Framing the nanny (state): an analysis of public submissions to a parliamentary inquiry on personal choice and community safety.
OBJECTIVE: To examine public submissions to a parliamentary inquiry on personal choice and community safety, exploring framing used to support or oppose current public health regulatory approaches. METHODS: Descriptive content analysis summarised the characteristics of electronic submissions. Fr...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/86429 |
| _version_ | 1848764823361290240 |
|---|---|
| author | Crawford, Gemma Connor, Elizabeth Scuderi, Mikaela Hallett, Jonathan Leavy, Justine E |
| author_facet | Crawford, Gemma Connor, Elizabeth Scuderi, Mikaela Hallett, Jonathan Leavy, Justine E |
| author_sort | Crawford, Gemma |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | OBJECTIVE: To examine public submissions to a parliamentary inquiry on personal choice and community safety, exploring framing used to support or oppose current public health regulatory approaches.
METHODS: Descriptive content analysis summarised the characteristics of electronic submissions. Framing analysis examined submissions according to the devices: problem and causes; principles and values; recommendations; data and evidence; and salience.
RESULTS: We categorised one hundred and five (n=105) submissions by source as Individual, Industry, Public Health and Other. Individuals made more than half the submissions. Overarching frames were choice and rights (Individuals); progress and freedom (Industry); protection and responsibility (Public Health). Most submissions opposed current regulations. Cycling, including mandatory helmet legislation, was most cited, with three-quarters of submissions opposing current legislation.
CONCLUSIONS: Framing analysis provided insights into policy actor agendas concerning government regulation. We found a high degree of resistance to public health regulation that curtails individual autonomy across various health issues. Investigating the influence of different frames on community perception of public health regulation is warranted. Implications for public health: Action is required to counteract 'nanny state' framing by industry and to problematise community understanding of the 'nanny state' in the context of balancing the public's liberties and the public's health. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T11:25:29Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-86429 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| language | eng |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T11:25:29Z |
| publishDate | 2021 |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-864292021-11-30T05:55:31Z Framing the nanny (state): an analysis of public submissions to a parliamentary inquiry on personal choice and community safety. Crawford, Gemma Connor, Elizabeth Scuderi, Mikaela Hallett, Jonathan Leavy, Justine E framing nanny state personal choice public health legislation public policy OBJECTIVE: To examine public submissions to a parliamentary inquiry on personal choice and community safety, exploring framing used to support or oppose current public health regulatory approaches. METHODS: Descriptive content analysis summarised the characteristics of electronic submissions. Framing analysis examined submissions according to the devices: problem and causes; principles and values; recommendations; data and evidence; and salience. RESULTS: We categorised one hundred and five (n=105) submissions by source as Individual, Industry, Public Health and Other. Individuals made more than half the submissions. Overarching frames were choice and rights (Individuals); progress and freedom (Industry); protection and responsibility (Public Health). Most submissions opposed current regulations. Cycling, including mandatory helmet legislation, was most cited, with three-quarters of submissions opposing current legislation. CONCLUSIONS: Framing analysis provided insights into policy actor agendas concerning government regulation. We found a high degree of resistance to public health regulation that curtails individual autonomy across various health issues. Investigating the influence of different frames on community perception of public health regulation is warranted. Implications for public health: Action is required to counteract 'nanny state' framing by industry and to problematise community understanding of the 'nanny state' in the context of balancing the public's liberties and the public's health. 2021 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/86429 10.1111/1753-6405.13178 eng http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ fulltext |
| spellingShingle | framing nanny state personal choice public health legislation public policy Crawford, Gemma Connor, Elizabeth Scuderi, Mikaela Hallett, Jonathan Leavy, Justine E Framing the nanny (state): an analysis of public submissions to a parliamentary inquiry on personal choice and community safety. |
| title | Framing the nanny (state): an analysis of public submissions to a parliamentary inquiry on personal choice and community safety. |
| title_full | Framing the nanny (state): an analysis of public submissions to a parliamentary inquiry on personal choice and community safety. |
| title_fullStr | Framing the nanny (state): an analysis of public submissions to a parliamentary inquiry on personal choice and community safety. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Framing the nanny (state): an analysis of public submissions to a parliamentary inquiry on personal choice and community safety. |
| title_short | Framing the nanny (state): an analysis of public submissions to a parliamentary inquiry on personal choice and community safety. |
| title_sort | framing the nanny (state): an analysis of public submissions to a parliamentary inquiry on personal choice and community safety. |
| topic | framing nanny state personal choice public health legislation public policy |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/86429 |