If you want a really corporatist indicator, Felix Marwick's tweet: https://twitter.com/felixmarwick/status/605843517944926209
"Health Minister says no legislation needed for social bonds policy. Initiative can be signed off by cabinet."
It's not a cabinet, it's a bloody boardroom.
via University of Canterbury politics lecturer Bronwyn Hayward, this US clip explores a couple of moral dimensions of governments contracting services to profit-driven businesses. Amazing presenter too.
And I'll put this...http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hpWNMumOLK4J:www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/social_bonds_cabinet_paper_redactedv1.pdf+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz
here as well.
Sacha...we have run out of gigbytes(or whatever they're called), so I'll watch the You Tube clip later...is there a transcript, perhaps?
Eric Crampton of the NZ Initiative
what the Business Roundtable morphed into
Thanks for the excellent (albeit very scary) post, and I plan on giving a fuck and protesting this abhorrent measure. The New Zealand Association of Psychotherapists, and others soon to be announced, have teamed up with Action Station to actively campaign against this see: http://www.actionstation.org.nz/mentalhealth
do not know. will keep. he's an awesome speaker
I'm guessing you were not consulted?
No one bothered to seek my opinion, no. ACC regretted that eventually, so we'll see.
We hold our “trouble” citizens in pens.
Penning a person is a big deal. I would not want that initiative encouraged . But the private sector makes money out of pens.
Dumb politics, but ironically very politically correct for present majority pakeha boy politics ( the real p.c) because it looks like a quick solution to a problem that really begs academically for a new form of mental education, an introduction to the stress levels of the brain. This is croz-text ticked off ,the real politically correct 2015 in that winning is correct politically..
all strength to you, sir.
The ideology behind all this drive to get disabled into work is based on a twisted interpretation of the so-called “bio psychosocial model”, which such “experts” as Mansel Aylward and others in the UK interpreted and tried to apply in a rather “perverted” way:
What they tried there, and are increasingly trying to do here, is to “support” mentally ill and others by applying more “pressure” in the form of expectations, that they are not as sick and disabled, as they may see themselves, or as others may see the sick, injured and impaired, on benefits, on ACC or whatever unfortunate living and income situations.
They like to discredit or reduce the “medical” in the equation, and like to stress the “psycho” aspect, and we have read reports from Aylward about “malingering” and “illness belief”, which betrays where his thinking was heading.
The “social” aspect has been thrown over board, it seems, or has at least been reduced to be hardly noticeable in their approach. Most persons with mental illness, or with certain physical and psychological impairments, would love to participate more in societty, and many would also like to work, be more independent and live more fulfilling lives.
But the biggest hurdles they face are not “benefit dependency”, or “poor attitude” or a “mental addiction to dependency on welfare” (see Dr Bratt, the PHA for WINZ), the biggest obstacles are the wider society itself, the employers and perhaps workmates. And such are major barriers for disabled to access and perform types of work, in safe, secure environments.
That though does not seem to be the main focus by MSD and our “wonderful” Mr Jonathan Coleman with his health portfolio.
I hear and see little more treatment being offered for sick and disabled, as many mental health services have been cut, or have too limited funding made available. I see insufficient measures put in place to provide people with support equipment and suitably adjusted work-places, I see little pressure or expectations placed on employers, on society as a whole, to change attitudes, and be more respectful and also more informed and enlightened.
And we have a general work environment that is in itself in many ways not that healthy at all, given so many jobs are marginal, part time, casual or simply “precarious”. We have one of the worst safety records in some industries in the OECD too.
Major changes are needed in workplaces, in society as a whole, in labour laws and social support, to enable more to get access to jobs, and to stay in work. WINZ should start themselves, by getting rid of the counter productive, punitive, sanctions driven system they implemented, and give disabled assurances that they can fall back on benefit support if a job does not work out. Perhaps a UBI may offer a safety net, where there is not this excessive scrutiny placed on people, who end up without jobs.
Simply pressuring people, simply trying to “psych” them up into artificial, temporary positivity, and simply creating a profit incentive for referral agencies and so, that will NOT bring the outcomes that are needed.
I call all this an own goal by the government, but as we know, they will not admit to it, until they lose the next election, as losing face is the last thing that this lot will allow to happen. They will rather stick to their ideologically driven approach, run these trials, no matter what, and put others at risk, and under a lot of stress, and I just dread what collateral damage there may eventually be with all these experiments.
WINZ should be the tiny organisation it use to be. 1% unemployment is the goal of a true democracy. Nation building requires an expansion of work, a connected society.
No one ever signed off at a stability based on a 5% -6% no job zone.They have given up on a bigger society .
No one bothered to seek my opinion, no. ACC regretted that eventually, so we’ll see.
Could you please expand on that. How did ACC impact on you?
In the meantime...here's the link to Kyle's website....
I was part of a group that successfully lobbied to overturn the changes to the ACC Sensitive Claims counselling funding in 2009. The Govt backtracked under pressure and via a Ministerial Review, we've ended up with a treatment system that most believe is better in many ways that what we had.
If a group of people are committed to working hard enough, and enough people are outraged, these things can be stopped.
Since this 'initiative' is going to be under the auspices of the Misery Of Health...maybe we should re acquaint ourselves with the Code of Rights...
cos I'm sure, somewhere in there, is a bit about consent, and choice, and not being experimented on,
Excellent column on the topic by Dita De Boni in the Herald.
She raises a good question: where are the results that say this works? Not the ideological assumptions; the data. Where are the successful instances? It's worth noting that the British pilot was closed down by the UK government last year.
This seems to be of a piece with the "social housing" gambit, in that it's characterised by a low degree of rigour and a high degree of magical thinking.
We have a long history of slavishly copying the U.K.'s mistakes, usually after they've been recognised as mistakes in the U.K. Here we go again. Unless it can be stopped. I won't hold my breath.
On another tack, I miss our poetic wordsmith and hope he's okay.
And we should join the dots with this;
Whatever happens, I hope it doesn’t take a David Malcolm Gray or James Eagan Holmes to force a rethink if the SIB model goes pear-shaped.
James Holmes lingered outside a suburban Denver movie theater for a moment or two, thinking someone at a mental health hotline might talk him out of killing people he didn’t know, or that the FBI might swoop in and stop him, he told a psychiatrist last year.
But his phone call to the crisis line was disconnected after 9 seconds, before anyone answered, he says in the videotaped conversation with the psychiatrist, which was shown to jurors in his murder trial Tuesday. The FBI never showed up, despite Holmes’ suspicions that agents were watching him.
Potential 'investors' pricking their ears.
"It's important to look at innovation in this space for social services support in the community," said Liz Gibbs, chief executive of Philanthropy New Zealand, whose members pump about $2.6 billion into local communities each year.
"Philanthropy is such a diverse sector - some of our members have a real appetite for this and others don't."
"There would definitely be part of AMP that would be interested in these programmes," said Vicky Hyde-Smith, fixed-income portfolio manager at AMP Capital. "As yet we don't have enough information. We are supportive in principle."
The New Zealand Superannuation Fund said it was watching as social impact bonds developed.
Whatever happens, I hope it doesn’t take a David Malcolm Gray or James Eagan Holmes to force a rethink when the SIB model goes pear-shaped.
There, I fixed it.
We've already had attacks on WINZ offices, with the response being to increase security rather than countenance addressing the reasons.
Exactly. All Jonathan Coleman has said about the potential for cherry picking (detailed in the De Boni article as a dangerous disaster in the North Carolina mental health service 'experiment') is "Don't worry that won't happen. "
Strangely, I don't feel reassured.
A good piece by Dita, and I suppose, we have to be grateful for the few "Ditas" there still are, writing more sensibly and openly for media. Mihi Forbes is leaving Maori TV I hear, and after John Campbell being forced out from TV3, it looks damned grim, where we are heading.
I dare ask the question; who is the victim in all this? I cannot fight the impression that one sick Mr Tully was a victim of the system, who though overstepped the line and did some terrible things.
I have seen WINZ take action with my own eyes, being there once, and they called police right after someone left, just saying something nasty, not necessarily criminal, to a case manager.
That is where we are now, we will soon have full US American conditions, and that means possible armed guards, and armed police and dissenters turning criminal, as we also seem to have nothing much of a political opposition that people relate to and have any hope in. Prepare for the law of the jungle.