Rights and wellbeing in sport policy and provision: a New Zealand case-study

ABSTRACT

This article reviews ways in which leisure and sport provision have been seen as a social necessity or public good, or an element of a citizen's rights in a single democratic society. We present a case study of the development and implementation of sport policy in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ). We highlight the specificity of socio-political influences upon the emergence of state support for leisure development, and the creation of forms of access to leisure activity for the wider population. In the development of sport policy in innovative and sustained partnerships NZ has established a state-based approach to sport, with the wellbeing potential of sport integrated into cross-government thinking, planning and policy; this has prioritized the right to access sport for all sectors of the population, with recognition of significant wellbeing and health benefits for all.

KEYWORDS:

• New Zealand
• Sport Policy
• Leisure Rights
• Wellbeing

Introduction

There is a long-established recognition in leisure theory and leisure studies that forms of citizenship can be fostered by the provision and delivery of public leisure services. In such debate, the notion of citizenship is linked to conceptions of human rights. Troy D. Glover (2002) reviewed a range of extant literature, primarily from UK and North American sources, confirming that ‘a relationship exists between citizen orientations and exposure to different models of service production’ (Glover 2002, 227) – service production referring to public services. He argued that there is no established causal link between citizenship and public sector provision, noting that any causality in this relationship could work either way round, each element having the capacity to be the determining factor in the relationship. Drawing upon T.H. Marshall’s tripartite citizen theory (Marshall 1950; Marshall and Bottomore 1992) recognizing three dimensions of rights existing in relation to the state – civil, political, and social – Glover argued persuasively that it is in the last of these, social rights, that the leisure sphere is represented most visibly. Marshall was writing about how these dynamics worked in established or emerging democracies across 250 years from the end of the seventeenth century through to the mid-twentieth century (Marshall and Bottomore 1992, 7). Glover also wove into his argument some of Bryan Turner’s (1993a; 1993b) work, and, observing that opportunities via civil rights are dispersed unequally, summarized thus: ‘ … the essence of social citizenship is the right to welfare, which has led to the creation of a variety of public institutions to deliver social goods, including leisure, on an egalitarian basis, and a taxation system from which the state can acquire the financial means to deliver social welfare’ (2002, 209).

A social welfare model such as this, recognizing leisure as an element of citizenship rights, has been disputed by observers, critics and commentators supportive of neo-liberalism. Generally, in a neo-liberal framework, state provision, seen as a form of Keynesian welfare, was challenged and sidelined as the free market encouraged and prioritized a doctrine of monetism framed by ‘a wider critique of state involvement in the economy’ stemming from the influence of Frederick Hayek of the Austrian School (Gamble 2001, 128). Think tanks across the developed world, Gamble notes, were disseminating such beliefs by the 1970s, whether this was pitched towards economics in the UK or heritage in the USA. The sphere of leisure was not to be ignored by an approach that as an ideological source swept across the international landscape. Tapper and Kobayashi (2018, 283) provide an insightful overview of the debate in leisure studies, across many national settings, concerning the switch from a welfare model providing citizens with sport and leisure, to a neo-liberal process of catering for consumers. They argue though that the widely recognized ‘New Zealand experiment’ from the mid-1980s onwards – in which the country ‘shifted from a welfare state to a neo-liberal economy’ (283) – did not completely abandon state support and involvement in sport facility provision. This is demonstrated in a case study of a piece of legislation, the Resource Management Act 1991, in which policy actors in private local communities and local government work alongside commercial and private sectors, ensuring for instance that environmental principles are adhered to in the facility provision process. This example is a reminder of the wisdom in Gamble’s observation that neo-liberalism ‘has been interpreted in many different ways since it emerged, hydra-headed, in the 1970s’ (2001, 134). Neo-liberal ideas, he added, may have had some influence on European social democracy, but, he continued, it would be over-simplistic to claim that the latter has become no more than a vehicle for and expression of neo-liberalism. More particularly, in relation to the focus of this article, it can be argued that the social welfare model of leisure and sport provision is far from wholly displaced by an outright neo-liberal framework.

In Glover’s formulation, leisure is an integral element, a social good, in a society in which all parties recognize priorities and principles shared by all members and levels of society. Making the case for leisure as a public good is a fundamental premise for the creation of the conditions of access and participation for previously marginalized groups; public spaces and facilities are vital elements in any democratic society and can make a major contribution to the health and wellbeing of citizens. This latter contribution has been demonstrated in studies of the contribution of cultural activity and sport and leisure to the well-being of individuals and communities: in artwork (Tomlinson et al. 2020), sport, physical activity and dance (Mansfield et al. 2018a), and (blue and green) outdoor activity (Mansfield et al. 2018b). Such studies also found that there is no one-fit intervention or policy that can cater for all potential participants. Although the cultivation of social capital through forms of connectivity is a recurrent theme in such research findings, it was also demonstrated that a range of outcomes and particular forms of provision were appropriate to different groupings. What, in his book Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam (2001) referred to as ‘bridging’ and ‘bonding’ were common patterns of association across the studies. Putnam also reminded us of the origins of the concept of social capital and its relevance to his own study, particularly the emphasis on social relationships. He argues strongly that social capital is at its most effective and positive when ‘embedded in a dense network of reciprocal social relations’ (19) and observed that ‘bonding capital bolsters our narrower selves’ (23). He recalls the origins of the term ‘social capital’ in its early use by the practical reformer L.J. Hanifan in West Virginia in 1916, for whom the idea/term explained the relevance and significance of community involvement in establishing successful interventions in rural schools. Hanifan stressed the importance of ‘tangible substances’ counting for the most in people’s everyday lives – ‘good will, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among the individuals and families who make up a social unit … The individual is helpless socially, if left to himself’ (quoted at Putnam 2001, 19). Connectivity is an important dimension of such ‘tangible substances’; yet we know that in many cases and contexts the possibilities of ‘bridging’, of connecting across groups and networks, are daunting, and actually undesirable, for some groups.

In this article we consider the development of sport policy in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) in recent years, examining how sport provision has been recognized as a social necessity or public good, widely seen too as a potential source of enhanced mental and physical wellbeing. In presenting the NZ example we provide a focused case-study of policy development and phases of policy implementation, utilizing the distinction between policy communities and policy networks (Wright 1988): the policy community identifies the actors and potential actors who share an identity or an interest, transacting with each other and exchanging resources; the policy network is ‘the linking process, the/output of those exchanges’ (Wright 1988, 606). Barrie Houlihan, in his cross-international comparative study of sport and leisure policy, provides a thorough review of Wright’s use of the concepts, including the latter’s joint work with Wilks (Wilks and Wright 1988), concluding that the concepts are ‘capable of fulfilling an important function both as elements of a typology of policy-making and as a step towards a more theoretically informed explanation of the policy process’ (Houlihan 1997, 15). In summary, Houlihan argues that ‘a policy community contains those actors with a general concern for sport policy, while the policy network contains those actors involved in developing policy responses to a particular issue or problem’ (20). Indeed, the two inter-related concepts have stood the test of time, as recognized by Coleman’s acknowledgement of their continuing relevance (Coleman 2015), and as applied in work analysing the place of partnerships within policy networks in the contemporary governance of rural areas in South-West England (Cloke, Milbourne, and Widowfield 2000). Drawing upon this conceptual pedigree, the NZ case-study focuses in particular upon the ways in which policy networks emerged – including the genesis of effective and sustainable partnerships – as the sport/physical activity policy evolved.

The case study developed in this article is in the tradition of a widely accepted form of research design (Yin 1984); a case study is anchored in ‘a detailed exploration of a specific case, which could be a community, an organization, or person’ (Bryman 2001, 29), and the methods drawn upon to develop any particular case can be wide-ranging. In this article we focus upon key organizations that have contributed to the development of a distinctive sport/leisure and well-being policy for the New Zealand population. Our empirical material is produced by a blend of observation by members of a policy and research community and network, and the privileged access to documentary evidence afforded to two of the authors. A major advantage of the case study design is the opportunity to generate an intensive examination of the single case, and this combination of insider access and documentary scrutiny provides the basis for evaluation and analysis. We are not claiming that a single case study can be generalized to other settings and contexts; as Bryman correctly observes, for proponents of the value of case studies ‘it is not the purpose of this research design to generalize to other cases or to populations beyond the case’ (2001, 51). Nevertheless, without doubt the specifics and nuances of the analysis of the NZ case can illuminate features of policy development and policy implementation that may be of relevance to other national contexts.

We are aware that our article is open to critique from discourse analysts. Analyses of national sport policies employing a discourse analysis approach have provided important critical interpretive studies across a wide range of foci, including studies of youth and sport policies in Turkey (Açlkgöz, Haudenhuyse, and Asçl 2019); LGBTQI + equality, diversity and inclusion polices of English sports organizations (Spurdens and Boyce 2022); and the notion of transparency in the production of Sport NZ’s medal target policy for the national team at the 2006 Commonwealth Games (Piggin, Jackson, and Lewis 2009). These studies provide valuable insights into particular aspects of policy. For instance, in the case of Turkey, Açlkgöz et alia conclude that youth is seen to be ‘conceptualized as an asset for state objectives and neglected as citizens, perpetuating the deep-rooted problems of young people’ (2019, 341); Spurdens and Bloyce argue that for the most part national governing bodies of sport ‘present a dominant discourse of inclusion … mostly ‘equality proofing’ or ‘lip service’ expediently associating them with diversity causes’ (2022, 523); and Piggin et alia describe their study focus as an exploration of ‘the rhetorical construction of truth through public policy’ (2009, 478). The case study that we present in this article concentrates though upon the process of policy formation and development, of policy in the making. We recognize nevertheless that our focus upon the connection between sport participation and wellbeing, and the aspiration to produce sport provision and possibilities for all citizens of the country, is in turn open to further analysis including interpretation from discourse analysts.

A contemporary model: Aotearoa New Zealand – a twenty-first century example of developing effective partnerships and long-term policy for promoting sport and physical activity

Increasing physical activity levels and providing equitable access and opportunity in sport and recreation requires clear strategy, including policies across multiple sectors that identify the issues, solutions, stakeholders, timelines, and desired outcomes, and whom is responsible for delivery. Without clear and targeted national policy, responses to inactivity and related health issues are often uncoordinated, inequitable, under-funded, and reactive. In 2015 the WHO indicated that 91% of 160 countries that had data available from three time points (2010, 2013 and 2015) reported having a national physical activity policy. However, only 71% reported an ‘operational policy’ – i.e. one which is both active and adequately funded (The Global Observatory for Physical Activity 2021, 4). Whilst this represents progress from previous assessments, an implementation gap remains, indicating that many countries are having difficulty translating policy into action.

Barriers to policy implementation include: having an inadequate workforce without the resource and knowledge to develop long-term programmes that reach all of the population, including ‘hard to reach’ groups; unsustainable or non-existent cross-agency and multi-stakeholder partnerships (i.e. limited links between key sectors such as transport, education, health, sport, and local government); and an unfamiliarity with the actions, programmes and investments that provide the greatest social return on investment. This case study will detail how Sport New Zealand Ihi Aotearoa (Sport NZ) is working to address all three of these barriers and translate policy into action at the whole of population level, with its strategy to get ‘Every Body Active’

NZ has made rapid advances in recent years towards inclusive physical activity policy that directly addresses longstanding inequities in opportunities and participation. Although this may appear a relatively recent phenomenon, the partnerships and commitments behind the formation of long-term physical activity policy have resulted from the unique historical context of NZ and the simultaneous convergence of several political and societal factors. In the following sections we explore the historical context and political landscape that have enabled the formation of long-term policy and cross-government partnerships for the promotion of sport and physical activity and associated wellbeing outcomes in NZ.

Aotearoa New Zealand: a unique historical and contemporary political context

The word Aotearoa used above translates to ‘land of the long white cloud’. Polynesian navigators first used Aotearoa to describe the strip of clouds sitting above the North Island, which assisted them in locating land during their discovery of NZ around 1300 CE, long before the arrival of European settlers (Te Ahukaramū Charles Royal 2005). The use of the word Aotearoa is not without contention, particularly as often characterized by the political right, but is commonly used either on its own or as a pre-cursor to New Zealand. As with many indigenous languages across the world, citizens, and organizations, and in the NZ case, Māori, are working hard to revitalize and maintain their language (te reo Māori) and protect their culture – the language is a taonga (treasure).

Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti) is the founding document of NZ. It was signed on 6 February 1840 by Tangata Whenua (Māori Indigenous people) and Tangata Tiriti (Non-Māori new settlers, who were primarily European). The Treaty outlines the critical bi-cultural articles and principles that underpin the political constitution of NZ. Of particular relevance to this discussion is the founding principle of ‘partnership’, which has a specific meaning in the NZ context. The Māori Engagement Framework developed by Te Arawhiti (Office of Māori Crown Relations) describes ‘partnership’ as an approach that involves genuine co-design and joint decision-making (Te Arawhiti 2018). This positions ‘partnership’ as a process that is distinct from ‘consultation’ and ‘collaboration’, which both involve key stakeholders but do not necessarily afford them mana orite (equal status). In contrast to most other colonized countries around the world, the existence of Te Tiriti is unique and the clear articulation of ‘partnership’ in NZ’s founding document retains ongoing relevance in its national policy environment. The concept of partnership with the Government of today is arguably at its most tangible and robust since the signing of Te Tiriti.

Fast-forward to 2019, the NZ government delivered an innovative ‘Wellbeing Budget’ (New Zealand Government Treasury 2019). In NZ, prior to 2019, we were performing well according to our GDP measures, but GDP measures do not reflect our performance in relation to matters that our society really values. For instance, we know that taking part in sport, or being physically active impacts wellbeing, but the outcomes of this type of participation during our daily lives are not captured in the ‘books’. Although many nations had begun exploring alternative ways to understand and measure societal development beyond GDP, the NZ government took the active step of investing its annual budget in a way that better reflected population wellbeing. Specifically, in a departure from previous budget processes that were underpinned by fiscal outlooks, the Wellbeing Budget allocated resources based on a broader array of pre-defined wellbeing outcomes. In practice this means that Government departments are required to clearly articulate the wellbeing benefit of initiatives when seeking new funding in the yearly budget cycle.

This important shift in central government policy was enabled by the New Zealand Treasury’s development of the Living Standards Framework (LSF) which provides tools to measure wellbeing outcomes for New Zealanders (New Zealand Government Treasury 2021). The LSF provides a framework to understand the drivers of wellbeing and to consider the broader impacts of government policies in a systematic and evidenced way. The LSF comprises three core components for measuring population wellbeing:

• our individual and collective wellbeing – this level measures resources and aspects of our lives that are important for the wellbeing of individuals, families, whānau and communities;

• our institutions and governance – this level measures the contribution political, economic, social, and cultural institutions make towards safeguarding and building our national wealth and supporting the wellbeing of our people and communities; and

• the overall wealth of NZ – this level measures aspects of wealth not fully captured in the system of national accounts, such as human capability and the natural environment.

The ‘Wellbeing Agenda’ required government departments to take opportunities to collaborate when putting forward new initiatives or ‘budget bids’, and to consider how the work aligns with the three framework levels set out by the LSF core components. This was supported by the passing of the Public Service Act 2020 (the Act). The aim of the Act is to create a nimble and collaborative public service, and to provide stronger recognition of the role of the public service in supporting the partnership between Māori and the Crown under Te Tiriti. This vital legislative change addresses the need for more flexible and collaborative approaches – arguably made more important as we emerge post-pandemic – to tackling the more intricate challenges in a policy environment, and provides the legislative clout to enable meaningful cross-agency collaboration and potential partnership. Working across government agencies is key to influencing physical activity settings and behaviours in areas otherwise unreachable by sport policy makers alone (e.g. into the policy domains of the likes of Education, Transport and Health).

In summary, one of the founding principles of NZ is ‘partnership’ and despite an extended period of neglect, the current generation has seen a re-emergence of public and political interest in upholding our commitment to Te Tiriti as a nation. More recently, the development of the Wellbeing Agenda has provided an opportunity for government agencies to more broadly articulate the outcomes they contribute to at a national level. This has improved the visibility of common objectives among different stakeholders, which provides opportunities to strengthen partnerships across government and non-government agencies. This has coincided with legislative change that intentionally facilitates cross-agency partnerships to deliver initiatives that meet common objectives. Whilst working in partnership is still not without challenges, together these key events in the political landscape of NZ have created a context where partnerships are encouraged across government to address complex issues of national importance. One of those government agencies is Sport NZ, which has a varied history as a key stakeholder in the development of the sport and physical activity sector within NZ.

The evolution of sport and physical activity policy agencies in NZ¹

Central government initially had very little involvement in funding the sport and recreation sector across NZ. However, in 1935, with concern growing for low fitness levels of young people and an increasing awareness of the implications this had for National Defence, the Labour government of the day introduced the Physical Welfare and Recreation Act, passed in 1937. Over subsequent years support and philosophy fluctuated according to which political party was in power. While Labour supported strong involvement, the National Party opposed any extension of government’s ‘welfare role’. An ‘at arms-length’ approach continued until 1973, when the introduction of the 1973 ‘Recreation and Sport Act’ led to the establishment of a Ministry and a Council for Recreation and Sport. Later, the 1987 ‘Sport, Fitness and Leisure Act’ saw the Ministry and Council replaced by the Hillary Commission, which became Sport and Recreation NZ (SPARC) in 2002, coinciding with the passing of the ‘Sport and Recreation Act’ 2002, and finally becoming Sport NZ from 2009 to the present day.

Changes to legislation reflected a growing interest from Government in sport and recreation fuelled by professionalization, broadcasting growth, decreasing physical education in schools, and lifestyle changes such as people – particularly women – working longer hours. Legislation establishing the Hillary Commission and SPARC had a strong ‘development through sport’ motif. It was supposed that increasing sport participation would have significant public benefits, especially for health, but also social cohesion, crime prevention and an enhanced sense of identity. SPARC aspired for NZ to be the most active nation in the world, have the most effective sport and physical recreation system, and have athletes and teams winning consistently in events that matter to New Zealanders. They subsequently targeted 10 ‘critical sports’, supposedly with the greatest ‘meaning’ to New Zealanders, to which the greatest support was granted.²

Between 2002 and 2008, SPARC grew in influence and had national presence and an international profile with the ‘Push Play’ campaign launched by the Hillary Commission in 1999, and with the objectives of getting all New Zealanders to undertake a minimum of 2.5 h per week of moderate intensity physical activity. However, in response to strong criticism of the National Party before the 2008 election, in 2009, SPARC re-focused its core business to concentrate on sport for the benefit of sport, or what we might term ‘sport for sports sake’. This resulted in the discontinuation of ‘development through sport’ initiatives, such as Push Play.

A ‘sport for sports sake’ approach complemented SPARC’s other priority of ‘punching above our weight’ in high-performance sport. SPARC’s first strategy, introduced for the 2009–2014 period, was consistent with their High-Performance Sport strategy, which accentuated increasing participation in sport as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end, e.g. improving wellbeing. During this same period, ‘He Oranga Poutama’ – a programme which evolved from a focus on increasing the participation by Māori in sport, to one of participating ‘as Māori’ in sport – was the flagship for engagement with Māori. However, despite this work, by 2015 He Oranga Poutama was showing signs of serial under-investment and insufficient support from government, and as a result Māori providers were becoming increasingly – and fairly – disillusioned. In 2018 Sport NZ would formally apologise to Māori for decisions that had negatively impacted Māori, also making a re-commitment to honouring Te Tiriti. In 2022, Sport NZ established their first National Māori funding partnership – Te Huinga Tākaro – a significant milestone in their commitment to Māori. Importantly, Sport NZ’s Board structure is also complemented by a Māori governance group (Taumata Māori). Established in March 2023, Taumata Māori advise on strategic decision making and investment in relation to Te Tiriti commitments across Sport NZ’s work.

Responding to a decade of declining levels of physical activity, a lack of commitment to initiatives targeting the problem, and a failure to adapt to a rapidly changing environment, from 2015 changes were occurring with Sport NZ’s approach to community sport. The organization moved to focussing on better understanding what New Zealanders wanted from physical activity. Adopting a participant-centric approach repositioned Sport NZ as just one of several key players in the sport and recreation system. Sport NZ was well placed to align with the 2017 Labour-led Government’s wellbeing agenda, which returned the organization to a ‘development through sport’ approach with a focus on wellbeing outcomes. Improved articulation of its value proposition, and development of its own outcomes framework, linked to the Treasury’s LSF contributed to this alignment.

In summary, Sport NZ has evolved from several antecedent organizations to become the kaitiaki (guardian) of the sport, active recreation and play sector in NZ. The positioning of Sport NZ as a Crown Agency is distinct internationally and allows it the freedom to operate at arm’s-length from Ministers, but still be recognized as an integral part of the government sector. In this capacity, Sport NZ has responded to the Wellbeing Agenda by using existing evidence and theory to map the contribution of sport and physical activity to national wellbeing. This has informed the development of an Outcomes Framework, which is an enduring and evolving policy document that underpins the strategic direction of Sport NZ and the broader sector.

Sustained policy commitment to sport and physical activity promotion in NZ

The development of the Sport NZ Outcomes Framework commenced in 2018. It was initially developed using an intervention logic modelling approach that started with an interrogation of the final outcomes (i.e. future and current wellbeing domains from the LSF) and then worked backwards to identify relevant long-term outcomes (i.e. physical activity behaviour) and pre-cursor intermediate outcomes (i.e. determinants of physical activity behaviour). Multiple methods and data sources used concurrently as part of this process included: (1) a comprehensive international literature review, (2) an analysis of cross-sectional data on the perceived value of sport from a representative sample of 1,516 New Zealanders (Angus & Associates 2017), (3) semi-structured interviews with global sport and physical activity experts, and (4) focus groups with more than 100 stakeholders representing over 60 organizations from the sport sector in NZ. The output is an Outcomes Framework that links established physical activity behaviour change theory with a streamlined representation of the relevant wellbeing outcomes described in the LSF.

The Sport NZ Outcomes Framework is a ‘living and breathing document’ that is open to further iteration in response to emerging evidence and to any limitations in its use. It is worth noting that as the Outcomes Framework developed it was widely recognized that basing it on the LSF meant that it essentially represented a ‘Western’ model of wellbeing. To that end, engagement with Māori throughout the process has resulted in an output that draws on the bi-cultural principles of Te Tiriti, but it is not a truly bi-cultural model. Rather, a parallel and autonomous process has led to the development of Te Pākē o Ihi Aotearoa (Sport NZ Māori Outcomes Framework), which has mana orite (equal status) alongside the Sport NZ Outcomes Framework as a strategic document driving the promotion of sport and physical activity in the country. Together these Frameworks provide a long-term view of the outcomes that can be achieved through sport and physical activity, but do not describe what an effective sport and physical activity sector looks like in the future.

In late 2020, Sport NZ led a cross-sectoral project to identify a ‘preferred future’ for sport and physical activity in Aotearoa. This involved engaging widely with stakeholders across the physical activity sector to envision a better sport and physical activity system with a projection to the year 2040 (i.e. 200 years from the signing of Te Tiriti). Developing the ‘preferred future’ was an extensive process that applied a ‘waka hourua’ (double-hulled watercraft) approach. Tangata Tiriti and Tangata Whenua were each represented by a hull as they were given autonomy to imagine the preferred future, and then come together in partnership to jointly articulate this in a way that represented all New Zealanders.

This preferred future positions sport and physical activity as a core part of the national Wellbeing Agenda and requires substantive shifts in the system. This is underpinned by action in areas that have been categorized according to five pou (themes): (1) Mana Taurite (i.e. a just society that provides equitable access to opportunities for people to be active regardless of background or circumstance); (2) Mana Tangata (i.e. empowered communities that can implement local solutions); (3) Mana Māori (giving effect to Te Tiriti so that both Māori and non-Māori cultures and identities are supported); (4) Oranga Taiao, Oranga Tangata (our relationship with the environment is intrinsically linked to the health of people); and (5) Mauri Ora (wellbeing that is supported by collaboration among multiple stakeholders).

In summary, the Sport NZ Outcomes Framework and Te Pākē o Ihi Aotearoa provides guidance on the long-term outcomes we want to achieve through sport and physical activity, whilst also providing a potential model for sport and recreation organizations to contribute to wellbeing outcomes at a local and national level. The ‘preferred future’ describes how Sport NZ needs to re-organize the sport and physical activity sector to achieve these outcomes sustainably with an evolving population, changing needs, and with a focus on equitable provision regardless of individual characteristics. Together these provide an indication of the long-term vision, but they do not outline how we can operationalize the shorter-term strategies that need to be put in place.

Operationalizing sustained physical activity policy at sport NZ

Sport NZ’s strategic vision – ‘Every Body Active’ – targets two priority population groups, tamariki (5-11 years) and rangatahi (12-18 years), whilst also including specific plans to reach those experiencing inequity such as women and girls, those with disabilities, and Māori. The focus on support for young people is primarily aiming to reduce the drop-off of participation during early teen years (14-15 years), and to provide experiences that foster a life-long value for being active. Sport NZ are also aiming to increase the levels of activity for those tamariki and rangatahi who are less active, and to reach them ‘where they are at’ with a diverse offering.

The intent of Sport NZ’s strategy is yet to be fully realized. Not surprisingly, and following global trends, evidence shows us that COVID-19 had a disproportionate impact on the participation rates of less active young people, particularly those living in areas of higher deprivation. Whilst activity levels for this target group have since re-bounded, potentially aided by targeted Sport NZ investment, there are still significant pockets of young people who are missing out. Sport NZ’s current strategy is more intentional (compared to previous strategic periods) in reaching those who are less active, including the establishment of several new funds and targeted initiatives. However, due in part to the disruption of COVID-19 – which continues to impact a range of activities, including school attendance, which was at a remarkably low level in 2022, and in 2023 has not yet rebounded to pre-pandemic levels – the data are not pointing to a surge in participation.

Alongside ‘Every Body Active’, there has been extensive consultation among tangata whenua (i.e. Māori as Treaty partners in NZ) to develop Te Aho a Ihi Aotearoa, which is the Māori Activation Plan for Sport NZ. Its purpose is to activate the aho (Māori outcomes) introduced in Te Pākē o Ihi Aotearoa. To do so, it is critical for Māori to have autonomy to determine their own pathway towards their preferred future ‘as Māori’. This involves ensuring access to te ao Māori (the Māori world), which includes Māori language (te reo), culture, meeting places (marae), customary practices (tikanga) and resources (Durie 2003). Embedded in Te Aho a Ihi Aotearoa are metaphors and whakataukī (proverbs) that represent Māoridom and a clear articulation of how to effectively promote sport and physical activity participation ‘as Māori, for Māori’.

In summary, Sport NZ has targeted specific groups within its strategy and developed plans to reach those experiencing inequities. This includes ensuring space is held for an ‘as Māori’ approach to developing and implementing strategic initiatives across the population. The capacity for Sport NZ to deliver on its short-term strategy and long-term policy objectives is limited when operating in isolation so it is critical that they work with other government and non-government agencies – such as Ara Taiohi (the Peak body for youth development in NZ) – to establish influence across multiple sectors, with the potential to operate effectively as a policy network, as described in more detail in the following sections.

Operationalizing sustained physical activity policy across government in NZ

In 2020, Sport NZ and the Ministry of Health convened a multi-stakeholder Government Policy group³, charged with developing a ‘cross-agency physical activity and play action plan’ to identify and operationalize practical steps for bringing their ‘preferred future’ to life, and articulate what each sector (e.g. Transport) needs to do to contribute to the broader goal of maximizing physical activity for New Zealanders. The work is in response to the WHO Global Action Plan on Physical Activity (World Health Organization 2018) and supports a range of domestic strategic priorities such as the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy. This work also complements other significant work programmes underway across local and central government, such as the reforms of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the health system, and the ongoing review of local government, which all specifically state the need for a more coordinated approach between central and local government and other stakeholders.

The working group of government agencies identified thirteen draft focus areas for increasing physical activity and play for those who are least active. These areas align with the five pou (themes) outlined in the ‘preferred future’ and for the purposes of this article they are presented in an abridged form in Table 1.

Table 1. The focus areas for increasing physical activity participation aligned with the five pou of the ‘preferred future’.

Pou (Themes) for the ‘Preferred Future’	Mana Taurite (A Just Society)	Mana Tangata (Empowered Communities)	Mana Māori (Giving Effect to Te Tiriti)	Oranga Taiao, Oranga Tangata (Our Relationship with the Environment)	Mauri Ora (Wellbeing)
Proposed Actions (abridged version) from the Cross-Agency Working Group for Physical Activity and Play	(1) Increasing opportunities to lead and participate regardless of background	(4) Strengthening locally-led provision especially for harder to reach communities	(6) Establishing a bi-cultural leadership group responsible for implementing the plan	(9) Promoting active transport and active lifestyles, especially in relation to urban planning and climate change mitigation	(12) Working with employers to increase physical activity participation in the workforce and developing a specific workforce physical activity strategy
	(2) Promoting the social and economic benefits of being active	(5) Partnering with new organizations representative of all New Zealanders	(7) Ensuring that partnership between Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti is reflected in the drafting of key legislation, planning, and regulations	(10) Addressing legislative and regulatory constraints to creating active transport opportunities	(13) Enhancing the insights and evaluation of physical activity and play provision
	(3) Reviewing funding models to ensure sustainability and give effect to Te Tiriti		(8) Ensuring Māori culture, traditions and language are protected and enhanced by any changes	(11) Improving design of physical activity and play spaces using principles of ‘universal accessibility’

In June 2023, NZ Government agreed to a plan⁴ to guide cross-agency work on physical activity and play with an initial focus on those areas where physical activity and play can support the delivery of existing government priorities including:

• improving physical and mental health outcomes for New Zealanders;

• improving school attendance and engagement;

• improving the uptake of active transport in schools and communities.

These objectives will be monitored using existing measures and surveillance of outcomes (e.g. participation in physical activity, and attendance at school).

In summary, Sport NZ are seeking to have greater influence across government, aided by genuine engagement from key portfolio Ministers, and are currently exploring several cross-agency initiatives that will bring the cross-agency physical activity and play action plan to life via the innovation and implementation of new policies in the short to medium term. A good current example of Sport NZ working across government is our Healthy Active Learning (HAL) and Mātaiao programmes.

Healthy active learning and Mātaiao: long-term policy-level partnership to promote physical activity in New Zealand

HAL is a joint government initiative between Sport NZ and the Ministries of Health and Education to improve the wellbeing of tamariki (aged 5–11) through healthy eating and drinking and quality physical activity. Mātaiao operates alongside HAL in kura kaupapa (Māori medium schools) and is a kaupapa (purpose) Māori approach underpinned by the Atua Matua Framework (Māori Health and Wellbeing Framework). Mātaiao supports kura and kaiako (teachers) to implement a Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview) approach through whakapapa (genealogy) and mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) to connect tamariki to te taiao (the environment) for better health and wellbeing outcomes.

HAL and Mātaiao are voluntary and free for schools to join and were initially provided to a pilot group of schools before expanding to reach 800 schools and kura kaupapa across the country in 2022, and more recently exceeding 900 in 2023, representing approximately 50% of NZ primary schools. It is supported by government investment of $47.6m between 2020 and 2024. Sport NZ leads the workforce component of the initiative to support teachers and school leaders to integrate a more holistic approach to physical activity and nutrition into their health and physical education planning.

This initiative involves three lead agencies running separate but related components:

• Ministry of Health – Nutrition toolkits and health promotion staff to support healthy food and water-only (and plain milk) environments in early learning settings, primary and secondary schools and kura (Māori medium schools).

• Ministry of Education – Resources to support all primary, intermediate, and secondary schools and kura to enhance the understanding, planning and delivery of Health and Physical Education (HPE) and Hauora curriculum, and physical activity.

• Sport NZ – a physical activity workforce to support 800 primary and intermediate schools and kura to create healthy and active learning environments, and better connections to their local communities.

The initiative has been successful at providing positive wellbeing outcomes for participants and significantly building the confidence of teachers to deliver physical activity alongside complementary components that support health and academic outcomes. Data were collected from 348 schools and kura, including surveys with teachers in 2021 (n = 694) and 2022 (n = 1030). Evaluation findings⁵ from the first two-years of the initiative have shown that HAL and Mātaiao have significantly increased, for example, the confidence of teachers to engage students with physical activity opportunities; the priority placed on professional learning and development for teachers for Health and Physical Education (HPE); the integration of HPE learning with other learning areas, with schools and kura providing physical activity experiences that are inclusive and meet the need of their students. Complementary to this, school staff are more likely to see healthy eating and drinking as a key part of student wellbeing, and more students are involved in promoting healthy food and drink environments. Findings from teachers, school leaders, and the delivery workforce describe a positive cultural shift in participating schools and kura, but there is an absence of student feedback that will provide greater clarity of the impact of this initiative in later evaluation years (2023 and 2025). Sport NZ are evaluating the progress of this initiative annually, using a range of quantitative and qualitative data collection methods⁶ including; teacher feedback (via surveys and interviews), physical activity measurement, student surveys, student and teacher focus groups, and family surveys. Some measures, including gathering student feedback, are being assessed every other year.

The success of HAL and Mātaiao reaffirms the importance of and the persisting potential for working across agencies and establishing committed forms of partnership to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes. Evaluation findings confirmed that all three agencies are fully committed to the initiative. Collaboration and full partnership between government agencies remains complicated though, and a clear blueprint for the optimum level of partnership does not exist. When an issue is complex, such as the interrelated health and educational needs of tamariki in this HAL and Mātaiao example, the likelihood is that no single agency holds all the keys to unlocking the right initiatives to meet those needs. The complexity of the response needs to be equal to the complexity of the issue, which requires formalized collaboration and integrated service delivery (Lips et al. 2011). The partnership with Health and Education, which has involved significant time and multi-year investment, required a high level of trust and transparency, which are widely recognized as critical for cross-agency success (Rommel and Christiaens 2009). Without a high-trust, partnership approach, the initiative would likely have failed to have the outcomes achieved thus far.

Discussion

Leisure activities and practices comprise a particular outcome available to participants or consumers, ideally by choice rather than compulsion. In a redistributive political economy resources can be mobilized to create optimum possibilities for leisure for those who lack access. The goal of the providers – the policymakers and the politicians with the capacity to implement policy – is to identify feasible pathways to participation, to enable access for all – in the NZ case, ‘Every Body Active’ who may want to engage more fully in sporting events or, more widely, in leisure practices. To identify access-pathways, potential participants must be consulted, so that provision becomes a co-produced process and continuing practice for stakeholders and partners. This is emphasized strongly in the NZ case, whereby Māori, for instance, must be at the centre of decision-making when developing policy and initiatives that target Māori populations; and in the phase of policy implementation, where it has been critical for Sport NZ to establish common goals with, for instance, relevant government ministries.

There is no absolute right to leisure to be argued for in this NZ case study; rather, it is the right to exercise your social rights as a citizen, to choose, and to try pathways to access, that will provide the wellbeing outcomes that can enhance the lives of people. But citizens have, too, the right to abstain from taking such access-pathways, and as is clear in any critical analysis of policy and policy implementation, to contest the scale of provision of such access. If you are rich and well-anchored in a lifestyle of luxury, that may well be the direction that you choose to take. The widely influential political philosopher John Rawls claimed, in his A Theory of Justice, that ‘the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain’, specifically in a context in which ‘all are similarly situated’ (1972, 12). The leisure and cultural choices of élites show how such philosophical notions of fairness might be challenged though; nevertheless, for the majority, in any democracy that recognizes Thomas Paine’s dictum (1791) that ‘inherent rights’ are what we are all born with (Paine 1993, xvi), the provision of access to an appropriate range of leisure and sport possibilities will remain an important form of a citizen’s social rights and a means whereby citizens lead enhanced lives on both individual and collective/community levels.

The NZ case shows there is work to be done to support those missing out (e.g. Māori, those in higher deprivation groups, those with disabilities, and women and girls). Sport NZ’s recent history shows that poorly executed strategy and working in isolation does not create equitable outcomes and helps entrench inequality. Together, the Sport NZ Outcomes Framework and Te Pākē o Ihi Aotearoa, and the ‘Preferred Future’ provide an indication of the long-term vision whilst the work with other partners and stakeholders, such as the Ministries of Health and Education as in the HAL and Mātaiao example, shows how Sport NZ are operationalizing the shorter-term strategies on the way to reaching that vision. Sport NZ’s most recent strategy ‘Every Body Active’ and sustained commitment to working with others, targeting harder-to-reach groups, and honouring Te Tiriti recognizes that rights across all layers of society can and should include the right to physical activity, thereby potentially enhancing wellbeing for all.

Conclusion

The NZ case provides an understanding of how broad policies to increase physical activity can be nurtured and implemented, whilst also illustrating that progress requires coherent joined-up action and does not occur overnight. NZ provides a ‘work in progress’ example of the implementation of a democratic, participatory policy creating access and opportunities for all to be physically active. The approach emphasizes the need to work across multiple agencies and is underpinned by a uniquely effective NZ alliance between Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti. The role of Māori in decision-making is critical to equitable physical activity provision and outcomes for all New Zealanders.

The importance of the shift of central government policy and legislation to have a greater focus on wellbeing cannot be understated as a platform for Government Agencies to seek common outcomes and opportunities to contribute to work across portfolios, as in the HAL and Mātaiao example provided in this article. Whilst working in partnership is still not without challenges, an environment where partnerships are encouraged opens doors to more innovative cross-sector approaches to improving wellbeing. At the centre of the HAL and Mātaiao initiative are the rights of young people to be active whilst being healthy and doing well at school, and these fundamental rights are key to Sport NZ’s strategy of creating a NZ where ‘Every Body Active’ is a reality and not just another Government slogan.

The case study is an example of how to work with policy communities and associated agencies and partners in creating a policy network targeting specific issues and outcomes and creating sporting possibilities for the whole of the population. It also shows the necessity to respect both ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’, in its recognition of the right of the Māori to its own representative formation (recalling Hanifan’s model of social capital, a very ‘tangible substance’ indeed) in the national policy for the development of the physical activity infrastructure of the country; and in creating connected networks of partnership and provision and working with multiple agencies to ensure that all of the population has the right, and the means, to access facilities and sites that suit their own circumstances and choices in terms of their leisure, lifestyle and wellbeing.

The complexities of bonding and bridging and their innately different formations and trajectories are not to be underestimated. Putnam reminds us that ‘bridging and bonding capital are good for different things’ (2001, 363); and that ‘bridging and bonding social capital are not interchangeable’ (2001, 24). The Māori case indicates how, in Putnam’s terminology, ‘bonding social capital is good … for mobilizing solidarity’, but bridging social networks may be ‘better for linkage to external assets and for information diffusion’ (2001, 22). The question of how these two forms of social capital can be developed one alongside the other, or in reciprocally beneficial forms, is a persisting and recurring challenge to policy makers and communities.

As a small nation NZ, with its own specific social, cultural and political history, cannot offer any simple template for national policy development across the globe; and the policy objectives presented in this article are uniquely anchored in the recognition of the importance of the country’s founding treaty of 1840. Nevertheless, NZ’s policy development to support sport participation and wellbeing outcomes across the whole of its population demonstrates the efficacy of positive alliances and partnerships that can cater for the rights of all of the country’s diverse communities.

As Paine forcefully put it: ‘Every generation is equal in rights to the generations that preceded it, by the same rule that every individual is born equal in rights with his contemporary’ (1993, 32). Paine was to an extent echoing the ideals of the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the Age of Reason, a late phase of the European Enlightenment, as expressed in his book The Social Contract (1762): ‘L’homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers’ [‘Man is born free, and everywhere he is in irons/chains’]’ (Rousseau 1971, 518). The concept of universal rights has been a powerful principle in the struggle for democratic reform and progress, and creating possibilities and pathways for leisure and sport participation linked to wellbeing outcomes is a contribution to the loosening of those constraining chains. There can be no single pathway to a leisure-based utopia, and as observed by a passionate proponent of the importance of leisure in a lecture to the National Book League in the still war-worn Britain of 1948: ‘If we believe in democratic freedom, the people are entitled to get from a public service what they want to have, and not only what it might desire to give’ (Samuel 1949, 22). Many elements continue to prevent people from participating in sport, as argued by Delaney and Madigan, who point to persisting ‘racism, sexism, economic inequities and anti-immigration bigotry’ that can be countered by ‘advocating sport as a basic human right’, and highlighting how negative forces ‘must be addressed in order for humans to flourish’ (2023). As the NZ case study has demonstrated, sport and leisure, and access-pathways to forms of sport, constitute a social right for the whole of a population and can provide unprecedented possibilities for wellbeing benefits; and State-led interventions to support these democratic rights and counter the persisting constraints on participation must be campaigned and fought for, negotiated and justified, and constantly monitored and reaffirmed.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the British Sociological Association (BSA) for supporting its Leisure & Recreation Study Group in staging the online event "Leisure for All: Formulating the Right to Leisure as a Radical Demand for Democratic Citizenship”, 21 January 2022, convened by Gökben Demirbas, Mark Turner and Alan Tomlinson, at which an initial version of this article was first presented.

Particular thanks go to Jon Saunders, Policy Lead, Sport New Zealand. Jon leads the NZ Govt cross-agency physical education policy group and has been instrumental in much of the cross-govt work covered in this case study.

Thanks as well to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and recommendations which have helped reshape the article and strengthen its core argument and focus.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 An extensive history of Sport NZ's role in Sport and Recreation Policy and the political contexts in which they have operated is available at: https://sportnz.org.nz/resources/evolution-of-government-agency-for-sport-and-recreation. The Author of this webpage, abridged and adapted for the purposes of this case study, is Dave Adams, Head of Government Relations, and part of the furniture at Sport NZ.

2 The 10 priority sports identified by SPARC were rugby, netball, cricket, golf, equestrian, yachting, rowing, cycling, swimming, and athletics.

3 Agencies involved in this work have included Sport NZ, the Ministry of Health, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Ministry of Education, Waka Kotahi, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Oranga Tamariki, NZ Police, the Ministry for Social Development, the Office for Seniors, the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Conservation, Kainga Ora, the Accident Compensation Corporation, the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, the Health Promotion Agency and the Walking Access Commission.

4 The Cabinet paper seeking agreement to the National Physical Activity and Play plan is available at: https://sportnz.org.nz/media/2ezlk4tj/final-proactive-release-cabinet-paper-physical-activity-and-play-action-plan.pdf.

5 See HAL evaluation findings at: https://sportnz.org.nz/media/chgp35zo/healthy-active-learning-evaluation-to-march-2022.pdf.

6 HAL data collection methods are available in full at: https://sportnz.org.nz/media/5030/hal-evaluation-overview-final-for-website-1_3.pdf.