Posts by Hilary Stace
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The reason for this anomaly whereby only blind people had non-means tested benefits is historical. I think (not entirely sure about the details) that is goes back to the first world war and Clutha McKenzie. He was the son of a cabinet minister and lost his sight at Gallipoli. Back in NZ he became an MP and built up the Blind Foundation and got pensions for blind people. So when the 1st Labour government came along and started providing disability benefits, the blind activists wanted to keep the advantage they already had, so while other benefits were means tested, theirs weren't. Although it was apparently only for blind men, not women. So a sighted woman could marry a blind man and get a full benefit, but not the other way around.
Someone will challenge this history/interpretation if it is not correct.
For some reason Finlayson has come across this now and is removing the blind privilege. There will be fight.
It would be better to remove the distinction between MoH and ACC funding and bring in a UBI which is topped up by need (and no means testing) eg for equipment, house modifications, vehicles, transport, educational support etc.
-
World Autism Day webcast from the United Nations. We have come a long way since Marion's first battles in the 1960s.
http://webtv.un.org/watch/2016-world-autism-awareness-day-autism-and-the-2030-agenda-inclusion-and-neurodiversity/4827029893001#full-text -
Polity: Eleventy billion dollars!, in reply to Matthew Hooton,
There is a trial in India financed by Unicef. Only those there at the beginning get the UBI. If you move into the area you don't. There are other trials in other countries. He says trials are the way to start.
It is apparently all in Guy Standing's latest book (about to come out) and the presentation he gave to the Fabians in Wellington last week is going to be posted on the Fabians website eventually. He answered all the questions raised on this thread and many more in a fascinating lecture to a packed hall. People are really receptive to this idea.
-
It can be universal - for every adult and child - but could start at a small amount and develop incrementally. There could be a top up for need (eg for current beneficiaries), but that would be on need, not means tested. Financed by taxes on capital, like the death duties we no longer have, and removing the current subsidies we give to property owners to rent to beneficiaries. And not 'plundering the commons' as Guy Standing says - so keeping assets and their revenue streams. Guy Standing said that in their pilots even knowing that everyone is getting the same something helps build community and people are prepared to put a little into a communal pot to develop facilities.
So start small, universal and pilot through a randomised control trial (eg in two similar towns one with UBI and one without), and then develop incrementally. Why not in NZ? They are doing it in other countries.
-
Thanks Jason. It is often easy to overlook the work of those who have helped ease the way for those who follow. In the disability world, they are usually quite self-effacing and not into self-promotion. We are also hopeless at recognising and recording our history.
-
Polity: Let the big lies flow, in reply to Emma Hart,
Just been to hear Guy Standing who gave examples of pilots of UBI - some in India. Says it can be small and incremental to start with. Just the idea that everyone is getting the same means that people start working and acting in a more community minded way. It is all about social justice. People need a bit of security to start with, then they can make decisions about their lives and communities. It also has to go to everyone at the same rate including children.
He also said easy to pay for by getting rid of subsidies by which he means tax credits, and things like state payments to landlords to rent out their properties. Also building up funds through returns from investments in public assets (eg Norway has huge funds from years of state owned oil exploration). Also NZ needs to tax capital on death, which we removed several years ago.
Start small and top up by need (not means testing). That would help current beneficiaries.
-
We have such a strange range of ages when children become adults in NZ. Every government department or agency seems to have a different one. This seems an urgent area for some serious policy work and while we are at it, lower the voting age.
-
There are groups of young people who have always wanted the vote. Been to a liberal secondary school lately? Perhaps you are just not looking in the right places. Go along to the handing over of the clean water petition to parliament today at 1 pm. I'm sure there will be teenagers there keen to vote.
I have fought for the right to vote since I was about 11 and went to my first protest (with my friend who is now a Green MP). I was not alone. Those were the days when the voting age was 21 yet 18 year olds could be conscripted into Compulsory Military Service. Lowering the voting age was a significant platform of the Kirk government's win. Even older people saw the need. We just had to demand it and eventually 18 became the norm.
As will a voting age of 12, eventually.
Today's kids are wise and they know they need to act to save their future. Voting is just one way.
-
Polity: Home-spun non-truths, in reply to Marc C,
Guy Standing is speaking in Wellington next week, so will likely comment on it.
-
Grant Robertson has been very astute in floating this idea. You can be sure he has discussed it with lots of people and groups with varying levels of expertise, and built a lot of respectful relationships on the way. Everyone seems to be talking about it now and mostly in a tentatively positive way. The most negative comments that I have seen (on Facebook etc) have come from current beneficiaries worried that their limited incomes will shrink even further, which is not the intention.