Topic Tuesday: What would you say to public policy makers?

Member, senator, minister--I think it would only vary if the minister was at a crucial point in a policy change--but generally this is about making sure your local federal pollies hera what you want, and pass the message up

Changing and influencing public policy needs an approoach to both the policy makers within the relevant Government Departments and through the political process with the relevant Ministers and Parliamentary secretaries who need detailed arguments about how to effect change

Thanks @kenny66 , @Ellie , @Viv

How does the statement & request for Loneliness (on previous page) sit with you all?

Loneliness

Statement:

People living with mental illness frequently report isolation from their community and find it difficult to develop friendship and other forms of mutual support

suggested rephrasing:

People living with mental illness experience social isolation born of stigma and discrimination.

Request:

We want you to ensure that there is adequate funding to develop a variety of peer-developed , community-based options which relieve isolation for people affected by mental illness

suggested rephrasing:

There should be adequate funding to develop a variety of peer-developed , community-based options to assist in coping with the isolation of stigma and discrimination.

.....................................................

I really believe the issue of stigma and discrimination needs to be addressed. Why does this sense of isolation exist. Many reasons probably but I do believe that stigma and discrimination is fundamental to this sense of isolation....

I am not sure that I would rely on all of the local pollies to do that. Messaging should in my view taylored to the specific audience. Its very different between a Senator-local memberr and Minister as they all have very differe3nt functions. I worked in both PR and Ministerial office before I became ill with Schizophrenia, so I sort of know the territory a bit.

It's great that some people with MI can access funded meeting places if available in their area, however people like myself are isolative because we eventually recognise the benefits of separating ourselves from the general community. The loneliness is horrendous, the temptation to not be here at all is overwhelming at times, but better that trying to fit in and failing miserably, especially when it comes to friendships and significant others. Your wording sounds ok for those with MI, but not for those with other serious issues such as personality disorders, it doesn't quite seem to fit.

What I'd like to see is large rural cities providing DBT courses so people with BPD don't feel the need to hide away. It's so frustrating to find that unless you have appropriate health cover or lots of money, you don't get a look in at public funded hospitals.

Thanks @Ellie and @kenny66 for sharing your experiences and your thoughts.

All very valid!

Advocates who are going to be trained to approach these policy makers will have their own backgrounds and experiences in which they draw on, as you have.

The purpose of these messages are to be broad, so they are relevant to policy makers in various positions and relevant to people impacted in different ways by mental health difficulties - they can then be tailored on a case by case situation.

The feedback around the word 'servere' for example, is great, because, as it was noted, it can be stigmatising and it can mean different things to different people at different times!

Absolutely! It's proven to be "cost efficient" to put dollar term on the situation, but nobody seems to be taking any notice............. not even of the "bottom line!"

I also think there is also an issue with distance in the regions which adds a further complexity in dealing with lonlinees. But generally the statement is fine