As has been pointed out in this and various other papers on Australian sport, federal government involvement in developing sports policy and funding sport and physical activity at the elite and grassroots level is relatively recent. The Whitlam Gove rnment was the first to categorise sport as a legitimate federal policy area. Its approach to funding sport was based on the idea that mass participation in sport would benefit the nation. All governments since Whitlam have concurred participation in sport and physical activity help to make healthier Australians. Hence, all governments since Whitlam have developed programs to encourage participation; some to a lesser extent than others and some with an added emphasis in other areas of policy such as developing community infrastructure. The Fraser Government, pressured by sports groups and academics and the press into facing the realities of changing sports systems around the world and Australia`s declining international sports performances , effectively initiated federal involvement in the funding of elite athletes. Governments since Fraser have continued and increased that involvement. Entering the sports policy area has brought dilemmas in terms of balance what to fund, who to fund and how to fund to achieve the best results at elite and mass levels. What should be funded - organisations, individual athletes, community sports centres, talent development schemes. Who should be funded — organisations, athletes, communities, schools. What is the appropriate division of funding between elite and grassroots sport and between sport and unstructured physical activity. These questions have been ever - present and each government since Whitlam has brought its own ideological perspective in answering them. For example, the Fraser Government approached sports funding from a minimalist perspective, while the Hawke Government was more expansive and entrepreneurial. Ideological perspectives aside, in making who, what and how decisions in relation to sports portfolio funding, governments have increasingly been confronted with dealing with underlying interconnections between sport and recreation and healthy living and the increasing cost of financing elite athlete development and preventive health. Despite any rhetoric to the contrary, it appears that the benefits of f unding elite sport — potential success in international sporting arenas and concomitant increases in national pride — have been more influential in shaping who, what and how decisions. Therefore, despite rhetoric which at times has contradicted reality, funding allocated to elite sport has exceeded that provided to grassroots sport. In effect, the balance has always tipped in favour of support for elite performance. It is usually only when elite performances at prestige events such as the Olympics fail to match expectations that this division of funding is openly questioned. In a number of instances government-commissioned reports have recommended alternative organisation and funding options for sport — the current Government`s new governance rules for sporting organisations is one example which arose from recommendations in the Crawford Report. But it is difficult to imagine that this latest innovation will undermine what appears now to be established as the fundamental formula for allocating funding to sport and recreation in Australia. Essentially that formula is : governments provide funding to certain elite sports and the resulting success of athletes in those sports inspires the population to compete and excel. While the rhetoric of fun, enjoyment and simple participation, whatever the level, accompanying mass programs such as Active Australia, belies the formula, the funding equation appears to confirm it.
© Copyright 2013 Veröffentlicht von Parliament of Australia Department of Parliamentary Services. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. / Übersetzt mit https://www.DeepL.com/Translator