Page 2617 - Week 07 - Thursday, 2 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In my briefings I was reassured that these directions would not simply be instructions but that a dialogue would be opened to ensure that the service provider is in a position to follow and deliver on the senior practitioner’s direction. The bill allows that if these directions are not followed within the required time the senior practitioner may cancel the plan and then notify the service provider and the person who is the subject of the plan of the cancellation.
The second issue my office raised during the briefing was the category of people who are able to apply for a review of a decision by the senior practitioner to cancel the registration of a plan. The original bill only allowed a service provider to appeal the senior practitioner’s decision to cancel a plan and excluded the person who is the subject of the plan.
I am pleased that the minister also took on board this feedback from my office and has acted to address this issue in the amendments. Under the amended bill, both the service provider and the person who is the subject of the plan have standing to appeal the decision to cancel a registered plan to the ACAT.
A number of offences are established by the bill. These include the use of a restrictive practice not in line with a plan, and failure to comply with a direction given by the senior practitioner.
This bill raised some concern within the disability community, particularly from service providers, about the strict liability offence for failing to conform with a direction of the senior practitioner, and the possible unintended and/or disproportionately negative impacts this may have upon people who work within the sector. One service provider I met with was concerned that the associated risk of a 50 penalty unit strict liability offence would be a disincentive for service providers taking on clients who may or do routinely require restrictive practices.
I have been assured by officials, and I am informed by members of the sector who have raised these concerns with directorate staff, that it is certainly not the intention of this bill to trap or catch out hardworking disability service providers who are doing the right thing. I understand that the sector is in ongoing discussions with the minister on this particular issue.
On that basis, the Canberra Liberals will not be opposing clause 47(2) of the bill. I stress that establishing the role of the senior practitioner will not in itself be a silver bullet, and that the root cause of challenges in the sector about the need for and the use of restrictive practices will always require ongoing engagement between clients, providers and the senior practitioner. This cannot simply be a smokescreen of well-intentioned legislation.
I highlight, again, that within the service provider community there are some concerns regarding the burden that the additional reporting framework will present, in particular to small service providers. They are concerned that these new requirements may disproportionately affect them and will divert resources from front-line services
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video