Truly sharing Sydney's Olympic Spirit

When, in 1993, then-NSW Premier John Fahey made his now-famous leap to celebrate Sydney winning the right to host the 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games, most Australians had little idea of what to expect seven years later.

We knew something of the elite sporting competition and the international media coverage. We knew of predictions of massive economic benefits flowing to Sydney, and to a lesser, extent, the rest of the country.

We were told these would be the "Green Games", and this was a factor in Sydney winning the bitter rivalry with Beijing and other bidders at Monte Carlo. We were assured, by the bid team and Government, that Sydney would do it better than anyone else since the re-emergence of the modern Games in Athens in 1896.

But we knew very little about the general impacts, organising and hosting the Games, would have on the social fabric and community life of the host city, regional NSW and elsewhere.

There were those, in the early 1990s, who had thought the NSW Government, and the bid would have benefited from a comprehensive social impact assessment being done, before the IOC voted. There was some lobbying, from inside and outside the NSW Government, but to no avail.

Why look at social impacts?

This view was based on the belief that a host Olympic city, in accepting the Games, should be doing all it can to spread the benefits across the entire population.

It should also be trying to minimise the costs to the community, and, in doing so, ensuring that negative impacts do not fall on specific sections of the community, and, in particular, families and individuals who are already socially and economically disadvantaged.

In other words, using the Sydney marketing theme, truly sharing the spirit (and sharing the pain).

Who are the advocates?

The Council of Social Service of NSW (NCOSS), in conjunction with other community-based organisations such as Shelter NSW, the NSW Tenants Union, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, People with Disabilities, the Ethnic Communities Council, the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association, Uniting Care and the NSW Ecumenical Council, have been strong advocates, since Sydney won the Games bid, for proper attention to be given to maximising Olympic-related opportunities for the whole community and minimising and managing negative social impacts.

All of our organisations have worked inside and external to the Olympics preparation process to advance these objectives.

Since 1996, our organisations have been represented on the Olympics Social Impacts Advisory Committee (SIAC), the formal government/non government body established to advise the NSW Government on these issues.

Since that time, several of our representatives have, at the same time, alongside bodies such as Rentwatchers, been key public critics of inadequate performance by Olympic organising agencies, and the NSW Government in tackling the social impacts of the Games.

Over the past 12 months, public contention over specific Olympic sites has emerged, bungling by SOCOG over ticketing and fiscal management has been revealed, Indigenous concerns have risen, and new Olympics related laws severely restricting public movement have been passed by the NSW parliament.

This environment has produced a number of direct Olympic public protest organisations, which are placing their issues directly in front of the growing world media presence in Sydney, as the Games draw close.

What is the Sydney Olympics social impacts record?

In September 1999, NCOSS released a scorecard of NSW Government performance. We rated the management of social impacts at 6 out of 10. We rated the quality of the Olympic legacy on the community at 5 out of 10.

With the opening ceremony now only a few weeks away, we have upgraded our social impact score to 7 out of 10, but we have little reason to change the community legacy mark.

What has happened with some key issues?

Employment

The Games are generating new job opportunities, particularly short term jobs in key service industries. This momentum builds on 6 years of economic growth in NSW and continuing favourable economic conditions.

A key question is whether job and training opportunities are being obtained by the unemployed, especially those who are the long term jobless or who reside in communities where unemployment rates remain double or triple the NSW average.

For those unemployed living in several parts of Sydney, there is partial joy. At the same time, it is clear that a combination of employer expectations, job take-up by those already in the labour market and a lack of concerted and timely Government action has seen these employment opportunities not adequately taken up by those most in need.

Housing and homelessness

Statistical evidence confirms the significant increase in Sydney’s housing prices since the mid 1990s. There is also strong evidence of the growth of households in housing related poverty during this period, and the substantial number of people, particularly in the private rental market, who now pay more than 50 per cent of their disposable income in regular direct housing costs.

The second half of the 1990s has witnessed a persistent growth in the number of homeless people across Australia, but particularly in Sydney and NSW. Official figures clearly show that many people have to be turned away from overstretched supported accommodation services.

The same period has, of course, seen a further reduction in Sydney’s stock of boarding and guest houses and major urban consolidation projects leading to massive housing gentrification in several parts of Sydney.

The hosting of the Olympics in Sydney, at the least, has fuelled these housing market characteristics, and at the most, led to specific difficulties faced by tenants, boarders and lodgers, with substantial rent increases, more no fault evictions and the closure of cheap rooms.

The NSW Government has refused to either recognise Olympic related housing impacts, or to act to improve tenancy protections in the face of this crisis of affordability in Sydney. For many, this has been the key failure of the NSW Government in the Olympic preparations period.

At the 11th hour, NSW Government agencies have moved to expend assistance and protections for the homeless during the Games period. A Homeless Protocol, to be shortly signed off between Government security and welfare departments, and the opening of some additional emergency accommodation beds for the next few months have resulted from some intensive lobbying.

Community Care Services

There is little doubt that, in parts of inner Sydney, and on major roads linking, or around Olympic venues, significant transport dislocation will take place during the Games period. The degree of this "transport gridlock" remains impossible to predict.

A key, unresolved issue is the disruption which will take place to the massive number of essential home based services which are provided to the aged, the disabled, the mentally ill and those with various other health problems.

The fear is that some services such as meals on wheels, home nursing and drug and alcohol will simply not be available to a large number of clients who are daily dependent on these activities.

No special arrangements, on a city wide basis, have been able to be negotiated with the relevant Olympics agencies.

Substantial disruptions are also expected to childcare services, including the extra week of vacation care required because of the extended school holidays during the Games period.

There remain fears that a range of bus transport, including community buses, will be inappropriately taken from regional NSW to help address Sydney Olympic transport needs.

Finances and legacies

The strong economic conditions of the second half of the 1990s, have enabled state Budget funds to be directed readily to priority Olympic spending since Sydney won the bid. State coffers were also estimated to be swelled by over $600 million during this time due to increased economic activity influenced by Sydney staging the Olympics.

What is clear from Olympic Budget statements that have been produced by the NSW Government and assessed by the NSW Auditor General is:

• the capital costs of constructing the Olympic facilities have been largely paid for before the Olympics begin;
• the NSW Treasurer’s boast, in the May 2000 state Budget speech, that the Olympics have been paid for, every last cent, is patently untrue;
• the Government, while providing additional spending in some public and human services since 1995, has been unable to keep pace with growing community and consumer demands for health, education, housing and community services;
• SOCOG’s revenue and expenditure forecasts have been unrealistic, leading to regular budgetary changes and continuing public disquiet; and
• recurrent costs for Olympic related expenditures are being born by many Government agencies from within their existing Budgets.

Perhaps the major concern is with the future operations, financing and management of the Olympic facilities and venues, which have been constructed.

As all Olympic facility contracts remain commercial-in- confidence (despite frequent requests for disclosure in the public interest), it is impossible to ascertain the post-Games accessibility and the affordability of these facilities for the community.

It is anticipated that ongoing NSW Budget subsidies will be required, in some guise, to enable the facilities to be fiscally viable in the future. The level of these taxpayer liabilities and the secret deals done, and being done, with private operators is causing much public concern and comment.

Conclusion

There is a rumour (some would say joke) currently during the rounds. It suggest that the Athens 2004 Olympic preparations are about to fall apart. Sydney, because of its purpose-built, high-tech facilities, and newness, will be asked to step into the breach and host the 2004 Games as well.

If such a scenario were to eventuate, how well would we learn our lessons from the past seven years, and make the necessary changes in time. Or would we learn at all?