Governance Structures WPA Webinar 24 October 2019 The current federated system for in Australia

The traditional federated model is a ‘bottom up’ driven model with individuals being members of clubs, clubs being members of States and the States being the members of the National organization. This means that change has to be effected by the layer below e.g. Only the Clubs can change things at the State level.

National WPA The State organisations are voting members# of WPA

States Qld NSW WA Vic Tas SA ACT The clubs/ affiliated members^ are voting members of The State organisation Clubs/ Affiliated members* Clubs Clubs Clubs Clubs Clubs Clubs Clubs The participants are voting members of The Clubs/ affiliated members Individuals Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants

Notes: # Voting members are those who can vote at the AGM. The vote on election of directors, changes to the constitution and decisions regarding the voting Members, plus anything else outlined in the constitution * Many of the States allow other organisations than an incorporated club to be an affiliated member, e.g. schools. The State organization constitution will Define who can be affiliated members ^ In the ACT individual full members are also voting members

2 The proposed system for

The main change was in the voting structure, allowing both the clubs and the States to be voting members at The National level. Therefore allowing clubs to influence what happens Nationally, providing a direct link between Grass roots and the National Level. The voting model would be tiered depending on the number of members.

National WPA The State organisations and clubs are voting members# of WPA States Qld NSW WA Vic Tas SA ACT The clubs/ affiliated members^ are voting members of The State organisation Clubs/ Affiliated members* Clubs Clubs Clubs Clubs Clubs Clubs Clubs The participants are voting members of The Clubs/ affiliated members Individuals Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants Participants

Notes: # Voting members are those who can vote at the AGM. The vote on election of directors, changes to the constitution and decisions regarding the voting Members, plus anything else outlined in the constitution * Many of the States allow other organisations than an incorporated club to be an affiliated member, e.g. schools. The State organization constitution will Define who can be affiliated members ^ In the ACT individual full members are also voting members

3 Governance models in Sport

There are three main governance models currently in use by Sports in Australia: Federated, One Management and Unitary. These are not the only three models and this is a spectrum. Some sports use a hybrid of one or more of these models.

Federated Unitary One Management

Management Model NSO

SSO SSO SSO SSO SSO SSO SSO Assets

Governance All separate legal entities with One legal entity for the whole sport in All separate legal entities. Boards responsibility for their own Australia. Assets all rest in this entity. remain and all entities keep their governance and execution There my be State based divisions/ assets. offices if necessary. Finances flow to and from the National organisation.

Management All legal entities responsible for National workforce, all employed by Management comes from National their own management and staff the single legal entity. organisation and all staff are employed by this organisation.

Ease to Status Quo Constitutional change. Requires detailed planning. implement Potential relocation of staff Staff employment resolution. Wind up of existing entities and asset Avoids major constitutional changes transfer. through use of service agreement

Sports using this Majority of NSO’s Football (Hybrid), Ski & Australian , model Snowboard Australia (hybrid). On the way: 12 sports identified by SA

4 Benefits of each model Model Benefits

Federated • Maintains close management of local interests • Matches the government structure

Unitary • Single National brand supporting outcomes focused on the best for the sport. • Single workforce working towards National outcomes, and structured to deliver high quality outcomes. • Reduced replication of administrative infrastructure and therefore reduction in associated costs. • Reduced replication of activities. • Enables sharing and ability to leverage learnings Nationally. • Absolute ability to ensure strategic alignment and achievement of common objectives. • Allows State staff to focus on delivering the sport and increasing participation locally. • Single pathway from participation to high performance, delivered and communicated consistently. • Improved and consistent support of HP athletes. • National brand with consistent National marketing messages. • Ability to attract high-calibre directors and staff.

One Management • Reduced replication of activities. • Enables sharing and ability to leverage learnings Nationally. • National workforce structured to deliver consistent high quality outcomes. • Reduction in administrative burden for the State organisations. • Increased ability to ensure strategic alignment and achievement of common objectives. • Allows State staff to focus on delivering the sport and increasing participation. • Single pathway from participation to high performance, delivered and communicated consistently. • Improved and consistent support of HP athletes. • Ability to attract high-calibre directors and staff.

5 Risks of each model Risks of adopting / retaining Risks of not adopting / retaining

Federated • The sport does not move forwards, nothing changes. • Cost to change is too high and the sport is no longer • Politics and history drive the organisation, rather than sustainable the needs of the sport • Not in line with SA direction therefore future funding at risk

Unitary • Lack of buy in from the States • Change in roles and responsibilities of all staff • Disgruntled staff members leading to low staff morale • Capability and capacity of staff • Loss of local innovation • Sport does not move forwards • Difficult and time consuming to implement • Inability to align strategic objectives • State Boards will no longer exist • Not in line with SA recommendations, therefore • High administrative burden to achieve future funding at risk • Current issues are not addressed • Potential efficiencies not realized, therefore sport is less sustainable • Politics and history drive the organisation, rather One Management • Lack of buy in from the States than the needs of the sport • Change in roles and responsibilities of the State Boards • Confusion in the membership regarding roles and and all staff responsibilities at each level of governance. • Disgruntled staff members leading to low staff morale • Capability and capacity of staff • Loss of local innovation

6 Proposals from the GRC

There are three main governance models currently in use by Sports in Australia: Federated, One Management and Unitary. These are not the only three models and this is a spectrum. Some sports use a hybrid of one or more of these models.

Hybrid One Management Hybrid Federated

Management Model NSO

Assets SSO SSO SSO SSO SSO SSO SSO

Governance All separate legal entities. Boards remain and all entities All separate legal entities with responsibility for their own keep their assets. governance and execution, but voting members of the Voting members of the National body are the States and National body are the States and the Clubs based on a the Clubs based on a tiered voting system dependent on tiered voting system dependent on the number of the number of members. members.

Board composition and 9 Board members: 3 appointed, 5 elected and the Chair of 9 Board members: 3 appointed, 5 elected and the Chair of nominations committee the Athletes Commission. the Athletes Commission. Rotation of 2 elected and 1 appointed director each year. Rotation of 2 elected and 1 appointed director each year. Nominations committee initial 2 years: 1 Directors, 1 Nominations committee: 1 Directors, 1 external expert, 2 - external expert, 2 - 3 people selected by the States 3 State Presidents Nominations committee, 1 director 3 – 4 independents Management Finances flow to and from the National organisation. All legal entities responsible for their own management Management comes from National organisation and all and staff. staff are employed by this organisation. States can ‘opt in’ to operational shared services.

Ease to implement Constitutional changes re Board and nominations Constitutional changes re Board and nominations Committee composition. Committee composition. Operations requires detailed planning. Staff employment resolution. Avoids further major constitutional changes through use of 7 service agreement Water Polo in Australia The Case for Governance change WPA Webinar 24 October 2019 Executive Summary The WPA Board believe that change is needed within Water Polo in Australia’s governance structure to ensure the survival and success of the sport in the current modern sporting landscape, this is also as per the results from the community survey.

▪ There are global and local drivers for change that are difficult to address in the current structure

▪ Other sports and NFP’s are going through/ have been through similar processes and have seen benefits.

9 Global trends

Customers Competition • Ageing population • More sports, more provider • Increased demands on time more leisure activities and income • Technology supporting • Less active individual, unorganised • Trend to unorganized sport forms of sport

Supply Chain • Burden on volunteers increasing Industry due to increased regulation • Small number of commercial • Greater expectations from sports dominating consumers • Lack of fit for purpose facilities • Less sport in the school curriculum • Challenge to access facilities

Political • More expectations from Govt that sports are operating effectively • Sport Aus positioning sport as vehicle to address social, health and economic challenges • More complex policy framework Local Drivers for change

Inconsistent High Performance Inconsistent results Static Approach to participation Sport rates Development

Over Un Co-ordinated Governance, approach to strained Change future revenue relationships diversification The Risks of not changing

Cost to change is too Current issues are not Inability to align high and the sport is no addressed strategic objectives. longer sustainable

Maintain a cycle of Politics and history States spilling boards drive the organisation, Sport is not agile and the loss of sport IP rather than the needs enough to move into and talented of the sport the future personnel.

Confusion in the Not in line with SA Potential efficiencies membership regarding recommendations, not realized, therefore roles and therefore future sport is less sustainable responsibilities at each funding at risk level of governance. 12 Other sports reached a similar tipping point before undertaking reform

• While member based organisations have always had a duty to utilise their members money to achieve the best outcomes, in an environment of, declining government funding, increased competition of participation in other sports, increased distractions of electronic based activities, difficulty in obtaining commercial revenues, this prerogative is stronger than ever. • This should be done by having the most effective and efficient structure possible. • The Sports who have undertaken this journey have all done so for similar reasons, which also align to WPA’s.

Ski & Snowboard Golf Touch Football Sailing Softball Water Polo

Sport was dysfunctional Low non-membership Lack of accountability for Sport was becoming Sport becoming Sport becoming and not sustainable income. Restricted in outcomes. increasingly fragmented increasingly fragmented dysfunctional and ability to commercialise fragmented, therefore assets. not sustainable Fragmented delivery and Fragmented delivery and Lack of focus on delivering Fragmented delivery and inconsistency of programs inconsistency of programs the sport inconsistency of programs Fragmented delivery and Fragmented delivery and inconsistency of programs inconsistency of programs Inefficient use of limited Smaller states were Fragmented delivery and Smaller States becoming resources heading to insolvency inconsistency of programs less sustainable Inefficient use of limited Smaller States becoming resources less sustainable ASC direction and support Inefficient use of limited Inefficient use of limited Inefficient use of limited to reform resources resources resources. ASC direction and support Inefficient use of limited • to reform resources ASC direction and support ASC direction and support ASC direction and support to reform to reform to reform ASC direction and support to reform

13 Governance reform has delivered positive outcomes in Sport and the NFP Sector

1. increased their membership revenue by over $1m by implementing a national membership fee, and have attracted national membership benefits through sponsors (member discounts through Virgin Australia). 2. have been able to re invest in developing the sport by being able to focus the National headcount to work in a single direction. 3. Golf Australia are now in a position to realise a projected annual uplift of $1.6m in commercial revenue 4. Touch have been able to secure an additional recurring $0.5m in State Government Grants 5. have been able to free up resource to develop a new competition and secure a broadcast deal with . 6. Heart foundation: The Heart Foundation is a federated charity comprising 8 state and territory divisions. The Federation is governed by a binding federation agreement that provides a framework for operations. On 30 June 2018, the Federation agreement will expire, and the organisation is moving to a Unitary model. “Our aim: One Heart, One Team”. 7. Leading Age Services Association Ltd has recently moved to a unitary model. In the face of significant changes in the Aged care industry the CEO is quoted in their Annual report: “as a new nationally unified advocacy and membership organisation, LASA was uniquely able to assist, engage and strongly represent its members in the face of these challenges.”

14