Posts by Angela Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The data is available for download on the Ministry's site now http://www.health.govt.nz/publication/demographic-information-clients-using-ministry-healths-disability-support-services
-
Access: Some aspects of New Zealand’s…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
Go Ruth Dyson! Sounds like progress.
-
Access: Some aspects of New Zealand’s…, in reply to Sacha,
Which means that the Ministry made at least two assertions in its written reply to me which were factually incorrect 1) that the requested information was held by the NASCs alone and 2) that the NASCs are not subject to the IOA for this information. How do you trust a Ministry which responds with blatant lies?
Why would we be so suspicious?
Perhaps the Ministry's minions make us so with their antics.
-
I wonder how secure it actually is.
-
Access: Some aspects of New Zealand’s…, in reply to Sacha,
Of course they know, but they don't want the information made public under any conditions but their own, and all the power is in their grubby little hands. The Ombudsman does agree but has to go through a lengthy process which may or may not yield a useful result.
-
Access: Some aspects of New Zealand’s…, in reply to Sacha,
True, but the Ministry's response to my OIA request for data that must be on Socrates was that the data was held by the NASC and that the NASC was not subject to the OIA at all- not even in its capacity as a contractor to the Ministry.
-
Access: Some aspects of New Zealand’s…, in reply to Hilary Stace,
I remember when SOCRATES was established at huge expense several years ago. It was sold to the sector as something to provide incredibly useful information for the public, and government departments. I expected regular updates of who where why when was accessing support from the Ministry's Disability Support Services. Unfortunately, it has all been top secret since.
Yes, this behaviour does a great deal to enhance suspicion and reduce trust.
Bill English says thatJohn Key runs a very transparent, open government.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11366368
but the evidence shows the contrary is closer to truth. For an individual member of the public to access useful information from Socrates or the NASCs is extremely difficult. My complaint to the Ombudsman regarding the Ministry's claim that NASCs are not subject to the OIA has not yet reached fruition, but can't be too far from it. -
Here's a media release stating that the Ministry of Health has released data on the people using disability support services:
http://www.voxy.co.nz/health/disability-support-services-data-released/5/219058When I went looking for this just now, I couldn't find it, but perhaps it will appear eventually.
-
Isn't it about showing "we're doing something good" at the lowest cost by running small scale "pilot" schemes for as long as possible without actually committing to doing anything at all at full scale. These pilots, with their obvious benefits, are put forward as if universal access to them is around the corner. It isn't. As Sacha has pointed out before, we already know what changes are likely to work. What is required is the will to make them. We are 24% but we are diverse. We all have votes.
-
Advertisers- ratings, is this really about them? One problem is that no-one seems to question the validity of our TV viewer ratings. Nielsons site says they installed about 900 people meters beginning in 1990. It doesn't say where they are, how widespread around the country, whether any effort has been made to ensure a cross section of New Zealanders are sampled for their TV habits. 900 people meters in Mount Eden would certainly offer different ratings results from 900 people meters in Otara. I guarantee you they are not in Otara. Do advertisers really take much notice of ratings or are they more concerned with the effect of their ads on their sales?
This isn't about ratings. But if it was I couldn't accept the statement that seven sharp has more viewers. Unbelievable!