Page 1777 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 4 June 2014

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

---

regard to education say 400 children are accessing early intervention services at a cost of about $4,843 per child or $19.37 million. It concerns me that a budgetary concern may have led to this decision being taken.

Many members who have spoken today have said this it is about creating confidence in the families that rely on these services. Paragraph (1)(h) of Ms Burch’s amendment notes the government’s commitment that no child currently receiving government early intervention services will be left unprovided for in regards to early intervention services in 2015. Whilst it provides some comfort to those children who are currently accessing services, there is still no guarantee for those who require services for the first time next year. This goes to the capacity issue. Will these providers be established on time with the ability to meet the demand of next year’s students? I am concerned that the answer to that question is no.

The motion that I have moved today calls on the government to maintain these services for an additional 12 months or until an alternate service provider is established in the market and able to cope with that delivery, essentially allowing for a phased withdrawal. As a service provider is able to take some capacity the government currently provides for, the government can transition those children into the new service and close the government-operated one, allowing a seamless transition. But it seems the guillotine approach, the cut-and-run approach, is what is being employed here. The lack of confidence that that has instilled in families has been felt by those opposite, yet there is still an intention to be inactive.

The role of opposition is to hold the government to account. While we ask these hard questions and continue to place pressure on the minister and those members opposite to ensure that no child is left behind and that the transition is done as effectively and as seamlessly as possible, they will feel uncomfortable. It will make the job of being in government difficult, but I do not apologise for making their jobs tough.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask that members opposite note the merit of the motion that I have moved today and the opportunity it will allow for a seamless transition to the new era of disability service provision. Failing to do that will be failing the families of Canberra.

Question put:

That the amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video