Access by Various artists

Read Post

Access: Social media, disability activism and community inclusion

169 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

  • Hilary Stace,

    Please apply. Just to show there is interest. And of course you would be a great representative.

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3196 posts Report Reply

  • Angela Hart,

    Not a real possibility due to being one of an almost Siamese pair, although we would be jointly terrific reps!

    Christchurch • Since Apr 2014 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    And of course you would be a great representative.

    Yes...if Angela and her Twin meet the very strict criteria...

    The Reference Group will be made up of approximately 10 – 12 members including representatives from government agencies and Disabled People’s Organisations.

    The members of the Reference Group will collectively bring the following skills and attributes:

    Significant experience working within and across the disability sector
    Expertise in building connections between the government and the community sector
    Experience in providing high-level advice to cross-government and cross-sector initiatives
    Being skilled in collaborative approaches that achieve positive change
    People who can provide input and advice from the perspective of Māori, Pasifika, older people, young people, families and service providers.
    Preference will be given to members who have a lived experience of disability so that the majority of members will be disabled people themselves.

    I'm not sure if they're looking for ordinary everyday disabled people doing daily battle with the system....

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1344 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald,

    Natrad/ Radio New Zealand/RNZ......is moving...

    ...to a new way of reporting on disability issues. In the New Year we'll be mainstreaming our disability coverage, to bring stories to a wider audience across both our radio and digital platforms. You'll see more of our disability stories here and hear them on Spectrum, New Zealand Society and within our award-winning News programmes, Checkpoint and Morning Report. We still want you to get in touch to share your stories and tell us the kind of issues you want to see examined. You can email us at our new, dedicated address: disability@radionz.co.nz

    One on Five has tended to do the happy clappy inspiration disability stuff...but some programmes have been well worth a listen to.

    We do make a point of tuning in on a Sunday evening...

    But, no more.

    I'm not sure that disability issues are going to be able to compete in the 'mainstream'.

    Unless Natrad sets a minimum quota of at least 1/2 an hour per week...?

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1344 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald,

    But wait! There's more!

    With mental health issues now firmly under the heading of 'disability' I guess this...

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/75161125/governments-dogged-determination-to-deny-mental-health-problem-in-canterbury

    ...should be here.

    The Misery of Health strikes again with its determination that there are no significant mental health issues arising from the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquakes.

    Despite

    Canterbury police district commander Superintendent John Price said "calls for service" relating to attempted suicides had steadily increased since 2011.

    By 2015, the number had risen almost 100 per cent, and was likely the highest in New Zealand.

    No surprises here...

    Canterbury Hospitals Medical Staff Association chair Ruth Spearing wrote to Health Minister Jonathan Coleman in August, urging the government to "take our concerns very seriously".

    "We are acutely aware that trust is not something that is present in the Ministry of Health at present – indeed the concerning feedback from colleagues working in the Ministry is the very dysfunctional interactions within that organisation at many levels," she said.

    "At present, the ongoing time-consuming, negative interactions with the Ministry leaders is sapping the time and energy that we should be using to innovate and plan for best patient care."

    The temptation to do yet another angry rant about the Misery of Health is almost too much.

    I truly believe they top WINZ as the Government department most likely to kick you when you're down.

    Its almost as if they want the most vulnerable New Zealanders to be driven over the edge with despair.

    I say...Fight back, despite your pain and struggles. The Misery wants you to give up. DON'T. Live forever just to piss the Misery off.

    A Happier New Year to all those in Canterbury.

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1344 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald,

    Juliana Carvalho not wanted by New Zealand because she has a disability.

    Juliana was one of the few people who approached Peter and I as we held our wee protest against deaths of disabled people through neglect by providers at the 2014 Health and Disability Conference.

    We were pretty much shunned by the 'establishment' of government funded 'advocates', and her interest and support was much appreciated.

    Others reading this will no doubt know Juliana well, please let her know that she has support out here....and is their anything we can do to help.

    This government HATES disabled people.

    Kia kaha, Juliana.

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1344 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald,

    And, here's ....

    Another we don't like your kind around here story.

    An award-winning Auckland University mathematics professor will leave the country after his residency application was rejected because of his stepson's autism.

    Once I saw that Immigration New Zealand had decided it is above the UN convention of human rights, it is difficult for me to decide to raise my children here. For me the New Zealand story ends.

    The bold is mine.

    This is not the New Zealand that I want to live in either.

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1344 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    One NZ government agency sought to exempt itself from the UN Disability Convention. Culture still broken.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace,

    These are just two of numerous such stories. But the state's hatred and fear of disability goes back to the 1880s with Immigration Acts aimed at keeping out the Chinese and disabled people. The Chinese eventually got an official apology.
    http://publicaddress.net/access/some-aspects-of-new-zealands-disability-history/

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3196 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    But the state’s hatred and fear of disability

    And that's exactly it.

    It's not about the cost to the nation to provide supports to these less than perfect wannabe New Zealanders. If it were, then I can come up with about $50 million that the government has budgeted for disability supports through either the Miserly of Health or the Muddly of Education that has not been spent.

    Please don't make me put up a list of links...there's FFC...approx $36million underspend, then Special Ed underspend, and I'm quite happy for the $$$ the government has saved for Peter's supports for the past 17 years to be counted (about $1.1 million) to go into the pot....and that's just us.

    No...this government hates disabled people...simple as that.

    My dream?

    Thousands of disabled Kiwis assembled outside of Parliament...demanding that the Convention be ratified and NZBORA applies to all.

    Demanding...because asking respectfully has not worked.

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1344 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,

    No…this government hates disabled people…simple as that.

    Agreed
    This government hates a lot of people.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,

    No…this government hates disabled people…simple as that.

    Not just disabled but also... Beneficiaries, the homeless, the poor, the disenfranchised, protesters, in fact all that disagree with them.
    This is similar to so many cases where the government, through interference, uses the public service to do their dirty work and claim they cannot interfere.

    An hour after Rizalman was charged by police with burglary and assault to commit rape on May 10, 2014, an official in MFat's Protocol Division told Malaysian officials that Rizalman was due to appear in court on May 30.

    But then...

    The official's email said: "If he were to complete his posting prior to 30 May and return to Malaysia with his family, that would be the end of the matter."

    Muhammad Rizalman, was allowed to leave the country with diplomatic immunity by a public servant who was known to come down hard on such things...

    The protocol officer who sent the email resigned from MFat last year, but has picked up another Government job.

    In his report, Mr Whitehead said there was "definite evidence" that the protocol officer "clearly regarded the incident itself as a very serious matter".

    He said the staff member had a history of "zero tolerance for even minor misdemeanours by foreign diplomats, let alone for crimes at the more serious end".

    At the time of the incident, Prime Minister John Key criticised the MFat official.

    "If that person doesn't have clarity about that position then they need to think very strongly about whether they're in the right job," he said.

    It would be good to hear why they disliked this Maths Professor so much.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald, in reply to Steve Barnes,

    It would be good to hear why they disliked this Maths Professor so much.

    Hmmm...he could be standing in line to throw squeaky toys at the Prime Minister but that would probably not be grounds to deny residence. (unless of course he actually threw one and hit the mark:-))

    Having a disability in the family is a sure fire thing.

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1344 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,

    Having a disability in the family is a sure fire thing.

    Yeah, well, they are rather expensive to keep and wouldn't you rather have a TAX CUT?

    Its fiscal strategy, said Mr Key this week, "is to keep a tight rein on spending, focus on results from public services, start to pay down debt and look to return any excess revenue on top of this to taxpayers".

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Angela Hart,

    The Spencer case is in the High Court this week
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11589868

    Christchurch • Since Apr 2014 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • walrus,

    I'll just leave this here. My son’s autism meant he was refused New Zealand residency – so we’re leaving
    274 comments! Wonder how many of them are merely saying "pretty much everywhere else does this too"?

    Auckland • Since Jan 2015 • 13 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie, in reply to walrus,

    274 comments! Wonder how many of them are merely saying "pretty much everywhere else does this too"?

    It's hard to come away from that without the sense that there's at least one organised clobbering machine infesting the Guardian's comments these days. One commenter, GreenExerciseAddict, raised the disturbing memory of Shahraz Kiane, whose daughter was refused entry to Australia because she suffered from cerebral palsy. Kiane died after setting himself alight outside parliament in Canberra in May 2001.

    At the time it seemed yet another heartless excess from the Howard Government, which only three months later blatantly evaded its human rights responsibilities by denying the Tampa refugees entry to Australia. At the time of the Clark Government's intervention on the refugees' behalf it was still possible to believe that this country would never follow suit. Now, not so much.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4591 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Angela Hart,

    Lawyers lawyer the Spencer case:

    the ways that Ms Spencer's case differed from the original Atkinson decision, saying that claim had been about Disability Support Services while Ms Spencer's was more about residential care.
    ...

    The Crown also made mention of "natural support", an argument it ran in the Atkinson case which says that caring for a disabled family member is part of some unspoken social contract - a duty that families have - and in Ms Spencer's case, choose to have instead of sending Paul to a residential facility.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace, in reply to Sacha,

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11595008
    Could get your link to work - try this

    More great work by Kirsty Johnston too. Following and untangling and explaining the complex world of disability and care.

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3196 posts Report Reply

  • Angela Hart, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    More great work by Kirsty Johnston too.

    She's thorough and accurate, it is a good job.

    I don't understand why the system appears to allow the Crown to bring in irrelevant material, such as its fear that a case will open floodgates. Surely cases should be looking primarily at the complaints and the circumstances surrounding them.

    Legal arguments often seem a bit weird to me but surely the Crown's implication that providing residential institutions for people to be incarcerated and die in discharges its responsibility is outrageous.

    Christchurch • Since Apr 2014 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • Angela Hart,

    Attachment

    Community inclusion? Yeah right!. Not at the Trusts Arena in Henderson which routinely instructs Enviro Waste to place enormous rubbish skips in mobility parking spaces. This is the most recent offence, skips required for an event on the weekend. Obviously people with mobility issues are less important to the Trusts Arena than rubbish.

    Christchurch • Since Apr 2014 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • Moz,

    http://www.pwd.org.au/documents/pdf/ndis_citizensJuryScorecard.pdf

    Australia Citizen's Jury enquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scam run by People With Disabilities Australia. At its best the NDIS could get close to the ACC model, but in practice it seems to have all the paperwork but none of the funding. The report is interesting to read, and the process bears thinking about.

    Twelve Australians, including people with disability were randomly selected to serve as non-specialist jurors on this unique citizens’ jury. Representing a microcosm of the Australian public, they were charged with the role of determining to what extent the NDIS is ‘on track’ to achieve its stated vision and aspirations

    The conclusions are both positive and negative:

    It is evident that many of the participants we heard from are feelin g more included in their communities, and are participating more actively as a result of the NDIS. We heard evidence that participants are feeling more connected to their communities, and engaging in a wider range of activities.

    Sydney, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 1193 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace, in reply to Moz,

    Love the idea of Citizens' Juries. They have been used occasionally in NZ, mostly for ethical issues. But could be used more.

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3196 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    Following and untangling and explaining the complex world of disability and care.

    Time, perhaps, to go back to first principals?

    [13] In addition the Ministry relied on other matters to support the policy not to fund employment of family members, including:
    [a] Funding the employment of spouses, parents and resident family members would create perverse incentives to refuse to provide care or to under-acknowledge the care they are able to provide lest they forego an opportunity to be employed. It was pleaded that this may have serious cost implications for government;
    [b] That funding the employment of spouses, parents and resident family members is inconsistent with the current model of individual assessment aimed at government meeting a gap in natural supports. The Ministry argued that revision of the current model may be necessary;
    [c] The policy promotes equality of outcomes for disabled people;
    [d] The policy encourages the independence of diabled people;
    [e] The policy supports the development of family relationships in the same way as they develop for non-diabled people;
    [f] The policy avoids professionalising or commercialising family relationships;
    [g] The policy avoids the risk that families become financially reliant on the money and thereby discourage disabled family members from leaving;
    [h] The policy ensures that the Ministry keeps control of the services it funds and that publicly funded services meet quality standards and can be monitored;
    [i] The policy avoids unsustainable care burdens and distress and social isolation of family members undertaking extensive care; and
    [j] The policy is fiscally sustainable.

    Each argument of course unpicked and sent packing by the OHRP lawyers and ultimately the HRRT in their decision.

    Time, also, perhaps to remember the case that preceded "Atkinson", which maybe, since Spencer is focused on residential care, is more relevant.



    "The Hill Case"

    [65] The first time the policy to exclude the payment of family members was questioned at Ministry level, related to the findings in the “Hill case” (Hill v IHC NZ (Inc) [2001] 6 HRNZ 449). The Hill decision by the then Complaints Review Tribunal (CRT) in 2001 involved the parents of a man with physical and intellectual disabilities who applied to the IHC New Zealand Incorporated (“IHC”) to be caregivers for their son. The IHC informed the Hills that they could not be employed as their son’s caregivers because they were family members; his parents contended that in disallowing their application the IHC was in breach of the prohibition against family status discrimination in the Human Rights Act.

    [66] The IHC argued that they were carrying out a policy of the (then) HFA that disallowed payment to family members. The CRT found that in fact there was no explicit or implicit policy on behalf of government to do so and found that the policy was at the discretion of the IHC and was discriminatory.

    I have not been able to find a copy of the Hill decision from the then Complaints Review Tribunal (hint, hint, anyone?) but it is my understanding that the issue was about Contract Board arrangements favoured by IHC. Contract Board was described by the HRRT (Atkinson) as ...

    Contract Board: This is a service where an individual moves in with another family when the person no longer wants to, or is not able to continue living with their own family but still wish to have the sort of supports that the family environment can provide. The service is primarily for people with intellectual disability.

    After the Hill decision in 2001, when the policy was found to be discriminatory, IHC and the HFA were instructed (I'm told) to go and discriminate no more.

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1344 posts Report Reply

  • Rosemary McDonald, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,

    After the Hill decision in 2001, when the policy was found to be discriminatory, IHC and the HFA were instructed (I’m told) to go and discriminate no more.

    And (I appear to have bent the PA word limit for a single comment) it would appear that IHC did just that and allowed payments to family members on a scale that well exceeded the 272 'exceptions' that the HRRT (Atkinson) heard.

    After the nefarious Part4 amendment to the PHDAct was passed in 2013 Catherine Delahunty organised a meeting at the Beehive. A woman quietly came over to Peter and I and told us po a list she had seen of over a thousand names of family members being paid by IHC to provide care for their children. There was a column for 'reason' ( I suppose for the exception being made), and in most cases the 'reason' was 'cultural'.

    I know that many of the 'exceptions' to the original policy have persisted through the various hearings for Atkinson and Spencer....these resident family members have continued to be paid for providing disability supports (through IF or a Contracted Provider, but NOT through Funded Family Care).

    It is my understanding that as of the 31st March 2016, all of these arrangements will be terminated.

    This information was given to me by an acquaintance who has been paid as her husband's carer for over a decade.

    Waikato, or on the road • Since Apr 2014 • 1344 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.