Sporting chance to cut the fat bill

The obesity pandemic doesn't need more reports. It needs action. We know there are only two ways to lose weight - eat less or exercise more.

"Heavy burden: fat bill hits $58b", screamed the headlines about an Access Economics report on obesity. The report said:

P Obesity costs Australia $58 billion a year, including $8.3 billion in direct costs.

P 17.5 per cent (3.7 million) of the Australian population are obese.

P 242,000 Australians have type 2 diabetes as a result of being obese - a 137 per cent increase from 2005.

P Obesity-related health problems, including cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis and some cancers have rocketed.

P More than 200,00 young people aged five to 19 were obese, but the problem was most common among 55 to 59-year-olds.

The report surprised no one. Similar reports in the past have led to much hand-wringing followed by an eerie silence. Why? Because governments know that any program attacking obesity will be expensive.

To no one's surprise the Rudd Government set up a National Preventive Health Taskforce, consisting of eminent health experts "to investigate the health challenge caused by tobacco, alcohol and obesity." It is to report by June.

Regrettably, another year will be lost because of more urgent priorities and the cost. I saw the future when I went to Louisiana in 1984 to open Australia Week at their World Expo. Stunned by the number of people on crutches or in wheelchairs at my hotel, I asked the receptionist what was going on. "We're hosting a national conference for the disabled."

A few days later, noticing more obese people in a day that I would see in Australia in a year, I asked whether there was now a conference for the obese. "No" she laughed, "that's America." I said to my wife, "Thank God we don't have that problem in Australia." Well, we do now.

Arriving in Canberra in 1969 I was amazed that successive Australian governments had taken so little interest in the nation's physical fitness. Without government support and only 12 million people we dominated cricket, swimming, tennis and were a leading Olympic Games performer.

In a House of Representatives speech I pointed out that French governments had "between 1958 and 1970 built 5130 athletic centres, 2620 gymnasiums, 1130 swimming pools, 1470 youth centres" while Germany had "between 1961-75 built 31,000 gymnasiums, 2150 covered swimming pools and 1600 open-air pools". They haven't stopped.

Why was it done? The goal was to improve their nation's health. The winning of medals was a byproduct. Since the 1970s France and Germany have consistently been among the top medal winners at the Olympics.

Before the election of the Whitlam government, I worked with sports medicine professionals and in particular, Professor John Bloomfield, head of the physical education program at the University of Western Australia, to develop a plan to improve the nation's fitness. Research at the time showed a large proportion of our youth was unfit.

We recommended the government establish, among other things, a national sports institute and individual sports funding.

Most importantly, we strongly recommended a program of building community sports health centres to bring to all Australians a wide range of sports and recreation.

Bloomfield's report, tabled in Parliament in mid-1973, set the pattern for the next 30 years of Australian sports development. Initially, its implementation was slow and it came to a grinding halt with the dismissal of the Whitlam government.

Pressure on Malcolm Fraser to "do something" built up after Australia's pitiful performance at Montreal in 1976 when we finished 32nd in the medal tally with one silver and four bronze.

The nation went into mourning. How, the pundits asked, could our sporting stocks have slumped so dramatically? The break came when Fraser appointed Bob Ellicott minister for home affairs, giving him responsibility for sport and recreation. The Bloomfield report was dusted off and, for the most part, implemented. In 1981 the Australian Institute of Sport was set up in Canberra and gradually Australia resumed its place among the top sporting nations.

The celebrated American journalist Bill Bryson summed up Australia's sporting performance in his book Down Under: "Australia beats most people at most things. Truly never has there been a more sporting nation." Bryson was right. What he didn't say was that we also ranked fourth in the obesity stakes among the developed nations behind the US, Greece, and New Zealand. Of the 194 nations surveyed by the World Health Organisation, Australia ranked 21st with 67.4 per cent overweight. Eight of those above Australia were Pacific Island states. Germany ranked 43rd, France 128th.

The question is why? Where did the Bloomfield report fail us? It didn't - the development of community facilities recommended in the report was never implemented.

Those who ran the sports program concentrated on the top athletes in elite sports. They had no interest in the general health of the community, only in their role in making Australia a top sporting nation. Our sporting success, they argued, would encourage Australians to exercise. It didn't.

To be both healthy and win medals we must follow Europe's example. Large multi-purpose sport and recreation facilities have to be made available to everyone with programs to encourage their use.

Such facilities exist in many parts of Australia but there are not nearly enough. They should include basketball courts, a gymnasium, squash courts, swimming pool and outdoor athletic facilities. Located in or near schools, they could be used during school hours by students and at other times by the public. They could include health and child-care centres, preschool kindergartens and community meeting rooms.

The price? Between $10 to $15 million each. Although about 500 would be needed, construction could be spread over 10 years. The cost - $7.5 billion or $750 million a year. It's a lot of money but remember the report stated that obesity is costing Australia $58 billion every year.

Building the facilities is just the first step. Staff to provide the programs and a nation-wide promotion to encourage people to use them would be essential. If we don't do it, Australia will have the first generation where the parents outlive their children.