The Gliding Federation of Australia, received 14 January 1983. 380

Submission from Mrs Virginia Kruse, Hon. National Secretary, Australian Aerobatic Club, received 14 January 1983. 393

Submission from Mr R. Staunton, Executive Director, Australian Basketball Federation, received 14 January 1983. (Appendices not authorised for

publication). 411

Additional information from Australian Basketball Federation Inc., received 5 September 1983. 439

143

Submission No Persons/Organisations

47. Submission from Mr E.W. Biggs, General

Manager, National Football League of Australia Limited, received 13 January 19 83.

47(a) Additional information from Mr E.W. Biggs, National Football League of Australia, received 4 August 1983.

48. Submission from Mr D.K. Bradford,

Secretary, Amputee Sporting Association of Australia, received 21 January 19 83.

49. Letter from Mr R.J. Rodda, Hon.

Secretary, South Australian Olympic Council, received 17 January 1983.

50. Submission from Mr G.T. Taylor,

National Executive Director, The Australian Squash Rackets Association, received on 13 January 1983.

51. Submission from Mr C.A. Phillips,

Executive Director, Australian Golf Union, received 18 January 1983.

52. Submission from Mrs Clio Wallace,

President, the Australian Association of Occupational Therapists, received on 13 January 1983.

53. Submission from Mr David Jenkin,

Phillip Institute of Technology, School

53 (a)

of Physical Education & Leisure Studies, received 21 January 1983.

Additional information from Mr David Jenkin, Department of Physical Education, Phillip Institute of Technology,

Page No

441

456

465

46 8

469

47 4

476

489

received 14 July 1983. 493

53(b)

54.

Additional information from Mr David Jenkin, Department of Physical Education, Phillip Institute of Technology, received 29 July 1983. 513

Submission from Mr Landon Courtenay, Melbourne, Victoria, received 21 January 1983. 515

144

Submission No Persons/Organisations

55. Submission from Mr lain McLean, Executive

Director, Professional Golfers' Association of Australia, received 21 January 1983.

56. Submission from Mr Don Spackman,

President, Adelaide Pistol Club Inc., received 21 January 1983.

57. Submission from Mr Colin G. Barnes,

Executive Director, Amateur Swimming Union of Australia, received

58.

59.

59(a)

60.

61.

62.

62(a)

63.

21 January 1983.

Submission from Mr B.M. Marfleet, President, Society for Underwater Historical Research, received 17 January 1983.

Submission from Dr J.W. Wilby, President, Queensland Amateur Gymnastic Association, received 18 January 1983.

Additional information from Dr J.W. Wilby, Queensland Amateur Gymnastic Association, received 21 July 1983.

Submission from Mr Leslie J. Martin, Chairman, Sports Advisory Council, received on 13 January 1983.

Submission from Mr J.A. Keeffe, Chief Executive Officer, Confederation of Australian Motor Sport, received 24 January 1983.

Submission from Mrs Joan M. Cross, Hon. Treasurer, Amateur Athletic Union of Australia, received 18 January 1983.

Additional information from Australian Amateur Athletic Union, received 16 September 1983.

Submission from Mrs Joy Dundon, A.M., National President, Sportswomen's Association of Australia, received on 17 January 1983.

64. Submission from Ms Cheryl McKinna,

Director, Sport and Physical Recreation, University Recreation Grounds Committee,

145

Page No

517

519

520

524

527

529

533

536

540

553

562

submission No

6 5.

66.

67.

6 8.

6 9.

70.

71.

7 2.

73.

7 4.

75.

Persons/Organisations

University of Melbourne, received 17 January 1983.

Submission from Mr George E. Gilmour, Hon. Secretary, Tennis Coaches Association of Victoria, received 17 January 1983.

Submission from Mr Len Willmer, Director of Planning and Development, Victorian Amateur Swimming Association, received 17 January 1983.

Submission from Mr Keith Murton, National Executive Director, Australian Hockey Association, received 17 January 1983.

Submission from Mr John Boultbee, Hon. Secretary, Australian Amateur Rowing Council Inc., received 17 January 1983.

Submission from Mrs Dorothy Brown, Executive Director, Australian Ladies' Golf Union, received 18 January 1983.

Submission from Mr D.R. Ellis, Deputy Warden of the Union, Monash University Sports and Recreation Association, received 18 January 1983.

Submission from Mr J.D. Foley, Hon. Promotions Officer, Australian Amateur Diving Association, received 18 January 1983.

Submission from Mr Con Galtos, President, Australian Federation of Amateur Roller Skaters, received 17 January 1983.

Submission from Mr Russell de Groot, Liasion Officer, Professional Association of Diving Instructiors, received 17 January 1983.

Submission from Mr Gus B. Staunton, M.B.E., National Executive Director, Surf Life Saving Association of Australia, received 17 January 1983.

Submission from Mr B.J. Taylor, Director, South Australian Recreation and Sport Department, received 17 January 1983.

1 46

Page No

572

575

579

581

5 86

590

592

594

605

616

618

623

Submission No Persons/Organisations Page No

75(a) Additional information from Mr B.J. Taylor, SA Recreation and Sport Department, received 20 July 1983. Â· 628

76. Submission from Mr John D. Dedrick,

Executive Director, Australian Rugby

77.

77(a)

7 8. * *

79.

7 9 (a)

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

Football Union, received 17 January 1983. 629

Submission from Mr D.D. Molyneux, et al, Department of Recreation, South Australian College of Advanced Education received 17 January 1983.

Further submission. Mr D.D. Molyneux, et al, S.A. College of Advanced Education, received 4 August 1983.

Submission from Mr S.T. Green, National President, Australian Bowhunters Association received 19 January 1983. (Confidential)

Submission from Mrs M.J. McGuinness, M.B.E., National Secretary/Treasurer, All Australia Netball Association,

634

639

received 24 January 1983. 648

Further submission, Mrs Moira J. McGuinness, All Australia Netball Association, received 18 August 1983. 662

Submission from Miss s. Faram, President, Australian Women's Cricket Council, received 25 January 1983. 666

Submission from Mr David Mazitelli, Federal Director, Australia Games Foundation, received 25 January 1983. 669

Submission from Mr Ron Finneran, President, Skiers

Federation, received 25 January 1983. 678

Submission from Mr Aldo J. Montalto, State Executive Director, Victorian Squash Rackets Association, received 2 February 1983. 681

Submission from Dr J.O. Miller, Chairman, National Committee on Sport and Recreation for the Disabled, received l February 1983. 684

147

Submission No Persons/Organisations

84(a) Additional documentation provided by Dr J.O. Miller, National Committee on Sport and Recreation for the Disabled, received 1 September 1983.

84(b) Statisticial information provided by Dr J.O. Miller, National Committee on Sport and Recreation for the Disabled, received 1 September 1983.

85. Submission from Dr John M.F. Grant,

President, Australia Paraplegic & Quadriplegic Sports Federation, received 20 January 1983.

85(a) Further submission from Mr John F. Grant,

President, Australian Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Sports Federation, received 9 September 1983.

86. Submission from Dr Frank Whitebrook,

Wollongbar, NSW received 4 February 1983.

87. Further submission from Mr B.J. Taylor,

Director, S.A. Department of Recreation & Sport, received 4 February 1983. (See submission no. 75).

88. Submission from Mr Anthony A de Fina,

Federal President, Australian Underwater Federation (Victorian Branch), received 7 February 1983.

89. Submission from Mr Ern Knoop,

Secretary-Treasurer, The Judo Federation of Australia, received 10 February 1983.

90. Submission from Mr Cedric Baxter,

Administrative Secretary, Australian Badminton Association, received

91.

92.

10 February 1983.

Submission from Senator Jack Evans, President, and others, western Australian Sports Federation Inc., received 5 May 1983.

Submission from Mr John D. Hickey, Pascoe Vale, Victori_M received 8 June 1983.

148

Page No

710

7 47

757

760

762

771

774

778

7 80

7 81

83 4

Submission No Persons/Organisations

93. Submission from Mr H.G. Hammond,

Collingwood, Victoria received 10 June 1983.

94. Submission from Mrs Jocelyn D. Boyanton,

N.T. State Commissioner, Pee Wee League Baseball, receiv ed 14 June 1983.

95. Submission from Mr I.D. Robertson, Head,

Youth Sport Institute, South Australian College of Advanced Education, Salisbury East, S.A., receiv ed 14 June 1983.

96. Further submission f r om Mr Landon

Courtenay, Frankston, Victoria, received 15 June 1983. (see submission no. 54)

97. Submission from Mrs H. Woodward,

Farnborough Heights, N.S.W., received 15 June 1983.

98. Submission from Mr David N. Hocking,

Canberra, ACT, received 17 June 1983.

99. Further submission from Mr Forbes

Carlile, Ryde, N.S.W., received 17 June 1983 (see submission no. 10).

100 . Submission from Ms Edna Walker,

Secretary, Women in Sport Foundation, Woollahra, N.S.W. received 21 June 1983.

101. Submission from Mr Robert Talbott,

Co-ordinator, Junior Disabled Sport, Beverly Hills, N.s.w., received 23 June 1983.

102. Submission from Mr Jack Pollard,

Wollstonecraft, N.s.w. received 24 June 1983.

103. Submission from Mr Klaus Schiller,

A.C.T. Equestrian Association, received 24 June 1983.

104. Submission from Mr Michael J. Kent,

Hon. Secretary, Australian Bridge Federation, received 27 June 1983.

1 49

Page No

838

841

843

1000

1001

1003

lOll

1030

1031

1032

1033

1042

Submission No Persons/Organisations

105. Further submission from Australian

Amateur Rowing Council Incorporated, signed by John D. Coates, President, received 27 June 1983.

106, Submission from Mr David B. Lee,

Beecroft, N.S.W., received 27 June 1983.

107. Submission from Mr John Burgess,

Lecturer in Economics, Mitchell College of Advanced Education, School of Business and Public Administration, Bathurst, N.S.W., received

27 June 19 83.

108. Submission from Ms Llois Cutts, Director

of Secretariat, Australian Council of Local Government Associations, Canberra, ACT, received 27 June 1983.

108(a) Additional information from Australian Council of Local Government Associations, received 15 August 1983.

109. Submission from Ms Susan Bell, Lenah

Valley, Tasmania, received 30 June 1983.

110. Submission from Mr Joe H. Lamb,

Woodville, S.A., received 3 0 June 19 83 â¢

111. Submission from Mr H. B. McDonald,

Secretary, Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Canberra, ACT, received 30 June 1983.

lll(a) Amendments to submission. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, received 16 August 1983.

lll(b) Additional information from the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, received 17 October 1983. (Appended copy of Report of a Feasibility Study of a National Sports Lottery not authorised for publication).

112. Submission from Mr Allan R. Thurbon,

National President, Native Fish Australia, received 30 June 1983.

1 50

Page No

1048

1050

1052

1056

107 0

1073

1091

1094

1400

1410

153 4

Submission No Persons/Organisations Page No

113. Submission from Mr s. Tremtiaczy,

Maroubra, N.s.w., received 30 June 1983. 1542

114. Submission from L. Eisenmenger,

Bulimba, Qld, received 1 July 1983. 1551

115. Submission from H. McCredie, President,

Australian Universities Sports Association, received 1 July 1983. 1553

116. Submission from Mr George F. Whitty,

Essendon, Victoria, received 1 July 1983. 1557

117. Submission from Dr W.W. Ewens, Head,

Health, Physical Education and Recreation Department, St George Institute of Education, Sydney College of Advanced Education, received 1 July 1983. 1559

118. Submission from Mr Brian J. Emery,

Executive Director, Australian Soccer Federation, received 1 July 1983. 1563

118(a) Additional information from Mr B.J. Emery, Australian Soccer Federation, received 19 July 1983. 1565

119. Submission from Mr M J Bryce, Acting

Premier of Western Australia, received 1 July 1983. 1566

120. Submission from Mr Paul Quinlan, Honorary

Secretary, Australian Swimming Coaches Association, received 1 July 1983. 1612

120(a) Additional information from Mr Paul Quinlan, Australian Swimming Coaches Association, received 21 July 1983. 1615

121. Submission from Mr Julius L. Patching,

Secretary-General, Australian Olympic Federation, received 1 July 1983. 1621

122. Submission from Mr J.E. McGill,

Bassendean, W.A., received 1 July 1983. 1642

123. Submission from Mr Bruce Mildenhall,

Executive Officer, Interim Community

151

Submission No

124.

124(a)

125.

126.

127.

Persons/Organisations

Recreation Council of Victoria, received 1 July 1983.

Submission from Mrs Jan Ford, Sans Souci, N.s.w., received 1 July 1983.

Additional information from Mrs Jan Ford, received 19 July 1983.

Submission from Mr E.T. Coady, Immediate Past President, Australian Amateur Fencing Federation, North Caulfield, Victoria, received

1 July 1983.

Submission from Mr J.D. Humphreys, Immediate Past Executive Vice-President, Australian Amateur Fencing Federation, Ferny Hills, Queensland, received 1 July 1983.

Submission from Dr Robin Tait, Neutral Bay, N.s.w., received 4 July 1983.

128. Joint submission from:

129.

130.

131.

132.

133.

Ms Heather Phillips President Victorian Climbing Club

Mr Neville Byrne President Ski Touring Association of Victoria

received 4 July 1983.

Submission from Ms Robyn Saleh, Community Services Officer, City of Geelong west, received 4 July 1983.

Submission fiom Mr G. McMahon, Kenmore, Queensland, received 4 July 1983.

Submission from Mr M.H. Grose, Boating Industry Association of south Australia, received 5 July 1983.

Submission received from Mr John Wakely, Lota, Queensland, received 5 July 1983.

Submission from Mr Tony Benson, Mt Helen, Victoria, received 5 July 1983.

152

Page No

16 46

16 51

16 53

1655

1656

1661

1663

166 4

1665

1696

1697

1698

Submission No Persons/Organisations Page No

134. Submission from Mr Marshall Perron,

Acting Chief Minister of the Northern Territory received 5 July 1983. 1712

134(a) Additional information from the Northern Territory Department of Health, Youth, Sport and Recreation Division, received 5 October 1983. 1715

135. Submission from Mr J.J. Gouldson, Regional

Physical Education Officer, Queensland Department of Education, Toowoomba, Queensland, received 5 July 1983. 1740

136. Submission from the Council of the City

of South Barwon, Belmont, Victoria, received 5 July 1983. 1751

137. Submission from Mr Gary Pringle,

Chippendale, N.S.W., received 6 July 1983. 1773

138. Submission from Mr M.G. Winter,

President, and Mr A. Basford, Secretary, New South Wales Institute of Fishermen, received 8 July, 1983. 1783

139. Further submission from Mr J.D. Foley,

Hon. Promotions Officer, Australian Amateur Diving Association, received 8 July 1983. (See Submission No.7!). 1793

140. Submission from Mr Keiron A. Bourke,

Mosman, N.S.W., received 8 July 1983. 1809

141. Submission from Mr Paul Weir, Kaleen,

A.C.T., received 8 July 1983. 1810

142. Submission from Dr Ian Bennett, Chief

Executive, 'Life. Be In It' Company, South Yarra, Victoria, received 11 July 1983. 1813

143. Submission from Ms Sally Jeavons,

Member of Executive Committee and Ms Mary Jeavons, Office Manager, The Playgrounds and Recreation Association of Victoria, received 11 July 1983. 1817

153

Submission No Persons/Organisations

144. Submission from Mr John Miller,

Executive Director, Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation Inc., received 5 July 1983.

145. Submission from the Hon. John Cain,

Premier of Victoria, received 12 July 1983.

145(a) Additional information from Victorian Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation, received 25 July 1983.

146. Submission from Mr Don Talbot,

Executive Director, Australian Institute of Sport, received 12 July 1983.

146(a) Additional information from Australian Institute of Sport, received 19 September 1983.

147. Submission from Jess Cahill, Secretary,

Junior Motor Cycle Council of Australia, received 13 July 1983.

148. Submission from Mr Neil Bennett, The

Institute of Recreation (Vic), received 13 July 1983.

149. Submission from Mr V. Foley, Frankston,

Victoria, received 14 July 1983. 149{a) Further submission from Mr V. Foley,

Frankston, Victoria, received 19 August 1983.

150. Submission from the Hon L.J. Ferguson,

Acting Premier of New south Wales, received 13 July 1983.

150{a) Additional information from the N.S.W. Department of Leisure, Sport and Tourism, received 24 October 1983.

151. Submission from Mr John Watkins,

Executive Director, New South Wales Gymnastic Association, received 25 July 1983.

154

Page No

1820

1925

1839

1913

1943

1946

1948

1956

1957

1960

1965

1969

Submission No Persons/Organisations Page No

152. Submission from Mr J.D. Enfield,

Secretary, Department of Territories and Local Government, Canberra, A.C.T., received 25 July 1983. 1971

152(a) Amended table from Department of Territories and Local Government, received 16 August 1983. 2095

153. Submission from Professor Sir Edward

Hughes, C.B.E., Chairman, The Menzies Foundation, East Melbourne, Victoria, received 25 July 1983. 2096

154. Further submission from Mr Gary J. Daly,

Executive Director, Confederation of Australian Sport, received 25 July 1983. (See submission No.37). 2132

155. Further submission from Mr Jack Pollard,

Woollstonecraft, N.s.w., received 19 July 1983. (See submission No.l02). 2137

156. Further submission from Mr Forbes Carlile,

Forbes and Ursula Carlile Swimming Organisation, Ryde, N.S.W., received 20 July 1983. (See submissions Nos. 10,99). 2140

157. Further submission from Mr George Freuden,

President, Australian Ski Patrol Association, received 20 July 1983. (See submission No.l6). 2143

158. Submission from Mr Allan Hogg,

President, Sylvania Heights Community and Youth Club, Miranda, N.s.w., received 26 July 1983. 2300

159. Submission from Mr Harold Wilkinson,

Executive Officer, Australian Association for the Mentally Retarded Inc., received 28 July 1983. 2369

160. Submission from Mr Brian Dixon,

Chairman, National Aboriginal Sports Foundation, received 2 August 1983. 2374

161. Submission from Mr Robert McCullough,

Chairman, North Queensland Games Foundation, received 5 August 1983. 2471

155

Submission No Persons/Organisations

162. Submission from Mr John Riddell,

Acting Assistant Director, Programs Branch, Office of Youth Affairs, Department of Education and Youth Affairs, received 4 August 1983.

l62(a) Additional information from the Department of Education and Youth Affairs, received 23 September 1983.

163. Submission from Department of

Aboriginal Affairs, received 15 August 1983.

l63(a) Additional information from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, received 18 October 1983.

164. Submission from Australian

Broadcasting Tribunal, received 16 August 1983.

165. Submission from Mr P.W. Moyle, Assistant

Director-General, Social Health Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health, received 25 August 1983.

166. Letter from Mr Gary Storch, Town Clerk,

Darwin City Council, received 5 September 1983.

167. Submission from Dr H.J. Williamson,

Dean, School of Education, Ch i sholm Institute of Technology, Frankston, Victoria, received 12 September 1983.

168. Submission from the Commissioner of

Taxation, Canberra, received 12 August 1983.

l68(a) Additional information from the Commissioner of Taxation, received 5 October 1983.

169. Submission from the Department of the

Treasury, Canberra, received 19 September 1983.

170. Submission from the Department of

Finance, Canberra, received 8 September 1983.

1 56

Page No

2488

253 9

2586

2590

2666

2762

2768

2771

2775

2777

2779

27 82

Submission No Persons/Organisations

170(a) Additional information from the Department of Finance, received 16 September 1983.

170(b) Additional information from the Department of Finance, received 10 October 1983.

1 7 1 Paper by Dr Gl e n n Wa tkins,

" Rec r eation of the Local Gover nment Leve l and Its I mplication fo r :!"eder a l Government I ntervent ion ".

157

Page No

27 95

2801

28 11

APPENDIX IV

EXHIBITS

EX HIBIT NO DESCRIPTION

1 Amateur Swimming Union of Australia

72nd Annual Report, Season 1980-81

2 Amateur Swimming Union of Australia

73rd Annual Report, Season 1981-82

3 "Australian Record Fishes 1982," published by the

Game Fishing Association of Australia

4 Australian Clearing House for Publication in

Recreation, Sport and Tourism (ACHRIRST). Miscellaneous Pamphlets

5 "A Proposal for the establishment of ACHPIRST" by

A.L. Bundy, Chief Librarian, Footscray Institute of Technology

6 "A Proposal for the establishment of an Australian

Sport Informtion Resource Centre" by A.L. Bundy , Footscray Institute of Technology Library

7 "Ways and Means of Organizing a System for the

Standardized Collection of Documentation in Phy sical Education and Sport" by Dr J. Broekhoff, University of Oregon, U.S.A.

8 "Information for Sport and Recreation in Australia:

Problems and Solutions - Proceedings of a National Seminar," Footscray Institute of Technology Library

9 Confederation of Australian Sport, 1982 Annual Report

and Financial Statements

10 Confederation of Australian Sport, 1979 Sport

Australia Forum

11 Notes on u.s. Courses for Sports Medicine

Professionals by Martha Peterson, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

12 Australian Journal of Sports Medicine,

Vol.l4, No.1 1982

13 Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Gliding

Federation of Australia

15 8

EXHIBIT NO DESCRIPTION

14 1982 National Basketball League Guide

15 Australian Basketball Federation, Australia vs. New Zealand, Australian Team Report 1982

16 Australian Basketball Federation, 1982 Oceana Women's Championship World Qualification Series - Australia vs. New Zealand

17 Australian Basketball Federation, Zadar (Yugoslavia) vs. Australia

18 Australian Basketball Federation, China vs. Australia

19 Australian Basketball Federation, IX World Men's

Basketball Championship - Cali, Columbia 1982

20 Australian Basketball Federation, Iona College

Basketball Team Tour

21 Professional Association of Diving Instructors,

Miscellaneous Correspondence

22 Professional Association of Diving Instructors

Annexure to submission

23 Australian Women's Soccer Association, -Proposal for an International Standard Sporting Facility

24 Surf Life Saving Australia 1981-82,

75th Annual Report

25 Surf Life Saving Association - Application for

Australian Government Grant in Aid, 1982

26 "The Economic Benefits of Participation in Regular

Physical Activity" - A Study for the Recreation Ministers Council of Australia by A.D. Roberts, et. al., Ballarat C.A.E. 27 Australian Olympic Federation, "Team Up Australia"

28 Sports Rersearch in Australia, Equipment, Facility

and Personnel Directory 1982, by M.W. Thompson

29 The Australian Journal of Sport Sciences, Volume 3,

Number 1

30 ACHPER (Australian Council for Health, Physical

Education and Recreation) Product and Publication Catalogue, Autumn, 1983

31 ACHPER, "Daily Physical Education," -Produced for ACHPER by the Physical Education Branch of the Education Department of South Australia

159

EX HIBIT NO DESCRIPTION

32 The Parks Community Centre, Brochures

33 Western Australian Department of Youth, Sport and

Recreation - "A summary of services to the community -July 1983" 34 W.A. Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation -

Survey of Recreation Participation Rates, Perth, 1978

3 5 W.A. Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation,

1979-80 Annual Report

3 6 W.A. Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation,

Annual Report - 1981-82

37 Western Australian Baseball League, Camel Australian Baseball Championship

3 8 Tasmanian Government Tourist Bureau, "Tasmania's 'Life. Be In It' Holidays"

3 9 Life. Be In It Company, Submission for Funding

Assistance from the Australian Government of National 'Life Be In It'

40 Life. Be In It Company, Confederation of Australian

Recreation Groups Organizations.

41 Life. Be In It Company, A 'Life Be In It' Discussion

Paper, prepared for the Recreation Minister Council

42 Australian Women's Cricket Council -Annual Report 19 82

43 Austswim, Annual Report 1981-82

44 ACHPIRST - First Annual Report 1982

45 Footscray Institute of Technology Library,

"Information and Documentation for the design of Recreational Facilities in Australia" by A.L. Bundy

46 ACHPIRST - Australian Leisure Index 1982

47 Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria, position paper on

Sponsorship by the Tobacco Industry of Sporting and other Community Events

48 South Australian Sports Institute - First Annual

Report 19 82-83

49 Confederation of Australian Sport, A proposal for a

National Sports Plan

1 6 0

EXHIBIT NO DESCRIPTION

50 Confederation of Australian Sport, The Fitsport

Survey of the Confederation of Australian Sport -Final Report

51 Sport Health Official Gazette of Australian Sports

Medicine Federation, Vol.l, No.1, 1983

52 Transactions of the Menzies Foundation

Vol.l, 1978, Vol.2 1981, Vol.3, 1981, Vol.4, 1982

53 Australian Labor Party (Northern Territory) Policy

Statement, Sport Policy - Terry Smith, Shadow Minister

54 N.T. Football League, Proposal for relocation and

Development of Northern Territory Football League Headquarters at Marrara - A preliminary evaluation

55 Victorian Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation,

Annual Report 1981-82

56 Victorian Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation,

Migrant Womens' Recreation Study

57 Education Department of Tasmania, Division of

Recreation, "Recreation and Tourism Land use Planning in Australia - an information manual"

58 Life. Be In It Company, "Wild about Tasmania, Your

Guide to 150 Tasmanian Parks and Reserves"

59 Education Department of Tasmania, Division of

Recreation, Tasmanian Outdoor Recreation Land Use Policies and Practices, May 1979

60 Education Department of Tasmania, Division of

Recreation, Tasmanian Outdoor Recreation Land Use, Problems and Issues, April 1979

61 Education Department of Tasmania, Division of

Recreation, Tasmanian outdoor Recreation, Participation and Land Usage, March 1979 62 Education Department of Tasmania, Division of

Recreation, Tasmanian Strategic Outdoor Recreation Land Use Planning, an Interim Report, May 1979.

Education Department of Tasmania, Division of Recreation, Tasmanian Recreation Land use Study, Proceedings of a National Seminar held in Hobart on 22, 23 May 1980

Education Department of Tasmania, Division of Recreation, State Land Inventory of Designated and Proposed Recreation Reserves

1 6 1

EXHIBIT NO DESCRIPTION

65 Australian Soccer Federation - Annual Report, 1982

66 The Parks Community Centre - First Annual Report -

1981-82

67 W.A. Department of Youth, Sport and Recreation,

Recreation Programmes for Older People in Care, April 19 83

68 Australian Sports Medicine Federation, 1983 National Lecture Series, Patterns of Drug Use in Australian Sport

69 Australian Association for the Mentally Retarded Inc.

- Recreation informatioin series

70 Australian Paraplegic and Quadraplegic Sports

Federation, Proposal to stage 1988 Olympic Games for the Disabled in Canberra

71 Australian Paraplegic and Quadraplegic Sports

Federation, The Case for Australia Hosting the 1988 Olympic Games for the Disabled

7 2 Prime Minister's Speech to Sports Writers

Association, 29 July 1983

73 City of Coburg, Proposal for a North Region Sports

Campus

74 Clarke, Hopkins and Clarke, Architects, "Implications

of a North Region Sports Campus." (Report to the City of Coburg and the State College of Victoria."

75 N.s.w. Department of Sport and Recreation, Review

19 80

76 N.s.w. Department of Tourism, Annual Report 1980-81

77 Confederation of Australian Sport, the Master Plan

for Sport; March 1980

78 Junior Motorcycle Council of Australia, Rules and

Regulations 1981

79 South Australian Department of Recreation and Sport,

Green Paper on Recreation, May 1982

80 National Aboriginal Sports Foundation - Annual Report

19 80-81

162

Title	Expenditure - House of Representatives Standing Committee - The way we p(l)ay: Commonwealth assistance for sport and recreation - Report, dated 30 November 1983, together with copies of minutes of proceedings, transcript of evidence and submissions authorised for publication [Report only printed]
Source	House of Reps
Date	08-12-1983
Parliament No.	33
Tabled in House of Reps	08-12-1983
Parliamentary Paper Year	1983
Parliamentary Paper No.	311
System Id	publications/tabledpapers/HPP052016000845