I can agree that some pathway should continue to exist for those clearly having potentially harmful psychosis* to be helped rapidly by mental health professionals rather than only the police.
In crisis situations where safety is of immediate primary importance establishing rapport and trust is often not possible.
I’m disappointed with the Minister of Police axing the extension of mental health education for police. I can see why the Police Association would push back on that - the Police already have a great many expectations foist upon them - but they will often be first responders to situations that turn out to have mental health as a significant component.
Wherever possible community mental health teams should lead but that’s not always possible but even when the police are in a support role it’s still important to have a reasonable understanding of mental health.
The recommendation is that the mental health act be done away with because it’s coercive. No mention of what could replace it is made and there is no discussion as to why coercive acts maybe be sometimes necessary.
That’s not a recipe for any positive improvement.
What could happen is that, as Russell has suggested, situations are dealt with by the criminal legal system rather than health.
There’s a lot in the report that’s of value but not so much where the crisis is being felt the most – by the most unwell.
The police can detain them but in what circumstances/environment and what is the role of mental health services. People at present can be placed under the act for a drug induced psychosis – if that option is no longer there what would be the alternative.
I’m not suggesting the current process doesn’t need improving necessarily but any alternative needs to reflect the risks.
The addiction treatment part of the report appears to me to be the most coherent aspect with the clearest outline of a path forward.
It does however, as far as I can see, glide over the significant issues of how to deal with the small number of people who become extremely voilent on p and synthetics. Of course ultimately they should be offered treatment but in times of extreme crisis and risk there needs to be some form direct, immediate intervention which doesn’t sit well with other aspects of the report advocating less coercion.
I think this is part of a broader problem with this inquiry. Mental health is not one system – there are many parts which deal with vastly different situations and risks.
There may be a lot here in the area of community counseling of such issues as situational stress but the idea that there would be no compulsory treatment provisions misses the experience of the other far more acute areas where the greatest risk and vulnerability lie.
The report doesn’t offer much on some of the most important and difficult issues such as risk vs autonomy vs staff safety. They are dilemmas with no simple solutions.
On drugs it makes a lot of sense but for people involved in the most acute high risk areas there isn’t much here. The most obvious first step though would be more funding for existing acute services and more community accomodation for those coming out of acute settings. No need to wait to do that.
And why is Twyford deliberately dragging his feet over making changes to apartment building governance laws which currently allow ruthless management companies such as Centurion to make life a misery for people who buy apartments. Look up who controls Centurion if you don’t already know.
Intensification has to have a sound legal basis or intensification will just feed exploiters. At present it doesn’t.
Twyford chooses to discuss his lowering the penalty for making a profit out of KiwiBuild with king of boondoggles Shane Jones rather than with the PM.
The PM doesn’t appear impressed.
All in the context of quite a few people trying to tell Twyford the building industry is dysfunctional and corrupt. But he’s got his fingers in ears. Maybe he’s just stupid, maybe he stands to gain somewhere along the line in his post politics life. Not unheard of.
We know the relationship between NZF and the pillaging fishing industry. Companies like Fletchers won’t be complaining about govt money helping solve their financial problems.
Well I’ve just seen this. Twyford wanted to lessen the penalty for flipping Kiwibuild homes on for a profit.
Didn’t discuss it with the PM but did discus it with – Shane Jones.
Industry influence, pretty obvious.
The directors of theses failed building companies quickly go on to work for other building companies.
Constructing houses in NZ is horrendously more expensive than in other countries. And yet these companies go bust.
Where do the profits from these exorbitant costs go and why aren’t people being held accountable and why is Labour seemingly so disinterested.
Perhaps it’s a bit like how the fishing industry works with Winston Peters.
This is the biggest threat to Labour’s housing policy. The building industry is seriously dysfunctional and sadly corrupt.
Twyford thinks the building industry is his friend, he should quickly come to terms with the fact it is not.
He also needs to urgently address the huge failings in current legislation regarding apartment building management and ownership. Otherwise people will get put off apartments and intensification will be that much harder.
Having read Russell Brown’s article on psychedelic therapies I’m reminded of the Emily Dickinson poem I’ve never quite agreed with:
The Brain, within its Groove
Runs evenly—and true—
But let a Splinter swerve—
’Twere easier for You—
To put a Current back—
When Floods have slit the Hills—
And scooped a Turnpike for Themselves—
And trodden out the Mills—
It seems we are more predisposed to digging the groove deaper via thought and accessing memory rather than being delicately susceptible to being thrown into new visions.