Written By: - Date published: 10:30 pm, May 19th, 2015 - 18 comments
Categories: Social issues - Tags: ,

We haven’t cut their funding, there’s just been a change in their contract = We’ve cut their funding $4.8 million

These contract changes happen all the time, they should learn to cope with it = You should be able to cope on a budget of $0 or $4.8 million, no worries

If they can’t run a surplus, they don’t deserve funding = we cut your funding, so you can’t keep afloat, so now you get nothing

Also: Checkpoint’s Psychiatrist defending Relationships Aotearoa was excellent.  As was Guyon’s pulling Tolley up this morning…

18 comments on “Tolleyisms”

  1. Armchair Critic 1

    Hang on, did Mrs Tolley really say “if they can’t run a surplus, they don’t deserve funding”? On the unreasonable assumption she meant what she said, I’d expect to see her apply that principle to Dr English’s upcoming budget speech.

  2. sandra 2

    The whole thing just gets curiouser and curiouser and more than a little smelly

  3. John 3

    $3m of family court work is done by mediation instead of counciling by Relationships Aotearoa.

    But brainless cheerleaders think the taxpayer should keep paying them millions for work they don’t actually do.

    • the pigman 3.1

      I’ve been out of the country a while, but it certainly used to be the case the the Family Proceedings Act obliged the court and FC professionals to promote reconciliation, or failing that, conciliation.

      Referrals to relationship counselling services and agreements reached therein saved millions of dollars that otherwise would have been spent had proceedings been issued and the matters referred to mediation.

      I’m not sure what the landscape is like now, but I can guarantee you will get better bang for buck from relationship counsellors than your will from Judge-led or professional mediator-led mediation. And more sensitivity with it.

      • John 3.1.1

        Except when you spend a fortune on counciling and it doesn’t work, as is pretty common.

        Anyway, the point is if there’s $3m of work they no longer do, it’s total insanity to expect to the taxpayer still to pay for it.

        Not to mention the Relationships Aotearoa board acting outside their legal framework, at least CEOs coming and going with high frequency etc.

        • Armchair Critic

          What a mess your comment is, John. Where to start…
          The $4.8M is by no measure “a fortune”. It’s a small fraction of the $26M for the banker’s vanity project that will deliver us the same flag; the main difference being that the funds for the vanity project could be better used elsewhere.
          It’s “counselling”, not “counciling”. It seems the education system failed you, which brings pretty much everything else you say into question.
          With the $3M you refer to as “not being done” being, at worst, an unfilled need, it’s bizarre to suggest it should not be funded, yet that’s what you’ve done. Even under a market model the correct response is to suggest finding another provider. Of course, counselling of this type does not fit well with a market model, which explains in part why there is no alternative provider. I suppose it’s your cruel and narrow perspective that prevents you from recognising this.
          Finally, that they’ve had a few CEOs is neither here nor there. The service itself, which is provided by numerous unnamed people, is important, way underfunded and threatened by, frankly, a bunch of idiots. There’s nothing defendable about their actions, or yours.

          • The Other Mike

            Well you are better than me, AC. I was not even going to dignify John’s ignorant trollery with a reply.

          • John

            Well Armchair critic – It says a great deal that you think we should keep spending $3m a year on contracts that no longer exist because they’ve been replaced with another provider.

            And even more that the board has been working outside their legal framework and going through CEOs like hot dinners, and you think the mismanagement is “neither here nor there”.

            With those attitudes, I wouldn’t employ you to run a lemonade stall.

            • Armchair Critic

              It’s clear you have no idea what I think, John, looks like another fail for you in the education system. If you were worth the effort I’d try to explain further.

              Regarding hypothetical lemonade stands, I wouldn’t work for you because you’d be a total arse of an employer. Back in the real world it’s much more likely that you work for me, and don’t even know it.

        • Psycho Milt

          Try spending your money on counselling next time, there’ll be a much higher chance of success. Councils tend to be not very good at this kind of thing.

  4. Chooky 4

    Good post ….and the Christchurch psychiatrist was excellent!…she is a hero imo

    ….$2 6 million to be spent on jonkey’s vanity project changing the flag which hardly anyone wants changed by him …because it will signify corporate control of New Zealand by his mates…this is the real reason he wants the flag changed ….he wants the old caring egalitarian democratic NZ gone and forgotten ( the one that the Returned Servicemen fought for)…what jonkey wants is a branding and corporate takeover …and NZers to be zombies while we get f..ked over…he wants a flag that does NOT represent New Zealand for New Zealanders

    ….and at the same time an essential service providing counselling is driven under by being starved of the taxpayer dollar for want of a few million

    …as the Christchurch psychiatrist says….this counselling service is an essential one….psychiatrists only see 2% of those in need and these are the ones who need meds….not counselling …she directs many of her clients to this counselling service of long standing reputation which has very experienced highly qualified counsellors ie clinical psychologists

    ( maybe jonkey wants to contract counselling out to private enterprise mates ?….American corporates?….as with the jails and the ‘meals on wheels’)

    Tolley, jonkey’s spokesperson. tried to defend the indefensible….and she came out sounding patronising and churlish and arrogant….as if she was ticking off a solo mother for not managing her DPB budget….Tolley is a contemptible….she should resign

  5. Gosman 5

    Do people support funding private sector organisations to provide social services to government agencies then?

    • McFlock 5.1

      Well, I don’t, in general.
      But it’s better than not having the service at all.

      See, it’s a bit like ignoring your comments: every time you comment, gos, a small kitten, puppy or baby unicorn commits suicide. Your every contribution is a fingernail scratching down the blackboard of the human soul. But letting your bullshit go unanswered is an offence against common decency because silence might be taken by some impressionable young sociopath as an endorsement (“normalising” the unregenerate corruption of the scoundrel), and reduces us to being passive collaborators in the ongoing dessication of society.

      So people reply to your comments, even if it’s not the ideal situation to be in.

      • Chooky 5.1.1

        McFlock +100

      • George Hendry 5.1.2

        @ McFlock 🙂

        Superbly expressed, enlightening, poetic and moving.

        Freedom of speech can never only be the right to say the agreed thing, but to be truly free must include the right to try to hold back human evolution by the stupid, destructive things one says.

        I am grateful that Gosman agrees so consistently and often to be the arse on the collective human body, and express our shit for us.

        And I admire the noble resignation with which other contributors heave their sighs and continue to wipe up after him.

        Thanks all.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    3 weeks ago