Australia Needs a Mental Health Commission

Rosen, Alan; McGorry, Patrick; Groom, Grace; Hickie, Ian B.; Gurr, Roger; Hocking, Barbara; Leggatt, Margaret; Deveson, Anne; Wilson, Keith; Holmes, Douglas; Miller, Vivienne; Dunbar, Lynne; Stanley, Fiona

doi:10.1080/j.1039-8562.2004.02116.x

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For many years, government officials in Australia often dismissed the relevance of the New Zealand MHC, arguing that it could only work in a uni-state nation, and that it could not work in a more complex, federated context (Rosen et al, 2004). The advent of the MHC of Canada significantly deflated this argument.…”

Section: Applications Of Mhc's To Different Jurisdictionsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Mental Health Commissions of Different Sub‐species: can they effectively propagate mental health service reform? Provisional taxonomy and trajectories

Rosen

2012

Mental Health Review Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The aim is to provide a brief overview of a series of articles tracing the emergence of several Mental Health Commissions (MHCs) in developed countries over recent years, sometimes to enhance mental health law administration, but often in connection with mental health reform strategies. The paper seeks to review the functions of, and elicit a framework for, Mental Health Commissions (MHCs) as effective vehicles for effective operation and reform of a mental health service system.Design/methodology/approach -The approach of the paper is to identify the functions and limitations of Mental Health Commissions and then cluster them to form a typology of commissions.Findings -There are broadly three types of MHCs: the first is more inspectorial and focussed on issues, concerns and complaints affecting the care of individuals, and is more restricted investigating the mental health service and the workings of mental health laws mainly to these ends; the second type is focussed on the entire mental health service system, including relevant all-of-government operations, concentrating on monitoring for and promoting system-wide reform. While this appears to constitute a spectrum, with different MHCs mandated to work mainly at either end of it, there is conceivably a third type which has a combination of these functions. This occurs with some commissions, though an equal balance between these functions is unusual, so they usually can be assigned to a type on the basis of their predominant functions.Research limitations/implications -There was a limited sample size, obliging a non-statistical descriptive analysis which may well affect the validity of these distinctions.Practical implications -There is sometimes a combination of functions encompassing some features of both of these types. While type I MHCs can ensure that individual rights are upheld and that mental health laws and regulations are adhered to, to improve service quality, type II MHCs are likely to be more effective in achieving system-wide mental health service reform.Social implications -MHCs can contribute to more holistic, evidence-based and recovery-oriented service delivery, which are more likely to lead to more desirable health and wellbeing outcomes for all mental health service users, their families and the community.Originality/value -This typology provides a useful provisional framework for understanding the roles of MHCs in mental health services and in reform of the whole mental health service system and related systems.

show abstract

Section: Applications Of Mhc's To Different Jurisdictionsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Mental Health Commissions of Different Sub‐species: can they effectively propagate mental health service reform? Provisional taxonomy and trajectories

Rosen

2012

Mental Health Review Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other evidence of state uploading to national initiatives are the inclusion of C 2015 Institute of Public Administration Australia drug and alcohol policy silos in the committee structure following Western Australia and the Commonwealth creation of the NMHC. It drew from Western Australian, NZ, and Canadian experiences but was also associated with international experiences such as NZ (Rosen et al 2004). Mental Health Commissions have since been adopted at state level in New South Wales and Queensland and are among a structural network of administrative leads that the NMHC consults.…”

Section: Formation Of National Mental Health Plans Standards and Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It drew from Western Australian, NZ, and Canadian experiences but was also associated with international experiences such as NZ (Rosen et al. ). Mental Health Commissions have since been adopted at state level in New South Wales and Queensland and are among a structural network of administrative leads that the NMHC consults.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not Centralisation but Decentralised Integration through Australia's National Mental Health Policy

Smullen

2015

Aust J Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article challenges dominant perceptions of Commonwealth centralisation in Australia's federal system. While recognising the Commonwealth has entered a range of policy fields not anticipated by federal founders, it argues this does not equate to a generalised unidirectional and hierarchical orchestration of state/territory functions. The crucial case of mental health policy is presented as an alternative scenario in Australia's federal experience. Theoretically key challenges from the multi‐level governance literature are proffered against the centralisation thesis. These include queries about the origins of Commonwealth directives and assumptions of zero‐sum notions of state/territory autonomy. Brief empirical analysis highlights the role of the Commonwealth as a conduit of horizontal and vertical flows of knowledge through the national mental health policy agenda. Given disconnect and diversity between national ambitions and their realisation at state/territory level, it is argued better proceduralisation through bottom‐up peer dialogue and feedback present alternative routes towards decentralised integration.

show abstract

“…It has been argued that, as mental disorders and substance abuse contribute 13% of Australia's disease burden, 9.6% of health expenditure is insufficient 8 . There have been claims to the contrary, 9 but, in fact, there are no reliable international benchmarks by which to judge Australia's relative investment in mental health.…”

Section: Changes To the Funding Of Mental Health Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten years of mental health service reform in Australia: are we getting it right?

Whiteford

Buckingham²

2005

Medical Journal of Australia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We summarise the most recent data available on changes to the public and private mental health sectors from the commencement of the National Mental Health Strategy in 1993 to 2002. There has been substantial service system change in the directions agreed by governments under the Strategy, supported by a 65% growth in government spending on mental health. Despite this there is growing public and professional concern about deficiencies in the mental health service system. We review the current call for change in light of increased community expectations and growth in demand for services. Given broad national and international support for Australia's policy directions, the problems lie with the pace and extent of change and ensuring better outcomes from the increased investment in mental health care.

show abstract

Australia Needs a Mental Health Commission

Cited by 19 publications

References 1 publication

Mental Health Commissions of Different Sub‐species: can they effectively propagate mental health service reform? Provisional taxonomy and trajectories

Mental Health Commissions of Different Sub‐species: can they effectively propagate mental health service reform? Provisional taxonomy and trajectories

Not Centralisation but Decentralised Integration through Australia's National Mental Health Policy

Ten years of mental health service reform in Australia: are we getting it right?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About