ABSTRACT
Sport has long played an important cultural and historical role within New Zealand society both as an active pastime and as an activity of national pride with regard to international performances. For much of the twentieth century the mandate for sports development remained solely with amateur sporting and community organisations and met with little government interest. Early government intervention was intermittent and limited; however, recent changes to the trajectory of sports development have impacted significantly not only on the direction of sports policy but also on the rationale for, and outcomes sought by, such interventions. Over the last 15 years or so there has been rapid change to the structure and development of sport in New Zealand. Perhaps most notable, has been the way in which the social significance of sport has burgeoned with links to health, education, social and commercial outcomes. Despite the strong cultural significance of sport and increased government interest, there has been limited academic literature regarding the study of sport, particularly prior to the mid-1980s (Collins 2000). While the volume of research on New Zealand sports development has been limited, it is nevertheless growing. More recent academic research has addressed sports development and sports policy issues from a range of historical, social and policy perspectives (Chalip 1996; Collins 2008; Piggin et al. 2009; Sam 2003, 2005; Sam and Jackson 2004). This chapter aims to provide an overview of sports development in New Zealand with particular
emphasis on highlighting the increasing intervention by the state and the resulting impact with regard to sports development. In addition, the chapter will discuss the growing links between sports development and other related policy areas, particularly health, economic development, community welfare, youth and promotion of national identity. Developments in New Zealand have been drawn from empirical research that has been conducted over the last fours years. Research has included a review of both academic and organisational documents on sports development activity along with a series of interviews. Interviews were conducted with both governmental and non-governmental senior staff who had been involved in sports development at a senior level over the last eight or so years or still were involved. Early New Zealand society was heavily influenced by the United Kingdom, with British
sporting traditions and activities spreading with the colonisation of New Zealand in the 1800s. By the turn of the twentieth century there were about 14 national sporting associations already formed in New Zealand. National governing bodies1 (NGBs) began to form towards the end of
the nineteenth century with many being established between 1860 and 1900. Government intervention in the early part of the twentieth century was largely restricted to the provision of playing fields, as sport was considered to be the responsibility of the individual and volunteer groups, not the government. Intervention by the state, perhaps unsurprisingly, focused upon concern regarding the health and fitness of young New Zealanders and the implications for the defence of the nation (Perkins et al. 1993). Post-World War II public sector involvement shifted towards a benign form of social policing
that was aimed at reinstating traditional social values, in other words sport was used as a tool to solve urban social problems of the era (Hindson et al. 1994). Participation in sport grew as men returned from the war and attempted to reintegrate into their communities. However, the growth in sporting activity and participation levels was not accompanied by increased resources and few sporting organisations were well resourced (Stothart 2000). A shift in ethos began to occur during the 1970s whereby sport for sport’s sake and ensuring
access for all became more important than developing the national fibre of the country’s youth (Hindson et al. 1994). At the same time, sporting leaders began calling for increased resources with the goal of achieving greater success on the international stage. Divergent views began to emerge between the two key political parties (National and Labour) based upon what level of state involvement was acceptable. Significantly it was ‘community development’ that was espoused as the rationale for government involvement (Garrett 1980). A review of sport was instigated by the new Labour government in 1985 as there was considerable
public concern regarding the structure of sport and the growing divide between the supporters of sport and recreation activities (Collins and Stuart 1994). Supporters of sport believed that the recreationists were receiving too much attention, to the detriment of sport, while recreationists were wary that elite sport may receive too much attention (Collins and Stuart 1994). The report, Sport on the Move, resulted in the 1987 Recreation and Sport Act and the establishment of the Hillary Commission for Recreation and Sport (Sport Development Inquiry Committee 1985). Funding increased and a range of new initiatives were introduced by the Hillary Commission, which targeted minority groups including women, youth, Mäori and older adults (Collins and Downey 2000). Sport on the Move advocated a two-pronged approach by government of focusing on both elite and recreational sport, an approach that was to be reiterated in the 2001 Sport Development Inquiry. Despite supporting increased participation and access to sporting facilities, the inquiry indicated
a move away from the welfare-type ethos of Sport for All towards a more neo-liberal approach, according to which the individual should take responsibility for their own actions. Participation in sport was considered to be the responsibility of the individual, as sport should continue to be a ‘self help activity, and that no forms of community funding should be established which might reduce or disrupt the independent spirit and motivation of sportsmen and women and their club structure’ (Sport Development Inquiry Committee 1985: 66). Government’s responsibility to maintain the value of community benefits for sport was clearly articulated throughout the report of the Inquiry Committee with the recommendation that funding from both the Crown and discretionary grants should be directed towards practical support policies at all levels of sport for the benefits of all New Zealanders (Sport Development Inquiry Committee 1985: 67). However, detail of what the practical support policies might consist of was not clarified. The 1980s saw a focus upon providing opportunities for all with the then newly formed
Hillary Commission for Sport, Fitness and Leisure taking the lead in setting the direction of the sport and recreation sector in New Zealand. Somewhat surprisingly, sports policy during this period appeared to be based more upon welfarist type principles, in stark contrast with the then radical neo-liberal approach being adopted across the public sector. A range of programmes
including KiwiSport and SportFit were introduced, which encouraged skill development and the promotion of fair play while discouraging a win-at-all costs attitude (Russell et al. 1996). Radical public sector reforms during the 1990s abruptly introduced a new faith in management
sciences (James 1997) which impacted significantly upon sporting organisations and the structure of sport. Increased effectiveness of sporting organisations, economic justifications for government support and a user-pays philosophy towards sporting activities were espoused, despite the Hillary Commission continuing to maintain functions that were predominantly based upon a welfarist philosophy (see Russell et al. 1996). Towards the end of the 1990s, amidst a general concern for a fragmented sports sector, a Ministerial Taskforce was established. The Taskforce on Sport, Fitness, and Leisure (referred to as the Graham Report after its chairman John Graham) was developed during a period of high public interest in sport prompted by the disappointment of a low Olympic medals tally at the 2000 Olympic Games (Sam 2003). Issues of accessibility were at the forefront of the Graham Report as participation in physical
activity was seen as an ‘inalienable right’, with the implication that recreation and sport opportunities should be available to any sector of the population without undue constraints of cost or access. These principles of equity and access were placed alongside the clear intention to try and develop the concept of lifelong participation in physical activity as ‘Lifelong participation in recreation and sport is an integral part of the experience of being a New Zealander’ (Ministerial Taskforce 2001: 64). This concept was further expanded as a key principle when it was identified that participation in physical activity ‘should be a seamless progression of participatory experiences through all ages and all levels of involvement’ (Ministerial Taskforce 2001: 65). Interestingly, the Graham Report identified that it was local, not central, government that needed to be prepared to provide facilities and be aware of, and responsive to, the needs of social sport, while local clubs and Regional Sports Trusts must provide assistance in this area (Ministerial Taskforce 2001: 74). Worthy of note is the fact that the Taskforce Report, which claimed to represent the voice
of sport, called for increased government intervention in sport. It appeared that the Taskforce was prepared to pass control of sport to government when it concluded that, despite the assertion that ‘sport should run sport’, the variable quality of sports and recreation leadership and administration did not justify the allocation of unmonitored funds (Ministerial Taskforce 2001: 60). This invitation for government to become more involved in sport signalled a significant shift in thinking from 30 years previously. Not surprisingly, themes of efficiency, competitiveness and leadership were central in the development of the taskforce recommendations (Sam 2003). In building a case for government involvement in sport the Taskforce identified health, public good, social cohesion, an enhanced sense of identity and image, crime prevention and economic benefits as reasons for increased government investment in the sport sector while signalling a shift away from an ethos of sport for sport’s sake. As a result of the Graham Report a new crown entity,2 Sport and Recreation New Zealand
(SPARC) was created which, for the first time, placed responsibility for sports policy (which included elite sport, grass-roots sport and physical recreation) under the umbrella of one organisation. The formation of SPARC signalled the beginning of rapid change in the sports sector as, for the first time, there was one organisation mandated to lead New Zealand sport. Upon its establishment SPARC identified three objectives around which its policies, services and investments would be focused:
Being the most active nation. Having the most effective sport and physical recreation systems. Having athletes and teams winning consistently in events that matter to New Zealanders.
