The NZ Herald has a nice little hit job on the government today accusing them of being nanny statist.
In many respect they may be right , but have a look at the list they have to justify their hit job:
National’s nanny moves
• Can’t buy beer and wine from dairies and convenience stores.
• Bars no longer allowed to advertise discounts over 25%.
• Can’t buy beer from bottle stores after 11pm and in bars after 4am.
• Minors need express consent from parents to drink.
• Plain packets for cigarettes (proposed).
• Speed tolerance cut to 4km/h.
• Breath-alcohol limit lowered.
• Mobile phone use banned in cars.
• Licence to hunt specific types of game animals.
• Snapper catch reduced (proposed).
• Fines for not fencing permanent paddling pools (proposed).
Health and welfare
• Raising age for child booster seats from 5 to 7.
• Harder to get cold medicine with pseudoephedrine.
• Beneficiaries’ non-school-age kids must be enrolled in early childhood education and doctor’s clinic.
• 16- and 17-year-old beneficiaries have an adult assigned to them who pays their bills and handles their money.
I think they miss the mark by a wide margin, but perhaps not surprising since this is the NZ Herald we are talking about.
There are some merits in their claims about alcohol reforms, and smoking regulations. I’m all for freedom of choice. Existing laws are perfectly adequate to deal with all of these issues.
However their claims about Driving are specious. 4km over the speed limit is still over the limit…it is not nanny state at all to require enforcement of the law. Is the NZ Herald suggesting that the speed limit be raised to 104km/h or perhaps 110km/h? I don’t think so. Perhaps they think that we should have no speed limits at all…surely that is nanny state?
Surely the Herald doesn’t also think that proper management of our natural and introduced resources like Snapper and deer shouldn’t be managed so that we can all enjoy them for a very long time? It is hardly nanny statist to monitor and control access to those resources. Is the Herald suggesting no limits for snapper?
The claim about the paddling pool police is valid, but the pool police are already in existence and Adam Bennett got the story dreadfully wrong in the first place.
In terms of Health and Welfare the car booster seat issue is somewhat sensible. I’m pretty sure we kept our kids in booster seats until they grew out of them. For a start being higher up being able to see stopped my son getting car sick.
As for the rest of the list they are all sensible stuff. In the first place by accepting welfare you are saying that you can’t fend for yourself and you want the Nanny State to care for you, so it is hardly outrageous that the state wants to ensure you are doing sensible things with taxpayers money.
There are many things you can charge the government with being a nanny statist, but unfortunately these re n;t them
A stitch up job manufacturing items to fit the article.
What do readers think?