but isn’t $65 million a very small amount as far as budgets go?
Yes but ... that calculation assumes they are able to pay minimum wage. Since professional caregivers are paid more than minimum wage then again the govt could have been challenged to force them to pay the same rate as professional care givers.
This way they can't be challenged on any grounds or forced to pay anything.
some of his attitudes are “of his age” but otherwise reasonable.
As in the ‘bring back Rob Muldoon’ age?
No. More along the lines of views I would describe as racist, yet he does not consider himself racist and when challenged he is willing to change his views but his defaults are defined by the era in which he grew up.
Draft Unitary Plan
It's a plan and it's going out for open, wide consultation. That it has problems is what is expected - that is the point of consultation - to identify problems that can then be fixed in the final plan.
I do understand your confusion however, since most organisations seem to believe consultation is a formality where you pretend to accept input on a decision you've already made.
We still get an election 18 months.
And if my father-in-law is any indication that won't help. My father-in-law is a nice reasonable sensible man, some of his attitudes are "of his age" but otherwise reasonable. And he won't vote Labour because of The Greens. In short he will support this bunch of selfish arrogant thieves because he thinks The Greens are too loony.
So no, this kind of disgusting self serving theft of the human rights of those caring for disabled will continue after the next election unless somehow The Greens can convince my father-in-law that they won't behave like a bunch of loonies.
And Tze Ming is dead right, this abuse of those who care for their disabled children ... yeah that's right we are talking about men and women who give up everything to care for their child rather than just dumping them into state care ... those people who deserve the greatest possible support are going to be fucked over by both Labour and The National parties. Neither party really care about the "rule of law" let alone human rights.
Think about that when you call Mr Key or Mr Shearer "nice men". That isn't how "nice men" actually behave.
On a large scale convention centre
I don't think many people would disagree that a convention centre would probably be of benefit to NZ and Auckland in particular. It's possible to stuff it up and it's also worth noting that NZ is a long way from the rest of the world so the success of a convention centre in say Prague does not necessarily equate to success in NZ.
The problem is how this government has chosen to fund the construction. First is the issue of how the deal was struck with Sky city - essentially one bidder for the contract was given significant assistance by the government to present a successful bid. And second the trade off between funding from Sky city and permission to install more pokie machines from our representatives in parliament who are meant to be acting for the benefit of all NZers.
So I have two problems with the deal, first was it the only deal that could have been made? And second I disagree that trading pokie machines that harm society is balanced by the good of having a convention centre.
The first problem is a matter of due process which appears to have been abandonned in this deal.
The second is about personal priorities and in this case I know the National government is not representing my priorities (colour me surprised).
So yeah build a convention centre. Get sponsorship from some hotel. Fund some of it from tax dollars (yes I'll pay more taxes to do that).
the extent of problem gambling
You're right there is a long history of gambling in NZ. I paid for my degrees by working at the races selling tickets to punters. But there appears to be a specific problem with pokie machines. They have been designed specifically to stimulate and reward long term play. There have been studies showing dopamine changes in people sitting at pokie machines. It seems pokie machines in particular have been designed to be addictive and unlike many other forms of gambling there is no time limit. So when I was selling tickets at the races you could see some of the folks couldn't help themselves, but they also had to stop after the last race, with pokie machines that isn't true. So yes there is a qualitative difference that make pokie machines worse for the people susceptable to that kind of addiction.
There is an idea lurking in the back of my brain that won't form properly ...
Is an event like 9/11 more thanjust the event itself? Does it eventually become embedded in all the representations of the event as well? So instead of being just one point in time it becomes a continuing instance shaped by all the representations of it that people continue to create?
the casual dehumanisation on display
But isn't that itself a human response?
And I don't see it a dehumanising. Those depictions (except for the shirt) are people expressing a connection with the event. There are many many careful sensitive empathetic rememberances of 9/11, shouldn't there also be some crass tasteless unsubtle ones as well.
Can you, or should you, try and maintain the ongoing sense of horror? For some people that ongoing sense of horror will never fade. For some people there is political capital to be made by maintaining that sense of horror. But for most people it is now history.
I just don't see anything wrong with presenting that history in diverse even wierd ways. And yes even humour is fine. If anything treating it as something that can never be considered with any lightness at all is less than healthy.
Ministers can’t legally just tell it what to do.