I really thought I was onto something simple with 'A Fresh Look' (May 2020’s NZ Optics), but to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, 'the game appears to be afoot'. I'm fond of words, especially when they're used in that precise way 19th century authors treated them.
Back then, ambiguity wasn't a requirement; thus Charles Dickens’ Tiny Tim was neither handicapped nor disabled but, in fact, 'crippled' which, regardless of Victorian well-mannered sensitivities, got the message across. Ambiguity is very much with us these days, a weapon of choice for those who govern. I try to avoid politics when writing this stuff, it’s such a messy business, but recent events have forced me to front up.
I know I bang on about it, but this identity thing is causing concern, especially since those at the Beehive have raised the stakes to include the 'level playing field' concept. I'm not anti-politico and I'm sure they've got heaps of stuff to deal with, including each other, but the Health and Disability Legislation (which I suspect, like most things, is under the microscope) affects me and I feel entitled to know where I stand. That, of course, is a problem when those who shape our laws decide to tinker. It seems to me, simple soul that I am, that once they embark on 'improvement' they seem to decide that clarity isn't in our best interest. Once a Bill is proposed, complications become practically mandatory and when everyone dips their oar in, the prospect of clearly defined legislation in a timely manner starts to diminish. I'm far too timid to suggest they’d ignore input from interested parties but the need for a squadron of consultants and advisors could be questioned. Surely a select committee hearing, House debates and the inevitable amendments should protect most interests?








