Thanks Kyle, greatly appreciated.
I work in an addictions organisation, and contrary to ACT's statement, I know that the clients we work with value the free services they receive very much. I'm heartened by the promises of support and of increasing both the level and quality of service across the sector.
Just a minor note, I'd make clear above that AOD is a term which refers to "alcohol and other drugs".
I'm going to suggest that National are in fact Steinlager Pure. A modern refresh of a long in the tooth classic created to appeal to the common person with aspirations of success. Sponsoring the All Blacks and Team New Zealand, this is the national beer, a drink for people who think New Zealand leads the world. What was once bland and uninteresting has been stripped down to a single element mixed with water, and marketed as heavily as can be. Pure in name only.
Bart, the policy (with PDF) is available here. I'm afraid I won't do justice to it!
From my perspective too much of science funding has the fingerprints of politicians all over it. Usually the motivation is that politicians believe they can “pick winners”. Sadly that motivation is unsupported by any evidence, historical or otherwise.
I was at a business breakfast recently where Norman emphasised the difference between an across the board increase in claimable R&D as opposed to the current practice of subsidising chosen businesses and industries. The Marsden Fund would be left alone for the moment, in order not to introduce greater disruption, but would not be the focus of investment.
I am a Green supporter and quite an active active one (I'd encourage anyone who wants to make change in NZ to volunteer for a political party in the next few weeks).
So I'm not exactly neutral right now. Nevertheless, I think an interesting area of questioning would be around attitudes to science, particularly as it relates to their current focus on economic transformation and "innovation". There are some challenges to be dealt with, particularly as part of a government.
" @bryceedwards Cathy Odgers voluntarily pulled out of doing Herald columns, on Sunday. Wasn't pushed. She just contacted me with emails that back this up."
So, it looks like a mildly dirty mess which became a much dirtier mess when the curtain was drawn back.
My discussion with people in politics (I’m not talking Mathers, in this context) is that though a strong willingness to engage with disability in all its forms, there has been a difficulty presented by the lack of a unitary voice, and the differing agendas and multiple issue-champions across disability sectors (sight, hearing, physical, mental, and other). If they were able to work together, we would see a stronger political voice, and a stronger set of outcomes across all disabilities.
When politicians and public servants can only take up a small number of things at once, they’re forced to choose those which are both highly important and clearly achievable. And which have a loud voice behind them. Which is kind of what Sacha was saying above.
We will also introduce quotas for audio-description and New Zealand
Sign Language content.
Isn't this (pdf) the referral you are asking for?
That isn't a cop out. It states a strong commitment, in the context of the policy. The blind community should work with the Greens and other parties to flesh out those timelines and commitments.
To answer your questions: No, they do not do basic research.
They came from Overseas with millions in cash, leaving many with little but the shoes on their feet. They persuaded and cajoled and sought attention from serious players, from media, from the people, from the police.
Using their influence they gained political power in an attempt to rule a small South Seas Country. One a German entrepreneur, the other a Jewish Banker. Who could have thought they would become enemies?
Take your racism somewhere else.