The ‘Sporting Grounds Allocations Policy’ is finally out for decision on Tuesday night.  It is a document that, if passed, will simply mean more of the same – namely:

  • Full control by officers
  • No prioritising in favour of local sporting groups
  • Review of policy placed in the ‘never-never land’ of some distant and non-specified future dependent on what happens at the racecourse
  • And of course, no ‘consultation’ whatsoever!

The first thing to note about the policy is its limited scope:This policy applies to the allocation of sports grounds and associated pavilions. It does not apply to Council land which is leased (eg to tennis clubs, bowls clubs or croquet clubs), indoor recreation facilities, Council tennis courts for hire or permits for commercial operators (eg personal trainers) etc.

‘Indoor recreation facilities’ would obviously include the GESAC basketball courts. With this single phrase, the whole contentious issue of the Warriors versus McKinnon Basketball will never be subject to full and transparent scrutiny by anyone – including councillors. We wonder if they even know the amounts that ratepayers are possibly forking out to cover the costs of courts standing empty. Do they have any idea as to whether or not the Warriors have handed over the $165,375 they ‘promised’ as their yearly payout in 2011?

All of the above leads to the central question that the policy, and Newton’s ‘report’ so neatly attempts to side-step. Should local sporting groups, and/or residents be given priority when it comes to any service provided by council – whether this be sporting grounds or places in child-care? We believe they should. Residents through their rates pay the major proportion of all these facilities. Councils are there to serve their residents first and foremost.

On this point, the policy includes the rather obvious, and innocuous list of criteria – ie incorporation, financial stability, good behaviour, previous tenancy, etc. All well and good. What is NOT INCLUDED AND WHICH FORMS A CENTRAL PLANK in other councils’ policies is this – taken from the Bayside document. “Where two or more sports clubs have applied for an available sportsground and officers are unable to facilitate shared use, the following assessment criteria shall be used, with the highest scoring club/s given priority allocation”.  A long list of criteria then follows, each broken down into clear ‘marks’ for each category. All Glen Eira can come up with are such guidelines as ‘1-20’ or ’20 points’. More important is the following component of the Bayside criteria and the emphasis on local sporting groups –

bayside

Newton’s introductory report is replete with the usual spin, obfuscation, and attempts to deflect the argument away from this crucial point. He relies on the legalese connotations of ‘discrimination’ as justification for all the above. The examples cited are either totally irrelevant or sheer nonsense. We ask readers to consider the following:

  • The Equal Opportunity Act defines ‘discimination’ in a very limited way – ie someone ‘disciminates’ on the basis of gender, race, religion, etc. There is nothing in the Act that prevents a council from assigning specific priorities to a policy.
  • Newton lists in his defence of the indefensible such examples as: lolly pop people; councillors not being residents; businesses, etc. Again this is codswallop. Heaps of councils have assigned specific priorities when it comes to offering child-care places and RESIDENTS of municipalities have first pick of the cherry in most of these policies. Kingston for example has as its primary objective: “To ensure the maximum number of children within the City of Kingston,receive a kindergarten preference”. If you live in Kingston, you’re first cab off the rank. According to the Newton implied argument this would be ‘discrimination’!!!!

The bottom line is that in so many services, other councils clearly insist that their residents, who pay for such services, are given priority over ‘outsiders’. Not in Glen Eira and not in this sporting ground allocation policy that seeks to cement the status quo of secrecy and lack of accountability.

Finally, we repeat our comment and this is acknowledged within the policy itself. It is councillors who set policy. They have the power to set the objectives and vision. Newton and his men must then be responsible for the implementation of this vision in a ‘timely manner’. Councillors can therefore resolve that it is they who determine sporting ground allocations; it is they who can resolve that local residents be placed higher on a list of priorities than outsiders; and it is they who have the power to ensure that the fiasco of GESAC basketball allocations never, ever, occurs again. But will they?