Posts by Rosemary McDonald
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Why you should vote, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Your concern isn’t with the substance of the policy, but that in writing it they haven’t named the legislation that will be amended when they implement the policy?
Oh, I am very much concerned with the substance of the policy, what concerns me is that they, the Labour Party, has chosen not to name the actual piece of legislation itself....just a generic " family caregivers legislation " , which could be the actual PHDAct(2) or the more specific but equally nasty piece of work that was born out of the amendment...the Funded Family Care Policy.
Considering the Labour Party could have sorted this shit before it went to the Tribunal in 2008, I suspect that rather than doing what ought to be done from a NZBORA point of view, repeal the amendment to the PHDAct AND, please AND reveal the redacted sections of the Regulatory Impact Statement, they will simply tweak the FFC policy, so more people sign up to it.
Because, Funded Family Care has gone down like a cup of cold sick.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Yet another piece of fall out.
Actually Hilary, probably one of the more significant pieces of fallout over this sorry affair.
Many thanks for putting this up....it was a small but significant battle that some of us watched with interest, cheering from the sidelines.
Gutted when it all went to shit.
"The Principles Agreement established that only BSC members could tender for Government cleaning contracts. This is because our members commit to meet high standards, provide fair working conditions and pay cleaners above the minimum wage. "The implication in Mr Hager’s book is that Grant McLauchlan was bankrolling Carrick Graham and Cameron Slater to destroy an agreement that protected cleaners’ rights to fair pay for a fair day’s work under fair conditions."
-
Access: The Problem with the Greens’…, in reply to Sacha,
Funding for personal disability support services was shifted from social welfare to health portfolios to help Ruth Richardson make certain political claims at the time.
This may well be....but....under Social Welfare, until about 1986(can't put my hand on the doc immediately) there was no funding available for those with significant impairments and high care needs if they were in paid employment.
Peter, having returned to his full time mainstream job within a year of breaking his miserable neck, found himself seriously up shit creek when he finally saved enough to put a downpayment on his own home. Hitherto, living in CCS homes, his care needs had been met by the staff, and his collegues supported him at work. In his own home, he needed to get in 'boarders' to to do the necessary...and off course it went fairly rapidly to crap.
The local DHB said..."He's not our problem, he's not sick", and Social Welfare said " He's not our problem, he's in fultime work."
Having funding for these necessary supports coming out of the Health Budget places, in most circumstances, for now anyway, those who need care beyond the reach of means and asset testing.
Under Annette King's Public Health and Disability Act....Peter, it seems, actually had an entitlement to funding for his care after he had met the eligiability and assessment criteria. The dreaded 2013 amendment withdraws that entitlement to those with high care needs living with family.
-
Access: The Problem with the Greens’…, in reply to Jonathan Mosen,
and asking political parties to be specific about how much they’re committing to.
Good luck with that.
Sincerely.
Sometimes, its like herding cats.
-
Access: The Problem with the Greens’…, in reply to Jonathan Mosen,
I think all this is proving is that each disability type perhaps needs to advocate for itself, and that my suspicion is correct that cross-disability advocacy just doesn’t work
Unfortunately 'advocacy', of the steel toe cap boot wearing variety has been replaced with CEOs of government funded organisations having 'conversations' with each other and with various levels of Government....the payers of their salaries.
And whoever pays the piper calls the tune.
As a little aside Jonathon, in the absence of audio captioning....how would being able to read the script work? Perhaps a facility so the script of a programme could be accessed in real time would help fill in those silent gaps?
-
". Many parties still seem fixated with medical issues which, while important, belong in a health policy. The Greens get it. Disability policy should be about participation, socialisation and inclusion."
For those disabled with high and very high and complex support needs "participation, socialisation and inclusion" are impossible without having these basic core care needs met.
Those disabled with high and very high support needs HAVE to be fixated on that particular area, because failing to provide safe, reliable supports can not only completely and totally socially isolate that person...but can lead to assaults, systemic abuse and in some cases death. Mostly at the hands of MoH Contracted Providers.
And please don't make me yet again post all the links to reports, media articles etc, etc. I actually find it really depressing to keep going over the same ground.
So, where do those disabled with medical needs, and very high care needs fit into the disability sector?
You say....its health....yet funding for supports for those in the Deaf and Blind sector comes largely from the Health Budget.
Yes, there is an obvious bias towards the Deaf...maybe because Mojo is in the bear pit flying the flag...but also maybe because the representation through various organisations to the government is quite heavily biased towards Deaf issues.
Check out the membership of the MoH Disability Support Services Consumer ConsortiumAnd to bang on again, ad nauseum, about the paying family carers/Public Health and Disability Act amendment, Peter and I attended the first Public Consultation Workshop in Wellington in late 2012.
Sitting at our table was the then leader of a Deaf organisation who was in the process of transition to the CEO position for the government funded charity that is "the voice of all disabled New Zealanders".
Bear in mind that this case/issue/obsession was about those adults with significant impairments who required a very high level of hands on care and/or supervision to keep them safe, healthy and in some cases, alive.
This leader in the Deaf community, on their way to a position that would make them the spokesperson for ALL disabled Kiwis, proceeded to dominate the discussion with concerns about having to pay family who provided Sign Language interpretation services. Proceeded to voice concern that they would have to employ family, who would not be as professional as other interpreters, would not be as bidable.
To my eternal shame, I dissuaded Peter from reading this person their pedigree. He was winding up to give them a quick run down of what his care needs were...(in some graphic detail) and how, unlike them, he would have been unable to attend such a workshop without his carer's (me) input. He was going to ask just how much this person's Sign Language Interpreter was costing the State....as opposed to the State having funded NO care for him (as a high tetraplegic) for 13 years.
I dissuaded Peter from packing a much righteous shitty, because, back then, I thought that somehow some sense of unversial fellowship was possible within the wider disabilty and carer community. I thought perhaps that respect might be shown towards those with a lived experience of that particular issue, by the so called spokespeople for all disabled. Instead of investing their own totally unrelated issues into that conversation....they might just let those deep in the mire of the issue have their say.
I was still being polite. I was still being friendly. I still had hope.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Trevor Nicholls,
actually leads to the conclusion that (c) both sides are as bad as each other.
Kaching! Right on the money Trevor....IMHO.
Perhaps we should all accept that this is how it really is in the internet age...NOTHING can be considered 'private', 'confidential' or 'secret' once you click 'send'.
So we should all perhaps HTFU and move on.
Now, who y'all gonna trust with your precious vote?
-
Access: Respect, please, in reply to Christine Peet,
My biggest gripe is the council are so nice in putting mobility parks everywhere, but they’re more often than not the same width as a regular car park.
Or.....the carpark is wide enough to get into your chair.....but, there is no ramp up to the footpath without having to beetle behind ten parked cars.....dreading reversing lights coming on.
You know what would be REALLY handy?
Some local organisation who one could approach with a particular issue, who could liase with the offending council/business. Explain problem, go have a look, agree that it needs fixing....and fix it....now.
Shouldn't need a committee meeting, shouldn't need the bureaucracy to process it...just get on with it.
For instance....those yellow pimply 'tactile strips'. Portable concrete grinder, can of yellow paint....done.
-
Access: Respect, please, in reply to Angela Hart,
they probably think they’ve taken appropriate steps (language!) by consulting with a narrow group, often of very able disabled.
Oh, yes.
In our 'before Bus' days, when journeys far from home necessitated staying in motels and the like, we would scour the accommodation guides for the 'wheely symbol', denoting the fact that the particular establishment had met the access standard set by the "XYZ Trust".
We rapidly learned that the 'wheely symbol' means little, and that by 'wheelchair access' they mean that Whoesit Dosit from the XYZ trust found it acceptable.
Then you learn that Whoesit Dosit can actually stand, and transfer themselves onto the toilet or into the shower...and had not taken into consideration the needs of those disabled who were less able.
Off course, travelling in the Bus has its own challenges and although we are self contained with regards to ablutions, and we more often than not freedom camp, designated camping grounds can leave much to be desired.
And the number of Department of Conservation camps that claim wheechair access when only token efforts have been made....and when we work out our own solutions to access issues some petty little official strides up and say's "oh no!!! you can't do that!".
We have a long way to go.
-
Access: Respect, please, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Having a bit of a chuckle at this Hilary.
Peter has those small caster wheels on the front of his manual chair, and oh, how they will find any and all irregularities in the pavement surface.
Peter had two accidental tip outs....here at home, simply rolling over a slight crack in the concrete. Gets a bit ugly. We have broken those casters hitting supposedly flush manhole covers in town. And don't get Peter started on pavement camber. He has declared Kaitaia main street as the most wheelchair friendly...dead level, but a bummer in the rain unfortunately!
@ Glen Koorey...Hilary makes a very good point about the type of wheel chair. Power chairs and mobility scooters are very popular and can increase independance....but there are a number of die hards who prefer a manual chair...and designers might need to be aware that they are a completely different beast. And while we understand how useful to the vision impaired those raised yellow bumpy pimply areas at pedestrian crossings are...they can be diabolical on those little wheels.
But...I usually have to push Peter across crossings as the kerbs are too steep for him to manage, and he simply can't push fast enough.All in all, while it is appreciated that designers make the effort to 'walk a mile', nothing can really take the place of lived experience....and there are plenty of folk with a multitude of disabilities who are perfectly capable of sitting down with designers and engineers and making their needs known.