Page 2047 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
When this reference first came to our committee, the question of conductive education was a primary force behind the reference. I must confess that, while agreeing that conductive education should be examined, I was anxious, as chair of the committee, that the entire area of early intervention services be examined, and I am very pleased that we have done that. The committee looked carefully at the whole area of early intervention services, or EIS, and I believe that we have concluded with a report that is a constructive document, giving suggested directions for the continuing development of services in this area.
I would like to briefly touch upon the more major findings of the committee and, while doing so, urge interested people to read the entire report carefully, not just the recommendations. Our thoughts and considerations which led to the recommendations are very important in looking at the whole question before the committee. Before proceeding I must acknowledge the dedication and the professionalism of those professionals working in this area. Our evidence, our visit to the EIS centre at Holder and our discussions with individuals and organisations all conclusively led to praise of those delivering the service. The frustrations and any criticisms were directed at the structure under which these services operate and the need to look carefully at the level of resources available for those service deliveries.
We do not agree that the current situation where three different portfolio areas have jurisdiction over parts of EIS should continue. We also do not believe that the Department of Health is an appropriate area for administration of EIS. As stated in paragraph 3.14 of the report:
The Committee considers that the proper responsibility of the Department of Health is related to illness and that most children's services, including most early intervention services, are not directly related to illness.
So the recommendation in paragraph 3.15 is made, namely:
The Committee recommends that responsibility for all children's services come under a single administrative unit which is not in the Department of Health.
We have recommended this for all children's services, not only EIS. The committee believes that an overall view and strategy for children's services should be considered in the future.
Many parents advised the committee of their frustrations in attempting to see their way through the future for their child. They believe, and we agree on the evidence, that services and administration are currently fragmented and require coordination. The parents believe that their child should be seen as a whole being, not - as was put to us - as a leg problem, a speech problem or another problem, by different people at different times. A holistic approach with a simple line of communication is badly needed. We believe that a case management approach, with a case manager involved, should be used in every case where this level of coordination is required. Recommendation 4 in the report states:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .