Adjourned debate on second reading.
 
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: When the Sports Promotion, Cultural and Health Advancement Trust was first established, I was one of its strongest advocates. When we were moving for legislation to ban tobacco advertisingóat the same time as I introduced a private member's Bill in this place the Hon. Martyn Evans moved a similar Bill in the other placeówe recognised that the strongest opposition to a ban on tobacco advertising would come from sporting and cultural bodies which had become dependent upon sponsor-ship from tobacco companies.
 The tobacco companies were very clever because they had those bodies hooked on that money. Just as some people are hooked on tobacco as a drug, sporting and cultural bodies are always struggling for dollars, and they were hooked on that tobacco sponsorship money. It was quite plain that if we were to succeed in banning tobacco advertising we would have to break that nexus.
 It was recognition of that fact in discussions by a number of people that led to the ultimate formation of this trust through legislation. The trust was formed for a number of reasons. First, it was formed to replace tobacco sponsorship and, therefore, to remove what would have otherwise been a powerful lobby against bans on tobacco advertising, but at the same time it was recognised that we could take the opportuni-ty to promote healthy life options and send health messages. The intention was that this body would achieve all those things.
 I recall the very vigorous opposition to the forma-tion of that body by members of the Liberal Party, in particular. I also recall on a number of occasions seeing tobacco company lobbyists over meals with a number of members of the Liberal Party. In fact, I saw them continue to have meetings after the legislation had gone through, as well. I would hate to think that, even this far down the track, they still wield some level of influence. As I said, I hope that is no longer the case.
 The final excuse for killing off Living Health was the loss of the State's ability to raise revenue on tobacco because Living Health's source of funds was part of the levy on tobacco products. That levy has effectively been replaced by a Federal tax, so the money is still coming to the State, but it provided the final excuse for the Government to do what it had been keen to do for a long time, and that was to get rid of Living Health.
 Despite the fact that I was a keen advocate of Living Health from the beginning, it is true to say that I expressed doubts in the early years about the quality of the message that Living Health was putting out and, in fact, I publicly made comments that it was busier promoting itself than it was promoting the messages. It is my view that the criticism that came from a number of people was heeded, and it is my view that, over recent years, Living Health was delivering health messages, which was one of the requirements of its charter.
 Whilst Living Health was failing in its delivery of health messages early in its life, it always succeeded in doing what it was first expected to do, and that was to replace tobacco sponsorship. That was self-evident. Its sponsorship net went far and wide, and it went to many groups, particularly small sporting groups and junior sporting groups that did not get sponsorship previously. I would have to say that, if there was a problem for Living Health, in terms of the sort of role it was carrying out, it was simply that it did not have enough money to carry out those roles.
 So often in our society we seem to attack evil or other things from the wrong end. This body was about promoting healthy life options, about encouraging people to be involved in sport or the arts, and in conjunction with that it was ensuring that health messages were being displayed. Some-times they were just sitting there as quiet messages, but they were there. That is the sort of thing that we should continue to do. Whilst the Government has told us not to worry, that it will continue this and it is now coming into the mainstream of budget, experience so often says to us that when it becomes an ordinary budget line as distinct from something which was previously hypothecated, it will be subject to the same pressures as all other budget lines. Some people could say that that is the budget, but I would have to say that the work that Living Health was doing was extremely important but it could never do nearly enough because there simply was not the money.
 I would feel a great deal more comfort if I could see that there was a distinct body carrying out the same role, even if it is perhaps brought back into the mainstream. Whilst it has perhaps become a mainstream budget item, I would like to see an increase in the money going into it. While it was a separate body with hypothecated moneys, I had a very good idea from year to year what the income stream was going to be, and I knew that that job was going to continue. There is nowhere near enough money. It is the sort of thing that Governments should be doing a lot more of, but that is not the case.
 If we are serious about our young people, we should be putting more gymnasiums and more sporting options around South Australia. I know with my own children that there is a real battle for there to be sufficient facilities for them to use, not just in sport but also in cultural matters. Whilst I know that we are in stringent budgetary times, a dollar well spent now saves many more dollars later on. It is a pity that we do not spend as much time examining matters such as we do with ETSA. At the end of the day I know that the dollars are not the same, but I rather suspect that the potential outcome of a very small number of dollars spent in a Living Health type operation will have a far greater long-term impact on the sort of society we have.
 As people say, we do not live in an economy, we live in a society. That is not to say that economic matters are not important, but I believe we lose sight of that all too often. Unfortunately, I see elements of that in what is happening here, and I believe that is unfortunate. Time will judge whether Government commitment is there or not, but history tells us that once it has become part of the budgetary process there will be a 10 per cent across the board cut or something like that at some future time in an area which is already way below what any reasonable budget would have put into it. Also, while some people were unhappy with the bureaucracy of Living Health, it has now disappeared into the overall larger Government bureaucracy with the inertia that one sometimes gets against good ideas, with too many people just filling positions and taking a self seeking approach.
 It is not my intention to make a lengthy contributionóin fact I was still working on my notes before I was told that this matter was coming on. I express very strong regret at the loss of Living Health. I do not believe that enough reasons have been put forward to explain its demise. I would have put more money into it and, in fact, if similar activities were going on inside Government perhaps they should have been relocated to Living Health to achieve efficiency. If we wanted more accountability with Living Health, we could have been having debates about that. I believe that this important matter is going through Parliament far too quickly. Along with the other Democrats I am sad to see the end of Living Health.

 
Site assisted by Intramedia Design