Deaf MP

Forums › Off topic › Deaf MP

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#97499 15-Feb-2012 19:37

I have been following with interest the saga (why is everything a saga) with the deaf green MP and her required equipment. I am really of two minds with it..

1) I don't think she should need to pay out of her salary, equipment which is required to do her job.

2) Why should the taxpayer pay an extra 30K (Let's be honest, that's a huge chunk of money) to have a deaf MP in parliament when the other MP's don't require it.

At the end of the day I understand that there is really no debate, the payment will be made, right or wrong, because not it's in the public eye.

I get and support that we should try and integrate the disabled into our community, as much as is practical because it's good for all involved, but I guess in this instance I am struggling for some reason. Does she really need 30K of equipment, and what value does the taxpayer get for their 30K over and above another candidate who doesn't require these additional funds (Other than the deaf having a voice in a high places.)

I guess you could apply this to any situation where the disabled get integrated, this is just bothering me for some reason.

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

5973 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582016 15-Feb-2012 19:40

I'm sitting on the fence a little as well . . . as I just saw on someone else's Facebook status - do all the MPs who need glasses to read now have a case to have them paid for by Parliament as well?

vinnieg

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#582018 15-Feb-2012 19:40

Yeah I think you could apply this to most other disabilities.

Should the taxpayer have to pay for:
- wheelchair ramps
- disabled toilets

I'd say yes, have to say it doesn't bother me at all. If Lockwood Smith suddenly burst both ear drums, I'm sure he'd be on the same equipment almost immediately

I have moved across the ditch. Now residing in Melbourne as a VOIP/Video Technical Trainer/Engineer.

stuzz

353 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#582020 15-Feb-2012 19:45

I guess as we provide specialised services for other members of parliament to represent us, then this is just another. Example Te Reo translation.

I don't begrudge it, but we have to recognise that it starts somewhere & could / will cause other physically challanged people to stand for parliament & hopefully better our country.

stuzz

353 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#582021 15-Feb-2012 19:45

vinnieg: Yeah I think you could apply this to most other disabilities.

Should the taxpayer have to pay for:
- wheelchair ramps
- disabled toilets

I'd say yes, have to say it doesn't bother me at all. If Lockwood Smith suddenly burst both ear drums, I'm sure he'd be on the same equipment almost immediately

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582027 15-Feb-2012 19:58

Regardless I think the Greens are milking this for all it is worth. It should not have got to this stage and suspect it may have well been pushed into public arena for reasons other than what is stated.

The MP needs assistance so should get it be it from here 80 hour entitlement we pay for or from Parliamentary services that we also pay for.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582035 15-Feb-2012 20:29

jeff: yah I think that's one thing. Lockwood Smith seemed kind of flabbergasted by the whole thing. Something just isn't right, and I hope this MP isn't showing what's gonna be the signature of her term, otherwise Greens are gonna end up back with 10 votes.

old3eyes

9120 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#582037 15-Feb-2012 20:31

jeffnz: Regardless I think the Greens are milking this for all it is worth. It should not have got to this stage and suspect it may have well been pushed into public arena for reasons other than what is stated.

The MP needs assistance so should get it be it from here 80 hour entitlement we pay for or from Parliamentary services that we also pay for.

I'm quite sure the Greens new this would happen when they put her on the party list. I think that they are grandstanding on this and they have enough money in their parliamentary budget to pay for it. If they get their way with this I bet they will put a blind person on the list next time and want Brail versions of Hansard made avalaible to that member..

Regards,

Old3eyes

Quic Broadband

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

stevenz

2802 posts

Uber Geek

#582040 15-Feb-2012 20:35

I question the quoted $30,000 for the equipment. Really? Is that a special tax-payer funded money-is-virtually-no-object price or a realistic figure for this.

Did she also either a) _expect_ this to be supplied to her before she got into parliament, or b) think she could function adequately without anything and realised that wasn't the case either way.

I'm in the "taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for someone to do their job" camp. Don't enter a profession ill equipped to work in it and expect your employer to fork out to get you operational.

@KnightNZ

DeroyBoy

262 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#582044 15-Feb-2012 20:44

stevenz: I question the quoted $30,000 for the equipment. Really? Is that a special tax-payer funded money-is-virtually-no-object price or a realistic figure for this.

Did she also either a) _expect_ this to be supplied to her before she got into parliament, or b) think she could function adequately without anything and realised that wasn't the case either way.

I'm in the "taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for someone to do their job" camp. Don't enter a profession ill equipped to work in it and expect your employer to fork out to get you operational.

gzt

17127 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#582045 15-Feb-2012 20:49

networkn: Why should the taxpayer pay an extra 30K (Let's be honest, that's a huge chunk of money) to have a deaf MP in parliament when the other MP's don't require it.

I'm of the mind that she made it to parliament, therefore taxpayer funds should be used to allow her to participate as fully as possible.

Clearly that is what is going to happen in the end anyway because of the human rights act.

Personally I think Lockwood Smith is being a bit of a dork about this, and he should have indicated immediately that he was going to comply, because that is what will happen in the end anyway.

Kids in mainstream schools with lower abilities in specific areas are provided with real-time assistance in many cases to allow them to participate fully and I'm of the mind this is no different.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#582047 15-Feb-2012 20:56

networkn: Why should the taxpayer pay an extra 30K (Let's be honest, that's a huge

Kids in mainstream schools with lower abilities in specific areas are provided with real-time assistance in many cases to allow them to participate fully and I'm of the mind this is no different.

Yup. I am aware of how much it costs to integrate disabled into the community and yes I do believe that is a reasonable use of tax payer money (Though like everything I think there are suppliers rorting the system.

I guess it's like one of the commenters said.. Did she know about this all along? Is it REALLY going to cost 30k?

Something about this doesn't feel right to me for some reason and I can't put my finger on it.

I guess the other thing is that I heard her on the radio, I was really struggling to understand her, I can't imagine anyone else will be much better, and does this really make her the best person for this kind of role which has components of interaction with others on matters of serious nature?

Sorry I broke the quote tags.

mattwnz

20157 posts

Uber Geek

#582048 15-Feb-2012 21:01

Like others I think this is being milked as a political issue. However the woman has a disability and it is no different from other disabilities in the way it should be treated. Public and commercial buildings are required to spend thousands on wheelchair access, so this disability is no different. Otherwise the public is wasting 150k odd having her in parliament, if we aren't getting the most value out of her. That money goes back into the economy anyway, so it is not being wasted.

throbb

675 posts

Ultimate Geek

#582049 15-Feb-2012 21:01

Personally I think Lockwood Smith is being a bit of a dork about this, and he should have indicated immediately that he was going to comply, because that is what will happen in the end anyway.

As far as I'm aware, he isnt being a dork about this, he doesnt have power to grant the request.

MikeSkyrme

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#582050 15-Feb-2012 21:02

gzt:
networkn: Why should the taxpayer pay an extra 30K (Let's be honest, that's a huge chunk of money) to have a deaf MP in parliament when the other MP's don't require it.

I'm of the mind that she made it to parliament, therefore taxpayer funds should be used to allow her to participate as fully as possible.

Clearly that is what is going to happen in the end anyway because of the human rights act.

Personally I think Lockwood Smith is being a bit of a dork about this, and he should have indicated immediately that he was going to comply, because that is what will happen in the end anyway.

Kids in mainstream schools with lower abilities in specific areas are provided with real-time assistance in many cases to allow them to participate fully and I'm of the mind this is no different.

Agree with your comments re the equipment is required in order to carry out her job but disagree with the Lockwood Smith comment.

He is following parliamentary rules regarding appropriation of funds, not deliberately trying not to comply.

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

speedy23

44 posts

Geek

#582051 15-Feb-2012 21:05

I'm a bit hot on this too and I am right with Old3eyes and Stevenz. On the list and not voted in per se, what did she/they expect.... all seems a bit put on or put up. A bit tricky in that people with disabilities have every right to be treated equally, but they do have to go into things with their eyes open so to speak.

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