"Maori Party leader Tariana Turia said her MPs still had many concerns about the proposed changes, but believed the issues should be debated."
You are being tested and found wanting.
We are not stupid - stop treating us that way.
"We see that ACC is one of those issues in which every New Zealander has an interest - directly or potentially. On this important basis, we think that the people should be given the opportunity to have a say on the proposed legislation," Mrs Turia said."
There are times for toeing the line and times for kicking the line. It is about time this government realised that the maori party weren't always going to toe the line. It won't matter if the foreshore and seabed are sorted but along the way we gave away everything else, including our mana.
I agree with this
Footnote
Sue Bradford said, "during the 1990s privatisation, employers pressured workers into not reporting accidents or saying they happened outside of work so they could retain low premiums.
"Tariana Turia seems to be actually saying privatisation may be a good thing for Maori and I don't think there's a shred of evidence for that, and if she looked into what even began to happen back when it was partially privatised under National before, she would see the outcomes were really poor particularly for workers with the least bargaining power.
"... I just can't believe that the Maori party would support this legislation."
and now this
"National and ACT have struck a deal over ACC reform that will see the Government investigate opening the work account to competition."
As suspected and no surprise to anyone - except for the maori party. Opening ACC to competition will not be good for maori as sue highlights.
i'm starting to worry about the maori party
5 comments:
So how can it be bad for Maori? Just coz National like it? Because that's kind of what you are saying by not providing rationale to your statement.
Kia ora kate
The changes to the defination around what is a mental injury for survivors of sexual abuse is an area where maori will be adversly affected. Maori are represented within these survivors and it would be surprising if they weren't overrepresented. Maori and all survivors will be adversly affected because of the likely lower number of accepted claims based on the tighter defination.
My post was really about the fact that by agreeing to back the bill to the next stage of the process for the purposes of "seeking submissions and hearing what people want" is naiven from the maori party. If they disagree with the bill then don't support it.
I'm pretty even handed with my treatment of political parties - they all get a comment when deserved.
Kia ora to you to Marty Mars
The Maori Party are just playing politics. By keeping the debate alive they get the chance to trade and scheme more deals under the table.
More to your example
Sexual abuse isn't an "accident". How can it be? XYZ "accidentally" inserted his ***** into ABC causing her mental injury? I know of no such accidental sexual connections.
As sad and bad as it is that Maori may be over-represented in those statistics, perhaps the issue is more of a wider one within Maoridom (that the Maori Party could actually influence through its leadership of its electorate) and the criminal justice system (or Marae justice) and not a specific ACC issue.
It is a matter of what is the scope and included in ACC and why the taxpayer should pay for it. Where do you draw the line? A child whose parent commits suicide now gets a payout, but a child whose parent dies of a terminal illness or suddenly in their sleep does not. Aren't both as equally painful?
I'm more concerned about the Maori Party not actually taking time to read and understand what they are voting for. I wonder if their staff and advisors are actually up to much?
Busted Blonde's example of the ETS that you've linked to is a perfect one.
I agree about the maori party - it is politics and they have to be careful. I do feel a certain amount of knee-jerk reaction from them and i don't buy the line that backing the proposed changes through to the next level for the purposes of more debate is the way to go. Would be good if they read and undestood the legislation and in terms of advisers - who knows? Some of the decisions don't seem that well thought out as evidenced by the backtracking.
In terms of the example. They are covered now and the changes would likely reduce the cover available. There are always lines and the argument gets to where do we put them. i believe that ACC should cover 'accidents' but I'd probably use a wider definition (as has been used) and therefore keep the line where it is or even move to provide more cover. I think providing support for people who have been adversly affected by events outside their control is good for society and fiscially doable. It really is a prioritisation issue.
But the haste of all these changes concerns me. What do you think - are they moving with undue haste? They seem to have a tight agenda with pretty tight timeframes which obviously relate to the election cycle but jeepers talk about unravelling the past administration!
Turia: Opening ACC could benefit Corporate iwi capitalists, please explain to the pohahra majority of Maori.
"The Maori Party will not rule out supporting moves to open accident compensation to competition, saying it could benefit Maori providers and have a flow-on effect to Maori workers."have a flow-on effect to Maori wokers"WTF sounds like the Maori version of Thatcher & Reagan's trickle down rhetoric. Maori workers pissed on, more likely.
Post a Comment