Deaf MP

Forums › Off topic › Deaf MP

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#582254 16-Feb-2012 10:53

Who has to pay is simple. MP's are paid by Parliamentary Services. Parliamentary equipement and facilities are managed by Parliamentary Services and funded by the Consolidated fund under Vote Parliamentary services. Therefore Parliamentary Services should fund this.

nzlemming

79 posts

Master Geek

#582256 16-Feb-2012 10:55

networkn:

I was actually compiling a question around whether her existing duties required her to have one, and why she can't use that, and if she has been making do without till now, why not continue?

As I understand it, she was a researcher and adviser. That doesn't require realtime access to the debate. You can read uncorrected Hansard that night or pick it up a couple of days later. Speaking in the House, responding to questions, managing interjections - these things require instant access to what is being said.

Some backbench MPS who aren't deaf complain that they can't hear what is said over the noise at the moment. A text translation service would enable them to earn their taxpayer-funded salaries a bit better as well.

And with Farrar's and Slater's links to the National party, I'd be wary of quoting them and then claiming the Greens are just trying to politicise the situation. ;-)

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#582258 16-Feb-2012 10:56

NonprayingMantis:
networkn:
nate: My thoughts, blatantly ripped off from David Farrar and Cameron Slater:

kiwiblog: Finally i would also point out that there is no question of Mathers personally paying for the note-taking equipment. In fact the taxpayers, through Parliamentary Service, will be paying either way. The Greens receive a total of $5.64m funding over this parliamentary term to support their MPs, so this represents around 0.5% of their funding over the next three years.

and

whaleoil: Why are the Greens not telling anyone that she worked for 5 years as a senior policy advisor for The Greens?She was also a parliamentary advisor at one point.

That means she was well aware of the Parliamentary environment.

I wonder whether she or the Greens have previously paid for her to have an electronic note taker in that environment before?

I was actually compiling a question around whether her existing duties required her to have one, and why she can't use that, and if she has been making do without till now, why not continue?

I can't understand why the Greens haven't just written a cheque already.

Yeah, it does make me wonder. Say a new MP was elected who needed a wheelchair. There would be approximately a 100% chance that they would already have one, so would the taxpayer be expected to fork out for a new wheelchair? I doubt it.

So if this MP has already been working for several years for the greens, then she should really have any and all technology she needs to function properly. If not, the question should be why not?

But if said MP required ramps in the House, special seating, widened doors, special toilet etc etc then if would and should be funded by Parliamentary Services.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#582319 16-Feb-2012 12:53

nzlemming:
networkn:

I was actually compiling a question around whether her existing duties required her to have one, and why she can't use that, and if she has been making do without till now, why not continue?

As I understand it, she was a researcher and adviser. That doesn't require realtime access to the debate...

As a researcher and adviser I would have thought she would have been required to have real time access to the discussions and debates going on around her? Or maybe it was just a "hospital" job with only compromised performance expected? - I don't know.

What is used by the TV people when they interview her, she seems to "hear" what is going on then - Again I don't know, I am only wondering.

For a list MP whether deaf, blind or dumb or all three together I cannot comprehend how they can justify 3 full time staff equivalents (the 2 entitlted to already plus the 1 extra now being asked for). So I suspect this is just a Green Party beat up with a wider agenda.

To give some perspective as to where I am coming from I should point out that both my mother and her father were very, very but not totally deaf and I have a friend in another country who is a country leader in providing initiatives to the deaf (his wife is totally deaf). I will be asking him if there are any instances in their parliament similar to this one.

toyonut

1508 posts

Uber Geek

#582352 16-Feb-2012 13:38

From my understanding, this issue is about a staff cost versus a technology cost. The house cannot approve a staff cost for Mojo based on current rules and legislation. They have already provided her with more technology to enable her to cope in the house.
To my mind, if the Greens truly cared, they would have taken on the staffing cost once they found out and then gotten the rules changed so that future generations of special needs people could have access to the staff costs they need to cope in the house.
The way they have handled it though is to turn it into a political game played on Mojo's disability which to me is wrong. They have turned Mojo's disability into a blame game and are not doing anything to help future generations of special needs MP's cope in the house. They are just using her to try and make the house look like it does not care for those with special needs.

Try Vultr using this link and get us both some credit:

http://www.vultr.com/?ref=7033587-3B

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582412 16-Feb-2012 15:28

KiwiNZ: Who has to pay is simple. MP's are paid by Parliamentary Services. Parliamentary equipement and facilities are managed by Parliamentary Services and funded by the Consolidated fund under Vote Parliamentary services. Therefore Parliamentary Services should fund this.

It's not simple. There is no current legislation that allows it. If there was, it would have been done by now.

Greens should pay this time (It's not like they didn't know about it) and they should put in a bill to be passed which allows for this to be handled better in the future.

Or they can put a bill in, pass it under urgency, and the MP in question can wait until then for it.

THAT's simple.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#582419 16-Feb-2012 15:45

There is also possible funding per the Ministry of Health

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582420 16-Feb-2012 15:46

A hot topic.

I feel that expenditure for the disabled should be covered by the taxpayer. Whether it be wheelchairs or more expensive gear. Many of us, while compassionate, would find it hard to comprehend the difficulties in living with a disability, and to me, it is the fit helping the unfit in society.

However I also agree with Old3eyes, it is probably a Greens planned scenario, and while we need to accommodate the disabled as and when we can, all employees (of a company or as in this case, the state) do need to get the job based upon the usual criteria, and I hope this one did. That I am unsure of.

nzlemming

79 posts

Master Geek

#582423 16-Feb-2012 15:58

She was elected. I believe that is the usual way that one becomes an MP

old3eyes

9119 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#582424 16-Feb-2012 16:01

nzlemming: She was elected. I believe that is the usual way that one becomes an MP

She was elected via a party list. I'm quite sure she was put near the top deliberately. The other thing is as she is a list MP in the back of the opposition benches what apart from sucking on a large salary is she going to be doing for the next 3 years??

Regards,

Old3eyes

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#582431 16-Feb-2012 16:13

old3eyes:
nzlemming: She was elected. I believe that is the usual way that one becomes an MP

She was elected via a party list. I'm quite sure she was put near the top deliberately. The other thing is as she is a list MP in the back of the opposition benches what apart from sucking on a large salary is she going to be doing for the next 3 years??

Yes she was put in her position on the list deliberately, list positions don't occur by accident.

"what apart from sucking on a large salary is she going to be doing for the next 3 years??"....... select committees springs to mind.

She is also doing the following...

Member, Commerce Committee
Spokesperson, Animal Welfare
Spokesperson, Civil Defence
Spokesperson, Consumer Affairs
Spokesperson, Disability Issues
Spokesperson, Food
Spokesperson, Natural Health

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#582434 16-Feb-2012 16:18

KiwiNZ: But if said MP required ramps in the House, special seating, widened doors, special toilet etc etc then if would and should be funded by Parliamentary Services.

There are some that probably require widened doors, but that probably isn't from any disability :)

I agree with you, any MP that is disabled should be provided with all the tools required. Otherwise they are hampered, effectively wasting taxpayers money. There should be no debate over where the money comes from. Don't know if we have a had a blind MP yet, but the same would apply for them.

nzlemming

79 posts

Master Geek

#582435 16-Feb-2012 16:21

old3eyes:
She was elected via a party list.

As are half the MPs in the House.

I'm quite sure she was put near the top deliberately.

I'm sure she was. After 5 years working for the Greens, I suspect they determined she had the skills, the knowledge and the passion to be an effective Member of Parliament, as long as the playing field is level.

The other thing is as she is a list MP in the back of the opposition benches what apart from sucking on a large salary is she going to be doing for the next 3 years??

The same things as all the other opposition MPs - working on Select Committees, analysing and debating new legislation, attending to the business of the country. Probably more than most Government backbenchers, truth be told.

WHat is it that so exercises you about Mathers? That she's deaf? That she's a woman? Or that she's a Green MP?

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#582467 16-Feb-2012 17:06

I think what annoys us most about this situation is that the Greens appear to be playing with the issue for political gain.

Let Mojo be judged on her mojo. All politicians are to some extent 'deaf' to what other politicians, and the rest of us, are saying.

If the Greens were really smart they would say:

Look everybody knows there is a problem hearing debate in the house, sure this is worse for Mojo, lets set up a speech to text system that can help everybody. Mojo can be the 'face' of it but it will be there for others to use after she is gone.

Instead we get the usual back and forth about who's budget this expense will come from. Last I checked I pay taxes to NZ Govt Inc so who cares if it comes from the parliament budget or the health budget.

This country is run by bickering children.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

nzlemming

79 posts

Master Geek

#582474 16-Feb-2012 17:23

crackrdbycracku: I think what annoys us most about this situation is that the Greens appear to be playing with the issue for political gain.

Any other party in the same position would be doing the same, I think. It's what politics is about, embarrassing the government into doing the right thing, for a given definition of "right".

What I think seems to be annoying "most of us" is that "us" has to face up to the fact that "we" haven't been doing the right thing all along, that someone, who has overcome major difficulties to even function in a society that tends to exclude people like her, has had to shove in "our" faces that "we" are being unfair, because "we" haven't even thought about this topic before and generally prefer not to because - well, disabilities, icky, etc

Let Mojo be judged on her mojo. All politicians are to some extent 'deaf' to what other politicians, and the rest of us, are saying.

That is probably the most offensively facetious remark that's been made on this thread. Politicians may choose not to hear other politicians. Mojo Mathers cannot make that choice. How can she be "judged on her mojo" if she's unable to display it because Parliamentary Services would not provide a level playing field to operate on?

If the Greens were really smart they would say:

Look everybody knows there is a problem hearing debate in the house, sure this is worse for Mojo, lets set up a speech to text system that can help everybody. Mojo can be the 'face' of it but it will be there for others to use after she is gone.

Which they have been, but you appear to have been deaf to that as well.

Instead we get the usual back and forth about who's budget this expense will come from. Last I checked I pay taxes to NZ Govt Inc so who cares if it comes from the parliament budget or the health budget.

And I'd point out that that has mainly been from the Speaker, not from the Greens.

This country is run by bickering children.

Now, that I won't argue with

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8