Posts by Sacha
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Che Tibby,
not sure that the HRC will be kicking up a fuss
Bit unfair. He's only involved once it gets to the stage that Hilary mentioned of taking a case. Commissioners have already come out in media against this latest development.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Hilary Stace,
ust as it was overlooked in the Welfare Working Group's work
Worse, having a rehab specialist on the committee made sure the only focus was getting people *back* to work after an accident, not into a job if they never had one.
Disability organisations somehow completely failed to see that coming and work together to counter it. Until the quality of community advocacy improves enormously, we will continue to be weak targets for bullies of all stripes.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
unless somehow The Greens can convince my father-in-law that they won't behave like a bunch of loonies
Get him to watch Russel Norman on Q&A yesterday talking economics with style and force of logic. Nothing scary at all. Guy even wears a suit.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Think about that when you call Mr Key or Mr Shearer "nice men". That isn't how "nice men" actually behave.
Snap. And they wonder why people vote for other parties.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Tze Ming Mok,
I'm appalled by the sheer childish shittiness of this response to a decade of hard-fought court cases. Oh how their mothers must be proud of these cabinet Ministers for stealing the lunch of the slow kid in the payground. What character.
Let's vote for good people instead, shall we. And demand they show some resolve about abuses like this in the meantime. This law should not stand.
-
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to Hilary Stace,
years of collective effort
always
-
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to Hilary Stace,
And the penny-pinching is despicable. Ryall repeats his mantra that the only human rights that count are ones we can 'afford' to pay for.
Mr Ryall stressed that the costs of the law change had to be manageable in tough economic times.
...Officials reported that if all carers for adults with high or very high needs were paid - including spouses and parents of disabled children - the cost to Government would increase to $40 million. Payments were also limited to adults who were assessed as having high or very high needs.
There were estimated to be around 5,600 disabled adults being cared for by family members, 1,600 of whom were assessed as having high needs.
If payments were extended to all carers and all disabled adults - not just high needs - the cost to the Government would jump to $65 million.
Recall the Minister bleating about this costing half a billion dollars when he was rebuffed in court for the third time. After over a year of negotiation, he delivers this insult. Says a lot about his character, and those who support him.
-
OnPoint: Budget 2013: Bringing Down the…, in reply to "chris",
I slipped on some Whaleoil
apparently the vomit is valuable
-
OnPoint: Budget 2013: Bringing Down the…, in reply to BenWilson,
I want to know how brokers could possibly 'earn' $50-100m for selling off an electricity company?
-
Hard News: Competing for Auckland, in reply to Russell Brown,
the anti-Brown strategy for the municipal elections
Why bother standing candidates when you can just get your mates in govt and media to move the goalposts?