By Sandra O'Malley
21jun04
SCHOOLS who don't make students exercise will have their funding slashed under a government crackdown on childhood obesity.
The government is planning to introduce this week draft laws tying $31.3 billion in education funding to various requirements, including literacy levels and exercise programs in schools.
It is part of a major government offensive against childhood obesity, which will include enlisting the help of cricket, netball and AFL stars to get children interested in sport.
Education Minister Brendan Nelson indicated schools would have to meet exercise benchmarks as part of the new funding deal.
"The government will be looking at exercise requirements for school children to make sure that our kids are fit not just mentally, but physically," he said.
Dr Nelson said the government was determined to drive national exercise programs in schools.
"We certainly will be placing requirements on schools to make absolutely sure that our kids get exercise while they are at school," he said.
"We'll be defining some minimum levels of exercise that we want.
"The school can deliver those during school hours, or indeed after school hours.
"We just want to make sure our kids are fit in mind and in body."
Labor has pledged, if it wins government, to ban junk food advertising during children's television programs to help the cut the number of fat children, a move criticised by the government.
Prime Minister John Howard warned an extension of the philosophy behind a junk food advertising ban could see ads for alcohol, coffee and many common medications banned because of their potential dangers.
"If you apply the philosophy of the Labor Party you would ban altogether advertisements for alcohol, we're going to add alcohol, we're going to add analgesics, we're going to add Panadol," Mr Howard told parliament.
"Where does it end, do you put a ban on wine, do you put a ban on alcohol? (It could apply to) coffee too, that's got caffeine in it.
"Once you start going down this path, you can always mount an argument for going further."
Mr Howard stressed the ban on tobacco advertising was quite different to a ban on junk food advertisements.
"The banning of tobacco was based upon the proposition, from the health point of view, that there is no such thing as a safe level of smoking.
"Yet there is such a thing as a safe level of consumption of a McDonald's (product).
"My philosophical view is that if something is legal to sell, then in the absence of an overwhelming public interest case, it should not be illegal to advertise it."
Mr Howard backed claims from television executives that the initiative could hurt children's programming, warning advertising bans could start to sound the death knell for free-to-air television.
"This doesn't address the impact the loss of revenue would have on the very effective and high quality free-to-air television system that we have in this country," he said.