Govt knows best

It has become a common criticism that the present Government has shown a Nanny State or "we know best" approach as it attempts to remake New Zealand society according to its own ideology, writes The Press in an editorial. Among the manifestations of this have been its civil unions, prostitution reform and child discipline legislation. But from out of the blue last week emerged its plan to ban incandescent lightbulbs in favour of compact fluorescent lightbulbs and, even more so than its other Nanny State measures, the decision will impact on every home and business in the country. This resort too early to the heavy hand of regulation is regrettable.

It is not that the goal of greater lighting efficiency is not laudable for environmental reasons. Lighting accounts for around 8 per cent of the energy used in homes and 14% of energy use in businesses and public places, costs New Zealand $600 million a year and produces 2.65 million tonnes of carbon emissions.

Backers of the ban on incandescent bulbs also argue that although the favoured fluorescent bulbs are initially more expensive to buy, they are also cheaper in the long run as they use 80% less energy than a standard bulb and last eight times as long.

So the real issue is not whether the fluorescent bulbs are, as a general rule, preferable to the traditional bulbs. It is whether the Government adequately considered alternative means to encourage CFL usage, allowing New Zealanders to make an informed decision on what bulbs they used, rather than making up their minds for them by banning the importation of the older bulbs from late next year.

Take tobacco, which is a product with major proven health risks. Key to the Government strategy to combat its use is not an outright ban but six-monthly inflation-linked increases in its cost to provide a price signal to stop smoking, and aggressive publicity campaigns.

Subsidies to defray the upfront cost of fluorescent bulbs have been trialled by the Electricity Commission and expanding these would provide a strong price signal to shift to them. So too would a tax on the incandescent bulbs, although this might prove difficult to administer.

The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority had planned a public education campaign before this week's announcement, but will now refine this on the basis of concerns raised about the fluorescent bulbs. This in itself suggests that the ban announcement was brought forward.

The concerns have included their, admittedly small, mercury content, especially with respect to any dangers to householders if the bulbs broke and how they should be disposed of. Questions have also been raised about how long the bulbs take to operate at their optimum light level after being switched on, whether they are suitable for all light fittings, including chandeliers, and whether they could be used with dimmers.

A major publicity campaign, including the longer term savings which could be achieved from a bulb change, would be welcome.

But the Government should have waited for this campaign to run before announcing its ban, with a view to seeing whether information about the merits of fluorescent bulbs, which are already wholly or partly used in half New Zealand homes, spurred an increase in their usage without the need for compulsion.

Its decision to take a heavy-handed approach right now will raise several obvious questions among many New Zealanders. Will the ban on the importation of the cheaper bulbs encourage households to hoard them in the months before it is introduced?

And in the final months before the election just what else is on the Government's list of products or activities deemed injurious to people or the planet is it planning to ban? Petrol lawn mowers might even be a candidate, forcing householders to trundle around their lawns with a push mower. Health advocates have advocated curbs or a fat tax on fast food and sugary drinks.

If these suggestions sound ridiculous, it is because they are but not necessarily, as the lighting decision shows, to a Government which knows better than us what is best.

- © Fairfax NZ News