Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Development............................................................................................................................. 11
Issue # 1 Grass roots and development pathway ........................................................... 11
Issue # 2 Club Structure .................................................................................................. 12
Issue # 3 Competition ...................................................................................................... 13
Issue # 4 Coaching .......................................................................................................... 15
Issue # 5 Officiating ......................................................................................................... 17
Athletics Australia.................................................................................................................... 30
Issue # 17 Financial Management................................................................................... 30
Issue # 18 Communications ............................................................................................ 31
Issue # 19 Board and Management ................................................................................ 31
Implementation ............................................................................................................................. 36
Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 37
A Terms of Reference ...................................................................................................... 38
B Members of the review.................................................................................................. 39
C Consultations and submissions .................................................................................... 44
D Current membership and voting structure of AA........................................................... 48
E Current structure of athletics as a sport in Australia ..................................................... 49
F Financial Management Review Athletics Australia June 2004 ..................................... 50
G Documents tabled for the review .................................................................................. 52
Cover image: John Thornell competes in the men’s long jump – supplied by Getty Images
Culture
This report contains a number of recommendations, but through it all flow issues related to culture.
Culture is that elusive personality that describes the essence of a group of people in a community
and pervades its people.
Our sport’s breadth and diversity necessitates the development of a range of cultures. At the level
of initiation to the sport and for those long term participants who have no aspirations for elite
performance the culture of the sport which reflects in the clubs, coaches and officials needs to be
one dominated by fun and learning. Fun in the sport and social surroundings combined with
learning good technique is the most likely environment to attract and retain participants whether it
be at the Little Athletics level, school level, club track and field or a metro marathon club. If there
is competition then the competition must be fun.
The joy and satisfaction of learning, being fit, training and competing with friends in an athletics
environment will reflect the right culture in the non elite areas of the sport.
Striving to develop and maintain these cultures should establish the environment in which clubs
will operate and the approach to be taken by coaches and officials.
The ideal culture for the elite area of the sport if we are to be internationally successful is very
different.
The culture of our elite spectrum must be one that welcomes with open arms the obstacles and
challenges of striving for world leadership. We are lucky that we belong to the sport that is
practised by the whole world giving us the opportunity to compete against every nation rather than
a few western nations. Perhaps this makes it a little harder in our sport to be the world’s best.
Good. Our elite people choose to be elite not because it is easy but because it is difficult. The
difficulty factor is a plus, not a negative.
Our culture at the elite end must develop as a result of setting our benchmarks at the highest
levels of coaching and performance and constant striving for perfection of technique and
toughness.
Logic tells us that we can’t be perfect and that it is harder to achieve world leadership in track and
field than in most other sports, but our culture chooses not to be limited by this logic. New
achievements at world level don’t emerge from logic, although the process must be logical. New
achievements arise from dreams and a remorseless unstoppable desire to achieve those dreams.
It would seem that our present culture in both the general participation population and the elite of
the sport are not quite what they need to be if we want to achieve participation growth and world
class elite performance.
So who develops and matures the culture? In a corporation it is set by the Chief Executive and
the senior management. In our sport the culture needs to be set by leaders in our coaching
fraternity, club officials, Athletics Australia, Australian Little Athletics and the leadership of the
Australian Institute of Sport and State Institutes and Academies of Sport.
Quite apart from the other recommendations made in this review, I believe that at the next
meeting of AA and Member Associations the topic of culture should be included on the agenda for
substantive discussion. Those discussions should then be broadened to include the important
stakeholders I have already mentioned.
If aspirational cultures in our sport can be unanimously agreed it will change the air that we
breathe.
Herb Elliott
Chairman
For as long as sport has been a part of Australian culture, athletics has been a significant part of
sport. Athletics features prominently in school sports. It contributes to the development of base
motor skills in children. It complements athletic development for successful participation in other
sports requiring strength, stamina or speed. Australians revere their successful elite athletes.
Most children naturally tend towards activities involving running, jumping and throwing. They
enjoy this with friends and, in many instances, this informal involvement will influence their choice
of organised sporting activities to pursue. Parents also have a significant influence on their
children, keen to see them involved in pursuits that will benefit their health and development.
Athletics must therefore compete with more popular sports and those with which parents have a
personal connection.
Running, jumping and throwing activities may be popular secondary choices of parents who are
drawn towards more team-orientated sports that help develop hand-eye coordination and provide
a strong social involvement.
Historically athletics in Australia has relied on a club system of delivery that primarily targets
athletes from secondary school ages upwards. However, as a sport, athletics is splintered, and
faces a number of substantial challenges. The national governing body, Athletics Australia (AA),
is not responsible or accountable for many areas of the sport. Primary-age school children are
supported in their development through Australian Little Athletics (ALA) and its network of local
centres. There are separate organisations for walks clubs, mountain running, schools sports and
coaches. AA’s club structure is in decline. Athlete pathways are uncertain, and while there are
exceptions, there is a history of distrust and lack of cooperation between many of the peak bodies
involved in athletics.
It is difficult to perceive athletics strengthening itself nationally unless all of the organisations
claiming an involvement in the sport work together. This has been said before in many previous
reviews and reports. It is common sense, and yet it has not been achieved. Why is this?
The Commitment Deeds evolved into Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with each Member
Association (MA). Through these MOUs, AA has substantially increased its cash and in-kind
support to MAs since 1999. A key element of the revised constitution devised by the new Board,
and of the MOUs which followed, has been the introduction of an organisational focus by AA and
MAs on national program priorities.
DMC also made the observation that while the new Board had strong commercial skills, it was
seen as not adequately empathising with its ‘athletics’ stakeholders. It concluded with the
statement that the new board “now needs to give consideration to how it can forge improved
linkages with the sport's grass roots.” This has been a continuing challenge for the new Board as
the athletics fraternity has expectations of the Board which are quite different from the
expectations of a Board of Directors in the corporate world. Events leading up to the 2004 review
of athletics indicated that there were concerns about a lack of inclusiveness within the sport. AA
was perceived to communicate and interact with members and volunteers inadequately. A major
concern was the failure of AA to attract membership of ALA into the AAF. This umbrella
organisation was established to provide a collective vision and direction for the sport, but has
failed to play a meaningful role.
Aside from structure and governance, the sport (as opposed to individuals in the sport) projects an
image of elitism that undermines its ability to attract significant numbers of grass roots participants
to its ranks. While the little athletics movement claims a national membership of over 95,0001,
AA’s national registration throughout the 1990s and today hovers around approximately 16,000,
while its highest ever membership in the late 1970s approached 25,000. In recent years the sport
has been unable to showcase its high performing athletes on a regular basis throughout the
domestic season, and the domestic event series has suffered a significant decline in profile and
quality.
Despite revenue almost doubling since 1998, the loss by AA of $1.3 million in the 2002/2003
financial year brought the Board and management under close scrutiny from members,
stakeholders and other interested parties. The areas of concern identified above, together with
poorer than expected financial results, led AA’s Board and management to seek assistance from
the ASC. In March 2004 the ASC and AA announced the terms of a wide-ranging review into the
governance, high performance and development of the sport.
It is recognised that in the past 20 years there have been at least five reviews into athletics in
Australia. Many of the key findings and themes identified in those reviews continue to be relevant
to the current review, and are considered as part of this Review’s deliberations.
This Report addresses identified key issues in governance and management, high performance
and development of the sport. It endeavours to build on previous reports which reinforce what the
Steering Committee believes needs to change for the sport’s betterment. There is probably little
in this report that has not been addressed and recommended in these earlier reports.
The Steering Committee was given the following Terms of Reference:
“1. To assess the effectiveness and capacity of existing pathways, including international
performance, and to provide recommendations to enhance the education and
development pathways for athletes and coaches at all levels. This includes taking into
account the role of stakeholders, including particularly Australian Little Athletics, the
Australian Track and Field Coaches Association, Athletes’ Commission, state
Member Organisations and departments responsible for sport, the Australian Institute
of Sport (AIS) and the network of state and territory Institutes and Academies
(SIS/SAS). Liaison will also occur with the international athletics body.
The Steering Committee appointed three working groups to assist it in the areas of high
performance, development and governance and management. Their Terms of Reference appear
1
Australian Little Athletics Annual Report 2002-2003
The review received 133 written submissions (see Appendix C) and held 76 face-to-face meetings
with interested parties throughout Australia. Meetings were held in Launceston and all mainland
capital cities except Darwin. Input was provided by clubs, athletes, professional and volunteer
coaches, officials and parents, current and former Board members, staff of little athletics and
senior athletics associations at State and national levels, the AIS and staff of State institutes and
departments of sport and recreation.
This report makes 128 recommendations for improvement. It does not provide a fully costed
model for the future. The responsibility for detailed planning and budgeting rests with the Board of
AA, which can only be formulated following meaningful consultations with MAs and other athletics
bodies and stakeholders. Resources need to be allocated on the basis of the extent to which they
contribute to the achievement of the sport’s key objectives and priorities. Listed below are the
priorities which the Steering Committee believes best reflect solutions to the current challenges
facing athletics, and which will have the greatest impact in positioning athletics well for the future.
AA has advised that some of these recommendations are either in place or are in the process of
implementation.
Implementation strategy
AA needs to prepare, in consultation with MAs and other stakeholders, a new strategic/business
plan that considers the recommendations in this report and overlays strategies with financial
realities and priorities.
AA needs to ensure the successful implementation of this Report’s recommendations through an
appropriate process of communication, garnering support and securing buy-in from stakeholders
to re-create a culture. This will require the appointment of key people, including a member or
members of the AA Board and AA’s CEO, prepared to be responsible and accountable for working
inclusively with stakeholders on implementing the recommendations.
Development
Team Athletics has focused on an age group that is younger than AA’s core ‘junior age category’
and has had very little impact on the membership of AA in return for the significant financial
investment made. Also, participation through Running Australia has not significantly increased
involvement in the sport of athletics or the revenue base of AA. The Steering Committee
questions whether they should remain a part of AA’s development strategy.
In its review of possible involvement in school-based programs, AA should take note of the
Federal Government’s initiative to create an Active After-school Communities program aimed at
primary school children. This initiative provides an opportunity for AA to contribute to this new
program for the benefit of the community and sport, with consequent benefits for AA’s
development.
A significant issue for AA in the transition process for juniors in athletics from little athletics is the
change in cultures experienced between AA and ALA. The review recognises that the delivery of
little athletics is defined by different ages in each State. AA should therefore encourage each MA
to enter into discussions with its State little athletics counterpart to agree on an appropriate
transition plan for athletes between little and senior athletics, including competition age group
categories, calendar co-ordination and introduction/orientation programs.
Also relevant is research suggesting that young people, particularly in the 13-15 age category, are
likely to change their minds on several occasions as to what they do or do not like. This cultural
shift between AA and ALA, and the social behaviour of this transitory age group, needs to be
taken into consideration in planning the athletics transition pathway, as it appears that there is a
significant number of juniors, in both AA and ALA, who will choose not to progress through into the
next level (in the case of the talented athlete) or phase (in the case of junior recreational athletes)
of the sport. Athletics needs to ensure that it has suitable programs in place that encourage
athletes of all abilities to continue their involvement in the sport.
In the case of the elite pathway, talent identification is not undertaken in a systematic manner, with
no existing nationally coordinated talent identification plan for the sport. Previously conducted
Recommendations
1. That AA, in consultation with its MAs, ALA, SIS/SAS, State departments of sport and SSA
agrees a long-term national development strategy and plan which incorporates
responsibilities for junior development and participation (including clinics, camps and the
possible reintroduction of Oz Squads), school sport, club development and coach/officials
education.
3. That AA, in consultation with its MAs, ALA and sponsors, reviews the viability and
appropriateness of the Team Athletics and Running Australia programs.
4. That AA works with ALA to determine the best approach to utilize the opportunity of the
Federal Government’s Active After-school Communities initiative.
5. That AA initiate research into 13-15 year olds’ participation in athletics, looking at
motivations for continued involvement and which athletics products are attractive to the
age group. This research should be undertaken jointly with ALA.
The Steering Committee heard that the rise in profile and power of the Institutes had reduced the
capacity of clubs to maintain links with their athletes as they entered the elite pathway, and limited
clubs’ capacity to benefit from that association eg. attract sponsorship. A mechanism is needed to
allow clubs to benefit from elite athlete performances by their members while giving due
recognition to Institutes and governments for their investment in athletes.
It is accepted that in order for clubs to be stronger and more effective, they will need greater
support and opportunities to be more self sufficient, such as the ability to offer exposure to
sponsors and other supporters, through a greater presence in high level competition. The club,
rather than the State should therefore become the representative body for athletes, particularly at
senior level. In considering initiatives to make clubs stronger, AA needs to preserve the interests
and support of existing stakeholders, particularly the Institutes, upon whose investment in high
performance AA is so reliant.
6. That by the end of the first quarter of 2005, AA and MAs implement a model club policy
which will require all clubs based in metropolitan areas and in regional centres with
populations greater than 20,000 to have:
a. minimum competing first claim membership numbers at any given time of at least
50, rising to 75 in the second year and 100 in the third
b. at least three members with a minimum Level C AAOES officials grading
c. at least one member with level II or lll and three members with level 1 ATFCA
coaching qualifications
d. access to adequate training facilities and equipment
e. sufficient athletes to field a full team in designated club competitions
f. adequate business and financial plans
g. policies in relation to such matters as member protection and anti-harassment
that are appropriate to their State’s jurisdiction.
7. That AA and its MAs conduct workshops in each State and provide development officers
or consultants to work with clubs to meet the requirements in recommendation 6 and,
where appropriate, to facilitate the amalgamation of clubs.
8. That AA seeks government support at all levels to facilitate the formation and
development of clubs seeking to comply with AA’s model club structure, and provide
incentives and programs to assist with club reform.
9. That AA provide those clubs satisfying recommendation 6 above with support to establish
a web and email presence for the purpose of internal and external communication with
members and the public.
10. That with the exception of inter-school competitions (in which athletes will represent their
school), national school championships and interstate teams matches (in which athletes
will represent their State), athletes represent their first claim club. At A Series/grand prix
meetings, where it is a requirement of their scholarship, Institute scholarship holders may
represent their Institute.
11. That AA initiates discussions with Institutes and MAs to explore options for providing
recognition to an athlete’s club of origin while maintaining the support provided by
Institutes.
Issue # 3 Competition
A recurring issue arising from submissions and meetings is that the current state of grassroots
‘interclub’ competition is in crisis. Current competition structures in place vary from State to State,
but principally have remained relatively unchanged for many years. These structures tend to
reflect the preferences of existing participants without regard to the need for the sport to be
relevant to changing family/societal circumstances.
It is widely accepted that interclub competitions are poorly structured with long drawn out
programs, which are often referred to as ‘boring’. This level of competition is the main ‘shop front’
of senior athletics, needing to attract and retain transitional athletes from both schools and little
athletics. Membership growth varies but at best is minimal, consequently there is difficulty
Many submissions call for participation by elite and developing elite athletes in club competition to
help address the fall off in numbers. Decisions by elite athletes and their coaches not to
participate in club competitions are viewed as being detrimental to the long-term health of the
sport.
AA in association with MAs initiated a number of national competition reforms in May 2004. These
address matters raised in submissions to both the Roe Report and to this review such as too
many national level competitions for young athletes and a lack of transition competitions for under
23 athletes. The reforms have also provided an increased focus for team and club based
competition at national level.
Further concerns exist over the decline of the Grand Prix or A Series, and to a lesser degree the
championship programs, which in the 1990’s proved to be a successful medium, meeting the
competition needs of the elite and drawing media and sponsorship interest in the sport.
It appears that since 2000, the organisation of these meetings by the AA office became too
centralised, resulting in a disengagement of a highly qualified and enthusiastic volunteer base
throughout the country, and a lack of incentive for local organising committees/MAs to contribute
as fully as they might.
The A series should focus more on elite/developing elite competition, with the next level down of
athletes being catered for through State and national championships and re-invigorated local
competitions. A greater emphasis on the involvement of international athletes was widely
suggested to raise the profile of these meets, provide greater competition for Australia's best and
an entrée to international competition for the developing elite, and increase opportunities for
Australians to train with visiting athletes and coaches whilst they are in Australia.
In order to find funding for these purposes, a redirection of some of the funding presently allocated
to promotion and publicity of the A Series is a common suggestion.
Consultation by the Steering Committee with several television media organisations reinforced the
importance of the television media to improve the profile of the sport, and to leverage corporate
support for AA’s activities. Traditionally presented track and field competition faces strong
challenges from other forms of media friendly sport. The Steering Committee found that there was
strong interest by the television networks in providing free to air coverage of events that
showcased high profile athletes in a quality and media friendly competition format. That interest
extended to a willingness to work with AA to develop an appropriate format which would be
attractive to television. AA needs to pursue vigorously a partnership with a selected free to air
network to develop a suitable product.
Recommendations
12. That AA and MAs review the types of competitions currently offered at local and State
level with a view to providing dynamic, team oriented and flexible opportunities for the
recreational ‘club’ athletes and developing elite athletes. This review to establish a set of
broad and specific guidelines under which MAs organise their competitions.
13. That coaches, Institutes and MAs work together to schedule State championships within a
national competitions framework that maximizes participation by Australia’s elite athletes.
15. That January to April is designated as the principal season for track and field club, State
and national competitions.
16. That discussions take place with relevant bodies to consolidate dates for domestic elite
and grass roots competition in cross country, mountain running, road walking and road
(including ultra) running.
17. That there be five competition committees – Track and Field; Walking; Road Running and
Cross Country; Officials; Facilities and Equipment – to advise AA’s Board and staff. Each
should also have delegated operative and deliberative powers, the scope of which are set
out in the General Rules of AA, and be appointed by and report to the AA Board through
the CEO.
18. That AA explore with MAs opportunities to re-engage the volunteer base at local level to
assist in the conduct of Telstra A series, including redefining the division of responsibilities
between MAs and AA.
19. That AA, with the support of appropriate media expertise, partner with one of the free to
air networks to examine all aspects of the conduct and presentation of track and field
competition in order to develop a product that showcases high profile international and
Australian athletes in a quality and media friendly competition format.
Issue # 4 Coaching
In relation to the recruitment, education, recognition, development and support of coaches, the
review found that AA has failed to provide leadership. The number of coaches active in grass
roots and club athletics is at crisis level. The ATFCA has taken responsibility for it, but coaching
education has been under-resourced, albeit that AA has directed some of its ASC grant funding to
the ATFCA.
A vibrant coaching system is essential for the well being of the sport. It is difficult to overstate the
critical importance of those good coaches at all levels who provide inspiration and establish the
environment in which athletes learn and improve their performances. This environment exists in
too few instances at present. While the ATFCA delivers programs to coaches at little athletics and
senior athletics levels, the nature of these programs has remained essentially unchanged for
twenty years, being level 0, l, ll, and lll accreditation courses, including the bridging course
between level l and ll.
There is wide consensus that the current courses provided by the ATFCA do not meet the needs
of the now diversified interests and levels of involvement of both professional and volunteer
coaches in the sport. While there are a number of excellent coaches at senior level they are too
thinly spread and there is a critical lack of coaches available in clubs and schools. Access to
accreditation in terms of course availability and cost are significant issues. These courses are
considered to be too academic and not relevant to the needs of the target market. While ATFCA
has begun the task of reviewing its courses, it is doing so with insufficient resources. (Further
references to the role of the ATFCA in high performance coach education appear under Issue
#13.)
There is a need for coach accreditation courses to recognise the differing interests and ambitions
of coaches. Some coaches wish to coach at junior and club level, others wish to progress with
their talented developing athletes or to coach a national squad.
For those seeking to serve as club coaches, it is equally important they are able to access
information that ensures their knowledge and understanding remains current.
The ATFCA has for more than 10 years advocated a recommended scale of fees for coaches but
it appears that many coaches or clubs have not adopted it. A massive change in culture and
thinking must be undertaken – the role of the club coach must be revered in athletics in Australia
for the sport to flourish – and an acknowledgement that it is reasonable that they charge for their
services, at least to cover their incidental expenses such as petrol, phone and equipment.
AA should provide sufficient resources to enable an immediate review of coach recruitment,
development and retention strategies, and coach education and accreditation structures, to
address in particular the lack of coaching numbers at club level.
Recommendations
20. That AA accepts its inherent accountability and responsibility for coach recruitment,
education (including accreditation), recognition, development and support.
21. That AA partners with Institutes, MAs and ATFCA to develop a coaching development
plan addressing the issues in Recommendation 18, and contracts ATFCA to deliver
defined coach education programs and services.
22. That AA, in partnership with ATFCA, revitalises coach education programs and
immediately reviews the purpose, structure and content of coach accreditation courses to
ensure they meet the contemporary needs of the sport. This process should take account
of the programs and processes of sports training bodies considered to have successful
coach education and development systems.
23. That education and support programs are provided where the coaches coach, at Hubs,
through mentoring and advisory programs, and by linking into teaching courses by
including specific units on track and field coaching as part of teacher education.
24. That AA, in partnership with Institutes, MAs and ATFCA, identifies or trains coaches
nationally who can ‘coach the coaches’ and, from time-to-time, engages specialists to
mentor or advise local coaches.
25. That AA establishes partnerships within and outside the sport to deliver the following three
elements in its coach education and development programs:
a. technical (e.g. ATFCA)
b. applied (e.g. Institutes); and
c. human resource support (e.g. specialist consultants).
26. That significant funds be redirected by AA for a two year period to assist in assessment,
redevelopment and delivery of coaching courses and education opportunities for club
level coaches.
Issue # 5 Officiating
Availability of qualified officials is critical to the conduct of successful athletic competition. Much
work has been undertaken over the past decade to improve the education and development
opportunities of both technical and administrative officials to meet the needs of AA’s international
event commitments. This has led to a significant increase in the number of quality officials, many
recognised at an international level.
AA has recently reviewed the status of officiating in Australia. There are sufficient numbers of
officials to fill positions for international events. This situation is not so at the State or local level.
However, for the purposes of interclub competition the full complement of officials required for
national or international competition is not necessary, and alternative structures can be applied.
Every effort should be made to preserve Australia’s standing as a world leader in the organisation,
management and conduct of athletics competitions.
While there are sufficient numbers of officials at present for national and international
competitions, it is important that this remain so. Of concern is the potential reduction of officials
after the 2006 Commonwealth Games. There is a need to ensure suitable recruitment and
retention strategies are in place through succession planning.
Recommendations
28. That AA releases the 2003/04 review undertaken into officiating to AA’s Officials
Committee for its consideration and advice.
29. That a recruitment, retention and recognition strategy is implemented to ensure continued
participation and development of officials post 2006, including the delivery of more
officials courses in non-traditional environments which include, but are not limited to,
teacher in service courses and inclusion within secondary and tertiary education and
coaching courses
30. That talent identification systems for officials be developed together with appropriate
strategies for
a. ongoing assessment of the competencies of officials to officiate at various levels
of competition within the sport
b. succession arrangements, and
c. for retirement
31. That registration fees for regular competition officials are eliminated or reduced to
peppercorn levels and that adequate liability and personal accident insurance cover is
provided by the sport.
32. That AA’s Officials Committee, in consultation with MAs’ officials’ coordinators, creates a
set of guidelines and recommendations for the appropriate number of officials required for
various levels of competition, to encourage rationalisation and improve the conduct of
competitions.
Recommendations
33. That the elite athlete pathway commences at the age of 14 years and is supported by
talent identification tracking programs for young athletes from 12 years of age.
34. That AA and its MAs work with SIS/SAS to establish a systematic talent identification
program that includes school and junior sport events, as part of a coordinated national
approach to the development of young athletes in Australia.
35. That a set of age standards be established, and a national register developed in which
information needed as part of the talent identification process is collected and recorded.
36. That clubs have access to appropriate coaching and competition to assist with the
ongoing development of identified athletes.
37. That the High Performance Program develops strategies to target retention and
development of athletes as they progress from junior to senior ranks.
38. That key performance indicators be developed, as part of AA’s agreements with MAs and
other key stakeholders, that enable the measurement of the success of links between
AA’s development plan and its High Performance Program.
Injury/Loss of Form
All Schools
Junior Nationals
World Juniors
Australian Nationals
Commonwealth Games
World Championships
Olympic Games
Note: Athlete development will not always mirror the above steps
hence the approach requires some flexibility
Level III
Level II
Level I
Level 0
Schools Little Athletics Clubs / Hubs Own Squad AIS/SIS/SAS NPD / NYPM
NEGCs
Mentoring Continuum
Receiving Providing
Remuneration
Remuneration should be negotiable for all levels of coaching. It may be in kind, reimbursement of expenses, fee for service, or time or project based. Level
of remuneration is determined by a combination of accreditation/experience, athlete standard/age, and market forces. AA should develop guidelines and
principles from which an individual coach’s fee structure can be determined. Appropriate remuneration acknowledges the expertise involved, reinforces the
importance of coaching and may assist in retaining coaches so that they can continue to contribute to the sport.
Recommendations
39. That the key objectives for the High Performance Program are to:
a. increase the number of medals won and improve Australia’s standing in the IAAF
points score at major international competitions (Olympic Games, World
Championships, Commonwealth Games, etc); and
b. increase the number of athletes improving their rankings at major international
competitions.
A number of stakeholders identified the need for those who are in lead roles in AA’s high
performance program to have good people management skills as well as good systems
management skills. These are viewed as important leadership qualities when dealing with
volunteer coaches and athletes. The approach should be challenging, even demanding, but
within an environment that is consultative and inclusive.
A number of submissions expressed confusion about the roles and responsibilities of the
head coach, high performance manager, SIS/SAS Head Coaches, elite volunteer coaches
and ATFCA in leading the high performance program.In setting the future direction of the high
performance program, AA must seek to secure the commitment of stakeholders by
communicating expectations, and articulating roles and responsibilities. The Steering
Committee has recommended that the High Performance Program should operate under the
direction of a NPD supported by a National Youth Performance Director, and a network of
National Event Group Coordinators and State Performance Managers.
There is strong feedback from submissions that better support for specific event groups
including the disability and junior/youth development areas is required to improve the
achievement of high performance program outcomes.
AA needs to ensure that clubs, athletes and coaches are able to access suitable facilities and
information. The Steering Committee considers the best way for this to be achieved is
through the formation of several regional Hubs in each State, to provide centers for
competition, training and resources.
Recommendations
49. That AA takes ownership of the High Performance Plan and is accountable for its
outcomes.
50. That AA provides the vision and leadership necessary to deliver the sport’s High
Performance Plan, including gaining the support of and establishing effective partnerships
with the ASC, Institutes and MAs.
51. That AA recognises the AIS as a key player in the delivery of its High Performance Plan
particularly in relation to elite services and specialised support that can be delivered
centrally as required.
52. That SIS/SAS provide support mechanisms for coaching which focus on:
a. employment of the State Performance Manager, and
b. merit-based financial and other assistance to volunteer coaches through the
Hubs in their State.
53. That through the State’s Hubs network, merit-based support to volunteer coaches be
allocated to assist volunteer coaches to participate in State and national event group
camps as part of their continuing education.
54. That in the delivery of the High Performance Plan, Institutes formally acknowledge that
they:
a. share AA’s high performance vision
b. endorse AA’s high performance plan
c. accept the leadership and direction of AA’s NPD
d. accept their role and responsibilities under the high performance plan
e. will invest funding in accordance with the strategies and goals of the high
performance plan; and
f. will be accountable to AA for their performance.
55. That AA directs funding according to the goals, strategies and key performance indicators
in the High Performance Plan, prioritised according to short and long term goals, as
expressed in AA’s strategic/business plan, and targeted to progressive Olympic cycles.
56. That to effectively manage and implement the athlete and coach pathways in the High
Performance Plan, AA, through its NPD:
a. advise stakeholders on the specific components of the athlete and coach
pathway they are to deliver
b. establish key performance indicators and a formal system of objective
performance evaluation; and
c. develop a centralised database to track athletes’ progress.
57. That funding partnerships be established that reflect each partner’s role and
responsibilities.
Recommendations
58. That the NPD is accountable to the CEO for the outcomes in the High Performance Plan.
59. That the NPD regularly attends Board meetings to report on progress of the High
Performance Program.
Recommendations
60. That the High Performance Program recognises and supports the primacy of the
athlete/coach relationship.
61. That high performance funding and professional development support to all coaches is
based on merit, supported by regular assessment of coach performance.
62. That the High Performance Advisory Committee develops operating guidelines for a
merit-based coach support system, which links coach support to the performances of the
coach’s current athletes, and takes into account the coach’s involvement in Hub- based
mentoring programs and such other factors as the committee thinks fit.
63. That agreements between AA and Institutes ensure that professional coaches focus on
providing practical coaching experience, rather than administration and coordination, to
ensure that their skills and expertise are used to the best advantage of the High
Performance Program.
Recommendations
65. That AA is accountable and responsible for high performance coach education and
development as part of its High Performance Program.
66. That AA’s high performance coach education and development program adopts a
practical focus characterised by:
a. modern attitudes to coaching that recognise world’s best practice
b. understanding and use of sports science and sports medicine
c. human resource management
d. program planning (ie: monthly, quarterly and annual)
e. financial planning and budgeting; and
f. a knowledge of the rules of the sport.
67. That AA and the AIS jointly address the role of the AIS in supporting high performance
coach education programs, through access to AIS facilities and resources.
68. That AA includes high performance coach education as one of the key performance
indicators in agreements with Institutes for the delivery of AA’s High Performance
Program.
Recommendations
69. That AA reviews the process for distribution of information to athletes for purposes of
direct athlete support including training and competition, sports science, sports medicine,
coach education and support, self-education and vocation.
70. That the allocation of funding and support to athletes is tailored according to individual
athlete/coach requirements and within uniform guidelines and available resources.
71. That AA consult with the Athletes’ Commission in the process of formulating and
reviewing athlete support policies,
72. That funding and support to athletes and coaches is reviewed annually by the NPD,
based on their performances.
73. That direct financial support to athletes is commensurate with their needs and stage of
progression along the athlete pathway. That to better coordinate this support AA consults
the AIS and SIS/SAS to establish an integrated support system, led by AA..
74. That the development and performance of athletes and coaches is monitored and
evaluated over an extended period of time within the context of an agreed training
program. That, to fulfil this requirement, the NPD oversees the establishment of athlete
and coach agreements that clearly articulate the roles and responsibilities of all parties.
75. That the NPD establishes and manages effective communication strategies to optimise
the retention of athletes in the sport’s pathway. These strategies to include consultation
with the Athletes’ Commission.
Recommendations
76. That AA maintains a transparent selection system that seeks to maximise national
representation at major international competitions, consistent with the objectives of the
High Performance Program. These major competitions are Olympic Games, World
Championships, World Junior Championships and Commonwealth Games.
77. That for non-major competitions, AA maintains an appropriate qualification and selection
process that encourages athletes towards achieving their targeted high performance
outcomes.
78. That criteria for selection are documented and distributed to athletes and coaches prior to
the commencement of the qualifying period for each competition.
79. That a review of selection criteria is conducted following each major championship.
80. That the NPD be appointed as head team coach for major international competitions (with
the possible exception of the World Junior Championships), but should not be involved in
day to day matters in respect of team management and administration.
81. That the AA Board appoints an International Tours Committee as an advisory committee
to the NPD. It should provide advice regarding selection policies for athletes to participate
in overseas competition, and regarding suitable international competition programs and
tours for Australian teams, including the recommendation of suitable persons for
appointment as team officials, coaches and medical and other personnel.
82. That the appointment of team personnel to national teams is based purely appropriate
skills and experience, with particular care taken to avoid conflicts of interest where
coaches may be under consideration.
Recommendations
83. That to facilitate international competition in Australia, AA seeks to reinvigorate the
domestic grand prix (i.e. A-Series) by increasing the involvement of competitive athletes
from the Asia/Oceania regions.
84. That AA seeks to develop strategic partnerships with Asian and Oceania countries to
achieve this increased involvement.
85. That AA establishes an elite competition for top ranked athletes at World Youth, Junior
and Under 23 levels, and invite participation from Oceania and Asia.
86. That competitions be introduced that provide for team-based events, including relays, at
intra-State (Hubs) level and at State and national level, based on team point scores.
87. That athlete and coach agreements reflect AA’s expectations of athletes’ participation in a
pre-determined number of domestic competitions, and requirements of these athletes to
attend education and training programs, that better prepare them and their coaches for
successful performances in international competitions.
88. That AA assesses whether mountain running and ultra running should be active
components in AA’s elite development and international representative programs, and if
so, how this should best be achieved.
Athletics Australia
Recommendations
89. That the Board receives financial reports comparing actual operating results to budget, on
a cash and accruals basis, with exception reporting, and prepared independently of the
CEO, on a monthly basis.
90. That the board receives bank reconciliation and aged debtors and creditors reports on a
monthly basis to satisfy itself that payments are made within an appropriate time frame.
91. That the CFO addresses each Board meeting on the organisation’s financial status.
92. That, through the CEO and CFO, AA provides to MAs quarterly, summarised profit and
loss and cash flow statements on its financial position.
93. That AA and MAs continue to enter into documented agreements or understandings
which define their respective financial and other responsibilities, and that these
understandings be discussed and finalised well in advance of the commencement of each
MA’s financial year, as a part of the overall budget setting process of AA.
94. That the Board develops a procurements policy and procedures and receives reports on
their application, including identifying new contracts and suppliers.
95. That the annual budget reflects agreed key result areas and strategies from the adopted
strategic/business plan and input from key business/program managers of AA.
96. That the Audit Committee is chaired by a director, and comprises other members of the
Board, who have appropriate financial qualifications. The Chairman should not be a
voting member of the Audit Committee.
97. That AA’s auditor is invited (ideally on a pro bono basis given AA's financial position) to
attend meetings of the Audit Committee as required.
98. That the roles of the Audit Committee include:
a. review of compliance with appropriate accounting standards and accepted
governance standards
Issue # 18 Communications
There is some concern that AA does not communicate effectively with some of its key
stakeholders. Many in the sport feel disenfranchised as a result of the attitude of the Board
and management towards them. Effective communication requires as much an informal,
regular approach in addition to formal meetings and workshops. The Board needs to accept
that this critical role should be performed far better in the future, consistent with the
expectations of stakeholders.
Recommendations
99. That for at least the 12 months following the adoption of this report, the Chairman and
CEO of AA hold, at minimum, quarterly meetings with the President and General
Manager of each MA (face-to-face or phone) and major partners (e.g. sponsors, ALA,
ASC)
100. That the CEO provides, monthly, a written report to MAs on key issues and
developments.
101. That the Chairman and CEO hold half-yearly meetings of MAs to report on
progress made.
102. That the Chairman allocates time to be proactive in contacting the Presidents of
MAs and other key stakeholders in the sport for informal 'chats' on a regular basis.
103. That the annual members' forum continues to be held and incorporates a review of the
sport’s strategic direction.
Recommendations
104. That the Board determines a clear set of delegations and performance expectations
required of the CEO.
105. That the Board reviews the expectations of the positions of Chairman and CEO,
clarifies the lines of accountability between the CEO and the Board, and confirms the
expectations of MAs in relation to AA directors.
106. That the Board appraises the performance of the CEO (and possibly reviews other
senior staff positions such as NPD and CFO), and that reviews of performance occur
regularly and, formally, at least annually, and that the results are documented.
107. That the Board reviews and approves the staffing structure of AA, and ensures that
appropriate staff performance appraisal procedures are followed.
108. That the Board implements a policy requiring all senior positions to be publicly
advertised, that all positions are advertised at least on the AA website, and a selection
panel of at least three persons are involved in recruitment.
109. That the Board involves key staff in the preparation of strategic/business plans and
budgets.
110. That the Board reviews and determines the skills AA requires of its Board members,
including knowledge of the sport. The Board composition should ensure more
members of the Board have credible and recognised athletics experience and an
understanding of the demands placed on sports that are so reliant on volunteers.
A new Board structure for AA was achieved, and the Australian Athletics Federation was
formed. A Memorandum of Understanding between AA and its MAs was developed following
rejection by those Associations of a “franchise” structure.
However, these changes have not always resulted in positive progress, and while
conceptually positive have been less effective because of timing and poor communications
issues, or in the AAF’s case because it was a replication of the board and management
structure of AA and failed to attract the support of Australian Little Athletics.
No national strategy has been developed and adopted by the sport as a whole and a number
of proposed elements of AA’s strategy have either not progressed or failed to achieve the
desired result e.g. marketing, branding, licensing, national athlete data base, performance
monitoring framework, etc.
The recommended division between governance and management has been maintained,
however appropriate policies and procedures, and formal monitoring and review of key staff
performances, are not evident, raising questions about the ability of the Board to satisfy itself
that the business is being run properly.
Recommendations
The Steering Committee recognises the value of appointing an outside organisation to assist
AA with the change process, but also notes that other factors may have a critical influence.
During the course of the review the incumbent CEO of AA announced that he would not be
renewing his contract with AA. The process of appointment of a new CEO is beyond the
scope of this review’s Terms of Reference. Nevertheless, whatever change process is
initiated as a result of this report, it is vital that the new CEO play a lead role in that process.
The Steering Committee and working groups were impressed by the quality of the written and
oral submissions received and in the calibre of many of the people involved. The Steering
Committee believes there exists an enormous potential resource ‘pool’from which AA should
seek to draw in the future.
Communication has been the most vexed issue throughout the review process. Athletics
relies on so many stakeholders, both organisations and individuals, for its success, that clear
and effective communication must be the hallmark of all decision making and actions initiated
by AA as a result of this review. There are critical stakeholders with whom AA must engage
in the implementation of this report, including MAs, ATFCA, Little Athletics bodies, Institutes,
and State departments of sport and recreation. Because of the importance of this consultation
in order to gain stakeholder support and commitment, as well as the substantial cost likely to
be involved, the Steering Committee recognises that AA may need to approach the ASC for
additional financial assistance to conduct the initial phase of consultations.
The Steering Committee has therefore identified priorities for resource allocation, which it
believes reflect the values and key objectives detailed throughout the report. These are, in
order: financial stability; coaching numbers and quality; club structures; Hubs networks and
high performance leadership, underpinned by a new strategic direction and planned
implementation phase.
Recommendation
127. That the AA Board, with the support of the ASC, agrees an implementation process and
budget framework, taking into consideration the recommendations and priorities
outlined in this report, and which includes ongoing consultation with all key
stakeholders.
128. That AA approaches the ASC for additional financial assistance to conduct the initial
phase of consultations which will be needed to gain the stakeholder support and
commitment necessary to implement the recommendations from this report.
A. Terms of Reference
B. Members of the Review
C. Consultations and submissions
D. Current membership and voting structure of AA
E. Current structure of athletics as a sport in Australia
F. PKF Financial management review of AA
G. Documents reviewed
The roles of little athletics bodies, State departments responsible for sport, Athletes’
Commission and the Australian Track and Field Coaches Association should be considered,
as well as the linkages between these organisations and Athletics Australia, its State Member
Organisations and clubs.
Critically assess the transition pathway for athletes from juniors to seniors and role and stage
of talent identification programs.
High Performance
To assess the effectiveness and capacity of existing pathways, including international
performance, and to provide recommendations to enhance the education and development
pathways for athletes and coaches at the developmental and elite levels.
To review the impact of Athletics Australia’s 2005-2009 quadrennium high performance plan,
and in particular to recommend strategies to meet any identified challenges for the roles of
the Australian Institute of Sport and State and territory institutes and academies of sport.
Governance
To assess the effectiveness and capacity of, and to make recommendations to enhance the
governance and management systems of Athletics Australia, including financial management,
communication networks and / or integration of activities and operations. This assessment
should take into account the review conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers during 1998, and
include an analysis of the outcomes of the governance changes within Athletics Australia
based on that review.
To assess the effectiveness and capacity of, and to make recommendations to enhance the
existing structures and governance of athletics as a sport in Australia, taking into account the
roles of, and linkages between AA, Australian Little Athletics athlete’s groups, the Australian
Track and Field Coaches Association and State/Territory Associations.
Steering Committee
Herb Elliott AC, MBE (Chair)
Herb Elliott burst onto the international athletic scene in 1958 when he became the youngest
athlete to break the four-minute mile. Herb cemented his place as an Australian legend by
winning the gold medal in the 1500m at the 1960 Olympics, breaking his own world record in a
time of 3:35.6. Unbeaten at the mile and 1500m distances, Herb is a former CEO of Puma North
America and Director of Athlete and Corporate Relations with the AOC. Herb is Chairman of the
Telstra Foundation, and is a director of Athletics Australia, Ansell Ltd and Fortescue Metals
Group.
Ken Roche AO
Deputy Chairman, AA. Was a dual Commonwealth Games 440 yard hurdles champion in Perth in
1962 and Kingston in 1966. He was also a semi finalist at the Olympic Games in Tokyo in 1964.
In business, Ken is the Chairman of Roche Holdings.
Brian Roe
Sports Consultant/Electorate Officer; President – Athletics Tasmania; Member – IAAF Technical
Committee, AA Track & Field Commission, AA Officials Commission; Director – AFL Tasmania;
International Technical Official (Athletics); Registered IAAF Athlete Representative; Columnist –
Launceston Examiner; previously Competition Director (Athletics) – 2000 Olympics; General
Manager – 1990 World Rowing Championships; Competitions Manager (AA)
Michael Scott
Michael commenced in the position of Director, AIS in May 2001. Prior to this, Michael was the
Director of the NSW Institute of Sport (NSWIS) since its establishment in early 1997. During that
period, he was recognised as the NSW Sports Administrator of the Year (1999) by the NSW
Sports Federation. He is a former Chairman of the National Elite Sports Council and a Board
member of the Victorian institute of Sport. He has 20 years of experience as a sport administrator
in Victoria, SA and NSW that has seen him work in all areas of high performance sport. Prior to
that, Michael spent four years coaching swimming in the College system in the USA.
Stephen Spargo
Stephen Spargo is a Deputy Executive Partner of Allens Arthur Robinson in the firm's Banking
and Finance department. He is the Deputy Chairman of Mitre 10 Australia Limited group of
companies, a director of The Royal Agricultural Society of Victoria Limited, and a member of the
Board administering the joint venture between the State of Victoria and the RASV for the
redevelopment of the Melbourne Showgrounds. Stephen is also a member of the general
committee of the Melbourne Cricket Club, a Director of Melbourne Cricket Club Foundation
Limited; and a member of the Advisory Board of the Asian Law Centre, University of Melbourne.
Marjorie McNamara
Marjorie has been involved with Little Athletics for 21 years as an administrator and official. She is
a qualified official in timekeeping, place judging and recording, having officiated at Centre, Zone,
State and National competitions. Marjorie received the Volunteer Involvement Program Official of
the Year Award in Sydney in 2004. A former State treasurer and president, Marjorie is currently
President of Australian Little Athletics, and a board member of AT&FCA. Marjorie has worked in
the banking industry for many years, including Branch Manager, and is currently the manager for
a community organisation in Brisbane dealing with 5 staff members and 2700 clients.
Peter Ring AM
Peter Ring AFC, is a consultant in "Critical Relationships and Organisational Leadership". He has
worked with the likes of Toyota, Westpac, and the Australian Federal Police, and many other
businesses and organisations over the last 18 years. He has also worked extensively with elite
level of Swimming, Athletics, Baseball, Softball, Basketball and Archery both within and outside
the AIS. In a previous life he was a fighter pilot, helicopter pilot, professional wool classer and
instructor in Management Studies.
Trevor Vincent
Competed in the 1964 Olympic Games and won a Gold medal in the 1962 Commonwealth
Games in the 3000m Steeplechase. Has been a manager of numerous Australian Teams in
International competitions and is a selector for Victorian Teams. He is Vice President and Life
Member of the Glenhuntly Athletic Club and a Member of the AA Out of Stadium Commission.
Still a keen runner and has continual involvement in many aspects of athletics.
Judy Flanagan
Judy has worked in the Australian sports system for the past 22 years. Judy’s work experience at
the AIS and the ASC has spanned 14 of these years and has been complemented by Judy’s
volunteer experience as a coach, official, numerous sporting club roles and State sporting
organisation board representation. Judy is currently the Manager of the ASC’s National Junior
Sport Program.
Colin Lane
Colin has been an active ‘grass roots’ competitor and club committee member in a wide range of
sports including swimming, water polo, hockey and AFL. Professionally, he has significant
experience in government economic and business support activities. Since 1994 he has worked
as a manager at both the State/territory and national levels of government in the area of sport
participation and development, and is currently responsible for the ASC’s Sport Programs Unit.
David Parkin
Primary, secondary and tertiary teacher/lecturer for the past forty years with an expertise in both
physical and sport education/coach education. Currently lecturing in the Bachelor of Applied
Science in Sports Coaching at Deakin University. Over the same period, played, coached and
administrated within the VFL/AFL, and is the current President Australian Football Coaches
Association (Victorian Branch). David is also an AFL commentator for ABC radio.
Raelene Boyle
Raelene's distinguished sporting career spans Commonwealth games from 1970 to 1984 (during
which time she won five gold medals) and three Olympics - 1968, 1972 and 1976 - where she
won three silver meals. Her achievements also include 14 individual Australian championships,
plus a slew of Australian and Commonwealth records, an ABC Sports Award in 1974,
membership of two World record breaking relay teams and induction into the Australian Sporting
Hall of Fame in 1985.
Raelene was also honoured at the Sydney Olympic opening ceremony as one of our truly great
female athletes alongside Cathy Freeman, Debbie Flintoff-King, Dawn Fraser, Shane Gould,
Betty Cuthbert and Shirley Strickland. Raelene is a Board Member of the Breast Cancer Network
Australia and is a patron of both the Sunshine Coast's Cancer Care Centres and the Living Trees
Program. Raelene is a founding member of the Sporting Chance Foundation which distributes
"Raelene Boyle" research scholarships, she also raises funds on the Sunshine Coast to replace
breasts lost to breast cancer.
Phil King
Bachelor of Education [Physical Education], Graduate Diploma Sport and Exercise Science .
Level 3 Track and Field Coach [ATFCA], Level 2 Swim coach [ASCTA]. Phil was a secondary
teacher for 7 years, was previously AA Head Coach [1995 -96], and since 1992 has been
business owner and Managing Director of Kings Swim Centres Pty Ltd.
At the elite level, Phil has coached athletes including Debbie Flintoff-King (1981 to 1990) and
Jana Pittman (002 – present), while at the developmental level he coordinated very successful
DFK Olympic Gold Medal Camps from 1990 - 1995.
NSW Coach of the Year in 1992, and the Australian Coaching Councils Individual Coach of the
Year 1997 (Female). Her squads were always made up of a mix of developing juniors, disabled
and senior athletes including 3 time Olympian Melinda Gainsford Taylor, Jana Pittman, World
Junior competitors Elliott Wood and Annabelle Smith, and Sydney 2000 Paralympics Gold
medallist Alison Quinn, and finalist Meaghan Starr.
Tudor Bidder
Physical education teacher in UK 1981-86; National Director of Coaching (athletics), Sultanate of
Oman 1986-90; AIS/WAIS Head Coach 1990-92, WAIS Head Coach 1992-1997; UKA Technical
Director 97-2000; UKA Head of Potential 2000-2003. Tudor also held coach educator and junior
development positions between 1981 and 1997.
In Britain, Tudor has been the personal coach to numerous medal/finalists in international
competitions, including Olympic, World and Commonwealth Games consistently since 1987. He
held Head Coach/Team manager positions for GB teams between 1998-2003, including four
Olympic Games. He was responsible for UKA Facility strategy for athletics in England and Wales,
Simon Hollingsworth
Represented Australia in the 400m hurdles at the 1992 and 1996 Olympic Games, the 1990 and
1994 Commonwealth Games, the 1995 World Championships, and the 1990 World Junior
Championships (Bronze 4x400m relay). Member of the AA Athletes' Commission, 1992-96 and
2000- present. Chairperson of the Commission since November 2003.
Bachelor degrees in Commerce, Law and Politics/Philosophy; Studied at Oxford University 1997-
2000 as a Rhodes scholar. Worked previously as a Solicitor and a Management Consultant.
Currently employed as a Senior Policy Adviser with the Victorian Department of Premier and
Cabinet in Melbourne.
Rob McLean
Dean and Director of the Australian Graduate School of Management. Previously company
director on the boards of CSR Ltd, Pacific Dunlop (now Ansell) and as a private equity investor.
Rob retired from McKinsey and Company in 1997 where he had a 25 year career. He has been a
director of numerous companies and industry bodies, and has specialised in corporate strategy,
finance and organisational performance. Rob has had experience in industry policy development,
leading an assessment for the McKinsey Global Institute on Australia’s economic performance,
contributing to the Federal Government’s initiatives to accelerate export growth and regional
development. He served as a member of the Trade Advisory Council to the Minister for Trade for
several years.
He has an MBA from Columbia University Graduate School of Business, and Bachelor of
Economic Statistics with First Class Honours from the University of New England in Australia.
Rob plays a number of community roles in Australia. He is chairman of Social Ventures Australia,
a director of the Centre for Independent Studies, a trustee of the Nature Conservancy (Australia)
and a member of the Fulbright Advisory Committee.
Wayne Jackson
A Fellow of the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants, Wayne was CEO and
Commissioner of the AFL from 1995 to 2003. Currently consults to Minter Ellison Lawyers, is a
director of Meat and Livestock Australia, and a member of the Economic Development Board of
South Australia. Wayne has held senior management positions with leading Australian companies
including SA Brewing Co and Hardy Limited. A handy state level tennis player, Wayne also
played amateur league and seconds football for West Torrens Football Club in South Australia,
where he is a life member. He also served on the Player Retention Committee for the SA National
Football League and is a former Commissioner for the SANFL.
Phil Borgeaud
Phil Borgeaud has extensive experience in Australian Sports system, having been involved as an
athlete, coach, administrator and director at local, State and national level over a period of more
than 25 years. He has experience in both working to a board of directors and in serving on
boards of sports organisations in an honorary capacity.
In his current role as Manager of Sport Innovation and Best Practice at the ASC, Phil coordinates
programs which aim to develop the capability and capacity of the Australian sports system
generally and national sporting organisations specifically in the areas of governance,
management, and high performance.
Max Binnington
Max is a former international athlete, and a current coach and sport administrator. Professionally
Max is experienced in senior human resources and consulting roles. His athletics management
Dibbs, Ross
Doubell, Ralph (Athletics NSW) Rowe, Geoff
Horneman, Matthew
The following lists the names of those individuals who were specifically contacted and requested
to make a written submission, and were offered the opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Breakdown by Individuals
Breakdown by Groups
Summary of interviews:
by State: ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA Total
11 13 0 8 6 4 28 6 76
Total 76
Athletics Australia
MEMBERSHIP & VOTING
Athletics 7 Directors
Australia (6 elected, 1 ex-officio)
Australian IAAF
Little
Athletics Australian Others
Association Athletics (w alks, fun
Federation runners, etc)
Findings
Based on their review, PKF found the following:
• An inadequate level of reserves to support the annual income which may be at risk;
• A Financial Management Structure that is sufficient to support the size and nature of the
organisation;
• The Draft Business Plan for the 2001 - 2006 period requires an improvement in the level of
financial information and strategy in order to reflect better practice;
• Varying under and overstatements within the cash flow projections for the period July 2004
to January 2006.
• The proposed timing of income and expenditure exceeds the overdraft facility on a number of
occasions;
• At the time of the review, the initial budget and forecast process for the 2004/2005 financial
year had just been completed. Better practice suggests earlier attention to this process;
• The initial budget and forecast process for the 2004/2005 financial year was a high level
approach with minimal upfront involvement of Divisional Heads and other responsible staff;
• Fluctuating financial solvency indicators, requiring urgent and significant increased
management; and
• A requirement to provide a greater level of clarity and education to the Directors through
improved management report narrative and explanation.
Finding Recommendation
1 The Draft Business Plan for the 2001 - 2006 In order to achieve and support AA’s objectives and to
period requires an improvement in the level of reflect the principles of better practice, adoption or update
financial information and strategy in order to of the following should be considered:
reflect better practice • Corporate Plan
• Business Plan and Forecasts
• Annual Business Plan and Forecasts
• Divisional Area Annual Business Plans and Budget
• Individual Performance Agreements
2 Under and Overstatements within the Cashflow We recommend AA consider the likely effect of the
Projections for the period July 2004 to January various under and overstatements found in the Cashflow
2006 projections for the period July 2004 to January 2006 and
make any appropriate adjustments as necessary in line
with the risk profiles outlined
3 Discrepancies within the Cashflow projections for We recommend AA have as a high priority, the further
the period July 2004 to January 2006 surrounding review and discussion of the timing of variable revenue
the timing of income received and expenditure streams with sponsors and donors to ensure that the
paid resulting in the organisation’s overdraft overdraft facility is not breached
facility being breached four times
4 At the time of the review (May 2004), the initial We recommend AA adopt a more consultative and timely
budget and forecast process for the 2004/2005 strategic budget and forecast process, to enhance
year had just been completed. Better practice ownership of this process
suggests earlier attention to this process
Furthermore, the initial process was a high level
approach, with minimal upfront involvement of
Divisional Heads and other responsible staff
5 The need for a greater level of clarity and An educative process is undertaken to provide the
education to the Directors through improved Directors with an increased awareness as to the
management report narrative and explanation interpretation of financial information.
Prospective new Board members are presented with a
detailed ‘information pack’ prior to acceptance of
appointment, incorporating the current information
provided (recent Board Papers, the Constitution, prior
Annual Reports, an overview of the organisation and its
structure) with additional information such as strategic
business plans, budgets and forecasts. This will allow
prospective directors to make an informed decision
regarding acceptance of an appointment
Expansion of current financial management information to
include:
Governance
1. AA Constitution #12 Feb 2003.pdf
2. AAF Constitution Dec 2001.pdf
3. AAF Agreement.pdf
4. ALA Constitution appendix A.pdf
5. ALA Constitution appendix B.pdf
6. ALA Constitution appendix C.pdf
7. ALA Constitution appendix D.pdf
8. ALA Constitution appendix E.pdf
9. ALA Constitution.pdf
10. AA Governance Case study summary Nov 2002.pdf
11. AA Governance Case Study Sep 2002.doc
12. Review of Structure and Governance of Athletics in Australia - Confidential report to the
Board of Athletics Australia , PricewaterhouseCoopers, July 1998
13. Athletics SA Governance Review – Tender document from SA Office for Recreation and
Sport 2003.pdf
14. Structural Analysis of AA – Tender document from Coopers and Lybrand – 1998.pdf
15. AA Strategic Plan update- letter from Jason Hellwig.doc
16. AA Overview of governance changes in Athletics Australia Apr 2004.doc
17. AA ASC Overview of athletics since 2000.doc
High Performance
18. AA High Performance Plan 2005-9.doc
19. AA High Performance Plan Appendices.doc
Development
20. Australian Track and Field Coaches Assn Strategic Plan Workshop 97.pdf
21. AA Team Athletics Business Plan for ASC.doc
22. AA Roe Report – The State of Domestic Athletics Competition in Australia 2002.pdf
23. AA Roe Report – Methods to Increase Participation Levels in Domestic Athletics 2003.pdf
General
24. AA Annual Report 2000-2001.pdf
25. AA Annual report 2001-02.pdf
26. AA Annual report 2002-03.pdf
27. AA Business Plan 2001-2006 .doc
28. PKF Financial Management Review Athletics Australia June 2004