Posts by Angela Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Sacha,
What sort of informatioon were you asking for?
"all information held by the NASCs in their capacity as contractors to the Ministry of Health, relating to the implementation and operation of Funded Family Care. This includes any material generated by the NASCs for their own use in assessing and implementing Funded Family care."
I've made a number of requests relating to FFC and been fobbed off with most of them. The guidelines to the NASCs are most interesting for what they do not say.
-
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Idiot Savant,
You are absolutely correct but the MOH claims that the contractor clause (which I quoted in my OIA request) does not apply to the NASCs.
I quote from Mr Hundleby's letter:
"The Ombudsman's reference to section 2(5) of the Act is correct for independent self-employed contractors to the Ministry who are considered in a similar position to an employee; information they hold is deemed to be held by the Ministry. However NASCs are independent organizations delivering services to members of the public and while the Ministry commission's [sic] services from NASCs, they are not considered as independent contractors to the Ministry for the purposes of the Official Information Act. "
 -
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Marc C,
How do we know it is in the public interest, or not so? Lack of transparency and secrecy do not serve the interests of the public, as this is in an area of policy,
So true, and under this Government we are also unable to access information from the NASCs (Needs Assessment and Service Co-ordination agencies) contracted by MOH to ensure disability support services go where they are needed. According to the MOH the NASCs are community groups and not covered by the OIA. I have a complaint with the Ombudsman's office on this - but they are snowed under.
There is a pattern of spin combined with implementation of what is essentially secret policy, and it is not confined to the MSD. NZ and AI combine in a single unacceptable word, where is our country headed? -
Access: Disability abuse: it’s not OK, in reply to Sacha,
From the Glenn Report
"There is still a need for further work to better understand, for example, the experiences and realities of those affected by child abuse and domestic violence who also have disabilities, are Pacific or Asian, are associated with gangs, or are in same-sex relationships."
2.3% of contributors who were affected by child abuse and/or domestic violence identify as having a disability. That's got to be more to do with the accessibility of the report production process than with the actual incidence given the current estimate that a quarter of the population have some sort of impairment. -
Access: Disability abuse: it’s not OK, in reply to Sacha,
me too, but no doubt that will be after the election.
-
I think it says a lot about our Government that we have laws which require processes which are concealed/unclear and which if one manages to find out how to proceed, persists and follows up even when the time frame has been such that the immediate impetus has been lost, can still result in a refusal without need of explanation or justification. Graeme was fortunate to be able to go higher and to get a more rational response, but what does it say about New Zealand that these lengths are necessary to comply with the law?
-
Jai is a man of many talents, we missed him from our wheelchair rugby training sessions and wondered why he was going to Singapore. Now we know! Well done !
-
Access: Disability abuse: it’s not OK, in reply to Sacha,
Yes, there was a lot of disinformation on projected numbers. The obvious way to assess the potential numbers was/is to use the MSD's Supported Living Payment numbers for caregivers and take out the spouses. There may be others who wish to shift from IF or residential services, but those would usually be cost savings.
I'll be interested to read your analysis of the data published so far. I couldn't see any dates given for the rest of it. -
Access: Disability abuse: it’s not OK, in reply to Hilary Stace,
aaah! He would've known the existing liability and that in the narrow, bent and dented FFC pipe so must've been interested in the results from Q3.
"To what extent are the needs of disabled people currently being met? What level and type of support do they need to perform everyday activities?" and Q5.
"Who are the main carers of disabled people and what types of support do they need?" The public doesn't have that data yet as fas as I can see.
There was a minor (unannounced) change to the FFC policy in April, perhaps there will be more.I believe that obliging some disabled people and their families to exist on bare bones income is a form of financial abuse, and the continual stress it puts on people is a potential trigger for other forms of abuse. For instance the MSD Supported Living Payment for a married couple is $217.75 for each person, (plus disability allowance to cover proven ongoing costs for the disabled partner). By comparison the equivalent payment on National Super is $282.26 per person. http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/individuals/brochures/benefit-rates-april-2014.html#SupportedLivingPayment6
If you have a permanent condition which not only prevents you from working but also makes you dependent on a carer, should you not be permitted a decent standard of living? If you and your spouse prefer to care for each other, you must be able to survive on $217.75 apiece. Moreover, if your spouse is able to earn income in addition to the caregiving role, that will impact on your SLA. You are both in a poverty trap. -
Access: Disability abuse: it’s not OK, in reply to Sacha,
In March 2014, we received a special and urgent data request from the Ministry of Health for embargoed provisional data from the 2013 Disability Survey. The data required was to inform their minister on policy-cost estimates for funded family care of disabled people.
Which is really, really odd because the FFC policy was already in place, technically from October 2013 although very few got funded before Christmas 2013 and there are still only a 100 or so across the country. So why would Mr Ryall want more data in March 2014 and what could possibly make the requirement so urgent?