Debating the nanny state…….

The information below is an unashamed cross posting of another of my articles from the blog I run for the Samuel Morris Foundation…….. It’s just that I feel SO DAMN passionate about this issue, that I could not let it go…..

All hail Miranda Devine and her rallying forces against the nanny state…….. after all who needs a nanny state…. not me….and I’m sure not you!

So how dare a government attempt to protect a vulnerable section of our community like 0-5 year olds, especially by reviewing laws which Miranda acknowledges as good…”many lives have been saved and injuries prevented by good laws – the original Swimming Pool Act requiring pools be fenced was one and compulsory seatbelts and random breath tests were two more.”

In her article “Nanny State helps drown us in our own stupidity” (Sydney Morning Herald 21 October 2009) Miranda claims that the proposed changes to the Swimming Pools Act are as a result of a spate of child drownings last year. Sorry Miranda, even a rudimentary amount of research would have revealed that that the review process was underway prior to last “summers spate of drownings”. In fact the review of the Swimming Pools regulation was completed prior to last summers spate of drownings, and the legislative review was already flagged at that point.

Research would also have revealed that there was a reduction in the overall number of toddler drowning across Australia last year, but this was not the case in NSW, where there was an increase, it would also have revealed that the numbers have been trending upwards across Australia over the past few years.

The original Pool Fencing Laws, which it is acknowledged have saved lives, were full of loopholes about which pools did or did not need to be fenced, and contained miserable enforcement provisions.

Why is a pool constructed before 1990 any less of a hazard than a pool constructed after 1990, why is a pool on a small block of land any less of a hazard than a pool on an sized block of land?” The simple answer is that there is NO difference in the hazard regardless of where the domestic swimming pool is located

read the rest of the post here…..http://bit.ly/nanny_state