Australia should be demanding and achieving better

As a nation which prides itself on its all-round sporting performance, there has been much public ‘hand-wringing’ in Australia because of the London Olympics.

After the first week of competition – usually Australia’s best week because of swimming – Australia had won 20 medals: one Gold, 12 Silver and seven Bronze medals. At the same point in Athens, Australia had won 25 medals and in Beijing, 26 for totals of 49 and 46 respectively.

While national spirits have lifted in the second week with Gold medals in cycling, on the track and sailing, the national feeling has varied from being one of disappointment - which was not helped by a Silver Medal winning swimmer bursting into tears because she came second – through to a more pragmatic and mature recognition that just reaching the Olympic Games is an achievement in itself, and winning a medal of any description is even more so. 

Higher priority for school sports
As part of the public debate about how and why Australia’s Top 10 status of Olympic nations has changed so dramatically, the longstanding Australian Olympic Committee President (and IOC Vice Presidential candidate), John Coates has called on the Australian Government to make sport a higher priority in the school curriculum.

This is contentious for a number of reasons. First, Australia did nothing at a systemic level to encourage sports participation arising from hosting of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. While increased sports participation was lauded as a benefit of hosting, there were no specific ‘game changing’ programs put in place or even attempted.

In part, this was because the nature of the Australian federation is such that there are effectively eight different education systems; and while the national (or Federal) Government is a significant – but not sole – funder of the State and Territory education systems, it is only in recent years that there have been moves to introduce a single and common national curriculum.

Second, while funding for sport is at record levels (AUD$307 million in 2012-13), much of this funding has been directed towards elite level sports – not least because of the advocacy of Coates. In 2009, the Australian Government commissioned a review of sports funding which concluded, inter alia, that more funding should be directed towards grassroots or community sport away from elite sport.

The AOC had called for an extra $100 million a year for 10 years for elite sports but the report’s author, David Crawford – one of Australia’s foremost corporate governance experts – said the money would be better spent encouraging young people to play sport rather than aiming to be in the Top 10 of medal winners every four years. 

The Sports Minister at the time, Kate Ellis, was so fearful of Coates’ response to the report that it took the best part of six months to release it and, when she did, her judgement was proved correct. Coates agitated long and hard to have the recommendations overturned, calling the report “insulting, disrespectful and unAustralian”. Coates even publicly slammed Ellis as “going missing” by not responding to the report quickly enough for his liking.

In the end, Coates – who is widely regarded as the most powerful sports administrator in the country along with the CEO of the home grown Australian Football League (Aussie Rules) – got his way. Sport received generous funding in the 2012 Federal Budget at a time when other programs faced significant cuts to allow the Government to maintain its budget surplus, and even Coates was moved to say in his recent public comments that “funding is not the issue”.

Third, parallel with this, education systems around the country have reduced the priority of sport within the curriculum. In some States and Territories, sport may still be technically “compulsory” in the public (government) education system, but it generally receives little more time than two hours per week. Public health experts advocate at least one hour of physical activity each day. In some States and Territories, it is not compulsory at all and it is often at the ‘end of the line’ when it comes to resource allocation and teacher priorities. Further, even in those schools where there is sport during school time, it is often without qualified teachers or coaches and can often be without the right equipment or facilities. 

In recent years, common national curricula have been developed across all the key learning areas in education and is currently being finalised for physical education, but the current Sports Minister, Kate Lundy, has indicated that sport will not be compulsory.

Funding grassroots sports for health – not medals 
It is against this background that John Coates has said he now wants sport afforded a higher priority on the curriculum in order to “find the next Cathy Freeman or Ian Thorpe”. He believes it is necessary for the talent pool to be increased and that requires more young people playing sport in the first place.

Critics of this view say it is not up to schools to prepare Olympic athletes, and compulsory sport only increases the incidence of bullying. However, Coates is right; but not for his rationale of winning medals. The compelling public policy reason for increasing sports participation is for the long term health of Australia’s children. 

Australia has the second highest rate of childhood obesity in the world. Physical activity is one of the key factors that contribute to long term better health outcomes through a reduction in the incidence of chronic disease, and there is increasing evidence to show that physical activity and other health promotion strategies also have a positive impact on educational and social outcomes.

While community sporting clubs also have an important role to play in helping children be physically active, it is not enough to rely on them when many of them also struggle with funding, facilities and volunteer time - and in the absence of national strategy to increase participation. 

Troubling participation rates emphasise the importance of school sports
In the 15 years from 1995 to 2009 (the latest available data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics or ABS), participation in organised sport as a proportion of the 5-14 year old population increased by only 0.4% to 63.1% (to 70% if dancing is included). 

In an interview in 2009 in relation to the Crawford Report mentioned earlier, Coates said that on the back of Cathy Freeman’s wonderful win in the 400 metres at the Sydney games, athletics participation “went through the roof”.

The fact is, in 1995 the participation rate of 5-14 year olds in organised athletics activities (track and field) was 5.7%; in 2002 it was 3.8%; and in 2009 it was 3.3%. Contrary to the popular view that successful Olympians inspire young participants, it is only three of the four commercially viable football codes of ‘Aussie Rules’, rugby league and football (soccer) as well as swimming, that have increased children’s participation rates between 1995 and 2009. Overall, from 1995 to 2009, the proportion of girls playing organised sport actually decreased by 2.6 percentage points while it increased for boys by 3.3 percentage points. 

Taken together with the fact that the children who are least likely to play organised community sport are those either from one parent families, or where one or both parents are unemployed, then the argument for sport in schools is even stronger.

The participation rate in organised sport amongst 5-14 year old children from one parent families where the parent is unemployed is only 37%, so these children potentially face the prospect of no sport at school as well as community sport being unaffordable. Of itself, socio-economic profile is a risk factor for chronic disease – and yet these children are burdened with another chronic disease risk factor by being potentially locked-out from participating in physical activity: a double jeopardy over which they have no control. 

The picture gets worse again when considering the attrition rate after children reach 14 years of age. ABS data shows the participation rate for 15-17 year olds is 36% overall which is a significant drop for both boys and girls. When questioned on national radio on Monday about what Coates had to say, Kate Lundy was quick to give a political response and point the finger at the States and Territories, telling journalist Fran Kelly that she “personally would love to see more [sport in schools] but it’s up to the States and the schools themselves.”

"I know a great case has been made for sport in that national curriculum, so we'll see how that plays out,” she said. 

But as Federal Sports Minister, Lundy is the person holding the position that can actually do something; and she should be using her position and influence to do much more than to “see how [that] plays out.”

Sports funding is a political responsibility
After Australia won just one Silver and four Bronze medals at the Montreal Olympics in 1976, the Government of the day established the Australian Institute of Sport – an institution that has served elite sports well in Australia and has been emulated around the world. Lundy and Coates agree that the quantum of funding is not the issue but something isn’t going as well as it could; or, just as importantly in terms of the Australian narrative which is based on an image of a sport-loving nation, as well most of the Australian community would like it to at the moment. 

Coates is right. It’s time to put funding priority for sport into our children and that starts with school as that’s where they spend the bulk of their time. Lundy need look no further than her own Government for the mechanism.

Since coming to power in late 2007, the Rudd/Gillard governments have brokered National Partnerships with States and Territories across almost every area of Commonwealth-State activity and funding. In the schools sector alone, there are three National Partnerships addressing disadvantage, teachers and school leaders and literacy and numeracy.

The National Partnerships provide a framework for Commonwealth funding against the achievement of agreed, national benchmarks taking account of all interests in the sector. In addition to governments, in sport this would encompass the national sporting organisations, the Australian Institute of Sport, the State and Territory sports academies, private sporting academies, the private and public education system, the community sports sector, public health experts and child development experts. 

Kate Ellis knew what was needed and didn’t do it. Her successor (and Lundy’s predecessor), Mark Arbib, who is now retired from politics is a political ‘Mr Fixit’ who did what he had to do to keep the powerful Coates out of the media: give him the money he wanted. But with four years until the next Olympic Games, and many years in Opposition potentially awaiting her after next year’s Federal election, this is Lundy’s once in a lifetime opportunity to bring about a sea change in sport in Australia. 

Australian Swimming has already announced it will review its performance at these Games – other sports may follow, including Football which didn’t even qualify in either the Men’s or Women’s competitions. 

Independent of these reviews, Kate Lundy should take the lead; get together with the other eight Sports Ministers in Australia, as well as the nine Education Ministers and nine Health Ministers, and the entire sports sector – not just Coates and the national sporting organisations – to develop a National Partnership in Sport.

Not because of the medal count: but because, as a first world nation, Australia should be demanding and achieving better health outcomes for their children. 

Bonita Mersiades has worked with health and sports organisations with responsibility for strategic communications and corporate affairs. She is part of a worldwide network of politicians, fans and players advocating for governance reforms in world football.