Bold claim: Australia needs a national voice for psychiatry to truly address severe and complex mental illness, or risk letting the crisis in care deepen. But here’s where it gets controversial: without a dedicated, independent advocate, funding and policy decisions will keep missing the mark. That is the core issue this piece explores, through the launch of a new professional body, the Australian Society of Psychiatrists (ASoP).
AsoP emerged from a sharp clash between NSW public sector psychiatrists and the New South Wales government. It positions itself as a national, not-for-profit, member-driven organization that will champion best-practice mental health care and push for broader, more equitable funding across Australia. In collaboration with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP), ASoP seeks to ensure psychiatrists have a strong, independent voice in shaping policy and public understanding of severe mental illness.
Context matters: last year, more than 200 NSW psychiatrists resigned over understaffing, unsafe conditions, and chronic underinvestment in state mental health services. They argued that pay gaps—lower in NSW than in other states—contributed to higher staff turnover and, ultimately, lower care standards. An interim 20% pay rise was later awarded after the Industrial Relations Commission confirmed pay was influencing patient care quality. This dispute underscored a broader issue: without robust funding and workforce support, a high-quality mental health system is unsustainable.
ASoP’s leadership argues that Australia’s mental health system is underperforming nationwide. Acute mental health beds have fallen to about 27 per 100,000 population—well below the international benchmark of 60 per 100,000. Emergency Department presentations for mental health issues have surged by around 67% in two decades, with increasing clinical severity. Delayed inpatient admissions remain a persistent problem, and community-based services have weakened, leaving tens of thousands with severe and complex needs without access to appropriate care in New South Wales alone.
Multiple factors feed this decline. Public literacy about severe mental illness is comparatively low, and stigma remains high relative to illnesses like heart disease and cancer. A public-facing national voice, akin to the Cancer Council or Heart Foundation, is missing. People’s understanding of psychiatrists’ distinct medical role is often muddled by confusion with psychologists or by calls for role substitution by allied health professionals, nurses, or general practitioners. Crucially, the public and policymakers frequently overlook psychiatrists as medical doctors delivering complex, medically grounded care.
ASoP launch and mission
ASoP began in November 2025 as a member-based, not-for-profit body with the aim of elevating psychiatry’s role and ensuring psychiatrists have a powerful platform to influence mental health policy and funding decisions. Working alongside RANZCP, ASoP wants to prevent the field from being sidelined in national debates about mental health, funding, and service delivery. Its core goals include:
- Elevating mental health on Australia’s public and political agenda;
- Advocating for increased and equitable funding to improve treatment options and access, especially for those who cannot afford private care;
- Reducing stigma and boosting understanding of severe and complex mental illness among the public and policymakers;
- Highlighting the essential contributions of psychiatrists to high-quality mental health care.
ASoP’s founders, inspired by the NSW crisis, believe a national, independent advocacy body is necessary to broaden the profession’s influence beyond clinical work and into policy, funding, and public education. The society aims to translate research into practice, develop best-practice models, and collaborate with health services, community organizations, and policy bodies. It also plans education and outreach initiatives to clarify the psychiatrists’ role for the public and to provide expert commentary grounded in science and best practice.
Membership and structure
Membership is open to psychiatrists, trainees, retired practitioners, associates, and honorary members, with voting rights generally reserved for core groups (psychiatrists, trainees, and retired psychiatrists). Details are available on ASoP’s website.
Funding gaps and policy influence
A central concern is the mismatch between mental health burden and funding. Mental health conditions and substance use disorders rank high in disease burden but receive relatively modest funding compared with other major health challenges like diabetes and cancer. For instance, AIHW data show mental health and substance use disorders are among the top contributors to disease burden while receiving comparatively lower spending.
ASoP plans to fill this vacuum by ensuring psychiatrists have greater input into policy and funding decisions and by serving as a key resource for government, media, and mental health peak bodies. While RANZCP remains the peak educational and training body for psychiatrists, its charity status and focus on training limit its capacity for broad advocacy. ASoP offers a complementary, independent advocacy channel that can partner with RANZCP and other medical bodies, including the AMA, to advance targeted reforms.
Potential impact and next steps
If successful, ASoP could help normalize the idea that severe and complex mental illness requires specific, resourced attention, and that psychiatrists play a distinct, medically grounded role in care delivery. Expected activities include stigma-reduction campaigns, early-intervention programs, and systemic reforms to improve access. The society would also help translate research into practice, foster collaboration across health services and community groups, and provide expert commentary grounded in evidence.
Authorial voices and expertise
The article’s authors hail from diverse backgrounds within psychiatry and public health, including leaders in clinical practice, research, and policy. Their collective aim is to position psychiatry as a pivotal driver of better mental health outcomes through advocacy, inquiry, and reform.
Controversy and conversation
Some readers may question whether a separate psychiatry-focused body is the best path, or whether existing organizations can adequately carry this advocacy load. Others might wonder how ASoP will navigate potential tensions with government funding priorities and the broader healthcare system. What do you think: should psychiatry have a standalone national voice, or is closer collaboration with established bodies the better route? Is there a risk that a focused advocacy group could widen perceptions of “us vs. them” between psychiatry and other mental health disciplines, or could it be a necessary driver of reform? Share your views in the comments.
Additional context
For more on this topic, see Croakey’s mental health archive and related insights across Australian health policy and service delivery.
