The decision to reallocate funds meant for frontline mental health services into a $10 million innovation fund has sparked controversy. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) criticized the move, pointing to the urgent need for addressing workforce shortages in the mental health sector. Despite these concerns, Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey defended the decision, emphasizing that the fund is intended to support grassroots mental health initiatives and alleviate pressure on public services.
The innovation fund, launched in July, is aimed at financing time-limited community-based projects designed to improve mental health outcomes. However, critics argue that the criteria for the fund have made it inaccessible to many organizations, questioning its effectiveness. With a severe shortage of mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, some regions are facing vacancy rates as high as 30%.
The funds originally allocated for acute services and workforce development were instead repurposed to create the innovation fund after Doocey’s initial budget proposal for new funding was rejected. This led to the use of $9.72 million in forecasted underspends from Health New Zealand’s mental health and addiction budget, which had been earmarked for other essential services.
The RANZCP raised concerns that such funding should have been used to address the workforce crisis, suggesting that the money could have been better spent on training new psychiatrists or retaining existing professionals. There are also doubts about the sustainability of the innovation fund, with some critics pointing out that grassroots organizations need long-term funding rather than short-term grants.
Doocey’s response has been that the innovation fund is a valuable tool for utilizing available mental health professionals in the community and NGO sectors, relieving pressure on public services. While some have welcomed this approach, others have questioned whether the reallocation of funds undermines the government’s commitment to addressing the root causes of the mental health crisis, such as workforce shortages and increasing demand for services.
As the initiative continues, it remains to be seen whether it will make a meaningful impact or if it will face further criticism for prioritizing innovation over immediate support for the mental health workforce.
