Page 2032 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 4 June 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
assess whether death is an imminent risk and whether what is happening meets the definition of serious harm. The only thing that may be clear is that harm is imminent.
This legislation indicates the senior practitioner’s powers extend to some of the most vulnerable in our community, including those in disability services, schools and other education settings, children and young people in out of home care and individuals receiving support for psychosocial disabilities. It is my hope that this in and of itself will generate cross-border connections, understandings and collaboration that will contribute to the ACT upholding the human rights of our most vulnerable.
I support this bill and the subsequent amendment which I believe will be put forward by the Minister for Children, Youth and Families.
MS STEPHEN-SMITH (Kurrajong—Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Minister for Disability, Minister for Children, Youth and Families, Minister for Employment and Workplace Safety, Minister for Government Services and Procurement, Minister for Urban Renewal) (11.18), in reply: I thank those who have contributed to the debate today on the Senior Practitioner Amendment Bill 2019. The senior practitioner, Mandy Donley, who was in fact here today, is already playing a vital role in helping to guide decisions and provide education and foster positive alternatives to restrictive practices which preserve a person’s rights and freedom. The bill will further extend the function of the act in implementing our commitment to reducing and eliminating the use of restrictive practices in the ACT, address issues identified in the implementation of the act and support the government’s commitment to a nationally consistent approach to restrictive practice oversight.
An important amendment contained in the bill, as others have recognised, recognises the situation where a restrictive practice is used in an emergency. The act currently specifies that the use of a restrictive practice by a provider must be in accordance with a registered positive behaviour support plan for the person. This specification fails to recognise adequately the situation where imminent harm is reasonably anticipated to either the person or others and restrictive practice is used as an emergency response in accordance with a provider’s duty of care.
I reiterate that acknowledging and making provision for the use of emergency restrictive practice is not an indication of acceptance by either this government or the senior practitioner but rather recognition is made to facilitate openness and reporting in the use of restrictive practices. This amendment is intended to support the senior practitioner to work with providers to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of restrictive practice. Importantly and fundamentally, the bill enshrines the principle that providers should only use restrictive practice as a last resort, in the least restrictive way and for the shortest period possible in the circumstances.
As others have mentioned, a further amendment to the bill since its presentation to the Assembly provides clarity in regard to the situations under which a restrictive practice might be used in a duty of care situation and not as part of a plan. The further amendment simplifies the description of the situation to one where the provider or relevant person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to use the restrictive practice to avoid imminent harm to the person or others.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video