Tom Venning (Grey, Liberal Party) | Hansard source

It provides flexibility where circumstances generally require it, but it should never become the default simply because it is administratively easier. In this case, the government has not demonstrated why such a significant change in legislative process is necessary. It seems just to be driven by the minister and not by stakeholder or community demand. It was not responding to an identified problem within the existing legislation, nor was there any pressing time imperative requiring this change. That raises an obvious question. If nobody was asking for this change, if the existing system is functioning effectively and if there's no urgency, why are we changing what appears to be a functioning legislative process?

The reality is that major international sporting events are announced years in advance. There is ample time for parliament to legislate. History demonstrates exactly that. The ICC T20 World Cup in 2020 was recognised through legislation passed in 2019. The ICC Men's T20 World Cup in 2022 received recognition through the same legislative process. The FIFA Women's World Cup in Australia and New Zealand in 2023 was also recognised through amendments to primary legislation well before the tournament commenced. This is a system that works. Looking ahead, we already know what the major events will be, including the 2027 Rugby World Cup, the 2028 Cricket World Cup and the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. They'll have similar protections. There is absolutely no doubt that there is sufficient time for parliament to consider those matters through legislation prior to these events taking place. No compelling case has been made for abandoning that process.

The government argues that, because delegated legislation is disallowable, parliamentary oversight still exists. Technically that is true, but there is an important distinction. To enact primary legislation, parliament debates the proposed law before it takes effect. Under delegated legislation, parliament is presented with a decision after it has already become law. That represents a shift in where legislative authority sits. It concentrates greater power with the relevant minister's office and it takes away from this very parliament. This is not something this parliament should endorse lightly.

While we are discussing sport, it is worth reflecting on this government's record. While the Labor Party frequently speaks about supporting Australian sport, its actions tell a different story. Earlier this year around 2,000 Australian athletes were left facing uncertainty over whether their scholarships and direct support would continue beyond 30 June. That uncertainty was confirmed during Senate estimates. Australian Sports Commission Chief Executive Kieren Perkins advised that approximately 2,000 athletes depended upon this support and had no certainty about future funding. National sporting organisations similarly faced uncertainty. Government officials confirmed that around 60 per cent of cash grants to national sporting organisations relied upon terminating budget measures. That meant that Australia's high-performance sporting system faced a funding cliff.

Imagine asking elite athletes preparing for Brisbane 2032 to make education, employment and training decisions without knowing whether their support would continue. Imagine asking coaches to prepare four-year Olympic campaigns without knowing whether funding existed beyond the next financial year. That is not long-term planning. That is uncertainty. Australia is preparing to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2032. Our international competitors plan across multiple Olympic cycles. Yet our own athletes have been left wondering whether funding will continue beyond the coming months, and that is simply not good enough.

Equally concerning has been the government's much publicised Major Sporting Events Legacy Framework. The title sounds impressive. But, unfortunately, the substance is considerably less so. During Senate estimates it became apparent that there is no dedicated funding pool underpinning the framework, there are no published grant guidelines, there are no transparent assessment criteria and there is no competitive grants process. Instead, approximately $130 million has been allocated by the minister on a case-by-case basis. What we have is not a genuine framework. It is a minister with a whole lot of discretion and very little transparency. That should concern every member of this parliament, because transparency matters, consistency matters and accountability matters.

Those same principles are precisely why the coalition is questioning the process proposed by this bill. If the government is prepared to remove transparency from sporting grants, we should not be surprised that it now asks parliament to surrender greater oversight over legislative decisions as well. That is not all. Grassroots sport has also suffered under this government. Evidence presented during Senate estimates revealed that participation programs, including Sporting Schools, Play Well, Local Para Champions and Local Sporting Champions, now face uncertainty beyond the next 12 months.

Kieren Perkins warned that Sporting Schools alone provides opportunities for almost two million Australian children to participate in free after-school sport. These are the very programs that introduce children to sport. These are the programs that identify future Olympians. These are the programs that encourage healthy lifestyles and strengthen communities, yet ongoing funding has not been guaranteed. Instead, the sporting grants budget is projected to fall significantly over coming years. At a time when families are facing increasing cost-of-living pressures, community sport has never been more important. Sport teaches discipline. Sport builds resilience. Sport strengthens communities. It deserves certainty, not uncertainty.

Returning to the legislation before us today, the bill is ultimately not about whether official merchandise deserves protection. The coalition supports those protections. The issue before us is whether parliament should voluntarily surrender a measure of transparency when no compelling justification has been provided. Good legislation should seek the appropriate balance between efficiency and accountability. In this instance, the government has demonstrated the former but failed to justify sacrificing the latter. I note the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills will shortly consider this legislation. And I look forward to its assessment.

I finally return to where I began and say that this debate is ultimately about more than legislative drafting; it is about preserving the integrity of the events that inspire young Australians. When our athletes walk into an Olympic stadium wearing the Australian green and gold, they carry the hopes of an entire nation. When children wear official jerseys, wave scarves or collect memorabilia from a World Cup or Commonwealth Games, they are connecting with something much larger than the merchandise; they are connecting with aspiration. They are connecting with national pride. They are imagining what their own future might behold.

Every major sporting event we successfully host and protect inspires another generation to believe that they too could one day represent Australia. As we look towards the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, we should absolutely continue to protect the integrity of these events. But in doing so we should also continue protecting the role of this very parliament. Administrative convenience should never become an excuse for reducing parliamentary oversight. Transparency remains one of the cornerstones of good government. For those reasons, while supporting the ongoing protections of major sporting events and protecting major sporting event merchandise, the coalition remains concerned that this bill unnecessarily transfers authority away from the parliament without sufficient justification.

See this speech in context