Tobacco harm reduction advocate Carl V. Phillips
opined on Wednesday that Australian tobacco controllers may be quietly happy if their plain packaging nonsense ends up being rebutted.
If the plain packaging were implemented without incident and the inevitable increase in black market sales and lack of decrease in use prevalence occurred, it would be one more step into the cul-de-sac of irrelevance for tobacco control. Oh, but if the industry can be tempted into fighting this, and better still if they win, jackpot! “Big tobacco wins again!” “Important public health measure prohibited on a technicality.” “We would have eliminated smoking in Australia with this, but Big Tobacco just has too much influence.” That is good for at least five more years of full employment for anti-tobacco extremists.
I was sceptical, it has to be said, but I'm starting to wonder if the Australian public health bulldozer is more worried about how this could all pan out tha they are letting on.
Upside down anti-smoker-in-chief Simon Chapman, in particular, has been spinning relentlessly in recent weeks and been
rightly ridiculed for trying to involve himself in areas that are out of his term of reference or experience.
You see, the problem with tobacco control is that they have reached a level that they couldn't have dreamed about when they started 35 or 40 years ago. They've had the benefit of some quite astoundingly retarded politicians to help them get even
this far, but they're now at the very limits of
The Peter Principle.
Sure, Chapman is one of the world leaders in producing junk science and badgering his friends at the WHO to pass directives on behalf of his pharmaceutical paymasters, but when dipping his toes into the business world, he is on very shaky ground ... not surprising for someone who has never generated a productive dollar in his life. However, with the glittering attraction of plain packaging almost within his grasp, he just can't resist casting himself as a financial expert instead of stepping back and admitting he's out of his element.
Via
Belinda comes his
arrogantly-written piece where he suddenly transforms from faux medical type guy into an indisputable guru on intellectual property rights, legal intricacies, and multi-national business affairs.
"The extinction of rights or the reduction of rights is not relevant. The government or a third party must acquire property as a consequence of the legislation.
“The government does not wish to use the tobacco trade marks. Nor does it want third parties to do so. It does not desire to or intend to acquire any property. The proposition that prohibitions on the use of property do not constitute an acquisition of property was confirmed by the High Court as recently as 2009. In that case, the High Court held that the government was entitled to extinguish property rights in licences of farmers to take bore water.”
As a wise commenter - amongst Chapman's idolatrous performing seals - kindly chips in before I googled it, the basis of that case was to determine who
actually owned the water being bored. The government successfully argued that it wasn't the farmers' to begin with. Control of all water is vested in the government, so no material loss had occurred.
With regard to tobacco company trade marks, logos, designs, and branding, the Aussie government can't possibly make the same claim. They entirely belong to the companies concerned - as they do in any other industry - and would therefore be effectively confiscated by the state if the legislation passes.
Chapman argues that this isn't a problem anyway because they would have to prove reduced sales. Now, I hate to break it to him, but the whole point of the exercise is to do exactly
that, so all the tobacco legal teams would need do is raid his own side's justification for the ban. If there is no reduction, there will be no problem of compensation, but it
would kinda make the whole idea look a bit self-defeating by the same token.
But that's all by-the-by.
Chapman's view of material damage shows a distinct lack of awareness of accounting principles and business worth because turnover is just one ingredient in how a business is valued. As is profit, as is every other tangible measure.
The sticky point for Australia's government is that they will be destroying an
intangible asset which has a real value, the loss of which would negatively impact
any large business.
Goodwill and brand recognition - whether actually on a company's balance sheet or not - have a massive bearing on the credit worthiness of a business, as well as the attractiveness to investors, the value of shares, and the overall wellbeing of the operation. If the government takes these away, it really
is theft and would have no other effect than to harm the business in a tangible and financially-averse way.
Healthy sales may well lead to a decent net profit in the long run, but the difference between a business's operational (net book) value and its worth on the stock markets is how its intangible value (brand and goodwill) is calculated. For example, pharmaceutical company Procter & Gamble's
brands are valued at $104bn, and goodwill at $89bn. If a government tried to take such a huge amount of value away, I reckon P&G would spend a shitload of money on protecting it - irrespective of sales - just as
tobacco companies are doing.
What's more, we know that tobacco stocks are widely held by pension funds all over the world. There's been much debate
just in our country about such investments, but considering tobacco companies perform consistently well in the markets, managers are not keen to ditch them. If state action forced them to - probably at a knock-down price - it would impact on the cash pot available to investors, funds would not be earning as they should, and claims could ensue. Of course, if they
didn't dispose of such shares, and earnings were impacted, claims could
still ensue. That's quite a bit of potential legal pain for Australia plc, right there.
And we haven't even spoken yet of shareholders who would be quite miffed if the Australian government's actions led to their losing money from their investments and dividends. And as we all know, 'where there's blame, there's a claim'.
Reduced sales? It really isn't the half of it, Simon.
But then, he does point to a clause in the Bill which is not only wise, but may also be quite significant.
Few of those megaphoning this legal Armageddon appear to have even read the draft Bill itself. Section 11 makes it clear that plain packaging won’t apply if it were to be determined (by a court) that its operation would result in an acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms. So in the unlikely event that the High Court says there is an acquisition of property (more on this below), the legislation would revert to a fallback position in the regulations under which “the trade mark may be used on the packaging of tobacco products, or on a tobacco product, in accordance with any requirements prescribed in the regulations”.
In other words, the bill has been drafted with a get-out-of-jail-free card under which plain packaging will not proceed if the court said it was an unjust acquisition. So massive damages or compensation will simply not arise.
So, if tobacco companies successfully argue that they have had their property - presumably defined as something that has a real measurable financial value - stolen by this legislation, all bets are off.
The very existence of such a clause would tend to suggest that the Aussie government and the public health lobby - far from dismissing such an outcome - consider it a distinct possibility. And why
not considering the above?
Which would then mean that Carl V. Phillips's Brer Rabbit scenario leaps to the fore as he smugly smooths his eyebrows and grins the smarmy grin of self-satisfaction.
