National Thus Far

[JP]

You know when they say they're moving 'money not being spent well' they're moving it out of social programmes. Except an increase in the trend of nasty shit happening, poverty is bad for everyone, it isn't that hard to understand.

[xor]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Shit like this reminds me why I don't support a National government.

Denied help for sexual abuse, dead days later

I had a few mates in the labour days that had some pretty heavy mental issues. They're whanau couldn't afford counselling and they're kids weren't 'fucked up enough' to get free counselling from a psychologist.

It's not just a National thing br4

[fixed_truth]

No.
A non 100 percent coverage of people being seen under previous legislation is not the same as this government specifically cutting ACC funded abuse counseling.

Under the previous legislation clinicians didn't have to spend more and more time on paperwork and red-tape in order to diagnose a sexual abuse survivor with a mental illness (specifically under the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual DSM-IV).

Under the previous legislation sexual abuse victims weren't put off seeking help because they would have to declare their abuse and ‘mental illness’ when applying for jobs, benefits or education.

Originally Posted by Herald

She [Dr McGregor] said the rules had caused a virtual "collapse" of sexual abuse counselling, with cases approved by ACC down from 472 in the first two months of last year to just 32 in the same period this year.

It's a disgrace that in the name on saving money National are making it difficult for sexual abuse victims to get help - like these people are just out to get some free counselling or something

[David]

Accident compensation should not be used for counselling.

Had that person presented to her GP and requested counselling under a Mental Health platform, funding is available for such a service. The funding was removed from ACC so they could deal with accidents, rather than trauma relating to mental health episodes that have not been properly diagnosed and therefore have not been transferred away from ACC case management.

Blaming the government for making a move to lower the amount of spending on services when taxation revenues are lowered is like having chemotherapy because you're tired of shaving your head.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

It's a disgrace that in the name on saving money National are making it difficult for sexual abuse victims to get help - like these people are just out to get some free counselling or something

Fuck man, when I was at high school it became real trendy for chicks to "remember" sexual abuse and then spend ages in counselling. Then guys started doing it. Either we're an entire nation of kiddy fiddlers (and last I checked, we're descended from Presbyterians (HAH TOPICAL)) or there was an element of hysteria at play.

And shit, considering there's no necessary qualification for "counsellor", what empirical evidence do we have that this counselling (as opposed to treatment by a registered clinical psychologist or psychiatrist) actually had any therapeutic outcomes?

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Under the previous legislation sexual abuse victims weren't put off seeking help because they would have to declare their abuse and ‘mental illness’ when applying for jobs, benefits or education.

What an awesome fucking strawman. Only time you'd need to declare a mental illness when applying for benefit is when you're applying for Sickness or Invalids. Education? Employment?

You high negro? I've never been asked if I'm crazy for any jobs. But then I'm not an airline pilot or similar, so I'm sure it's not impossible. But hey, guess what, if you're sufficiently mentally ill (and that includes depression, bruddah) to commit suicide, then you are mentally ill, and maybe the guys at the Razorblades and Firearms factory need to know that.

[Lightspeed]

Just wanted to point out, you don't know shit.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by David

Accident compensation should not be used for counselling. Had that person presented to her GP and requested counselling under a Mental Health platform, funding is available for such a service.

It doesn't matter where the govt. funding is channeled, sexual abuse victims now have to be diagnosed with a specific mental disorder to be eligible for funding. This may reduce government spending but it's letting down some very vulnerable people in need.

Originally Posted by NZHerald

Dr McGregor said almost all of the 600 to 700 private counsellors who were registered for ACC-funded work had stopped taking applicants for ACC subsidies since the new rules took effect because of an ethical objection to labelling assault victims as mentally ill.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Just wanted to point out, you don't know shit.

Always open to correction.

[Lightspeed]

Most job applications I've seen in recent years (including roles both inside IT and mental health) have a question along the lines of "do you have any illness or condition that might impact your work". This includes mental illness.

You're right that anyone can call themselves a counsellor, but most organisations won't hire a counsellor without appropriate qualifications.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Most job applications I've seen in recent years (including roles both inside IT and mental health) have a question along the lines of "do you have any illness or condition that might impact your work". This includes mental illness.

Ah, I see what you mean. I guess most of my jobs have been ones where it really didn't matter if you were depressed, because a) you're a low level peon with little actual responsibility and b) you're going to end up depressed after three months here anyway! (Cue motivational poster of kitten.)

That said, if the job requires someone emotionally stable due to high levels of responsibility for the safety or well-being of others, and if you are messed up enough from sexual abuse to warrant heavy 'counselling' then fuck yeah, declare it. I don't want a bus driver crashing because his PTSD left him catatonic when he saw a guy who looked like his former abuser. (Ludicrously cooked up example, I have no fucking idea how PTSD works.)

Fixed_truth appears to be advocating for self-identified abuse victims to be funded at the same level as people who have been diagnosed by a mental professional as needing assistance due to abuse. Well, if they want the same rights, then its implied that the same responsibilities come with them. It's very much a case of "can't have your cake and eat it too."

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

You're right that anyone can call themselves a counsellor, but most organisations won't hire a counsellor without appropriate qualifications.

When I worked at WINZ, we paid Disability Allowance (which can cover pretty much anything a doctor reckons it can cover, if you can't afford counselling because you're poor, you can get _some_ help towards it) to some very dubious one man / two man counselling services. There was one Yank (a trained psychiatrist, actually) who was absolutely creaming it on DA for counselling.

And none of my clients who were hardcore into their counselling ever improved their employment capacity due to it. I was only there 19 months though. May not have been long enough to see the miraculous changes.

OH YEAH THAT REMINDS ME:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Denied help for sexual abuse, dead days later

"The counsellor who submitted the claim made it very clear that sexual abuse was the reason why she had suicidal ideation and was self-harming," Ms Castle said. "It took them six months to make that decision. Four days after receiving notification that the ACC claim was denied, the client passed away."

Six months of counselling (and who paid for that?) and she still killed herself. I grossly resent the implication that ACC saying yes would have saved her life.

[Lightspeed]

It is not uncommon for sexual abuse victims to have suffered abuse throughout their lives. Six months is the time you would take to establish a therapeutic alliance. Perhaps two years in you would begin to make some breakthroughs. After five to 10 years you might see a person has really turned their lives around.

You can't change a lifetime of suffering into a functional person in 10 sessions.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Cynos

Fixed_truth appears to be advocating for self-identified abuse victims to be funded at the same level as people who have been diagnosed by a mental professional as needing assistance due to abuse. Well, if they want the same rights, then its implied that the same responsibilities come with them. It's very much a case of "can't have your cake and eat it too."

In many cases victims not getting counselling earlier on will lead to more serious mental heath problems. It's like telling people they can't get their wound treated until they wait until it's badly infected and full of puss.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

In many cases victims not getting counselling earlier on will lead to more serious mental heath problems.

I'd be interested to read studies on this. Because I read a study once that indicated that premature counselling can actually traumatize a person more. There must be a middle ground between the two.

[fixed_truth]

I don't see how it's premature if the victim is actively seeking rehabilitative support. Rather those not receiving treatment here will sustain the trauma and be more likely to develop a serious mental illness.

Who is opposed to the proposed changes?

* New Zealand Association of Psychotherapists,
* the New Zealand Association of Counsellors, the New Zealand
Association of Christian Counsellors,
* the New Zealand Association of Social Workers,
* Rape Crisis,
* the Sensitive Claims Advisory Group (SCAG),
* the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists,
* the National Network Ending Sexual Violence Together (TOAH/NNEST)
* the New Zealand Psychological Society.

http://www.psychotherapy.org.nz/uplo...ber%202009.pdf

[Cynos]

fixed_truth: It was in the context of offering counselling to people immediately after a traumatic event.

Anyway, what I'm hating on National for at the moment:

Sacking Environment Canterbury (ECan) councillors is a "signal" to all regional councils to work more constructively with farmers, Agriculture Minister David Carter says.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...cils-by-Carter

I LOLed, I cried, I wondered why they didn't just use a horse's head for that traditional feel.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Cynos

I'd be interested to read studies on this. Because I read a study once that indicated that premature counselling can actually traumatize a person more. There must be a middle ground between the two.

The research you're probably referring to is about immediate counselling after traumatic events (serious accidents, unexpected/shocking deaths, rape, etc.) It's been shown that counselling immediately after such an event may actually be detrimental to a person's recovery. However if I think around six months after such an event a person is still struggling to cope, this is when intervention can be effective.

Sexual abuse is typically chronic, not limited to a single event (which would be sexual assault rather than abuse) and by the time a person seeks help it's usually because they've been unable to come to terms with the abuse. Although I would argue that anyone who has experienced sexual abuse would benefit from counselling or therapy to help identify any maladaptive coping mechanisms they may have incorporated to get by.

[adonis]

http://www.thestandard.org.nz/bennet...over-saunders/

Fuck this government is painful to watch.. at least labour were competent.

[Trigga*happY]

Originally Posted by adonis

http://www.thestandard.org.nz/bennet...over-saunders/

Fuck this government is painful to watch.. at least labour were competent.

Mmmhmmmm, SOOOOO competent...

http://www4.thestandard.org.nz/labour-drops-the-ball/

[adonis]

You think providing a weak rebuttal to a proposal on tax policy compares to Bennett's fiasco?

[funnel web]

Originally Posted by adonis

http://www.thestandard.org.nz/bennet...over-saunders/

Fuck this government is painful to watch.. at least labour were competent.

Like dog food The Standard is not fit for human consumption.

[madmaxii]

Where's Chubby?

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by madmaxii

Where's Chubby?

I assume he found the entire "She doesn't even know who's who" so hilarious he exploded.

[Trigga*happY]

Originally Posted by adonis

You think providing a weak rebuttal to a proposal on tax policy compares to Bennett's fiasco?

Please, and the idiocy of one minister = the entire party? That was the first that google brought up. Do you want me to list all of labours fuck ups? In the 9 years they were in power there were quite a few!

edit: fwiw i'm disappointed in Nationals performance thus far, but I still believe another term of Aunty Helen in power could have been FAR worse for the country.

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by Trigga*happY

Please, and the idiocy of one minister = the entire party? That was the first that google brought up. Do you want me to list all of labours fuck ups? In the 9 years they were in power there were quite a few!

Even putting aside which party she is a member of, you've got to admit this is a pretty fucking loltastic fuck up. She meant to task one guy to help her important group, but picked a guy with opposite ideological views by accident because he has the same name.

Regardless of affiliation or leaning, that's some Grade A fuck up right there.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by funnel web

Like dog food The Standard is not fit for human consumption.

Did you bother reading it? All they did was quote Paula Bennett and go "LOL", which was all that was really required given the stupidity of her actions.

The four blogs I read regularly are The Standard, KiwiBlog, No Right Turn and NotPC. I read others as well, from both sides of the spectrum. Limiting yourself to just one side of a story is a good way to turn yourself into a fucktard with fucktard opinions.

TRigga, there were plenty of things I disliked about the former Labour government, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them incompetent. Paula Bennett on the other hand...

[Ab]

For some reason I've been accused of being a white racist on The Standard a few times recently. It's quite confusing.

[Thomas Meatball]

You mean you're not?! I was going to invite you round to my I Hate Blacks skinhead family barbecue this weekend. WTF!

[?>Superman]

Originally Posted by Ab

For some reason I've been accused of being a white racist on The Standard a few times recently. It's quite confusing.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Trigga*happY

Please, and the idiocy of one minister = the entire party?

You're right it doesn't equal the entire party - but it does remind me of Tolley getting up in arms because she only got to meet with the university vice chancelleors (whilst she had the tertiary education portfolio) - she actually didn't know the difference between university chancellors (an honorary position really) and the vice chancellors (who actually have the power).

Same thing went for Nick Smith getting confused over which agency had responsibility for hazardous substances legislation and who did enforcement (also claiming that the act needed to be fixed by national, when in fact it was national that brought it in).

Thing is many of these really basic stuff ups don't make it into the news and are only known in the specific industries effected...

Still - as you said Labour wasn't exactly totally onto (but at least they knew who did what most of the time).

Pixie

[EvilLumpy]

I don't have the time to trawl through the dross to find it as it's probably not described but I found this site to give me some context on the mining issue.

http://fogonwater.com/stuff/mines/

This handy little site has shown me at least an idea of what the mining thing is all about in terms of scale.

It allows you to compare the outline of the proposed mining areas to other places in New Zealand you know about, so that you can get a reasonable idea on what the numbers in hectares might actually relate to.

It's concerning that if you roll the proposed Reefton mining area together it'd be comparable to Auckland's North Shore up to North Harbour.

Well done that man.

[A Corpse]

I don't even care if all they intend to do is dig a one square metre hole. It's a fucking protected area! There's no wiggle room here. I wouldn't be allowed to slightly kill someone or drive dunk only a short distance.

[JP]

You guys just are anti-progress.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by JP

You guys just are anti-progress.

I'm anti-progress when the government gets 2% royalties plus whatever companies tax that the foreign mining company can't wiggle out of paying. Give us a 40% royalty like Aussie and then we're talking.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by JP

You guys just are anti-progress.

Destroy those bloody stocking frames! They'll put us all out of jobs!
-Ned

[Reformed_Quint]

Originally Posted by Cynos

Give us a 40% royalty like Aussie and then we're talking.

.

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by Cynos

I'm anti-progress when the government gets 2% royalties plus whatever companies tax that the foreign mining company can't wiggle out of paying. Give us a 40% royalty like Aussie and then we're talking.

That's all we're taking from this? Haha why don't we just hand the keys over to China now and be done with it -_-

I hope you all like bananas.

[Reformed_Quint]

Originally Posted by fidgit

That's all we're taking from this? Haha why don't we just hand the keys over to China now and be done with it -_-

I hope you all like bananas.

Quick, through your hands in the air and panic! No time for rational!

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by Reformed_Quint

Quick, through your hands in the air and panic! No time for rational!

I've nearly worn this out!!


edit
Seriously though, fuck nature. If there's a reasonably unobtrusive (or reversable) way to mine the fuck out of some Conservation land, and we'd be in for a big windfall I'm all for it. But 2% doesn't sound like much compared to how much we'd be letting a global mining conglomerate walk away with.

(and for sure, most strip mines just tear the land up and walk away, but dreams are free right?)

[Thomas Meatball]

Originally Posted by Reformed_Quint

Quick, through your hands in the air and panic! No time for rational!

Throw. Goddamn you.

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by fidgit

(and for sure, most strip mines just tear the land up and walk away, but dreams are free right?)

It's the shit they leave behind that's the real problem.