Learn from the mistakes of others

Here is a quote from Associate Professor Nicholas Procter's recent article "A new paradigm shift for mental health" on On Line Opinion:

It will also be helpful in trying to ensure that community service providers, such as the online 24-hour not-for-profit service depressioNet.com.au serving 200,000 people annually, receive continued funding. If there is ever a need for a paradigm shift by government, consider the following exchange between Sydney talkback radio host Alan Jones and Tony Abbott, Federal Minister for Health, on Friday, October 14, 2005 (listen to the audio file):

JONES: But it’s a half a million bucks. Tony, this is saving lives!
ABBOTT: But even people who are doing very good things can’t deliver ultimatums to government and say: you’ve just got to give us this …
JONES: But if the thing’s going to close. I mean, people have written to me and said: If it weren’t for this site - I put this in my letter to you - I wouldn’t be here writing an email asking for your assistance. This is some poor coot about to take their life, Tony. "I suffered from depression and came across this website when I was looking for a way to end my life". Are we going to allow this thing to close?
...
ABBOTT: I don’t think it is necessary to do the service that they are doing that the Federal Government give them $400,000 a year. We want them to stay open but we owe it to the taxpayers to say: What does the Federal Government legitimately need to spend to help these people? And that’s the discussion that we’re having with them.
JONES: So we send billions of dollars overseas and our own people are committing suicide and dying of a mental illness, and an instrument which actually saves people’s lives, you’re fiddling and arguing over a couple of hundred thousand dollars?
ABBOTT: Alan, I know it sounds …
JONES: It sounds dreadful, it sounds dreadful. It sounds completely un-Tony Abbott. It sounds appalling, Tony. Don’t say you know, it sounds woeful to the people listening to you.
ABBOTT: I’m sorry, Alan, but I owe it to taxpayers not to …
JONES: Owe it to taxpayers? Can you think of the amount of money that’s wasted in Canberra on every imaginable thing - bloated bureaucracies, extraordinary payments to politicians, public servants, and these people are threatening to close the show down because they haven’t got money, and that’s saving people’s lives.
ABBOTT: And look Alan, moral blackmail is moral blackmail.
JONES: It’s not blackmail. These people are desperate.

depressioNet.com.au did eventually receive funding - albeit slightly less than what was needed.

However, the practical implications of the Jones-Abbott exchange reveal a much deeper problem: the alienation and humiliation of not-for-profit mental health organisations as functionless and valueless.

People value and connect with organisations they trust and need and this is critical in a system known to push people back in to the community without adequate support.

I would also contend that the exchange highlights how distant many public policy decision makers are from the people about whom they are making decisions. That the very reason people trust non-profits is that they seem more approachable, and more connected to the people they help.

It may be that the very fact they are not driven by profit means their first consideration isn't "who much will this cost", but "how can we help" - which is the way government organisations used to work before corporatism invaded the public sphere.

In the guise of "efficiency" and "cost-effectiveness", far too many public services have become private commercial enterprises, where the people that used to be the focus of services have become 'customers', 'clients'. It was true that many government organisations had become bloated bureaucracies, but privatisation was not the only solution. Private enterprise is not interested in public welfare unless it is in their own interests to do so.

Privatisation was chosen because it provides buffers between those who make funding decisions, those who make delivery decisions, and those who ultimately get serviced upon™. It was not necessary to 'offload' public assets into private corporations to achieve efficiencies, or whatever.

The sell-off was needed to distance those making decisions from the consequences. People like me.

Here is a quote from Associate Professor Nicholas Procter's recent article "A new paradigm shift for mental health" on On Line Opinion:

It will also be helpful in trying to ensure that community service providers, such as the online 24-hour not-for-profit service depressioNet.com.au serving 200,000 people annually, receive continued funding. If there is ever a need for a paradigm shift by government, consider the following exchange between Sydney talkback radio host Alan Jones and Tony Abbott, Federal Minister for Health, on Friday, October 14, 2005 (listen to the audio file):

JONES: But it’s a half a million bucks. Tony, this is saving lives!
ABBOTT: But even people who are doing very good things can’t deliver ultimatums to government and say: you’ve just got to give us this …
JONES: But if the thing’s going to close. I mean, people have written to me and said: If it weren’t for this site - I put this in my letter to you - I wouldn’t be here writing an email asking for your assistance. This is some poor coot about to take their life, Tony. "I suffered from depression and came across this website when I was looking for a way to end my life". Are we going to allow this thing to close?
...
ABBOTT: I don’t think it is necessary to do the service that they are doing that the Federal Government give them $400,000 a year. We want them to stay open but we owe it to the taxpayers to say: What does the Federal Government legitimately need to spend to help these people? And that’s the discussion that we’re having with them.
JONES: So we send billions of dollars overseas and our own people are committing suicide and dying of a mental illness, and an instrument which actually saves people’s lives, you’re fiddling and arguing over a couple of hundred thousand dollars?
ABBOTT: Alan, I know it sounds …
JONES: It sounds dreadful, it sounds dreadful. It sounds completely un-Tony Abbott. It sounds appalling, Tony. Don’t say you know, it sounds woeful to the people listening to you.
ABBOTT: I’m sorry, Alan, but I owe it to taxpayers not to …
JONES: Owe it to taxpayers? Can you think of the amount of money that’s wasted in Canberra on every imaginable thing - bloated bureaucracies, extraordinary payments to politicians, public servants, and these people are threatening to close the show down because they haven’t got money, and that’s saving people’s lives.
ABBOTT: And look Alan, moral blackmail is moral blackmail.
JONES: It’s not blackmail. These people are desperate.

depressioNet.com.au did eventually receive funding - albeit slightly less than what was needed.

However, the practical implications of the Jones-Abbott exchange reveal a much deeper problem: the alienation and humiliation of not-for-profit mental health organisations as functionless and valueless.

People value and connect with organisations they trust and need and this is critical in a system known to push people back in to the community without adequate support.

I would also contend that the exchange highlights how distant many public policy decision makers are from the people about whom they are making decisions. That the very reason people trust non-profits is that they seem more approachable, and more connected to the people they help.

It may be that the very fact they are not driven by profit means their first consideration isn't "who much will this cost", but "how can we help" - which is the way government organisations used to work before corporatism invaded the public sphere.

In the guise of "efficiency" and "cost-effectiveness", far too many public services have become private commercial enterprises, where the people that used to be the focus of services have become 'customers', 'clients'. It was true that many government organisations had become bloated bureaucracies, but privatisation was not the only solution. Private enterprise is not interested in public welfare unless it is in their own interests to do so.

Privatisation was chosen because it provides buffers between those who make funding decisions, those who make delivery decisions, and those who ultimately get serviced upon™. It was not necessary to 'offload' public assets into private corporations to achieve efficiencies, or whatever.

The sell-off was needed to distance those making decisions from the consequences. People like me.