The government is always banging on about outcomes but ignores that when budget imperatives prevail, which invariably take prioritary and get in the way? And in this case, tantamount to trying to cure starvation with a very restricted diet or nil by mouth?

We not only need to protect these services but more importantly ensure they're properly funded! If the entirely unacceptable suicide rate among this demographic doesn't inform us of that fact, it ought!

While we might rail against severely restricted or rationed services in metropolitan areas, We need to vigorously protest their almost complete absence in some rural or regional areas!?

A few new dam proposals are rolled out as expensive studies but no new dams? Along with a 160 million dollar plebiscite, arguably to simply ignore or defy the will of the people? priorities tell us what some folk consider first order issues?

Self evidently the consequence of an entirely impotent National Party? Who seem to think all they need do is win? Make sure the live cattle trade continues unabated and the roads are suitably upgraded to ensure that continues unrestricted?

And the devil take adequate human services?

Without the Nats, the libs would likely be unable to govern, which given outcomes seems passing strange? If this and other second and third class outcomes is what you get inside the tent? Then maybe a few folk need to step outside until it dramatically improves!?
Alan B.

on one hand we are spending more on mental health while on the others we have putried progams like unsafe schools which ensure many more mental health clients in the future. Our social engineers have much to answer for.

Claims that the Headspace is not working, by a board member of Mental Health First Aid Australia, must be taken cautiously. Headspace could be seen to be competition for MHFA.

On the ground talk is that Mental Health First Aid Australia is simply a business model, and with processes occurring that are causing concern for their lack of cultural sensitivity for Indigenous Australians.

Delivery of mental health initiatives is problematic and sees many people simply not catered to.

While I applaud efforts to help anyone suffering from mental health issues it appears to me, that consistently little is being done nor investigated as to why there has been an increase in mental health issues if I understand stats correctly?

Bandaid treatments that try to 'solve' issues do not and have not ever been successful but hey, the politicians can say that they are responding to a breakdown in society. 'When families crack the nation falls' is an adage that springs to mind about the mental health 'problem' and others such as increases in anti social behaviour/criminal activity, etc - politicians react to the latter by putting more police on the beat/payroll but do not appear to address why they are needed from a sociological viewpoint. Independent politicians in the Senate may just 'persuade' the Lower House pollies that they need to get their act into gear re addressing the root causes - not proscribing bandaid treatments and 'hope for the best'?

Headspace is a great and worthy attempt to address mental health issues for young people, that it did not work in its current iteration is a cause for concern and a good reason to make changes so that it better meets the needs of its user base.
Mental Health First Aid is not a competitor - by raising awareness of mental health/substance use issues it acts as an unofficial "conduit" to professional services such as Headspace.
As Tony Jorm pointed out services should be located where young people are (indeed all services should be placed where people are - not standalones that people have to trek to).
A successful example of that was the placement of a health service (GPs, Mental Health & Drug and Alcohol workers) in a large shopping centre in the Northern suburbs of Geelong, an area of high social disadvantage - close to local schools. JIGSAW was also close to Centrelink and other services which made it very convenient for its users and therefore its workers were easily accessible - they also worked closely with school communities.
Engagement with clients was a priority and the number of times a person could be seen was not limited by a preordained allocation of resources - service provision was driven by the dictum "until we both agree that you no longer need to see us".
Then it entered into an "arrangement" with Headspace and that was watered down to "this is what we can provide for you".
It is pointless trying to defend what is shown to be demonstrably ineffective - services can and should be changed to meet the needs of those they seek to assist... to do otherwise is to throw good money after bad!