The State Government has announced the Level 1 COVID-19 Business Assistance Package.
The Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries’
(the department) Sport and Recreation Strategic Review has progressed
since March 2018, with a series of meetings and workshops with the sport
and recreation sector taking place. Through these discussions it became
apparent that there were many issues and views on which the department
and industry agreed.
This document is a discussion paper for the industry outlining the
results of the work to date; where there is agreement and where there is
a requirement for further discussion. The further discussion will occur
in two primary ways: a series of workshops scheduled for November 2018
and feedback to this document. This feedback is critical as it will
shape the preliminary findings and the focus of the next part of the
must understand and focus our financial resources into essential areas
that provide sport and recreation with the greatest value.
The areas of common ground are:
This is an important process, and industry feedback is essential to
ensure that changes to the department’s programs and priority of
resources responds to industry needs and the challenges noted in this
The hand-out culture can no longer be supported by Government.
In response, the department has commenced a comprehensive review of all funding programs, with the immediate changes being:
The terms of reference were approved in May 2018. These outline a
program of having the review completed by early 2019, enabling
implementation of the recommendations in the first part of 2019 for the
commencement of the 2019-20 financial year.
Sport in Western Australia thrives in its diversity and its
variety of choice. A greater balance in the funding of, exposure for and
promotion of all sports, big and small is required.
Concurrently, the Commonwealth Government is undertaking a similar
proposition and has developed Sport 2030 (the National Sport Plan).
Below is an excerpt from the plan:
Australia’s National Sport Plan has four key priority areas which
will, when fully implemented, create a platform for sporting success
through to 2030 and beyond.
The priorities are:
Sitting under the priority areas are five target outcomes that will:
The priorities above indicate that there is an alignment of thinking,
at State and Commonwealth Government level, about reviewing investment
in sport and recreation.
Since the commencement of the Strategic Funding Review there have
been robust discussions on the shape and form of the Western Australian
sport and recreation industry and what the funding review needs to
A general view has been to identify areas of ‘common ground’ between
the sport and recreation industry and the department, paving the way for
greater focus on areas where further discussion is required.
A series of industry workshops scheduled in November will provide the
forum for further discussions to help shape the findings of the funding
So, what are the areas of common ground? The six areas have evolved from a series of questions and ideas being:
These questions have been grouped into five key themes:
The balance of the document explores the areas of agreement and the
areas for further discussion in the context of these five key themes.
The areas for further discussion will be explored through industry
workshops and feedback to this document.
In the past five years, State Sporting Associations have seen their
administrative burdens increase as a result of industry developments and
new operational requirements. Some of these new obligations are a
result of changing social requirements; others have been imposed by the
department as part of its funding conditions; and others relate to
shifts in policy at the Commonwealth level.
This increased administrative burden has stifled some organisation’s
abilities to do much beyond keeping the organisation operating. Little
time is available for organisations to look strategically at new
opportunities and emerging areas of need.
The sport and recreation industry is looking to reduce administrative
burden, including minimising duplication of effort in acquitting grants
and a reduction in the number of agreements.
The industry believes the department should assist in reducing this
burden by examining the requirements it places on organisations making
grant applications. An example cited by the industry is the grants
process for organisations in regional Western Australia. A separate
application may be required for each region, meaning that a single
organisation may be required to make nine applications and enter into
nine separate agreements for a grant worth $10,000. The industry is
looking at ways to maximise ‘return on effort’ and examples such as this
do not assist.Another area that could be simplified is the department’s annual census,
with concerns raised about the amount of information required and a
view that it should be tailored for smaller organisations.
There is a consensus at State and national level that the required
outcomes for the sport and recreation industry need to change. What the
drivers for change may be vary, but the common agreement is that the
status quo cannot remain.
The requirement for change raises questions about the core business
of the department and the sport and recreation industry. This issue is
explored in the next section of the document.
While there are some clear areas of agreement, work to date has
raised a series of questions that need to be tested in the consultation
There is a need to recognise that sport and recreation has evolved,
and to reassess what constitutes ‘core business’ for the department and
This is the core component of the review, and without open
communication everyone will miss this unique opportunity to critically
assess what is important and where the focus of energy and future
investment should be.
The sport and recreation industry has evolved, and the funding
relationship with the department needs to be reassessed. A growing
number of organisations have secured alternative revenue streams or are
now operating in a commercial environment which means the previous
funding relationship with the department is no longer appropriate.
A one size fits all approach to the industry is not appropriate, and
there is a need to scale the level of service depending on whether an
organisation is commercially run or emerging.
There is a need to examine whether the department is operating in
areas that the industry could be delivering. Double-up in operations
should be eradicated, and the department should concentrate on
supporting the industry to deliver, rather than providing so many
With a reduction in scope, the department should still be prepared to
be innovative and propose new ideas, directions, and leadership.
Areas where improvement might be made may include:
Fourteen million Australians participate in sport and recreation each
year, with a further 1.8 million volunteering, and 220,000 finding
employment in the sector. Sport is big business and a good investment –
generating about three per cent of Australia’s GDP and providing an
estimated $83 billion in combined economic, health and educational
benefits in Australia each year, with a return on investment of $7 for
every dollar spent (Sport 2030 (2018), Commonwealth of Australia, page 3).
With Western Australia representing 10.5 per cent of the population of Australia, this stands to represent more than $8.6 billion in benefit to the community — but how is this demonstrated?
Further, how does the sport and recreation industry properly
demonstrate its ability to combat inactivity among Western Australians?
One report suggests that the cost to the Western Australian health
system of inpatients with excess body mass was $241 million in 2011,
projected to increase to $488 million by 2021 (Scalley B, Xiao J and
Somerford P (2013). The cost of excess body mass to the acute hospital
system in Western Australia: 2011. Perth: Department of Health WA).
The 2015 report ‘Weighing the cost of obesity: A case for action’
states that: “…without additional and increased investment in
well-designed obesity interventions there will be 50 per cent more obese
people and the cumulative, marginal economic costs of obesity in
Australia will reach $87.7 billion by 2025.” (Weighing the cost of obesity: A case for action, PWC (2015))
A better understanding is required of the data gathered by the
department and the industry, and how it is used. There is an
inconsistency in the approach and use of data, which needs rectifying.
Historically, much of the data gathered by the industry and the
department has focussed on membership. However there is a need for
clarification and improvement on what defines a ‘member’ and what
methodology is applied to counting participants or non-members. There is
a need to better demonstrate the importance of sport and recreation to
Western Australian communities, by moving from anecdotal to supported
An example of where the department has had success in quantifying the
financial benefit of sport and recreation is the ActiveSmart program. A
cost-benefit analysis was conducted for the ActiveSmart behaviour
change programs in Rockingham and Geraldton, with the results indicating
that for every $1 invested in the program, there was a $25 saving in
health, transport and environment costs over 10 years. The figures
suggest that there is a real benefit to applying a preventative health
lens to programs throughout Western Australia, and reinforces the
critical need for investment in initiatives like ActiveSmart.
There is consensus between the industry and the department that the
industry needs to better engage with the health sector, including
not-for-profit advocacy providers like Cancer Council, to promote the
health benefits of sport and recreation.
There is a significant amount of work required in this area and this
should be progressed as a separate, concurrent piece of work.
A review of data use and collection in the sport and recreation
industry should result in a universal unit of measurement that can be
applied to data collection.
The establishment of what the unit equates to in terms of health
savings, mental health benefits and social connectivity will result in a
quantitative measurement in dollar terms of the benefit of the sport
and recreation industry.
Clubs have long been the backbone of the delivery of sport and
recreation in Western Australia. An average community football club
returns $4.40 in social value for every $1 spent. This can be measured
in terms of increased social connectedness, wellbeing, and mental health
status; employment outcomes; personal development; physical health;
civic pride and support of other community groups.
However, how does the sport and recreation industry expand its reach,
while recognising that there will always be people that wish to
participate outside of the traditional club model? In addition, with the
emergence of ‘disruptor’ based delivery models, how will the industry
There is an increasing requirement to achieve a greater level of participation in sport and recreation in Western Australia.
The challenge is that the traditional delivery model focuses on the
delivery aspect once someone has decided to participate in that
activity. The model does not reach an individual that either wants to
participate outside of this parameter (non-member) or individuals who do
not identify sport or recreation as part of their physical activity
Western Australia, from a geographical size and population
distribution point of view, is different to the other States. However,
are the challenges for the sport and recreation industry in Western
Australia fundamentally different to other States?
The size of the State means that there are time and cost challenges that may not exist in other States.There is an ‘east-coast centric’ approach to planning and delivery from a national policy setting.
There will be a series of workshops to be held for organisations to attend. The workshops will have two components:
The dates for the workshops are outlined below:
To be held between 14 and 28 November 2018:
To be held between 20—30 November 2018:
A series of leadership forums will also be held by the three parties during this period.
Feedback to the ‘Common Ground’ document
This document has been developed as a snap-shot of the thinking in
the development of the Strategic Funding Review and as such the
department would appreciate your thoughts and feedback.
The feedback can come in many ways, including:
Feedback to the document will be collated with the outcomes of the
workshops to be included in the Findings Report. The deadline for
feedback is 23 November 2018.
Following the completion of the workshops an interim findings document will be produced for release in late 2018.
The interim findings document will then be subject to a further consultation process prior to its ratification in early 2019.
The findings and recommendations of the final report will then be
implemented for the commencement of the 2019-20 financial year.
Do not submit enquiries with this form.