Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 55:20 to 1:08:44
Discussion focuses on the need for a blended funding model that supports both individual choice and community-based service stability.
Topics: Social services, Health
Speakers: Hon Anne Ruston, Patricia Sparrow, Craig Gear, Dorinda Cox, Penny Allman-Payne, Cory Ionn
Yeah, but I suppose my point being I'm a little confused as it you are advocating quite clearly for an individualized service, but at the same time advocating for block funded community based services. I mean, um, I I I get that your absolute core principle in both of your organizations is about making the individual, um, the choice and control of the individual the centerpiece of of that and I don't think anyone would disagree, but I'm just trying to understand, you know, whether you unders- you you support, um, the idea that block funded community based support services, um, are able to continue because if you're saying everyone goes into support at home, that's not what it is.
Well, no, we we think that, uh, an integrated program would need a blended model of funding. So, we think there would be some services that would be individualized and there'd be some services that would be block funded. But
how do you how does the individual get access to it? So, you've got person, they've got a support at home package. So,
Well, no, I want to go in as a person and have an assessment Yep. and I want services to be, um, I want it to work the assessment to work out what services I need and they might be, uh, meals on wheels, which would be block funded, um, through a local provider and it might include some other things that would be individualized to me and I might want to be able to attend a social support program and there are some weird things that go on between CHSP and support at home and cross charging between providers about going to a day care service, for example. Yeah. I think And we want to get rid of that. So, we just want it to be, um, I go in, I get an assessment. I don't care whether it's coming from block funding or individualized. I just want the services that I need. So, we're arguing for a
blended model. Okay, so, right, that probably makes it a little bit more sense. Um, I suppose the the other, um, following on from your comment, Mr. Gear, around, um, you know, the thin markets, rural and regional communities, why are we so obsessed in saying that community sort of service organizations are sort of some thing that you have only when you've got shallow markets or you're in rural and regional Australia? I would have thought that half the problem we've got at the moment is the fact that we are not, um, incentivizing or even recognizing the value of community supporting community and if we keep saying, "Oh, we need to you know, we're only going to worry about it if it's in rural and regional areas. We're only going to worry about it when it's in shallow markets." instead of actually making community supporting community the centerpiece of how we actually respond in this country. Um, I I it just worried me that you I'm
with you. I'm sorry if if you've taken
>> wasn't you that said it. It was Mr. Gear
that said Okay, I'll shut up then. Yeah,
no, no, actually speaking of COTA. >> [clears throat] >> That was the comment that you made in response to my question and I did it was a concerning I mean, I'm sure you probably don't think that way, but it was concerning that that's where you went to in your commentary.
But all the aspects that where we absolutely think that that absolutely has to be maintained is where >> [clears throat] >> there is absolute not a viability to access, uh, a support at home service or a lack of choice and control. So, I agree investment in community and community based services, uh, is that a dual process of program across the whole of Australia, is that affordable? Is it based on the level of need and foundational need, uh, but continued investment in community, um, we see that the, uh, day therapy centers, the the social supports groups, you will not get those on an individual funded basis. They won't be able to be maintained.
So, um, the other comment I I I you might have been you, Ms. Barrow, um, who made this comment about the concern with CHSP was the lack of service availability and and access. Um, I'm just keen to understand why does that change on with support at home? I mean, there we we've clearly got a lack of service and access more generally. I mean, we've got 100
>> We do and we need to we need to make sure that we're addressing that and there needs to be more investment. I I guess what the comment I'm making is around what we call the postcode lottery. So, in some areas of the country you'll be able to get some types of CHSP services that you can't get in another part of the country and what we'd like to see is a more we still want services to be locally flexible but you know sometimes you can't get for example a group social support program in one area of the country which might really be needed because of the way that CHSP is planned. We'd like to see more and this is where I think my comment and we'll explore it more in our submission around the governance of these things is important. We'd like to see more planning at a level to make sure that full range of services are available. Of course it's going to require additional investment and you know to to happen.
>> Yeah. But my point was more I mean we the debate that I'm trying to have at the moment is to get an understanding as to whether the idea of on 2027 throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we get rid of you know block-based community support service funding um you know we is that a good idea or is that a bad idea? I'm just sort of keen to understand I mean the issues that you talk about absolutely. But what's the difference between CHSP and and support at home? I mean it strikes me as these problems exist support at home is not going to solve
them. So just to just to reiterate we don't want to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater and that's why the blended model is really important. We do think it's mixed funding that's needed. I guess what we think is important too is planning across like at the moment we we want to see planning across both programs to meet communities and individuals within a community needs and we think that will happen more effectively if it's done together and I can only say again we want to raise the boat we don't want to go to the lowest common denominator which is why we're also saying we need a plan that's very clear about what the outcomes are that's monitored more publicly and that we can ensure that these things happen but obviously we need greater investment for that to occur. Yeah. And
just finally you made a comment about the 60% offer and the response that um you had I haven't heard anybody Mr. Gear or COTA make any significant comments about your views about the decision of the government to only provide packages at 60%. Here is your opportunity to say something.
Well I mean we didn't I mean we felt that the new the new packages would be the full amount that's what people need. So we we understand that in the system there's capacity for 60% to be used at certain times. Um but we think that people want and deserve to be able to get the full amount of their package and that's what should happen.
Haven't been very strong in your
we are concerned that there is not a commitment of the maximum time or the time frames of when people get their full amount and we have publicly said that the way we do not we think there has to be a commitment of any weeks if they if this mechanism is used as a temporary measure but it seems to be now designed as part of the function and features of the supported home program which we are concerned
I might 3000 packages were fully funded and you haven't condemned the government for not providing that funding. Senator
Ruston excuse me Miss Sparrow. I am conscious of the fact that this inquiry is focusing on CHSP. We do have a parallel inquiry running in support at home and I think we've veered off into support at home. So I'm actually going to rotate the call to
Senator Cox.
Thank you. Sorry I didn't mean to cut over cut over you. Um I just wanted to Mr. Gear can you talk us through the engagement that you've had with the department regarding the transition to support at home? And what aspects of that would you like to see implemented for the transition from of CHSP?
With the support at home transition and obviously the commencement of the new aged care act there was engagement with our organizations both COTA and OPAN on a regular basis to import to communication materials. Also was a member of the aged care act transition task force so there was a connection there to raise issues around that. I would say that there does need to be along with a plan the regular ongoing engagement to early detect issues around any plan transition and that that has to be a an ongoing approach so that the the aspects that we've seen with the transition to support at home can be identified early and prevented as we move forward with whichever model we're going with. The other aspect that was I think missing from the support at home which I'd like to see in the CHSP transition is greater community engagement and co-design of transition approach and greater communication with community because that needs to occur for community to know what's happening with their plan services so that they are able to input to this flexible approach that we're looking for.
Thank you. COTA did you want to add anything to that?
I didn't have anything to add. COTA did you want to add anything? No. Look I
think um one of the important things to consider when the department outlines its transition plan is how will it actively engage not only in the design at the beginning but also in the education once decisions are made. It felt a little bit like an afterthought in the sequence of events of when things were handed out for older people and still today sometimes they don't fully understand the new support at home for example. We need to learn from that experience. We need to communicate it better. We need to strive for more level nine plain English kind of standards and get that into the transition plan so that it's built in from the beginning starting early rather than oh my god we're running out of time and just running it through which feels like what happened this time around.
Thank you. And and this is probably a question to both of you um I know that there's been a lot of conversation around uh you know what people might see as the negative aspects of that but what benefits do you both see that there could be for older Australians having the CHSP transition to support at home?
I guess our earlier commentary about trying to make sure that we get good outcomes across the board for people but as we're also saying there needs to be a series of adjustments made. We can't just roll it into support at home. We need to have the issues addressed and that's why we think having that plan is really important addressing the issues and raising the boat rather than going to the lowest common denominator is needed. But there's work to do can't just it can't just be rolled in that
What we hear Senator is that the current system what has been maintained up until the start of the act was where there were two pathways to entry there wasn't an easier way to transition to but one of the advantages of these really foundational supports was that people could get them in a more timely fashion rather than the long wait for packages. Um and but but it was but a single pathway in or rapid access pathway for people who need those services now is what we'd be looking for. So from from the older person's perspective there is a integrated way to get into the system rather than having to chase down different providers to find where there is accessibility. So it's the transparency I think that might come with a more integrated approach and the streamlining of the assessment but we need to fix the assessment system as well as part of this.
Thank you. And just my final question to the National Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander aging and aged care council Senator Cox
they're not at the at the witness table
yet. Oh okay. Thank you. Thank you chair I'll save that one. I'm happy to rotate the call if you need to.
All right thank you. We might leave it there I'm conscious of time. Can I say thank you very much for your evidence today. The committee will report to the Senate on Wednesday the 15th of April 2026. It's agreed that responses to questions on notice should be provided by close of business on 20 February 2026 not that I think there any questions taken on notice in that session. So thanks very much for your time and we look forward to your submission. I'm now going to welcome representatives from Hammond Care who I understand are appearing via video conference Bolton Clark and Uniting Care Australia. If they could come forward to the table