It is my experience and view that the suicide prevention space remains largely at best reductionist, minimalist, inauthentic. It fails elevated risk groups.

Of course, lack of employment and underemployment in an otherwise GDP strong, high income median economy are causal to suicidal ideation. In addition to the accumulation of socioeconomic life stressors there are arise non-socioeconomic stressors compounding traumas.

An even more profound protective factor than employment is education. 86 per cent of the national prison population has not completed Year 12 – with nearly 100 per cent of First Nations inmates without a Year 12 completion. This is why I work alongside or sponsor record breaking pathway programs to education and training to employment projects for former inmates, the homeless, the impoverished.

Less than 10 per cent of remote living First Nations children complete school.

I disagree with your assessment and defence of the Mental Health Plan – it is shallow and inadequate. I agree with the need for “aftercare” however the plan’s aftercare blueprint is dramatically inadequate.

There was a focus in my article on the earliest possible intervention and beginning of life supports.

However, if we focus on “aftercare” which in my own work I do so intensely then the Mental Health Plan needs to redefine traditional forms of “aftercare” which are at tragically inadequate levels of actual support and culminate in premature disengagement.

I disagree with your argument that MindFrame and LifeForce as suicide prevention – they are not. At best they are information and resources. If they are to be argued as suicide prevention per se then in my view all hope is lost. Mates in Construction is a tailormade support much needed.

In my view, the trial sites are worthless and have cruelly hijacked the suicide prevention discourses. They will fail in improving ‘systems’. The Implementation Plan is next-to-nothing. The COAG should be embarrassed of its inactions. Overall, the suicide prevention space should be embarrassed and its ‘peak bodies’ should own up the failures and increasing unmet needs and not portray that there is a right direction trend. I have in the past strongly campaigned for a Royal Commission into the national suicide toll and the systemic failures and governmental and institutional neglect. Kindly, Gerry

– It is correct to point out that underlying issues surrounding suicide need to be addressed, including the ísms’ and poverty, but what about the main ones in relation to suicidal behaviours: men and their notions of masculinity/self-identity, employment or lack thereof, and alcohol availability and abuse.

– The article makes no mention of the importance of áftercare’ for people who have presented to hospital/health services following a suicide attempt. This is a crucial period where action to prevent re-attempts of suicide and during which attention to the underlying reasons for a person becoming suicidal is possible. The Fifth National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan explicitly mentions aftercare and this should be acknowledged as a critical and well-based policy shift from earlier Plans.

– It is incorrect to state that most of the suicide prevention funding goes on research and ‘talking’ activities such as forums. The National Suicide Prevention Program itself provides around $40m for specific services and programs for suicide prevention and we have in Australia some that are absolutely world-leading like Mates In Construction, MindFrame, LifeForce.

– The nationally funded Trial Sites are actually about different models for a ‘systems approach’ to suicide prevention on a regional basis – reflecting a well-founded policy shift towards location based, integrated responses for suicide prevention. The Trial Sites are being evaluated through a large-scale national evaluation project. While we may be concerned about governments putting money into what is learnt from those trials, the comments in the article are not really showing an understanding of the purpose of the Trial Sites initiative.

– The author seems unaware that the Governments have through COAG Health Ministers agreed to create an Implementation Plan for Suicide Prevention. This could be a game changer if it introduces a level of specific action and accountability for suicide prevention across jurisdictions.

It is good to see the Policy Forum addressing suicide prevention and I hope there may be more articles and discussion as this is a key issue for Australia at this time.