Considerations for the future EA Board

Proposing party: National Jumping Committee Proposal


Your constructive and considered feedback is encouraged. Note that feedback that is offensive, abusive, or anonymously posted will not be tolerated. You may not agree with the views or opinions of others, but they must be respected.

To add your feedback, you will need to create an account.


  1. Can someone please advise if under this structure a competitor who wished to compete across a number of disciplines would need to be a member of each discipline, rather than the one state body? How would costs be determined to encourage grass roots participation across all disciplines?

    • One suggestion is that – “Yes” you would have to be a member of each Discipline BUT that could be offset by ensuring the membership was only a modest amount for each discipline membership.

      While this on its own would not be sufficient to fund the relevant National Discipline bodies a user pays scheme could make up the difference by imposing a small levy on every start that member or horse has.

      Members who only start a couple times a year would end up paying very little while those that show every week would be paying considerably, which is fair, as as they would be using the infrastructure more.

      This is much fairer financially than the current structure.

      Additionally it would be very easy to implement should there be a national database.

  2. This is a great submission from the viewpoint of a discipline. However, if the business plan is for EA to become National Equestrian Sports (i.e. without gambling sport) then will it stand up to allow other bodies or participants (say Pony Club, Stockhorse, ARC) to join under its umbrella so it can be truly representative to government.

    One of the objects of EA not often pushed is to create ‘a uniform identity …. to be the governing body of equestrian sport in Australia’.

    As all of these submissions are for the way forward after a DOCA is agreed, it is essential for everyone to study closely the two proposals (that from the State bodies and that of Korda Mentha) and vote for a plan that will be acceptable to the ASC, AOC, FEI, PA and the majority of participants. Without this we cannot move on.

    • If the control of any discipline or sport was in the hands of that sport then there is no need for another national controlling body (for that sport)- instead there could be a National Association of Equestrian Sports(or Disciplines) thats only function is to be an umbrella body that is a focal point or spokesman for ALL equestrian matters that require a National response.

      This would include Sport Australia, FEI, AOC, AQIS etc etc. This body could be much more inclusive than EA has been as it could encompass ALL equestrian sports including western, pony club even racing etc etc. It could be funded by a small contribution from each discipline or sport that reflected its relative size and membership. Given the work involved FEI sports should probably pay an additional FEI levy. This body would need no formal board – and could be overseen by a committee of Chairs of the member sports.

  3. Personally find this not as appealing as some of the other options. I would hate to be having to join multiple disciplines. As a grass root competitor predominately in Eventing, but also attend SJ and Dressage events, and even showing if I feel like it, this would just stretch my ability to participate further out of reach. I feel one membership/governing body I think is less conflicting.

  4. I love the idea of the discipline based organisations but this seems to have a lot of duplication of administration etc. Some of that could be held at the national body. But the overall concept by discipline if thrashed out a bit more (like national membership with performance cards registered by discipine), would work well. Good job show jumpers.

  5. Thank you for taking the time to develop your proposal. Have you had a chance to cost your proposed structure? If people join via a discipline (and then join other disciplines for a reduced cost) how will you ensure the costs of overall administration can be covered in a consistent manner? What about people we would want to encourage to support EA in general but don’t compete, how will they be included? A competition levy has been proposed previously but was not accepted however in principle the idea that if you compete more regularly you will be “subsidising” EA more often will be appealing to those who don’t compete very often. I am presuming that with this model the various confusing layers of membership currently available will be removed? How will the discipline based committees be serviced, purely by volunteers? All competition entries would have to go through a central booking provider to ensure the levy’s could be collected, I realise there are currently services that provide for this but will all affiliates comply? You mention that this structure allows improved reporting, transparency and pathways, can you elaborate how this model will do this. I appreciate that more discussion/development is required but it is not immediately clear to me that this (or any of the other models proposed) provides this yet. Why and who do you propose to maintain the database? Lots to consider and more information to help the review process, thank you again.

    • Hi Jenny,

      You make a number of very valid observations. All the balls are still in the air. However the intention is that the National discipline bodies be fully professionally run – given there wii no longer be any State branches there should be money available to do this.

      One suggestion is that membership could be reduced to little more than insurance cost and all other income come from start levies, State and federal funding and sponsorship. A data base is critical (and expensive) but will on its own will cover a lot of the work that is currently duplicated and inefficiently done by the States.

      However firstly we have to get to a point where we – as grass roots members have a say in which model is to be considered – and to do this the States have to comply with the DOCA that was passed by 77% of voters – for the moment (unbelievably) the States are refusing to do this. Pressure needs to be put on the States to give us a vote in determining any future model.

      We need member input and participation. Please feel free to give me a call on 04187-260-303 if you have any ideas or require further explanation. J

Submit a Comment

User Guidelines for the Site


The intention of the Site is to provide an avenue for stakeholders of EA to have open, constructive, and respectful discussions on the EA restructuring options and process. The behaviour of users must always align with this intention.


The following terms and conditions govern your use of the EA Engage website, and by accessing EA Engage, you agree to accept and be bound by the terms in full.

While we take all reasonable care in preparing, maintaining, and updating the information on EA Engage, we do not represent or warrant (either express or implied) the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the content. You acknowledge and accept the website content may contain errors.

Users of EA Engage must abide by EA’s social media and code of conduct policies, and must have read these prior to participating in any forum on EA Engage:

Any activity concerning your access to and use of the https://engage.equestrian.org.au/ website as well as any other media form, media channel, mobile website or mobile application related, linked, or otherwise connected thereto (collectively, ‘the Site’) may be considered by EA and disciplinary measures may be taken.

We advise that all content posted on the Site is moderated after the fact and EA reserves its rights to remove content that does not abide by EA’s policies at its entire discretion.

Any content posted on the Site should not be constituted as expressing the views or opinions of EA, the Administrators of EA or KordaMentha. Any content that does not abide by EA’s policies, such as harassment, defamation or bullying should immediately be reported to the Administrators by email: [email protected].

To the maximum extent permitted by law, we disclaim all liability (direct, indirect or consequential loss) for loss directly or indirectly arising from your use of, or reliance on, the website or its content.