Page 732 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 29 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This is an outcome that would prove devastating for all sports in the ACT, including us in the Touch Football sphere. Our Sport and Rec funding is potentially under threat, as would be all the courses, seminars, and industry support that we receive from Sport and Rec and its member organisations, for example ACTSport and ACTAS.
The rumoured dissolution of Sport and Rec ACT may affect our ability to offer a service to our members. If any dissolution affected the ability of Touch Football ACT to receive funding:
• There could be a reduction in the number of staff able to offer services to the clubs and members of Touch Football ACT
• Competition fees could increase to play Touch—which could lead to a reduction in the number of people participating in Touch
• Ground Hire costs could increase—which again could lead to a reduction in the number of people participating in Touch
• It could affect the quality of the staff and volunteers being able to provide a safe and secure sport in the ACT. Currently Touch Officials gain accreditation through Coaching, Refereeing and Selecting courses as well as Sports Administration—which could be affected if funding were to decrease
• It could lead to a decrease in pathways for people to participate in sport from either the recreation level or through to the elite.
The consequences of possible reduced participation rates will affect economic, social and health benefits listed above.
He goes on to express concern about the review having a detrimental effect. There is no doubt that the government has received a number of letters from other organisations as well.
ACTSPORT, the peak body for sport in the ACT, also put in a paper in relation to this issue. They say in their paper that sport and recreation has been moved between various government agencies in the past, although most of its functions were in one area between, I think, 1994 and 2001. Still, it has moved around. In a plea not only for it not to be split across four government departments but also perhaps to make it more efficient by putting those areas in other government departments into the one area, ACTSPORT made a number of comments. It stated:
In 2001 the functions of SRACT—
Sport and Recreation ACT—
were split with policy and programs going with the Department of Economic Development and the facility functions of sports grounds and swimming pools going to the Department of Urban Services. To complicate matters further, major facility management responsibility remained with SRACT. In addition to this functional split, Business ACT also established a sport sector unit to look at industry development and export potential in the “for profit” sector of sport, and Australian Capital Tourism has an active role in attracting and supporting sport events to the ACT. To complete the picture Healthpact in the Department of Health also has a significant sport function in providing grants to sport and recreation to derive health benefits and reduce social inequities in health outcomes. The impact that has had on the industry has been significant
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .