Fundamentally, this govt’s interest in trauma is how much it costs the state and how the private sector can benefit from it financially. Nothing humane or ethical about it.
That’s correct, but I can’t think of anything the last Labour government did differently there. This government just hasn’t been particularly interested apart from asking ACC to pay the privet sector practitioners what they want, so that thay would agree to drop client surcharges, which in many cases required the client to ask Winz if they could help with that.
I don’t know if there has ever been a lot of public trauma treatment. Prisons and acute mental health services spring to mind, and the drug and alcohol rehabilitation centres take on some of that work.
And there’s a definite problem with data collecting. In an addiction treatment environment, it’s actually called evidence of crime. And that’s not an easy way to start a therapeutic relationship. The pragmatic solution would be to encourage dishonesty.
Despite Paula Bennett being found to have breached the Privacy Act, any consequences were easily deflected by her minders.
Yes, the Privacy act isn't that much of a deterrent.
There’s absolutely nothing to prevent abuse by the authorities. Will they be able to resist temptation?
There is the Privacy act. And that's not nothing.
Ethics are reinforced as part of health sector training and ongoing development and governance, but not necessarily in all public sector disciplines which may have conflicting drivers. Imagine the police accessing your health records, for instance.
That’s why I’m saying the problem with this new data collection plan isn’t just that the government is collecting it. It’s not a good idea to have small not for profit community organisations working as data collecting agents. I’m uncomfortable enough about the sorts of people who have collected sensitive health information about me on behalf of ACC.
We don’t have to collect personal data at the small not for profit organisation that I’m a part of, for a year becouse it’s all trauma related. Women’s refuge should get the same waiver.
Seriously Steven? My concern is that for the first time all of the data that all of the government departments hold on potentially all New Zealanders is going to one big database where it can be analysed. And it isn’t anonymous.
That's not entirely true.
First, government departments are already legally capable of sharing date about you.
Second, your confidential information will remain confidential.
I know that's not reassuring:-(
Luckily, we have journalists to clue us in a bit about that.
Actually, if they believed insurgents were going to be using it as a base of operations, that’s a prudent tactical decision.
That’s like saying it’s reasonable to bulldoze state houses, when theres a belief that criminals might live in them.
Destroying a village doesn’t make the problem go away. It just renders people homeless, which will create resentment. It would be a stupid tactical decision when you think beyond your own immediate interests.
Alright, so is it that people are afraid of shearing there details with a government department? Or the organisation that will be compelled to ask for them?
We already give loads of personal details to government agency’s, almost without question. Will give our details to hospitals, schools and some people give personal information to Winz. Nobody’s been particularly concerned about that. Which leaves the question of what’s the real problem? Is it trust in the crown, or the small not for profit organisations having to ask questions they’d rather not.
Hang on, ACC isn't the crown, it's an insurance corporation that's owned by the crown.
Yes, I was also shocked to see that in the eyes of the New Zealand courts, children under 13 years old have the emotional maturity to consent to having sex with there school teachers.
It makes trusting the crown with sensitive information hard to stomach. But that’s what’s required of anyone who makes an ACC sensitive claim.