New governance, new hope: findings and results of the taskforce to establish a Mental Health Commission for NSW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This article aims to describe the process by which the new NSW Government executed its election promise to establish a Mental Health Commission for NSW. Design/methodology/approach This case study draws on observations of the author who was expert facilitator to the Taskforce to establish the new NSW Commission. The paper synthesises the work of the Taskforce, the input of a consultation process that engaged more than 2,000 people, through six state‐wide community fora, online survey and other means. In describing the nature of the new NSW Commission, the paper will also reflect on key learnings from the Taskforce's interactions with other mental health commissions, including in New Zealand, Western Australia and Canada. Findings Widespread concern about the lack of access to quality mental health care was reflected in broad support for a new Mental Health Commission. Opinions varied about how such a new body could be effective. Strong bipartisan political support is key. Also critical is ensuring the new body has sufficient legislative power and reach. Research limitations/implications This paper relies on the observations of a key participant in a reform process. This brings the limitations of potential bias as well as the strength of understanding that is difficult for outsiders to access. The actual impact of the new NSW Mental Health Commission will only become apparent following its 1 July 2012 start‐up. Practical implications Many jurisdictions are turning to specialised governance models, such as a Commission, to drive mental health reform. This paper identifies some of the key issues to consider in pursuing this strategy. Social implications Commissions need to have strong engagement with consumers, carers, service providers and the general community. This paper highlights some key issues in building these links. Originality/value The work of the Taskforce to Establish a NSW raised a range of issues relevant to any mental health reform process. Given the level of community concern about mental health care, these are important lessons.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".