Deaf MP

Forums › Off topic › Deaf MP

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

2802 posts

Uber Geek

#582475 16-Feb-2012 17:26

nzlemming: 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?

At what stage in this thread have any comments implied bias against her gender? Or are you flamebaiting?

Her party is also largely irrelevant, the same argument would exist if any other party was in the same situation.

The argument would\should also remain for anyone expecting the taxpayer (either directly or indirectly) to assist them in their day-to-day business, reglardless of their situation. If the issue was over $3000, I suspect it would barely have registered, but $30,000 is a fair chunk of change. The fact that it involves someone who is more directly funded by the taxpayer than most is probably what's raising the red flags.

The issue I have is, does this woman actually know what she's doing? If she is a good, productive party member, who does good for the country, then I'd be significantly less worried about the cost if it turns out that she's a self-serving layabout. I've no idea of her background so I can't say either way, the only way we'd find out is by supplying her with what she wants (which given past history of anything parliamentary will end up costing way more than quoted once the deals are finally done), and then saying "Yay!" or "Boo!" a few years down the track.

It's probably a moot point, as there's no way she's not going to get the gear. There's too much risk of people being accused of being biased against her in some way for them to risk saying "No!" - they've all got their reputations to uphold, for what they're worth.

@KnightNZ

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582476 16-Feb-2012 17:28

crackrdbycracku: 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.

QFT. I think you nailed it. The Greens seem to determined to squander political capital by taking the negative approach at every pass.

I still am not completely satisfied it can cost 30K to fix this. She already has 2 support staff as I understand it.

EDIT: Removed additional commentary as doesn't convey the point I am trying to make correctly.

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582477 16-Feb-2012 17:28

crackrdbycracku:

This country is run by bickering children.

Touche, watch the Parliament Channel for further entertainment.

nate

6473 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582493 16-Feb-2012 18:14

I've just hidden a whole lot of posts.

If you don't like where this thread is going, feel free to throw your two cents in - that's why it's called a discussion board.

Posting that you're leaving the discussion adds nothing constructive.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582502 16-Feb-2012 18:29

nate: I've just hidden a whole lot of posts.

If you don't like where this thread is going, feel free to throw your two cents in - that's why it's called a discussion board.

Posting that you're leaving the discussion adds nothing constructive.

Best bit of moderation I have seen on a forum in years! Thanks.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#582503 16-Feb-2012 18:37

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

nzlemming: 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".

Yeah, and any party that does something like this should be called on it. Politics 'should' be about running the country and making it better for all of us. Not trying to make the 'other side' look bad. Didn't the original Green party in German say "Neither Right nor Left but out in front". Petra Kelly would be ashamed.

crackrdbycracku: Let Mojo be judged on her mojo.

nzlemming: 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?

No MP operates on a 'level playing field'. Some face prejudice for the colour of their skin, gender or what ever. What the good ones do is transcend their circumstances. I wouldn't vote for Winston Peters in a million years but I applaud the way he has transcended his ethnic background. Chris Cater and Grant Robertson do similar. They are judged on how they perform, not the circumstances they come from. For good or for bad. I hope Mojo is one day thought of as an MP who happens to be deaf. Sadly, it is her own party who are making her The Deaf MP.

crackrdbycracku: 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.

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

Are you trying to tell mum they started it?

Look, you may not agree with me but if you just say I don't know what I am talking about then it doesn't really advance the debate does it?

And this isn't harsh, you want harsh go down to Question Time on a Tuesday, that's harsh.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

tristanb

89 posts

Master Geek

ID Verified

#582528 16-Feb-2012 19:31

This woman's not fir for the job if she requires her boss to pay $30,000 on her first day. She knew about her deafness when she accepted the position.

Now she expects us all to pay for her? Despite being a member of an incredibly wealthy political party?! And earning a great salary as it is?!

Why aren't the Green's paying? The taxpayer is not an endless fount of cash for the "needy" to grab as they want. The government doesn't pay for paraplegic taxi-drivers to have their cars altered. Ask anyone with a disabled child - properly disabled, they'll tell you about the difficult job the have getting bars for toilets and adult nappies.

It's the sanctimoniousness of those saying "the taxpayer should pay for her" that annoys me. Especially when there are those who are truely needy struggling everyday. This is just grandstanding from the Greens - nasty and manipulative stuff.

The Greens should pay - but they won't. Their motto is that someone else should pay. They think the taxpayer should pay for everything.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

deepred

496 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#582531 16-Feb-2012 19:49

Technology wise, I doubt that speech recognition software like Dragon Naturally Speaking would work in this case - too much background noise, and the speech patterns would be too fast. On balance a $30,000 assistant beats hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the associated inconvenience, to equip every MP with a copy of Naturally Speaking. Or twiddling thumbs and unable to do anything.

How do other deaf politicians around the world engage in debates?

And politics aside, this issue is a lot bigger than just a deaf MP and a Speaker of the House. Race and homosexuality may be points of difference, but they're certainly not disabilities.

The wider issue is about the kind of Social Darwinist society where the able-bodied see fit to park in disability spots. It sounds harsh, but maybe those sorts of people could be granted a disability permit on the spot - with a Minto bar.

And in Britain, it's getting worse.

"I regret to say that we of the F.B.I. are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate commerce." — J. Edgar Hoover

"Create a society that values material things above all else. Strip it of industry. Raise taxes for the poor and reduce them for the rich and for corporations. Prop up failed financial institutions with public money. Ask for more tax, while vastly reducing public services. Put adverts everywhere, regardless of people's ability to afford the things they advertise. Allow the cost of food and housing to eclipse people's ability to pay for them. Light blue touch paper." — Andrew Maxwell

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582532 16-Feb-2012 19:54

tristanb: This woman's not fir for the job if she requires her boss to pay $30,000 on her first day. She knew about her deafness when she accepted the position.

Now she expects us all to pay for her? Despite being a member of an incredibly wealthy political party?! And earning a great salary as it is?!

Why aren't the Green's paying? The taxpayer is not an endless fount of cash for the "needy" to grab as they want. The government doesn't pay for paraplegic taxi-drivers to have their cars altered. Ask anyone with a disabled child - properly disabled, they'll tell you about the difficult job the have getting bars for toilets and adult nappies.

It's the sanctimoniousness of those saying "the taxpayer should pay for her" that annoys me. Especially when there are those who are truely needy struggling everyday. This is just grandstanding from the Greens - nasty and manipulative stuff.

The Greens should pay - but they won't. Their motto is that someone else should pay. They think the taxpayer should pay for everything.

Whilst I don't entirely disagree with your position, I am not sure if you are aware where the Greens get their money? It comes from you and I. Whether the Greens pay or the Parliamentary Services pay, we all pay in the end.

Usually when an employer hires a disabled person, they are aware beforehand of what is required, and they make that choice. Unfortunately this Govt didn't necessarily agree to pay, but the NZ public agreed to pay, by proxy by allowing Greens who had a candidate so far up the party list with a disability.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#582536 16-Feb-2012 20:17

tristanb: This woman's not fir for the job if she requires her boss to pay $30,000 on her first day. She knew about her deafness when she accepted the position.

Now she expects us all to pay for her? Despite being a member of an incredibly wealthy political party?! And earning a great salary as it is?!

Why aren't the Green's paying? The taxpayer is not an endless fount of cash for the "needy" to grab as they want. The government doesn't pay for paraplegic taxi-drivers to have their cars altered. Ask anyone with a disabled child - properly disabled, they'll tell you about the difficult job the have getting bars for toilets and adult nappies.

It's the sanctimoniousness of those saying "the taxpayer should pay for her" that annoys me. Especially when there are those who are truely needy struggling everyday. This is just grandstanding from the Greens - nasty and manipulative stuff.

The Greens should pay - but they won't. Their motto is that someone else should pay. They think the taxpayer should pay for everything.

It is illegal and immoral to discriminate on account of disability.

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#582545 16-Feb-2012 20:49

tristanb:

Now she expects us all to pay for her? Despite being a member of an incredibly wealthy political party?! And earning a great salary as it is?!

Why aren't the Green's paying?

Why didn't key pay for "his" BMW's out of his own pocket!?

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582585 16-Feb-2012 22:01

KiwiNZ:
It is illegal and immoral to discriminate on account of disability.

Exactly right. Many of us learnt as kids to feel lucky we are not aflicted with a disability. The fit should cater for the few unfit. To us, we are lucky and should want to help. For them, quality of life is what we should want to help provide. That is my opinion on how society should be.

If this person was the best for the job, its fine she was high on the list. If it was a plan by the Greens to be "green" and to show that off, as has been implied here, that is a sad state of affairs.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582612 16-Feb-2012 22:54

kyhwana2:
tristanb:

Now she expects us all to pay for her? Despite being a member of an incredibly wealthy political party?! And earning a great salary as it is?!

Why aren't the Green's paying?

Why didn't key pay for "his" BMW's out of his own pocket!?

Ah gimme a break, NZ is the only country in the world where it's leader and the executive branch doesn't even have it's own plane. Now you begrudge the guy a car?

Also PM compared to list candidate for a fringe party?

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#582621 16-Feb-2012 23:25

networkn:
kyhwana2:
tristanb:

Now she expects us all to pay for her? Despite being a member of an incredibly wealthy political party?! And earning a great salary as it is?!

Why aren't the Green's paying?

Why didn't key pay for "his" BMW's out of his own pocket!?

Ah gimme a break, NZ is the only country in the world where it's leader and the executive branch doesn't even have it's own plane. Now you begrudge the guy a car?

Also PM compared to list candidate for a fringe party?

So, lets see. We elected the green party members. You're begrudging an MP we elected the tech she needs to participate?
And Key doesn't need a plane, he can just hitch a ride with the airforce or have Air NZ divert a commercial flight to wherever he wants!

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#582622 16-Feb-2012 23:32

KiwiNZ:
It is illegal and immoral to discriminate on account of disability.

It is in fact not illegal nor immoral to discriminate on account of a disability. It is only so if the discrimination is unjust.

If the disability means they cannot perform the job to normal expectations then they do not have to be given it and it may be immoral (which has a subjective test) to give it to them.

The examples are endless to come up with even for a lazy mind. But simply a one armed paperhanger may get the job but a no armed one won't.

In the case of a totally deaf person I would be most surprised if a business would be accused of unjust discrimination if they decided to not employ a person where it was essential for the job that they could hear and it would be considered by many immoral for them to do so if hearing was essential for the worker's safety. And the employer would not be expected to employ another person nor to buy special technology assistance just to assist such a person to do the job that another otherwise could.

So I have some unease as to how she got the job she now has. That said I have in the past wondered who pays for Stephen Hawking's voice synthsiser and technician?

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