Page 1239 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The committee commented that clause 4, on managing the use of force, required further clarification in relation to the planned use of restraint of detainees outside a place of detention. To address the committee’s concern, I propose to amend this clause to clarify the planned use of restraint and ensure that the intention of this clause is clearly articulated. The clause sets out that the director-general must give notice to a treating doctor or a nurse if force is used, unless it is used for the purposes of a planned use of restraint when a young person, for example, or a detainee is outside a place of detention—for example, the use of flexi-cuffs on a young person who has been assessed as being at risk of attempting to flee while being transported to or from appointments.
An additional amendment is proposed to clause 8 of the bill, which relates to revoking of a foster carer’s authorisation. This amendment clarifies the grounds for revoking a carer’s authorisation. The clause sets out when it would be appropriate to revoke a carer’s authority. As the clause outlines, revocation can only occur when all reasonable efforts have been made to contact a foster carer who is no longer willing or able to act as a foster carer and who cannot be contacted after all reasonable efforts have been made. This amendment responds to feedback received from the Foster Care Association of the ACT and other out-of-home care stakeholders after the initial tabling of the bill in May of last year.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Foster Care Association and the out-of-home care stakeholders for their contribution to this important piece of legislation and also to thank the officials within the directorate for putting through these amendments that will improve the Children and Young People Act.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (12.27): As I indicated in my previous speech, the opposition will be supporting both of these amendments.
The amendment to clause 4 deals with concerns surrounding the use of the word “planned” as raised by the scrutiny committee in report no 53. The report states:
The Committee’s concern is that the basis for the non-application of the salutary principle in proposed subsection 223(3A) is cast in very wide language, for it appears that it is enough that a use of a particular restraint must merely be “planned”.
The opposition is satisfied that the amendment does address this issue. The amendment now sets out a specific exception in clause 3A, which is for a planned use of restraint on a detainee when outside a detention place and being escorted elsewhere. This takes away any broad application of the word “planned”.
The amendment to clause 8 tightens the language concerning the revocation of a foster carer’s authorisation. The amendment requires that two provisions must be met before revocation of a foster carer’s authorisation, instead of just being inactive for 12 months. This amendment clarifies the purpose of clause 8 and provides a guarantee to foster carers that that simply will not happen due to inactivity. There must be an intention not to act as a foster carer.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video