Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Glad to provide you with a moment's amusement, johenmo. The tragedy is that I was entirely serious.
Julia - I laughed when I read the above. A phrase worthy of remembering.
Glad to provide you with a moment's amusement, johenmo. The tragedy is that I was entirely serious.
What I'm trying to say is not accepting idiocy as a defence and making people more responsible for their actions. everyone should be responsible for their actions.
And if are becoming more of a nanny state, is the push more from politicians or the public?
Except parents? If property rights do exist surely it's up to me to decide whether or not I put a fence around my pool. Why should government mandate such a thing? and if you don't want your kids drowning in my unfenced pool keep them of my property.
Agree. It would be quite a different matter if the pool was adjacent to the footpath and an obvious attraction to anyone passing.Except parents? If property rights do exist surely it's up to me to decide whether or not I put a fence around my pool. Why should government mandate such a thing? and if you don't want your kids drowning in my unfenced pool keep them of my property.
johenmo, best to lay off the emotive stuff. You can make an intelligent argument without this.Re pools - Whatever the debate between various views, why should a child pay for with their life? Partly sensationalist post but true nonetheless.
Excellent. We are at least making some headway.I accept that having a secure fence within a secure fence seems absurd.
That is not a valid analogy.Consider people who accidentally back over (their) kids.
Exactly. The problem is the state then legislates for those babies and in so doing impinges on the rights of all responsible people.Interesting comment on TV re the basics card - "if people act like babies then expect the State to act like a Nanny".
That is not a valid analogy.
You are here discussing what a parent does with respect to his / her own child.
My concern derives from the innocent outside party who has no connection with the child.
The interaction between state and welfare is interesting. I admit to being split in my view over it's use. My other half worked with 6 yr old kids some years ago who mentioned they got "cheerio soup" for dinner (Julia may recognise the term). This turned out to be drinking the water the cheerios (cocktail franks) were cooked in - "mum and dad had the cheerios". She came home so angry about this. So I can see the intention but not sure if this card is the best way. But I can't suggest a better alternative atm apart from more home visits. What's your alternative?
MY issue isn't with state taking a stance in a child welfare case like this, I don't think anyone would say an intervention in the above would be a case of Nanny Statism. But if the state then views this example as the norm and not the exception, then it becomes an issue.
I personally think individual accountability would be the best way to deal with these things.
Johenmo, I don't know anything about 'the card' or whatever the story was on TV.
Perhaps you could outline what it's about?
If it's to do with protecting at risk children in a domestic situation, that's an entirely different matter from pool fencing.
OK, thanks for explaining. The card itself seems entirely reasonable to me for people who have a history of spending their taxpayer funded benefits on booze, cigarettes, pokies etc.It's about income management - first used in the NT. The Government aims to stop people spending their payments on alcohol, tobacco and gambling. The Basics Card will also dictate which stores you can shop at. It can only buy ‘priority items’ at Government approved stores. A recent report from the Ombudsman claims it hasn't worked. I see it as the Gov't saying "we're helping you out with money, so here's some restrictions on how to spend it." - rightly or wrongly. Those who are already fiscally responsible will see it as an impingement on their rights. I can think of some that need this sort of interaction - so it should be on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket rule.
I was talking today to a mother with two primary school aged children. She said that regularly her children are stopped from eating some of their provided lunch because it's deemed by the teacher as 'unhealthy'.
The offending items are sent home in a specially marked plastic bag with instructions to do better next time.
One of her daughters is pretty picky about what she will eat, and her mother has reluctantly conceded that peanut butter and cheese sandwiches are better than the kid eating nothing. These are, however, returned by the school, as no peanut content may be admitted.
She seemed a pretty sensible and responsible person to me, not someone who would send the kids off with a bottle of Coke and some chips etc.
I'm all for a healthy diet, and in some ways can see some positive aspects to such a project, but it does seem demeaning to parents and an overtly excessive amount of interference by the State.
I'd be interested in what others think.
One of her daughters is pretty picky about what she will eat, and her mother has reluctantly conceded that peanut butter and cheese sandwiches are better than the kid eating nothing. These are, however, returned by the school, as no peanut content may be admitted.
(Except I usually vote Labor).
Drugs, pornography and bicycle helmets under Senate microscope as David Leyonhjelm's "nanny state" inquiry begins
By political reporter James Glenday
Updated about 2 hours ago
David Leyonhjelm
Photo: David Leyonhjelm wants Australia 'back the way it used to be'. (AAP: Lukas Coch)
Map: Australia
The rationale behind bicycle helmets, marijuana laws, film classifications and possibly even pool fences will be examined by the Senate starting today, as part of an inquiry into the Australian "nanny state".
The "personal choice and community impacts" inquiry, which was instigated by Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm, has attracted a wide array of submissions from people who feel the Government is intruding into their lives.
Raw milk enthusiasts want health laws wound back, paintball businesses would like fewer regulations governing their sport and convenience stores are demanding a greater say on issues like the sale of lottery tickets.
"What I want to do is go back to the way Australians used to be," Senator Leyonhjelm said.
"I want to change this culture that the government is there to protect us from poor choices."
The inquiry's priority will be bicycle helmets, alcohol laws, marijuana and tobacco sales and the classification of publications, films and computer games.
Pornography, cigarettes, marijuana - I don't know if you've been watching the Senate, but this is probably one of the more interesting debates.
Senator Sam Dastyari
In particular, Senator Leyonhjelm said he wanted to investigate whether alcohol lock-out laws in "Sydney's naughty suburb of Kings Cross" are actually working.
"Here we're a bunch of anal-retentives," he said.
"I'm the only parliamentarian in the Federal Parliament who calls for recreational marijuana use.
"Why do we insist the Government knows best when it comes to smoking dope?"
There will be a "catch-all hearing" at the end of the inquiry, where Senator Leyonhjelm expects "pressure" to examine the rationale behind pool fences, before a final report is issued in June next year.
"The argument [against pool fences] is parents are responsible for their children and the Government is taking that responsibility away from them," he said.
'One of the Senate's more interesting debates'
Up and coming Labor Senator Sam Dastyari has agreed to be the inquiry's deputy chair because he said it would "provoke a fascinating moral debate".
"This is probably going to be Australia's largest ever inquiry into vice," Senator Dastyari said.
He said the issues being examined range from "reasonable to ridiculous" but declared Australians who "hold majority views" should always be prepared to "justify the case for regulation".
"Pornography, cigarettes, marijuana - I don't know if you've been watching the Senate, but this is probably one of the more interesting debates," he said.
"I'm really interested in the sale and service of alcohol. What are the economic and social consequences?"
Some of Senator Dastyari's colleagues believe he is simply supporting the inquiry to build a close relationship with Senator Leyonhjelm, a key crossbencher, in case Labor wins power at the next election.
"That's not the case. I won't agree with [Senator Leyonhjelm] on lots of things," he said.
"Ideology has just been dead in Australia for too long. Let's actually have some big debates, let's have some different views."
Cigarette companies have urged senators to recommend winding back tobacco regulation, while health groups have implored the public to take the inquiry seriously.
"Some might call it the 'nanny state' but all the health protections we've had in place for many, many years could go out the window if we're not careful," Michael Moore from the Public Health Association of Australia said.
Mr Moore will this morning urge the inquiry to "look very carefully at the independent evidence" before making any recommendations to change existing laws.
"This is an election bid for Senator Leyonhjelm, not a civil liberties one," Mr Moore said.
"By running these things like [the] nanny state or wanting more guns available, there is a small portion of people who will support him. That'll get him re-elected."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-11/senate-nanny-state-inquiry-begins/6766740
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?