Nanny state Benevolent Nanna's better

This column is for all those who decry the Nanny states as an interfering busybody in people's lives. These people emerge from their little personal curmudgeonly kingdoms whenever they feel the Government is meddling with their freedom to do whatever they like.

They were very active during the debate over changing the law to prevent the discipline of a child as an excuse for abuse and often it has been matters related to children when they have been most exercised.

An example is the question of young children driving quad bikes. That got many in the rural community "getting off their bikes" about the state trying to tell them what to do. There was an attitude from some quarters that farmers were different and it was OK to let a small person drive a heavy, hard to steer machine that even a young adult would need considerable strength to manoeuvre safely. It was the Nanny state trying to tell them how to live their lives and bring up their children.

There have been examples of people crying "Nanny State" when children have been taken into care or the Family Court makes a custody decision about where children should live.

When these people denounce the "Nanny state" are they imagining government as some kind of super bossy Mary Poppins who moves into family life and meddles with "tradition" and the so- called sanctity of the nuclear family and undermines individual responsibility by telling people how to bring up their kids. (The much-vaunted nuclear family is often so loaded with explosive potential it is not surprising people get hurt).

Do those who label child protection as the Nanny state at work actually realise the "state" does have a very specific legal obligation to act to protect its most vulnerable citizens?

If it did not it would be in breach of a range of highly regarded international agreements that advocate for, and reinforce, the rights of children to grow up and reach their potential with genuine love, access to health, education and justice. If New Zealand did act outside these agreements it would have joined the map of shame, alongside countries where inhumane treatment of citizens, especially children is a daily fact of life.

When the dog whistlers call up the ogre of the Nanny state as a response to legislation the political left do lots of helpless hand wringing while the right do lots of hand waving but there seems to be a reluctance to take the Nanny sayers on. They do deserve to be challenged.

Do those who battle what they see has the state interfering in people's lives - do they call an ambulance when somebody is ill, the fire brigade if their house is burning, the police when some has broken into their house? Or do they say - no, no, you cannot come round and stop my housing being burgled because you are just another arm of the nanny state and you are interfering in my right to watch someone nick off with all my stuff.

Perhaps those demonising the Nanny state should think of it as being more of a Nanna state, a benevolent force that, like your granny, keeps an eye on the NZ family to ensure children are protected as much as it is possible from the bad behaviour of adults.

Terry Sarten is a writer, musician and social worker, trained in disarming loaded curmudgeons. Feedback email: terry.sarten@inspire.net.nz