full fathom five thy sofa lies
By "ring-fenced" I take it you mean capped - which in practical terms means without sufficient funding to meet need. ORRS is a classic example.
It has distorted what the government agencies focus their energies on too - saying no rather than yes.
Ratings are a myth we all believe in
Could that mutual suspension of disbelief be clouding media buyers' perceptions of the (more accurate) web ratings and hence contribute to the low uptake of online advertising?
The Herald story about one of the families at the centre of the Tribunal case is worth a read (despite reflecting the media's usual cringeworthy assumptions about normality and "burden"). Paints a picture of the personal side of this situation and also adds details about the legal/political process from here:
The Government contends the floodgates would open if the families won, with financial implications running to hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Tribunal, however, agreed with the Office of Human Rights Proceedings, which fought the case on behalf of the families, that the cost was likely to be $32 million to $64 million. Its decision found that the policy infringed the Human Rights Act and the Bill of Rights Act.
Office of Human Rights Proceedings director Robert Hesketh says the Government has announced an appeal too soon, with a second finding due from the Tribunal.
The second part awaits the outcome of a yet to be scheduled remedies hearing, which could include rulings on back pay, guaranteed future earnings or damages for emotional harm as a result of the unlawful policy.
"We're going to be asking the Tribunal to urgently convene the remedies hearing and we're going to be asking the High Court to either dismiss the appeal either way, or alternatively defer the appeal until the remedies part of the case before the Tribunal has been dealt with."
He fears "legal jousting" over the case could go on for years, travelling through the High Court and, depending on the outcome, going on to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
Oh, and MadTV seem to have got there first - including colourful advert ripoff from about 1 minute mark.
300,000 do not qualify for the level of support the plaintiffs are talking about. The total numbers are way less than that. And less than 300 were granted that support already.
The tribunal is part of our legal system and their judgement canvasses relevant aspects of law.
I'm not sure why Philip chose to offer an ACC example.
Philip, snap, as in you had already made the same points while I was busy writing my comment. Serendipity.
Thanks for posting, Philip.
I'm struck that ACC manages to successfully fund families in exactly the same situation, as do other countries. Our Ministry of Health refuses, but may pay for someone from outside the family to do the same job. That's the discrimination that the Tribunal has found to be unjustifiable.
When that bus hits, it is ACC who you'd turn to - and as we know the elephant in the room for the last couple of decades is the vastly unfair discrepancy in service levels depending on how you come to be disabled. Those not eligible for ACC receive a patchwork of meagre benefits and rationed services.
However, there is no reasonable policy justification for the Ministry's stance and their arguments were dismissed comprehensively by the Tribunal. The full judgement is eminently readable.
Current assessment systems already ration support, so the talk of a big blowout is a red herring. Eligible families are few - we are talking round the clock support every day and people who have ruled out other options like poorly-paid and high-turnover support workers coming into their homes or insititutionalisation (and there are hundreds of young adults languishing in old aged rest homes in this country). No one is talking about extending this to childcare or short-term injuries - except those who oppose it.
Ministry of Health staff seem to fear that they are not up to managing the associated issues around quality and dependency. Given past performance, that might be justified but the solution is to put a rocket up them, not further penalise citizens who deserve support.
The Ministry's action in seeking another 12 month delay after appeals are heard before they would be required to change anything is also despicable given that the underlying policy work has already been done several years ago - and the Tribunal judgement refers to some of it. The case has also been going on so long it's not as if anyone can claim they didn't know there was a problem.
Governments of all stripes have simply not had the gumption and willpower to bite the bullet on this and we are wasting many people's lives as a result. Demographic changes and increasing assertiveness will take that out of the hands of politicians and public servants if they don't get off their chuffs now, and they won't be thought of highly for their craven dereliction of duty.
Oh, and snap