The $100 active kids rebate announced in the NSW Budget shows the state government is thinking about the inactivity problem but Professor David Lubans from the University of Newcastle could not help but think that money could have been better used for “sustainable and ongoing” outcomes.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
While most were applauding the news that families would receive an annual $100 rebate for school-aged children taking part in organised sport, an initiative being funded by the state government to the tune of $207 million over four years, Professor Lubans felt in the big scheme of things “it won’t make a lick of difference to activity rates”.
“It’s great that they’re trying to do something but to me it doesn’t really come across as a well thought out plan,” Professor Lubans said.
“If you’re going to promote organised sport it should really be directed at low-income families, that’s probably the first thing.”
The rebate was described by Treasurer Dominic Perrottet as “the soul of the budget” and a move to help reduce childhood obesity.
But Professor Lubans said it was “hardly an evidence-based approach to promoting activity” and felt there were other ways the funds could be utilised to have more impact.
“Most kids from middle and high income families do organised activity like they’ve never done before,” Professor Lubans said.
“Where we need to make a push is all the bits and pieces between and after, like the after-school period, because the free play time is where we’ve seen the biggest change over time.
“Kids are obviously way more likely now to have access to any number of digital devices and that’s how they spend their free time.
“This is not the best way the state could be spending money … $100 towards to one organised activity really doesn’t add up.”
He suggested directing the funds elsewhere, such as towards low-income families, after school programs, into schools or a program that gets parents outside kicking the ball with their kids.
“Let’s put it towards something that’s going to have a more sustainable and ongoing impact,” he said.
“Why not for every student, give the school $100 that has to be spent towards physical activity promotion, and the school has to be accountable for how they spend it.
“That could go towards supporting extra professional development for teachers or equipment.
“How could we better spend $100 to have maximum impact?”