Is the editor of the Examiner, Martin Gilmour, giving up smoking? Or has he always been that grumpy? And reactionary? And anti-Green? And in my opinion, wrong?
In yesterday’s rampantly anti-Green polemic – sorry, editorial (HERE)- Gilmour restates his membership of the Barking (Mad) Dinosaurs club – that herd of confused, cantankerous menopausal old men who can’t quite accept it is no longer 1958 or that the Greens are in Government.
This latest left-field invective follows the second significant Greens policy win in as many weeks (– taking the list of Greens policy wins in the life of this Government to about 88, folks!)
Last week’s historic vote in support of same-sex marriage – Gays! Sorry, Martin! – passed thanks to Labor’s backing. This week also saw Labor support the Greens’ move to ban political donations from Big Tobacco.
Greens, 2; Forces of Darkness, nil.
Cleaning up politics by clamping down on corporate donations is a long-standing Greens’ policy which is both common sense and popular.
That’s probably why it’s gone down badly with Mr Gilmour.
Already something of a parochial rag, with his outright defence of the Tasmanian Liberals’ utterly indefensible stance in favour of political donations from Big Tobacco, Gilmour risks steering the paper into the wilderness – especially when the Advocate and Mercury are both notably more objective and a-political.
Gilmour isn’t just a valiant foot soldier of Tony Abbott and Philip Morris et al, he’s is also woefully factually flat-out wrong.
Gilmour says he wants to see meaningful legislation debated – but this wasn’t legislation. It was a motion which paves the way for legislation. And you can’t really get more meaningful than a majority of MPs agreeing to ban Big Tobacco donations.
If he’s unsurprised that Labor has supported this Greens motion, he should try checking Hansard for once – because it almost never happens. Most of the time, Lib-Lab vote together and the Greens are left looking righteous but outnumbered…
His suggestion that political donations from alcohol, gambling and tobacco corporations should only be banned if these products are also banned is laughable. Does he live in a cave? Political corporate donations are being tightened in most progressive western countries – including Australia.
This isn’t about banning cigarettes, just the malign influence of their pushers on our democratic and government institutions.
In fact, despite attempting to defend the Liberals, Gillie ignores the fact that the state which is leading corporate political donations reforms is the Liberal-led NSW. Its premier, Barry O’Farrell, has gone even further than the Greens – shock horror! – and proposed a change in NSW law. This, said O’Farrell, “would end donations from other groups whether they were unions, corporations or interest groups”.
Perhaps O’Farrell is a self-hating Lib. Or a pinko. Or a closet mainlander Greenie, to use some of Gilmour’s preferred lexicon.
Gilmour asks if the Greens will also ban donations from the AFL because it “allows and endorses betting”. Of course, sports clubs and events used to be plastered with cigarette advertising. No longer – because, long ago, the community recognised this was wrong and it stopped.
If it was wrong for sport, it should be wrong for pollies. The Greens think it is. Mr Gilmour thinks it isn’t - but he is out of step with most people on this issue. Again.
The other reason Big Tobacco’s political donations should be banned is because it compromises any pretence the Liberals have of a credible heath policy. Let’s not forget, 70% of acute hospital admissions are smokers and yet only around 20-25% of the population smokes.
Corporations don’t waste money making political donations unless they get something in return. Health organisations are concerned about the potential impact of tobacco donations on political parties’ public health policies and priorities.
Another of Gilmour’s amateurish arguments is that, because Big Tobacco pays taxes, putting money in our pollies’ pockets is okay. Wrong again, Martin.
Taxes gained from cigarette and tobacco products in Australia contribute $6 billion to consolidated revenue, and yet the smoking-related medical burden tops $31 billion - five times what is collected in taxes.
And let’s not forget some of the basic reasons for clamping down on Big Tobacco in Tassie – because more Tasmanians smoke than in any other state, especially young Tasmanians.
We have the highest smoking rates of all Australian states, with the north-west recording a smoking rate of 29.7 per cent, about 10% above the national average.
But there are even more shameful statistics.
Tasmania has the highest uptake of young smokers of all the states and the highest rate of women who smoke while pregnant - 27 per cent compared with the national average of 17 per cent.
This is even higher for young pregnant women. For pregnant women under 20 – and we have very high teenage pregnancy rates in this state, for a number of reasons - the figure is 54.7 per cent.
That means more than half of women under 20 who are pregnant smoke. (These are figures from the Social Determinants of Health Tasmania 2008 by Dr Roscoe Taylor, the Director of Public Health.)
Of course, in his ‘editorial’ Gilmour calls driving down these disgraceful figures “social engineering”. The Greens call it saving lives.
The one thing Gilmour gets right is to say that choice is an Australian freedom. That’s a right the Greens wholeheartedly support – and which has nothing to do with banning Big Tobacco from political meddling.
Voters aren’t free to choose if Big Tobacco is busy behind the scenes, hidden from view, pushing cash to our pollies. This is what the Greens want to end for all parties, and not just from the Marlborough cowboys, but from all corporate interests.
Talking of corporate interests, you wonder when Fairfax head office will take pity on the Examiner’s ragged band of harassed and patronised readers, and rein in Gilmour before they abandon his limp organ for a real newspaper like the Advocate.
Gilmour is clearly struggling with his nicotine withdrawal symptoms as much as reality. Some advice, Martin: slap a patch on your forehead, get educated and let your readers make up their own minds free from another florid, ill-informed diatribe.
Sadly, I don’t think they make patches for bile addiction.
Tom de Kadt is an environmental activist in and around Hobart.
Show Comments
Comments (12)