Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I have strongly opposed John Key on most of his policies, but on this one, I do not fully support him as I oppose the domestic intelligence expansion plans, but he may be right with at least offering a symbolic gesture, to the US, to oppose the above.
We are indeed facing a serious challenge, which free societies have not faced since the age of fascism, and what I see and hear is much worse than what Hitler ever proposed or preached or even committed.
Perhaps it is time to consider, what is going on, and where we need to go? NO to the 48 hour free surveillance by the SIS, but perhaps some further strengthening of their powers, and I still feel uneasy about the NSA cooperation, while I write this.
-
This is what we are FACING now, and while this event of "Slactivism" may be worth exploring, and is deserved to be discussed, we have a MUCH greater challenge ahead now, much greater than any damned past challenges. "Slack" is the attitude of most people out there, most in public, not even voting anymore. We have heaps more of people disconnect altogether, and not even thinking our society is worth living in, or at least defending.
We have sadly some radicals from various countries, including NZ join radical groups, including ISIS, there are reasons for this. Too many people seem to be totally disillusioned, many are now sectarian and divided, one may cynically say, welcome to multicultural NZ, we have the same challenge as Europe, believe it or not.
Here is some stuff of the net, which again shows how much “appeal” ISIS gets from all sorts, that is the challenge, not some bit of socialite crap about texting and facebooking:
I cannot attend to this announced great discussion, I really would like to, but I fear the meeting will be more of the converted preaching to the converted, and nothing much will be achieved or resolved.
So think about all this stuff, it is dead serious, many young people have no trust, hope and go astray, and we can see where this is going. We have a huge challenge to not only defend civilised, democratic and free society, also civilty and unity.
I hope that will somehow be part of the discussion. Pushing text or online message buttons is easy, standing up for real, that is different, and the TPPA protests showed again, showing force on the street is more convincing and effective than "signing" online petiitions. Kia kaha, take care and best of luck!
-
I heard about this, am not informed in much detail, but this helps, and thanks for it.
I am concerned about a lot of things happening in Auckland, and also as part of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan hearings. I support the PAUP in part, but am resolutely opposed to other parts.
This seems to be just one example of where planners and developers get it wrong, and do bulldoze natural and other heritage. I warn people, take a closer interest in what is going on, what is being planned, and look at the damned details in the plans, there is going to be some horrendous stuff going on. Sadly it seems that the well resourced, large developers and large scale investors, and vested interests, that have the upper hand in PAUP hearings, who will determine what will become of Auckland. Council is only "helpful" to a degree, and again, they want more population, more ratepayers, more money, and more resources to play with.
Better stop any mistakes right in the beginning, as once we destroy trees, reserves, natural and historic character buildings and areas, they will be GONE forever. For what I ask, for profit and “growth”?
-
Access: Research Invitation - Life…, in reply to Sacha,
Thanks, sounds good, much appreciated!
-
I read you are interested in physical and cognitive disability in regards to people participating in this research. What about people with psychological or psychiatric conditions and thus mental health sufferers, who are also very often disabled, in one or more ways?
Disability has many faces and expressions, and causes, and while we all accept, that physical disability deserves full recognition and considerations, and that cognitive, i.e. mental impairment conditions are also deserving of the same, we do somehow still struggle with the disability that people with various psychological and psychiatric conditions have.
Perhaps some clarification can assist, what this research is about, and who may be included, thanks.
-
Access: Some aspects of New Zealand’s…, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Well said, you are so right. We have governments follow various political and other agendas, and when it comes to COSTS, most governments will not shy away from rolling back social and health policy achievements, in order to “balance the books”. They may at the same time offer tax cuts or other perks for groups they like to look after, who tend to be the workers and taxpayers, so often quoted (“hard working New Zealanders”).
All achievements that were made in disabled support, health and welfare services, are always at risk, of being rolled back again, and nothing we have has been achieved without a fight. Sadly too many tend to become complacent, and take their rights and benefits for granted, and even if gradual cutting back occurs, most are too scared or again complacent, to not dare “rock the boat” and stand up and fight.
And then so many are just focused on their interests, and forget they may also be in another situation one day. So they do not act when others are affected by cut backs and lack of support and appreciation.
I fear we are heading right there again, while so many do not quite realise it. This government we have gives to some with one hand, and takes from others with the other hand. It pays to learn from history, and that is where this post is so valuable.
-
Hard News: Housing, hope and ideology, in reply to Kumara Republic,
The media reports quoting what English and Key say change by the day, at present, and it seems that Bill English, who I think was the first to mention the target of up to 20,000 state houses up for sale, was a bit ahead of himself. But then again, Key has at times defended the sales of up to 20,000, and at other times denied any such large number of planned sales.
Key also claims, selling a third of Housing NZ stock is "not asset sales". Here some news stories:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11344052
http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/state-housing-sell-off-worth-5b-2014100618
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/258382/'too-many-gaps'-in-state-housing-planI think that English got a bit overly bold after the election win, and made an announcement, while they have not really got their grips about it yet, what exactly they will do, and how they will go about it. This is an opportunity for the opposition to attack, as National is showing all these contradictions and a serious lack of reliable planning ahead.
-
Hard News: Housing, hope and ideology, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
So, yeah, if the government were looking to add community providers into the social housing model, that could be a good thing. But divesting responsibility looks a whole lot like passing the buck to me. It's just another case (analogous to the PM handing over responsibility for the GCSB to the AG) of the government looking at what issues are causing it embarassment and rather than fixing the problem, finding a way to make them embarrass someone else instead.
The providers that already exist would not have the resources to buy existing Housing NZ stock in large numbers, or to build new housing from scratch. Some trusts apparently help low income earners to get their own homes on a kind of rent to buy scheme, but even then the persons that buy into that have to pay a deposit, which most Housing NZ tenants cannot pay.
One would have thought that improving performance within Housing NZ, and by providing the corporation with low interest, government backed funding, to build more suitable, affordable housing stock themselves, would be the smarter way to go. Looking at the economy of scale approach that makes more sense, than simply passing on the responsibilities to small, fragmented operators, largely NGOs, who will also face limits and challenges that Housing NZ has had to face at a larger scale over years.
The number of people unable to afford to buy has increased substantially, so it makes more sense to build more state housing for people to rent, and also some for people to rent to buy. A large provider like Housing NZ could also have larger purchasing power, and could get better deals when working with builders, construction firms and building suppliers. Small providers will struggle with this.
We are going to face a huge mess, if the National led government goes ahead as they seem willing to, I fear.
-
Sigh, John Key and numbers, sigh again.
The accommodation supplement for a single person is capped at $ 145 per week in Auckland, it is less in other regions, and it has not been increased for years. The maximum amount claimable is $ 225 per week for a sole parent with two or more kids, or for a couple with at least one kid. entry thresholds apply for beneficiaries and non beneficiaries, for rent they pay.
So a person getting the maximum at $ 145 p.a. that means $ 7,540 per annum, and multiplied by a thousand that would be 7.540 million alone. For a family it would be $ 225 per week, which means 11,700.00 per annum, and say with that covering at least 3 persons (young and old), multiply that by 333 to get a comparable figure of 3.896 million per annum for a thousand persons claiming it, or rather being covered it for that scenario.
You would reach the 12 million Key quoted within a time less than two years for a single person, and just over 3 years for a small family, that is if they claim the full entitled amount for Auckland.
He says it would cost half a billion to build a thousand homes, which may be true if each single home (does not have to be a house these days) would cost half a million. Key does not consider the lower comparable cost of more economically built, cheaper homes and the use of them over at least one generation, which is common.
I wonder whether Key and English read from the same (song-) balance sheet. Keys figures are absurd. Most beneficiaries will pay more than half their total benefit income on rent, and many working poor are not far off that either.
Now even many in Housing NZ homes pay more than 25 percent of their total income in rent, as they also charge market rents to many tenants.
Rental subsidies have been proven to serve as a subsidy for rental property investors, small and big, and enabled many to pay off their mortgage debts and develop their investment portfolio. In effect these subsidies are subsidies for many middle and upper class rental property owners, and they also help push up rents.
I think what we are getting from the government is less than half baked calculations and policy – and otherwise just damned ideology and propaganda. National have always wanted to privatise as much as they could, and now they are trying to crack the big nut, state housing, and hammer it to pieces.
The winners out of what seems to be proposed will be Nat friendly property owners and investors.
-
A few years ago the government had set up a committee, which decided to abolish the Mental Health Commission.
http://my.lawsociety.org.nz/news/2012/committee-endorses-abolition-of-mental-health-commission
The position of the Mental Health Commissioner was shifted into the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner, and for a few years now Dr Lynne Lane has held that position at that office.
http://www.hdc.org.nz/about-us/mental-health-and-addictions/about-us/the-mental-health-commissioner
There was a fair bit of opposition to abolish the Mental Health Commission, as many had concerns how matters relating to mental health would be possible to address as part of the HDC Office.
I also know of a complainant who made a couple of complaints about treatment issues in the mental health area to the HDC a few years ago, but despite of that person insisting on the case being looked at by the Mental Health Commissioner, the HDC never allowed this. They decided to not investigate, despite of complaints about this, and this raises more questions about how serious government and our institutions are about assisting, supporting and empowering those suffering mental health issues.
I think the Mental Health Commission should never have been abolished, as I have heard rather little about what Dr Lane has been doing as part of the HDC team. Indeed the whole HDC is not seriously addressing many issues, and only formally investigates few complaints. In a report they presented last year, only about 60 complaints out of a total over 1,600 were "formally investigated", and of those 42 were considered raising justified issues with health and disability treatment.
And where the HDC finds some practitioners or institutions at fault, they generally just make "recommendations" for the future, and do little more else, than suggest better training, improvement of practices, and so, which mostly is a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket. Some info on the HDC can be found here:
http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/14923-health-and-disability-commissioner/
If the HDC and other institutions would actually be doing more of what the public expects of them, we may move somewhere, also with disabled getting their rights met, as it should happen in New Zealand as the country is a signatory to the UN declaration on the rights of persons with disability.