This community consultation was undertaken to hear community stakeholder views about the
nature and extent of restrictive practices in the ACT, and how an ACT Office of the Senior
Practitioner (‘ACTOSP’) might help. The consultation included the public, plus peak bodies and their
members relevant to advocacy or service provision in the human services industry, plus other
consumer/service perspectives, plus government services, plus statutory post holders.
From the three phases of consultation conducted, covering the period from November 2016 to June
2017, it is clear that community stakeholders do see the use of restrictive practices as an issue in the
ACT. This does not mean this is a greater issue in the ACT compared to any other jurisdiction, but
that it is an issue that needs to be addressed.
It is also clear that community stakeholders can see benefits in the establishment of an ACTOSP.
The community consultation was augmented by an examination of how other Australian
jurisdictions approach the control of restrictive practices, and what might be learnt from that about
which elements might best suit the ACT context.
The subsequent analysis identified three main role considerations for how an ACTOSP might lead the
safe removal of restrictive practices:
- Regulate, which contemplates how an ACTOSP might influence decisions about whether a service agency uses restrictive practices
- Adjudicate, which contemplates how an ACTOSP might contribute to the investigation of concerns about restrictive practices being used, and the issuing of orders to desist such practices
- Facilitate, which contemplates how an ACTOSP might contribute to raising awareness about restrictive practices and their alternatives, and how to systematically build sector capacity towards those alternatives
In relation to Regulate, the report proposes an arrangement whereby an ACTOSP establishes and
disseminates a best practice framework for the way service agencies decide whether to use
restrictive practices, anchored on the quality of support planning with the person, and how any
agency decisions to use restrictive practices are stored, analysed and reported.
In relation to Adjudicate, the report proposes an arrangement where best use is made of existing
agencies with investigation mandates within the ACT, where an ACTOSP assists those agencies
capacities in relation to uncovering unacceptable restrictive practices, and where an ACTOSP has the
mandate to issue an order that disallows an unacceptable practice. The report also proposes an
ACTOSP carrying direct investigative capacity in relation to a complaint about a service agency’s
decision about restrictive practices, and in relation to undertaking a systemic review of a service
agency where there have been a series of complaints and reports about unacceptable restrictive
practices.
In relation to Facilitate, the report proposes an arrangement where an ACTOSP takes a lead role in
designing and implementing a sector-wide strategy for raising awareness about, and building service
agency capacity towards, positive alternatives to restrictive practices. In addition, the report
proposes that an ACTOSP have in-house specialist expertise to directly contribute to this capacity-
building, together with the resource capacity to commission research and initiatives that help find
alternatives to restrictive practices.
The report proposes that the arrangements would apply to all human service settings in the ACT,
including, but not necessarily limited to, disability support, education, health including mental
health, and aged care.
The report also notes the importance that the balance of investment in an ACTOSP, and its
corresponding culture, is weighted in favour of sector capacity-building rather than just pursuing
compliance.
The report proposes that an ACTOSP be established within an existing organisation in the ACT, and
not one that is involved in commissioning or delivering services. The report also sets out a sample
implementation timeframe, and proposes there be an implementation advisory group, and that such
a group comprise the range of stakeholder perspectives.