Archive | Nanny State RSS feed for this section

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.

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:

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?

It seems Food Standards Australia New Zealand doesn’t like creaming soda all that much.

The Canberra Times reported yesterday that customs ordered 600 American imported cans of A&W Cream Soda, manufactured by Dr Pepper, be destroyed after they were found to contain caffeine:

A spokesman from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry said caffeine was only permitted as an additive in cola-type drinks such as Coke or Pepsi or in formulated caffeinated energy drinks such as Red Bull.

“It is not permitted in regular soft drinks like Fanta or creaming soda,” he said. ”However, we believe caffeine is permitted in a wider range of products in the US.”

So A&W is obviously banned in Australia, not because of its dangerous caffeine content – it contains less caffeine than Diet Coke and far less than any energy drink on the market – but because it isn’t a cola.

Even if FSANZ were to take every caffeinated soft drink off the shelves, it still wouldn’t shield people from the caffeine hit in a single shot of espresso coffee.

While the reasoning behind such regulations is not entirely clear, the contempt bureaucrats have for consumers’ ability to make informed decisions is obvious.

The Australian Crime Commission (ACC), in another example of misusing its taxpayer-funded resources, is pushing for legislation to jail persons found guilty of supplying banned peptides and drugs in sport.

The ACC is demanding mandatory minimum three-year prison terms for those guilty of supplying ‘banned’ substances.

In the Sydney Morning Herald today, Jon Pierik outlines that with investigations still ongoing into the AFL’s Essendon, Melbourne and Gold Coast teams, the ACC is now stepping up its self-appointed role as policy advocate in Australian sport.

According to ACC documents:

As with match-fixing legislation, Commonwealth, state and territory governments develop nationally consistent legislation in relation to the trafficking of peptides, hormones and other PIEDs, which makes it an offence, punishable by at least three years’ imprisonment, to supply a person, except those who have a genuine medical requirement, with a WADA-prohibited substance.

Jail is the absolute last resort in criminal sanctions within our legal system. Now the ACC wants mandatory imprisonment for someone guilty of supplying banned substances. These substances are only banned from use by the World Anti-Doping Authority, but not actually made an illegal substance by the law in Australia.

Imagine going to jail for three years for supplying a product that isn’t illegal!

To make it even worse, it now seems the ACC is concerning itself with the impact of WADA-prohibited substances on the gambling industry. The ACC states:

…they have the potential to undermine the perception of a fair market, and therefore impact on the integrity of wagering markets offered on the NRL and AFL competitions, and other sports in Australia.

The IPA has previously argued that the ACC has lost its way. This is yet another clear example of the ACC wasting taxpayer funds, where it should be focusing on the most serious crimes and threats to Australia, as it was set up to do.

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.

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 →

Taxpayer money is being used to fund Premier Barry O’Farrell’s fat fight in New South Wales. Earlier this week, the Premier alongside his Minister for Healthy Lifestyles, Kevin Humphries (the Minister of Silly Walks appeared to be unavailable) launched the next stage of the ’8700kJ Campaign.’ The 8700kJ “initiative” aims to educate the masses as to what foods are naughty and what foods are nice, with the aid of brightly coloured posters displaying various foods with their kilo joule count superimposed upon the top. The campaign also includes a website and a free app that can be downloaded by the public.

Campaign ambassador and ‘no stranger to weight loss’ Olympic swimmer Geoff Huegill is adding celebrity weight to this nanny state initiative but surely some common sense is needed here. O’Farrell should heed his own words:

…people who want to lose weight and get healthier need to take personal responsibility for their food and lifestyle choices.

What someone puts in their mouth is their own business, and it is not up to a nagging nanny government to use taxpayer funds to chide us over our choices. By all means teach school kids about healthy eating in the classroom, but the fussing should stop at the school yard, and not enter the supermarket.

Thank you to the IPA member who kindly sent us photos of the posters in situ!