Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 3:23:24 to 3:29:08
Review of the effectiveness of the $610 million government investment in suicide prevention in light of findings from the Auditor-General and the Productivity Commission.
Topics: Health, Government spending
Speakers: Gavin Matthews, Speaker 26, Unknown Speaker, Interjection
>> I've got a question in relation to a question on notice from last estimates SQ26-002938. Um so in your your answer to my question um saying it says the government has invested 610 million in suicide prevention since 2022 2023. The auditor general found that government objectives to reduce suicide had not been achieved. The Productivity Commission found no change in suicide rate since the national agreement was signed. What is the $610 million bought?
>> Hi Senator Gavin Matthews, First Secretary Mental Health Suicide Prevention Division. So that obviously that funding figure is over a multi-year period. Um we probably directly invest around about sort of in the order of about $130 odd million dollars a year into suicide prevention. Um this country delivers a range of things. So there is a range of funding that um sits under the national agreement that uh for mental health and suicide prevention uh that provides um a range of funding for uh what we call afterare which is services for um for people that had uh have had a suicide attempt and um and it sort of helps them from followup there. it's very evidence-based in terms of providing support and that if you can provide those supports into that period um from where they're hospitalized whatever then you tend to get less repeat uh attempts and those types of behaviors you know coming through so it's quite evidence-based for that we also fund uh a post vvention support service which is basically for people bereaved from suicide so that's run by Australia that provides a range of services for immediate family members and loved ones that you know that have ber from suicide because there is of course risks and obviously they have um significant needs in in through that uh through that that episode and from there then we run also what we were discussing before the national suicide prevention leadership support program that that provides a range of services uh to people and it provides um uh funds some programs some of the things around mates and construction I think that we discussed last time that we were here. Yes. So it funds a range of programs, some first nations programs, uh funds also some uh some leadership and some research funding for some organizations to uh you know go and um provide uh the you know the broader leadership from the suicide uh sector uh some communications and also um some supports for priority populations. So we have a r provides a actually quite a diverse range of programs and supports uh you know for people um from a range of different fronts and that I would also add that that's probably just the direct suicide programs that we have that are not you know that are also supplemented by our crisis lines and things like lifeline etc that we provide that are not included in that funding that have you know quite sustained high usage for people in distress and a range of other things as well. And we also outside of that funding also our you know things like our medic and mental health clinics also have uh you know um work with distressed individuals and suicidality as well for when people go into there. So we actually have quite a range of services that work for that. It has obviously the data wise remained um fairly static over a long period of
>> So are there any measurable outcomes
question on notice actually that we've answered in the past about that I think Senator Ruston might have asked at a previous estimates about um that got to that question of um outcome I think because there is this sort of proper perception that has that is that shifting the dial of the national suicide rate in the country and we would you know so that there isn't necessarily direct causality between those programs at a and a national suicide rate at that level. Some of the programs might be um smallalish programs on their own and so getting a direct attribution of that to the um broader suicide rate is very difficult but all of them have indicators of the you know of the um have metrics about what those programs have achieved and done and we had I think we put a range of that information on a previous question on notice that we've answered um Senator which we can which we'd be happy to probably ret to redo again if that's of use
>> but for for all the money we're spending Um I don't think we are moving the dial are we? The headline number of people that are taking their own life doesn't seem to be changing.
>> Well I think that's a very so at a headline level yes the I mean obviously the um the general rate of suicide um has been relatively stable for a reasonably long period of time. It moves around a little bit but not significant. I mean you don't I guess the you know but then the the usage of many of the services we've got remains quite significant and growing and you don't know the counterfactual that if we I mean I think the perception would be if we weren't running those suicides would anything with those programs would anything be any different? Well quite possibly it would be significantly higher we don't know that but that would be there would be definite risks of that being so I think you it's probably a little bit simplistic to say that um because the rate has changed those programs are not making any difference.
I'm I'm not suggesting they're not making a difference, but there's um the number's still too high. By the time we come back tomorrow morning from today, seven men will have taken their lives. >> and I think that's a a national crisis.
>> Yes.