Lot's Wife Edition 5 2015

14
POLITICS
BY KIRSTI
WEISZ
The nanny state: a burden or a
benefit?
A year-long inquiry into the ‘nanny state’ has recently passed
unopposed in the Senate. Libertarian and independent
senator David Leyonjhelm proposed the parliamentary
inquiry, opining that a bundle of laws are ‘overreaching’ and
restrict personal choice.
The broad-ranging inquiry will inspect measures
introduced to restrict personal choices ‘for the individual’s
own good’, examining laws such as having to wear a bicycle
helmet, violent video games, seatbelt laws and lockouts
for pubs and clubs. It will also consider the sale and use of
alcohol, tobacco and pornography.
Leyonjhelm, who defends "the right to make bad choices",
hopes to "shine a light into the crevices of this growing nanny
state," as he told 3AW. But where should the line between
government interference and personal autonomy be drawn?
The term ‘nanny state’ was used by journalist Dorothy
Thompson in 1952 and evolved from the 19th century term
‘grandmotherly government’, according to Australia’s Human
Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson.
Government paternalism has been in the spotlight
of public debate for many years. The justification for
government intervention is based on community protection
and public health but this can clash with our society’s value
of personal autonomy.
The libertarian approach strongly opposed to such
interventions is often founded on John Stuart Mills’ harm
principle, which illustrates that government intervention
into personal freedom is only permitted if a person’s actions
may inflict harm on another. Mills’ principle advocates that
interference with our choices is oppressive, even if it’s for our
own good.
However, in recent years, laws have been passed to prevent
people from making ‘bad choices.’ Leyonjhelm says making
bike helmets compulsory is a good example of these types of
laws.
Nobody is hurt if you fall off [a bike]. If you don’t wear a
bicycle helmet, your head’s not going to crack into somebody
else and damage them," he told the ABC.
It’s all about you and your safety, and yet the Government
has decided that it’s an offence to ride a bicycle without a
helmet."
Primary reasons for mandatory bike helmets - which is only
enforced in two countries: Australia and New Zealand - are
that it protects riders and saves lives.
But research has often shown that the result is ineffective.
Australian researcher Dr Dorothy Robinson’s study, ‘Do
enforced bicycle helmet laws improve public health?’
found that the laws "discourage cycling but produce no
obvious response in percentage of head injuries." There are
even arguments that bicycle helmets distract from safe
riding skills because individuals see wearing a helmet as a
panacea.
It is argued that one of the reasons for nanny state laws is
that the population is willing to accept trivial intervention
and that we expect government to care for our wellbeing.
Strong proponents of the laws are public health advocates
who say these infringements are for our own good.
Sydney University public health professor Simon Chapman
says nanny state laws protect us and he questions the
necessity of the freedoms that the nanny state seems to
erode.
And just what are these heinous erosions of freedom that
‘nanny’ has destroyed? The freedom to not wear a seat belt?
The freedom to have your cocktail of carcinogens packed in
attractive boxes?" he wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald.
The inquiry will also bring the sale of tobacco and plain
packaging cigarettes under scrutiny once again. While
evidence exists that smoking is highly dangerous, there are
many people who still choose to continue smoking.
Public Health Association of Australia chief executive
Michael Moore told The Australian that tobacco advertising
restrictions are necessary to ensure freedom of choice by
preventing consumers from being dominated by industryinfluence.
While Moore alluded to the influence industry has on the
behaviour of citizens, opponents of plain packaged cigarettes
argue that this is the nanny state at its worst. They argue that
Labor’s rules drive consumption of cheaper or black market
cigarettes.
In an article on The Conversation University of Melbourne
global health professor Rob Moodie wrote "governments
have a responsibility to create environments where healthy
choices become the easiest and the most preferred."
There is an inevitable trade-off between promoting citizen
wellbeing and personal autonomy, according to Julian Le
Grand and Bill New’s book Government Paternalism: Nanny
State or Helpful Friend. Finding justifications for alleged
nanny state legislation may urge politicians to re-consider
why these laws exist and what they are achieving.
The real question behind this debate is when does this
intervention cross the line and encroach on the boundary of
personal freedom?
Submissions for the economics committee inquiry close
on 24 August 2015.