Introduction
4.1
This chapter discusses the current funding provided to adaptive sport programs and investigates ways to improve the equitability and effectiveness of funding.
Current funding
Serving members
4.2
Sport in Defence can take many different forms, with pathways including participation in civilian sport through to representing the Australian Defence Force (ADF) or an individual service at national and international events. Each service has a Sports Council to manage the respective sports programs, while sport is managed at the joint level by the ADF Sports Cell. The ADF Sports Cell sets the strategic direction for sport in the ADF and creates an environment for ADF members to participate in sport as a competitor, coach, or administrator.
4.3
In 2016, the ADF established the Australian Defence Force Adaptive Sport Program (ADFASP). The ADFASP is a multi-sport program for wounded, injured or ill serving and former serving military personnel run through Defence’s ADF Sports Cell. The program focuses on preparing current and former veterans for major domestic and international adaptive sporting events, including the Invictus Games and Warrior Games.
4.4
The Department of Defence’s (Defence) submission to this inquiry gave an overview of the current funding allocated to adaptive sports and Invictus Games support:
Since Australia’s involvement in the inaugural Invictus Games in 2014, the requirements of the former serving veterans participating have been underwritten by the RSL, and after 2019 by Invictus Australia. The RSL provided funding for specialist equipment, travel, and uniforms. This arrangement continued until the ADF entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Invictus Australia and approval of the funding grant applications through DVA, particularly the 2022-23 Budget measure for $9 million ($8.09 million in grant funding) over three years from 2022-23. In addition to their successful grant application, funding pressures are further reduced as a result of Defence providing service air transport where possible at no cost to the veterans or Invictus Australia and insurance coverage for the entire Australian Invictus contingent. This includes family support travelling with the veteran, coaching, medical, media and logistical staff.
Veterans (not serving)
4.5
As outlined in paragraph 4.4, funding for veterans to participate in events such as the Invictus Games is now provided through Invictus Australia which benefits a small number of veterans who put themselves forward for selection and are chosen to participate at the games. A far larger number of veterans could benefit at the community level, however, there is no specific funding for this that has been available to community-based sports or veterans’ groups who are actually delivering the programs.
4.6
Invictus Australia gave evidence that half of the $8.09m grant allocated to them was to support community -based sport for veterans. Invictus Australia also highlighted that the brand Invictus provided an opportunity for them to seek corporate donations and highlighted that for many donors, the concept of community-based programs were as important as the higher profile Invictus or Warrior Games. To date this funding has been directed to employing several staff to raise awareness of the benefits of veterans’ sport and to connect veterans and local clubs through open days and similar events. There has been no flow-through to community clubs or veterans’ groups actually delivering the programs. Some community-based programs have received direct sponsorship by corporations and local business or support from sporting codes such as the National Rugby League.
4.7
Funding by organisations supporting veterans who have transitioned out of defence can be applied for through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs’ (DVA) Veteran Wellbeing Grants program which offers grants of up to $50,000 for local, community-based projects, and grants of up to $150,000 for projects that deliver wellbeing support and activities of broad-scale benefit to veterans and families in the community. The committee notes that during the inquiry, DVA were only able to nominate one veterans sports program that had been successful in receiving a grant. This was consistent with evidence from veteran focussed sports programs associated with community clubs that highlighted unsuccessful applications for grants, often on the basis that they were not considered to be an ex-service organisation involved in veterans’ well-being.
4.8
The committee also notes that DVA has previously funded individual veteran participation in programs to obtain qualifications related to sports as part of their rehabilitation plan. An example is funding for a veteran to complete the Royal Yachting Association (RYA) Yacht Master qualification through a local club with an aim to become a qualified instructor. This not only provides a vocational option for the veteran, but in the short term, meant that the veteran is able to take other veterans on the water for experience, instruction or to participate in competition. Importantly, for some clubs having a recognised qualification is also a pre-requisite for insurance purposes to allow the veteran to be involved at this level.
Transition
4.9
Currently, there is no specific funding of community-based sports programs for current and former service veterans that would assist in transition. Where there is overlap between serving and non-serving veterans, it is generally through local initiatives which have included joint ADF and veterans activities at community clubs. One example has been ADF Sailing paying for the use of a fleet of boats to facilitate mixed regattas between ADF members and veterans at various local clubs across Australia.
Equitability of funding
4.10
Submitters and witnesses representing smaller, community-based organisations were consistent in voicing frustrations over equitability of funding compared with larger ex-service organisations (ESOs). The submission from Defence notes that no ‘serving’ veteran has been without funding for any sport program:
The funding for sport in the ADF is allocated through existing Service budget allocations. Along with the Conventional Sport and the Pacific Sports Programs, the ADFASP has been funded adequately since its inception in 2016. There are no known instances of any serving veteran not being funded for any sport program to which they aspire. No serving veteran has been disadvantaged as a result of lack of funds. For current serving veterans, participation is Service and base-specific, and will be dependent on the local rehabilitation system of ADF Garrison Health and support to wounded, injured, or ill veterans through Service and/or base rehabilitation centres.
4.11
However, submitters and witnesses gave evidence that funding for ex-service veterans can be difficult to obtain. Saltwater Veterans illustrated the differences between large and small organisations in applying for grants:
The grants process is often complex and lengthy to complete. Large organisations have dedicated (often professional) grant writers which definitely elevate their submissions over grassroots, community groups; despite these groups having their own significate, direct and positive impact to their respective veteran communities.
4.12
Saltwater Veterans indicated that they would be open to in-kind support such as the assistance of veterans re-engaged on reserve days by Defence to help facilitate the coordination with other stakeholders and assistance with grant applications.
4.13
Community-based organisations have submitted to the inquiry outlining their difficulty in winning grants and acquiring funding. Mr Guy Mewburn, Chairman, Sailing On WA, told the committee of Sailing On’s repeated unsuccessful attempts at grants:
We have applied for a number of grants and have not received any of them. We understand the original reason given to us was that we were not a recognised ESO. We have now become one and will continue applying for those government grants. We understand the pressure that's on those grants. There are lots of very valuable service organisations which are popping up out there.
4.14
Mr Scott Reynolds also raised the issue of how the distinction between ESO and non-ESO means groups who are providing services on-the-ground are missing out on funding that is instead going to larger organisations:
We were declined our DVA stream A and stream B wellbeing grants because the definition in the grant guidelines had us as not ESO enough. If not, why not? Are the DVA guidelines a guidance or firm policy? Where are they open to interpretation to allow for bias and discrimination based on size? They exclude support for grassroots and community groups that are having direct and meaningful impact, right now, to the veteran community.
4.15
Currently, DVA’s Veteran Wellbeing Grant are only available to organisations that are recognised as ESOs. Ms Kate Pope, Deputy President, Repatriation Commission, Department of Veterans' Affairs, confirmed that grant applications for non-ESOs must be made in partnership with another organisation:
[A] community organisation that's not an ESO can't apply for a grant in its own right at this stage, although we are open to considering the qualifications of organisations that can apply. That's the current guideline. They can apply in partnership with an ESO. So, if a community organisation wants to work with any ESO, the ESO can make the application together with the community organisation, and that would be eligible for funding.
4.16
In responding to questioning on the flow-down of funding to smaller organisations, Mr Michael Hartung, Chief Executive Officer, Invictus Australia, outlined how Invictus Australia currently allocates funding received:
I'd say part of it goes towards supporting the teams in the Invictus Games. That's not a cheap program, as you can imagine, with a dozen program activities over the course of 12 months, where you're flying people around Australia and booking facilities et cetera and getting them across overseas; that's quite an expensive endeavour. The other half of our money goes into supporting our committee staff. So we've invested in people on the ground because the person on the ground is going to get more outcomes by working with the sporting system.
4.17
Mr Hartung pointed out that Invictus Australia offers aid for smaller organisations in ways other than direct funding by ‘supporting a grant application or helping to build a better system so that the sport takes care of their insurances’. Mr James Brown, Chairman, Invictus Australia, acknowledged that ‘at the moment that stream of funding doesn't exist anywhere in the veterans’ system. You can get funding for a war memorial under a range of different streams at the moment but not to run a sports program’.
Committee view
4.18
The committee acknowledges the support from the Department of Defence directed at serving personnel. The committee also notes the non-monetary support provided by Invictus Australia and the opportunities created by the Veterans Wellbeing Grants, primarily for competitive sports activities.
4.19
The evidence provided to the inquiry suggests a disconnect between funding for the high profile, often larger organisations, and funding for community-based sporting and veterans group who are delivering programs for veterans. Adjusting grant guidelines to include sporting programs that provide inclusion and veteran well-being and ensuring that funding flows down to sustain the ability of community-based groups to deliver programs should be a priority in future funding agreements.
4.20
The committee notes and supports the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide’s interim report Recommendation 4 which recommends that the DVA provide advice at least twice per year on its funding needs. The committee considers that DVA should include in this advice, the level of resourcing it requires to support the veteran community through adaptive sport and the ex-service organisations providing relevant services directly to veterans. The relevant recommendation is as follows:
Recommendation 4: The Department of Veterans’ Affairs to provide advice on its funding needs
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) should provide advice to the Australian Government about its funding needs. To this end:
(1)
By 31 March 2023, and at least twice per year thereafter, DVA should provide advice to the Australian Government about:
(a) its future departmental funding needs, and
(b) factors leading to uncertainty about DVA’s future departmental funding needs.
(2)
The Australian Government should use this advice to inform the departmental funding it provides to DVA.
(3)
The Australian Government should provide any resources to DVA, and any other relevant agencies, to enable DVA to provide adequate advice regarding its future funding needs as specified above. The allocation of these resources to DVA should not be offset by reductions in other resourcing of DVA.
4.21
The committee notes the pressure some community-based veteran sports providers are under to sustain their programs which are currently helping both serving members and veterans. The concept of utilising reserve members who are already actively engaged in veterans’ sports to assist groups running the programs to connect with local ADF units, explore potential for collaboration with ADF Sports activities and assist to the extent appropriate with administration such as grant applications is worth exploring.
4.22
The committee recommends that Department of Veterans’ Affairs grant guidelines should be amended to accommodate programs that are specifically targeted at veteran participation in community-based veterans’ sport.
4.23
The committee recommends that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs include in its resourcing advice, as per Recommendation 4 in the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide’s Interim Report, to the Australian Government the necessary funding to adequately support community-based veterans sport programs.
4.24
The committee recommends that future Commonwealth funding for veterans’ sport to organisations that are not community-based sporting clubs should include conditions regarding a minimum amount that must be “flowed through” to help sustain the delivery of programs at the community level.
4.25
The committee recommends the Department of Defence consider making Reserve days available to the Senior Australian Defence Force Officer in each state or region to engage local veterans—already active in veterans’ sports—to facilitate increased community-based sporting clubs engagement with local ADF units and ex-service organisations as well as support with administration such as grant applications.
Veteran wellbeing vouchers
4.26
The Tasmanian Government made a submission to the inquiry detailing the Veterans Wellbeing Voucher Program. The program was established to make health and wellbeing vouchers available to veterans for gym or sporting club membership. Under the program, eligible veterans can apply to the Tasmanian Government for a voucher valued at up to $100 to go towards the costs of registration, including for adaptive sports. The Hon Guy Barnett, Tasmanian Minister for Veterans Affairs, told the committee that the program is ‘to encourage that activity: they can join a club and have ongoing access to that club, or they can pay for different programs within that club. They can use it for whatever they wish consistent with the criteria’.
4.27
In giving evidence to the committee at a public hearing, Mr Mewburn also spoke about the benefits of a voucher system to subsidise costs for courses that allow veterans to gain sailing qualifications:
At the moment we charge $60 per head as a membership fee. That membership covers all our yachts—people being able to sail them. But also we're running formal courses for people to obtain their sailing qualifications. Those courses are $300 or $350 per head, which we're funding out of money we've gathered from sponsors. So any money an individual came with or supported them through training is less money that we would have to try to raise in sponsorship.
Committee view
4.28
The committee notes the potential benefits to both the veteran and
community-based groups delivering veterans’ sport programs of a voucher system. This may be particularly applicable to veterans transitioning from defence who have no identified physical or mental harm from their service and who are therefore not able to access the rehabilitation based options.
4.29
The committee notes the precedent of Defence funding transition measures to assist service personnel in gaining civilian vocational qualifications. Such qualifications have the potential to lead to a career and aid in other factors that assist in the transition process. Where a veteran is engaging with a veterans’ sports program to obtain a vocational qualification rather than just as a participant, a higher value voucher as part of career transition measures may be appropriate.
4.30
The committee recommends that the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs assess the feasibility of providing a voucher system to encourage and support veterans access to veterans’ sports as part of their transition, and where appropriate, gain relevant vocational qualifications.
Better coordination of adaptive sports
4.31
This section examines whether there is a need for a centralised authority to play a role in coordination of adaptive sports for veterans.
4.32
Currently, responsibility for the support of adaptive sports is shared among various entities. The Department of Defence takes responsibility for serving veterans, Invictus Australia is responsible for ex-serving veterans and coordinating Invictus Games teams, and many disparate community and veterans groups enable programs at the local level.
4.33
In the United States (US), the committee is aware that the Defence Health Agency’s Warrior Care Recovery Coordination Program provides an example of a centralised adaptive sports authority. The Agency oversees the Military Adaptive Sports Program and provides reconditioning activities and competitive athletic opportunities to all wounded, ill and injured service members. Enabling options offered by the agency include:
A weekly calendar with suggestions for activities for service and their families;
Virtual clinics in swimming, cycling, archery, wheelchair rugby, track and field, healthy mind and body, powerlifting and cooking; and
Access to healing arts initiatives.
4.34
In addition, the US Department of Veterans’ Affairs Office of National Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events co-sponsors adaptive sports clinics and competitive events for all disabled veterans. This includes grant funding to organisations to increase and expand the quantity and quality of community-based adaptive sports activities for veterans with disabilities and members of the armed forces.
4.35
The US example shows the potential of how a centralised authority could coordinate, resource and provide consistency in the use of adaptive sport. Such an authority was supported by most submitters and witnesses. However, the committee received mixed evidence on the matter of who should have responsibility for such an authority and whether it should be an existing entity or an entirely new one.
4.36
Defence’s submission to the inquiry gave the view that a centralised authority for serving members already exists through the ADFASP and the ADF Sports Cell:
The centralised authority for adaptive sport in the serving community is already established, through the ADFASP. Further, as the Joint Transition Authority matures, the ADFASP can assist with links into the adaptive community. This is currently achieved in a more informal manner as participants in the ADFASP meet and interact with the partnering ESOs at many local-level events. This engagement can continue through the transition process, should the veteran so desire.
…
A centralised authority therefore exists in the sense that the ADF has entered into agreements with both the University of South Australia and Invictus Australia to ensure the best outcomes for current and former serving veterans competing in adaptive sport.
4.37
The department cautioned that ‘should it be deemed a singular authority is required, potentially within DVA to coordinate the former serving veteran community’s recovery and rehabilitation through sport, it may be better considered at the completion of the current period of the grant program to Invictus Australia in 2025-26’.
4.38
As an alternative to the department, submitters raised the prospect of a separate, independent body to administer adaptive sports for veterans as part of the transition to civilian life. Here, there was mixed evidence on whether the independent body should be an existing organisation or an entirely new one.
4.39
Invictus Australia volunteered their existing expertise to take on a more supportive role in veterans sport, recommending in their submission that:
the Australian Government, through the Department of Veterans Affairs, consider using the expertise of Invictus Australia to help improve the support available through sport and recreation programs targeting veterans and their families.
4.40
Ms Jennifer Reynolds, Co-founder, Saltwater Veterans, told the committee at a public hearing that ‘a third party that would be an unbiased representation to allocate funding and also start to connect ESOs in the space would be quite beneficial’. However, Saltwater Veterans believes this third party should exist outside of Invictus Australia and existing ESOs, favouring an entirely new organisation:
If a centralised authority is to be considered, it needs to be independent of any of the large ESOs and specifically that have a vested interested in their own funding. The large ESOs often portray the “veteran” as a commodity that can be owned. These ESOs concentrate their efforts on the public perception of "helping" and growing their own fundraising opportunities.
4.41
Ms Sandi Laaksonen-Sherrin, Defence Family Advocate of Australia, and Head, Defence Families of Australia, did not take a position on the matter of responsibility for a centralised authority, but instead stressed that wherever responsibility lies, trust in the organisation is paramount:
I think care needs to be taken regardless around that trust piece. For instance, if, for argument's or hyperbole's sake, you were to give this authority to an RSL or Soldier On or one of the big national providers, there would be trust issues around that administration. If you were to keep it in government, there would be the normal political discourse and things, I'm sure, but you would avoid that fracturing, or potential fracturing, within the ESO community. That's a hyperbole. It's not based on any sort of core example. It's just to provide you the guidelines around it being either, but you need to be very clear on the independence of that entity and on any other agendas that may be factored in, real or perceived, from the community.
Committee view
4.42
The committee notes concerns raised by submitters regarding existing structures for the administration of adaptive sports, including ensuring: equality of opportunity for veteran participation; a consistent focus on well-being; and equity in funding arrangements. The committee notes that many of these issues stem from a key theme of evidence to this inquiry which relates to the policy and funding priority for events such as the Invictus Games rather than an ongoing program spanning serving members and veterans that is focused on rehabilitation, wellness and supporting transition.
4.43
The committee is of the view that in the light of the Royal Commission interim report, the priority reform is aligning policy and funding to create a program that uses veterans sport to support rehabilitation and effective transition from service. This will fundamentally reshape the environment in which veterans’ sport occurs, and make roles, responsibilities and opportunities clearer to all stakeholders. This reform is likely to highlight whether an additional entity is required to be a trusted central authority or whether clarity of purpose and a commitment to constructive collaboration will achieve the desired outcomes.
4.44
The committee is of the view that the government should work with veterans’ sport stakeholders to develop a reform package that will achieve the outcomes recommended by this report. Stakeholders affected by this reform will include veterans and their families, Defence and DVA, ex-service organisations, community-based program providers, corporate and philanthropic donors, and sporting codes. A recommendation of this reform package should be the appropriate governance model for the veterans’ sports program.
4.45
The committee recommends that the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs work with veteran’s sports stakeholders to design the package of reform that will deliver recommendations 1-10 of this report.