5 Fundamental freedoms
All Australians are entitled to freedom of speech, association, assembly, religion, and movement.

What is a nanny state.
Excessive public health and safety regulations, private and personal behavior.
A government that tries to give too much advice or make too many laws about how people should live their lives, especially about eating, smoking, or drinking alcohol:

Libertarian senator David Leyonhjelm has launched a broad-ranging parliamentary inquiry into the burgeoning “nanny state”, declaring war on laws and regulations that prevent Australians having fun at their own risk.

Seatbelts, helmets, Tobacco, alcohol,
I can not see this enquiry going anywhere, you can not loosen regulation on any of these things without affecting the community, and costing money.

Some overseas places do not have the protective laws that we have, but they also do not have the services that go and scrape up when they come unstuck. That job is for your family to do if they want to. [ that is a big difference ]

From experience I have been in Bangkok on a long week end, when they had 300 road deaths of people trying to escape the city for the weekend. [ no one takes any notice because they think that is normal. ]

The author reckons laws should not be made when the costs to the individual are born solely by her/him. But no matter what an individual does, especially one who is part of a couple, and even more so if there are dependent children, the decisions will affect others. There are very few cases where no one else is affected. As for <<those who harm themselves as a result of poor choices cause the rest of us to pay more via our socialised health system. That is true, but it does not need to be the case; some countries have health systems where the costs are covered via insurance with premiums adjusted according to risk factors.>> I shudder to think that anyone with the power to make laws even dreams of following the example of countries such as the USA where insurance companies decide who gets even primary health care.

Regulation isn't all bad.

Just saw a story about the rise in type 2 diabetes in Australia.
Type 2 diabetes is a highly preventable disease. In 95% of cases it is caused by overeating and lack of exercise.
It can be managed in many cases by diet and exercise.
Type 2 diabetes used to be rare a few decades ago. What has changed?

It now costs the health system $14 Billion each year
70 people lose limbs to complications from diabetes each week
1/4-1/3 of hospital beds are filled with people being treated for diabetes or complications from diabetes.

I would suggest this is one case where government intervention would be helpful to make it easier for people to make the necessary changes to diet and exercise.

It isn't all about willpower and rational decision making. One aspect that would be easy to attack is advertising - it worked with cigarettes, why not ban junk food and drink advertising?

Advertising's goal is to work around our rationality, it goes to work on our subconscious. That is the beauty of it. Advertisers associate a product with a fun experience or with being popular or sexy. They can even make dodgy health claims. Like coco pops and LCM bars are good for you - yes, really they do!
"LEXI METHERELL: It's an ad for LCM bars.

AD NARRATOR: …with the goodness of puffed rice and no artificial colours.

LEXI METHERELL: What it fails to mention is that 30 per cent of the weight of the bar is sugar.

The New South Wales Cancer Council's nutrition program manager, Clare Hughes, says the maker of LCMs, Kellogg's, would argue those bars pass its criteria of what's healthy."
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s4062988.htm

It isn't about preventing people from buying these foods and drinks, but with increasing rates of diabetes in children and adults, maybe it is time to stop food and drink companies from actively promoting unhealthy foods by glamorizing them or by saying they are good for you.

ttbn
"People 'separate' themselves by their actions. You can't 'personally litigate' because you eat yourself into ill-health. The costs of obesity evaporate because the state doesn't pay for the results of your poor choices: you pay for your own foolishness or you die."

Harsh but realistic.
We need to stop this ongoing trend of no personal responsibility.
I'd rather save the larger part of my compassion for people who have health issues that they did not create themselves.

The article is good, but doesn't go deep enough to recognise the root of the problem.

The reason the "Nanny state" is bad is because it is a state - an involuntary organisation that forces itself and its rules on the whole population of a vast territory, a whole continent in the case of Australia.

Had states been voluntary grass-root organisations, then I would see no problem if the people in question who chose to belong to that state also chose to appoint it as their nanny.

I can well understand the arguments of those opposing the author, but they ignore the simple fact that the entity called "Australia" is forcibly imposed on all the inhabitants of this continent, who have no option to opt out, yet remain living here so long as they do not hurt the others who do wish to belong to that entity. Such violent organisations have no right to exist, how less so to appoint themselves as our guardian nannies.

I look forward to David's next article advocating the legalisation of heroin. A clear case of Nanny Statism. If you shoot up and become a junkie, that is your problem. It may be unwise and we can disapprove of it, but it is not the government's business whether you abuse smack. You are the one affected, and the costs you incur are private.