OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But Shorter and With More Swearing
235 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last
-
Angus Robertson, in reply to
... based on the more reality-aligned view...
You could suggest the continued and unchanging policy of not paying relatives to care for their disabled family members was a direct implementation of Labour Party policy.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
the continued and unchanging policy of not paying relatives to care for their disabled family members was a direct implementation of Labour Party policy.
Yes. Labour are hardly the white knights on the shining charger. Labour also had the same shabby, cheap policy- and on one level, pretty stupid policy, too. Family members, by and large, are exceptionally good carers, who already have good relationships with those they care for, and are far less likely to leave as soon as a 'better job' comes along.
That's half the story. The other half is legislation more-or-less neutering the courts and nullifying the BORA. Because the govt doesn't like people asserting- or the judiciary affirming- their rights. Which goes past unpleasant, towards toxic. -
Hilary Stace, in reply to
I wasn't aware of the issue of paying family carers in the time of the Labour government. What I was aware of was:
-the development of the 2001 NZ Disability Strategy by disabled people, and the establishment of an Office for Disability Issues to monitor it
- disability made a priority area for research
-the development and beginnings of implementation of the NZ ASD Guideline
-the development of the Ordinary Life report (about citizenship of adults with intellectual impairment) which was published by the National Health Committee then headed by Kevin Hague, and the beginning of a programme to address the major issues identified including
-The closure of the last institution, Kimberley, in cooperation with families, and
- the closure of sheltered workshops (which was a long hard battle).
- A disability information advisory service to People First, the self-advocates own DPO
- NZ Sign Language becoming an official language
- Significant input into the drafting of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities including from many disabled people and organisations
-and the ratification by NZ and the passing of the Disabilities Act
-The winning by NZ of the rarely awarded international Roosevelt award for disability (and when the Gov Gen and two reps of DPOs went to collect it from the United Nations the only reporting of the achievement was the DomPost which called it a 'junket')
-a 2 year select committee inquiry and subsequent report (just before the 2008 election) on how to improve the quality and care of disability service provision, including a paradigm shifting Local Area Coordination system to replace the gate keeping NASCs
- a 5 year Carers' StrategyOK there was a lot not done or achieved but that is a list of some of the sector achievements led by the first Minister for Disability Issues, Ruth Dyson. As minister she regularly attended the AGMs of every disability organisation that asked her, and was always accessible. She must have also had considerable influence around the cabinet table as all these policies had considerable cost. I also heard that Helen Clark often asked Ministers to seek disability representation to those boards and agencies that had government appointees, such as the National Ethics Advisory Committee.
Before judging her, I would like to hear what Ruth has to say about the family carer issue from her time as minister.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Actually this constant abuse of urgency and process as a way of doing business seems even a little more ominous and totalitarian.
Especially the cynical passing of legislation that has nothing to do with the budget and everything to do with the erosion of democracy, and paving the way for the coming Corporatocracy.
I have a hope that Key and cronies' 'Anchor Projects' in Chchch (amongst other equally egregious decisions) will eventually deep six them next election...
Something's got to give! -
Sacha, in reply to
the continued and unchanging policy of not paying relatives to care for their disabled family members
..unless they qualify for ACC, where family funding arrangements have worked just fine for years.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
Before judging her, I would like to hear what Ruth has to say about the family carer issue from her time as minister.
I reckon Ruth was a very good minister. In 2000 I was working on Chch based Inside/Out programmes, and she'd drop past, interested in what the issues were, and wanting to discuss- and especially to listen.
And she achieved a lot.
But the hard fact is this policy goes way back. I don't know how far; but I doubt there's ever been a policy to pay family caregivers. -
Sacha, in reply to
the hard fact is this policy goes way back
It does. Cabinet had to support changes for them to happen - just like this current result is not purely on Ryall but also English, Joyce, Collins and their fellow humanitarians.
And on us citizens. I really am grateful for the support we're seeing here.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Anchor Projects
Maaaate. What's not to love about a rugby stadium? Sponsors and construction companies agree with me.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
I have a hope that Key and cronies’ ‘Anchor Projects’ in Chchch (amongst other equally egregious decisions) will eventually deep six them next election…
Something’s got to give!This article caused me to shout at my computer today. Yes, the big expensive civic projects CERA is insisting we must have (the covered stadium, the convention centre, etc.) must be paid for by selling our local council’s assets.
Chch ppl don’t want these white elephants, and we can’t afford them. We DO want our democracy back. We have a right to self-determination.
Not meaning to threadjack, but.
-
A bit puzzling that I have seen no support for the Government actions. Why not?
-
Sacha, in reply to
Highly relevant. I still can't believe the opposition are so pathetically ineffective on that ongoing power-grab. What does it take to get them properly riled up?
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
What does it take to get them properly riled up?
Wait til Lianne is mayor? Hoping .... :)
A bit puzzling that I have seen no support for the Government actions. Why not?
This is especially indefensible?
Love to know what Graeme E makes of Geddis' arguments. It's a fair bet anyone with a legal background isn't going to love the way this legislation treats the courts. Or the process; or the apparent disregard for Findlayson's opinion.
I think you could agree with the policy- or at least not hate it- and still have strong mis-givings about the legisalation.
I'd put a fiver on Key saying, quite soon, there are some 'minor technical issues in the wording' which 'may need to be tidied up' but of course it's 'still a major victory for family carers ... ' -
alison scott, in reply to
You got it. You rock.
-
Hebe, in reply to
This article caused me to shout at my computer today
I was so incensed I couldn't post without intemperance so I shut down the computer. Key and Joyce really, really want to stick it to the People's Republic of Christchurch, and they see the rebuild as dealing to it once and for all. Those comments are an attempt to smoke out any lurking mayoral contenders early so the Nats and Parker have a chance to kneecap them. And a wee test to see how that line plays: they do not know how to find resonance with Christchurch people so I expect all sorts of games will be tried.
Our city contributes near 10 per cent of the National party vote: they need us on side to win in 2014, and they need Chch to be seen by the majority of Kiwis to be on side: the fair play/natural justice perception of the post-earthquake city is the key to achieving that aim. Just saying...
-
"chris", in reply to
Well stated comment there on Stuff Lilith, you got my up-vote.
-
'Do you want the nice-to-haves?' " he said.
are those decent schools? good hospitals? public transport?
-
linger, in reply to
... or a casino? or an events centre? or a stadium?
helluva priority set they have ... -
I sent this to my local MP, Simon O'Connor:
As you are my electorate MP, I was wondering if you would be able to answer a few questions I have about the passing of recent legislation regarding payment to family members of disabled people.
1) I understand that funding was part of the budget but what was so important about this legislation that it had to be passed under urgency?
2) Don't you think that legislation which has wide reaching effects for those involved especially in limiting their rights to legal recourse should be debated thoroughly by the standard legislative process?
3) Had you read the regulatory impact statement before you voted it into the law?
4) Did it concern you that large amounts of it had been redacted and you had to vote on it with only part of the information?
5) Could you explain the reasons why such large parts had to be redacted? Or could you put me in touch with someone who can?It will be interesting to see if I get a reply.
-
Idiot Savant, in reply to
I can't see Queen Elizabeth getting her head chopped off (or the GG for that matter). The worst that might happen is that Key might resign and call a snap election, assuming he was willing to push his luck.
Constitutional Guillotine. Which means a law removing any purported right of the head of state's stooge to refuse to assent to legislation (and/or replacing such head of stage and stooge with a president, but that's strictly speaking unnecessary).
A normal formulation is to say that laws are passed when signed by the HoS, or after X days. IIRC, we used exactly this sort of provision when designing the constitutions of Niue and the Cook Islands when they became independent of us.
-
So what do we do? Other than get incensed with other people who get incensed, how do we instigate change?
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
Can we copy this to send it to our local MPs? Serious question. I started writing something along the same lines to Amy Adams, but it got too ... emotional.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Demand competent representation, and support only people and organisations who offer it. Beyond political parties too.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
People like Farrar and Slater have worked hard over years to tribalise NZ politics along the US lines. And "the Left" let them get away with it because it all seemed so trivial. Now, we have people voting along party lines more than ever and the opposing party is demonised as scum, no matter which side of the fence your on.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Doesn't excuse NGOs being so weak at playing their role. The sheer lack of nous is striking.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Chch ppl … have a right to self-determination.
Your name has been noted, citizen. Your corporatist overlords will be sending re-education specialists to your location momentarily, to address your disturbing display of unwillingness to bow before the paternalist puppet-masters who have hold of your city’s strings.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.