Yes, saw this release on the weekend. My read is it's short on details. The interesting thing is the acceptance that we can no longer expect to out perform other mid-tier developed nations in medal tallies by just investing heavily in elite programs. This comes from the realization that a number of those countries have started investing in the same way and their larger economic capacity means they'll win that sort of arms race.
So the plan seems to be going back to the 1980s and early 1990s participation investment approach. The second rationale for this is the population health and wellbeing argument for a broader participation base.
What does it mean for basketball? Maybe more investment in participation level basketball, probably in girls' competitions? Less investment at elite level?
Basketball has pretty high participation at the whole of population level but that's because more adults play basketball than AFL and such sports. At the junior level (under 15), basketball participation is lower than AFL, soccer, swimming, etc. In particualr, for junior girls it's lower than dance and gymnastics (but there's an under 5 effect here). This is based on the 2017 results for the Sport Australia (new name for Australian Sports Commission) AusPlay survey.
At elite level, there was reference in the plan to sports having to look for more investment from the non government sector (read private sector). Along with singling out of dominant sports having to be more self reliant (AFL). Given the path NBL has taken, maybe Sport Australia will see that as part of a private sector investment model for developing elite basketballers? e.g., team based academies, combines, etc?
All pure guesswork from me.