OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But Shorter and With More Swearing
235 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last
-
Hilary's right that they not only didn't have any disabled people's expertise, some on the committee eschewed it- one Catherine Judd's comments come to mind. But Sacha, a bit unfair to say disability groups failed to see it coming . They protested, but didn't do so very effectively, and the protests there were got too little airplay, as seems too often the case when something happens in Wellington.
I also agree that this kind of shabby treatment happens so often to disabled people and it kind of inures one to it. Good that you're outraged Keith, and power to you and your like minded spirits. Work in collaboration with disabled people's organisations to blitz this toxic piece of mean spirited, unsound nastiness. With, not for works best -
George Darroch, in reply to
Sorry guys, I’ve been snatching posting moments in a very full, complicated day and clearly doing a terrible job of it. Feel embarrassed
Nah, you're good. This is an excellent discussion, and I think it has legs. And thanks for the compliment; I wish I didn't have to state these things.
-
Sacha, in reply to
They protested, but didn't do so very effectively
Knock me down with a feather
-
Sacha, in reply to
I fear that the Maori Party voted for this for political expediency.
Someone pointed out that as part of the Budget they were obliged to under the confidence and supply agreement they signed up to with Joyce and co.
-
Sacha, in reply to
enjoying having a five-day-old son
Please do. This stuff will wait.
-
alison scott, in reply to
What does legally privileged mean and who can have legal privileges?
-
Sacha, in reply to
the only way I can see it will lose them sufficient votes is if the disability sector organises politically over this issue, and brings their constituency and others in and makes it an electoral liability
This
-
Sacha, in reply to
Also, when governments plead "poverty", what they are almost always saying is "we don't give a shit". Its not really about unaffordability; it is about priorities
and this.
-
Ben Austin, in reply to
Hi Alison, the Privacy Commissioner has a useful explanatory page, linked below if it helps
-
Sacha, in reply to
how large (roughly) is the disability 'community', and how political are they?
Disabled people and our families are a larger number than those who could be considered part of a politicised movement. Refusal to address even that most basic reality hinders effective disability policy and political action.
-
alison scott, in reply to
I'm an honorable member of the disability community - my son has Downs - and I don't know about size but in terms of energy one of our challenges is we are kind of busy with practical day to day stuff - adapting clothing, appointment with therapists, doctors, researching...and so on. So time to be politically active is more limited as compared with other human rights movements.
I am heartened that people's innate sense of justice is strengthened by this government's abandonment of humanistic principles. -
the mechanic, in reply to
quite certain that nowhere near enough people who own guns are going to get outraged and storm Parliament for it to matter.
We are opting for a string of suspicious accidents until we see a drastic change of heart.
-
3News finally cottons on, as does Fairfax. The Granny also smells a rat.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
More than half of NZ's population has lived in cities for over a century now, despite the rural myth we continue with.
Downshifting to Hamilton, or sprawling to Hamilton? Draw your own conclusion.
-
The question about political action is interesting. I know a couple of people who are considering standing on party lists in 2014. But it is really difficult as most disabled people have extra support needs (such as NZSL interpreters) that make that process very hard and expensive (and poverty is a real issue for disabled people). And many people, as Alison mentions above, are so busy and exhausted from daily survival, that there is no energy for wider work.
A group of DPOs has formed the Convention Coalition and have funding to monitor the UN Convention - so that is one positive recent advance.
There are also groups like IHC Advocacy and People First who use their resources to educate. People First (an organisation of adults with learning disability) runs seminars to educate their members about the UN Convention (also employment rights etc), and IHC ran a seminar last year called Making Rights Real focusing on the three articles of legal rights, educational rights and participating in the community. IHC is also taking the educational exclusion case to the Human Rights Commission but which is currently stalled. These things (like the carers' case) can take years.
If there was a select committee for the carers' legislation, many groups would have made submissions, as they did for the select committee on the quality and care of service provision which ran from about 2006-8 (and which was supposed to stop any further abuse).
In this particular situation I think the government has been poorly advised and had no idea that this would backfire on them. There is an entrenched view on the right that caring is family work, mainly for mothers and not worthy of payment - it's called 'natural', ie unpaid in policy terms. The charity model will deal with any unfortunates who don't have 'natural' supports. John Key struggles to articulate this in today's DomPost - I bet he never thought he would be required to comment on an issue so far from his own radar.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
That's got nothing to do with Royal Assent.
The HoL has voted down numerous Commons bills. What happened (roughly) with the Asquith government was that Conservatives in the Lords set themselves against a number of that government's policies (specifically finance and Irish Home Rule). Asquith wanted the King to create a number of Liberal peers to override this, which he agreed to do only after a General Election. After this second election, the Lords backed down and passed the 1911 Parliament Act, which limited the Lords abilities to veto legislation.
For a clearer explanation in book form, George Dangerfield's The Strange Death of Liberal England is an accessible and well written account of the period.
-
Tried to figure why Ryall would fight this so hard and perhaps why Labour won’t be making too much noise.
My suspicions rest with the growth in epidemic disability. In 2011 the number of cases of diabetes in New Zealand exceeded projections by more than 20% in some areas. The best case model would suggest that serious complications related to diabetes are set to double by about 2018. This means more than 10,000 extra people will require care within the next two electoral cycles. To put this into context the CDC estimate that soon 1 in 5 health dollars will be spent on diabetes treatment. Approximately 4% of those diagnosed with diabetes will suffer severe loss of vision and number of others will have to undergo some form of amputation. My point being is that diabetes along with associated morbidities disables people before they die. Current cost management and treatment models endeavour to transfer the cost of care to the community, to put it bluntly “patch ‘em up, train the family and send them home”. This cost model doesn’t work if you have to pay for home care, it certainly doesn’t work if these numbers start doubling over 5-6 years. Consequently the trivial $65m starts to escalate into a bigger problem without management, so I guess we get a legislative response to a political problem. Tax cuts vs. homecare anyone? The real killer at the bottom of this is that the Maori party voted for this; Maori/Pasifika outnumber Pakeha by approximately 3 to 1 in the diabetes statistics this will keep these communities in poverty for generations.
Disclaimers;
Did this in a hurry, I didn’t have time to check all my fag packet figures, I also used diabetes as an example without considering smoking, obesity and general inactivity, many of which will raise related issues.
-
steve broca, in reply to
According to Andrew Geddis’ article, it was 2010 that the case was taken to the human rights tribunal… An action that the raiding party tried to undercut… This legislation is a result of that loss in court…
I would find it unbeleivable that a labour government would go to the extremes the raiders have in order to maintain the imbalance this issue represents….
The impression I got after arriving back here in 2005 was of a public service that was already operating an agenda that suited the raiders political motives…. and actively undermining the clarke government at every opportunity….As were the police, and the armed forces….
The raiders election in 2008 has simply legitimised the disloyal behavior of those people….
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
Another little nasty in all of this is the cumbersome NASC assessment process which operates undervery limited and out of date criteria: only intellectual, physical or vision/hearing impairment is considered for support. And only those already assessed as having high needs are covered with this new policy.
I have a recent example of a NASC quibbling over IQ points (70 v 71) to deny support to an autistic adult. So much for for the social model of disability as articulated in the NZ Disability Strategy and the UN Convention whereby disability is seen to be a result of exclusionary barriers and it is up to all of us to remove those barriers.
So what is not covered in this new legislation are the impairments named in the last decade or so, for example, autism ADHD or fetal alcohol syndrome without ID, the increasing numbers of people affected by diabetes or long term effects of being a very prem baby.
-
Simon Poole, in reply to
Dunne: "I saw all the Cabinet papers".
Hi George,
Yes, I was interested to get that reply. Unfortunately my followup question - was Dunne comfortable asking the Opposition to vote on the Bill without providing them the full Regulatory Impact Statement - has gone unanswered thus far.
I'm aware that National's coalition partners are compelled to vote for this as a supply issue, but providing such incomplete information to Parliament is shoddy practice, to put it as politely as I can.
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
The raiders election in 2008 has simply legitimised the disloyal behavior of those people….
Rather than blame "disloyal public servants" for being secretly National supporters while Labour was in government, you could make the same argument based on the more reality-aligned view that the cause was growing tendencies to corporate management styles (and all their economic baggage) within public services.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
This whole thing just makes me so impotently furious. And the impotence just makes me more furious. Seriously, what can be done? Pretty much fucking nothing, as best I can tell, because these fuckers sure don’t give a fuck about public opinion. And I’m quite certain that nowhere near enough people who own guns are going to get outraged and storm Parliament for it to matter.
That sounds suspiciously like something I would say…
5 day old Son? Congratulations Matthew.
:-) -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
we are kind of busy with practical day to day stuff – adapting clothing, appointment with therapists, doctors, researching…and so on. So time to be politically active is more limited
Lazy...
;-)Nah, joking aside I see this as the biggest reason that society as a whole has a responsibility to act on behalf. It is so easy to ignore those that are tied down by the chores of everyday life, that they have no energy to fight for their rights.
-
so this reminds me of the 90s when crazy crazy shit was happening (Alamein Kopu etc etc etc) and until I stumbled onto Hard News I couldn't believe that no one was getting called on it. I thought either I was crazy or all the paper and tv news outlets were.
Who's Robin Hood these days? The Listener isn't as robust as it was and the blogosphere is a fractured kind of a thing.
-
Actually this constant abuse of urgency and process as a way of doing business seems even a little more ominous and totalitarian. Something of a prelude perhaps. Hopefully not, but is Labour really the saviour here? Thinking about when the GCSB spied on kiwis, Zaoui etc etc.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.