Posts by Hilary Stace
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That statement from the Human Rights Commission also notes the contrasting approach in the Australian Budget which legislated and funded the National Disability Insurance Scheme. If we had one of those we wouldn't be squabbling around the edges for proper support for families and wouldn't have two completely different disability support systems (under ACC family care funding is quite normal). It would be nationwide, equitable and hopefully adequate. We could have even funded it from not doing the Budget cuts to the ACC levy.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Sorry Graeme, you are right. Wrote in haste. But it comes under Justice which is why appointment to it comes under Judith Collins.
-
Statement from the Human Rights Commission http://www.hrc.co.nz/2013/commission-concerned-new-family-carer-legislation-will-compromise-disability-rights
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Sacha,
It's quite complicated how the HRC process works. The IHC has been developing their case over education exclusion over many years, and has testimony from many families. But it has been stuck in the process for a year or so while the Human Rights Review Tribunal (which is in the Ministry of Justice) decides whether to put resources into the case. The new director, Robert Kee, is currently on a bit of a learning curve (I think he was impressed with Giovanni's story at a meeting I was at recently). But the Disability Commissioner in the Human Rights Commission, Paul Gibson, has spoken out against the limits of the Budget announcement.
-
Thanks for your outrage. Keith, but such public policy treatment of disabled people and their families is just par for the course if you look back over the last century or so. Where was the public interest as this case wound through the courts over the last decade – or while we waited for the last year after the victory for some announcement? Or the current case whereby the IHC is trying to interest the Office of the Human Rights Review (headed by Robert Kee) in taking up the case whereby disabled children are excluded from schools and the education system all over the country. And what about the case for a government apology for institutionalisation?
Even though disabled people make up about 20% of the population and the likelihood that everyone will probably either require care or be a carer sometime in their adult life, we have no academic departments focussed on disability policy. There appears to be no specialist disability input into the Constitutional Review, just as it was overlooked in the Welfare Working Group’s work. The latest review of the latest residential care abuse case will be headed by someone with no background in disability.
Just occasionally it briefly crosses over into the mainstream. So we can thank the government for achieving this with the Budget announcement (and by the way Green MP Catherine Delahunty blogged about its implications almost immediately).
-
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to Sacha,
But a pretty consistent approach to anything related to disability rights - the benign state has never given anything willingly. Every legal advance in disability rights has required a huge battle by disability activists such as the 1989 Education Act, the inclusion of disability in the 1993 Human Rights Act etc. Even though the last government was relatively friendly to disability it was a minority government and things like the closure of the last institution Kimberley, the end of sheltered workshops and NZSL as third NZ language required years of collective effort.
This latest act is also not the first time families acting in good faith have been undermined by the state.
The 1953 Aitken report was a result of a government inquiry established after lobbying by families wanting education and community support for their family members with intellectual disability, but instead they got the huge 'mental deficiency colonies' policy and their children taken off them. -
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to Rob Stowell,
Not just shoddy. The word vindictive has been going around Facebook by those who have been watching this case over many years. This is how you do the minimum to meet the requirements of a court case which dragged on for many years and which the Ministry finally lost, and then how you destroy the constitutional right for anyone who contemplates complaining about such injustice ever again. Which is highly likely as this new provision of payment for family carers has such a tight little ring fence around it that only a very few people will be eligible. And the maximum claimable (after a very stringent assessment process) will be the minimum wage for 40 hours. Unfortunately, there are more than 40 hours in a week. And the fact that there is no opportunity for input via a select committee process is infuriating and frustrating for the sector. What's more the Minister for Disability Issues voted for it - showing she can no longer be considered an ally of the sector.
However, there is an upside in that a significant and long standing disability injustice has now crossed over into a space (constitutional law) where it was not noticed before. So the sector now has a new ally.
-
I would like coverage of select committee hearings too.
-
Just in case readers have missed another gem from The Civilian and one which has captured Russell very well. http://www.thecivilian.co.nz/media-saved-from-end-of-bullshit-news-story-by-arrival-of-another/
-
I'm a fan of Seth Mnookin and I have followed him on twitter for a while. Apart from his amazing name he is great science writer, most memorably for me for his Panic Virus. It is likely to become more common as social media links grow, that people you follow for their expertise in one area will be caught up in and report events in their geographical location that make global news. I see his Wikipedia page mentions his Twitter contribution to the Boston marathon manhunt.