Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: This. Is. Crazy., in reply to B Jones,
Oh yeah, judicial review, but then, who can afford a lawyer to prepare and file for this?
Ah, legal aid was cut back and made harder to get years ago.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/10285613/Legal-aid-funding-limits-creating-justice-gap
-
In two other posts on PA I recently presented this new information, raising serious questions about statements used in a position statement of the RACP and AFOEM called ’Realising the Health Benefits of Work’:
https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2015/vol-128-no-1425-20-november-2015/6729PDF download:
https://www.nzma.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/45905/Purdie-1874FINAL1425.pdfThat was basically proving wrong information or statements often used by Principal Health Advisor Dr Bratt, working for MSD and WINZ (see slides 22 and 23):
http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/GP%20CME/Friday/C1%201515%20Bratt-Hawker.pdf“Evidence” and statements contained in the above position statement have often been used to justify re-assessment of sick and disabled for work capacity, and this was also part of “advice” used for formulating welfare policy that resulted in reforms that took effect from 2013.
Further to earlier comments re Gordon Purdie’s criticism of statements in the AFOEM’s position statement on the health benefits of work (strongly promoted since 2010/11 also then used as support to welfare reforms in New Zealand), it appears the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the Australasian Faculty of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (AFOEM) are now having some doubt about their own “research” sources.
The document ‘Realising the Health Benefits of Work’ is now “under review”, it seems:
https://www.racp.edu.au/advocacy/division-faculty-and-chapter-priorities/faculty-of-occupational-environmental-medicine/health-benefits-of-good-work
(see note behind the link for the PDF on their website)Since October 2013 they have also seen a need to qualify earlier statements by stressing now that it must be “good work” that can have health benefits.
https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library/pa-what-is-good-work.pdf?sfvrsn=4And since then they also make available a PowerPoint presentations, clarifying that some of the information and statements first presented at the launch of that position statement were not quite what they seemed:
https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwii0Ljd5fHMAhXE3aYKHSdDB9cQFggaMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.racp.edu.au%2Fdocs%2Fdefault-source%2Fdefault-document-library%2Fhealth-benefits-of-good-work---dr-warren-harrex---afoem---evidence-update.pptx%3Fsfvrsn%3D0&usg=AFQjCNEQCCDxwaau1NOzo8W27RMZ_GdAswRead the comments:
“Why update the evidence?”
“Consensus statement and evidence not updated since 2010.”
“Some of the assertions in 2010 are associations, not cause and effect.”So there we are, bold claims first made, when “experts” like Mr Mansel Aylward from the UK came here to promote all this, are now continually being reviewed and added to or corrected. This is simply paddling back from so-called “evidence” that was used for justifying welfare reforms also significantly affecting sick and disabled in New Zealand, that took effect in July 2013!
Policy should be carefully drafted and based only on solid, robust, well reliable evidence, it seems the AFOEM and RACP, and with their reliance on them, the NZ Government shot themselves in the foot with rushing ahead and drawing too early conclusions.
Recommended read:
https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/msd-dr-bratt-present-misleading-evidence-on-worklessness-and-health-post-09-08-15.pdf -
Further to my comments above, re Gordon Purdie’s criticism of statements in the AFOEM’s position statement on the health benefits of work (strongly promoted since 2010/11 also then used as support to welfare reforms in New Zealand), it appears the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the Australasian Faculty of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (AFOEM) are now having some doubt about their own “research” sources.
The document ‘Realising the Health Benefits of Work’ is now “under review”, it seems:
https://www.racp.edu.au/advocacy/division-faculty-and-chapter-priorities/faculty-of-occupational-environmental-medicine/health-benefits-of-good-work
(see note behind the link for the PDF on their website)Since October 2013 they have also seen a need to qualify earlier statements by stressing now that it must be “good work” that can have health benefits.
https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library/pa-what-is-good-work.pdf?sfvrsn=4
And since then they also make available a PowerPoint presentations, clarifying that some of the information and statements first presented at the launch of that position statement were not quite what they seemed:
https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/health-benefits-of-good-work—dr-warren-harrex—afoem—evidence-update.pptx?sfvrsn=0Read: "Why update the evidence?"
"Consensus statement and evidence not updated since 2010."
"Some of the assertions in 2010 are associations, not cause and effect."So bold claims first made, when “experts” like Mr Mansel Aylward from the UK came here to promote all this, are now continually being reviewed and added to or corrected. This is simply paddling back from so-called “evidence” that was used for justifying welfare reforms also significantly affecting sick and disabled in New Zealand, that took effect in July 2013!
-
Now, Mike Hosking my appear to not be good with maths, but that is simply not the case. He is not a stupid fellow, he will most likely know full well how the tax system works, and how to benefit from it as a high earner and also asset owning person.
He seems to rather be relying on the many less informed, some even ignorant people, who watch his show Seven Sharp on TVNZ One, and who listen to his show on ZB.
In my view he is simply mischievous, trying to defend the political line he prefers, which is also followed by our present PM and government.
It is all too obvious to even give the man any credit.
-
Hard News: This. Is. Crazy., in reply to Paul Campbell,
Yes, special needs grants from WINZ for home appliances, for repairs and so forth are mostly recoverable. Food is usually the exception, but after two applications for food support in a year, I think, people on benefits asking for such are sent to a budget advisor, to get advice how they can live “within their means”, off the benefit they get and are entitled to. Often that is an insult, with high rents on the private market, and with a Temporary Additional Support benefit top up capped at about 30 percent of the main benefit. So there comes a threshold where people simply cannot keep up with living costs.
Even dental costs are recoverable, above $ 300 per annum. Any person needing more than one large filling a year is stuck with debts for crowns, bridges that may be needed. Some will not bother and rather go toothless.
And the debt is recovered from rates that are already calculated to only cover the very bare minimum for food, clothing, personal care items, for the balance of rent not covered by the Accommodation Supplement, which has been capped for very many years, and not been inflation adjusted. Only the base or main benefit gets annual inflation adjustments, NONE of the other needed top-ups.
Those, particularly long term sick and disabled, also sole parents, who have no ability to work and earn extra, they will be worst hit, as they will be forced to pay back debt from money that should be used for food and clothing or else (rent, utility costs).
Hence the large increase in food parcels given out by food banks, to fill the gaps for food at least.
That will drive some into illegal activities, if they cannot find work, and that may include drug making, drug dealing and so forth, which though would only involve a minority, I guess.
Read also the new Rewrite Bill they have before the House, and you get a grasp of the endless rules and conditions that already exist, and are now put into a more compact, cleaned up rewritten statute (which though contains further, some hidden, policy changes).
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2016/0122/latest/DLM6783115.html
-
"Auckland Action Against Poverty cooordinator Alastair Russell explains in the report that there is a mandatory 12-month ban under Housing New Zealand’s meth policy.
“So she’ll clock up this debt for another six months and then go back to Housing New Zealand seeking assistance with a debt of probably in excess of $100,000.”"
Firstly, I read that John Key spoke of HIS experience with WINZ, well, was he ever on WINZ support, or what was he talking about?
Secondly, as I quoted above, I suppose the new hard-line approach by Housing NZ to evict people who seriously breach their tenancy agreements and rules, for instance for suspected drug cooking or use, apparently supported by Ms Bennett some time ago, is the new “social” policy and another “wrap around” approach they use?!
"Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett said every house that needed decontaminating was a place vulnerable people could have been using.
“We will not tolerate meth use in our social housing. We are not going to risk houses suspected of being drug dens today, becoming potentially toxic playgrounds for innocent children in the future.”
Housing NZ was working with police to focus more on eliminating P use in homes “as opposed to previously only targeting home-based drug manufacturing in the homes”, she said."
I wonder whether evicting is the solution, and why other agencies should not first be involved to address any issues, and use perhaps other sanctions, before going that far?
Here is an interesting article on housing and homelessness in the New Zealand Geographic:
https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/no-place-like-home/But we can always follow other nations and their housing policy, Rio de Janeiro comes to mind, with nice, lush green hills surrounding much of the Metropolis, with settlements in idyllic surroudings:
http://www.theguardian.com/travel/gallery/2013/nov/04/favelas-rio-de-janeiro-in-picturesHomeless Aucklanders could perhaps start using the lower slopes of the Waitakere Ranges Hills to build and establish their own new affordable “social housing” for those evicted even from our state or “social housing” providers? At least they would show initiative, much promoted by this government.
-
"And yes, we won too. Public Address was named Best Blog Site. That’s the whole site, not just me: and that means all our bloggers, our developers CactusLab and you, the readers and commenters. Lord knows some of you try my patience at times, but I learn something from you every day."
I do not follow awards events and hence have just taken note of this. Congratulations to Russell and all others involved with this site.
On and off I have come here to read, and at times comment, trying to regain some sanity in the overly commercialised, often rather depressing present day mainstream media and some of the not always friendly blog-sphere.
This is encouraging and good news to hear.
-
"I ended up providing lots of printouts and photocopies and at the time of writing it remains unresolved. All this will, eventually, make a difference of about $5 a week to him. This system thrives on distrust, is cumbersome, punitive and bureaucratic."
And also:
"Poverty and hopelessness are the only constant for many beneficiaries and disabled people."Oh this sounds soooo familiar. It is my view that it is poverty that is most incapacitating, not simply being on benefit support, as MSD’s Principal Health Advisor likes to make us believe. If that what he and other ideologues argue was true, all those on retirement income would also have endless health issues, being on the pension, would they not? But with them it is attributed to old age, not to being on the pension, if they have health issues.
Poverty affects the mind, it creates a mental state of feeling deficient, feeling mistrusted, of feeling like a failure, and the system as it is forces people to collect all receipts, to avoid doing or saying things that other people (working and “contributing” and thus valued) may interpret as seeking excuses for not being able to do what others can do.
Poverty breeds a poverty shaped mind-set, and that state of mind perpetuates poverty, and that is why we have the generational problem of people on welfare. Some will try to find relief by seeking escape into perhaps alcohol, tobacco, drugs, indulging in cheap sweet and junk food, to get a “fix”.
Some will not cope and will break down, perhaps commit petty crime, or lose control and get violent, abusive.
With a punitive system as we have it, there will be little change, they can bring in all the drug testing, sanctions, draconian measures, force addicts to be referred to mandatory assessments and treatments (as they seem to be planning) and so forth. That is all force, pressure and is not likely to bring all that much of better social outcomes.
So a UBI is what I also support, but with the overly divided society we now have, it is very, very difficult to bring in.
Much work is needed to create a system that can convince the doubters out there. Let us hope Labour and Greens will do some more work on this kind of policy.
-
Hard News: Crowded houses, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
Maybe Danielle Bergin lacks the “tertiary educated” credentials, a commerce degree, or at least a BA with some social science qualifications, to be taken seriously enough by the establishment. I notice this all the time, the government and its ministries and agencies are staffed with the “studied” ones, the “experts” who live on another level of “awareness” and “up there” in society, any person coming to talk with them, must be able to show some similar “value” or is simply ignored or treated with a kind of condescending attitude.
As all that counts is now run along business lines, so she had this uphill struggle, no matter how much experience she had in her own life and working at the coal face of things.
The coal face is rarely seen by those who make the big decisions. Even ones that may once have been there, see a Ms Bennett from “the West”, once they join the upper ranks, they forget where they came from.
The world is simply a nasty place, it seems, that is if you come from the bottom and try to fight for those at the bottom. That may also be why Sue Bradford finally gave up fighting for changes through the parliamentary system.
-
Polity: Decrypting “social investment”, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Yes, David Parker deserves some respect, he has indeed done some good and hard work. Sadly, as David Cunliffe chose him as a kind of deputy opposition leader, he was after the last disastrous election result sent further down the ranks.
He seems to be working his way back up though, and Labour could indeed do with a few more of such dedicated MPs that also have potential.
Some of the self mutilation that Labour has engaged in over recent years can though also be blamed on a rather one sided media, giving Key a prolonged honeymoon and now an almost royal treatment, that is for most the time. Only very recently has he got some scratches on his teflon coating, which start to show.
Anything coming from Labour is already looked at very critically, before examining the details, so negative is the impression many have.
To really make a difference Labour needs to be bold and decisive, have a plan, but every year we hear the same, let us wait until before the next election, which will leave too little time to set the tone for anything new they may come up with. That is a disastrous strategy in my view.