Menzies House

Plain-Packaging: I'm Up In-Arms About This... Why?

$750 for 750 word winner contest Joel Silver is 100% wrong in this piece, where he argues that the nanny-state violation of intellectual property rights with the introduction of plain packaging legislation is not worth caring about:

Being the social individual that I am, I attended a function earlier this week, which, typical of the functions I tend to attend, featured a notable guest speaker. This was the day after the Gillard Government's plain-packaging legislation had passed both houses of Parliament, and, according to the guest speaker, this was something that should infuse a great rage within me, being a precursor to an eventual outright ban on cigarettes, before which there'll be even higher taxes on them! And a licence to smoke! Unfavourable reference was also made to the ban on the advertising of cigarettes.

…I'm sorry, was that meant to offend the civil libertarian in me?

I've never been comfortable with this debate on plain-packaging. Don't get me wrong, if I were Nicola Roxon, I wouldn't have put up such a policy. That's not because I oppose it; were I a parliamentarian, I'd not be disinclined to supporting it (assuming a conscience vote was allowed on both sides). You're probably all saying to yourselves, "what's with the mixed-messages, Joel? This speed date is feeling far longer than two minutes." For want of more philosophical explanation, I do not believe it's an issue that should evoke a great deal of emotion from our side of politics. And stop eyeballing that blond at the next table, we've still got plenty of time to get to know each other.

None of my immediate family are smokers. At least, not anymore. My paternal great-grandmother, who died in 1999 at the ripe old age of 89, had smoked like a chimney until she was admitted to hospital (not because of lung cancer or alcoholism; her new doctor had decided her old medication simply wasn't doing much of a job keeping her going). My maternal grandfather took up smoking in the 1940s (I believe during his three-year Swiss recuperation after the Holocaust, though it may have been during the war). He went cold turkey in the 1970s, which I'm told increased his irritability the discovery of his sweet tooth. We obviously know far more now about the health risks of smoking than we did then, though of course, not everyone has access to that information when they take it up. If your parents smoke, and you take follow their lead, you probably won't know the facts for a while, by which time you're well and truly hooked. Alternatively, you were ignorant when you shared a fag at that house party in Year 8. You probably wouldn't have taken a whiff if you knew what an expensive habit, both monetarily and physically, that whiff was going to be!

Remembering Wadeye

It is worth remembering why the NT Intervention began, writes Joel Silver.

The Northern Territory National Emergency Response (‘Intervention’) has remained a policy plagued by misunderstanding since its announcement by the Howard Government in June 2007. I have on numerous occasions had to explain to friends outside of politics – of which I seem to have quite a few! – the reasons that prompted the Intervention, and moreover, to counter perceptions that it was political wolf in sheep's clothing, a policy whose motive was to needlessly discriminate against Australia's Indigenous peoples, a new White Australia Policy. The worst part is that most have never heard of the Little Children are Sacred ("Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle") report. In fairness, after detailing the chronic social problems the report found afflicted Indigenous communities (eg. alcoholism, substance abuse, unemployment, pornography), and the impact these have had on children, those friends are quick to change their tune.

The Corruption of BDS by the Radical Left

Joel Silver discusses the naked anti-semitism behind the left's calls for a boycott of the Jewish State:

Israel! USA! How many kids have you killed today!        

I have always been one to give credit where it's due, my disdain for the recipient notwithstanding. And I must admit that I have long-admired the capacity of radical Marxists to churn out catchy little chants, such as the nugget above. As to the urban myth that Marxist meetings may only proceed while the speakers remain in perfect rhythm, I cannot comment, though it would go some way to explaining the survival of such movements on the social peripheries. But I digress.

Australia in 2011 has seen a number of increasingly public events under the banner of the international Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. BDS is a "grassroots" campaign, whose raison d'etre is to facilitate an international economic boycott of the Jewish State. The public argument of BDS is that, to advance the Palestinian cause, consumers should avoid patronage of all companies who profit from Israel's "occupation". A list prepared by Sydney's Marrickville Council (for its shelved boycott) included large multinational entities such as Chevrolet, Veolia and Hewlett-Packard (though this would impede the printing of radical flyers). That's the idea, at least. In practice, Australian BDS has left the multinationals alone, opting to single out Israeli companies trading in Australia, in particular, Jericho Cosmetics (now Black Pearl) and the Max Brenner chain of coffee lounges. And though BDS is meant to be passive, its campaigning – consisting of mobs gathering outside the outlets of Israeli businesses – relate little to an economic boycott. The mobs chant and rave anti-Israeli slogans, their large ranks too intimidating for any consumer wishing to enter the stores, or indeed, other businesses that are simply nearby. Police are called, and on several occasions, are set upon by the mob after the protestors refuse to move on.

The worse aspect of BDS is that, while they allege to support Palestinian rights, their hatred of the State of Israel is barely concealed. A recital of some of the protestors' chants is quite illustrative–

Leave it at 0.05

A successful motion at the Victorian Liberal Party's 152nd State Council, which I put on behalf of the Young Liberals, commended the Baillieu Government for resisting calls to lower the blood alcohol limit from 0.05 to 0.02. I began by discussing the quintessential Australian corner pub, whose prevalence throughout this nation, in commercial and built-up areas, in the city and the country, and in richer and poorer suburbs alike, reflects our unity when it comes to a social drink.

That 0.02 would have such a fundamental impact on the Australian way of life, and on our social liberties, while doing little to enhance road safety, is of great concern. Nor do we believe any Government should pass a law whose target would be mum-and-dad drivers. Indeed, it would be irresponsible to implement such a policy before more pressing road reforms, such as an annual servicing requirement.

Alcohol is social, not a social evil. A lower limit would carry with it a presumption that dangerous driving results from dinner wines and cocktails, unfairly presuming that road users are naturally irresponsible. Consider a hypothetical husband and wife from Glen Waverley, out to a hypothetical dinner in South Yarra for their twenty-fifth wedding anniversary. The husband BYOs a bottle of Sauvignon Blanc, and they each polish off a glass for every three courses. A half hour passes between that last glass and the car starting, and 5 minutes before they get waved over on Alexandra Avenue. Hubby probably overdid it, but is under the legal limit at 0.042. The question we need to ask, in this and similar scenarios, is: should he be? Does the smallest amount of alcohol make him a road risk?