Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 48:15 to 55:20
Advocates question the necessity of rolling the Commonwealth Home Support Programme into a single model, citing the 'postcode lottery' of current services.
Topics: Social services, Health
Speakers: Penny Allman-Payne, Patricia Sparrow, Craig Gear, Hon Anne Ruston, Unknown Speaker
I might kick off and then I'll go to Senators Ruston and Cox and if we have time Senator Askew. In reading through the submissions that have come into the inquiry, couple of them that stood out to me. One was the the aged the Australian Human Rights Commission where they said that they were very concerned about a wholesale roll in of CHSP into Support at Home and also the comments from the Inspector General who basically said there actually has there's been no transparent modeling. We haven't seen you know what we're actually going to gain by putting CHSP into Support at Home. And just touching on some of the points that you've both made in your opening submissions, you've highlighted that there are access problems with CHSP which we've also heard from Meals on Wheels is because there's been an underinvestment. But I've also heard that grants might base models are good particularly in thin markets. I've heard that there are concerns around wait times and pricing in Support at Home. So I guess I'm really keen to unpack and understand why it is that you're looking for this integrated model which is effectively what the government has said it's going to do rolling CHSP into Support at Home when it sounds to me like there's some actually some things that could be fixed in CHSP and with some more investment that would actually mean we actually had a a good complementary service to the other, um, particularly given the things which we will unpack in our other inquiry, but you know, there's clearly issues with support at home and so I'm interested to know why you're still moving towards this idea of an integrated model when it would seem we have one that if we actually just fix the problems in it, it's actually a pretty good service. So, I might go to Mr. Gear online cuz I can see you've used your hand emoji and then I'll come to the witnesses at the table and then I'll pass on the call after that answer.
Thank you, Senator. Um, look, at the moment we it is a lottery and we have advocates ringing around hours each day trying to find a service provider who may even not may have a wait list, let alone availability of service. So, this this does come back to has not been the update of any modeling in relation to service need and service location and so it does make sense that that gap analysis happens to actually know what we need in those locations and still tying it back to particular cohorts, geographic population groups, or service types as we've talked about before, but without that modeling that is correct, we don't actually know what's what's needed. Though, what should be able to still happen is a really ready access to those services, but it to be transparent about where the locations of those services are available and that is not there at the moment. It is literally getting on the phone and ringing around and spending hours of frustration for advocates, but more importantly for older people and their families, where they'll get an answer that there is nothing available because the demand modeling has not been done and the future investment has not occurred.
Thank you. Um, I guess the point I'm trying to understand though, Mr. Gear, is I accept that that's the case. I guess my question is it would seem to me that what's being advocated for is that if we roll this into if we roll CHSP into support at home, that's going to fix the problem. And I guess the question I'm asking is would it not be the case that we could do the government could do that modeling and mapping and then actually invest in CHSP to make sure that those entry level services are available much more readily and quickly. I guess that's what I'm trying to understand as to why we rolling it into SAH is going to fix it.
And I I mean, I think
>> Yeah, I think at the moment we
I was just going to say I I'm happy to go ahead. Yeah, sorry. I think, um, I think that what we're saying is we need to raise the boat in both programs. When it was originally talked about bringing the two programs together, it's that, you know, people get different outcomes based on the program that they're in and what we really want is a really fantastic healthy system where when you go in, if you've got low level needs, they're addressed right through to your more, uh, intense needs. So, I think that's the intent of it and I think we can still see the intent of it, but the reason we're calling for a plan, um, and the the gap analysis, we would agree with those things need to happen is cuz we need to raise the bright boat rather than going down to the lowest common denominator. But we still think at the end of the day, rather than having two pathways resulting in different outcomes when many of the same services are delivered, we should be trying to raise the boat to make sure that we've got one program that you can access when you first need services and we totally agree there needs to be a way locally. I mean, whether or not we could do something like, um, on the ground, there could be, uh, an immediate kind of assessment by a health professional who's on the ground that can go forward. I mean, we understand you have to be a delegate, um, of the department to be an assessor, but maybe there's something that could be collected locally and put into the system to streamline that cuz we don't want people waiting for long. But I I I think it's still basically addressing the issue of having two two systems delivering the same kinds of services to the same kinds of people with different outcomes.
Um, I do note that there is some information in the submissions that talks about the much greater efficiency of CHSP, like the cost of CHSP compared to support at home seems to be astronomically different, uh, but that might be something that my other colleagues go into. I'm not sure, but I'm conscious of time, so I'll pass on the call and if we have time we can
>> I just make the comment? We, um, received an extension for our submission, so you won't have one from us until, uh, next week and we'll go into some more detail, um, in our submission around some of the issues that might get raised today.
Great, thank you. Uh, Senator Ruston.
Yeah, look, I'm I just to get some clarity, um, from your opening statements, um, I didn't get any clarity really as to whether you think that continuing with some form of block funded, you know, community based, community generated, um, support services or or aged care services a good thing or a
bad thing? >> I should have made it really clear. We think that needs to continue for services, particularly those that are center based, volunteer based, um, socially based services. Um, the Royal Commission outlined that and that's been COTA's position all along. I think people sometimes think that, um, it should all be individualized. That's never a position that COTA Australia has Um, we do think that there needs to be
improvements. >> well, particularly Sorry, we would agree as well, particularly those remote locations where, uh, you just will not have the population density to be able to maintain a model, but also you won't have that community controlled aspect to it as well. You know, whether that's a separate stream for community controlled, um, that that is grant funded or it's a blended model to allow people the same choices in those communities as well, but it does need maintained maintaining of grant based funding.