Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the committee's report entitled Provision of services under the NDIS for people with psychosocial disabilities related to a mental health condition.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—It's estimated that some 64,000 people with psychosocial disabilities related to a mental health condition will become participants in the National Disability Insurance Scheme by 2019-20. For these people the scheme presents a significant opportunity to increase supports and improve outcomes. However, psychosocial disability differs from physical and sensory disabilities in important ways and presents the scheme with very significant challenges. Alongside the NDIS, the mental health sector is also undergoing significant parallel reform with the development of the Fifth National Mental Health Plan, which COAG has now adopted.

People with mental illness will continue to require services even if they are not participants. Furthermore, the committee recognises that the scheme will provide services in conjunction with those delivered through other Commonwealth, state and territory governments. The committee acknowledges the commitment made by all governments to provide continuity of support for people with psychosocial disabilities who are not eligible for the NDIS. However, the committee has found that there is a need to clarify and make public how they intend to provide these services and address the emerging gaps created by the transition of existing services into the NDIS.

I'd like to mention a number of the matters that have come before the committee and on which recommendations have been made. The first is eligibility. The NDIS eligibility criteria for people with mental illness is a central concern for all stakeholders. The committee found that, whilst the current eligibility criteria could be improved to provide greater clarity, the apparent reliance on diagnosis rather than functional needs is likely to result in inconsistent eligibility outcomes for applicants. This is of particular concern given the absence of a validated assessment tool for planners to assess the eligibility of people with psychosocial disabilities. Reported lack of skills and expertise of planners in the mental health field adds to inconsistencies of access to the scheme and planning outcomes.

The second is the planning process. The committee received evidence that the planning process to develop and review NDIS plans has not been operating well and has often resulted in unsatisfactory experiences and outcomes for people with psychosocial disabilities, their families and in some instances particularly their carers. Issues include: the development of plans over the phone rather than face to face; not involving carers in planning discussions; waiting times and delays; the poor level of planners' knowledge and understanding of psychosocial disability; and lack of flexibility and responsiveness to people's changing needs. Indeed, given the episodic nature of conditions and symptoms experienced by people with a mental health condition, the current approach to the development and review of plans does not readily build in supports that respond to fluctuating needs of participants.

The third is assertive outreach. The committee recognises the critical role that advocacy and outreach services can play in identifying and engaging people, their families and their carers with NDIS services. In many cases the most efficient way to engage these people in the NDIS process is to work with their families and carers, who have long-term personal and special knowledge of their needs and circumstances. The operational systems in place to provide information about the NDIS and to engage with hard-to-reach cohorts through assertive outreach could be greatly improved. With the transition of Commonwealth and state and territory programs, there is a risk of emerging service gaps in these areas.

The fourth is continuity of support. Given that the majority of people who experience mental ill health will not access the NDIS, for whatever reason, the continued provision of services for people outside the scheme is particularly important. The transition into the NDIS of Commonwealth programs such as Partners in Recovery, personal helpers and mentors, day-to-day living and mental health respite, and carers' support, amongst others, is concerning the committee, as evidence received indicates that a significant number of current clients of these services will not be accessing the scheme. The committee also heard of concerns across the sector that services previously delivered by states and territories were being withdrawn before participants in these services were properly transitioned into the NDIS. The committee has also made recommendations in relation to the information linkages and capacity-building aspect of the program and also in an area which I think is a particular concern, and that is forensic disability services. There are recommendations, as I said, in relation to both of those matters.

In conclusion, the committee received a wealth of information and evidence throughout the inquiry and thanks all of those who participated both by making submissions and by coming along and discussing these important matters with the committee. As a result, the committee has made 24 recommendations which aim to strengthen the effectiveness of the scheme to ensure that people with psychosocial disabilities can be appropriately supported. I thank all the members of the committee for the cooperative way in which this inquiry has taken place and the cooperative way in which we've come to a unanimous set of recommendations in relation to making this scheme a better one than it is at the present time.

See this speech in context