Review of the Australian Sports Commission Act 1989

Partially. Would suggest the commission's role is defined but maybe updating the wording to reflect modern society could enhance the understanding

Partially. Would suggest the including a focus to:
increase diversity and inclusion within sport
improve the experiences and promote holistic wellbeing of anyone connected with sporting endeavors in Australia

Again, partially. But would suggest the functions and powers could be updated so the wording enhances the understanding

yes i believe it does

The act describes the arrangements for appointing members of the Commision, the Executive Director and Director of the AIS.

However, further details relating to the appropriate criteria (e.g. qualifications and expertise), relating to skill set required for the three roles would provide clarity on the types of person required to deliver on the act.

Suggest the Executive Director could be changed to CEO

Based on question 5, suggest adding/highlighting the desirable and/or essential qualifications and expertise to help provide further clarity on how the roles relate to each other.

I believe further narrative is required to differentiate between the Executive Director and the AIS Director as both of these roles are required but have different remits.

The AIS Director roles and remit are specific to external stakeholder (domestic and internationally) and support for sports who endeavor to ensure Australian remains success and world leading in high performance sport. The examples from Governance Sports models from other countries have been shaped on how the AIS operated over the years.

The Executive Director position has a far wider remit to ensure all strategic and operational aspects of the Australian Sports Commission are met. Without the two distinct roles to share specific responsibilities, the overall workload may be considerable.

Yes

Tyes this should continue as it allows progress of the ASC to be tracked.

Yes and link to the Statement of Expectations

yes, as per question 9

yes but maybe in a modified format

Suggest the Act could be altered to increase from the current level. This level is over 30 years old and could be considered to be raised to meet up to date standards.

Suggest the prescribed limit is determine but suitable personnel based on current analysis.

The Act should remain in the current format as it refers to the Australian Institute of Sport, Sport Integrity Australia, the Australian Sports Foundation or the Australian Olympic Federation (now known as the Australian Olympic Committee).

Any change could detract from the focus, progress and sustainability of success. Any change could also impact the positive brand of all entities on a global perspective.

I believe the Act could be enhanced to include the Commission's relationship with other entities.

Particularly Paralympics Australia and the State Institutes and Academies. This would increase the diversity within the Act aligned to similar strategic goals.

Yes, the functions, powers and authorities to fulfil its role are appropriate.

I believe the Act should provide additional clarity of the roles and the current wording in the Act provide limited comprehension.

specifying clearly in the Act the respective roles of the Commission and the Minister, to placing added controls around the procedure adopted by the Commission in devising and administrating grant programs

Wonder if the hosting of international events could be a consideration.
The rationale is that having international competitions and the sports high performance planning under one entity would increase the alignment and impact of the success of sport against international competitors. Plus reduce duplication of efforts and resources

no