Page 1248 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 7 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
within the health department, the education department and the community services department. It is a group of professional service providers that has maintained high levels of expertise in an increasingly resource-constrained environment and with competing demands.
The wealth of knowledge about how to provide services effectively in the ACT, about which programs work, which ones do not, are part of their corporate memory, as are the community networks that have been developed over time. With the ACT withdrawing from the provision of direct services, we could be seeing the end of this organisation. It would be good to think that we can maximise and, if possible, retain the expertise and thinking that is such a valuable resource for those in our community, a resource that has been accessed for what might be considered free of charge by thousands of Canberrans over the past few decades.
The ACT government has also provided early intervention programs for different groups in the ACT, and these, too, are likely to be shifted into the private sector under the NDIS. However, we must acknowledge that Therapy ACT is about to enter into a transition period of a couple of years and that the government will work with staff and clients to ensure that this transition is smooth. It is also likely that some aspects of its service will continue to be provided by the government albeit under different auspices. Not all clients of Therapy ACT would be considered to have a disability, and not all services provided by Therapy ACT are disability specific. Intake and referral services, including such things as speech pathology drop-in clinics, are mainstream services.
The Greens are supportive of the ACT government in their intentions to roll out the scheme. It is evident this work has been taking up significant time and resources of the Community Services Directorate and that there has been a significant level of consultation with the sector and with individuals. I suspect this can always be done better. I know there will be people who still will be surprised about what is coming and will not have fully understood it. I hope the directorate will continue to engage in the provision of good information, as I know they have been, as the rollout happens as an acknowledgement that when the rubber hits the road a whole new group of people are going to start to engage in a way they perhaps have not yet.
We understand the ACT provided the commonwealth with their plan of action for implementation some months ago and as yet have not had that plan signed off by the commonwealth. So I think Mr Wall’s motion today is very timely. I note the amendments that the minister has tabled effectively retain the key points that Mr Wall has raised, and I welcome that. There are no detailed public plans yet as to what is going to happen post 1 July, and those in the community—those with a disability and those involved in service provision—need that information urgently so they can effectively plan, because it is now only less than two months away.
The key questions for today are: why is that information being held up and who is sitting on the plan? From the advice I have received it seems that the ACT government has put its plan to the commonwealth but it has not yet been signed off. It is my understanding that the information that Mr Wall is calling for in his motion cannot be made public until this happens. That seems to be the dilemma at the crux of this discussion today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video