Page 4908 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and recreation grants program aims to financially assist ACT sport and recreation organisations to increase participation opportunities and to develop industry capacity. The budget for the 2011 program is just over $2.2 million, and it was used to fund a range of programs, services and some of the capital upgrades I have just mentioned.
In relation to sports ground hiring fees, I have had a look in some detail at this given this issue was raised in estimates and has again been raised in the context of more recent commentary. Yes, there are differential fees for junior and senior sport. Junior sport is more heavily subsidised, and we do that for the obvious reasons of wanting to generate greater levels of participation. To give an idea of some of the costs associated with hiring a variety of different facilities, for netball it is as low as $1.10 an hour; touch football, $2.45; baseball, $2.30; and cricket, $2.65. There are differences in fees associated with the levels of maintenance associated with the different facilities, and obviously the number of players who participate in particular sports is also a factor.
We have, for example, been lobbied by cricket organisations as the number of players and the length of time a game of cricket takes to play is a factor in the costs associated with the participation of individuals. We have sought to recognise those factors—the length of time to participate in a sport and the number of players on the field—in order to reduce costs for individual participants. I have made a number of decisions as minister in the last five years in order to reduce those costs.
An example that has been used on a number of occasions in relation to junior football training is that the hourly cost per player is 10c to participate, and I need to put that in perspective. I am not sure you could say 10c per hour is an outrageous charge for participation. It meets less than 15 per cent of the cost of maintaining the sport facility in the territory. The level of public subsidy across the board is approaching 90 per cent of the cost of participating and, in some areas, that will be nearly 100 per cent. Some levels of subsidy are that high, and that is exactly why we have the policies we have in place—that is, to provide the greatest level of subsidy for those most in need.
The other balancing factor is that we must have funding to maintain our sports facilities. The single greatest risk in terms of public safety and ongoing participation in sport and recreation is the quality of the facilities. At some point there must be an appropriate level of funding to maintain those facilities. The balance at the moment is that 85 per cent of the cost is borne by the taxpayer and about 15 per cent is borne by the participants, although for junior sport the contribution of the taxpayer is more like 95 per cent. I do not believe it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be contributing that amount. But if you want to go beyond that, you are starting to put at risk the maintenance of our sport and recreation facilities, and I think that would be a poor public policy outcome.
In the time that remains to me it is important to outline some of the government’s intentions in relation to sports ground upgrades. Ngunnawal, Harrison, Nicholls, Phillip and Bonner have all been added. The government will have an ongoing program of restoring new ovals each year as funding is available.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (3.58): The Greens are pleased to see the issue of community sport brought back on for debate after our recent debate on the active
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video