My experience of the tenancy tribunal was shocking. It was pro-landlord to a disgusting degree. They acknowledged an agent had lied and left me out of pocket, dismissed my case. When I appealed, guess who heard the appeal? The same guy who made the original decision. These people are a joke.
Facebook, being what it is, I couldn't find your thread.
And I found out this yesterday. Whois search of NZDSN finds the charity Spectrum Care (they run Homes of Choice). A quick glance at the compulsory Related Parties disclosures of Spectrum Care accounts on the Charities website shows their 7 General Mangers get paid an average of $165,525 per year. My guess is that the top bod would get more. Some Trustees also have cross memberships on different charities. I didn't find out their fees.
Serious question, are they yet another bloated "philanthropy" organisation in the disability sector? Given what we've learned about Plunket in the last couple of days, this needs examining.
You misunderstand MMP. Winston merely gets media attention and this silly line that he holds "balance of power" because he doesn't announce intentions until after everyone else. Greens also have "balance of power" if you want to run that line.
NZF "had enough" rant now removed from youtube. Link?
Not happy with this ad.
I'm shocked at how easy the media is going on #PetersPension. He's admitted he paid it back with interest and penalties. Why would a lawyer pay penalties unless they were part of a settlement deal? I assume MSD decided evidentiary burden of proof in court may not have supported guilty verdict on fraud due to undisclosed nature of "mistake" on the application. And why apparently did Peters not get or respond to annual MSD letter to confirm eligibility details? Yes Dirty Politics is playing a role but that's an entirely separate issue. Personally on the balance of probabilities I'd plump for guilty. His attempted revival of the right to assault children is particularly disgusting.
Good point. I think it's amazing that parents with Hearing Privilege make their kids spend literally years of time in a Cochlear Implant Program (CIP) but won't bother to spend a bit of time learning NZSL.
This is a great article. I'd like to take the discussion a step further about the damage hearing privilege is doing to innocent children.
Hearing privilege is leaving up to 50-60 Deaf children per year in NZ without a language. Why? Because parents of Deaf kids are being told they can make their kids hearing with a Cochlear Implant Program (CIP). 90% of Deaf kids are born to hearing parents who often suffer grief and shock to learn their kids are deaf.
They turn to the medical profession and the Ministry of Health, not to the Deaf community, for advice. The advice is to begin a CIP and avoid New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL). Unfortunately this advice is wrong. It has not kept up with the latest science which is to teach a child NZSL before beginning a CIP. That science is available here: http://www.deafchildren.org.nz/assets/Resources/Hearing-Communication/Language-Choices-for-Deaf-Infants.pdf
The false claim is that bilingualism (English via CIP and NZSL) will reduce a Deaf child's chance to learn English.
The sad fact of the matter is that one third of Deaf kids on a CIP do not do well on the program. They are left without a language or, in the jargon, Permanently Language Deprived (PLD). I've met young Deaf PLD kids - it is a very sad thing. It's also an abuse of the Deaf kids human rights. Now that's how damaging hearing privilege can be to innocent kids.
NZ has been very slow to address this. California, for example, has a law, SB 210, that requires parents to enrol their Deaf kids in Sign Language classes if the kids are not meeting their language benchmarks.
It's really time that NZ faced the destruction being wrought on Deaf people by hearing privilege.
Thanks Rosemary. Great article. "successfully applied for a Suspension Order under s 92O (2) (d) of the Human Rights Act." Applied to Minister? Can you tell us more about why Ruth Dyson's attempts failed?
The International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000 (NZ)
Article 29—Non-applicability of statute of limitations
The crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court shall not be subject to any statute of limitations.
I couldn't find authority on our military police being subject to any statute of limitations. Limitation Act 2010 doesn't mention police, military or war.
BTW some of the language in the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000 is a bit wishy washy - qualified by words grave, serious, etc, presumably so that acts against the law which aren't grave or serious etc are not caught.
A war crime includes "Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;" - nothing there to excuse "Oh sorry, our intel was wrong."
A war crime includes "Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives." That might cover setting fire to Naimatullah's room with his Quran and holy books (page68-69 #HitandRunNZ)