So does this make Mr Potato Head a Political Commissar?

If you are prosecuted under these ridiculous laws, you should plead not guilty and indicate that if you lose in court, you'll seek to have any fine deducted from compensation for unconstitutional taxes, thereby threatening to cut off the revenue from the offending taxes: http://www.grputland.com/2012/02/how-to-beat-revenue-raising-fines.html .

In true soviet style, there is also a law that allows inspectors to stop and search vehicles for rock lobsters. When I was living in WA a few years ago they would put up a roadblock, complete with the police (to stop any stroppy drivers) and hold up traffic for hours.
The land of the free?

Interesting article, David.

But let’s be careful of the Orwellian, Stalinist and communist comparisons. It doesn’t help your argument; it just makes you seem a little extreme in your expression.

There are advantages and disadvantages in highly regulated regimes. It would seem that the WA potato regulations are not clearly disadvantageous in the bigger picture. They discriminate against new growers but help protect established growers, which is something that many primary producers who are subject to fluctuating prices would love to have.

As you say,

<< …growers are in no hurry to see the system changed. >>

You mention a difference in Price of spuds in Perth and Sydney, but you don’t know if there is a difference! This is really quite strange. I would have though it an essential factor to get a handle on, so that you can say whether or not consumers are actually disadvantaged or not.

As for regulation; well, if the orderly marketing system is going to be meaningful, then it needs to be tightly regulated, doesn’t it? Otherwise it’ll fall in a heap and become a free-for-all, or the law-abiding participants will be disadvantaged compared to more aggressive less law-abiding producers.

David, you can’t tell us whether the system in WA is actually good or bad overall compared to other states. You can’t tell us the consumer does pay more, and yet you condemn the system with some very strong socialistic rhetoric.

It doesn’t add up!

I wonder what you would like to see. I’ll take a guess; a system of extremely low regulation where market forces and personal motivation / aggression / ruthlessness are the main forces in determining who is successful and who isn’t.

I’m very strongly in favour of a well regulated regime. And I don’t think that makes in the slightest bit communistic. In fact, it sits very well within a regime of good governance within a real democracy.

Interesting that they are allowed to grow 13 different types of spud,the local Supermarkets only stock,Nadine,Royal Blue, and two others so where the rest went I dont know.
Nadine are useless spuds and having lived in the East it like stepping back 30 yrs returning to WA,bit behind QLD in a lot of attitudes held here.

Ludwig

The Orwellian language here is not misplaced. It emphasises that the coercive power of the state must be brought to bear in order to enforce regulation, even in areas where common sense suggests it is not warranted, such as whether I grow or transport potatoes.

To illustrate the point, a few years ago a WA potato grower dared to challenge the WA potato regulators by giving his spuds away (this is not illegal, where selling them would be). The Potato Board responded by spending $268,616 to put his farm under 24-hour surveillance by a private security company to make sure he didn’t sell his spuds illegally – more Kafka than Orwell, perhaps, but just as weird.

http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/hans35.nsf/NFS/b3dc7de4da2da07448256618007f788f?OpenDocument

WA consumers pay more for potatoes and have less choice because of regulation. The winners are the bureacracy and a few rent-seeking growers. It's almost funny.

Given that there is free trade between the states, could a potato grower by-pass the system by selling his spuds to a person or company from another state, who could then on-sell them within WA? And what if I drive a truckload of spuds across the border into WA? And what if you deliver your spuds around in a convoy of vehicles, each with a 49 kg box on board? This could become a sitcom.

On the lobster front, they need to be controlled to prevent over-fishing, but I don't think spuds have been on the endangered list since the Irish potato famine.

Candide

I agree, there is a much stronger case for regulating lobsters than potatoes. Lobsters are a scarce natural resource, potatoes are not.

Licenced WA growers must sell to Potato Marketing Corporation. According to the Act:

A person shall not sell or deliver ware potatoes, otherwise than —
(a) to —
(i) the Corporation; or
(ii) an agent authorised to act on behalf of the Corporation;
or
(b) in accordance with a permit granted, or exemption notified, under section 25.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/download.cgi/au/legis/wa/consol_act/mopa1946232

There is nothing to prevent growers in other states from “exporting” product to WA, and it happens sometimes when WA supplies are low and prices are especially high. But potatoes are a low-value bulk commodity and transport costs make it a relatively expensive option to cart them across the Nullarbor.

Rhian

I objected to David’s Leyonhjelm’s premise that the sort of regulation present in the potato industry in WA is socialistic and hence inherently evil, regardless of whether the consumer is actually losing out or whether there is a net negative outcome compared to other states.

However, if you can assert that there isn’t a better overall outcome or that there are significant negative factors in the way it operates, then I’m with you.

In other words, I have no problem with a tight regulatory regime. But of course, it has to produce a better outcome, otherwise there’s no point, or the methodology needs to be changed to make it produce such an outcome.

Regarding your example, it is hard to comment other than to say that the expenditure was not really just related to one farmer; it demonstrated that the regulatory body was determined to police the rules and that all other producers had better operate within those rules or else they risk pretty serious consequences. Yes it sounds over-the-top, but I’d need a better understanding of the situation to be able to confirm or dismiss that.

As I said in my last post; tight regulation is needed. Otherwise the whole thing is at risk of falling in a heap and becoming a free-for-all, or at least the law-abiding participants risk being disadvantaged compared to more aggressive less law-abiding producers.

Ludwig

Actually, the expenditure was related to one farmer – Tony Galati, who has a long history of publicly challenging WA’s potato marketing regulations. In my opinion, the surveillance was a disgraceful and disproportionate waste of public money intended to intimidate a vocal critic of regulation. It irritated me so much at the time I still remember it clearly.

I’m not against regulation when there is a good reason – like Candide, I agree that lobster production should be regulated, for example. Economics outlines a fairly straightforward set of circumstances where “market failures” can occur that result in inefficient or socially damaging outcomes. These often mean that government intervention is warranted, including regulation.

But … where there is no good reason, the most efficient and socially beneficial outcomes usually come from leaving production and demand to the market. And, as the author makes clear, the cost of regulation is not only economic. It involves state coercion, surveillance and penalties, and makes certain activities illegal which are not by anyone’s standards immoral (growing and selling potatoes is an offence?).

There is a broader principle at stake here, as well as just economic efficiency. I think the State should stay out of people’s lives unless there are good and serious reasons to intervene. Telling people which vegetables they can and cannot grow does not count, in my book.

<< Actually, the expenditure was related to one farmer >>

Yes Rhian, but in effect it was related to all growers, by way of the regulatory authority demonstrating that it is willing to go to considerable lengths to make sure the system is tightly regulated.

This is really important. All too often we see poor regulation, which makes a mockery of the relevant regime.

In this instance, the action taken appears to be over the top, but if we fully understood the whole story, it may not seem so out of place.

I am particular concerned about regulation because time and time again I have experienced the results of ineffective policing. All too often, what we are told applies in law and what really applies are two quite different things. I detest this sort of duplicity, which is present all around us.

Two ways in which it has seriously affected me are road rules – speed limits, tailgating and general obnoxious driving practices. What the law says and what the police actually police are two quite different things, and hence what the general community considers acceptable practice is significantly different from the actual law.

The other one is the code of conduct in my former workplace, the Queensland public service, which proved to not be worth the paper it was written on. The code of conduct is supposed to be all employees’ law book. They are supposed to be obligated to operate according to its rules. Yeah right!!

I’m also particularly opposed to just leaving things up to market forces.

contnued

Rhian, you wrote:

<< There is a broader principle at stake here, as well as just economic efficiency. I think the State should stay out of people’s lives unless there are good and serious reasons to intervene. >>

Agreed. But there is nearly always the need for some regulation. There is very little that we can do that is completely independent of some rule or regulation. And fair enough too.

We need strive for the minimum regulatory imposition that we can get away with, while maximising its benefit and minimising the negative effects. While there might be a net positive effect, it usually doesn’t come without creating disadvantages for some people. So it is all a really difficult juggling act, which can all too easily get infected with bureaucratic overload and inefficiencies, or as I say on the other side of the coin; suffer from inefficient regulation and hence poor performance in the very purpose that it was up for.

As far as WA potatoes go. It would appear that there are certainly inefficiencies, but that the overall program is not really all that bad. Whether it is needed at all, given that other states operate quite differently, is uncertain, although David’s assertion that the growers are in no hurry to get rid of it despite its apparently overly cumbersome requirements would suggest that does have a net positive effect.

*In true soviet style, there is also a law that allows inspectors to stop and search vehicles for rock lobsters*

Hang on, Sarnian, that is hardly Soviet style. Catch limits and
size limits apply to various wild caught seafood, from fish to
marron to abalone. For very good reasons, to make the fishery
sustainable. Otherwise people will plunder the resource as they
do in places like Thailand. When I was in Phuket once, they explained
to me that the locals had harvested every lobster down to the size
of a finger and that anything of size was now being plundered from
Burma.

Years ago they regulated many things especially in WA, as if you
look on a map, the place is a long way from anywhere and there were
no trucks whizzing between East and West, as happens now. From
egg production to the export of lambs, it was regulated. As time
has passed, these things were deregulated. Potatoes will be too,
its just a question of time. I agree, there is no good reason to
regulate them anymore. While we are at it, we might as well deregulate
the labour market too.

Yabby ,you cannot compare the scarcity of Lobsters to the abundance of potatoes.The regulation of potatoes is just insane.There is too much Govt regulation.

Arjay, if you read and think a bit about what was posted, you'll
notice that I did not compare them. I commented about Sarnian's
claim and explained why some things were regulated decades ago.

"There is very little that we can do that is completely independent of some rule or regulation. And fair enough too."

This is the exact sort of attitude that allows the government to not only access and monitor your private communications, but also track us via our phone/gps. The next dictator (socialist/fascist/other) will have much more powerful tools at their disposal to control and oppress the population.

You may have socialist potatoes in WA, but we have globe trotting tomatoes in Qld.

Bundaberg & Hervey Bay are only about 60Km apart, but Bundaberg tomatoes must do 700Km to Hervey Bay. They have to take the scenic route through Brisbane markets, just to burn some truck diesel.

When a Bundaberg grower, during a glut, took a truck load to Hervey Bay, to sell very cheep, by the box, to the public, his penalty was five times as much the bloke who held up a service station, with a gun, the same day.

Perhaps our magistrates are just as mad as the reserve bank board, the potato marketing board/whatever, or the tomato police.

Ludwig
Comparing speed limits and potato marketing regulations is silly. And the regulator picked on one farmer because he opposed the system – a serious misuse of authority, in my view.

I disagree that we need rules and regulations for almost everything we do. That really is the statist nightmare of fascism and communism.

What makes you say the system is “not all that bad”. It delivers poor choice (have you ever eaten a Nadine potato?) and higher prices. The fact that many WA potato growers support the regulated system simply demonstrates the fact that this regulation, like so many others, benefits a small group sharing a vested interest at the expense of the broader community.

<< Ludwig, comparing speed limits and potato marketing regulations is silly >>

Hang on Rhian. I gave an example of how the law can get out of whack with general practice if the regulatory regime is not up to scratch. Speed limits / road safety is a good example.

The same can happen in any area of law, and does all too often in our society. Marketing regulation is no exception.

I’m just talking about broad principles.

<< And the regulator picked on one farmer because he opposed the system – a serious misuse of authority, in my view. >>

Maybe so. I don’t know. And with respect I don’t you can really know either just what the real story is.

Further to your comment:

<< There is a broader principle at stake here, as well as just economic efficiency. I think the State should stay out of people’s lives unless there are good and serious reasons to intervene >>

There is an even broader and more basic principle: that of optimal management to provide the best outcome.

If the best outcome requires a high level of regulation, then so be it. If it can be achieved with minimal or zero regulation, then great. Thus, the regulatory regime should be based on the best outcome, not on the notion of governments minimising ‘interference’ in our lives. .

Again, road safety is a good example of the need for a high level of regulation for the best outcome.

<< What makes you say the system is “not all that bad”.>>

I explained that. I also said in an earlier post:

< However, if you can assert that there isn’t a better overall outcome or that there are significant negative factors in the way it operates, then I’m with you. >

Ah bugger!

I suffer really badly from missing word syndrome in my OLO posts!

No amount of spell and grammar checking, proof-reading, re-reading and re-re-reading can cure it!

Most annoying it is! );>/

Correction to my last post:

< And with respect I don’t THINK you can really know either just what the real story is. >

And from an earlier post:

< … or as I say on the other side of the coin; suffer from inefficient regulation and hence poor performance in the very purpose that it was SET up for. >

Rrrrgh!

You're in good company Ludwig. I suffer the same thing.

What an amazingly learned debate about WA's Socialist Potato Paradise (Lost) its been.

Pete
(and Kommissar Po)

Cheers Pete the potatohead. It is sort of comforting to know that there is at least one other person out there who has a mashed brain like mine!! ( :>)

----

I wrote:

< There is very little that we can do that is completely independent of some rule or regulation. And fair enough too >

Stezza, you replied:

<< This is the exact sort of attitude that allows the government to not only access and monitor your private communications, but also track us via our phone/gps. The next dictator (socialist/fascist/other) will have much more powerful tools at their disposal to control and oppress the population. >>

Wow, is that ever over the top!

Take a walk down the street. You feel free and unoppressed by laws of the state. But there are all sorts of laws that apply. You can’t legally go nude, you can’t throw rubbish around, you can’t brazenly offend or assault people, you can’t damage property, you can’t do all sorts of stuff. And people can’t legally do them to you.

Every one of these laws is fair enough, (well, except perhaps for the going-nude-in-public one, but that’s another story!). They don’t in the slightest bit open the way for governments to be more intrusive in our lives.

Most of these laws go unnoticed and completely out of mind. But you can imagine how horrible it would be if they didn’t exist and people felt free to subject you to offensive behaviour or assault or whatever without you having any legal recourse.

It is a matter of best management and striving to find the optimum level of regulation to produce the best outcome.

There is indeed very little that we can do that is completely independent of some rule or regulation. That is absolutely fair and reasonable in a free society. Indeed, it wouldn’t be a very free society at all without these laws.

"Wow, is that ever over the top!"

Sorry reading my comment again, it does come across as an extreme position. However what I said is true- our governments do intrude into our lives too much.

The uk government wanted to track us via our phones/gps without a warrant
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/23/supreme-court-gps-tracking-ruling

And what do you suppose they do out at pine gap?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)

Anyway, this is a bit off topic, but my point is that we need to be vigilant about how much power we give governments to regulate/control our lives. The government thinks that everything they do is for the best, and once given power it strongly resists giving it up.

Yes, fair comment Stezza. Cheers.

If history of the last 200 years tells us anything, we have learned that no political or economic system is perfect or foolproof. Communism was a total disaster, yet there still seems to be a hankering for the simple, secure days of the USSR's communism in the hearts of some working class Russians. Rampant capitalism gave us the Global Financial Crisis and one only has to look to last night's Four Corners program to see its human impact in Australia.

I was a state MP in WA when the dairy industry deregulated in 2000. I had grave concerns about the impact of deregulation on diary farmers but voted with the government in support of the legislation. Today, 11 years later, the only dairy farmer-owned cooperative has gone bankrupt, the number of dairy farmers in WA has dropped by about 60% and milk production has dropped because the major supermarket chains have taken control of the industry and effectively reduced the price paid to dairy farmers. In hindsight, modification of the regulated industry would have been better, not total deregulation.

Now we have the potato deregulation debate starting up (again) because we have a state election in March 2013. I support regulation of this industry because it provides certainty to producers and suppliers, as well as 'reasonable' prices to all parts of the industry. The export potato industry is unregulated and some modifications are now needed to make the current regulations work better. But total deregulation would be a mistake and hand the industry over to total control by the supermarkets or a couple of very large growers.

I'm with you all the way there, Bernie.