The stupidest idea this Government has had yet

92 comments on “The stupidest idea this Government has had yet ”

• Comments are now closed

1. RW108 1

   1 June 2015 at 9:39 am

   I wonder if all the nitty-gritty details are going to be “commercial-in-confidence” like the prison figures, will transparency and independent scrutiny be possible?
   • Draco T Bastard 1.1

     1 June 2015 at 11:32 am

     Of course they will be. Can’t go round having the private corporations accountable.
2. One Anonymous Bloke 2

   1 June 2015 at 9:47 am

   The failed experiment that has failed and failed and failed everywhere, will fail here.

   When people protect themselves from the National Party, is the ‘claim of right’ a solid defence?
3. Pat 3

   1 June 2015 at 9:48 am

   the inmates have taken over the asylum
4. vto 4

   1 June 2015 at 9:52 am

   planet key strikes again
5. Rosemary McDonald 5

   1 June 2015 at 10:20 am

   The “show your working” Cabinet paper from a couple of years ago.

   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

   The pros, the cons, the “how to mitigate” which says…”Pilot services will need to be non-essential health services, and meet legal and ethical review requirements.”

   So they go and trial it on the mentally ill….because who cares if they are further damaged in this latest government experiment.

   The scene from one of the Omen movies from decades ago comes to mind.

   The head of Thorn Industries cryptically declares…”our future lies in famine”.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1

     1 June 2015 at 10:45 am

     “…at the cutting edge of social reform…”

     And there it is. The whole document is thinly disguised sophistry with a pre-determined outcome.

     Nowhere is it mentioned that this a brand new meaning of “cutting-edge” that translates as “complete failure”.
   • mickysavage 5.2

     1 June 2015 at 10:51 am

     Thanks Rosemary. Utterly chilling …
   • Chooky 5.3

     1 June 2015 at 7:49 pm

     +100 RM…the most vulnerable in society are turned into commodities…and profit is eeked out of their vulnerabilities and suffering….there is a word for this
6. tc 6

   1 June 2015 at 10:26 am

   Profit from the sectors of society you’ve been growing through neglect and deceit thus ensuring continued bumper returns.

   Our randian overlords aren’t holding back after years of real terms cuts and stifling the pesky questions they move on to the end game.
7. mpledger 7

   1 June 2015 at 10:28 am

   Since it will be to costly to monitor whether the indicators are actually met there is going to be lots of “fudging” of figures.

   All this rewards is those who can lie the best or those who can brazen out any blow-back over their lies.

   And from what we’ve seen any person who can brazen their way through a media cycle faces no consequences.
8. Whateva next? 8

   1 June 2015 at 10:32 am

   And as Cogito said yesterday, so soon after JC left the building??
9. RedBaronCV 9

   1 June 2015 at 10:41 am

   So what non profitmaking NGO (charity) is going to think this is a good idea? They get clients & a lump of money & some targets set elsewhere. From the money they have to support the client and meet their overhead costs but they do not have to set aside profits. In return they get a bunch of complete strangers as investors monitoring their evry move – demanding confidential data on clients etc.

   A charity isn’t going to be too interested in that so all I can see are profit making firms going for this with low morals, ethics, poor treatment of both staff and clients etc.

   Nacts new ticket clipping measure for the overseas corporates. Also much easier to reduce funding. fudge figures and incentivise some dreadful behaviour.
   • Draco T Bastard 9.1

     1 June 2015 at 11:36 am

     Nacts new ticket clipping measure for the overseas corporates. Also much easier to reduce funding. fudge figures and incentivise some dreadful behaviour.

     QFT

     This isn’t about making the health system better or even cheaper but about giving corporations government guaranteed profits.
     • The Murphey 9.1.1

       1 June 2015 at 12:18 pm

       Correct

       As the worlds financial systems fold impacting any and all industry there will be no end to the methods employed in an attempt to halt the collapse

       All attempts have already and will continue to fail because they do not address the core issues with seemingly no appetite to do

       Humanity is not part of any consideration with the failed ‘bail outs’ exposing this reality in a way which few would believed or could ever have imagined

       The public sector is being devoured by the corporate sector at an ever increasing rate which in turn will lead to further failed corporation once the public sector becomes unable to absorb greater debt servicing costs

       Mergers will accelerate once again while public services are degraded rates and taxes climb and social dislocation becomes increasingly difficult to ‘cover up’

       Time to stand
10. coaster 10

    1 June 2015 at 11:00 am

    it could work commercialy if the targets arent to hard to achieve and somehow we can increase the numbers of people needing the services.

    increasing alchol consumption, smoking, gambling etc could help increase numbers requiring the social services thus increasing the potential to meeting targets. the country would nedd to keep the current percentage of children in poverty.

    this is not the nz i grew up in and love.
    • RedBaronCV 10.1

      1 June 2015 at 11:07 am

      No and it would be really interesting working out the tax take & monoploy privatisation profits from some area, Southland or Tasman say, and then working out how much could be provided for the local community using locals, for health, education, welfare support , trasnport & communications etc etc.

      This taxpayer for one, is getting very sick of having tax money forcibly donated by self being redirected to private profit & in may cases offshore private profit. I’d rather stick it in a local bucket and acquire joint ownership of the results.

      If these private providers are so good then they need to exhibit personal responsibilty and stop sucking off the taxpayer.
    • Gangnam Style 10.2

      1 June 2015 at 11:17 am

      Ouch! Coaster hit the nail on the head.
11. Draco T Bastard 11

    1 June 2015 at 11:24 am

    And so without any evidence that such a programme has worked ever the Government will be committing our money to enriching investors rather than dealing with the actual problems.

    And with the US health system as proof that it doesn’t produce better results but costs more it becomes obvious that this government is about enriching the already rich at everyone else’s expense.
12. johnm 12

    1 June 2015 at 11:26 am

    So a service once provided at cost without any profit gouging now will become far more expensive for the following reasons:

    1. Bond Holders must be paid interest for their money
    2. The private service provider will want their profit for their shareholders
    3. The usual story with these providers additional costs will crop up and as the government has got rid of its former employees it will have to cough up the increased charges and overcharging.

    Traitor Key and Double Dipton are putting the taxpayer over a barrel to be ripped off by the business sector.

    Haven’t enough money?! O dear we’ll have to scale back mental health provision “We don’t have the money” they’ll lament. Unless? We up the bond interest rate?

    The excuse for this disaster of idiocy and malfeasance is given by all the tax cut bribes paid out by this government to stay in power to screw up NZ further- they’ve given the money away.

    Flogged off income producing blue chip assets as well.

    What it shows is this wrecking crew couldn’t give a rat’s arse about disadvantaged kiwi’s lives shown also by the sell off of state houses.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1

      1 June 2015 at 11:35 am

      Yes, these are real problems, which can easily be addressed by underfunding the inspectorate.
      • miravox 12.1.1

        1 June 2015 at 4:58 pm

        “…can easily be addressed by underfunding the inspectorate.”

        Surely not. No government would be stupid enough to leave the most vulnerable with people and organisations that may not care for them properly or leave the taxpayer having to pick up the pieces…

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/68997735/funding-freeze-means-fewer-child-abuse-checks
    • johnm 12.2

      1 June 2015 at 12:01 pm

      Basically this government’s agenda is to chip away at the social welfare state’s edifice at every opportunity until it crumbles. They long ago bought the rwnj U$ rethug bullshit that it’s communism.
      So one day we end up with our own mini Baltimore?
    • Chooky 12.3

      1 June 2015 at 7:52 pm

      +100 johnm
    • AsleepWhileWalking 12.4

      2 June 2015 at 12:00 pm

      The DHBs have been cutting out services left right and center for the past few years.

      These types of cuts will impact negatively on the social bonds almost immediately with added pressure on clients who are already stressed by constant changes with the provision of services and endless “goal setting” exercises.
13. dv 13

    1 June 2015 at 11:30 am

    From interest.co
    http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/75739/jenesa-jeram-says-social-impact-bonds-have-potential-revolutionise-public-services

    “The model is called Social Impact Bonds (SIBs). SIBs – sometimes called ‘social bonds’ in New Zealand– are a form of performance-based contracting that shifts the financial risk of funding and delivering social services to the private sector. Taxpayers’ money is only spent if programmes are successful and achieve set outcomes.

    In other words, the Government only pays for what works

    So what happens to those ‘client’ where the program doest work?
    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1

      1 June 2015 at 11:36 am

      They can be covered by section 48 of the crimes act.
      • Atiawa 13.1.1

        1 June 2015 at 11:50 am

        +++ That would be extremely funny if it wasn’t so sadly true.
    • joe90 13.2

      1 June 2015 at 1:28 pm

      The Peterbough Prison scheme lauded in the article has been so successful it’s been canned.
      /

      But the Peterborough prison decision has reinforced the views of some sceptics. Alex Whinnom, chief executive of the Greater Manchester Centre for Voluntary Organisations, says that although his organisation is very interested in the SIB concept, the outcomes under the model are difficult to measure.
      He says that because the success of projects is measured in terms of the cash they are able to generate for an investor, the life is crushed out of the personal kind of service the voluntary sector tries to achieve. Many local voluntary organisations would find it hard to enter into SIBs because of the proportionately high cost of monitoring and reporting compared with a normal contract or a grant. “I don’t think this is a very good method of getting the best out of the third sector,” he says.
      Richard Caulfield, chief executive of Voluntary Sector North West, says that payment by results is too outcomes-focused on charities and SIBs are “over-hyped”, with the case not proven, and highly irrelevant to the vast majority of the voluntary and community sector. “The chances are that you can only do these things at scale,” he says. “It’s likely that the vast majority of the voluntary sector isn’t really on that page and never will be.”

      http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/why-social-impact-bond-peterborough-prison-halted/finance/article/1294813?

      (seems to be subscriber only so here’s the google cache)
14. felix 14

    1 June 2015 at 11:49 am

    Surely there is a golden opportunity for opposition parties to unite around repealing this parasitical voodoo bullshit.

    As coaster says, it’s not the nz we grew up in and love.
    • Rosemary McDonald 14.1

      1 June 2015 at 12:03 pm

      “Surely there is a golden opportunity for opposition parties to unite around repealing this parasitical voodoo bullshit.”

      You mean the way they did that when this ….http://pundit.co.nz/content/i-think-national-just-broke-our-constitution…..happened???

      There is very little political interest in the situation of the disabled and the mentally ill.

      Some will get all hissy fitty for a few days….then it peters off….

      Often, because they simply do not understand the issues, and seek advice from the wrong sources.
      • Craig H 14.1.1

        1 June 2015 at 12:54 pm

        Not sure about the backgrounds of all MPs, but Ruth Dyson and Poto Williams have experience in this field, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they keep up the pressure if/when Labour returns to govt.
        • Sacha 14.1.1.1

          1 June 2015 at 3:58 pm

          why wait?
          • felix 14.1.1.1.1

            1 June 2015 at 6:10 pm

            Exactly. If the frickin National party can raise benefits then why can’t the progressive parties promise to reverse some of the other savage attacks of the 90s?
            • Sacha 14.1.1.1.1.1

              1 June 2015 at 7:40 pm

              and I agree it’s exactly the sort of issue that should be easy to demonstrate a shared concern about across parties. Now, not later.
              • Mike the Savage One …

                2 June 2015 at 12:09 am

                It could have been an ideal opportunity for the new Green Co-Leader to make a clear statement, saying what the Greens think of such measures.

                Now, perhaps we can expect this tomorrow (i.e. today, really), Tuesday, 02 June, as Parliament will also be back in business.

                If we hear nothing or very little from Labour and Greens, then we must draw our conclusions, that there is not much hope for those of us who feel very concerned, and certainly not for those who may be affected by such nasty neoliberal “investment type” social policy measures.
15. adam 15

    1 June 2015 at 11:59 am

    Is it just me – but if you can’t vote and cost money – you the target of this lot?

    Liberalism as it currently stands, with all it’s neo charm – is a brutal bugger.

    Brutalism dressed up to look like it is caring is still amoral – no matter how fancy those shiny new cloths are.

    Just more of the same venal behaviour from the government of the day.

    I think it is now time excommunicate Bill English, he is no longer a believer in the mission of Christ.
    • Craig H 15.1

      1 June 2015 at 12:58 pm

      If/when Labour gets back into Govt, I feel that the best way to attack this is to call it what it is: evil.
16. Charles 16

    1 June 2015 at 12:14 pm

    Can’t really say what I want to say about this. Makes me too angry.
    • Rosemary McDonald 16.1

      1 June 2015 at 12:59 pm

      Some of us have been angry for years over this.

      The privatisation of core government services was trialed on the disabled community.

      With often disastrous results.

      The number of providers of disability support services has dwindled down to a handful of highly influential ‘super providers’….reducing choice and competition to the detriment of ‘clients’.

      Some of these ‘super providers’ are multinationals.

      These providers do ‘cherry pick’ clients. Often meaning that those most in need of support have to rely on trusted family to survive.

      The highly successful ‘family carers ‘ cases, which fell under the radar of the majority of political commentators, actually established ‘entitlement’ to funded care for those disabled people needing support.

      So family providing the necessary care are paid to do the work the providers often refuse to do.

      The government has fought this tooth and nail.

      Because, quite simply, given the choice of who provides the funded care they have been assessed as needing, a significant percentage of disabled people would opt out of ‘contracted’ service provision.

      Major shit storm on the horizon.
      • AsleepWhileWalking 16.1.1

        1 June 2015 at 1:42 pm

        Rosemary is dead nuts on. EXACTLY what has been happening.

        The superproviders I find are especially good at self promotion, but not so good at rehabilitating the more unusual cases (unless you consider harassment and degradation acceptable).

        Social Bonds will only motivate more of the same behavior from these providers.
17. Dont worry be happy. 17

    1 June 2015 at 12:50 pm

    The National Government is dripping in Catholics. Shameful
    • Ergo Robertina 17.1

      1 June 2015 at 10:34 pm

      This gets remarked upon quite a bit, but It doesn’t surprise me.
      For Catholics the social changes that accompanied and/or coincided with economic deregulation had a more profound personal effect (even though the progressive change could have happened on its own).
      Also Catholic families until the 1980s or so were large and engendered a survival of the fittest and even thuggish culture that mirrors neoliberalism.
      The number of Catholics in Cabinet has also been noted in Australia. According to a SMH story last year, Abbott’s Cabinet had nearly double the number of Catholics as the general public:
      http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coalition-celebrates-a-religious-easter-eight-of-19-cabinet-members-are-catholic-20140419-36xn4.html
      • mpledger 17.1.1

        2 June 2015 at 12:44 pm

        What a lot of crap.

        NZ Catholicism has been strongly influenced by Irish Catholics, who, given their history, had a strong leaning towards social justice. And social justice is the last thing the National party is interested in.

        I went to a Catholic school in the 1970s and 1980s and the typical family size was just the same as non-Catholic families. The odd family that was large were very loving and the children went on to lead incredibly successful lives.

        The deomisation of the Irish and Catholics has been around since the earliest days of NZ’s history. It’s amazing how that old time propaganda keeps popping up down through the ages.

        ~~
        Comparing the Australian cabinet with the general public isn’t an apples to apples comparison, for a true comparison you need to compare the Cabinet to people of the same age, ethnicity and sex.
        • Ergo Robertina 17.1.1.1

          2 June 2015 at 1:24 pm

          My experience of Catholic families and schools in that era is different from yours, so that doesn’t take us far.
          But you’ve misunderstood; it’s not about demonising any group, but pointing out that amid a wider societal shift Catholics’ lives have changed more profoundly and in a shorter time than other parts of society.
          Catholic families (and schools) are also more likely to be combative and individualistic.
          Where in my comment did I suggest Catholics have not gone on to be successful? Individually many do extremely well, while others suffer disproportionately from severe mental health issues.
          Which fits with neoliberalism; winners and losers.
          I suggested this dynamic might explain the Catholic preponderance in right-leaning parties (and the fact that in NZ at least they tend to be on the right-wing of the Labour Party).
          Yes it’s only a theory and I would be keen to hear what others think who aren’t so defensive and reactionary.
          • McFlock 17.1.1.1.1

            2 June 2015 at 1:41 pm

            To call one datapoint of 8/19 a “preponderance” compared with the national population 20-odd million is doubtful at best.

            To then extrapolate from that to explain this “preponderance” as opposed to other religious denominations within a party that currently panders to extreme social conservatism and nationalism simply compounds the doubt.
            • Ergo Robertina 17.1.1.1.1.1

              2 June 2015 at 7:13 pm

              Yeah, wrong word, prominence not preponderance.

              More generally, I didn’t intend to do a beat-up on Catholics but it interests me how English in particular is sometimes ascribed social justice motives, and some of that cred is garnered through being Catholic.
              • McFlock …

                2 June 2015 at 9:09 pm

                I suspect the “prominence” is largely because statistical blips get mentioned because it is a minority in both Australia and NZ. And catholic tories aren’t the only tories to pull the “they can be all bad, they go to church” number.
18. travellerev 18

    1 June 2015 at 1:39 pm

    This is not a stupid idea to try to help healthcare flourish. This is a smart idea to pull people the wool over their eyes and loot them while destroying their economy and welfare system. But that would be a conspiracy and we know that governments and bankers never do that, have never done that and will never do that in the future either. That is just tinfoil hat stuff!
    • ropata 18.1

      3 June 2015 at 12:51 am

      +1
      National — f*cking up the lives of little people for fun and profit
19. Foreign Waka 19

    1 June 2015 at 3:26 pm

    What is being sold to the public is the idea that the public good becomes a private enterprise for profit.
    If this is the case and government essentially abdicates any responsibility that we, the ones who are the paying employer have asked them to manage on our behalf. It also is fair to say that if implemented, that we are no longer a democracy as the very duties that constitute governmental responsibilities are outsourced. So why would we have these highly paid people getting extraordinary tax fund payments if they don’t look after anything? Prison, outsourced, Social services – in the plans to be outsourced, military – soon to be privatized, education – charter schools, infrastructure – partially privatized already. NZ no longer belongs to the Western style democracies.
    • Mike the Savage One 19.1

      1 June 2015 at 4:22 pm

      Also consider, please, the outsourced providers do not fall under Official Information Act requirements, so we in the public have little or NO access to any information about what they do, how they do it, and re what harm their activities or failures may result in.

      That is another intended consequence or result the government so desires.

      The government rids itself of responsibility and saves costs at the same time, and is protected under the law from any risk of being held accountable if something goes very wrong.

      Benefit numbers will perhaps go down, and the Minister can pipe up in the House, boasting about the “great achievements” they have made!

      Have a careful read of the following O.I.A. document, what they comment to questions 5 and 10:
      https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/msd-oia-rqst-mhes-waa-other-support-services-issues-reply-anon-26-02-2015.pdf

      Here is a high-lit copy of the questions and answers that were supplied:
      https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/msd-oia-rqst-mhes-waa-other-support-services-reply-anon-hilit-26-02-15.pdf
      • Foreign waka 19.1.1

        1 June 2015 at 5:17 pm

        And not having a written and ratified constitution is now really becoming an issue.
      • Chooky 19.1.2

        1 June 2015 at 8:03 pm

        “outsourced providers do not fall under Official Information Act requirements, so we in the public have little or NO access to any information about what they do, how they do it, and re what harm their activities or failures may result in”…

        this is very worrying eg what if a mental health patient has considerable financial assets.?

        ..lack of support, medication, accountability by untrained, unprofessional providers out to maximise their investment etc will make them very vulnerable to fraudsters and thieves and manipulation

        ….and I suspect this jonkey nact government will soon be moving in on the vulnerable elderly…just watch home help eg Nurse Maud for example…it will be run down and then privatised outsourced
20. Rosemary McDonald 20

    1 June 2015 at 3:33 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11457938

    The manure truck just got tipped….
    • Mike the Savage One 20.1

      1 June 2015 at 4:01 pm

      Thanks, a great thanks, the government has already previously spoken out to the ones like Professor Mansel Aylward and others, from the once UNUM funded ‘Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research’ in Cardiff, Wales. They have delivered their “desk research” reports that provide so called “evidence” that makes all this possible, apparently “scientifically” proven:
      http://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/medical-and-work-capability-assessments-based-on-the-controversial-bio-psycho-social-model/

      And they were used also to “convince” the senior professional organisations of the medical profession, now doctors are expected to follow the ideologically driven cost saving exercise, to follow the UK model:
      http://www.racp.org.nz/page/afoem-health-benefits-of-work
      http://www.racp.org.nz/page/racp-faculties/australasian-faculty-of-occupational-and-environmental-medicine/realising-the-health-benefits-of-work/may-2010-video-presentation-professor-sir-mansel-aylward/

      Then came Paula Bennett and others with this:
      http://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/the-health-and-disability-panel-and-its-hand-picked-members/

      Meanwhile, in the UK, they are starting to have doubt though, about this direction:
      https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/the-discredited-indefensible-work-capability-assessment-wca-in-the-uk-and-what-its-demise-must-mean-for-nz-welfare-reforms-part-1/

      https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/the-discredited-indefensible-work-capability-assessment-wca-in-the-uk-and-what-its-demise-must-mean-for-nz-welfare-reforms-part-2/

      A UK think tank is working on a totally different approach to assess work ability and supports for disabled, particularly with mental health and so:
      https://www.rethinkingincapacity.org/

      But NZ is under this government stubbornly adhering to the already discredited “free market mechanism approach”, same as in housing.

      Bill English, John Key, Anne Tolley, Paula Bennett: FAIL!
21. Mike the Savage One 21

    1 June 2015 at 3:38 pm

    Quote from above: “Coming soon to your neighbourhood a McDonalds provider of mental health services where everyone’s fries will have just the right amount of salt and difficult customers will be moved on.”

    I suppose they’ll put a “Mental Burger” on their menu then, to raise revenue that will flow into a bond investment fund, used to buy new “Social Bonds”?!

    But this is very serious stuff, and it means the government is prepared to conduct yet further experiments with the easy “commodity” of easily intimidated mental health sufferers, the most vulnerable persons in our society, besides of little children.

    This is what they have been doing already:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893823

    These services have been operating a while, but there is damned little transparency and information that has been made available about how they work and what achievements were made by taking this radical, outsourcing and privatisation approach.

    And it appears someone has already made a comprehensive O.I.A. request late last year, for which MSD came up with a response that did not actually present all the asked for figures, certainly not in a comprehensive, clear enough fashion, so one could draw some conclusions out of them for the “success” of “mental health employment services” and also “sole parent employment services”.

    Instead they rather presented (also asked for) figures on threats, intimidation and alleged assaults by WINZ clients on WINZ staff for the last few years:
    https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/mental-health-and-sole-parent-employment-services-msd-withholds-o-i-a-information-that-may-prove-their-trials-a-failure/

    It appears the matter has now been sent to the Office of the Ombudsmen to be resolved, but that may take a year or two to see some action that “may” follow.

    Here is also a transcript of an interview the ‘Welfare Reform Director’ of MSD or WINZ had on Nine to Noon on Radio NZ in April last year, shining some light on how irresponsible and also “shady” the whole exercise at WINZ is:
    http://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2014/06/22/work-ability-assessments-done-for-work-and-income-a-revealing-fact-study-part-d/

    For those “daring” to go and appeal against a WINZ decision on health or work capability grounds, they put some extra hurdles into place now, to make it yet a bit more difficult (than it was before), to get “justice” from a panel, appointed by MSD itself:
    https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/the-medical-appeal-board-how-msd-and-winz-have-secretely-changed-the-process-disadvantaging-beneficiaries/

    QC and senior legal expert Frances Joychild had this rather grim picture to present, on the present day situation where fewer and fewer have access to justice, let alone get “justice” (see the ‘Evening Post’ article):
    http://eveningreport.nz/2015/03/24/frances-joychild-qc-on-the-fading-star-of-the-rule-of-law/

    Quote:
    “Staff have so many discretions over beneficiary entitlements and beneficiaries are so dependent on their benefit to meet their most basic needs that the vast majority are too afraid to rock the boat. For several years now persons have been unceremoniously and unlawfully removed in droves from sickness and invalids benefits and subject to punitive job search conditions for which many are not equipped mentally or physically. I am aware of some who have ended up off benefit entirely. Their only recourse is to a Medical Appeal Board (MAB) panel and then to judicial review. They cannot access the Social Security Appeal Authority.

    Certainly the rules of natural justice appeared completely foreign to the MAB panel I sought to review judicially.
    Likewise the assessing GP’s appeared to be acting as an arm of WINZ rather than an independent health professional.

    But my proceeding never reached the courts. It was made impossible not to settle. One could sense the Ministry concern that a test case challenging the practices surrounding removal from benefit had to be avoided if at all possible.”
    • Rosemary McDonald 21.1

      1 June 2015 at 4:14 pm

      “These services have been operating a while, but there is damned little transparency and information that has been made available about how they work and what achievements were made by taking this radical, outsourcing and privatisation approach.”

      Now these guys seem on to it, all the right language being used, anyone know anything about them…http://www.wisegroup.co.nz/uploads/files/one-magazine/140318-wg-one-autumn-2014-web.pdf
      • Mike the Savage One 21.1.1

        1 June 2015 at 4:37 pm

        Of course, one of the big players in the game of getting sick and disabled back into work, some with success, but there are also other stories.

        A friend of mine was flatting with a person with mental health issues a few years ago, and a Workwise person was supposed to help her get back to work. This was not through WINZ though, and the “support” was rather poor, I heard.

        As for Workwise, one of the various members of the Wise Group (look up the charity register), they are one of the main contractors that MSD and WINZ now work with, running trials also with mental health sufferers:
        http://www.workwise.org.nz/news
        “Effectively integrating employment support
        Presentation 1: Combining our expertise, effectively integrating employment support
        Helen Lockett, strategic policy advisor, the Wise Group”

        And they have a “Strategic Policy Advisor” called Helen Lockett (see above and below links), who also sat on the very same ‘Health and Disability Panel’ that MSD and Paula Bennett set up years ago, to consult on welfare reforms:
        http://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/the-health-and-disability-panel-and-its-hand-picked-members/

        Her Linkedin page:
        https://nz.linkedin.com/pub/helen-lockett/25/1b/86b

        She is another UK expert with the “right mindset”, I suppose, combining her degrees in MBA and “social and cultural psychology”, as well as philosophy.

        When they put up the “no tolerance” label for violence, one must instantly ask, well, why do they need to do that?

        It seems to be the “supply chain” coming through from WINZ, that some candidates they now work with are not that easy to “deal with”.
22. Foreign Waka 22

    1 June 2015 at 3:41 pm

    Does such law not have to have a majority vote? So where is the opposition? Is there actually one? If not, NZ is up the creek…
    • Colonial Rawshark 22.1

      1 June 2015 at 4:03 pm

      It’s a long weekend, most Opposition MPs and news journos are off on holidays, that’s why this story has been dumped now.
23. Linda Watson 23

    1 June 2015 at 4:20 pm

    This sounds very similar to a scheme in Australia which has been successful. I am only familiar with one program that has used these bonds, but it is an established large charity. After the first year of operation it has achieved both program and investment goals. It took a lot of work to get the structure right but it does seem to work in some situations.
    • Colonial Rawshark 23.1

      1 June 2015 at 4:46 pm

      Government should simply tax the money in required to provide for a full raft of social services itself; that is far more efficient than paying out fees and interest to capitalist investors and pseudo-charities.
    • mickysavage 23.2

      1 June 2015 at 4:52 pm

      Details please Linda. I have also seen glowing reports for Serco until you compare them to what has been happening overseas.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 23.3

      1 June 2015 at 5:00 pm

      Yeah, let’s allow “investors” to experiment on their own children, in Epsom, then. Meanwhile, the data is in. Fail fail fail fail fail.
    • emergency mike 23.4

      1 June 2015 at 5:02 pm

      Link please.

      One established large charity /= fundamental state services.
24. emergency mike 24

    1 June 2015 at 4:33 pm

    Ah yes, social services at the mercy of their corporate bond holders. What could possibly go wrong? The market and profit seeking self-interest will make it all run like clockwork.

    Also, the important rich people that John Key is trying to impress for his future career options will be very pleased. So that is good news.

    You voted for fruit loop Rogernomic neoliberal hell Nu Ziland, you got it.
25. johnm 25

    1 June 2015 at 4:46 pm

    This government is garbage I won’t try to pursue the sleepy stupid ahole hobbits any further. Greed’s dildo of I’m doing ok with this crew has buggered them up the bum. ! million didn’t vote last election these idiots have given the current gov its gangster charter.
26. One Anonymous Bloke 26

    1 June 2015 at 4:54 pm

    Renationalise. Pay no compensation. Take punitive measures against the National Party’s owners for attacking citizens.

    Make the “investors” pay a very very high price for this. It’s the only way.
27. Colonial Rawshark 27

    1 June 2015 at 5:06 pm

    You gotta love the Tory ability to extend the commercial free market financialised ‘values’ into every aspect of society.

    The Left has to answer with a truly alternative philosophy and ethos, or it will be left trying to hold back the tide with decades old approaches long past their use-by date.
    • millsy 27.1

      1 June 2015 at 5:13 pm

      The left is focusing to much on rebuilding the old, rather than building the new.
      • Colonial Rawshark 27.1.1

        1 June 2015 at 5:26 pm

        Yep – trying to recapture the black and white glory days of youth which are never coming back.
        • Sacha 27.1.1.1

          1 June 2015 at 6:03 pm

          I was quiite impressed with the boldness of this election policy (minus any ability to deliver on it): http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10418342/Internet-Mana-promises-jobs-for-all
28. Mike the Savage One 28

    1 June 2015 at 5:36 pm

    Remember most of the media and government MPs criticising and lecturing Auckland Action Against Poverty about protesting too forcefully, loudly and “violently” outside Sky City a week or two ago? That was when John Key was holding his Post Budget Speech, to the Trans Tasman business elite.

    What this post is about explains exactly why there is this anger that AAAP members and supporters feel, when they hear the government talk about “helping” the parents on benefits. The government takes with one hand what they give with the other. And they only offer gestures to a few, meaning little, while they continue to harass the others on benefits.

    And they tend look after their own clientele, also doctors, many of whom would most likely vote National rather than a “progressive” party.

    MSD have also nearly doubled the “fees” they pay to “designated doctors” they use (GPs signing up with WINZ to “examine” sick and disabled on benefits). A couple of years ago it was only around $ 145 per assessment, now they pay them $ 250 plus GST (for usually a 15 to 30 minute exam, or rather work ability interrogation):

    http://www.nbph.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Work-Income-DD-Flyer-V3.pdf

    Some do nicely under Nat-ACT rule, the bottom, and the weakest get told where to go and what to do, or else.
    • cogito 28.1

      1 June 2015 at 8:00 pm

      “MSD have also nearly doubled the “fees” they pay to “designated doctors” they use”

      Someone should compile a list of these bribe taking collaborators as well as those paid by ACC, and brand the lot of them as Mengeles, as that is exactly what they are.
29. Rosemary McDonald 29

    1 June 2015 at 5:47 pm

    I would just like to extend support to those struggling with mental illness.

    Those who the current system has failed.

    Those families still grieving because their loved one was let down by professionals who thought they knew best.

    Those who know that it is ALL about cost cutting, ALL about failed ideology.

    Those who know that in a desperate bid to save on the approximately $1200 per day for in patient treatment, even more mentally ill patients will be placed in community ‘care’.

    And now…totally profit driven.

    Be strong.
    • Wolfgang 29.1

      1 June 2015 at 5:57 pm

      It seems I have the vagina AND the penis, in this relationship?

      Then what is the point of us?
30. linda 30

    1 June 2015 at 6:14 pm

    they sound like a futures contract allowing the wankers who caused the mess to place bets on human misery fictionalization of poverty great!
31. heather tanguay 31

    1 June 2015 at 6:25 pm

    This is an outrageous idea, it is insulting to New Zealanders who pay their tax to enable social services in N Z
    who is this Think Tank that came up with this awful idea?
    why should people profit from social service?
    I have worked in the community for many years in many roles, I cannot believe that we have come to this, what have we come to?
    The closing down of Relationship Services is only the beginning.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 31.1

      1 June 2015 at 7:58 pm

      Let’s make sure the story ends with the investors losing everything except public expressions of contempt.
    • Chooky 31.2

      1 June 2015 at 8:08 pm

      +100..”an outrageous idea, it is insulting to New Zealanders who pay their tax to enable social services in N Z”.
32. Mike the Savage One 32

    1 June 2015 at 8:54 pm

    Here is a personal experience story, by one who had to deal with WINZ, while suffering mental illness and struggling to cope. Work may be beneficial for some, if honest support may be offered and a good environment exists, but it can also cause endless stress and trauma, to those very vulnerable.

    http://thewireless.co.nz/themes/hauora/what-works-and-what-doesn-t-how-a-job-affects-mental-health

    Those that came up with the ideology that “work is therapeutic” and that there are only “health benefits of work”, they deserve more scrutiny, those “scientists” and “experts” (some likely to be cheque-book “experts”).

    When is the opposition digging into all this, there is ample info available, but it seems nobody dares to address this, why???

    Are they scared of Crown Law representatives, of ACC and WINZ lawyers, of other ones representing certain organisations and agencies?

    Jan Logie, Mojo Mathers, Carmel Sepuloni, Annette King and others, ask the hard questions, in the House, in writing, and demand answers, and oppose this, please!
    • AsleepWhileWalking 32.1

      2 June 2015 at 11:54 am

      Work is beneficial. Even more beneficial is actual treatment being delivered in a timely manner before the condition worsens, or the time being run down on a benefit worsens the overall health of the individual.
33. Draco T Bastard 33

    1 June 2015 at 9:05 pm

    Another investment opportunity…
34. Puddleglum 34

    1 June 2015 at 9:47 pm

    This policy/pilot approach seems to be flavour of the month in the (right-leaning) Anglophone world.

    It’s begun in New South Wales and South Australia.

    The right clearly have their ducks – and their sales pitch/rhetoric – all in a row for this: The Peterborough trial was obviously tagged as the poster child right from the start.

    They’re getting quite excited at this new wave of investment it seems.

    Expect a full frontal marketing/PR approach to drive this through over the next few years.
35. ropata 35

    1 June 2015 at 10:00 pm

    Typical right wing fad. Sold to the public with spin and marketing (i.e. lies) with zero basis in social science. Just like their idiotic charter skools and white elephant convention centres all over NZ.

    National have given up the pretense of being a ‘government’. They really are a bunch of right wing fuckwits who think NZ is their corporate plaything.
    • Sacha 35.1

      2 June 2015 at 11:01 am

      and this is what was always at stake in winning the last two elections.
36. Ergo Robertina 36

    1 June 2015 at 10:45 pm

    Chris Trotter wrote a prescient column a week or so before the Budget foreshadowing this:

    ”How has it come to this? Why is the National Government preparing to pay (with our money!) the private sector for taking over the provision of services the public sector is still perfectly capable of providing? In essence, the answer is: because in mature capitalist economies like New Zealand there’s bugger-all new profit-making opportunities available to the private sector. Hence its growing interest in “social investment”, a new kind of venture which promises to pay the private shareholder a handsome dividend without the necessity of massive capital outlays for plant and machinery – all of which is supplied up-front by the generous taxpayer.”
    http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2015/05/a-gangsters-charter-bill-englishs.html
37. Sable 37

    2 June 2015 at 8:18 am

    Paving the road to full privatization, its as simple as that. Nice touch using the word “social”. This is nothing of the sort.
38. repateet 38

    2 June 2015 at 9:28 am

    Saying this is the stupidest idea this Government has had yet is a big call. Imagine thousands in the London Marathon all arriving at the finish tape together. Imagine all the finger nails desperately reaching out to touch the wall in an Olympic swimming event. It’s like a combination of those.

    There are a lot of competitors vying for the title.
39. Al66 39

    2 June 2015 at 1:46 pm

    Of course this government want to privatise pretty much anything that isn’t locked down. This includes a wide range of services that have traditionally been delivered by the public service. But this National government more than any previously believe without reservation in the efficacy of the private sector, even though the economies of scale that allow for it in larger countries like the US and UK have not delivered what was expected and probably never will.
40. Julz Clark 40

    2 June 2015 at 1:48 pm

    Exactly how the “targets” or “outcomes” are decided remains a mystery. If the review of Child Youth and Family is any guide there will be the appointment of a panel of “experts” who have no direct involvement in the field of mental health, have heaps of experience in neo-liberal politics and whose attitude is “trust us we know what we’re doing”. Invitations will be sent out to those sector workers (and maybe clients) involved to place submissions in front of the “expert” panel. Decisions may then be made that reflect the Government’s agenda rather than aiming for currently unmet targets in the existing system. This morning on national radio Guyon Espiner asked the Minister why they could not directly contract agencies to provide this sort of mental health service. The Minister basically responded by using a mantra along the lines of “improving people’s lives” by getting people with mental health patients back into employment. Mental Health Foundation chief executive Judi Clements made a good point that mental health employment difficulties tend to originate from employer prejudice rather than a lack of effective programmes to get people with mental health issues into work.
    Let’s see how the great experiment plays out…….and whether the Government asks the right questions of their Frankenstein.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS