Earlier this year Phil Goff and I accepted a petition signed by almost 6,000 Kiwis concerned about the government’s cuts to compensation to those suffering from work-related hearing loss. Thanks to National, people with hearing impairment are the only group of New Zealanders required by law to demonstrate a particular percentage of disability before rehabilitation will be offered under the ACC scheme.
At yesterday’s Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee meeting National members voted en-bloc to report back the petition of Louse Carroll and 5857 others to the House without hearing a single piece of evidence. That’s undemocratic and a slap in the face to all those who sought to have their concerns heard by their House of Representatives.
Having actively discriminated against those with hearing loss, the National government is now turning a deaf ear to their concerns. They aren’t even willing to allow them to come to Parliament and have their say. That’s frankly disgraceful. If almost 6,000 people were willing to take the time to sign a petition to Parliament, the least their elected representatives can do is allow them the courtesy of a hearing.
I always find it amusing when someone presents a petition signed by a relatively small number of people and makes a big fuss about it when they were front of the queue to bad mouth one signed by 10% of the electorate…
George I sit on the Commerce Select Committee. Yesterday we dealt with two petitions, one was signed by nearly 3000 people and the other by just one. We take every petition seriously on that committee and I would expect that every select committee should do the same.
Petitions are an important mechanism for citizens to take their issues to parliament. Your attitude displays extraordinary ignorance and arrogance
I take it, then, that all the negative comments made by Labour MPs about petitions at the time Family First presented the one signed by 300,000 + were only in jest? Or is it the old ‘do as we say, not as we do’ thing again?
I think that you ought to hold up a mirror when you say things like your final sentence, Clare. You then might begin to get it…
Why is that tactic so bad, when you are holding up democracy with your devotion to forcing students to join student unions. Isnt that stifling democracy by preventing other private members bills to pass? Or is it different?
George – so justice only matters if you’re in the majority? How very tory of you.
Hi Clare,
How do you reconcile your position as an actor within a parliamentary democracy as a Member for the Labour Party with your support for the Fabian Society and their wish to remove other participating actors from the conversation. In addition how do you reconcile your affiliation with the Green bloc and support of the Internationalist UN Agenda 21, with the interests of your domestic constituency? I ask because often I find a personal contradiction between Domestic/National and Internationalist considerations where I’m faced with helping either someone near or someone far away because I cannot do both.
Cheers.
JD
I find it amusing when there are cries of “undemocratic” behaviour when what is occuring is that democratically elected majority group is making decisions on behalf of the group that elected it….. that is democracy at work.
I personally am a little tired of squeaky minority groups (in this case a petition by 0.001% of the population) suggesting they should have a bigger say because their voice is LOUDER than others. That’s not a democracy. That’s bullying, arrogant behaviour.
Did I say that?
I was just pointing out the inconsistancy of someone who makes a big deal of a petition signed by 6,000 whilst ignoring one signed by many hundreds of thousands.
If I was into mudslinging I could say something like ‘misinterpreting what people say – how very socialist of you’. But I won’t…
Classic
I’m with Chris on this Select Committee. Yesterday, there was more than one petition kicked for touch by the National Party majority with the standard “no matters to bring to the attention of the House”. I’m with Chris : when members of the public go to the trouble of getting a petition together, getting signatures and presenting it, they should be treated with respect and at least be heard – whether or not the dominating party agrees with them.
@Darien ….. but it has been considered, by the Parliamentary Select Committee …. so it was considered, not just by the general parliamentart rabble but by a selected few who had specialist knowledge of the subject of the pettition …. that sounds very democratic to me.
Where will the money come from? Shall we all pay some more tax?
I have three brand new hearing clinics opened near me in Shirley, Christchurch and I was really wondering why all of a sudden we lost our ability to hear. Then my in law with his new acc hearing aid gets sent expensive batteries without request every 5 weeks courtesy of ACC and he now has a drawer full and there is actually nothing noticeably wrong with his hearing. Hard to see how it was work related in his office at a government department.
It does seem to be a bit of a rort but good to see him getting a bit back from the taxpayer, aside of course from his state pension and subsidized state workers pension scheme.
David …… david … david.
ACC is 24 hours cover, surely you know that.
Surely you know that the proportion of people over 60 is rising quickly and they are living longer.
Surely you couldnt be as smug and self satisfied as those national MPs, many who court the senior vote come election time.
Surely the national party hasnt stopped ‘listening’ to a major part of their natural constituency. The coming election could sort out their hearing problems
I tend to agree with George on this one.
I look forward to a response from Clare.
Just so we are clear here, Clare – its arrogant and ignorant to point out the hypocrisy of your statement when Labour paid pretty scant regard to 300,000 signatures only a couple of years ago?
There may be some wriggle room there given that it was Green legislation. But then again, there was Helen and the what, 250,000 “haters and wreckers” on the steps of parliament that interupted her meeting with Shrek?
Sounds to me like the bar for being ignorant and arrogant just got lower. Either that, or the hypocrite bar is way higher than I remember it being. And I thought you were banning personal attacks now – what was that that you just gave George?
They are only personal attacks when you disagree with Clare or Trevor on this blog.
[warning - ongoing attacks on the moderators will do little more than earn you a holiday from commenting - chris]
Sorry Chris, but it was the perception that this was the way your party behaved (‘do as we say, not as we do’) that turned so many people off.
After spending so much time last week doing the right thing and telling people not to engage in ad hominen attacks Clare clearly made a bad call by engaging in that behaviour herself in what I assume was a hasty and now regretted posting.
She would retrieve her lost mana by putting her hand up and admitting she got it wrong.
Threatening someone for making a valid comment just enshrines the image you need to bury and compounds the problem you face.
george you got your referendum , what the problem.
Were you denied your referendum and the signatures thrown in the bin like this situation.
Or did John Key throw away the results ? ….. yes he did.
How can it be labours fault if after the votes were counted it was National who ignored you. But funny how you have gone all quite except to blame labour. Your sort of nonsense comments are not welcome here and lets hope you are sent packing
They aren’t attacks on the moderators, Chris – isn’t that a tad precious; particularly for a parliamentarian?
All we are asking for is for said moderators to live up to the same standards that you so virulently hold us to now. Is that so much to ask, or has the policy changed to really only allowing adoration?
baron you should know that in parliament to speak back to the speaker gets you chucked out, the moderators are in the same position. Play games and its good night nurse
But Ghost – the speaker isn’t trying to persuade people that they ought to vote for him.
Sure, the moderators can do whatever they like on their site.
And the voters can make whatever they wish of any discrepancies in how the MPs tell others to behave and how they behave themselves.
At the moment the site owners are in danger of taking a wonderful opportunity to strike for the moral high ground and trashing it with displays of arrogance and petulance.
As I’ve said many times – it’s their call.
George , dont wrap yourself up in the voters rights. The moderators want to stop a few wreckers.
Are you busy on NationalMPs blog, nothing is shown as its moderated to death and like watching grass grow- has that affected their poll ratings ?
Nationals conference is this weekend, not a squeak from Farrgoblog until 12.30 when it gives Keys speech as the only topic. Shades of Pravda ?
The moderators want to stop a few wreckers.
The key issue is who they see as wreckers – posters wrecking good debate, or posters wrecking a particular message.
It’s difficult, if a moderator has an emotional involvement with a policy or message it’s easy to understand an attack on the policy/message can be felt as an attack on the moderator, it’s hard to keep the two roles (politician and moderator) separate.
Would political blogs be better served by more independent moderation, sort of like the speaker by ideally not associated with one side of the argument.
George/TheBaron/Pete George
This is not a post about moderation, although if you keep trolling in the way that you are you will quickly find yourself enjoying a holiday from commenting.
Chris
A few years ago I heard a TV person say that they saw each complaint as the equivalent of 5000 viewers, mainly because most people don’t bother to write and send a complaint. Referendums I guess are different because the well financed organised ones come to the “viewer”.
Nonetheless since the amendment to s59 there hasnt been the wholesale imprisoning of “ordinary” parents the FF people told us would happen.
The Baron, remember when the PM said in campaign 2008 that his government would reach higher standards of behaviour, transparency and accountability than the previous lot?
They have the biggest percentage of refused OIA requests and delays in the ones they do. So if double standards bother you, let’s hear you on that.
When I tried to get my lost password from kiwiblog it never arrives in my email. Is there a kind of moderation going on I don’t know about? I went over to see what was being said about the youth policy and to ask DF if he could verify the 90% will go onto adult benefits claim he and Key have used. But, no go, can’t post.
If English is right in his budget there will be 150,000 jobs soon to dent this problem, wonder why Key didnt mention that?
I’m also surprised that DF didnt notice how the speech was so close to the 2008 campaign speech…
“” Why, after eight years of Labour, are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world?
Why, under Labour, is the gap between our wages, and wages in Australia and other parts of the world, getting bigger and bigger?
Why, under Labour, do we only get a tax cut in election year, when we really needed it years ago?
Why are grocery and petrol prices going through the roof?
Why can’t our hardworking kids afford to buy their own house?
Why is one in five Kiwi kids leaving school with grossly inadequate literacy and numeracy skills?
Why, when Labour claim they aspire to be carbon-neutral, do our greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate?
Why hasn’t the health system improved when billions of extra dollars have been poured into it?
Why is violent crime against innocent New Zealanders continuing to soar and why is Labour unable to do anything about it?”
“…We know Kiwis are suffocating under the burden of rising mortgage payments and interest rates. We know you cringe at the thought of filling up the car, paying for the groceries, or trying to pay off your credit card. ”
John Key 2008
Is he just taking his 2008 speeches out of the file and re-reading them???
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=11772”
[tracey - interesting comments, but a little bit off topic! Please stick to the thread]
Required to prove their injury?
I had a specialist request an MRI.
ACC said NO, (NO REASON GIVEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
They said they’d review my case if I got an MRI.
And a Rheumatologist review.
My bloods are clear, I CANNOT get a review from one because NOBODY WILL REFER me because THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE RESULTS!
Clever aye.
So I suppose I’m in the same boat as hearing loss people?
So I guess hearing loss people aren’t the only people required to prove their injured.
Glad I’m a careful driver, 3 months before I have to go and buy an XRAY for my broken spine, broken ribs, fractured pelvis… mite bleed out first. That’d save a few dollars. PROVE your car crash wasn’t pre existing! Oh.. you’re a drunk criminal and killed 3 people, right this way sir, we’ll fix you right up. you’ll be back out murdering before you know it.
How as the opposition could you not bring the petition up and debate it?
Do they get to vote not to hear you guys?
If it’s your decision surely that’s it?