How can an opposition MP “force” a government to do anything?
Oh, I don't know....shame them into it perhaps?
Surely one function of an effective opposition is to attempt to keep the incumbents honest....providing of course their own consciences are clear....
Seldom does an opportunity present where there is the Government saying "this is what we insist on" and there is solid evidence that the same government did exactly the opposite.
One should take these opportunities when they arise.
Much better to be seen to be challenging the government on a particular issue than to be merely making positive sounding noises in Press Releases.
I know I'm farting in a strong wind...but I really, really want her to respond to both questions.
The Court of Appeal decision for Ministry of Health v Lowe.
Unsurprisingly, the Appeal Court has found that the Miserly and the DHBs did not engage as Lowe as a relief carer and therefore are not responsible for the fact that Lowe was paid way less than the minimum wage for providing care for a person with a disability so that the full time unpaid carer (usually resident family member) can take a break.
No, no....it is not the funder who can be held responsible...but arguably the fulltime, unpaid family carer.
"On the facts of this case, neither the Ministry nor the DHB has any role in
selecting the relief carer and until the claim form is submitted do not even know their
identity. Nor do they have any involvement in arranging the timing, nature or extent
of the support to be provided or where it is to be provided. Those matters are within
the sole discretion of the full time carer, who makes all the arrangements.
time carer would be free, for example, to select an organisation such as a rest home
provider rather than an individual like Ms Lowe. "
"The disabled person and/or their full-time carers have the choice over who
provides informal Carer Support services and so are responsible for the type
and quality of support received."
I do not have the time to properly look into this...but on the surface it appears to be another example of perhaps where the lawyers/judges lack of lived experience of how a particular scheme actually works in the real world has enable the Ministry of Health's carefully constructed narrative to prevail.
Meanwhile the court case continues in the High Court about three adult men incarcerated for years because of issues relating to their intellectual disability/autism. I've dropped in a couple of times to see what is happening and it is fascinating to see how the arcane world of law operates.
and how separated it is from actual justice....
arcane world of law
Have you noticed the little pocket/purse dangling off the back of the lawyers black robes?
I'm told in days of old these were for the lawyers' clients to put coins into during proceedings to make the lawyers work harder!
Yes I noticed those, especially as the audience only looks at their backs. I thought they would be very tricky gowns to sew.
Where there many observers Hilary?
(Few and far between for the Atkinson and Spencer hearings.)
Haven't had time to read much about the Lowe ruling, but this NZ First media release touches on a root cause.
“Mrs Lowe was receiving a paltry $3 an hour for the respite care she provided. Under the latest Appeal Court hearing this would be a legal payment considered only to be a subsidy and not a wage.
As with family carers, people are meant to do this sort of work mainly out of love or charity, and the govt congratulates itself for giving them a token of appreciation. Real 19th century thinking.
I have dropped by a couple of times but the court doesn't seem to be sitting very often so haven't actually seem much of it. There are one or two regulars and I had a good talk to one of them today. He's a survivor of the mental health system so had some good insights. Court was at site visits today and yesterday. I would love to follow the whole thing but don't have a spare 6 weeks.
What does every/anyone know about this...disAbility Caucus”?
How? Where? Why?
And what is this 'sector transformation' they're on about?
Why do I feel a worm of unease squirming in the back of my brain?
Some good people there. But it's remarkable how an entity like this can be established without interested people in the sector, such as ourselves, being informed about the proposal. Once again, the aims sound great but the devil is in the detail. Oh, and how is the "non-aligned self funding " achieved?
Some good people there
One of those "good people" dismissed Himself's and my attempt to have the Family Carers/PHDAct (4) brought into the Disability Strategy 'conversation' in Hamilton a few months ago.
So very almost contemptuous, that no amount of spousal coaxing could get Himself out of the Bus and into the follow up 'lets converse about the Draft Revised Strategy' do on Wednesday in Hamilton.
"Not up to being humiliated again today." he said.
(A usually easy going and accommodating person, the steel that has got him through the past 45 1/2 years in an increasingly hostile environment came to the fore.)
Interesting thing though...I had a bit of a "look how this process has excluded my man" rant at poor Megan McCoy... before anyone else turned up...(well, she's getting paid the $$$ to deal with that.)
She talked about the timeline for producing the next Disability Action Plan, after I pointed out that unlike the current Strategy, the Draft has no clear Objectives.
I foolishly asked her if she'd read the last Disability Action Plan....and no, she hadn't.
I asked her to to get a show of hands from the assembled of who was working for/representing an organisation receiving government funding....slight look of horror at the thought.
She simply did not get it that these people do not necessarily represent the majority.
My parting sally was that if there was no one sitting around the table with an physical impairment of the degree Himself lives with (and NOT under ACC), then she was not getting a complete representation of disability in NZ.
How dare they silence the voice of a person with a significant physical impairment who has ticked all their aspirational boxes in the past 46 years?
A veteran, who can attest to the fact that the future for those with similar support needs has never looked so insecure?
An activist, who can remember a time when things were actually looking up, and fears for a system where so called 'advocates' fail to rage at the deaths of the most vulnerable in state funded residential care.
Don't know about it but it looks like a provider group.
it looks like a provider group.
I did find it on the NZDSN site....a brand spanking new site by the way!
IMHO, not half as 'professional' as the previous site, those moving graphics make my eyes go wonky....a bit gimmicky.
From across the Tasman...Life forever on duty.
Govt takes funds for supporting current disabled students to pay for younger disabled students. What could possibly go wrong?
Professional disquiet emerges. See graph linked from article for scale of proposed change. These clowns seem to miss that they are dealing with real people, not numbers.
Govt takes funds for supporting current disabled students to pay for younger disabled students.
Once upon a time the term "special needs" meant any student with educational needs beyond the average. It encompassed Gifted and Talented children as well as those with behavioural or developmental challenges.
Was discussing with my mum over weekend how the word aspie was not around when I was young, but 'gifted' was even though there were no programmes available to me. I have no idea how she managed with no support or awareness around her.
yeah, well my experience is old. But the system created an expectation that those with high support needs would stay on at school longer, that is possibly until age 21. This meant that perfectly capable kids were not pushed or challenged to achieve their potential. Their teachers anticipated having them for an extra two or three years, and paced the teaching programme accordingly.
There was also the problem that an academically able disabled child was funded to remain in high school to age 21 but could not access government funded support to go to University until they were , I think, 18. So Gifted and Talented kids with a disability could not go to University early unless their parents were wealthy. They were held back. They got bored and turned off education. If and when they did go there were enormous problems with support just to get around a supposedly accessible campus and into rooms with difficult doors, but I digress.
The obvious results of this planned shift of funding are a reduction in support for the cohort currently qualifying for ORS beyond age 18, and less funding at transitions between schools. In theory this is sensible because we should not be expecting our special needs/learning support/ whatever we’re calling them today kids to automatically be three years behind their peers, nor should we be permitting the continuance of the disruption that currently occurs when children transition from one school to the next in the normal course of education. (primary to intermediate, intermediate to high school).
Early intervention definitely works. In our case “special education” meant a reduction in kindergarten time compared with peers. That is not a good thing and it is discrimination. Stopping this type of discrimination and substituting an intensive child centred approach at an early age could and should be beneficial.
In practice, of course, well the proof of the pudding and all that.
the word aspie was not around when I was young, but ‘gifted’ was even though there were no programmes available to me.
Gifted and talented kids drew from the same pool of funding as those with educational challenges. Many schools considered that G&T kids didn't really need any help so they were often not identified. Boredom can produce disruptive behaviour and dropping out of the system of people with much needed talents. What a waste! On the other hand the more the schools put into their bright kids the less they had left for the other special needs children.
I have no idea how she managed with no support or awareness around her.
Mums had more time for their kids before it became essential to have two full time incomes to raise a family. Loving input in those early years is priceless.
Don’t forget the family benefit. Married women got the equivalent of a third of national super (the pension) for each child. It went into their own bank account. So with three children there was the equivalent of an extra salary coming into the home. It could even be capitalised for a home with a 3% State Advances loan. Ironically, the family benefit went in Ruth Richardson's 1991 'Mother of all Budgets'.
By the time it went, it wasn't worth much relative to wages and costs. But for stay at home mums it was money that went to them.
There was also the problem that an academically able disabled child was funded to remain in high school to age 21 but could not access government funded support to go to University until they were , I think, 18.
It was worse than that. The funding only moved with you to university if you'd done your full stretch at school. Three extra years. The length of a BA. Remember Ryan Leitch?