Page 1769 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 4 June 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
impossible business start-up model where you have no clients and no money coming in, because all your clients are operating in a different system. We must also remember that a large chunk of funding for the NDIA is coming from the ACT government, and the government cannot fund both of these systems at the same time. We clearly need to have a transition point, and that is something that I think is what we should be working towards here in a way that is not about really putting the frighteners up people, or drumming up points of concern, but simply trying to methodically work through the issues.
That brings me to the motion specifically. Firstly, there are some factual errors in the motion that made it difficult to amend. I understand the rationale for the amendment to the motion brought forward by Ms Burch rather more comprehensively. However, there certainly were some clauses in the original motion that the Greens would have supported in their entirety had these other errors not been present.
The main issue, of course, is that Mr Wall appears to have misunderstood that Therapy ACT is not withdrawing from the provision of service in December 2016. This affected clause 1(a) and clauses 2(a) and 2(b), and I do hope that that information is now clearly understood and has also been clearly communicated to parents who may have been given the wrong impression.
Having made those comments, I am pleased to be able to support the amendment that has been brought forward by Ms Burch. I am pleased that Ms Burch’s office has been very open, certainly in the discussions held with my office, to including some of the suggestions that we made to be specific about accountability, consultation and reporting back to the Assembly. I did not suggest these inclusions in the amendment because I had a concern that the minister and her directorates were not on the path of consultation, accountability and reporting back. Indeed, it appears to me that there is a great deal of work being done here, and the feedback I received from the forum that was held at the beginning of the week was that the directorates and the NDIA were very open to questions, comments and concerns, to hearing from parents about what they wanted, to working with parents about their needs and concerns.
The message, loud and clear, was that this was going to be a team effort, and all input was needed. That is, indeed, the very spirit of the NDIS, that parents and those with a disability have a say and have control. That is what is at the heart of this reform. So the attitude of the directorates at the forum, from the reports I received, was very heartening.
I suggested the inclusions because I feel it is important that parents, carers and therapists feel assured that their concerns are not being swept under the carpet, that they realise the assurances they are being given will be fulfilled and that they have the commitment of government that they will not be left behind in the transition. This is absolutely crucial. The government is not working to abdicate its responsibility here. Rather, it is working to improve outcomes and funding for people with a disability. But right now, at this time of change, parents need assurances that the government is very focused on their concerns and that government has a clear plan.
The change that I suggested—and I appreciate the support this received—was that the directorate engage specifically with those families affected by the transition to non-
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video