Getting kids to sit idly in bubble wrap saves lives

By on May 22, 2013 in Nanny State

If you want to justify why a behaviour should be legislated, regulated or taxed out of existence the standard mantra is to say people are “at risk”. It is doubly effective if it’s about kids.

Today we have two examples of how those in power want to teach people to avoid risk, rather than learn to manage it.

Victoria’s top traffic cop wants to extend probationary licenses to age 25:

With statistics to back him up, Assistant Commissioner Robert Hill told Fairfax Media that such a drastic move would help cut the state’s road toll.

It would mean young adults would have to drive with a zero blood alcohol level for an extra three years, or for the first seven years of solo driving.

Mr Hill said 40 per cent of people aged 20 to 25 who were killed or injured on Victorian roads every year were victims of drink-driving.

It’s an interesting argument. Apparently people who abuse the 0.5 legal limit, would adhere to a strong zero limit. At least the cop is prepared to discuss the proposal:

“What I’m advocating is a community discussion about considering extending the graduated licensing system to 25 in order to save the lives of our young people,” Mr Hill said.

It’s very different from banning quad bikes which is apparently a “no brainer”. According to a News Limited editorial:

STOPPING children under the age of 16 from riding quad bikes will save lives.

The solution to the alarming number of children who have died or been seriously injured in accidents over the past decade is that simple.

Except it isn’t. First, it assumes that if kids are banned from riding quad bikes they’ll adhere to the ban. Second, it assumes that kids seeking a thrill won’t look for alternatives. Third, kids already have numerous risky behaviours that can deliver the same outcome, heard of bicycle riding anyone? Fourth, it ignores the general trend being faced in society that rather than being too active, kids are being too sedentary.

Actually, according to the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety:

Bicycles are the most common consumer product causing injury in children.

We should call bicycles what they are – death traps – that put kids “at risk”. Note the sarcasm.

Instead of banning activities we should be encouraging a society where people learn to manage risk, not avoid it. Both proposals are “no brainers” to be destined for the rubbish bin.

ASIC is completely out of control

By on May 22, 2013 in Freedom of speech, Liberal democracy, Technology and online rights

My ABC The Drum column this week is on the outrageous attempt by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission to censor the internet:

It’s an almost perfect illustration of regulatory mission creep.

Legislative provisions designed to only deal with the most extreme crimes are eventually used to pursue lesser offences. Given that this involved full-blown censorship – and censorship without oversight or appeal – ASIC’s actions are incredibly reckless.

Censoring the internet is a gross abuse of its status as an independent regulator.

Perhaps we could forgive an abuse of power if it was a one-time thing. But it’s part of a pattern.

WATCH: Janet Albrechtsen applies to be a ‘Freedom Commissioner’

By on May 21, 2013 in Freedom of speech

Columnist for the Australian, Dr Janet Albrechtsen, speaks to Institute of Public Affairs members in Brisbane on the importance of freedom of speech. Watch her speech here:

Broadcasting is free speech too

By on May 21, 2013 in Freedom of speech

In the latest example of political hysteria, the South Australian government has proposed a change to gambling codes of practice to ban live betting odds from sporting match broadcasts. Premier Jay Weatherill indicated his hopes for the siren-to-siren ban to be implemented by the end of this year’s AFL season in September, saying:

It’s staggering how much match-day broadcast time is being devoted to sports betting and live odds.

Never mind that television licensees aren’t allowed any more than 16 minutes for advertising per hour, as stated in the ACMA code of practice. Unless betting companies can somehow afford to saturate 100% of the ad market, their screen time is even lesser yet.

But the issue here is not simply about betting odds. Freedom of speech also extends to what broadcasters and commentators are allowed to say. Many of us don’t like gambling and freely choose not to take part in it. But that shouldn’t give us the right to gag presenters from talking about things we may not like.

Queensland ‘star-chamber’ powers curtail the right to silence

By on May 21, 2013 in Rule of law

In Queensland, the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) is using its far-reaching ‘star-chamber’ powers to curtail the right to silence.

The CMC has the power, under Queensland law, to punish silent or uncooperative witnesses with jail, in direct contravention of the right of a witness to their silence.

These coercive powers were introduced in 1997 to battle serious organised crime and pedophilia rings. However, CMC Assistant Crime Commissioner Michael Scott states that the laws empower the CMC to “break the wall of silence” around other major crimes.

Civil libertarian Terry O’Gorman has attacked the increasing use of this power by the CMC, which has already used it more times this financial year than in its entire 11-year existence.

The hearings, according to O’Gorman, were being:

…used as a back door to get around the law of the right to silence.

I’m aware of CMC hearings being conducted into glassings. Glassings are not minor but they’re hardly organised crime.

Defence lawyers have also attacked the secretive hearings and broad powers of the CMC. According to barrister Greg McGuire, while hearings should be used:

 …very sparingly and only for very serious matters, it tends to be police officers getting nowhere, so we’ll just go to the CMC.

The power of the CMC to simply ignore a witness’ right to silence sidesteps this fundamental right in our justice system, and should be revoked altogether.

Anne Twomey on the (literally) secret conditions of local government funding

By on May 21, 2013 in Constitutional preservation, Liberal democracy, Rule of law

anthony-albaneseThe constitutional scholar Professor Anne Twomey has a great catch in the Conversation today. The press release announcing the referendum and Anthony Albanese’s opinion piece advocating a yes vote mysteriously drops a crucial phrase currently in Section 96 of the Constitution:

the phrase “on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit” had magically disappeared.

Was it a bit of spin by a media adviser who thought it might be clever not to mention that the funding to local government would be tied up by burdensome and intrusive conditions? Or was it simply ignorance?

Read the whole thing here. This is no clerical error – it’s quite significant.

That phrase is the hook upon which all of Canberra’s tied grants hang. Omitting it from the publicity material – intentionally or accidentally – hides the fact that any funding sent from the Commonwealth to local governments is inevitably going to come with conditions and requirements. And those conditions are going to increase Canberra control over councils. As Anne Twomey writes:

A mistake in a press release is one thing, but when the minister repeats the omission in his own opinion piece, then one really has to wonder exactly how much attention has been paid to this proposal and whether the ministers involved really know what they are doing.

Local government on Counterpoint

By on May 21, 2013 in Constitutional preservation

On ABC Radio National’s Counterpoint yesterday, I spoke with Amanda Vanstone  about the dangerous local government referendum:

A ‘yes’ vote would guarantee the federal government’s ability to directly fund local government projects such as the Roads to Recovery program, and services such as childcare, sporting fields, swimming pools and local libraries. That sounds simple enough but what does it really mean?

Don’t eat, don’t exercise

By on May 20, 2013 in Nanny State

As a society we’ve lost complete perspective on obesity. News Limited newspapers today are reporting the government is financing public health activists to research the value of a fat tax. According to the article:

A government backed study is investigating whether to back a fat tax on McDonalds, KFC and other fast foods in a bid to tackle Australia’s obesity epidemic. Despite criticism that increasing junk food prices will hit the poor, the Government’s preventative health agency - ANPHA - is funding the most comprehensive study ever into the potential tax change - to the tune of $463,000.

The public is being asked to give feedback on paying more for hamburgers and other fatty foods with a “citizens jury” to debate next weekend whether shifting tax scales is the most efficient – and equitable – means of addressing the nation’s weight problem.

Of greatest concern is how activists now want to use government to fundamentally reorganise society:

“We need to look beyond blaming individuals and towards the structural things in our society. Are we okay with junk food being cheaper and easier to buy than good quality food?” says Dr Comans, from the Centre for Applied Health Economics.

As research from my colleague, Julie Novak, showed the impact of a fat tax would most heavily be felt by the poor:

Nanny State taxes encourage consumers to switch to other harmful products, and create illicit ‘shadow markets’ for the taxed products. The hypothetical imposition of a ‘fat tax’ levy on top of the existing GST would cost taxpayers between $67 and $268 million per annum, with low-income taxpayers again disproportionately affected.

Of course the research doesn’t focus on the impact the GST has already had on consumption as a defacto 10 per cent fat tax – fresh food is out, processed food is in.

But the absurdity of how disconnected government policy is in promoting healthy behaviour was highlighted by the Gold Coast Council. According to reports they actually want to stop people easily exercising:

Personal trainers and fitness groups could be booted off the beach under council plans to ban them from the sand.

If it goes ahead, the ban would extend to all bathing reserves and even include fitness training in the ocean.

The council is looking to amend a local law so any business supplying personal or group fitness training can be prohibited from beaches, giving officers the power to slug offenders with a $375 fine.

It also wants to ban any beach hire equipment business unless it is being carried out by a surf life saving club or with a permit.

Here’s an easier solution – allow the public to educate themselves about healthy eating and let them exercise it off. Why is promoting a healthy culture of individual choice and responsibility never the focus of public health research?