Celia Hammond (Curtin, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I thank the member for Moreton for tabling the report in this House. As noted by the member for Moreton, this legislative instrument seeks to minimise the use of physical and chemical restraint in residential aged-care facilities. Importantly—and this is significant to note—prior to its introduction there was no regulation at the Commonwealth level over the usage of restraints. The usage of physical and chemical restraints without consent raises huge, significant human rights concerns. All members of the committee strongly support the instrument's intention to seek to minimise the use of physical and chemical restraints by approved providers in aged-care settings.

As noted by the member for Moreton, after reviewing all of the evidence the majority of the committee concluded that while, on the face of it, the instrument appears to engage and limit a number of human rights, existing state and territory laws continue to apply to regulate the use of restraints. As these other laws continue to apply, the committee report concluded that this instrument, by further regulating approved providers, does not directly limit human rights. Nonetheless, the majority also held that there are parts of this instrument which do appear to have created confusion about the legal obligations of approved providers, particularly around the issue of consent and poor practice regarding consent.

Considering the evidence presented to the inquiry, the majority of the committee was concerned that this confusion may also lead to confusion about the permissibility of the administration of both physical and chemical restraints being used in residential aged-care facilities. For the record, it should be noted that the majority of the committee determined that if this instrument were disallowed we would return to the situation where there is an absence of any federal regulation on the use of physical and chemical restraints. In light of the royal commission, the majority determined that an absence of any federal regulation would be a major backward step and would not send an appropriate message to the aged-care sector. It would be irresponsible and could lead to unintended consequences. For this reason, the majority of the committee has recommended that this instrument be allowed but that it—the instrument itself and the explanatory memorandum—be amended so as to clarify, firstly, that other laws at the state level continue to prohibit the use of restraint without informed consent and, secondly, that the minister should undertake extensive consultation with relevant stakeholders to work towards further strengthening the regulation of restraints. To this end, I note the government has already made a quick response to the interim report of the royal commission. I particularly note that it was announced yesterday that further amendments to these regulations are planned following consultation so as to ensure that it is very clear that the restraint must only be used as a last resort.

See this speech in context