WEST Australians under the age of 20 could be banned from buying alcohol at bottle shops if a recommendation by a parliamentary committee is adopted.
While a minimum floor price on alcohol should be set by the end of the year to combat binge drinking.
In its final report into alcohol and drug problems in WA, the committee found the state had the world's 10th highest rate of alcohol consumption per capita.
Committee chair Janet Woollard said the state needed to urgently reduce the rate of alcohol consumption in WA, which is well above the Australian average.
"Sadly we've moved into a culture that accepts binge drinking; we've got to get that culture back to safe drinking and responsible drinking," Dr Woollard said.
The report recommends the government consider banning people under the age of 20 from buying alcohol from off-licensed venues as a way to restrict under-age drinking.
It also identifies increasing the price of alcohol per standard drinking as a key way to reduce consumption.
"Government action in Australia to increase price has already proved important in controlling and reducing consumption in other sectors, such as tobacco products and the use of water and electricity," it said.
"The need for state government action is urgent."
The committee urged the Health Minister to change laws which would enable a minimum floor price to be set by the end of the year to prevent the sale of the cheapest forms of alcohol.
Both Woolworths and Coles were slammed by the committee for engaging in "loss leading" practices by advertising alcohol at low prices in order to attract customers in their stores.
In one case a Woolworths Dan Murphy's store was found to be selling a bottle of wine at $1.95.
The committees view came in light of evidence by the two supermarket giants that they did did not encourage irresponsible drinking.
"The actions of Coles and Woolworths in retailing alcohol products do not match their stated positions ... that they are responsible retailers of alcohol and committed to the responsible service and supply of alcohol."
The report urged the government close a loophole which allowed adults to supply alcohol to minors and juveniles without the consent of their parents.
"At the moment 14, 15, 16-year-old children go along to parties and without their parents being aware of the fact, that are supplied alcohol at these parties," Dr Woollard said.
"When mum and dad, the older brother or sister go to pick them up, they're completely intoxicated. No one had told the child's parent they would be supplying them with alcohol."
The committee recommended health warnings to be placed on products made in WA and limit alcohol advertising around liquor outlets, outdoors, at sporting venues and through media distributed in the state.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/business/proposed-alcohol-ban-for-wa-under-20s/story-e6frfm1i-1226080793208#ixzz1QZ6nLqHw
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Sensoring the Internet, is this Australia or China?
THERE are new sheriffs in town.
And their names are Telstra and Optus.
The Federal Government couldn’t get its Refused Classification internet filter through the correct legal channels. Turns out, it’s not exactly popular with the internet-using, voting public.
So now some Australian internet service providers have put their hands up to do some of the Government’s dirty work for them.
Come next month, users of Telstra, Optus, ItExtreme and Webshield will be getting web filtering.
More than 500 websites will be blocked from view. That will include 500 from ACMA and many more from as yet unnamed ‘international organisations’.
Is this OK? Or is it enough to make you switch internet providers?
This filter is not the original internet censorship plan the Rudd/Gillard Government proposed. That would have seen thousands upon thousands of websites blocked on the basis they contained Refused Classification material, which could be anything from information on euthanasia to abortion.
That model was a moral and technological minefield. It is still active Labor policy. It’s on hold until a review of the classification code comes back early next year.
The more pressing internet filter is more limited and will see ISP block a list of websites alleged to contain child abuse material.
Now it’s hard to argue that child abuse material should be widely available. I hear you. But there are so many problems with this plan. Please allow me to list 10.
1. We won’t know why these sites have been blocked from view. The only thing we currently know is that 500 have been vetted by ACMA and more will come from ‘international organisations’.
2. There will be no appeals process. You’d better hope your site doesn’t get swept up in it.
3. This filter will block URLs—website addresses—only. Change one character and the URL changes. Then we start all over again.
4. Child abuse material isn’t typically exchanged on the worldwide web. Criminals swap it over virtual private networks and peer-to-peer networks.
5. This is the job of law enforcement. Why isn’t filter funding headed to the Federal Police instead? Let them do their jobs.
6. It sets a bad precedent for ISP. It is not their job to step in and take responsibility for what’s on the web. It’d be like Australia Post scanning your snail mail for swear words.
7. Britain tried this. You might remember that British ISP blacklisted a Wikipedia entry based on an album cover by The Scorpions. Fail.
8. No ISP to add this filter has actually told their customers about it yet. In fact, the spokespeople I spoke to had trouble getting any details about it.
9. Add one filter and a second, more invasive, more censorious filter becomes an easier sell for the Government.
10. No user can opt out of this short of changing to a new ISP.
Did I miss anything? Please tell me.
Seriously, child abuse materials shouldn’t be on the web but internet providers are not police. It’s not their job to check what they’re delivering.
Censoring the internet is also a slipperly slope. Australians don’t need to follow in China’s footsteps.
Will you change ISP if yours adds a filter? I’m considering it.
And their names are Telstra and Optus.
The Federal Government couldn’t get its Refused Classification internet filter through the correct legal channels. Turns out, it’s not exactly popular with the internet-using, voting public.
So now some Australian internet service providers have put their hands up to do some of the Government’s dirty work for them.
Come next month, users of Telstra, Optus, ItExtreme and Webshield will be getting web filtering.
More than 500 websites will be blocked from view. That will include 500 from ACMA and many more from as yet unnamed ‘international organisations’.
Is this OK? Or is it enough to make you switch internet providers?
This filter is not the original internet censorship plan the Rudd/Gillard Government proposed. That would have seen thousands upon thousands of websites blocked on the basis they contained Refused Classification material, which could be anything from information on euthanasia to abortion.
That model was a moral and technological minefield. It is still active Labor policy. It’s on hold until a review of the classification code comes back early next year.
The more pressing internet filter is more limited and will see ISP block a list of websites alleged to contain child abuse material.
Now it’s hard to argue that child abuse material should be widely available. I hear you. But there are so many problems with this plan. Please allow me to list 10.
1. We won’t know why these sites have been blocked from view. The only thing we currently know is that 500 have been vetted by ACMA and more will come from ‘international organisations’.
2. There will be no appeals process. You’d better hope your site doesn’t get swept up in it.
3. This filter will block URLs—website addresses—only. Change one character and the URL changes. Then we start all over again.
4. Child abuse material isn’t typically exchanged on the worldwide web. Criminals swap it over virtual private networks and peer-to-peer networks.
5. This is the job of law enforcement. Why isn’t filter funding headed to the Federal Police instead? Let them do their jobs.
6. It sets a bad precedent for ISP. It is not their job to step in and take responsibility for what’s on the web. It’d be like Australia Post scanning your snail mail for swear words.
7. Britain tried this. You might remember that British ISP blacklisted a Wikipedia entry based on an album cover by The Scorpions. Fail.
8. No ISP to add this filter has actually told their customers about it yet. In fact, the spokespeople I spoke to had trouble getting any details about it.
9. Add one filter and a second, more invasive, more censorious filter becomes an easier sell for the Government.
10. No user can opt out of this short of changing to a new ISP.
Did I miss anything? Please tell me.
Seriously, child abuse materials shouldn’t be on the web but internet providers are not police. It’s not their job to check what they’re delivering.
Censoring the internet is also a slipperly slope. Australians don’t need to follow in China’s footsteps.
Will you change ISP if yours adds a filter? I’m considering it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)