Page 2616 - Week 07 - Thursday, 2 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Going to the substance of the legislation, the bill establishes the position of senior practitioner, whose role will be to monitor any restrictive practice affecting vulnerable people in the ACT and to provide a framework, a guide, for carers to follow in the event that a restrictive practice is believed to be, or is, required to ameliorate challenging behaviours. It is fair to say that if such guidance had been available in early 2015, none of the following events affecting that particular student, the parents, the school, other students and staff might have occurred. On that basis it is important that some framework will now be available.
The bill requires that any restrictive practice must only be used in limited circumstances, including in a way that is compliant with human rights, that safeguards the person from harm and that maximises positive outcomes from the intervention.
It will be necessary for any service provider requiring the use of any restrictive practice to prepare a positive behaviour support plan. The plan must detail the exact circumstances requiring restraint, how it will be used and how often it will be used. The draft plan must be submitted to a positive behaviour support panel staffed by specialists. The panel will examine the draft plan and can then approve or not approve the plan. Once approved, the plan is then submitted to the senior practitioner for registration, and a copy is given to the person who is the subject of the plan and their guardian. Plans have to be current and reviewed and/or altered as circumstances require.
Of course, in spite of all those protections there may well be incidents that are unacceptable. In those cases, complaints can be lodged with the senior practitioner, who may commence an investigation. The senior practitioner must inform the service provider that they have received a complaint and an investigation is underway. This is an important requirement.
Under the original draft of the bill, if the senior practitioner felt that informing the service provider would present a risk to the complainant, they would be able to refrain from telling the service provider of the investigation. However, as a complaint can be made by anyone, not just the person who is the subject of a plan, the original bill failed to provide protection for them and may have led to some unintended risks to the person whose plan it is.
I am pleased that the minister has taken on board this concern from my office and has addressed this shortfall in the amendments. The amended bill now allows the senior practitioner to refrain from informing the service provider of certain details of the complaint if they consider that disclosure would not be in the best interests of the person who is the subject of the plan.
The bill also gives investigative powers to the senior practitioner in investigating complaints. These powers are broad and are vital in ensuring that complaints are investigated and plans are administered correctly. Following a complaint, the senior practitioner has the power to make a direction, for example, to amend or prepare a new plan or to use or refrain from using a restrictive practice.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video