Posts by Angela Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Access: Paying Family Carers - What was…, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Thanks Hilary, once again IHC is advocating when everyone else seems to be silent. These political party responses make interesting reading. I'd swear the National Party has swallowed a spin doctor! I do hope it's fatal.
-
So why is the Ministry of Social Development hiding behind the Official Information Act to avoid telling us how they plan to do that? Are they only interested in cutting the fiscal liability?
In my humble opinion the answer to your question is Yes!
Not only are they only interested in cutting cost, they do not want to have any kind of research or evaluation because it may expose the damage being done to the fabric of our society. After the election, as you point out, it won't matter.
We are not helpless but our options are narrowing. -
Links from Rosemary's quote which didn't transfer:
NZ Public Health and Disability Amendment Act 2013
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2013/0022/latest/whole.html
Few parents get paid http://www.nzherald.co.nz/simon-collins/news/article.cfm?a_id=135&objectid=11240668 -
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Marc C,
Thanks Marc, yes, I understand, it's just that I've been reluctant to fully accept that we no longer live in a valid democracy. Legal avenues are already compromised, to borrow from Rosemary's Paying Family Carers post on Access:
"We took (another) deep breath and tried to give a précis of what happened in Parliament on the 17th of May 2013.
We explained how maliciously difficult the government had made it to actually access the much-publicised Funded Family Care scheme. We explained how only a handful of people had successfully applied.
When we told her that spouses and partners were still unable to be paid, she said “Oh, so you’re going to have to take another case to the Human Rights?” I had to walk away at this point. Peter explained about section 70E of the new Act:On and after the commencement of this Part, no complaint based in whole or in part on a specified allegation may be made to the Human Rights Commission, and no proceedings based in whole or in part on a specified allegation may be commenced or continued in any court or tribunal.
So, this is where we’re at after well over a decade of discussions, mediation, five weeks of Human Rights Review Tribunal hearing, two weeks in the High Court and just over a week in the Appeal Court.
In case you missed the news... we bloody well won."(There are links on the actual post that may not have transferred in my copy and paste.)
There can no longer be any expectation that decisions reached by a High Court, or any other, will be respected by Government. The compact between legislature and judiciary has been breached and can be again.
http://www.chenpalmer.com/news/news-articles/the-public-health-and-disability-amendment-act-in-contempt-of-the-rule-of-law/
I could go through the courts and win, as the Atkinson plaintiffs did, but lose in the end because the Government may choose to override the court. -
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Idiot Savant,
Yes, thanks I see and the Ombusdman's office advice certainly supports this view in my case, but is there anything I can do other than wait for the Ombudsman? I've already written back to the MOH stating that the Ombudsman disagrees with their view and quoting 2(5). I was rebuffed. They just reiterated their position. Do you think its worth me pointing out this case to them? I could also take it to a Disability Law Office, I think, but I'm not sure if they'd be willing to take it before the Ombudsman's process is finished. It may be worth asking that question.
-
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Sacha,
so am I right to say you're seeking details of the eligibility assessment process?
No, not exactly, the stated eligibility criteria are clear. But I think there may be an imposition of a requirement for a certain number of unpaid support hours once the person's support need is assessed. Otherwise, why would the NASCs be offering only a few paid hours a week to family members who are providing many hours of support? The only people eligible are those with high/very high and complex needs, by definition they need a lot of support.
This imposition, if it is happening, is concealed, it's not in the stated policy or guidelines. However, unpaid/informal support was a big part of the strongly leading consultation document on payments for family carers, it was and is a powerful expectation from the MOH. I just want to know if they have made it a requirement, if so why it is concealed, and whether it varies according to family capability/willingness, for instance whether they differentiate between a solo mum with an adult disabled child and an extended family supporting such a person. Because there is a vast difference.
Most people assessed by my NASC will not know what their support hours were assessed as. They don't routinely tell you that, they simply offer some hours, take 'em or leave 'em. Only if people ask what their assessed hours of support need are, will they know what the extent of the discrepancy is between assessed need and offered hours. It's that discrepancy which bothers me with FFC.
-
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Angela Hart,
Only 9 of the 121 families ( at the time of my information) had more than 35 hours.
oops, sorry folks, I've just been over the figures and I got this one wrong. There are actually 24 of the 121 families getting more than 35 hours per week. There are 9 getting 20 hours or less, and the remaining 88 lie between 35 and 20 hours.
-
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Michael Fletcher,
I know one person who felt so humiliated by the process and the requirements for jobseeker or whatever they call it now, that he goes without. My circle of friends is pretty small, so if I know one, there must be many more people like him. He's in the invidious position of being contracted to work for a tertiary institution and not being paid over the long Christmas break, contract runs March to November or December and no allowance for the long break. The first year (yes, the casual/temporary contract has rolled over 4 or 5 times now) he registered and had such a bad time he has never done it again. Yes, he's off the jobseeker stats, but he saves all year to be able to do that, rather than be humiliated again.
-
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Idiot Savant,
Your Ombudsman link isn't working.
I've tried all sorts with this particular effort on Funded Family Care. If I can get past the contractor issue, the specific information will come out because I did make narrower and highly specific earlier requests. However I'm new to this OIA business and appreciate all the help I can get. If I need to put in any further requests, perhaps you will offer some insights?
The information I am seeking is based on a suspicion that there is a significant requirement for unpaid support time before Funded Family Care can be made available. The idea is based on the fact that the small number of families which have been granted Funded Family Care and chosen to take it up mostly involve high numbers of required support hours and low hours of FFC. Only 9 of the 121 families ( at the time of my information) had more than 35 hours. This is for people who require what most people consider 24/7 support. Of course there is other support funding which can come into play as well, like Individualised Funding, but it still seems very odd to me. -
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Sacha,
yes, I have the guidelines on FFC for both the NASCs and FASS.
And to answer Idiot Savant, I made narrower and more specific requests earlier, and by the time I got to this one I had decided to go for as much as possible. If there is cost they have to come back and tell me that but I don't see how there would be a great deal of material involved here, as virtually all the instructions come from MOH.
Also I had Ombudsman office advice before I made my OIA requests, but the MOH clearly disagrees on 2(5) and I'm not a lawyer.
There is incredible reluctance to provide information which the MOH must have on this topic, which only makes me more curious.....
However, I'm conscious of somewhat highjacking this thread, apologies for that.