Politics NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
Government considering adding mental health option when people ring 111
William Hewett
The Government is looking at potentially adding a mental health option for when people call 111 as they look to ease the workload on police.
A proposal has been put forward for police to reduce the number of mental health callouts they attend. In the 2022-23 year, police attended more than 77,000 events involving mental health but only 2 to 4 percent resulted in a criminal offence.
Minister for Mental Health Matt Doocey told AM on Tuesday morning work is underway to establish new teams to work alongside police.
"Quite often when people call 111 with a physical health crisis, they get a health response, but currently in New Zealand when you call 111 with a mental health crisis, you get a criminal justice response," he told AM co-host Melissa Chan-Green.
"So I think it's quite right the officials are looking at how we can look at what's called a co-response mental health team service. That's about pairing up mental health professionals with police to go out in that time of need."
He also believes it's time for a more streamlined response involving other agencies, not just police.
"I think what we need to do is to triage those calls better in the emergency dispatch centres," he said.
"Think about when there's a risk to the person or the family or people around them. Quite rightly, the police would go out but there are other times when there's mental distress that potentially mental health professionals can be paired up with our police officers or potentially just mental health professionals sent out on their own and I think that's the work we need to look at."
Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey says the Government is looking to decrease police workload by reducing the number of mental health callouts they respond to.
Doocey told AM he's also getting advice on potentially adding a mental health option alongside fire, ambulance and police when people call 111.
"We will understand the issues of the call out, the risks and the potential team that needs to be sent out," he said.
"Clearly, we need to look at is the service coming out appropriate to the level of risk, whether that will be police and mental health professionals as well."
But while there might be plans to add a mental health team, people have questioned where the worker would come from given the demand for mental health workers is already incredibly stretched.
Doocey admitted on AM the biggest barrier to timely mental health and addiction support in New Zealand is currently down to the mental health workforce "crisis".
The Mental Health Minister said he's requested that Health NZ, the police and the Ministry of Health look at a five-year rollout of a mental health co-response team programme and would be receiving a report on this proposal in March.
The number of options available to people when they call 111 could be about to change
The Mental Health Minister says the Government is looking to decrease police workload by reducing the number of mental health callouts they respond to.www.newshub.co.nz
This just shows how the new Minister of mental health doesn't have a clue and is proposing a system that will free up police "because very few call outs result in a conviction".
Honestly do not know where to start. Also dunno if I can do this lunacy justice while away from home and my PC.
First of all, the reason Police have to respond to so many call outs, is because of the safety protocols which recognize that mental health staff (often two women) are not equipped to deal with alone, that's why the cops are the safety net.
Second of all, the reasons Police mental health call outs do not lead to convictions is that the clients are not charged for violence (because that would be inappropriate since we are talking about a group that is not responsible for their actions).
So as you can see, this idiot Ministers reasoning is fundamentaly flawed - conviction rates have nothing to do with the level of risk he is proposing by cutting back Police support.
The risk is not only to the Mental health staff, the risk is equally high, or even higher for the client. Mental health staff cannot restrain people trying to cut or kill themselves.
Mental health staff can't enter without permission.....think about the ministers plan...yeah it's a bloody joke, psyche staff will be on the doorstep, or in the driveway and unable to do jack shit till the cops arrive.
It has taken decades for mental health staff and Police to develop their excellent culture of working together, in the past some cops were very reluctant to help out.
There are many other reasons this is a very bad idea, including other civilized countries going in the opposite direction, having psyche trained staff permanently supporting Police call outs.
Bottom line, in the real world there are some really dangerous housing complexs and streets in Auckland, peopled by very bad men....and more often nowadays women.
There are places two women shouldn't go to alone at night, or even in the day, fk me this the time of the Meth plague.
The Minister has no idea of why the cops get called in to support psyche staff, they are not there to arres people unless they have to purely to transport safely in most cases.
The dumbest scenario in all of this....is imagine driving with someone unwell in the back seat....do ya'lll wanna drive your kids beside that vehicle when it smashes into you?
Me either.
This GOVT just keeps looking for ways to take from mental health to deliver their tough on crime bullshit.
Never fear though, this will never work.
Psyche staff will just refuse to attend shadey call outs without cops and will park up - call the cops - and wait.
And that will be because their own safety protocols do not allow them to respond unsupported to any of the current reasons the Minister is trying to spare Police from.
It is a bit insulting to Mental health staff that the Minister assumes that they are some how relying on Police in 'unnecessary' situations.
Anyway I could go on for hours about how bad this idea is....but what may happen....is that people's lives are lost....I suspect this lot will still say it is working well....till an inquiry changes everything back to the safest system we have.
- Thread starter
- #6,363
I agree with all this but:
We have an explosion of meth issues
We have an explosion of crime
We have an explosion of mental health issues
We have an explosion of gangs
… and our police numbers are not increasing relative to population growth, are lower per head of population than most of other countries and recruiting is near on impossible to the point they are looking at lowering standards..
When police are in crisis and can’t effectively respond to crime, do you do?
Dave, what do you think of the model being used in some UK cities where mental health instances are dealt with by three people... a police officer, a mental health expert and a EMT?
I think the first question to answer is should there be an option to choose mental health when you call 111 or is a Police Officer the right person to be talking to?
Then from there what is the appropriate response.
Good model, essentially what we would do if we had the rates of O.D they do from all the drugs over there, ya know the ecstacy and heroine scenes.
Quite often a call out in the UK is gonna be someon tripping balls and or a mental illness in the mix - so u want a medico able to ressuss or jab some Nrcan (anti opoids fixer).
One. Cop means staff are safer, and less cops are being used, and of course if cop radio's in a ten ten *police in trouble*they get immediate back up.
The other thing the Poms did (controversialy) was reopen the big Asylums and turn them into 'special' hospitals.
They kept the smaller hospitals where they pad their stats around restraints (they are to show the WHO that they are meeting the guidelines re low restraint use and no use of seclusion [solitary].......thing is....while they have amazing stats....they deal with violent people by shipping them off to the old refurbished hospitals.
In other words, the Poms treid what we have, they do it first, it fails, we copy them, that fails here, and we wonder why....
OK I better try be constructive here, I know people are trying to look for positives.
What you posted is already what happens, it is called Triaging.
A caller cannot make the decision.
The decision is made through the simple determination of is this person an imminent risk to themselves or others?
Like say, if the answer is yes they are an imminent risk - then only the police can resolve that legally, and practically.
Last edited:
Problem is, the police presence stops most mental health call outs from escalating to extreme risk.
If the Cops are 'spared' from high risk potential call outs (like I keep saying -under the present system cops are only used with imminent risk of violence to self other - or someone so disordered they are walking in traffic).
If you gate keep the cops to save resources, what do you think will happen?
The cops will end up being called anyway, but this time, under the new scheme, time will be lost in the first instance, and in any crisis (they are called Mental health crisis teams for a reason) response time is the critical factor.
You will end up tying up more officers, they will have to send a team because if you allow what the Minister is wanting, almost every time shit just gonna escalate (remember psyche staff attending can't do much more than observe).
Really common scenarios are call outs to teen overdoses (very common) teen has locked themselves in a room in the house, time is ticking away, some parents may break down the door, many solo mums don't have that option.....psyche staff arrive and the best they can try is to talk loudly above blaring music "please open the door we are here to help".
So.....the risk in this one common example is that you now have to wait for cops....after the packet of panadol the kid has ingested is quietly killing their liver - kid dies four days later in agony from something the old system was able to prevent.
Police and Coroner are now tied up by a Coronial inquiry and the courts, as well as an internal investigation, from a garden variety routine common call out.
Less cops free to 'fight crime'.
A family tragedy, more mental health burden on the state, millions of dollars in tax payers money coz one poor teen broke up with their bf and needed authorities to rapidly take control.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #6,371
The divisive 3 waters.
- A policy that 99% of council's voted against
- Over $1.2 billion wasted
- A policy the majority of public didn’t want complete with a huge backlash
- a policy Labour sneakily tried to entrench
Finally gone
Where do we read about this great event? The media are talking about mice in supermarkets instead
- A policy that 99% of council's voted against
- Over $1.2 billion wasted
- A policy the majority of public didn’t want complete with a huge backlash
- a policy Labour sneakily tried to entrench
Finally gone
Where do we read about this great event? The media are talking about mice in supermarkets instead
Good news, the war is over
www.newshub.co.nz
Government to reverse indexing of benefits to wage growth
They will instead be paid in line with inflation.
www.newshub.co.nz
In the olden days unions had their work cut negotiating national awards that kept up with inflation. I bet many low paid workers now would be happy to keep up with inflation.Good news, the war is over
Government to reverse indexing of benefits to wage growth
They will instead be paid in line with inflation.
Good news, the war is over
Government to reverse indexing of benefits to wage growth
They will instead be paid in line with inflation.
I personally would like it be to indexed to what was the higher…. wage growth or inflation.
- Thread starter
- #6,375
So over time they MUST creep closer to low paid employees every time wage growth is less than inflation!
Taken to its extreme eventually a beneficiary would earn MORE than a low paid full time employee
John Nick
Contributor
But surely that would be adjusted according to the situationSo over time they MUST creep closer to low paid employees every time wage growth is less than inflation!
Taken to its extreme eventually a beneficiary would earn MORE than a low paid full time employee
- Thread starter
- #6,378
The different isn’t for punitive reasons. They shouldn’t get paid anywhere near minimum wage.
There are costs and expenses in going to work - childcare, petrol, clothes, less time for preparing meals, clean, mow the lawns, etc.
You only 80% of your wages on ACC for this reason.
You have not got a clue.
You can choose to ignore the meaning of my post, which is that lots of hard working highly qualified people I know personally cannot get jobs because of their race.
Continue....I have heard all these Rhymes before.
- Thread starter
- #6,380
I’m not even engaging in your issues. Don’t try to draw me in because i’m not biting…
We have been discussing the minimum wage relative to inflation and wage rates.
