About Tim Wilson

Tim Wilson is the Director of Climate Change Policy and the Intellectual Property and Free Trade Unit at the Institute of Public Affairs. Tim also serves on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's IP industry consultative group as well being a Senior Fellow at New York's Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. He can be seen and heard being outspoken, challenging and thought provoking on 3AW, Sky News and the ABC and pens columns in the The Australian and Australian Financial Review.

Author Archive | Tim Wilson

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?

Canberra uses taxes to end meddlesome Constitutional restraints

By on May 15, 2013 in Constitutional preservation, Elections and voting, Liberal democracy, Rule of law

Beyond the nearly $20 billion deficit and other headline programs, there was a bitter pill of democracy in last night’s Budget. According to the Budget papers the government is going to spend $55.6 million in the lead up to the September 14 referendum to Constitutionally recognise local government, of which $11.6 million will be a backdoor advertising push for the ‘yes’ case. According to page 246 of Budget Paper 2:

The Government will provide $55.6 million over two years to conduct a referendum on the financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution … The Australian Electoral Commission will receive $44.0 million over two years to conduct the referendum and the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, the Arts and Sport will receive $11.6 million to undertake a national civics education campaign to provide information to the general public on the referendum and reform process.

Education on civics is fine. But I seriously doubt ‘a national civics education campaign’ will be anything other than the importance of three levels of government which is a dodgy way of saying – shouldn’t we include local government in the Constitution as well?

Some have speculated that this referendum is a sop to the Greens and Independents. But it is clear that the Gillard government wants it to be successful. More disturbingly the so-called Federalist Liberal Party also wants it to get up. Should we be surprised that politicians want to undermine the rules that limit the excesses of their power? Probably not.

In a democracy they are free to make that argument. But unless there is clear oversight of how this $11.6 million is spent it is highly likely to be an abuse of taxpayer’s money that should be challenged in the High Court.

The tyranny of Constitutional recognition of local government

By on May 14, 2013 in Constitutional preservation, Elections and voting, Liberal democracy

I have an article today in The Australian ($) about the forthcoming Canberra grab for power over local communities through the Constitutional referendum to recognise local government. I argue:

Different levels of government are given, rightly, different responsibilities.

Federal government is responsible for foreign affairs and those responsibilities that require national consistency, and has little service delivery capacity because it is so distant from Australians.

States are responsible for matters that marry local responsiveness with scale.

Local government delivers services that require direct relationships because of their closeness to Australians.

Constitutional recognition will turn our democracy on its head and perpetuate centralisation.

Worse:

Canberra freely will be able to direct local government by attaching policy strings to funding.

But there’s a reason Federal MPs love it:

Part of the reason Labor and some Coalition MPs support the referendum is because it enables them to become kingmakers in their communities by tying federal government largesse to their preferred local outcomes.

It’s worrying how significant a hatchet job this plan is on our democracy and how many MPs are prepared to support it.

I’m not the only one who has written about this important subject. My colleague Chris Berg recently wrote about it in the Fairfax press.

If wine tastes like fruit, are kids at risk of temptation?

By on May 13, 2013 in Nanny State

When will health activists just be straight with the public that they are neo-prohibitionists? In the latest round of idiotic paternalistic regulations the NSW liquor regulator is arguing two-for-one offers for booze are driving alcohol abuse. According to a Fairfax report:

The Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing has formed a preliminary view that a shopping docket blitz this year by Coles and Woolworths risks contributing to alcohol-related harm and is considering whether to restrict the deals.

These “deals” are like any other discount – buy one, get one free. But apparently when it is a bottle New Zealand’s Brancott Estate Sauvignon Blanc 750ml it goes from being a discount to a danger.

Surely the bigger problem is how people are promoting this wine as desirable. According to the website the wine is:

“a well-rounded expression of Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc, showing all the natural characteristics of this world-famous region”

Worse, the website promotes it as allied to healthy fruit, further misleading the public, and most likely tantalising children:

“Aromas of rock melon, lemongrass and ripe gooseberry dominate with top notes ranging from tropical grapefruit to sweet capsicum”

Of course these last two suggestions are absurd. But one day that argument will be made. But in response to the discounting a headline-grabbing health academic  adds a veneer of seeming credibility to the idea that there is, indeed, a problem:

director of the centre for health initiatives at the University of Wollongong, said research showed an increasing number of bulk purchase promotions at bottle shops was causing shoppers to buy more and encouraging young drinkers to consume more alcohol.

The problem is that there is no evidence this is the case.  But it’s a reminder of the stupidity of the arguments constantly made about our booze-ridden culture that must be cleansed of all temptation. Which is an odd response so overall consumption has been declining according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics since the mid-1970s:

From the early 1960s onwards apparent per capita consumption increased steadily, peaking at 13.1 litres of pure alcohol per person in 1974-75. Apparent per capita consumption remained relatively steady for the next 5-10 years, then declined over the following decade, reaching 9.8 litres per person in 1995-96.

 

Advocates of a nanny state assume we are all children

By on May 13, 2013 in Nanny State

Today I had a piece in the Courier-Mail responding to sneering attacks from an academic that some adults are actually only children. The article appears below:

Continue Reading →

Canberra council grab a disaster for democracy and rates

By on May 9, 2013 in Elections and voting, Liberal democracy, Media release, Rule of law

media-release-web

“Constitutional recognition of local government will lead to a federal takeover of local laws, lead to rate increases, expansion of bad and petty laws and corrode Australian democracy,” said Tim Wilson, policy director at free market think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs.

The Institute of Public Affairs is strongly opposed to constitutional recognition, because it will:

  • lead to creeping Canberra control of local services through funding agreements.
  • undermine the role of the states and their oversight of local government.
  • stop states from removing corrupt councils and amalgamating inefficient ones.
  • lead to rate rises from councils without state government oversight.
  • increase the volume of petty and intrusive laws into people’s lives and businesses.

“Australia should be governed from local communities-up, not Canberra-down,” Mr Wilson said.

“This referendum is about governing bin collections for Broome, Buderim and Burnie from the Prime Minister’s Canberra office.”

“With every single federal dollar comes strings attached, this plan is about centralising more power in Canberra and further away from local communities. Local government rules and regulations, from planning applications to caring for local parks, will be driven by Canberra.”

“The referendum is a rehashing of Gough Whitlam’s failed attempt to bypass the states and promote a level of government that is easier to control from the Prime Minister’s office.”

“Scrapping state government oversight of local government will create fiefdoms for local kingmakers and petty bureaucrats.”

“Often state government restraints stop significant rate rises, once local government sits separately they will raise rates and increase costs to families.”

“Local governments are already the source of the most intrusive rules and regulations into people’s lives from stopping kite flying in parks, to tying community street parties up in red tape and destroying community festivals through excessive food handling regulations. Constitutional recognition will make it worse.”

“If this referendum is successful the level of government closest to Australian families will be taken over by the one most distant and disconnected. It will be a disaster for Australian democracy,” Mr Wilson said.

For media and comment: Tim Wilson, policy director, 0417 356 165

Portion size regulation? How about government overreach regulation?

By on May 7, 2013 in Nanny State

If it wasn’t so concerning it would be laughable. A report in today’s UK Telegraph claims that the government is about to issue guidelines for recipes and portion sizes for manufactured foods.

According to the report:

Ministers are set to demand that food manufacturers, cafes and supermarkets reduce the portion size of items high in saturated fat, such as biscuits, doughnuts, milky coffees and cakes.

In response:

A government source said the details behind the pledge would be agreed “shortly”.

If reductions in portion size are required under the terms of the deal, the government would leave it to manufacturers to decide how to comply.

“Some might want to reduce the size of the biscuits or they might want to reduce the size of the packet,” the source said.

A more straightforward solution may be to just allow manufacturers to decide what to make and let consumers decide what they want to buy.

Stunningly, some in the Department of Health have concluded:

there is a risk that smaller portions of items such as biscuits and cakes will simply lead to customers buying more and could fail to reduce their fat intake overall.

Sadly this isn’t the first time politicians and bureaucrats have thought they know what is best to go into people’s mouths. As I highlighted earlier there is already a plan to halt the ‘big plate’ pushers. And my colleague, Chris Berg, pointed out portion size regulation was on the National Preventative Health Taskforce’s wishlist.

It would be easy to dismiss these proposals as more nanny state regulations. But it isn’t. It’s a deliberate attempt to use government to direct sneakily influence people’s choices and another key step to the creation of a technocratic society.

Only those who agree with us are adults

By on May 7, 2013 in Nanny State

In one of the most extraordinary articles I have read for a while, a sneering academic has argued that paternalistic regulation is necessary because some adults make different choices to himself. According to the article criticisms of the “nanny state”, should not lead the public to “swallow their [libertarian] lies”:

“Nanny State” is a pejorative term used by those who will selfishly put their wants above the safety and happiness of others.

Critics say smoking bans, alcohol restrictions and gambling regulations treat adults like children.

Grown-ups, libertarians say, should do what they like as long as they don’t hurt others.

But the truth is many so-called harmless activities do injure the health and happiness of others.

The sneering author then goes on to reinforce and prove the validity of a key argument of paternalism’s critics – that each measure is only an incremental step in a much longer road of restricting freedom:

If, for example, we can ban gambling promotions during footy games on the grounds it teaches our kids antisocial behaviour, why can’t we ban alcohol sponsorship and advertisements during those same games?

Do we really want our kids exposed to an alcoholic culture?

Moreover, why can’t an Abbott government persuade the Queensland and Northern Territory governments to maintain dry indigenous communities?

The author concludes that criticism of the nanny state is unjustified because:

Many so-called adults are still children emotionally and intellectually and therefore unable to make appropriate decisions regarding risky behaviour.

Really? Where’s the evidence to back this up?

The sneering author doesn’t outline who these people are, except, presumably, those who disagree with him.

So-called adults are people who make choices that he disagrees with. It’s clear the author has nothing but contempt for average people and is trying to inject why enlightened individuals such as himself should make decisions about how others live their lives.

The article is just another reminder of why the academy has become so irrelevant in contemporary Australia.