Page 3958 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 30 October 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As we progress to the introduction of the NDIS in the ACT, this case gets stronger. There is going to be additional support that families will be able to do. The adaptation of the AEIOU model will also be able to attract other grants and other funding that will make this a more affordable option for families. Putting this simply, this is not an elite school or option only available to high income families of children with autism but, instead, is a program most accessible for all families regardless of their circumstances.
On the wider case as to whether or not this is a good initiative we should look at some of the benefits this could bring to the ACT. Co-locating an autism centre at the UC campus would give the University of Canberra an opportunity to increase its research and study capability into autism, an area that has got a lot still to be learnt about it. We could become a centre of excellence. We could look at expanding the courses that are offered here and also look at attracting professionals from across the globe into the ACT to do their study and further doctoral research here in the territory.
A common debating point in this Assembly are the Treasury costings of the Liberal policy in the 2012 election through to what AEIOU claim that the cost of the centre will be. I believe now that the Treasury costings are a moot point. The government will not fund the building of this facility. I think that is becoming clear and evident these days. But if there is a private operator such as AEIOU willing to put $1.5 million of their funding into the establishment of a centre, as they have done in other locations such as the Gold Coast, it is clear and evident that it can be achieved for substantially less than what Treasury is predicting.
I think it is also evident that if organisations operated on budgeting models such as this government’s, when we look at examples such as the Cotter Dam, the GDE and even the more recent re-profiling of the prison, they would be out of business and they would not be able to operate. I think private industry and private organisations have led the way in efficiencies and economies of scale when delivering infrastructure projects.
There is a continued lack of options for families in the ACT. We as members of this Assembly should do all we can to progress and ensure that there is a proper and reasonable choice for all families. Potentially the AEIOU model may not suit all families in Canberra, but certainly it goes a long way to delivering an improvement on the current services—20 hours of intensive intervention care and an opportunity for up to 50 hours of respite. It is full-time care for these families. I think that is something we should all be endorsing.
Madam Speaker, the amendment Ms Burch has moved is fairly bland. It does not go anywhere near as far as Mr Doszpot’s original motion did to achieve the outcome of seeing a centre such as this established in the ACT. Paragraph (2)(b) refers to “a willingness to explore new and innovative ways”. It is, again, using some weasel words and trying to get out of it—“We’ll have a chat, but I’m not going to promise that we’re going to do anything.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video