Yesterday in the Federal Senate, a motion was passed to have the Senate’s Economic References Committee conduct an inquiry into legislation which restricts personal choice “for the individual’s own good.”
The motion was brought by Liberal Democrats senator David Leyonhjelm, and the Committee will be chaired by him.
The motion specifically refers to the sale of use and tobacco, alcohol and marijuana, the mandatory use of bicycle helmets and the classification of publications, films and computer games.
In conversations with media, Senator Leyonhjelm discussed the idea of a “nanny state” intruding on choices which don’t affect anyone else, and examples such as seat belt use, bicycle helmets, pornography and violent video games were used.
“It’s not the government’s business unless you are likely to harm another person. Harming yourself is your business, but it’s not the government’s business... So bicycle helmets, for example, it’s not a threat to other people if you don’t wear a helmet; you’re not going to bang your bare head into someone else.”
Submissions to this inquiry are already open, and close on 24 August 2015. The Committee is due to report by June 2016.
I think it is important that we take the time to have some input into this inquiry, and in the coming weeks, I will try to provide a couple of sample submissions.
But as a starting point, Senator Leyonhjelm’s argument that our individual choice does not affect others is not correct.
Taking his example of bicycle helmets, which he says affect no one except the rider ignores how our decisions impact others. Consider the hypothetical situation of a bicycle rider who is killed or severely injured after a collision with a motor vehicle. The decision of the rider to not wear a helmet will have a long-term psychological impact on the driver with whom they collided. It would affect the family and friends of the injured party, who would be left grieving a death or caring for a badly injured person. It would bring a financial cost to the society in terms of medical care. And it tells the individual rider that their life only has the value which they place upon it, ie it has no inherent value.
A similar thing can be said about seatbelt usage. In that example, I would imagine that Senator Leyonhjelm and his committee would still recommend that seatbelts are mandatory for children. What message would those children receive about the preciousness of human life or about the consistency between our words and our actions if we require them to wear seatbelts but then consider them not important for ourselves?
A brief look at the data shows that the effects of alcohol usage are hardly limited to the consumer. It is a significant factor in incidents of domestic violence. Alcohol kills one person and injures 20 more each week on NSW roads. And we have recently heard it (again) confirmed that alcohol is a factor in unwanted sexual activity.
As we have discussed recently on Catholic Talk, NSW Police recently linked the use of pornography to the doubling of sexual assaults. There have also been numerous reports of young women being pressured into violent and/or degrading sexual behaviour because it is being expected by their partners who have received sex education from pornography.
I can’t think of an example where our actions don’t affect others in our lives. We are relational beings and need to take responsibility for that. The use of the resources of the Senate are being spent on a conversation which has, as its goal, a rejection of personal responsibility is a terrible waste.
But given that it is happening, we need to make our voices heard.
In the coming weeks and before submissions are due, I will try to delve a little more deeply into some of these topics... stay tuned!
Monica Doumit, Catholic Talk contributor
