<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2017-10-31" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>53</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="11653" />
  <endPage num="11775" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Elder Abuse</name>
      <text id="20171031a2f7c4b0cb4f4fbca0000624">
        <heading>Elder Abuse</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="1804" kind="question">
        <name>Ms CHAPMAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Bragg</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Deputy Leader of the Opposition</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2017-10-31">
            <name>Elder Abuse</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2017-10-31T14:58:05" />
        <text id="20171031a2f7c4b0cb4f4fbca0000625">
          <timeStamp time="2017-10-31T14:58:05" />
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:58):</by>  My question is to the Attorney-General. When will the Attorney-General introduce legislation to protect vulnerable aged-care residents by enabling video cameras in aged-care facilities?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1810" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. J.R. RAU</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Enfield</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Deputy Premier</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Attorney-General</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Justice Reform</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Planning</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Industrial Relations</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Child Protection Reform</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for the Public Sector</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Consumer and Business Services</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for the City of Adelaide</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2017-10-31">
            <name>Elder Abuse</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2017-10-31T14:58:20" />
        <text id="20171031a2f7c4b0cb4f4fbca0000626">
          <timeStamp time="2017-10-31T14:58:20" />
          <by role="member" id="1810">The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (14:58):</by>  This is a matter that I thought we had canvassed reasonably thoroughly in this place 18 months ago or two years ago, but I am happy to go over that ground again. We were presented with a case some time back now by a Mrs Hausler, who was very concerned about the treatment of her father. She actually installed a camera of her own initiative in order to capture what she perceived may have been mistreatment of her father, and it turned out she was dead right.</text>
        <text id="20171031a2f7c4b0cb4f4fbca0000627">I met with her and had discussions with her. We did make investigations into this matter and at the time that we were making investigations into this matter there was a furphy floated by some, possibly people I can see a few metres from me, which was to the effect that in some way the Listening Devices Act of South Australia was interfering with the opportunity for these people to look after their relatives. Of course, that was a completely bogus point—absolutely bogus point.</text>
        <text id="20171031a2f7c4b0cb4f4fbca0000628">It turns out that there is no South Australian statutory impediment for a person to use a surveillance device, and by that we include in our definition now a listening device or something capable of capturing an image. There is no statutory impediment of South Australian origin to prevent a person to do that to protect their lawful interests or the interests of a person with whom they have a good reason to be looking out.</text>
        <text id="20171031a2f7c4b0cb4f4fbca0000629">This then brings us to the question: what if anything is preventing this happening? The answer is partly, despite the fact that I have written to the umbrella group that looks after these people and said, 'Look, will you just have a consensual agreement with the families of those whose elderly members are in your care that they may at their discretion opt into a voluntary arrangement whereby you facilitate an image to go in there?', they have not agreed to that.</text>
        <page num="11690" />
        <text id="20171031a2f7c4b0cb4f4fbca0000630">The licensing of these people is a commonwealth government matter. They are regulated by commonwealth law both in terms of an overarching act and regulations under that act. They are licensed by the commonwealth, and all of the matters in relation to what they do or do not do within their agencies is basically covered by a network of commonwealth legal arrangements. So, to the extent that the South Australian parliament or this government has any capacity to permit, or authorise, or agree with, or facilitate people looking after the lawful interests of their elderly relatives in nursing homes, we have got nothing in the way of it—we have got nothing in the way of it.</text>
        <text id="20171031a2f7c4b0cb4f4fbca0000631">If somebody cares to read the Listening Devices Act, or the Surveillance Devices Act as it now is, it will be obvious what I'm talking about. There is no impediment for a person to use these devices to protect their lawful interests and, clearly, protecting an elderly relative from being abused is well within the scope of that opportunity. I am afraid everything that we can do we have done. It is now a matter for the federal authorities to deal with the matter from their end.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>