AS DRY conditions continue to prevail across the region, the last thing farmers need to hear is about changes to mental health support programs.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Years of drought have taken a terrible toll on producers, with suicide claiming too many lives, and many more people battling the psychological stress that comes with trying to keep their businesses – and their families – afloat.
Governments have stepped in with mental health funding support and that’s to be applauded.
Local providers were allocated funds from last year’s budget to roll out the assistance packages, but this year’s budget delivered a surprise – and in some quarters it’s being described as an unwelcome one.
Numerous agencies across the region will now lose that funding, while the government provides $360 million to Primary Health Networks to deliver what the government says will be the same level of assistance, but with more flexibility.
The money is, of course, welcome, as is the recognition that support in this area is still vital as the weather continues to taunt those on the land and the communities that rely on them.
But the affected providers are understandably disappointed and concerned about what this massive change will mean for their clients.
One of the local services has assisted hundreds of people under the program and is now wondering how this new structure will play out, and if some of those currently on their books will be left high and dry.
Having got themselves into one program, how will they cope with going through all the bureaucratic hoops again?
It’s no doubt a daunting prospect and hopefully will be as seamless as possible for those who have had the courage to reach out in the first instance, and will perhaps have to find the inner strength to do it all over again.
The government says the new structure has come about as a result of a review of the funding model, which is admirable, but if changes were to be made, could the current set-up not have been tweaked accordingly?
Does it all have to be dismantled and started again?
Aside from the financial implications for the nation – and there always are with these kinds of exercises – it’s imperative those we’re trying to help don’t pay the highest price.
