Page 1756 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 4 June 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
was in a program designed for eight children with one teacher and one Learning Support Assistant. My son was diagnosed as developmentally delayed, was relatively non-verbal, and had difficulty keeping his mouth and his hands to himself, he was also not toilet trained and was an absconder. Into his second year he began to gain some language. Over the course of the two years and with intensive therapy and constant behavioural reinforcement provided by the staff, he began to make progress.
My son is now in Year 1 in a Learning Support Unit at Monash School with a follow-up diagnosis of HFAD, and is reading and spelling at a Year 6 level. One thing follows another and I know with absolute certainty that he would not be at this academic level had he not experienced those two years at early intervention.
I want my son to grow up to be a taxpayer. It is all most of us want for our children. If children with delays are not supported correctly in their formative years their problems will follow them throughout their schooling and will likely mean they will not fulfill their potential. I urge you to encourage the government to leave these Early Intervention programs in place for now, using these two years of NDIS trial to slowly migrate them over to new providers as they prove their competency to support children with disability or delay.
I know you will weigh this carefully.
These emails clearly articulate the overwhelming sentiment expressed by many families.
At the heart of my motion today is a very simple solution—a solution that would see early intervention services that are currently provided to over 300 children continue until adequate services are in place and fully operational. This solution would provide at least a short-term answer to families so desperately in need of some certainty, as well as providing some much needed time for providers to get up and running.
In a matter of minutes I am sure that the minister, Joy Burch, will stand up and quote me regarding my support for the government’s announcement to withdraw from its service delivery role. Again, I stand here and repeat that the opposition’s position is that the move away from government provision of disability services in the ACT is an essential move as part of the NDIS. However, like all decisions, the devil remains in the detail.
There are simply too many uncertainties, too many unanswered questions and not sufficient time for these changes to be implemented. In this instance consultation is coming after a decision has been made and the community is the last to know the detail. Again, I reiterate my support for this decision in the long run but highlight that there are still some significant issues that remain unanswered.
What I firmly disagree with, however, is the approach that has been applied to consultation, communication and the provision of detail on the decision. It is also inconceivable that the decision was taken so late in the process with such a fundamental lack of preparation and support for non-government sector providers.
Since taking over the disability portfolio, I have continually called on the government and the minister to explain three principles—the role of the government as we move
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video