Page 2030 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 4 June 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This change will improve the communication between the senior practitioner and the new commission when the new commission comes into effect on 1 July 2019.
Thirdly, the biggest and most significant change to the act involves requirements around the use of restrictive practices when they are used in an emergency. The bill reverses the onus of proof for the emergency use of restrictive practices. The act has a defence where it is reasonably necessary to use a restrictive practice outside a behaviour support plan to prevent injury. The bill creates an exception.
The most recent amendment circulated by the minister updates this section by setting the threshold of use of restrictive practices in an emergency as a reasonable belief that the person is at risk of imminent harm, rather than imminent death or serious physical harm. This change is coupled with the addition of a new section 10A. This section creates a reporting requirement on the senior practitioner after a restrictive practice has been used in an emergency. This provides additional transparency and allows the senior practitioner to monitor when restrictive practices are becoming more necessary, and if the emergencies become more frequent to perhaps encourage that appropriate and formal restrictive practice plans be put in place.
The bill retains a penalty for using a restrictive practice not in accordance with the plan and adds a penalty for failing to report to the senior practitioner after an emergency. Importantly, the bill removes the option of a six-month jail sentence for using a restrictive practice outside a plan. This is something which had caused concern, and it is good to know that feedback on this was not only received but responded to by the minister.
Finally, the fourth major change included in this bill is the delayed implementation date. This will allow the sector time to undergo further training and adapt to the new arrangements and their implications.
The minister’s office has been most helpful in the process of briefing Ms Lee and her office on the bill and I thank Minister Stephen-Smith, her staff and the directorate as well as the senior practitioner herself for their work. We support the bill.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (11.12): I stand today in support of this amendment bill. These amendments will define clearly what restrictive practice is and align that definition with the NDIS national quality and safeguards framework. This includes defining chemical restraint as the use of medication or chemical substance for the primary purpose of influencing a person’s behaviour or movement, which is a valid approach.
In a briefing I sought with the senior practitioner and executives from CSD I was reassured that the senior practitioner considers that chemical restraint includes forced sterilisation. Obviously, this is an issue of concern. Whilst we do not have any evidence that this is happening in the ACT we also, I believe, do not actually have any evidence that it is not happening, and we know that it has happened elsewhere. Chemical restraint also can include menstruation control. You can clearly understand that, from a patient’s, a parent’s or carer’s perspective, menstruation can be a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video