EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

If there's smokes, there's ire

TOBACCO is a legal product that fewer than one in every five Australians chooses to consume, with an inevitable deleterious impact on their health.

So federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon is prepared to do almost all within her power to prevent its use. In defending her plain packaging laws, Ms Roxon has made no secret of her aim to eliminate any opportunities for the tobacco companies to market or distinguish their branded products. When her legislation is passed, as seems certain given the opposition's acquiescence, it will be illegal not only to advertise, display or market this product but also to attach a trademark to its packaging.

Such is the government's crusade against tobacco it begs the question of why they have not sought to outlaw the substance. In fact, Ms Roxon has said if we were starting the country from scratch, "there is no way this would be a legal product". Certainly the rhetoric deployed against tobacco is one of zero tolerance. "Everyone knows it's a habit that will kill you," says the minister.

This presents a stark contrast to the rhetoric used against illicit drugs. When tackling the devastating consequences of drugs such as crystal methamphetamine (crystal meth, meth, speed or ice), heroin, cocaine or even marijuana, the attitude of authorities is driven by an over-arching strategy of "harm-minimisation" rather than zero tolerance.

Go to the National Drugs Campaign website to view information about a range of drugs and you will see their extensive health risks detailed along with descriptions such as "marijuana produces a 'high' that generally makes the user feel more relaxed, happy and more talkative" or "both ice and base produce a very intense rush". Fair enough. But click on tobacco and there is no reference to why anyone would want to smoke. Rather we are told "Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death" and "People near a smoker breathe in the poisons too, which can also cause them disease and premature death". Again this is fair enough but it highlights the completely different emphasis.

Government ministers and activists seem to speak out more on the evils of the legal product of tobacco than they do on the need to stamp out the illicit drugs. One reason is that cigarettes are an easy target, with not even smokers kicking up much of a fuss anymore. While laws restricting the tobacco trade have been ratcheted up over recent decades, around the country marijuana offences have been decriminalised, even though that drug is inhaled in an unhealthy fashion.

It is little wonder tobacco companies are doing all they can to contest the latest measures and seek compensation. Plain packaging laws effectively remove valuable assets from the tobacco firms -- the intellectual property of their marketing brands. This is a dangerous precedent to impose on a legitimate industry because similar arguments could be mounted, and no doubt one day will be, against alcohol packaging and various food trademarks. A sophisticated economy should not be so frivolous about commercial property rights.

We believe people concerned about their physical wellbeing should not smoke, but it is their choice. As for the Health Minister, we would be more impressed if she devoted her energies to tackling the terrible problems of illicit drug dependency, and the recreational drug use causing problems among our young.

The Greens must focus on the national interest

ON Friday, Australia enters uncharted political territory when the Greens take the balance of power in the upper house.

We are accustomed to individual senators exerting influence from the cross-benches and to legislative refinement, sometimes for the better, from minor parties of the centre. Bob Brown and his colleagues represent something different altogether. Their agenda goes beyond keeping the government honest, extracting bounty for local constituencies or operating as brokers between the two major parties. It is a party in formal alliance with the government, one that commanded almost 12 per cent of the vote at the last election -- small enough to be unrepresentative of Australians' views but big enough to push its own radical agenda, ranging from the economy to West Papua, from transgender issues to mental health.

A parliament with two elected chambers has served Australia well since Federation, imposing an extra layer of accountability that sometimes frustrates governments but often improves the quality of legislation. With power comes responsibility, however, which is why the easy ride the Greens have been given in terms of public and media scrutiny must end.

A leader who appears to be more interested in the game of politics than the substance of policy should face greater scrutiny than Senator Brown has so far experienced. In a taste of what he should now expect, Chris Uhlmann on 7.30 last month challenged Senator Brown's claim, against the evidence of an article he wrote for this newspaper, not to have called for coal exports to be phased out. Instead of clarifying his position, Senator Brown later accused The Australian of being part of the "hate media".

On Sunday's Insiders, Senator Brown reverted to his original stand, confirming that the "coal industry has to be replaced by renewables", thereby begging the question: will the real Bob Brown now stand up?

The Greens are playing a high-stakes game as negotiations over the carbon tax enter the final leg. The choice is between compromising in order to achieve a tax or once again wrecking Labor's proposal just as in 2009, when they rejected Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme. The Greens seem to be laying the groundwork for both -- agreeing to a tax but criticising it so comprehensively that they destroy any hope of Labor containing the issue politically.

Senator Brown may calculate he cannot lose, given that the continuing relevance of his party rests with carbon remaining a hot button issue in the electorate. For that, he seems to suggest, he needs an adversary such as Tony Abbott. That's the only conclusion to be drawn from his statements on Insiders when he all but salivated at the prospect of "putting the blowtorch to" and "taking on" the Coalition leader if Mr Abbott is in government after the next election. Perhaps aghast at such politicking, presenter Barrie Cassidy threw the senator a lifeline, saying: "But you hold the balance of power. You don't take him on. The idea is to work co-operatively with the government of the day, isn't it?"

The Greens' push for more money for renewables as part of the government's carbon tax package reveals their efforts to have a foot in both camps. Greens deputy leader Christine Milne has argued for more money to be spent on renewable energy technologies, even though the Productivity Commission has exposed the inefficiency of such subsidies. It found the state and commonwealth schemes have cost billions of dollars for little result, with schemes such as state-based feed-in tariffs for rooftop solar costing between five and 10 times as much as a market-based scheme to cut the same amount of CO2 emissions.

Clearly the Greens have little faith in the carbon tax delivering much by way of cuts in carbon emissions and are keen to retain direct action along with a market-driven system. They criticise the Coalition's ad hoc approach to "complementary measures" yet want to see more of such direct action themselves. They attack the Opposition Leader on carbon, yet champion -- at least in part -- the same sort of approach to direct action he advocates.

The Greens must be held to account for environmental and economic policies that could have a major influence on Australia's future. The party may have a fraction of the national vote but their holding of the balance of power demands the same scrutiny be applied to their policies as to those of the major parties. Their command of the Senate cross-benches will be a test of the party's maturity and willingness to develop from a party of moral opposition to one that can play a constructive role through negotiation and compromise. Senator Brown faces an internal challenge managing the expectations and ambitions of a disparate group of senators within a party without clear internal structure. The direction the Greens take when they hold the balance of power will determine whether they are seen as a constructive, political force or as a permanent protest group.

Senator Brown has proved himself to be a masterful politician but it is now up to him take on a serious policy mantle and work for pragmatic solutions in the interests of the nation rather than pursuing the narrow agenda of a minority. With the balance of power with the Greens, the opportunity is there for him to take.