Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you. I should start by saying that I commend this report to the chamber. This is a very important issue. I would also like to congratulate and say thank you to everyone that gave evidence to this inquiry. This inquiry looks into how people with psychosocial disabilities access the NDIS, but it also talks about how people that aren't eligible for the NDIS will be able to continue to receive community mental health services and mental health services in general.

The committee report makes a number of recommendations—in fact, we make 24 recommendations. I really encourage the government, and the NDIA in particular, to look at these. There are some very serious issues raised here. I will point out that this is a consensus report from the committee, and that is very important, because we highlight issues around, for example, the problems with the way the NDIS legislation is operating, particularly for people with psychosocial disabilities. The focus and the parameters around the NDIS are around permanent disability. And that is very important. When we are talking about mental ill-health and psychosocial disabilities, we talk about a recovery model, yet that is not properly dealt with in the NDIS. There was an agreement when the NDIS was established that mental health and psychosocial disabilities would be included. Unfortunately, the recovery model doesn't quite fit in with the permanency model, so there are some recommendations to look at that in the act.

The act talks about psychiatric conditions rather than psychosocial disability, so there are also recommendations around the definition. We talk about the way the rules are operating around psychosocial disabilities and make a recommendation to consider the appropriateness and effectiveness of the rules, looking at:

These are really, really important points. The other issue here is that people with psychosocial disabilities are required to have a diagnosis to receive a package for the NDIS. The problem with that is that everybody else isn't: for them it's about functionality of somebody with a disability. So we're taking two different approaches, and that needs to be addressed.

The Commonwealth is rolling Partners in Recovery; PHaMs—Personal Helpers and Mentors; Support for Day to Day Living in the Community; and some respite services into the NDIS. We need more funding into the NDIS, but what is happening is that not everybody who is receiving treatment through Partners in Recovery or through PHaMs is eligible for the NDIS. What happens to them? We have a commitment of continuity of support, but if those programs are being rolled into the NDIS, what is going to happen to those people into the future if they're not eligible for the NDIS? The NDIA has come back and said, 'Oh, well, most of the people who are applying who are on PiR are actually getting into the NDIS.' But what we know from the providers, in fact, is that it is only certain people who are coming forward to apply for the NDIS. So when they say most people who are in Partners in Recovery and are applying are in, they're conveniently forgetting there's a cohort of people who simply are not applying yet for the NDIS. What will happen to them?

Also of concern, some providers are telling us, is that providers are being told that if people are applying for PiR or PHaMs, for example, providers can only assess people to include in their programs people who are eligible under the NDIS criteria. In other words, they're already factoring out people who are mentally unwell and who may need some supports. That means those people are not getting supports, because they've already been screened out against the NDIS criteria. When these programs close we will be looking at the cohorts of people and their continuity of support. Will they be going into the NDIS, or into some other programs that the government hasn't outlined yet? What happens to the people who aren't on the books yet, people who haven't yet applied for a program or some support for mental ill health? All those issues need to be addressed. We don’t have any idea about what programs are being rolled into the NDIS from the states and territories. A lot of the states are saying, 'We're putting all our mental health funding into the NDIS.' There will be people who won't be accessing the NDIS, so they need support.

The issues around the planning process have been discussed a lot. People who have a psychosocial disability have been phoned—we were told that one was in the supermarket and told: 'We've got to do your planning process. We're going to do it now.' It's ridiculous. Those issues need addressing. Issues around continuity of support urgently need addressing also.

The other thing we deal with is what we call the old T2 or ILC—information, linkages and capacity building. We urgently need to make sure there is enough funding in there—I for one don't think that there is. We make recommendations about the need to look at how ILC is going to address issues of the emerging service gaps.

We also talk about the need to understand the numbers and the cohorts of people. I will finish because I know there is a lot to talk about in this session today. We need to make sure that we have an idea of the numbers of people that we are dealing with—not only in assessment of the programs that are closing and where the service gaps are but also the numbers of people who are accessing a service who will be accessing the NDIS.

There are a lot of things that we urgently need to do to address psychosocial disability. I urge everyone to look at this report and implement the recommendations. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.