Deaf MP

Forums › Off topic › Deaf MP

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

17127 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#582864 17-Feb-2012 15:38

John2010:
Kyanar: I'm surprised no-one's seen this from a wider perspective - hiring a real-time transcriptionist as she is asking for would also give us the opportunity to do something else she's been pushing for, captioning Parliament TV, making parliamentary proceedings more accessible to deaf and hard of hearing people. I personally cannot see how making the country's governance more transparent to a group of people who would otherwise have difficulty due to the medium which our government uses to use in order to provide that transparency is a completely worthy goal - and for only $30K/yr it's a steal....

Then she shouldn't be angling for her own assistant for herself but for the provision of a service tailored and managed by Parliamentary Services for the wider population should such a real need be shown to exist and is possible to be met (and which she may or may not find useful for her own purposes).

Again, regardless of views on the topic, it is obvious many people here do not understand the issue. 30K or even double that is not going to give you captioning for Parliament TV in real-time, regardless of the pros and cons of that - it is an almost completely different issue from a technical and personal perspective.

Think about the issue from Mathers's perspective:

gzt: "At 30K or thereabouts I doubt she is requesting resources to enable to her to get every single verbal communication in the house in real-time. My guess is just on things of intense interest to her, and to understand interjections on these topics, and when she is speaking and needs to respond in real time to interjections and supplementary questions, and committee proceedings where she has an interest or is a participant"

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#582865 17-Feb-2012 15:42

John2010:
KiwiNZ:
John2010:
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....

etc

http://www.hrc.co.nz/enquiries-and-complaints-guide/what-can-i-complain-about/disability

"It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of disability in any of the areas of public life covered by the Act. The Act covers disabilities, which people have presently, have had in the past, or which they are believed to have. It is also unlawful to discriminate against relatives or associates of people with a disability, because of that disability. This can mean, for example, a spouse, carer or business partner."

Instead of just reading selective snips that appear to you to suit your own purposes you need to read the legislation. For your assistance I have gone to the trouble of providing the following for you from the Human Rights Act and which part is probably most relevant to the discussion. You may care to read the whole Act which can be found at www.legislation.govt.nz.

In respect of employment the Act says -

" 29 Further exceptions in relation to disability(1)Nothing in section 22 shall prevent different treatment based on disability where—
(a) the position is such that the person could perform the duties of the position satisfactorily only with the aid of special services or facilities and it is not reasonable to expect the employer to provide those services or facilities"

You may not like that but that is what the law is and under those circumstances the Act does not prevent different treatment of the disabled.

Based on your attitude you would say the provision of a ramp for a wheelchair is unreasonable.

RSK

16 posts

Geek

#582871 17-Feb-2012 15:55

My mother inlaw has a hearing disability and pays for hearing aids out of her own pocket. her job does not discriminate and nor do they pay for her hearing aids. so perhaps this mp needs to pay out of her own pocket. unless it is work equipment which is then understanding why they have to spend tax payer dollars on those items...eg.computer, vehicle, mobile for work etc

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582872 17-Feb-2012 15:58

scuwp:

So your telling me I MUST employ the no-armed paper hanger? Yeah right! I am afraid down here in the "real world" people need to appreciate and accept their limitations. I wanted to be an All Black (who didn't!) but a stuffed knee stopped that idea in its tracks. Maybe I should try out now, after all they can't discriminate against me because I can't run can they...maybe they need to employ an assistant for me who does the running?

No employer in their right mind is going to hire a deaf person for a call centre (or do they have to employ a second person as an assistant for them?) or a person in a wheelchair to be a DOC mountain guide. Should these employers be accused of discrimination? Definitely not. Time to get real people.

This made me LOL, you put it so eloquently. Well done.

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#582875 17-Feb-2012 16:01

is it a case that "reasonable" is just a PC term for "cost efficient"? where do you draw the $ line though at "whats reasonable"?

Ramp providing alternative access may be cheap enough, if you are only talking about 1 or 2 stairs on a ground level building, but what about a 2 store office block with no wheelchair access to the 2nd storey, a lift and/or other wheelchair access could be fairly expensive I would guess.

Is it therefore reasonable to expect the employer to foot the bill in either or both of these cases ?

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582878 17-Feb-2012 16:03

KiwiNZ:
Based on your attitude you would say the provision of a ramp for a wheelchair is unreasonable.

You have a serious chip on your shoulder. This isn't what he is saying. Before replying to anything else, why don't you read what is being written, take a 2 minute break, re-read, and then reply if you feel inclined.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#582880 17-Feb-2012 16:07

networkn:
KiwiNZ:
Based on your attitude you would say the provision of a ramp for a wheelchair is unreasonable.

You have a serious chip on your shoulder. This isn't what he is saying. Before replying to anything else, why don't you read what is being written, take a 2 minute break, re-read, and then reply if you feel inclined.

I realise Disabled should not defend their rights, I will make no apologies for taking issue with bigotry.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582884 17-Feb-2012 16:16

KiwiNZ:
networkn:
KiwiNZ:
Based on your attitude you would say the provision of a ramp for a wheelchair is unreasonable.

You have a serious chip on your shoulder. This isn't what he is saying. Before replying to anything else, why don't you read what is being written, take a 2 minute break, re-read, and then reply if you feel inclined.

I realise Disabled should not defend their rights, I will make no apologies for taking issue with bigotry.

Please see above.

MikeSkyrme

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#582885 17-Feb-2012 16:16

KiwiNZ:
John2010:
KiwiNZ:
John2010:
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....

etc

http://www.hrc.co.nz/enquiries-and-complaints-guide/what-can-i-complain-about/disability

"It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of disability in any of the areas of public life covered by the Act. The Act covers disabilities, which people have presently, have had in the past, or which they are believed to have. It is also unlawful to discriminate against relatives or associates of people with a disability, because of that disability. This can mean, for example, a spouse, carer or business partner."

Instead of just reading selective snips that appear to you to suit your own purposes you need to read the legislation. For your assistance I have gone to the trouble of providing the following for you from the Human Rights Act and which part is probably most relevant to the discussion. You may care to read the whole Act which can be found at www.legislation.govt.nz.

In respect of employment the Act says -

" 29 Further exceptions in relation to disability(1)Nothing in section 22 shall prevent different treatment based on disability where—
(a) the position is such that the person could perform the duties of the position satisfactorily only with the aid of special services or facilities and it is not reasonable to expect the employer to provide those services or facilities"

You may not like that but that is what the law is and under those circumstances the Act does not prevent different treatment of the disabled.

Based on your attitude you would say the provision of a ramp for a wheelchair is unreasonable.

Slightly off the original post, but, I believe the requirements of wheelchair ramps are actually covered in the New Zealand Building Code.

My 2 cents, for what it is worth, Mojo should get the equipment she needs, regardless of which budget it is derived from it will still be taxpayer funded.

It has probably cost more than the original $30K quoted in lost work manhours alone so far........

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

gzt

17127 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#582886 17-Feb-2012 16:18

KiwiNZ:
networkn:
KiwiNZ:
Based on your attitude you would say the provision of a ramp for a wheelchair is unreasonable.

You have a serious chip on your shoulder. This isn't what he is saying. Before replying to anything else, why don't you read what is being written, take a 2 minute break, re-read, and then reply if you feel inclined.

I realise Disabled should not defend their rights, I will make no apologies for taking issue with bigotry.

I saw it coming across the same way as KiwiNZ did really.

The legislation points are kind of interesting because things like wheelchair access and correctly sized bathroom facilities are required by law for most buildings.

There are probably jobs available which some people are perfectly capable of but for which the work areas do not provide good access for one reason or another. Some engineering workshops for example.

In those cases I imagine if the employer can move one or two machines and resolve the situation that's all good but if they have to reposition a whole workshop worth of equipment (and they don't want to) then realistically the job is probably not going to fly under the legislation.

But in Mather's case all this is just utterly irrelevant. Parliament is not an employer of members of parliament, the situation is completely different.

Beating it up into an employment matter is just silly. It isn't.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#582893 17-Feb-2012 16:25

KiwiNZ:
John2010:
KiwiNZ:
John2010:
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....

etc

http://www.hrc.co.nz/enquiries-and-complaints-guide/what-can-i-complain-about/disability

"It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of disability in any of the areas of public life covered by the Act. The Act covers disabilities, which people have presently, have had in the past, or which they are believed to have. It is also unlawful to discriminate against relatives or associates of people with a disability, because of that disability. This can mean, for example, a spouse, carer or business partner."

Instead of just reading selective snips that appear to you to suit your own purposes you need to read the legislation. For your assistance I have gone to the trouble of providing the following for you from the Human Rights Act and which part is probably most relevant to the discussion. You may care to read the whole Act which can be found at www.legislation.govt.nz.

In respect of employment the Act says -

" 29 Further exceptions in relation to disability(1)Nothing in section 22 shall prevent different treatment based on disability where—
(a) the position is such that the person could perform the duties of the position satisfactorily only with the aid of special services or facilities and it is not reasonable to expect the employer to provide those services or facilities"

You may not like that but that is what the law is and under those circumstances the Act does not prevent different treatment of the disabled.

Based on your attitude you would say the provision of a ramp for a wheelchair is unreasonable.

If that is the assumption you make about people who just point out what the Act says then there is not much hope for your being taken seriously.

I will leave you to your apparant self pity and the road it seems to be taking you down.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#582901 17-Feb-2012 16:37

John2010:
KiwiNZ:
John2010:
KiwiNZ:
John2010:
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....

etc

http://www.hrc.co.nz/enquiries-and-complaints-guide/what-can-i-complain-about/disability

"It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of disability in any of the areas of public life covered by the Act. The Act covers disabilities, which people have presently, have had in the past, or which they are believed to have. It is also unlawful to discriminate against relatives or associates of people with a disability, because of that disability. This can mean, for example, a spouse, carer or business partner."

Instead of just reading selective snips that appear to you to suit your own purposes you need to read the legislation. For your assistance I have gone to the trouble of  providing the following for you from the Human Rights Act and which part is probably most relevant to the discussion. You may care to read the whole Act which can be found at www.legislation.govt.nz.

In respect of employment the Act says -

" 29 Further exceptions in relation to disability(1)Nothing in section 22 shall prevent different treatment based on disability where—
(a) the position is such that the person could perform the duties of the position satisfactorily only with the aid of special services or facilities and it is not reasonable to expect the employer to provide those services or facilities"

You may not like that but that is what the law is and under those circumstances the Act does not prevent different treatment of the disabled.


Based on your attitude you would say the provision of a ramp for a wheelchair is unreasonable.

If that is the assumption you make about people who just point out what the Act says then there is not much hope for your being taken seriously.

I will leave you to your apparant self pity and the road it seems to be taking you down.

So it's OK for you to quote part there of, hmmm interesting, Section 21 (1) (h) is still applicable.

I have no self pity, I have taken myself from being wheelchair bound to being able walk. But as I have stated I make no apologies for defending the rights of Disabled in our community.

nakedmolerat

4629 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582927 17-Feb-2012 18:01

KiwiNZ:
I have no self pity, I have taken myself from being wheelchair bound to being able walk. But as I have stated I make no apologies for defending the rights of Disabled in our community.

some people can be arrogant. they are not able to understand what it is like to have disability. for me, everyone in this world are equal. those who have disabilities should have the same chance to participate with others. it is sad to read some of the comments here.

back to the topic. i still do not understand the issue why parliament/government refused to spend 30k on one MP with disability that is voted by the people/taxpayer. it costs the taxpayer $900,000 for the plastic waka.

deepred

494 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#582934 17-Feb-2012 18:14

nakedmolerat:
KiwiNZ:
I have no self pity, I have taken myself from being wheelchair bound to being able walk. But as I have stated I make no apologies for defending the rights of Disabled in our community.

some people can be arrogant. they are not able to understand what it is like to have disability. for me, everyone in this world are equal. those who have disabilities should have the same chance to participate with others. it is sad to read some of the comments here.

back to the topic. i still do not understand the issue why parliament/government refused to spend 30k on one MP with disability that is voted by the people/taxpayer. it costs the taxpayer $900,000 for the plastic waka.

And potentially billions of dollars on holiday highways with dubious benefit-cost ratios. And incompetent city council CEOs who refuse to pay back their undeserved bonuses and go golfing while their city shakes.

"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

riahon

946 posts

Ultimate Geek

#582943 17-Feb-2012 18:55

We are her employers. We pay. Find the money and get it sorted.

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