Sorry, popnperish, to clarrify I didn't mean don't palliate; clearly people who are suffering require treatment. What I meant to say was that this epidemic indicates a pathological culture and we should be addressing it rather than individual symtoms.
I don't see how you can claim overpopulation has anything to do with it, especially in Australia, and considering that the highest rates of suicide are in wide open rural districts.

Professor Pat McGorry sets out the 21st century approach to mental health. Before that begins, we need to bring the care of ALL the seriously mentally ill (SMI)at least up to the standards of other health services in the twentieth century. Is he aware that ANZ Health Policy Research into the mortality of SMI from 1916-2004 was published in 2009? The study received no attention and certainly it's horrifying conclusion had no effect at all on the 2009/2010 federal mental health budgets. The study concluded that, for the seriously mentally ill, in these 88 years, "There are no gains".

The professor's figure of six completed suicides daily is incorrect. The WHO suicides statistics rates show Australia's as 21.1/100,000. No government entity has troubled to upgrade that statistic in seven years; any conclusion from it is incorrect. However, even using this, it shows twelve SMI complete suicide every day. The majority are older people,from 35-50.

Victoria has some 14,000 mentally ill homeless. The statement that most of this group are mentally ill young people presents a new view of the homeless which needs to be followed. It is pleasing to note the emphasis on housing needs. Those with severe and incurable mental illness may achieve all they can be with safe, simple, adequate low rent housing.

Mental health advocates have had a long-felt need to have Professor McGorry publicly express awareness of the emphasis on child and youth mental illness in the last two years. This has resulted in mental health buget inequities which are now impossible to change. Older SMI, with the highest suicide rates, struggle on in their somewhat C19 world and, perhaps, will be pleased to hear that the new federal funding of $1.5 billion, mainly to be used for early intervention, "does not yet fully reflect the measure of unmet need", which is their need, of course, but "it does lay the groundwork for future reform". We hope they live to enjoy that reform, since their life expectancy is about 55 years.

carol83,
thanks for that sobering analysis, you've clearly done your homework.
I'm concerned that as with other enormous social issues, the emphasis seems always to fall on funding. Issues like "mental health" (rapidly becoming non sequitur) being virtually ignored by government (the mentally ill have always been the State's low-priority detritus) become the projects of PhD's and compassionate lobby-groups that are about as influential as the Greens. Fully-fledged professors tend not to see such issues from the social-justice perspective--being above the tawdry concerns of the State (whose only concern itself is to appear to act while minimising expenditure).
For academic-compassion, read niche-market, publications, research-grants, funding and honorifics. And yet, call me cynical but I almost prefer career-building and professional cynicism to passionate compassionates.
Are you really satisfied that "Those with severe and incurable mental illness may achieve all they can be with safe, simple, adequate low rent housing"? Are the mentally ill, both current and in the pipeline, merely a lost cause, an inevitable statistic that has to be met? Why is the "emphasis" "on child and youth mental illness in the last two years"?
What is the cause of the increase in these rates, and shouldn't we be addressing it, rather than mere catering--providing housing so that they can enjoy the illusion of normalcy and dignity? Which is what made them sick in the first place!
You might say the mentally ill still need to be taken care of, regardless of preventative action, but isn't it naive to suppose that any government can just go on providing a decent life, gratis, to this burgeoning dysfunctional cohort?
I can't see that your position is any different to Patrick McGorry's, it's just a grab for the allocation of funds within the mad-house, treating the incidence of mental illness like an act of God, akin to the weather in its inevitability.
Money spent on the infected should be minimised in favour of curing the virus--but that's going to take more than money!
You're both talking palliative care--playing the market.

Fatherless children and the breakdown of the family unit has contributed greatly to the increase in mental illness and suicide. Until these issues are addressed we are largely weeing in the wind. The social engineers are now reaping what has been sown over the last 50 years. Tragic really but the mantra of more funding fixing the problem does not cut the ice. The idiotic relaxed druggies policies and promotion of loose morals has contributed greatly to those experiencing mental illness. Experts are not willing to face up to these issues as the solutions are unpalatible.