Guide
Tasmania Independent Person: what if the APO cannot identify someone suitable?
In short: Where an Independent Person is required under Tasmania's Act and the APO considers that no suitable person is available, the APO must notify the Senior Practitioner. Section 66 then requires the Senior Practitioner to appoint a person they consider suitable. A proposed name or an unanswered notification is not a completed appointment.
An application can look nearly complete while one important responsibility remains unresolved: who will support the person with disability to understand the proposed restrictive practice and express their will and preference?
For a Tasmanian team, the record should make that gap visible and identify the next official step. It should not turn a blank field into a completed task simply because someone has sent an email.
NDPRO publishes this guide as a commercial software provider. It summarises the source below and proposes an administrative tracking method; it is not an official form or legal advice about a particular person.
Watch: a Tasmania Independent Person appointment is still pending
Follow Maya, a fictional adult, Sarah, her behaviour support practitioner, and Ben, the implementing provider’s approved Appointed Program Officer. This 60-second illustration focuses on a matter where Independent Person assistance is required and the APO has not identified someone suitable.
Read the 60-second video transcript
00–07 seconds — An unresolved appointment. Sarah supports Maya in Tasmania. The plan is ready, but the Independent Person appointment remains unresolved.
07–15 seconds — Maya’s will and preferences. Ben, the provider’s approved APO, considers Maya’s will and preferences while checking for someone suitable.
15–23 seconds — Separate professional roles. Sarah prepared the plan. She cannot also fill this independent role.
23–32 seconds — A specific notification. No suitable person is available. Ben notifies the Senior Practitioner, who must appoint someone suitable on receiving that notification.
32–41 seconds — Three different records. Notification sent. Appointment still awaited. Restrictive-practice authorisation is a separate decision.
41–50 seconds — A clear practitioner handover. Use NDPRO to keep recorded BSP and restrictive-practice details visible. Check the provider’s response evidence and remaining follow-up.
50–60 seconds — The payoff. A clearer handoff for behaviour support practice operations. Explore your workflow in a 30-minute NDPRO Director walkthrough.
On-screen roles and records: Maya is the fictional adult participant. Independent Person assistance is required in this particular matter. Sarah is the BSP author and is assumed to be an NDIS Commission-suitable practitioner engaged through a registered specialist behaviour support provider. Ben is the implementing provider’s already-approved Appointed Program Officer (APO); the example assumes the provider has the required registration. Maya’s will and preferences inform the search. No suitable Independent Person has been identified; the visible status is “Appointment pending”. Sarah cannot take that role for the plan she developed. The Independent Person explains proposed use and review rights and supports Maya’s expression; it does not authorise a restrictive practice. The Senior Practitioner is an external official role. Notification, appointment and restrictive-practice authorisation remain separate records.
Open the video · Download English captions (VTT)
The appointment route and role exclusions follow Tasmania’s current Act, sections 66–67. The professional and provider assumptions follow the NDIS Commission’s practitioner guidance and implementing-provider responsibilities. Official sources rechecked 22 October 2026.
This focused example assumes a Commission-suitable practitioner, a registered specialist behaviour support provider and an implementing provider with the required registration. Assessment, participant consultation, plan lodgement, state authorisation, reporting and review remain separate requirements. The illustration does not assess a particular person’s lawful use or represent a complete NDIS compliance checklist. The paper objects do not claim government integration, automatic submissions or product-issued decisions.
The notification route in section 66
The Disability Rights, Inclusion and Safeguarding Act 2024, section 66 normally requires the Appointed Program Officer (APO) to identify a suitable person, taking account of the person's will and preference, and submit the proposed appointment for approval.
Notification is also required when the person with disability tells the APO that their appointed Independent Person is unsuitable. The Senior Practitioner must then make a suitable appointment under section 66(8). The Act does not make the APO's referral itself the appointment.
A family member or friend may be considered, but suitability and exclusions must still be checked. In particular, a person responsible for developing or reviewing that person's behaviour support plan is excluded by section 66(3). Use the full statutory criteria when assessing a proposal.
The role continues beyond appointment
Section 67 covers explanations about restrictive practices and review rights, and specified circumstances involving plan changes. Its duties and exceptions should be checked for the matter concerned. An appointment record alone does not demonstrate those explanations occurred. Source: current Act, sections 66–67.
For the team, this creates two different questions: has the role been resolved, and has the relevant follow-up happened? Keep both visible without copying unnecessary confidential information into a management dashboard.
A suggested record for the unresolved handoff
The following is NDPRO's proposed administrative structure. It is not a list of fields prescribed by the Act.
| Stage | Suggested evidence reference | Useful oversight question |
|---|---|---|
| Issue identified | Dated note of the issue and responsible APO | Is the reason for follow-up clear? |
| Notification made | Copy or reference of the notification sent | Was it actually sent, or is it still being prepared? |
| Response awaited | Responsible contact, last follow-up and next action | Who will check the response without closing the task early? |
| Appointment resolved | Actual decision or appointment record, including any limits | Does the record reflect the response received? |
| Relevant explanation/follow-up | Appropriate evidence location and responsible person | What remains to be done after the appointment? |
Choose an internal follow-up date that fits your workflow and any official directions received. That date is a management action, not an invented statutory response deadline.
Synthetic example: sent does not mean resolved
A fictional Tasmania team has prepared supporting documents, but the APO has not identified a suitable Independent Person. The team records that the notification was sent and assigns a colleague to track the response while the APO is away.
The replacement colleague should be able to locate the notification and see that the appointment remains unresolved. They should not see a green “all complete” status merely because the outgoing correspondence task is finished.
When a response arrives, the colleague records what it actually says and assigns any remaining follow-up. If the response requests more information, the record should show that request rather than automatically closing the appointment task. This example concerns administrative evidence; it does not decide whether a restrictive practice may be used.
Test continuity with another reviewer
Ask someone who did not prepare the application to find the current position using only the approved records. If they need the original coordinator's memory, identify which reference, decision or responsibility is missing.
During a 30-minute NDPRO Director walkthrough, use this fictional scenario to inspect available fields, permissions and follow-up records. NDPRO does not appoint an Independent Person or issue the Senior Practitioner's decision.
See also behaviour support software in Tasmania and the specialist audit-readiness guide.
Official source checked 20 October 2026. Confirm the current Act and Office of the Senior Practitioner's instructions for the particular matter.