Consultation on our ageing population

This should be popular here – it must concern all of us as we are all ageing.

RNZ: Consultation opens on govt strategy for aging population

Seniors Minister Tracey Martin opened a consultation to a new strategy that is going to “help older New Zealanders live well”.

The draft strategy, Better Later Life – He Oranga Kaumātua 2019 to 2034, has been designed to ensure New Zealand is prepared for and makes the most of our aging population.

The strategy incorporates feedback from nationwide consultation last year about what people what for the future.

The key areas of the strategy are supporting seniors in the workforce and how business can better recruit and retain older people; and promoting housing options appropriate for older people, Ms Martin said.

Super Seniors (MSD):  Strategy for an ageing population


Draft new strategy

The draft new startegy, and a summary, Better Later Life – He Oranga Kaumātua 2019 to 2034, takes a fresh look at what is required to ensure New Zealand has the right policies in place and is prepared for an ageing population.

We would like to hear your feedback about the draft strategy. Please:

Feedback closes at midnight on 3 June 2019.

Summary of submissions report

This report summarises what people told us was important and what the new strategy for an ageing population should cover. The report highlights the significant themes raise by submitters during the public consultation that occurred between June and August 2018.

Our population is ageing

Population growth

We have developed short snapshots on key topics:

We’ve asked some experts to tell us what they think that future looks like. We’ll be publishing these over the coming weeks. The following are available now:

If you have any questions, queries or feedback, contact us at ageing_population@msd.govt.nz

Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill

Submissions close on Thursday on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill.


Public submissions are now being called for the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill

The closing date for submissions is Thursday, 11 April 2019

The Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill aims to:

  • classify two synthetic cannabinoids, AMB-FUBINACA and 5F-ADB, as Class A drugs​
  • affirm in legislation the discretion for Police to prosecute for possession and use of all drugs
  • specify that, when considering prosecuting for possession and use, consideration should be given to whether a health-centred or therapeutic approach would be more beneficial
  • enable temporary drug class orders to be issued for emerging and potentially harmful substances.

The bill intends to address the harm being caused by synthetic drugs, and others, by ensuring that legislation focusses on those who import, manufacture, and supply the drugs and not those who use them. The bill’s explanatory note states that “Addressing drug-related harm requires a health-based response, rather than a punitive one, so that people can access the health and social support services they need.”

The proposed temporary drug class orders would allow for substances to be immediately treated as though they are classified as Class C controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. These measures are intended to address the rapidly adapting synthetic drug market and to continue disrupting the supply of new synthetic drugs.

Read the bill on NZ Legislation website

Medicinal Cannabis hearing – first day

The first hearings on the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill were heard by the health Select Committee in Parliament yesterday.

RNZ: Medicinal Cannabis Bill prompts calls for broader allowances

Under the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill before Parliament, only those terminally ill and with a year left to live would have a legal defence against prosecution for illicit marijuana use.

Drug Foundation director, Ross Bell…

…told MPs on the first day of hearings on the Bill that was not good enough. He said the Bill should be extended to also cover those with severe and debilitating conditions.

“Only focusing on terminal patients isn’t good enough, and in reality, the terminal patients aren’t getting arrested by the police but many other patients are. And the way that police use their discretion means that a lot of people are getting prosecuted still.”

Mr Bell said the same statutory protection should also extend to those who support patients.

“The so-called green fairies, people that will be administering the medicine or even cultivating the medicine, you know. And I think again you’re going to hear stories of people who are on their deathbed or are severely physically limited that they can’t access the medicine, they can’t even administer the medicine.”

Green MP Chloe Swarbrick…

…has backed the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill, but she also identified gaps, saying legal protection for the terminally ill stopped short of what is needed.

“That doesn’t address access, it doesn’t address availability, it doesn’t address the quality of the product and it certainly doesn’t address affordability.

“We’re all quite aware of the gaping black hole that presently exists”.

“I’m aware that my Bill was evidently voted down because people were concerned about the provision, the so-called ‘grow-your-own’ provision, but what we have right here is people still needing to get access to cannabis illegally. Somebody has to grow it.”

“We currently have a situation where police on the frontlines are being quite open about the fact that they are defacto decriminalising the use of cannabis for medicinal reasons or recreational reasons or otherwise. What we are – as the Green Party – concerned about there is that there is no rule of law.”

The College of General Practitioners…

…said doctors want the best for their patients, but clinical trials and Medsafe approval are needed before medicinal cannabis is made more widely available.

Asked if those with chronic illnesses should be included in legal protection, the college president, Tim Malloy, said doctors would struggle with who that would cover.

“That’s going to be the issue. It’s not whether this applies to them or not, it’s how do you define it and what are the criteria and what do you have to have tried beforehand. So there’s a whole body of work that needs to be done to define that for us.”

GPs also said they wanted health equity, and part of the reason for the Bill was to improve access to beneficial treatments, including the potential for medicinal cannabis.

“There is an equity issue here as Pharmac does not currently fund Sativex and most people would not be able to afford it — a thousand dollars a month — without funding.”

Shane Le Brun of the Medical Cannabis Awareness New Zealand charity…

…said those most at risk of being prosecuted for illicit cannabis use were not the terminally ill at all.

“I’m quite plugged in with who’s getting busted by the police and it’s not terminal patients. There’s no one who’s two months from death’s door that has the police knocking on their door, so that whole part of the Bill was actually toothless.”

Mr Le Brun also questioned whether others who were very ill but not near death needed medicinal cannabis for pain relief too.

“Are we happy with really sick people to be hauled before the courts for growing something that helps them, especially when the legal options cost thousands of dollars a month?”

Shane has done a heap of very good work on this issue, and is busy networking with those of possible influence on the Bill.

On demand video of submissions and future live streaming: Health Select Committee (Facebook)

Medical cannabis submissions – livestreaming

Join us for a livestream of oral submitters on the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill.

SUBMITTERS – WEDNESDAY 4 APRIL:
 New Zealand Drug Foundation (9:45 – 10am)
 Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand (10 – 10:15am)
 ActionStation (10:15 – 10:30am)
 Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand (10:30 – 10:45am)
 Auckland Patients Group (APG) (11 – 11.15am)
 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (11.15 – 11.30am)
 Medical Cannabis Awareness New Zealand (MCANZ) (11.30 – 11.45am)
 The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners (RNZCGP)(11.45am – 12pm)
 Medical Research Institute of New Zealand – MRINZ and Medical Cannabis research collaborative (12 – 12.15pm)

The livestream starting at 9:45 am, Wednesday:

https://t.co/VUkvzu81QT

TPPA timeframe change “an attack on democracy”

MPs considering submissions on the TPPA have had the available time slashed from a month to five days. This is bad process and appalling PR from the Government on a very contentious issue.

The select committee public submission process is an important part of our democratic system, despite efforts by parties and activist groups to manipulate it.

It’s a common tactic to try and flood submissions with a particular stance and then to claim that it’s a measure of public opposition. Numbers of submissions are not a measure of opinion.

But the Government has poked a stick into a wasp nest by slashing the time Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee members have to consider submissions on the TPPA.

Radio NZ reports: New TPP timeframe an ‘attack on democracy’

MPs have been given just five days to consider hundreds of submissions on the controversial TPP trade deal after the timeframe was drastically cut from four weeks.

The select committee was originally give a month to write its report and present it back to Parliament.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee had been hearing submissions on the TPP from hundreds of people across the country and that will continue until the end of the month.

National MP Mark Mitchell, chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee, strongly rejects the view that the timeframe undermines the democratic process and says there will be plenty of time for robust debate.

But a last minute slashing of time to consider submissions is an awful look – what did key say about National’s need to avoid appearing arrogant this term?

Opposition MPs are understandably up in arms.

But opposition members on the committee say they were told yesterday the government wanted to cut down the time they had to analyse the submissions, so the legislation could get through by the end of the year.

They said they were stunned by the news and felt angry and frustrated.

Labour MP David Clark…

…said he wouldn’t be surprised if the people who made submissions felt the same way.

“Submitters will be horrified if they learnt that the committee is curtailing a process of consideration of the very serious issues they have raised,” he said.

“It seems very reasonable to expect them to be frustrated and to question whether there is integrity in the process at all.”

It’s fair to question motives and integrity.

Green MP Kennedy Graham…

…said he and other opposition MPs on the committee had thought the original timeframe of a month to write the report was too short.

“It’s just a slap of indifference and dismissal of some very sincere, very capable and hard-working New Zealand people,” he said.

“It shows it up for what it is – which is essentially a roadshow with a predetermined end.”

It gives opponents plenty of cause to ridicule the consultation process as a sham.

New Zealand First MP Fletcher Tabuteau…

…said what made it worse was that the tight deadline meant the draft report would be written before the committee had finished hearing all the submissions.

The TPP has been a farcical process from the beginning, he said.

“The whole negotiation had been undertaken in secret to start with. The submission time has been months in contrast to the six years it has to write [the TPP deal],” Mr Tabuteau said.

“This is clearly an attack on democracy – it’s unacceptable.”

It looks unacceptable to me.

This is likely to stir up the TPPA opponents yet again and give them a good reason to stir up protests again.

Is this just arrogant abuse of the democratic process, or is the Government deliberately stirring up anti-TPPA protest?

Whether the latter is their intent or not it is likely to be the outcome.

RMA and democracy

Dunedin City Councillors have expressed concerns about aspects of the latest proposals to reform the Resource Management Act.

Today’s ODT editorial looks at some pros and cons in Democracy not negotiable:

Environment Minister Dr Nick Smith introduced the Bill by citing widespread reports of the RMA’s “cumbersome planning processes and the time and cost of consenting”.

The proposed changes would reduce that time and cost in many cases while tightening rules around which affected parties were entitled to inclusion in a given consenting process.

The result, Dr Smith said, was an enhanced Resource Management Act improving both environmental management and economic growth.

These are goals most New Zealanders would readily support and applaud.

There is widespread acknowledgement that RMA improvements are needed – but a sound democratic process is also very important.

Councillors have said they fear environmental benchmarks will become too flexible under the proposed changes while the powers of a local body’s own district plan would be watered down.

They are also concerned the Bill will centralise power in Wellington at the expense of local bodies, but the biggest stumbling block is their concern citizens affected by a given development could be shut out of consent hearings.

Under the Bill, non-expert submitters could be cast aside.

The result, councillors fear, is residents wanting to be heard on a development they believed would affect them would not have that chance unless they possessed expert knowledge or could afford to hire someone who did.

And here lies the conundrum.

It is a conundrum. There are examples of ‘non-expert’ submitters influencing RMA decisions for what some would say are fairly trivial objections, like how a development would look from a distance.

At an Dunedin RMA hearing last week one objection was that an apartment block would increase traffic on the street – that would probably be minor, central city apartments tend to reduce the need to travel by car, especially compared to dwellers in distant suburbs were urban sprawl is likely to occur.

There will be few New Zealanders who disagree with what Dr Smith says the Bill will do: improve environmental management and economic growth.

There will be few New Zealanders who can’t bring to mind examples of infuriating, expensive and protracted RMA hearings.

But there are a few New Zealanders whose hobby seems to be frivolous RMA objections.

But there would also be few Kiwis who don’t cling steadfastly to New Zealand remaining a fair, democratic country offering access and voice to all citizens, not just those highly skilled, educated or deep-pocketed enough to have their opinions considered valid.

Hearings panels already have the power to ignore submissions they consider frivolous or vexatious.

Are further limits to submissions required?

Democracy has been consistently championed, fought for and celebrated by New Zealanders.

But not because we hold it as the cheapest or most efficient form of government.

It is neither.

Democracy is difficult and comes with a hefty price tag.

While efficiencies should be sought wherever possible, we should be wary when they come at the expense of democracy.

We should certainly do what we can to protect democracy.

But as much of a problem as eroding democratic processes is the trend for activist individuals or groups to misuse and abuse submission processes to try and impose minority ideals on the majority.

Getting the right balance won’t be easy.

Euthanasia submissions due 1 February

Today’s Herald on Sunday editorial focusses on Lecretia Seales and euthanasia, and it points out that Health select committee public submissions on euthanasia close in a week.

New Zealanders have just a week left to voice their opinions on voluntary euthanasia and whether it should be considered under law.

It is not an easy subject. The very term we use to understand the process is altered – and sometimes manipulated – to serve a purpose. Euthanasia, assisted dying, suicide.

It is one of the most difficult questions of our age but one that needs to be asked and considered.

Public feedback to Parliament’s health select committee closes on February 1. In a little over a week, the chance to have a say will be gone.

Regardless of the opinion – or the outcome – it would be to our shame to choose not to contribute to that debate.

 Herald on Sunday

It is a difficult and important issue, covering an individual’s right to choose how they may end their life versus protection of vulnerable people.

The Herald shows how out of date they can be by not providing links to the submission page.

The Parliament website for the Health Committee isn’t helpful either. Business before the Health Committee doesn’t mention it, and if I follow it’s Submissions link I get:

Server Error

Oops – there has been an error. This error has been automatically emailed to our website team and we will endeavour to fix it as soon as possible.

But there is a page:

Petition of Hon Maryan Street and 8,974 others

Public submissions are now being invited on the Petition of Hon Maryan Street and 8,974 others.

The closing date for submissions is Monday, 1 February 2016

The Health Select Committee has received a petition requesting “That the House of Representatives investigate fully public attitudes towards the introduction of legislation which would permit medically-assisted dying in the event of a terminal illness or an irreversible condition which makes life unbearable.” The petition asks for a change to existing law. Therefore the committee will undertake an investigation into ending one’s life in New Zealand. In order to fully understand public attitudes the committee will consider all the various aspects of the issue, including the social, legal, medical, cultural, financial, ethical, and philosophical implications. The Committee will investigate: 1. The factors that contribute to the desire to end one’s life. 2. The effectiveness of services and support available to those who desire to end their own lives. 3. The attitudes of New Zealanders towards the ending of one’s life and the current legal situation. 4. International experiences. The committee will seek to hear from all interested groups and individuals.

The committee requires 2 copies of each submission if made in writing. Those wishing to include any information of a private or personal nature in a submission should first discuss this with the clerk of the committee, as submissions are usually released to the public by the committee. Those wishing to appear before the committee to speak to their submissions should state this clearly and provide a daytime telephone contact number. To assist with administration please supply your postcode and an email address if you have one.

Further guidance on making a submission can be found from the Making a Submission to a Parliamentary Select Committee link in the `Related documents´ panel.

There’s a much more helpful site – Lecretia’s Choice

 

The Health Select Committee is taking public submissions on assisted dying and suicide.  They want to hear from New Zealanders about their beliefs and concerns about end of life choices.  It is your chance to tell our politicians how you feel about end of life care and the choices you want to have.

The Parliament website has a helpful guide that explains the Select Committee Process (PDF) and how it affects Parliamentary decision-making. They also have a longer guide on how to make a submission, the key points of which are covered at the end of this page.

The original petition was “That the House of Representatives investigate fully public attitudes towards the introduction of legislation which would permit medically-assisted dying in the event of a terminal illness or an irreversible condition which makes life unbearable.”

We are not happy with the terms of reference created by the Health Select Committee in response to this, as they imply that someone seeking assisted dying wants to die, which couldn’t be further from the truth. They have also brought the issue of suicide into scope, even though this wasn’t part of the request of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society petition. However it is not possible for the terms to be changed at this point, so it is not worth debating this as part of your submission. It is best to focus on the terms as written. The terms of reference are:

      • The factors that contribute to the desire to end one’s life.
      • The effectiveness of services and support available to those who desire to end their own lives.
      • The attitudes of New Zealanders towards the ending of one’s life and the current legal situation.
      • International experiences.

The Committee intends to consider “all the various aspects of the issue, including the social, legal medical, cultural, financial, ethical and philosophical implications.”

More details at:

Lecretia’s Choice

Greens confuse democratic process with democratic votes

Despite what some try to claim he number of submissions in a democratic process is not a measure of popular support.

Submissions are not votes.

A high number of submissions promoting one view has become common, but they often mean that one view has been organised and promoted with mass submissions.

Green co-leader Metiria Turei recently sent out an email that was predictably critical of the Government emissions target announcement but her argument is a bad example of the confusion of democratic process versus democratic votes.

Here are five reasons why this weak target should be a concern for all New Zealanders:

  1. This target undermines our democratic process. Back in May, thousands of New Zealanders participated in the Government’s climate consultation. An overwhelming majority (99% of those who specified a target) asked for a more ambitious target than what the Government is proposing. John Key’s administration has effectively ignored almost everyone who participated in the consultation, from doctors and business leaders to scientists and conservation groups.

For a start this doesn’t even give the total number of submissions, she just claims “an overwhelming majority (99% of those who specified a target)”.

How many submissions were there?

How many submissions didn’t specify a target?

But claiming “this target undermines our democratic process” is based either on ignorance of democracy (which is alarming from a party that claims to be more democratic than any other) or it is deliberately deceptive.

Submissions are an important  part of the democratic process, a means of giving the public a say.

But organising mass submissions has become common practice from parties like the Greens and also allied activists:

Like Generation Zero: Use our quick submission tool to call on the Government to commit to a pathway towards zero CO2 emissions by 2050 or earlier, and call for a global zero carbon target in the Paris deal.

This is our chance to call for a plan to Fix Our Future. Take a few minutes to add your voice by submitting below.

It’s easy to have your say. Just fill in your details and tick all the points you agree with.

Personalising your submission will really add weight to it so please add your own thoughts and comments at the end of the form.

In an open democracy like ours groups are free to organise mass submissions, a form of group speak.

But claiming that the number of submissions is some sort of democratic measure of support is an abuse of democracy, or ignorance of how democracy works.Metiria Turei

Either way a party leader should know better than to make claims like Turei has.

Are the Greens confused about democratic processes? Or are they deliberately trying to confuse?

Should children have a say on a new flag?

The Justice and Electoral select committee started hearing from submitters on Thursday about the flag change referendum process and their views on whether a new flag is needed.

From what I saw reported most submissions were just people’s opinion on whether there should be a flag change or not, or whether there should be one referendum or two.

But one submission stood out for suggesting a thought promoting idea – should kids have a say in their flag? Stuff reports: MPs told to give children a vote on the flag.

Michael Gibson told MPs that all school-age children should be given the vote and be involved in the decision-making process.

Internationally New Zealand would be recognised as “not only the first country to give women the vote but also the first country to give children the vote”.

Gibson said giving children aged 5 and over a vote on the flag referendum would be “giving a vote to those who will be living the longest with the consequences”.

“By being involved in the decision-making process school children would feel empowered. The important subject of social studies will be boosted and have even more meaning,” he said.

“To choose between four pictures might have the merit of getting the input of people who simply like the simplest and most attractive picture.”

Gibson disagreed that “pressure groups” would be waving banners and flags outside of schools and ruled it out as a problem.

This is an interesting idea and is worth thinking about and discussing.

lt’s a discussion younger people could easily contribute to. It’s their flag and it’s their country – and they will have to live with the status quo or any change longer than us adults.

Why shouldn’t children have a say? At least secondary aged children.

Eighteen years olds will get to vote in the referendums anyway. Why not their fellow school pupils?

It should at least be seriously considered.

GCSB bill submissions online

124 written submissions on the GCSB bill – Bill (Part 2) [PDF 10602k]

Now officially available on the parliament.co.nz website – submissions received by the Intelligence and Security Committee on the Government Communications Security Bureau and related legislation Amendment Bill.

These submissions were released by the committee on 1 July 2013.

It has taken over two weeks for these to be made available, there has been criticism of this delay.

Information
Date:
8 May 2013
Downloads

Note: The above document(s) are provided as an Adobe PDF (PortableDocument Format) file. you can download a free viewer for PDF files from Adobe’s web site.

Related documents
Related links