Archive | Nanny State RSS feed for this section

The High Court has been considering an appeal from a wealthy property developer who claims Crown Casino robbed him of his money through the allure of gambling. The Court has now made its decision in favour of common sense. According to reports in The Australian:

Property developer Harry Kakavas had claimed the casino continued to let him bet despite knowing he was a pathological gambler and an earlier interstate exclusion order should have barred him from the casino.

He lost his appeal to the High Court this morning after the Victorian Supreme Court and Court of Appeal earlier rejected his claims, finding there had been no clear indication that Mr Kakavas was not able to look after his own interests while he was gambling.

In its reasons for dismissing the case, the High Court said Mr Kakavas was not a widowed pensioner who had been “preyed” upon to gamble, but a man of considerable means who was able to make rational decisions.

“To describe the business of a casino as the victimisation of the gamblers who choose to frequent it might well make sense in moral or social terms depending on one’s moral or social philosophy; but it does not make a lot of sense so far as the law is concerned, given that the conduct of the business is lawful,” the judges said.

“To accept the appellant’s claim that, on the occasions he turned up to gamble at Crown’s casino, Crown’s employees should have singled him out from the other high-rollers and refused to accommodate him, would be to cast a burden of responsibility on Crown which goes well beyond refraining from exploitation.”

No one disputes there is problem gambling, but for once the Court has stood up for a rational assessment that people have choice and responsibility, and they should accept it with the consequences. Amen.

An interesting piece appeared in The Australian today by Kevin Rudd’s former speech writer and Labor historian, Troy Bramston. According to Bramston:

The temperance movement reached its apogee in Australia during World War I when it was successful in pressuring several state governments to introduce early closing times for pubs.

While these groups helped to educate the public about the dangers of alcohol abuse and preached teetotalism, they failed to win support for the prohibition of alcohol.

A century later, there are signs the ideological fervour of the temperance movement is being revived. But not by well-meaning Christian or women’s groups.

Government-funded political activists are mounting a moral war on alcohol, targeting the most minimal levels of alcohol consumption.

The comments are based on a secret report to the Brewers Association and seems to draw similar conclusions to a report written by my colleague, Chris Berg.

Both are worth a read. Bramston’s article can be found here. Chris Berg’s report can be found here.

So soon after it was officially confirmed that alcopops tax didn’t work, we are now being reminded that the Danish fat tax didn’t work either. The infamous and indefagitable Christopher Snowdon has published a research paper through the IEA into the failures of the Danish fat tax titled The Proof of the pudding. According to the research paper it had a harmful economic impact and cost jobs:

The economic effects of the fat tax were almost invariably negative It was blamed for helping inflation rise to 4.7 per cent in a year in which real wages fell by 0.8 per cent. Many Danes switched to cheaper brands or went over the border to Sweden and Germany to do their shopping. At least ten per cent of fat tax revenues were swallowed up in administrative costs and it was estimated to have .cost 1,300 Danish jobs.

It made the poor poorer:

It was widely criticised across the political spectrum for making the poor poorer. By October 2012, 70 per cent of Danes considered the tax to be ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ and newspapers routinely ,described it as ‘infamous’, ‘maligned’ and ‘hated’.

The public’s attitude is one thing. What matters more is whether it was effective. The answer is, ironically, a big fat no, not that you’d hear it from the public health activity lobby:

The results failed to match the predictions of the health lobby’s computer models and the failed experiment has since been largely swept under the carpet in public health circles.

And:

The fat tax had a very limited impact on the consumption of unhealthy’ foods. One survey found that only seven per cent of’ the population reduced the amount of butter, cream and cheese they bought and another survey found that 80 per cent of Danes did not change their shopping habits at all.

But unlike the alcopops tax it was declared a failure and removed. For once I might recommend we follow Denmark.

There are reports a new study from the University of Queensland shows that the Alcopops tax didn’t work. According to the article:

A federally-funded study to be released today reveals the tax has not dinted the number of teenagers and young people with alcohol-related injuries.

Former prime minister Kevin Rudd slapped a 70 per cent tax increase on pre-mixed drinks – dubbed “alcopops” – in 2008 to try to curb binge drinking.

But a new University of Queensland analysis of 87,665 alcohol-related visits to hospital emergency departments over three years has found the tax made no difference.

The conclusions are hardly a surprise. We know consumers are price-sensitive, particularly young ones. So making one item more expensive doesn’t mean they drop it, instead they substitute. According to the researchers:

They’re going to find something else … it’s generally spirits.

It’s a reminder of what occurred during the US Prohibition experiment. Businesses weren’t able to sell alcohol, so they sold the ingredients for alcohol with a large sign – WARNING: If you mix these ingredients you will make alcohol. The same thing appears to have occurred with alcopops:

some bottle shops began taping bottles of soft drink or fruit juice to bottles of spirits, once the tax came in.

What’s more concerning is earlier claims that young people were substituting for more illicit substances:

A NEW phenomenon of young people ”switching” to the increasingly cheap party drug ecstasy has been fuelled by rising alcohol prices, according to drug researchers, nightclub owners and the people themselves – the nightclubbers.

The rise in alcohol prices was in part fed by federal Labor’s 2009 alcopops tax.

”It is cheaper and convenient to use pills,” said Professor Jake Najman, director of the University of Queensland’s Alcohol and Drug Research and Education Centre. ”A lot of young people are making that choice to switch between alcohol and ecstasy. Pills can be cheaper, there is no question.”

It’s a healthy reminder that what matters is promoting a culture of individual choice and responsibility. Constantly trying to game the market just creates unintended consequences, and clearly they are sometimes worse than the problem they sought to originally deal with.

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?