Athletics Review

Athletics Review
Re-creating a culture for

athletics in Australia
a report into the high performance, development and
governance of athletics in Australia
Chairman: Herb Elliott

July 2004
prepared for the Australian Sports Commission and Athletics Australia
AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 1 of 52

Contents
Foreword by Herb Elliott............................................................................................................... 3

Glossary of Terms........................................................................................................................ 4
Executive Overview...................................................................................................................... 6
Methodology................................................................................................................................. 9
Findings and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 11
Part A Pathways – Athletes, Coaches and Officials............................................................ 11
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
High Performance .................................................................................................................... 18

Issue # 6 Linking Development and High Performance ............................................. 18
Issue # 7 High Performance Pathway ...................................................................... 18
Issue # 8 The Objective of the High Performance Program........................................ 22
Issue # 9 Structure of the High Performance Program............................................... 22
Issue # 10 Roles, Responsibilities and Funding Input of Institutes................................ 23
Issue # 11 Link between National Performance Director and Athletics ......................... 25
Australia’s Board ...................................................................................... 25
Issue # 12 Selection and Support of Merit-based Coaches .......................................... 25
Issue # 13 High Performance Coach Education .......................................................... 26
Issue # 14 High Performance Athlete Support ............................................................ 26
Issue # 15 Selection of National Teams for International Competitions ......................... 27
Issue # 16 Domestic Competition for High Performance Athletes ................................. 28
Part B Governance and Management System................................................................. 30
Athletics Australia.................................................................................................................... 30
Issue # 17 Financial Management................................................................................... 30
Issue # 18 Communications ............................................................................................ 31
Issue # 19 Board and Management ................................................................................ 31
Athletics as a Sport in Australia ............................................................................................. 33

Issue # 20 Impact of 1998 PricewaterhouseCoopers Report.......................................... 33
Issue # 21 Roles and Linkages between Athletics Bodies .............................................. 34
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

Foreword by Herb Elliott
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

Glossary of Terms
To assist with the reading of this report it is necessary to provide a definition of key terms referred
to in the body of the report. These definitions are as set out below
AA means Athletics Australia Limited

AAF means Australian Athletics Federation Limited
AAOES means Athletics Australia Officials Education Scheme
ACGA means Australian Commonwealth Games Association
AFRWC means Australian Federation of Race Walking Clubs
AIS means Australian Institute of Sport
ALA means Australian Little Athletics Association
AOC means Australian Olympic Committee
ASC means Australian Sports Commission
ATFCA means Australian Track and Field Coaches Association
Board means the Board of AA
Board Committee means a committee established by the Board, and which reports directly to the
Board (see also Committee).
CEO means Chief Executive Officer of AA
CFO means Chief Financial Officer of AA
Committee means a committee appointed by the Board which reports to the CEO or other
nominated senior executive (see also Board Committee)
Elite Athlete Pathway means a series of incremental steps for athletes and coaches involved in
the sport of track and field commencing with a talent identification tracking program for individuals
in the age range of 12-14 years through to athletes competing successfully on the international
stage.
High Performance Advisory Committee means the key people who are appointed by the Board
to counsel, advise and support the National Performance Director with the implementation and
ongoing improvement and assessment of the High Performance Plan.
High Performance Plan means the agreed vision, structure and support systems for on-going
success at major international events (i.e. Olympic Games, World Championships and
Commonwealth Games). The plan provides for all future major international events. The High
Performance Plan is underpinned by annual business plans that detail the roles, responsibilities
and accountabilities of all stakeholders involved in the delivery of programs and services identified
for the successful delivery of the High Performance Program.
High Performance Program means an agreed series of programs and services that support the
progression of the athlete and coach unit along the continuum of the defined athlete pathway.
Hub means a place in a geographic region where, ideally, all the resources necessary to achieve
success are available to local clubs, athletes and coaches, including competition and training
facilities.
IAAF means the International Association of Athletics Federations
Institutes means the AIS and SIS/SAS collectively
International Tours Committee means those persons appointed by the Board to advise the
National Performance Director 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.

MAs means each of the eight State member associations of AA; MA means any of the MAs
MOU means a Memorandum of Understanding or agreement between AA and another party such
a MA
National event group co-ordinators means those persons reporting to the National Performance
Director who are responsible and accountable for the improved performances of their respective
event groups based on the key performance indicators identified in the High Performance Plan.
These positions are also responsible and accountable for coach education within their respective
event groups.
NPD means the National Performance Director who is the leader and person responsible and
accountable for the delivery of the High Performance Plan.
National Youth Performance Manager means the person appointed to co-ordinate the Junior
(U20), Youth (U18) and talent identification age group programs (e.g. 12-14 years), aimed at
developing talented athletes into Top End athletes (ie: from recruitment to achievement);
SIS/SAS means the network of state and territory institutes and academies of sport.
SSA means School Sport Australia
State means all Australian states and territories
Steering Committee means the committee responsible for this report
Top End Athletes means those athletes who at any given point in time are Australia’s top
performers at major championships. The performance levels for classification as Top End Athletes
(e.g. top 16-20) will evolve with the successful implementation of the High Performance Plan.
Working group or working groups are groups appointed by the Steering Committee to provide it
with advice in the areas of high performance, development, and governance and management.

Executive Overview
Australia, as a nation, has a history of “punching above its weight” in many fields of endeavour,
including sport. Australia finished fourth on the outright medal tally at the Sydney 2000 Olympic
Games and has regularly finished in the top handful of nations at these events. We can claim
successes across a wide range of sports on a sustained basis. This is achieved despite
Australia’s relatively small population and disadvantage of location.
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?
A July 1998 report on athletics in Australia prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers attempted to

give direction to the sport by recommending changes in governance and structure. Some of its
recommendations were adopted and have led to positive outcomes for the sport. In 2002 the
ASC commissioned Dench McLean Carlson (DMC) to conduct a case study of the impact of these
changes. DMC concluded that “[t]he most significant of these changes was that in early 1999
Athletics Australia adopted a ‘corporate Board’, in which the Directors are independent of the
member associations and are predominantly from a business background.” DMC identified some
very significant improvements to Australian athletics which had been driven by the new Board,
including:
• development of a new constitution and by-laws
• transfer of the lead sponsorship to Telstra
• significant increases in revenue and scope of activities
• development of the Commitment Deed between AA and the MAs
• integration of disabled athletics into AA.
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.

As a result of this increased national focus over the past five years, the AA Board, its staff and the
MAs have put in place a structure that should be more capable of successfully implementing the
recommendations from this report than might otherwise have been possible.
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.
2. These recommendations may include adjustments to existing governance and

management systems, including financial management, communication networks,
and/or integration of activities and operations.”
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

in full at Appendix A. Details of membership of the Steering Committee and working groups are
shown at Appendix B. The Steering Committee commenced its work on 7 April, with its final
report to the boards of AA and the ASC required by 31 July. All members of the Steering
Committee and working groups provided their services in a voluntary capacity, without fee.
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.
1. Financial stability: AA needs to pay urgent attention to developing and implementing a

sound financial strategy that underpins the future success of the sport.
2. Coaching: AA must accept responsibility for and be accountable for coaching. It must
develop a vibrant coaching system which, with the support and guidance of ATFCA, will
produce coaches at all levels who provide inspiration and establish an environment where
athletes learn and improve their performances. This is particularly critical at club level.
3. Club restructure: AA needs to restructure its club system. Effective from 1st April 2005,
AA should implement a model club policy developed with its MAs that requires all clubs
based in metropolitan areas and in major regional centres with populations greater than
20,000 to meet threshold criteria. To facilitate this change, AA needs to provide
immediate and ongoing support and advice at State and local level, through workshops,
ongoing access to expert advice and web and email support.
4. Hubs network: In order for AA and MAs to provide a local focus for athletics, be it
competitions, training or access to resources for clubs, coaches and officials, AA and MAs
need to develop regional athletics Hubs. The Hubs would be based around athletics
facilities, and receive support from MAs and, subject to negotiation, the relevant SIS/SAS,
State sports departments and local councils. The Hubs network aims to consolidate
resources needed by recreational, development and high performance athletes, coaches
and officials at central locations.
5. High Performance: AA needs to review its high performance structure to effect a change
in culture, including the appointment of a NPD to replace the position of head coach to
lead delivery of the High Performance Plan and Program. The NPD should be supported
by a network of State Performance Managers, full time National Event Group
Coordinators and a National Youth Performance Manager.
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.

Methodology
In order to complete its task and submit its report to the Boards of AA and the ASC by 31 July
2004, the Steering Committee adopted the following approach:
1. Appointment of members to Governance, Development and High Performance working
groups to provide advice to assist the Steering Committee develop its understanding of
the issues and formulate its recommendations
2. Arrangement by the secretariat for all members of the Steering Committee and working
groups to:
a. sign confidentiality agreements in relation to their involvement in the review
b. have professional indemnity insurance cover provided.
3. Establishment of a web site to promote the review and encourage written submissions
4. Liaison with other stakeholders to promote the review and invite submissions (eg ATFCA,
ALA)
5. Establishment of a dedicated email address for written submissions
6. Call for submissions, with a closing date of 30 April 2004. One hundred and thirty three
written submissions were received (details at Appendix C)
7. Invitations to key stakeholders to make oral presentations to the Steering Committee
8. Face-to-face interviews with key stakeholders (details at Appendix C). In all, thirty two
interviews were held with representatives of:
a. members of the AAF
b. MAs
c. ALA and State little athletics associations
d. State governments’ sports departments
e. AIS and SIS/SAS
Note: It was decided not to interview sponsors because of the commercial sensitivities of
negotiations between AA and sponsors at the time
9. Face-to-face interviews with interested parties who requested an interview. Interviews
were conducted in all mainland capital cities except Darwin, and in Launceston. Forty-four
interviews were held (details at Appendix C).
10. Meetings with the Chairman, senior management and former staff of AA
11. Discussions with television organisations SBS, ABC and the Seven network
12. Discussions with staff of the ASC to examine other sports’ structures
13. Analysis of written and oral submissions
14. Analysis of correspondence addressed to the Federal Minister for the Arts and Sport
referred to the Steering Committee
15. Written requests for advice on their athletics structures and programs from the national
bodies responsible for athletics in Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom.
16. Review of prior reports and other documentation. While a full list of these reports and
documents appears at Appendix G, the primary references for this Review were:
a. Review of Structure and Governance of Athletics in Australia,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, July 1998
b. The State of Domestic Athletics Competition in Australia, Brian Roe 2002
c. Review – Methods to Increase Participation Levels in Domestic Athletics,
Athletics Australia response to B Roe Paper, 2003

d. Change or Die, A Report on Research Conducted Into the Sport of Athletics in
Australia, Michels Warren Marketing, September 1989;
e. Moving On, A review of the need for change in athletics in the UK, Sir Andrew
Foster, May 2004;
f. High Performance Advisory Panel Interim Report, Australian Sports Commission,
March 2004;
g. The Status of Track and Field, John Landy, 1985
h. A National Performance Strategy for Australia, F McEwen 1985
17. In addition, the High Performance working group considered presentations from:
a. AA’s High Performance Manager, Tudor Bidder
b. AA’s Head Coach Keith Connor; and
c. former Australian Swimming national coach, Don Talbot.
18. Review of the report “Financial Management Review Athletics Australia June 2004”,
undertaken by chartered accountants PKF, who were engaged for the purposes of the
review (see summary of findings at Appendix F)
19. Consideration by the Steering Committee of all information collected for clarification of the
issues and formulation of the recommendations contained in this report.
The Steering Committee took the view that its Terms of Reference required it to focus on two
key elements of the sport, being pathways for athletes and coaches at all levels, and the
governance and management of athletics in Australia.
The report addresses key issues under these two headings. The report follows a format of
identifying each issue, summarising the findings of the review on each issue and making
recommendations addressing each issue.
Part A addresses the Terms of Reference in respect of pathways. The recommendations are
then subdivided into the development and high performance components of the pathway, with
a set of recommendations specifically aimed at the linkages between the two ends of the
pathway continuum.
Part B addresses the Terms of Reference in respect of governance and management of the
sport, including the roles and linkages between athletics bodies.

Findings and Recommendations
Part A Pathways – Athletes, Coaches and Officials

The Review received numerous suggestions about the best way to provide ongoing opportunities
for athletes, coaches and officials who participate in athletics. This impacts at club, State, national
and international levels, and is addressed in this Part.
Development
Issue # 1 Grass roots and development pathway

Many submissions, surveys and research referred to by the Steering Committee and working
groups identified that many potential participants, their families and teachers currently view
athletics (other than little athletics and internal school competitions) as a sport only for the talented
and elite.
It is important to acknowledge the need for the sport to have two, where necessary distinct,
pathways for its key participants (athletes, coaches and officials): one for those who participate for
their interest, health and recreation – the recreational pathway; and another for those seeking to
be involved in an elite pathway.
In regard to the recreational pathway, the evidence provided suggests that there has been a lack
of significant direction and strategy in this area of development in its broadest sense. Whilst AA
has maintained a commitment to initiatives such as Team Athletics, Indigenous Sport, Project
CONNECT (sport for people with a disability) and Running Australia, it does not appear to have
addressed adequately any of the ongoing athletic pathway issues within the sport relating to club
development, junior development (13-18), school sport, coaching or officiating.
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

talent identification programs have ceased due to insufficient numbers and involvement of club
coaches and others to undertake this function at club, school and little athletics events.
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.
2. That AA encourages each MA to extend the national initiative in recommendation 1 by

undertaking discussions with its State little athletics counterpart to agree to an appropriate
transition plan for athletes between little and senior athletics, including calendar co-
ordination and introduction/orientation programs. These discussions to include the
appropriate little athletics age categories for metropolitan and regional areas in each State
for the purposes of talent identification and introduction/orientation programs of the MA.
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.
Issue # 2 Club Structure

The submissions highlighted significant concern at the current state of athletics clubs, their
viability and activity. The many people who willingly give their time now, do so with limited
resources, training or advice on how to improve current practices. Too few clubs operate
effectively, while too many clubs are out-dated in their practices, reluctant to consider change and
irrelevant to the needs of today’s societal recreational sporting needs. This makes it difficult for
clubs and the sport to respond to the needs of recreational and developing elite athletes.
Athletics needs to build a strong club base to support both recreational and developing elite
athletes (many of whom will not necessarily be so identified in the initial period of their
involvement in athletics). Hard decisions need to be made to rationalise current club structures
and numbers, and to improve resourcing and support, acknowledging that clubs are a channel for
grass roots involvement in the sport.
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.

Recommendations
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

in securing volunteers to conduct local meets and there is very little parental or family
involvement.
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.
Consequently AA needs to explore the advantages of a greater emphasis on partnership

arrangements with MAs in the delivery of A Series and national championship competition, a re-
engagement of the volunteer base at the local level, and a redefining of the roles and
responsibilities of AA and MA personnel in the conduct of the events.
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.

14. That the competition period in each State prior to 31 December is designated for schools
and school-based competitions, culminating as is presently the case with the Australian
All Schools Track and Field Championships and Schools Knock Out National Final.
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.

Adequate support, education and mentoring of coaches are important to the development of elite
athletes. Fear of poaching and the enforced relocation of athletes are significant issues for many
coaches. The most prevalent view is that where coaches wish to progress with an athlete they
coach, they should be encouraged and mentored to develop the required experience that enables
them to do so. The Steering Committee supports this approach.
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.

27. That a professional coaching development program be introduced across a number of
event groups, including the use of visiting international coach educators to conduct clinics
and demonstrations around Australia.
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.

High Performance
Issue #6 Linking Development and High Performance

The existence of a standardised development system is essential for the successful delivery
of the High Performance Program. AA needs to resolve the following critical issues in
determining the links between development and high performance:
• the role of clubs and school sport in the elite athlete development pathway
• the role of coaches in assisting to bridge the gap between little athletics and senior
athletics to build trust and cooperation
• the need to focus earlier on talent identification; and
• ways in which the sport can increase the depth of sub-elite competitors.
The development and high performance components of the sport are linked through the
athlete pathway. The objective is to provide a smooth transition for talented young athletes to
enter and progress along the pathway.
There must be a clear and agreed link between the high performance and development
programs. The key players involved in the linking of these programs are the SIS/SAS and
MAs.
A structured, well-supported and standardised development program that incorporates a
systematic approach to talent identification is the foundation of a successful High
Performance Program.
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.
Issue #7 High Performance Pathway

The foundation for Athletics Australia’s High Performance Program should be the athlete and
coach pathways specified in the High Performance Plan (i.e. from recruitment through to
international achievement – see Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1
The Elite Athlete Pathway
Talent Development Consolidation International/Elite
Early Nationals World

Nationals National
School Junior Senior/ Final & Top 8 to Medallist
Medallist Team
transition A-Series Top 16
Injury/Loss of Form
All Schools
World Youth Games
Junior Nationals
World Juniors
Australian Nationals
A-Series/Domestic Grand Prix
Commonwealth Games
World Championships
Olympic Games
Note: Athlete development will not always mirror the above steps
hence the approach requires some flexibility

The Coach Pathway And Accreditation System Figure 2
Level III
Level II
Level II – Young Athlete
Level I
Level 0
Schools Little Athletics Clubs / Hubs Own Squad AIS/SIS/SAS NPD / NYPM
NEGCs
Progress from Assistant Coach to Coach to Head Coach (club/State/national)
Mentoring Continuum
Receiving Providing
Merit Based Coaching

Coaching athletes at State, National and International standard
Potential for selection on National Teams
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.

Issue # 8 The Objective of the High Performance Program
The high performance program must be driven by a culture that is relentless in the pursuit of
excellence. AA has struggled to manage expectations of its high performance program since
2000. The sport’s publicly stated goal of achieving a top 5 Nation status was not achieved.
AA’s own analysis shows that its current standing is top 15, with a target of top 10 a more
realistic goal by 2008.
The key objectives of the High Performance Program should be to increase the number of
medals achieved and improve Australia’s standing in the IAAF point score at major
international competitions (Olympic Games, World Championships and Commonwealth
Games). In addition to this, the High Performance Program must target an increase in the
number of athletes improving their rankings at major international competitions.
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.
Issue # 9 Structure of the High Performance Program
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
40. That the position of ‘Head Coach’ to lead the High Performance Program is replaced with
the position of ‘National Performance Director’, who is primarily a systems and people
manager with strong interpersonal skills and an in-depth understanding of the sport.
41. That the NPD be supported by an Advisory Committee to assist with planning, promoting,
communicating and implementing the High Performance Plan. The Advisory Committee
to be appointed by the AA Board, and comprise an AA Board member, an ASC
representative, and three other members.
42. That a National Youth Performance Manager, responsible for talent identification age
group programs, and programs and services to athletes and coaches participating at the
World Junior and Youth levels, is appointed to assist the NPD.
43. That the NPD is assisted by a number of full-time national event group coordinators
employed by AA. That, ideally, these national event group coordinators not coach a
personal squad of athletes.
44. That based on the targets contained in the High Performance Plan, national event group
coordinators focus on:
a. improving the performances of athletes identified in their respective event groups,
including athletes with a disability.; and
b. educating and mentoring coaches.
45. That MAs:
a. establish geographic regions or “Hubs” where, ideally, all the resources
necessary to achieve success are available to athletes, coaches and officials
b. ensure each Hub caters for a range of event groups, including athletes with a
disability, for coaching and training purposes
c. locate Hubs at track and field facilities
d. establish financial support criteria for each Hub based on the number of event
groups covered by, and performance of, the Hub
e. require Hub coaches to participate in national coach education initiatives; and
f. regularly assess Hubs against required criteria.
46. That the State’s Hubs structure and responsibilities are defined in the State’s high
performance plan.
47. That AA consult with each MA and SIS/SAS to develop an MOU which sets out the
expectations and key performance indicators for the employment, by each SIS/SAS, of a
State Performance Manager whose responsibilities include the implementation of the Hub
concept.
48. That a joint management committee, comprising a representative from AA, SIS/SAS and
MA, evaluates the performance of the State Performance Manager under the terms of the
MOU.
Issue # 10 Roles, Responsibilities and Funding Input of Institutes

Athletics has suffered from a fractured approach, rather than a shared national vision and
collegiate approach to the planning and delivery of the sport’s High Performance Program.
AA and the Institutes must work together to agree an in-principle direction for high
performance.
It is envisaged that SIS/SAS will provide support mechanisms to employ a State Performance
Manager for athletics and to provide merit-based support to targeted coaches in the system.
The AIS should be a key player in the delivery of AA’s High Performance Plan, particularly in
relation to the specialised support that it can offer.

AA must articulate its high performance vision and provide strong leadership that better
defines the roles, responsibilities and funding contributions of Institutes. This must be
accompanied by an effective communication strategy.
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.

Issue # 11 Link between National Performance Director and Athletics
Australia’s Board
The proposed position of NPD must be accountable to AA’s CEO, for the strategic direction
and results of the sport’s high performance strategies. The NPD must be given sufficient
delegated authority and support to manage and deliver the High Performance Plan and
Program.
In turn, the AA Board must ensure that it retains sufficient awareness and understanding of
the delivery of the high performance strategy, by having the NPD regularly attend AA Board
meetings to report on the progress of the High Performance Program.
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
Issue # 12 Selection and Support of Merit-based Coaches

As noted under Issue #4, the area of coaching was raised in submissions as one of major
concern.
Specifically there appears to be a lack of support available to both professional and volunteer
coaches, with the majority of available support directed to the professional coaches. This
practice overlooks the significant contribution of volunteer coaches to the results achieved by
elite athletes.
To improve this situation and effect a change in coaching culture, there is a need for the High
Performance Program to recognise the primacy of the athlete/coach relationship by
recognising and supporting both professional and volunteer coaches. Merit-based support of
coaches involved in the elite athlete pathway is fundamental to maintaining and enhancing
the athlete/coach relationship. Merit–based support means that support is based primarily on
the performances of the coach’s current athletes, and the coach’s involvement in mentoring
and training other coaches.
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

64. That key performance indicators associated with each stage of the athlete pathway are
identified and linked to a support and assessment structure for those coaches involved,
and identified in funding or employment agreements with those coaches.
Issue #13 High Performance Coach Education

A number of submissions questioned the effectiveness of the ATFCA in leading the
development and education of high performance coaches in the technical, applied and human
resource support areas. More specifically it was felt that AA should take the lead role in high
performance coach education, including linking more effectively with the AIS and SIS/SAS to
help deliver a more effective education and development program. Many submissions called
for the role of ATFCA as a service provider in high performance coach education to be
reviewed.
AA must establish a comprehensive coach education and development program in the areas
of technical, applied and human resource support for high performance coaches.
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.
Issue # 14 High Performance Athlete Support

High performance athletes require support in the areas of funding (training, equipment, etc),
science, medicine, coaching, competition and career and education counselling. The current
support system is fragmented, making it difficult for athletes when attempting to access
support. Communication from AA to the athlete is sometimes unclear, while athletes have not
always been responsive to attempts to improve the level of communication. Athletes in
receipt of support must be accountable. They need to understand and accept personal
responsibility for their performances and the management of their daily lives, as well as the
obligations placed on them as a consequence of their acceptance of assistance from AA,
Institutes and other supporters.
The Steering Committee felt that the Athletes’ Commission could play a greater role in
facilitating communication from AA to athletes, as well as in providing advice to AA about

athlete support policies. In turn, the Athletes’ Commission must take responsibility for, and be
accountable for its role in the provision of advice.
The range of support opportunities available to elite athletes needs to be clearly defined and
communicated. This support includes access to direct funding, coaching, sports science,
sports medicine, education, vocation, counseling and domestic and international travel.
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.
Issue # 15 Selection of National Teams for International Competitions

A number of submissions expressed a view that AA was at times inconsistent in applying
selection criteria for Australian teams at major championships such as Olympic Games, World
Championships and Commonwealth Games. This relates to areas such as the
communication of selection requirements, the selection standards, team size, and the
consequential effects of weather conditions on satisfying selection criteria. The Review did
not find this view to be justified.
There were also concerns about the planning for and organisation of teams and tours for
international competition, including a perception by some of a lack of transparency and long
term planning in the appointment of team officials, coaches and support personnel. The
review was concerned that for some larger teams, it was not always the case that persons
with suitable qualifications and/or experience as managers and officials were being appointed
to management positions.
To foster and encourage development of elite athletes, AA needs transparent selection
criteria based on IAAF performance standards that maximise national representation at major
championships, consistent with the objectives of the high performance program detailed
under Issue #8.
The Steering Committee considers that the workload of the NPD will make it difficult for this
person to take on the duties of team coach for all AA national teams. However, the Steering
Committee acknowledges that this is an area of direct relevance to the responsibilities of the
NPD position and that, therefore, it would not be unreasonable if the NPD were appointed as

team coach for major teams to world championships and Olympic and Commonwealth
Games.
The AA Board should endorse all national team selections and appointments. In order to
avoid perceived or actual conflicts of interest, the Steering Committee felt that coaches of any
athletes selected in national teams should not be appointed to team manager positions. In
making appointments, the steering committee’s view is that coaches should not be appointed
as team managers unless they possess the necessary skills, and there is no perceived or
actual conflict of interest in relation to the athletes selected.
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.
Issue #16 Domestic Competition for High Performance Athletes

The domestic competition program is in decline for a number of reasons. These include a
perceived lack of support for domestic events by elite athletes, a perceived absence of a team
culture due to the poor support for relays and a loss of interstate rivalry.
Concern was also expressed that the balance between involvement in domestic competition
and overseas competition should be controlled through agreements between AA and the
athletes and their coaches.
AA must provide a vibrant competition program for senior and developing athletes. Athlete
and coach agreements must detail the participation requirements of the athlete. An important
aspect to re-establishing a healthy club culture is for elite athletes and their coaches to
contribute, whenever possible, to their club’s activities and to club and domestic competitions.
In this sense, AA needs to be steadfast in its requirements of those elite athletes receiving AA
support.
The value of bringing selected top athletes to Australia for training and competition was raised
in a number of submissions. It is felt that as a first step a more effective use of AA’s funds is

to reinvigorate the domestic competition with increased participation by competitive athletes
primarily from the Asia/Oceania regions. Differing opinions were expressed about the status
of mountain running and ultra running within AA’s High Performance Program. AA needs to
clarify its position in these areas.
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.

Part B Governance and Management System
Athletics Australia
Issue # 17 Financial Management

AA faces a serious financial position. This is borne out by the report of consultants PKF,
which independently reviewed the financial structure and processes of AA (See Appendix F
for summary of findings).
The Board and management of AA has paid increased attention to improve the financial
systems and processes, including forming an audit committee and attendance and reporting
by the CFO at Board meetings. However these actions have occurred only recently and their
effect cannot be measured yet.
The Board needs to ensure it is across all aspects of AA’s finances, including accessing
suitably robust or accurate information to inform it. The Board needs to familiarise itself by
revisiting all programs from a position of cost-benefit and the business cases supporting
them; by reviewing business practices, including budgeting; by preparing a full year’s cash
flow projection for the 2005/2006 financial year; and by examining even more critically
whether further expenditure reductions need to be made, including AA’s capacity to deliver
against its tied commitments to sponsors, government, etc. The Board needs to assess AA’s
capacity to operate within bank overdraft limits.
The Board needs to assess its spending on development to ensure it is getting the best return
for the sport.
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

b. review of financial delegations
c. review of the performances of senior executives against their budgets
d. review of the annual budget and checking of assumptions underlying budget
forecasts prior to budget’s consideration and approval by the Board
e. review of external auditor’s performance.
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.
Issue # 19 Board and Management

Considerable concern has been expressed over the remoteness of the Board from the
members of AA and the participants in the sport. At the same time, it needs to be recognised
that AA has been able to improve its revenues thereby enabling it to be in a position to
implement formal arrangements with MAs, which provide a basis for delivering direct funding
to MAs.
Unfortunately, the effectiveness of these formal arrangements has been marred by the fact
that AA has not developed arrangements in full consultation with the MAs. To exacerbate the
position, particular operational targets for the MAs have been set which are unachievable
given the resources available to the MAs.
The Board needs to ensure that AA adopts proper business practices and applies best
practice governance and management, using accepted tools such as policies, planning,
processes, monitoring and performance reviews. It must ensure that effective
communications systems are in place.
The size of AA’s Board is appropriate, with directors needing to commit between 20-30 days
annually, and with additional time commitment required of the Chairman. This time
commitment includes Board meetings, committee meetings and functions/events.

Delineation of the lines of accountability between the CEO and the Board in athletics is made
difficult because the perceptions of what is expected of board members appear to differ
between MAs and the Board members themselves. These expectations need to be clarified
and clearly understood by all parties.
The process for making Board appointments should provide an opportunity for MAs, in
addition to directors, to nominate independent candidates. The Board needs to ensure it has
amongst its number more directors with a contemporary knowledge of the sport.
The Board should consider the need to establish Board committees on a needs basis, with
direct accountability to the Board or senior management. The Board and CEO must be
comfortable with the volunteers involved – the committees should not be allowed to become
the “fiefdom” of a volunteer.
It is probable that the Board has not spent enough time considering strategy and it appears
that it does not yet have a credible strategy in place to address AA's long term funding needs.
The Board needs to accept both criticism and responsibility for AA’s financial failures and the
manner in which the sport has been run. The Board needs urgently to identify strategies that
will help move the sport forward. It may be in the best interests of the sport for the Board to
resolve upon changes in Board composition in order to help restore member confidence.
A concern was expressed that AA had no formal or regular system for making appointments
to external organisations, including positions on international athletics bodies or committees,
or for external recognition of outstanding service to the sport, such as the Australian Honours,
and that a mechanism to ensure this was addressed should be established. The Steering
Committee supports this view.
The Board must communicate clearly how it intends to respond to recommendations from the
Athletics Review. Careful thought needs to be given to addressing the identified
issues/recommendations, and an announcement made on any transitional proposals and
timing. Stakeholder input should be sought in relation to transitional planning, and a
commitment should be given by the Board to drive change with the support of the ASC.
The Board needs to ensure clear policies exist for the employment and dismissal of staff,
review of staff performance and review of management positions. Formal records of staff
appraisals should be maintained.
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.

111. That MAs are given the right to nominate candidates for directorships, to be assessed
by a Board appointed Nominations Committee, which would comprise members of the
Board and others, with the possibility of some being drawn from MAs.
112. That directors are elected to the Board by members, and must be independent of MAs.
“Independent” means that they do not concurrently hold a board, management or
committee position with a MA or club.
113. That, to the extent the Board establishes committees to provide recommendations to
the Board for appointment to external bodies, or technical input and support to
management, this is done in a transparent and cost effective manner based on specific
charters delineating their roles and reporting obligations to management and the Board.
114. That the Board reviews, discusses with management and approves a
strategic/business plan for AA that
a. has stakeholder input
b. has a 3-5 year timeframe
c. is reported against quarterly (performance against key result areas/indicators)
d. is revised/updated annually in consultation with key stakeholders.
115. That the Board includes as part of its annual Board work plan, a review of board /
director performance.
116. That the Board reviews the range of Board policies that exist to ensure this meets with
accepted good governance practices.
117. That the Board addresses transitional arrangements associated with adopting the
recommendations from the Athletics Review and their timing, and with support of the
ASC.
118. That the Board updates its strategic/business plan and associated budget to reflect the
impacts of those recommendations from this report it agrees to adopt.
119. That the Board establishes an Honours and Awards Committee to ensure that the
contributions of members of the AA ‘family’ are appropriately recognised.
Athletics as a Sport in Australia
Issue # 20 Impact of 1998 PricewaterhouseCoopers Report
Some of the key recommendations contained in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report of 1998

have been embraced by the sport.
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.

Issue # 21 Roles and Linkages between Athletics Bodies
AA, as the Australian member of the International Association of Athletics Federations, is

responsible to the IAAF for ensuring the rules and regulations of the IAAF are applied to
sanctioned athletics events in Australia and for fostering the development of athletics in
Australia and elsewhere. The IAAF defines athletics to involve track & field, road running,
race walking, cross country running and mountain running.
Athletics in Australia is delivered through multiple national and State associations, many with
overlapping roles and interdependence.
The national body for athletics needs to be able to respond to the expectations and demands
of its international body, the IAAF. Bodies such as the IAAF, ASC, AOC and ACGA will
recognise and support only one national body for the sport.
The plethora of national and State bodies, each dealing in its own way with separate
elements of athletics, is far from ideal. Athletics as a sport in Australia would be best served if
it were run by one truly national organisation. However, in the medium term it seems clear
that it would be extremely difficult for particular athletics bodies to cede their responsibilities to
AA, or to permit their operations to be taken over, or managed by AA, so as to enable it to
become the single entity managing the sport of athletics in Australia.
Failure by AA and ALA to achieve a partnership has led to failure of some otherwise
innovative strategies and a continuing environment of mistrust and conflict. National
planning, at AA or AAF levels, failed to eventuate. Nevertheless, it is important to providers
and supporters of athletics that participants in ALA understand there is a pathway for them to
'senior' athletics. Opportunities exist for mutual benefit, but need to be formally recognised
and supported. Close cooperation between the two bodies is essential for the benefit of
participants and the sport.
AA should take responsibility for, and be accountable for national athletics activities. This
includes competitions; development of athletes, coaches and officials; and preparation of elite
athletes and representative teams in IAAF sanctioned events. The urgent attention of AA’s
Board and management is required to identify satisfactory arrangements that result in these
areas of the sport being absorbed under AA’s structure. A possible arrangement may be the
creation of specialist committees to absorb functions currently performed by other national
bodies e.g. coaching. AA’s constitution already provides that other national bodies may
become its members should these bodies wish to.
The original intention of the AAF was to be an umbrella body of national organizations
involved in athletics for planning and coordination of the sport’s development. It failed to
attract involvement of Australian Little Athletics, and unreasonably elevated the voting status
of some minor athletics groups on the basis they are separately incorporated associations
above that of larger MAs to which the members of these smaller bodies, in most cases, also
belong.
There is no meaningful purpose in prolonging the AAF’s existence. It further complicates an
already complicated national structure.
Acknowledging AA’s responsibilities to coaches, the ATFCA should not be a member of AA in
its own right. Rather, coaches should be accredited by, and become linked to, AA, through
their membership of MAs and the ATFCA. The ATFCA’s role should be linked to education of
coaches to standards required by AA for accreditation. AA could partner or contract ATFCA
in this area, along with other training providers, to provide training courses.
Recommendations
120. That the AAF is disbanded.

121. That the number of separate athletics associations reduces over time through voluntary
amalgamations or relinquishment of operations or voluntary dissolutions. AA’s Board
and management to identify structures and processes within AA that encourage and

result in AA assuming responsibility for services delivered by ATFCA; Australian
Masters Athletics; Australian Race Walking Clubs; Australian Mountain Running; etc.
122. That AA and ALA continue to pursue cooperative arrangements with a view to
achieving a far more efficient pathway of athletic activities for young children and to
maximise more effectively the potential for children to develop and pursue an interest in
athletics as a sport.
123. That AA considers carefully appropriate arrangements to integrate schools and
professional elements of the sport under their banner.
124. That AA puts in priority order and articulates a relationship with other athletics
stakeholder groups based on merit and value to the sport in respect of its significance
and relevance to the participation needs and international competition requirements.
125. That AA moves towards developing one single registration system between MAs and
Athletic Leagues (Australian Athletic Confederation).
126. That AA looks at ways for MAs to undertake development opportunities at Athletic
League events.

Implementation
A number of submissions expressed disappointment that previous reviews and reports had
not been fully considered or implemented. Indeed the Steering Committee received feedback
that some people declined to make a submission for this very reason. The Steering
Committee notes that most recommendations in this report are not new. Despite the
consistent recurrence of key themes and challenges facing the sport of athletics for at least
twenty years, there has been a lack of sufficient commitment within the sport to respond to,
and where appropriate implement, many of the changes recommended as beneficial to the
sport’s future.
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.
This report’s recommendations are provided without consideration to their financial

parameters. The Steering Committee had neither the time nor sufficient information to cost its
recommendations and assess the associated financial effect on the sport. Of greater
importance is the articulation of the values and priorities on which any planning and budgeting
decisions should be made.
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.

Appendices
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

Appendix A
A Terms of Reference
Steering Committee Terms of Reference

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
Athletes’ body.
These recommendations may include adjustments to existing governance and management

systems, including financial management, communication networks, and/or integration of
activities and operations.
Working groups’ Terms of Reference

Development
To assess the effectiveness and capacity of existing pathways, and to provide
recommendations to enhance the education and development pathways for athletes and
coaches at the grass roots and developmental levels.
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.
These recommendations may include adjustments to existing governance and management

systems, and/or integration of activities and operations.

Appendix B
B Members of the review
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.
Glynis Nunn-Cearns OAM

Commenced her athletic career at nine in the country town of Toowoomba. Represented Australia
in World Cups, World Championships, Commonwealth Games and Olympic Games. Won gold in
the Heptathlon at the 1984 Olympic Games. In her professional life, Glynis was a teacher for
twenty two years, including Head of Department, has been manager of a major sporting facility
and manager of an educational program. Currently the Executive Director of the ATFCA, a
member of the IAAF Women’s Committee and a member of the AA National Selection
Committee.
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.
Secretariat provided by Peter Sharpe (ASC)

Development working group
Brian Roe (Chair)
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.
Secretariat provided by Sophie Keil (ASC)
High Performance Working group

Michael Scott (Chair)
Don Talbot OBE

Legendary swimming coach and leader for more than 50 years, with BA (Hons), MA (Canada);
Australian National Swimming Coach from 1989 to 2001; Executive Director AIS 1980-1983;
Olympic Swim Coach for Canada in Montreal 1976, and for Australia 1972, 1964, and 1960;
recipient Australian Sports Hall of Fame 1991; International World Sports Hall of Fame Fort
Lauderdale Florida 1979

Rick Mitchell
A triple Olympian, Rick won a silver medal in athletics at the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games.
Professionally, Rick has held a number of senior roles within the Public Sector, Financial Services
and Telecommunications. He was the inaugural Executive Director of the Tasmanian Institute of
Sport, Victorian Regional Development Manager for MLC Life and CEO for the Western
Australian Turf Club. More recently, Rick was the Queensland State Manager for Link
Telecommunications prior to joining Archer Consulting Group as Senior Consultant. Rick is also a
regular media presenter, contributor to daily newspapers and public speaker at corporate,
sporting and event related functions.
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.
Jackie Byrnes OAM

Competitive athlete from 1958 to 1968, winning NSW titles in both the 400 & 800, runner up at
National level in both these events and achieving World Rankings in the 400m (5th) & 200m
(16th) in 1967. Her coaching career spanned 34 years until retirement in 2002, and included
coach/manager of numerous Australian teams to international competition including Women's
Sprint Coach with the Olympic Team in 2000.
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,

and compiled the UKA Lottery Funding programs which contributed to Sydney Olympic Games
Athletics Results, and directly to Gold Medals for Johnathan Edwards and Denise Lewis.
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.
Secretariat provided by Sean Scott (ASC).
Governance Working group

Stephen Spargo (Chair)
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

roles include committee work at the Glenhuntly club in Melbourne, including 6 years as President,
a board member of Athletics Victoria, the last two as President. He is also on the Victorian
Olympic Council as a representative of athletics, and the Program Management Committee for
the athletics program at the Victorian Institute of Sport. In his “spare time” he coaches a squad of
20 odd athletes.
Secretariat provided by Stephen Fox (ASC).

Appendix C (1)
C Consultations and submissions
A total of 133 written submissions were received from:
AA Athletics Commission Hunt, Darryl J

(Simon Hollingsworth)
Alexander, Ron (WA DSR) Hurst, Mike
Attenborough, Lisa (Athletics Huxley, Di
SA)
Austen, Paul (TIS) Jablonski, Gordon (Athletics Tasmania)
Babijczuk, Bohdan Jarver, Jess
Baker, Don (Victorian Little Jenes, Paul
Athletics)
Baker, Simon Johnson, Len
Balderstone Simon Keely, Diane & Murhphy Joe
Balderstone, Simon Kehoe, Peter
Barclay, Lawrie Kitt, Ivan

Bennett, Peter Launder, Alan & Jennifer
Bidder, Tudor Laurendet, Paul
Bideau, Nic Lawler, Peter
Binnington, Max Lawrence, Steve (WAIS)
Bisetto, Sandro Lewin, Simon
Blyth, Don Lim, Teck
Boas, John Lord, Anne (AA Out of Stadium Committee)
Boegman, Nicole Loxley, Wayne (Athletica - WA Athletics)

Booth, Anton Mahony, Margaret
Bowman, Peter McDonald, Peter R
Boyd, Ray & Denise McFadden, Derek
Boyd, Roy McKinnon, Geoffrey OAM
Braakhuis Simone McNamara, Marjorie (ALA)
Brandis, Reg Medlicott, Robert (NSWIS)
Brown, Eric Norris, Ken (ACTAS)
Calderbank, Kerry Norris, Ken (NESC)
Carlin Paul Nunn, Chris
Carroll, Chris O'Halloran, Terry
Chapman, Brian Olden, Graeme
Clarke, John Osborne, Norm
Clarke, Tony Periac, Kathryn
Clohessy, Pat Petrovics, Patricia
Coogan, Gerard Pitt, Stephen (Athletics Qld)
Cornelius, Ian Plant, Maurie
Crawford, Ron Prendergast, Kevin
Cremer, Grant Probst, Jorg
Crouch, Graham Pye, Nick
Culbert, David Pym, Andrew
Culbert, Sam Rasic, Sonny
Daly, John Readwin, Tim
Dempsey, Peter Rhodes, David

Appendix C (1) (cont’d)
Consultations and submissions (cont’d)
Dibbs, Ross
Doubell, Ralph (Athletics NSW) Rowe, Geoff
Doyle, Greg (Athletics NSW) Rutto, Mzee

Dunne, W J Scriven, Bruce
Edwards, David Sheehan, John
Eldridge, Janelle & Moore, Shuravetsky, Efim
Betty (Athletics NSW)
Foley, Brian (Australian Masters Spence, Peter (VIS)
Association)
Fortune, Peter Stephens, Barbara
Foster, Peter J C Stevic, Matt
Gardiner, Cathy Stewart, Mark
Green, Daniel Stoward, Graeme
Green, Kingsley Suchy, Dan
Gulliver, Robert Surjan, Erik
Hagicostas, Nick (SASI) Symonds, Ross (Qld Little Athletics)
Hamdorf, Dr Phil (SA Office for Telford, Dick
Recreation and Sport)
Hannan, Sharon & Peter Thompson, Ian
Hanrahan, Matthew Thomson, Michael
Healey, Peter Turney, Pam
Hellwig Jason Wall, John
Henness, Owen Wardlaw, Chris
Hennessy, Gary Watkins, Gareth (Athletics NSW)
Higley, Rob Watson, Lindsay
Hilliard, Craig Wheatley, Jennifer
Hodges, Sharon (Qld DSR) Williams W McB
Hollingsworth, Simon Wilson, Denis
Honey, Nick (Athletics Victoria)
Horneman, Matthew

Appendix C (2)
Breakdown of those interviewed by Targeted Individual / Group
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.
The list includes:
• Specific individuals targeted for an interview

• Directors of SIS/SAS/AIS
• Heads of State/Territory Departments for Sport
• Presidents of each AA State Association
• Presidents of each State Little Athletics Organisation
• Presidents of each of the members of the Australian Athletic Federation
Breakdown by Individuals
Targeted individuals Presented Lodged submission

Lee Troop 3 2
Steve Moneghetti 3 2
Terri Cater 3 2
Andrew Forrest (current Chair AA) 3 2
Dave Culbert 3 3
Chris Carroll 3 3
Matt Stevic 3 3
Wally Foreman 3 2
Jason Hellwig 3 3
Marjorie McNamara ALA 3 3
Tudor Bidder – AA HPM, Development submission 3 3
David Culbert - AA Selector 3 3
Simon Hollingsworth – AA Athletes Commission 3 3
Keith Connor – National Head Coach 3 2
Don Talbot – former Swimming National Head Coach 3 2

Appendix C (2) cont’d
Breakdown by Groups
Target group Lodged a submission Interviewed

Directors of ACTAS 3 3
SIS/SAS/AIS AIS 3 3
NESC 3 3
NSWIS 3 3
NTIS 2 2
QAS 2 3
SASI 3 3
TIS 3 3
VIS 3 3
WAIS 3 3
Heads of ACT 2 2
State/Territory NSW 2 3
Departments for NT 2 2
Sport Qld 3 3
SA 3 2
Tas 2 3
VIC 2 3
WA 3 3
Presidents of ACT 2 3
each AA State NSW 3 3
Association NT 2 2
Qld 3 3
SA 3 3
Tas 3 3
VIC 3 3
WA 3 3
Presidents of Australian Ultra Runners Association 3 3
each of the Aust Fedn of Race Walking Clubs 2 3
members of the Athletics Australia 2 2
Australian Athletic Australian Masters Athletics 3 3
Federation Australian Athletics Confederation 2 3
School Sport Australia 2 3
Aust Track & Field Coaches Assn 3 3
Presidents of ACT 2 3
each State Little NSW 2 3
Athletics Assn NT 2 2
Qld 3 2
SA 2 3
Tas 2 3
VIC 3 3
WA 2 3
Summary of interviews:
by State: ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA Total
11 13 0 8 6 4 28 6 76
by category: Targeted Groups 32

Targeted Individuals 11
Others 33
Total 76

Appendix D
D Current membership and voting structure of AA
Athletics Australia
MEMBERSHIP & VOTING
Athletics 7 Directors
Australia (6 elected, 1 ex-officio)
ACT NSW QLD VIC SA WA TAS NT

1 vote 1 vote 1 vote 1 vote 1 vote 1 vote 1 vote 1 vote
A.C.T. Athletics New Queensland Athletics Athletics AthleticA Athletics Northern

Athletics South Wales Athletics Victoria South (Western Tasmania Territory
Australia Australia) Athletics

Appendix E
E Current structure of athletics as a sport in Australia
Existing Federated M odel
Australian IAAF
Little
Athletics Australian Others
Association Athletics (w alks, fun
Federation runners, etc)
Business board: Directors AT &FC A AAC i.e. Aust

Athletics
elected from D irectors’ (Coaches) Professionals Masters
Australia
nom inees Athletics
M em bers = State Q ueensland Athletics Athletics

and Territory Athletics NSW Victoria Etc
Affiliates Association Lim ited Incorporated
C lubs and Participants

Appendix F1
F Financial Management Review Athletics Australia June 2004

Summary of Findings and Recommendations – PKF chartered accountants, June 2004
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.

Recommendations Appendix F2
The following recommendations and suggestions for improvement based on the work performed,
incorporating best practice financial management principles as they apply to AA are made:
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:
- Business and Corporate Plan progress against

objectives
- Increased narrative on the Balance Sheet

information and detailed analysis on significant
balance sheet movements
- Increased divisional analysis (including cause and

effect narrative and demonstration of links to
forecast)
- Detailed explanation of Key Performance Indicators

(KPIs) and discussion as to the meaning of
apparent or identified trends
Presentation of Accrual Budgets and Cash Projections

with an appropriate reconciliation between the two
positions to allow for greater understanding by
management
Continued monitoring of the cash position of the
organisation

Appendix G
G Documents tabled for the review
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

Athletics Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Athletics Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Athletics Review

Re-creating a culture for

Chairman: Herb Elliott

prepared for the Australian Sports Commission and Athletics Australia

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 1 of 52

Foreword by Herb Elliott............................................................................................................... 3

Part A Pathways – Athletes, Coaches and Officials............................................................ 11

High Performance .................................................................................................................... 18

Part B Governance and Management System................................................................. 30

Athletics as a Sport in Australia ............................................................................................. 33

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 2 of 52

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 3 of 52

AA means Athletics Australia Limited

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 4 of 52

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 5 of 52

A July 1998 report on athletics in Australia prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers attempted to

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 6 of 52

2. These recommendations may include adjustments to existing governance and

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 7 of 52

1. Financial stability: AA needs to pay urgent attention to developing and implementing a

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 8 of 52

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 9 of 52

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 10 of 52

Part A Pathways – Athletes, Coaches and Officials

Issue # 1 Grass roots and development pathway

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 11 of 52

2. That AA encourages each MA to extend the national initiative in recommendation 1 by

Issue # 2 Club Structure

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 12 of 52

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 13 of 52

Consequently AA needs to explore the advantages of a greater emphasis on partnership

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 14 of 52

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 15 of 52

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 16 of 52

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 17 of 52

Issue #6 Linking Development and High Performance

Issue #7 High Performance Pathway

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 18 of 52

The Elite Athlete Pathway

Talent Development Consolidation International/Elite

Early Nationals World

World Youth Games

A-Series/Domestic Grand Prix

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 19 of 52

Level II – Young Athlete

Progress from Assistant Coach to Coach to Head Coach (club/State/national)

Merit Based Coaching

Potential for selection on National Teams

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 20 of 52

Issue # 9 Structure of the High Performance Program

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 22 of 52

Issue # 10 Roles, Responsibilities and Funding Input of Institutes

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 23 of 52

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 24 of 52

Issue # 12 Selection and Support of Merit-based Coaches

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 25 of 52

Issue #13 High Performance Coach Education

Issue # 14 High Performance Athlete Support

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 26 of 52

Issue # 15 Selection of National Teams for International Competitions

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 27 of 52

Issue #16 Domestic Competition for High Performance Athletes

AA Review.doc 10/12/2004 Page 28 of 52