Abstract
On May 17th 2020, the New Zealand Government announced a $265 million investment (Sport NZ Recovery Package) to support sport and recreation amid the country’s first COVID-19 lockdown. The Sport NZ Recovery Package (SNZRP) focused on three investment outcomes for the sector: ‘Reset and Rebuild’, ‘Strengthen and Adapt’, and [become] ‘Different and Better’ (Sport NZ, 2020a). This sport-specific ‘bailout’ package was a novel policy response (both here and abroad), in supporting a broad range of non-profit and charitable organisations (i.e., not businesses per se). Yet, it is uncertain how (or to what extent) the package reflects the ‘adaptable, agile and pragmatic’ governance solutions, predicted to emerge under turbulent COVID-19 conditions (Ansell, Sørensen & Torfing, 2021, p.3). Drawing from the literature on policy instruments, this thesis examines the administration of the RP in terms of its overall design features, priorities and funding initiatives. Of particular interest is whether this special form of a grant (or bailout) was ‘system changing’ (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987) and how it might enable future transformation or stability in the sports sector.
This study employed qualitative methods, consisting of document analysis and semi-structured interviews. Document analysis was used to identify the various aims, recipients and processes for the funding schemes. Semi-structured interviews with one Sport NZ official and six Regional Sports Trust (RST) executives were conducted in relation to two specific initiatives: the Community Resilience Funds ($21 m), and Tū Manawa Active Aotearoa ($15 m). One National Sports Organisation (NSO) official with proposals to the Investment to Partners Fund ($26 m) was also interviewed to expand the pool of data.
The findings indicated that Sport NZ’s recovery initiatives were multidimensional and targeted a wider array of activities and organisations than those pre-COVID-19. The RP offered an opportunity for regional and national partners to reconsider the governance/management of sport. For RSTs this meant engaging atypical partnerships to encourage a demand-led avenue for project investments, while also prioritising play and active recreation (over organised sport). For NSOs, the funding initiated the assessment of internal structures and managerial systems around the administration/delivery of their sports. Evidence suggests that Sport NZ not only responded to COVID-19 but also ‘capitalised’ on it to advance its 2020-2023 Strategic Plan (‘Every Body Active'). Thus while addressing ‘turbulence’ the RP was itself turbulent inducing, as it attended to new social, cultural and economic priorities. A limitation of this research was that changes were still in their formative stages at the time of data collection. Therefore, further research on the longitudinal outcomes of the package should be conducted to assess the continued readjustment and strengthening of the New Zealand sports sector.