Page 4937 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 26 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEFANIAK: I do not think anyone necessarily will, Mr Berry, which may or may not be a good thing; but that is probably just a fact of life. So, I suppose that what we have to do is try to educate people as best we can in that regard. Those companies sponsor sport for a specific reason, and that is that it is an excellent venue to sponsor any product and to get one's message across - especially to get one's message across to young, impressionable people. That is why the Health Promotion Fund bought out tobacco sponsorship in the ACT - which was fairly minimal; I remember that when the Alliance Government took over it was about $70,000, with possibly about $40,000 to $50,000 worth of fringe benefits.
That fund, which even under the current arrangements provides about $300,000 worth of sponsorship per annum to sporting groups, is a significant improvement on what the tobacco companies did, anyway. So, that is good. But we should not lose sight of the fact that, just as the tobacco companies see sport as the ideal vehicle to push their message, so health bodies, and the government of the day, should see sport as the ideal vehicle to push a health message, especially amongst the young.
I think I have said this a number of times, and I will certainly say it again: Kids at high school are going to be far more impressed if Herb McEachin from the Canberra Cannons, Tad Dufelmeier who used to be with them, or anyone else from the Cannons, turned up under the Quit for Life program than if some dreary public servant - no matter how well intentioned - turned up to give them a health lesson on the evils of smoking tobacco.
Kids have their role models, and often they are sporting figures. That is why I think this fund is so important, and that is why I would commend to any government a change in the percentage for the fund. That has, in fact, been introduced in the southern States - certainly in Western Australia and South Australia, where up to 50 per cent of the fund is used to fund sports related activities. I would suggest that the 15 per cent for arts remain; that the general health category be reduced from 40 to 20; and that the other research and administrative costs remain at 15. I think that would be a more rational break-up of the fund. It is a health promotion fund, but we should never lose sight of the fact that sport is the best vehicle to promote a healthy message. So, in a way, its becoming a bit more of a sports promotion fund certainly would not hurt.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (8.43): I need to make it clear to Mr Stefaniak that the one outstanding issue which is a dark inheritance for this Government is the fact that the $1m was not collected. No matter how much Mr Stefaniak might support Mr Collaery on this issue, we did not have the $1m when government was handed over to us and, of course, it has been a difficult
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .