Bound by too many rules - The Centre for Independent Studies
Donate today!
Your support will help build a better future.
Your Donation at WorkDonate Now

Bound by too many rules

The late Kerry Packer once suggested to legislators that each time a new law was passed some other law should be taken away to compensate.

The plan may not have been completely serious, but the underlying gripe certainly is. All too often our elected representatives yield to the perennial itch of their legislative trigger finger.

Since 2000, an average of 100 pages of new legislation has been passed every day that the Commonwealth Parliament has sat. The Commonwealth Government's spending has increased by $17 billion in real terms since 1996, and in that time $1 billion has been spent on advertising.

A year ago I wrote a paper on how government bans and regulations have crept into parts of our daily lives where they have no right to be. A low point was debating a parents' lobby group that wanted bans on lollies at supermarket checkouts, all because the poor souls struggled to say "no" to their children's nagging.

Unfortunately, the regulating mindset continues to thrive.

Take, for example, the number of deaths on our roads this holiday season. After large amounts of government advertising, speed cameras, double demerit points in some states and reduced speed limits, there has been no significant reduction in the road toll.

The answer, according to some, is even more advertising, speed cameras and penalties, along with even lower speed limits. Various road authorities have become fascinated with physics – citing "research by the University of Adelaide ", the Victorian Transport Accident Commission (TAC) has discovered that a car travelling at 65km/h takes longer to stop than a car travelling at 60km/h.

Riveting, and probably something a Year 3 science class could have told us, but the TAC's "wipe off 5 to stay alive" slogan is as patronising as it is mistaken.

Wouldn't you prefer to be in a car travelling at 65km/h with a driver who is paying attention than in a car travelling at 60km/h – or for that matter at 40km/h – with a driver who is not?

Dr Alan Buckingham of the UK 's Bath Spa University College argues that road safety is ensured by having capable drivers, safe cars and safe roads. Any government action should be directed at these goals.

Having low speed limits does not do much, because in some conditions even low speed limits may be too fast, while in many other conditions, low speed limits serve only to frustrate and distract drivers.

They may also erode relations between the public and the police.

More generally, there is a risk that increased regulation will spawn a generation of drivers who are incapable of handling a car at speed (assuming that such a generation does not exist already).

A kind of learnt helplessness sets in.

This risk exists whenever governments consider intervening in our lives. The problem with bans and regulations is that individuals lose out.

Another recent example is the farce of light beer being served at the cricket. Officials are open about the fact that this is to curb antisocial behaviour. So law-abiding citizens are denied the simple pleasure of having a proper beer at the cricket because of the antisocial behaviour of a few.

A few years ago a friend of mine went to a football match at Old Trafford in the UK and was happy to be able to buy a full-strength beer – in a glass. Despite all the regulators' concerns, he enjoyed his beer, watched the game, returned the glass and went home without throwing a chair, turning into a racist or mugging someone.

Forcing grown adults to drink light beer out of a plastic cup on the grounds that they cannot be trusted to behave is further evidence of patronising behaviour from those on high.

There is even a hint of condoning irresponsibility and illegality – just as a parent might dress a child in old clothes which can get dirty. At the cricket the line seems to be "you can drink up and even throw your beer now because it's light and in a plastic cup".

In a free society those with authority should know their place.

They are not there to foster precaution and helplessness. In all their dealings governments should ensure that individuals' responsibilities are met and that individuals' liberties are respected.

Caspar Conde is an adjunct scholar at The Centre for Independent Studies and author of ‘ Smothered By the Security Blanket: Risk, Responsibility and the Role of Government’ (CIS, 2005)