Tobacco Bill paternalism not allowed under the Constitution, says Free Market Foundation
Scroll down for Afrikaans version.
The Free Market Foundation (FMF) has warned the Portfolio Committee on Health in the National Assembly that the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill represents a kind of paternalism that is out of sync with South Africa’s constitutional values.
In a submission to the committee, FMF Head of Policy Martin van Staden points to various unconstitutional provisions throughout the Tobacco Bill.
These include the Bill’s assignment of an open-ended and unlimited discretion to the Minister of Health to ban smoking and/or vaping anywhere in South Africa for no reason other than the Minister considering it ‘appropriate.’
‘What a politician subjectively regards as “appropriate” or “inappropriate” should be no concern of ordinary South Africans and businesses. The Rule of Law is meant to protect us from such arbitrary whims,’ adds Van Staden.
The Bill additionally proposes to prohibit people smoking in their own houses if they work from home, as there will be a ban on smoking in a private dwelling if that dwelling is used as a ‘workplace.’ This is ‘a clear manifestation of an undemocratic, totalitarian impulse on behalf of the [Bill’s] drafters’ and falls foul of the rights to human dignity and privacy in the Constitution.
This same provision would cause domestic workers – even when they are themselves smokers, or do not mind their employers smoking – to lose work across South Africa. Employers will legally have no ability to smoke in their own homes anymore unless they terminate the employ of anyone, themselves included, who works there.
This comes right as SweepSouth’s sixth annual survey shows that the past year has already seen ‘masses of job losses’ among domestics.
The Department of Health is, furthermore, attempting to explicitly subvert democracy by prohibiting lobbying by or on behalf of tobacco and vaping companies or associations. Lobbying, despite the bad reputation it enjoys, is a legitimate democratic practice.
‘It is perverse to allow government to interfere in the affairs of private companies and groups, but then not allow those companies or groups to speak their mind in response,’ says Van Staden, adding, ‘No similar provision exists for lobbying by or on behalf of so-called health associations.’
When this provision is viewed alongside the new General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill, which seeks to subject all non-governmental organisations to ‘vetting’ by security services, it is clear that government has embarked on an initiative to silence or constrain its critics among civil society.
Aside from these clearly unconstitutional provisions, the Tobacco Bill as a whole represents a misconception of governmental authority in a society premised on constitutionalism. The FMF submission explains:
‘In a constitutional democratic dispensation government is not conceived of as a parental figure that must “care for” and “raise” its perpetual-minor subjects. Instead, government is an agent service provider, and legal subjects are its principal.
As such, what legal subjects voluntarily decide to consume is no business of government. It is a fundamental liberty of the individual to be allowed to decide for themselves what lifestyle they wish to live, which includes whether or not they will smoke or vape.’
The FMF accordingly advises the committee to withdraw the Bill and respect the freedom of consumers to make their own decisions.
READ the FMF’s submission here.
Ends.
***
Paternalistiese Tabakwetsontwerp nie toelaatbaar onder die Grondwet nie, sê die Vryemarkstigting
Scroll op vir die Engelse weergawe.
Die Vryemarkstigting (FMF) het die Portefeuljekomitee op Gesondheid in die Nasionale Vergadering gewaarsku dat die Wetsontwerp op die Beheer van Tabakprodukte en Elektroniese Afleweringstelsels ‘n soort paternalisme verteenwoordig wat onversoenbaar is met Suid-Afrika se grondwetlike waardes.
In ‘n voorlegging aan die komitee wys FMF Beleidshoof Martin van Staden op verskeie ongrondwetlike bepalings in die Tabakwetsontwerp.
Onder hierdie bepalings is die Wetsontwerp se toekenning van onbeperkte diskresie aan die Minister van Gesondheid om rook en/of vaping enige plek in Suid-Afrika te verbied vir geen rede anders as dat die Minister dit as ‘gepas’ ag nie.
‘Wat ‘n politikus subjektief as “gepas” of “ongepas” ag moet irrelevant wees vir gewone Suid-Afrikaners en besighede. Die oppergesag van die reg is bedoel om ons van sulke willekeur te beskerm,’ voeg Van Staden by.
Die Wetsontwerp stel ook voor om mense te verbied om in hul eie huise te rook as hulle van die huis af werk, aangesien daar 'n verbod op rook in 'n private woning sal wees as daardie woning as 'n 'werkplek' gebruik word. Dit is ‘'n duidelike manifestasie van 'n ondemokratiese, totalitêre impuls onder die [Wetsontwerp se] opstellers’ en val in stryd met die regte op menswaardigheid en privaatheid in die Grondwet.
Hierdie selfde bepaling sal veroorsaak dat huiswerkers – selfs wanneer hulle self rokers is, of nie omgee dat hul werkgewers rook nie – werk oor Suid-Afrika heen gaan verloor. Werkgewers sal wetlik geen vermoë hê om meer in hul eie huise te rook nie, tensy hulle die diens van enigiemand, hulleself ingesluit, wat daar werk, beëindig.
Dit kom net soos SweepSouth se sesde jaarlikse opname toon dat die afgelope jaar reeds 'massas werkverliese' onder huiswerkers gesien het.
Die Departement van Gesondheid poog verder om die demokrasie uitdruklik te ondermyn deur steunwerwing (lobbying) deur of namens tabak- en vapingmaatskappye of verenigings te verbied. Lobbywerk, ten spyte van die slegte reputasie wat dit geniet, is 'n regmatige demokratiese praktyk.
‘Dit is pervers om die regering toe te laat om in die aangeleenthede van privaatmaatskappye en groepe in te meng, maar dan nie toe te laat dat daardie maatskappye of groepe hul mening in reaksie daarop uitspreek nie,’ sê Van Staden, en voeg by, ‘Geen soortgelyke verbod bestaan vir steunwerwing deur of namens sogenaamde gesondheidsverenigings nie.’
Wanneer hierdie bepaling saam met die nuwe Algemene Intelligensiewette Wysigingswetsontwerp gesien word, waarin laasgenoemde poog om alle nie-regeringsorganisasies te onderwerp aan 'keuring' deur die veiligheidsdienste, is dit duidelik dat die regering 'n inisiatief begin het om sy kritici onder die burgerlike samelewing stil te maak of te beperk.
Afgesien van hierdie duidelik ongrondwetlike bepalings, verteenwoordig die Tabakwetsontwerp as geheel 'n wanopvatting van regeringsgesag in 'n samelewing wat op konstitusionalisme gegrond is. Die FMF-voorlegging verduidelik:
'In 'n grondwetlik demokratiese bedeling word die regering nie beskou as 'n ouerfiguur wat sy ewigdurende-minderjarige onderdane moet "versorg" en "grootmaak" nie. In plaas daarvan is die regering 'n agent diensverskaffer, en regssubjekte sy prinsipaal.
As sodanig is dit geen saak van die regering wat regsubjekte vrywillig besluit om te verbruik nie. Dit is 'n fundamentele vryheid van die individu om toegelaat te word om self te besluit watter lewenstyl hulle wil leef, wat insluit of hulle sal rook of vape of nie.'
Die FMF raai die komitee gevolglik aan om die Wetsontwerp te onttrek en die vryheid van verbruikers om hul eie besluite te neem te respekteer.
LEES die FMF se voorlegging hier.
Einde.