Bills

Office for the Ageing (Adult Safeguarding) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 October 2018.)

Ms LUETHEN (King) (11:35): I rise to wholeheartedly support the bill, which once again demonstrates our deep commitment to the care and wellbeing of all South Australians, especially our most vulnerable community members. Every one of us on this side of the house is acting strongly every day to put the safety of our community first. The development of the Office for the Ageing (Adult Safeguarding) Amendment Bill 2018 fulfils the government's election policy to protect our vulnerable adults: the policy committed to developing legislation that would focus on early intervention, case coordination and information sharing, whilst empowering a government agency to conduct investigations into reports of abuse or neglect of vulnerable adults.

The Marshall Liberal team made a commitment that the development of adult safeguarding legislation would be an early priority, with a bill tabled in parliament within the first 100 days of forming government. The bill was tabled on 20 June 2018 and passed the Legislative Council on 23 October 2018. The bill addresses many of the recommendations of the previous state and national inquiries into elder abuse, including the Closing the Gaps report, the Australian Law Reform Commission's inquiry into protecting the rights of older Australians from abuse and the final report of the Joint Committee on matters relating to Elder Abuse. The bill also takes into account the recommendations of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption's inquiry into Oakden.

Sadly, one in 20 older Australians experiences some form of abuse, often by someone they know and trust. Elder abuse can be physical, financial, sexual, chemical, emotional or neglect, with financial and emotional abuse occurring most frequently and often together. For every one report, it is likely that another five remain hidden. The cost to the individual, families, society and government is significant. Recent national and state inquiries have found that, despite the efforts and resources committed to addressing elder abuse, there are still gaps reported in our current system. In particular, there is no single government agency in South Australia that has a clear statutory role for vulnerable adults who, despite having full decision-making capacity, are experiencing abuse, neglect or are left to navigate complex systems alone.

So what are we doing? The bill provides for the establishment of a new adult safeguarding unit located in the office for ageing well within the Department for Health and Wellbeing. Previously known as the Office for the Ageing, part 2 of the bill provides for the name of this office to be changed to the 'office for ageing well', reflecting this government's commitment to combating ageism by challenging the way ageing is framed in the language and structure of the services our government delivers. The new adult safeguarding unit will complement the role of the police and other government and non-government agencies by providing the South Australian community with an approachable and empowered body, which has statutory responsibility and accountability for responding to the reports of abuse, neglect or mistreatment of our most vulnerable adults.

Whilst a key focus of the unit will be on the prevention of abuse through awareness raising and community education, where reports of alleged and suspected abuse are received, the unit's responsibility will be to assess and investigate these reports and then either to refer them on to appropriate persons or bodies or work in collaboration with other agencies to coordinate a multi-agency and multidisciplinary approach to responding to concerns.

The bill takes a rights-based approach, which places the vulnerable adult at the centre of any safeguarding measures or interventions. Importantly, it enables a person with decision-making capacity who is experiencing abuse or neglect to decline support in cases where no immediate harm is posed to either their life or that of others, thus supporting an adult's right to make decisions for themselves that others may deem wrong or inappropriate.

The bill provides authorised officers, who include the director and certain employees of the adult safeguarding unit, with a range of coercive information-gathering powers to enable them to investigate reports of abuse effectively, such as the power to require a person to answer questions and produce documents. In the case of an authorised officer using force to enter any premises, place, vehicle or vessel, this power can only be exercised with a warrant issued by a magistrate or, in urgent circumstances, with the approval of the director, which provides some assurance against inappropriate use.

The bill provides for voluntary reporting but mandatory response to a report of abuse or suspected abuse of a vulnerable adult. Mandatory reporting is not an approach that is supported in responding to adults with decision-making capabilities. Under the bill, the director is required to assess all reports made to the unit and, on completion of the assessment, must make a decision as to whether to carry out an investigation into the matter, refer the matter to an appropriate state authority, or other person or body, or decline to take further action.

To support transparency and accountability of decision-making, a person who is aggrieved by a decision of the adult safeguarding unit or the director, made in relation to the safeguarding of a vulnerable adult, may have this decision reviewed. This review will be undertaken by the chief executive in the first instance, with the option of an external review by the Ombudsman available as a secondary step in cases relating to serious abuse.

The legislation and operation of the unit will be further supported by a charter of rights and freedoms of vulnerable adults, which will be developed in consultation with vulnerable adults, their carers and families. Regulations and a comprehensive code of practice will also be developed, which will outline in a detailed and practical way how the act is to be implemented and, in particular, how prescribed agencies will work together to fulfil their obligations.

This legislation is the first of its kind in Australia. Given the limited local experience to draw upon, it is proposed to stage the implementation and operation of the act after it is proclaimed. The decision review processes will not come into operation until 12 months after the commencement of the act. The safeguarding provisions will only apply to vulnerable adults aged 65 years or older for the first three years of operation, or 50 years or older for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander vulnerable adults.

The bill provides for an independent review of the operation of the act to be undertaken within its first three years of operation to ensure this legislation is meeting the needs and expectations of our South Australian community, and we have provided the funding. The state budget 2018-19 provides $538,000 in 2018-19, growing to $256,000 per annum by 2021-22, for the establishment of the new adult safeguarding unit.

On behalf of my electorate of King, I wholeheartedly support this bill, which once again demonstrates our Liberal government's deep commitment to the care and wellbeing of all South Australians, especially our most vulnerable community members. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (11:44): I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. It is my pleasure today to speak in relation to this bill, the Office for the Ageing (Adult Safeguarding) Amendment Bill 2018. I indicate that the opposition is supporting this bill. This is an important piece of legislation. This creates a new stand-alone adult safeguarding unit tasked with investigating instances of abuse against vulnerable adults. It is a measure the opposition wholeheartedly supports.

This legislation has come about following a number of pieces of important public policy work over the past few years, most particularly the Joint Committee on Matters Relating to Elder Abuse, which was held during the last parliament, the last sitting, and was chaired by the member for Hurtle Vale, the former member for Fisher.

Essentially, we know, sadly, that in South Australia, across Australia and, indeed, the world far too many people suffer from elder abuse and a whole range of different types of abuse. This bill seeks to detail a number of them, whether they be physical abuse, emotional abuse or financial abuse. There is a range of different circumstances in which that can happen and there is a range of different contexts in which that can happen.

Clearly, there are a number of high profile incidents, particularly the horrible situation that we faced in this state in terms of what happened at Oakden, but instances of elder abuse are much broader. Instances of elder abuse cover a much wider scope of situations, locations and environments. Often, they involve people's own family members, often they involve financial abuse and often they involve people with dementia and other disabilities that could hamper their own decision-making ability. There is a range of very complex situations to deal with. That is why we thought it was important in the last parliament to establish a committee to investigate how we can best deal with these situations, given that we have an ageing population in South Australia and situations are becoming worse, more common and more complicated.

The recommendations of joint committee on elder abuse include recommendation 4, which was, and I quote:

The Committee calls on the South Australian Government to introduce a Bill to develop a new South Australian Adult Protection Act, a key recommendation of the Closing the Gaps Report of 2011…and recommended in evidence to the Committee by Professor Wendy Lacey…The Bill to be developed in consultation with Professor Lacey; South Australia’s Public Advocate; the Public Trustee; the South Australian Legal Services Commission; and other stakeholders as invited by the South Australian Government.

That is the central recommendation that led to the position where we now have this legislation before us. I understand that the member for Ramsay, when she was the minister for ageing, did a lot of work with her department following the receipt of this report, after this recommendation was made, to work out the options for developing this, and that has obviously now been picked up by the current minister and has led to this legislation today. Recommendation 5 of the committee, following that, was, and I quote:

The Committee calls on the South Australian Government to provide ongoing funding, through reallocating existing resources and applying additional funding as required, to establish a South Australian Elder Abuse Prevention Unit, as previously recommended in the Closing the Gaps report.

The proposed Unit to:

Among other functions, house or utilise a Multi-Agency Protection Service/Support (M.A.P.S.) team (see Some Positive Notes) as recommended in evidence by the Public Advocate…using the example of the M.A.P.S. domestic violence initiative currently in place in South Australia.

Have investigatory powers, particularly to cover the gap identified by the Public Advocate, of people not in residential or community car…A multi-agency approach in the proposed unit may also assist with the creation of a SAPOL Public Protection Branch, as recommended in evidence by SAPOL.

The Committee notes the view of Professor Wendy Lacey that an Adult Protection Unit could be developed through an expansion of the Office of the Public Advocate, or established inside a State Government Department, such as the Department of Communities and Social Inclusion (DCSI), with an across-government focus for the whole-of-government policy.

The Committee calls on the new unit, once established, to:

In partnership with South Australia's Office for the Ageing, closely liaise with Elder Abuse Action Australia, the proposed new national, elder abuse peak body;

Liaise with the Legal Services Commission to provide a strategy to respond to the approximate 5-10% of about 80,000 calls to the commission per annum related to some sort of elder abuse inquiry;

Conserve administrative resources by providing the free 1800 South Australian Elder Abuse Prevention Phone Line, currently administrated by the Aged Rights Advocacy Service (ARAS);

Provide locally sourced or Federal Government information material in languages other than English, and in 'Easy English' for people with low literacy due to disability or lack of formal education;

Administer specific elder abuse prevention projects, including the Elder Abuse Can be Stopped campaign, funded by Office for the Ageing, SA Health;

Support elder abuse community capacity building through the South Australian Age Friendly Initiative, and build on and expand diverse existing partnerships; and

Provide grant funding and in-kind support for the South Australian branch of the Australian Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse.

Clearly, this bill deals with a number of those elements, not all of those elements. The unit the government is proposing to be set up is not as recommended here by the committee of the parliament, this bipartisan committee, in the Public Advocate's office or in what is now the Department of Human Services. The government has chosen to put it inside the Office for the Ageing and is reshaping that office as part of this legislation. That is not something that is necessarily opposed by the opposition, but we certainly have a few comments about how that might be structured.

I think it is worth noting that this recommendation refers to the MAPS unit that has been established as a model for action in this area. This unit, as I have spoken about and a number of other people have spoken about in the parliament in the past, has been set up in relation to domestic violence incidences. It is a shining example of getting government agencies to work together to identify instances of domestic violence issues and to develop plans and strategies across all those agencies to make sure that the information is properly shared and that all those agencies are working together to achieve a good outcome, particularly for the victims who would be affected. I think that is what needs to happen in elder abuse as well. I think it is a question as to whether or not this legislation is going to achieve that. I think time will tell whether that will be the case.

In relation to whether it has been placed in the Department for Health or another department or with the Public Advocate, one of the positive benefits of what the committee had recommended in terms of putting it in the Office of the Public Advocate was that that would carry a high degree of independence from the government of the day. Currently, the legislation before us does not place any independence in relation to how that would be administered. It is a government agency like any other. It is a government department like any other.

In the upper house, we moved an amendment, sadly unsuccessfully, to make clear that the officers who work in this agency should not be in under any direction from their chief executive or the minister in the way that they use those functions of the act, hence they should be acting independently in the best interests of the people. The government's argument was that of course that is going to be the case. Time will tell. I think there was a strong argument for such an amendment to be made, particularly when you look back at the joint committee report which recommended having it largely as an independent organisation. This model may not produce that independence that otherwise would be the case if it was part of the Office of the Public Advocate.

It is something we will have to reflect on in time. There is a review mechanism as part of this legislation and I hope that in the future the review will look at whether just having this as part of a government department has worked or whether there needs to be an additional level of independence as part of it.

There was another amendment that we successfully were able to get through the upper house, and it relates to the ability for the adult safeguarding unit to provide for reports on systemic issues. We would allow the unit to investigate systemic issues of elder abuse, to be able to publicly report on individual and systemic issues of abuse. We believe this amendment substantially strengthens the role and functions of the adult safeguarding unit.

Unfortunately, the government opposed this amendment in the upper house; I hope they are not going to oppose it in this place. I think they were worried about what that might mean in terms of accountability, but we think this is an important measure. The unit will be on the front line in terms of their ability to be in touch with what is happening with specific cases of elder abuse. The act is structured so that the unit will be helping people and their families and stepping in with quite significant powers of coercion under the new bill. They can also take action through court orders or references to SAPOL and other law enforcement bodies as required.

The unit may well discover things that point to a systemic issue. If they do make those discoveries, I think it is important that they provide a report to the parliament on those systemic issues. We should all be cognisant that, if you start to see a few instances of elder abuse occurring at a particular location or aged-care home in a particular field, through a financial method that people are conducting, or at a particular health site, etc., the public and parliament should know about it. That is why we are quite happy that the Legislative Council saw fit to insert that amendment. Of course, that report would not breach the privacy of any individual. It would not include private details or identify the person affected. I think that is another measure that strengthens this bill in terms of how it would protect elderly people in South Australia.

We looked at a number of other issues in the bill. We successfully moved an amendment to take out a provision whereby the government sought to exempt this legislation from the Acts Interpretation Act, which provides that, if it has not been officially enacted by the government, the act would automatically come into operation after two years. That is quite odd. We have already seen this in a number of pieces of legislation introduced by the Minister for Health in the other place. There is no reason why that should be the case, particularly when the government have said they hope that this will come in within a year. If that is the case, why would you seek to exempt it so that it would not come in automatically within two years?

The government agreed to remove this provision, but I think the addition of this section of the act points to a lack of detail in terms of how this is going to play out. This issue has been raised by a number of stakeholders we have spoken to. There is general support for a lot of the objects and powers within this act, but there is a concern that the government has not outlined that next level of detail about how this is all going to work, how this is going to be structured and how this is going to play out.

Potentially, that is because they do not know yet. That is why they have not communicated it and why they want to give themselves an out clause in this legislation, which means they could delay it into the never-never if they need to. I hope that is not the case; I hope we see this established as soon as possible, with details and meat on the bones in terms of how this is going to work.

I think everyone in this space is waiting to see a significant detail that has not yet been released by the government: the charter of rights that will sit under this legislation. To my knowledge, I do not think it has been released by the minister. I hope we see it soon because I know advocacy groups and professional groups are very interested to see what it says in order to make sure that it has adequate protections for the people of South Australia.

One issue already raised in relation to this legislation is that the government initially said that they will be focused on people aged 65 and older or, I believe, 50 years old for Aboriginal people. Apparently that may well change in the future and they may expand the scope downwards. A number of groups and bodies in this space have raised concerns with us about what this will mean for a 63-year-old woman with dementia, for instance, who needs the protection of this unit and who is going to be excluded, at least in the short to medium term, from seeking any protection. Why is it that the government sought to keep it so limited? Why have they not sought to enable this protection to be offered to all adults?

This morning, a function was hosted by Dementia Australia, along with the member for Hurtle Vale and the member for Waite. We heard a very passionate speech from the wife and daughter of a sufferer of early onset dementia. Sadly, there are too many sufferers of early onset dementia in our community. It seems that a gap has been opened up through this legislation, and I hope that the government will seek to close that soon.

One element that I raised in the briefings on this legislation and that I still remain concerned about connects to the issue of independence and how it will operate. The legislation, as drafted and presented to us, refers to the director of the office for ageing well and the powers being vested in the director, some of which are quite significant powers. However, the person who holds those powers in the current structure of the department under minister Wade is quite high up the chain and, I believe, an executive director. Looking after ageing is just one of the many things they do, and I question whether that now needs to change.

This legislation is the parliament saying that there needs to be a director of the office for ageing well, and they will hold a significant number of powers. Apart from having a whole range of other policy and governance roles in the Department for Health and Wellbeing, the question of whether they should have a separate role solely focused on these issues of ageing is an important one, and I hope that the government also considers that.

Clearly, one major area of focus over the next few years is in terms of the royal commission that has been announced in relation to aged care. I want to say a few words about that, as I think that it directly relates to this legislation as well. We have seen some horrible examples of the care of people who put their trust in others to look after them in aged-care facilities. Obviously, we have had high-profile examples here in South Australia, but more examples are coming out across the nation. That has led to the establishment of the aged-care royal commission, something that I wholeheartedly support.

The royal commission will be a very important marker not only of how we protect people in aged-care facilities but also of how we, as a nation and a state, protect those in the community generally and make sure that there are appropriate avenues available to them. I look forward to what comes out of that. Sadly, I think that we will find out about a lot of horrible examples from around the country of the way that people have been treated. Of course, there are also a lot of very good examples of how people are treated. There are a lot of great people who work very hard in aged care, day in and day out, who provide that care.

I know that this has been one key concern of nurses, particularly through the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, that we address the resourcing that goes into aged-care facilities to make sure that those people who reside in aged care get the focus, resources, care and attention they deserve. Unfortunately, there are some serious questions about whether the current funding model for aged care is in a place can possibly deliver that for people in aged-care facilities.

Another aspect that we will increasingly have to look at is the massive waiting list for people to get in-home care in their own homes. There is a waiting list of about 100,000 people across the country—at least 10 per cent of those are in South Australia—who have been pre-assessed for a package of care in their own home, but no package is coming because the packages are all full. Clearly, if those people had an issue at home and were able to get the appropriate care in their own home, they would be healthier, they would be able to look after themselves better and there would be less pressure on our hospitals and emergency departments. There would be more pressure on residential aged-care facilities if people were forced to move into aged care because they were unable to receive that care in their own home.

Clearly, that is an issue that needs to be looked at as well. It relates directly not only to this bill but also to issues we see in our hospital system. Sadly, we see too many people who, had they received appropriate primary health care earlier, would have been able to stay out of hospital and, instead, stay either in their home or in a residential aged-care facility. I hope that all those issues are appropriately addressed as we get into the royal commission because tens of thousands of South Australians are affected by those issues, let alone their family members who are nervous about their receiving the right care and the full support they need.

In summary, I indicate the opposition's support for this bill. Again, I note that this has come through last year's joint committee report, and I thank all the members who served on that committee. I also thank Professor Lacey for her work and advocacy on this issue. I hope that we see some more details soon about how this will be implemented by the government, how those protections are going to be offered, and how stakeholder concerns about how this will be implemented are going to be addressed. I hope that the implementation of this unit and those officers out in the community helping people will help not just people over 65 but also, in the future, people under 65 who are suffering abuse, whether it be financial, physical or otherwise.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (12:07): I rise today in support of the Office for the Ageing (Adult Safeguarding) Amendment Bill 2018, which fulfils another government election commitment. This government has made a habit out of fulfilling election commitments and, as we know, habits can be difficult to break, so those opposite can look forward to a boring and predictable ride.

The pre-election commitment was for a policy committed to developing legislation that would focus on early intervention, case coordination and information sharing whilst empowering a government agency to conduct investigations into reports of abuse or neglect of vulnerable adults. This was a priority of ours and, although this legislation was born from an earlier report, the abhorrent Oakden saga that those opposite presided over necessitated these changes.

The fact that those opposite appeared incapable of keeping safe our most vulnerable, including the elderly and infirm, was of great concern to us and the reason for our pre-election commitment. The need for changes has been apparent since the publication of a 2011 report titled Closing the Gaps, and these amendments are derived from this report. It also addresses many of the recommendations of previous state and national inquiries into elder abuse, namely the Australian Law Reform Commission's inquiry into Protecting the Rights of Older Australians from Abuse, and the final report of the Joint Committee on Matters Relating to Elder Abuse.

It also takes into account a report from our Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, titled 'Oakden: a shameful chapter in South Australia's history', which again was necessitated by conduct of members opposite during their previous term of government. Clearly, a number of reports have recommended change, and it is finally being delivered. The unfortunate reality is that one in 20 older Australians experiences some form of abuse and often it is imposed upon them by someone they know and trust. Not only that but, for every one report, it is likely that another five remain hidden, which is truly a shocking statistic indeed.

These people, who have earned the trust of their victim, and in other situations where they might not know the victim, can impose physical, financial, sexual, chemical, neglectful or emotional abuse upon their victims. Indeed, it is often found that financial and emotional abuse occur concurrently and certainly occur most frequently.

One of the gaps or deficiencies that has been identified in our system is that there has not been a single government agency tasked with protecting older South Australians. The time has come for a statutory body for vulnerable adults who are experiencing elder abuse. This bill provides for that. It will establish the adult safeguarding unit, located within the office for ageing well, which is in turn within the Department for Health and Wellbeing.

This new safeguarding unit will complement SAPOL, as well as other government and non-government agencies, by finally providing South Australians with an approachable, empowered body that has the statutory responsibility and accountability for responding to reports of abuse, neglect or mistreatment of vulnerable adults. The unit will have a key focus on prevention—as it should—as we all know that prevention is the best remedy. It will attempt to prevent those heinous crimes from ever eventuating by raising community awareness and increasing community education.

Where attempts to prevent these crimes from occurring fail, the unit will have the ability to receive reports of alleged or suspected abuse. The unit will then have investigative powers to look further into these reports, assess and investigate them, and then refer them to the appropriate bodies or persons. Alternatively, the unit will be empowered to work collaboratively with other agencies to coordinate a multi-agency and multidisciplinary approach to responding and resolving these reports.

The wellbeing of the adult in question will be central to the bill and ensure that each action taken has the victim's best interests in mind. For the purposes of the act, the vulnerable adult will be defined as an adult person who, by reason of age, ill health, disability, social isolation, dependence on others or other disadvantage, is vulnerable to abuse. The vulnerable adult will be at the centre of any safeguarding measures or interventions in accordance with the bill's rights-based approach.

Persons who have retained decision-making capacity and are experiencing abuse or neglect retain the ability to decline support in cases where no immediate harm is posed to either their life or that of others. This is important: adults who have the ability to make decisions for themselves will be empowered to do so, or will continue to have the power to do so, under this bill. The only exception, of course, rightfully, is where their life or the life of another is in immediate peril.

In investigating a report, certain authorised officers will be empowered with a range of coercive powers that will enable them to gather information required to investigate these reports. Examples of this will be the power to require persons to answer questions and to produce documents. This is essential so that these matters can be properly investigated and these offenders can be brought to justice. This power would not be unfettered and is in line with ALRC recommendation:

Agencies should only be able to exercise such powers where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that there is 'serious abuse' of an at-risk adult, and only to the extent that it is necessary to safeguard and support the at-risk adult.

These powers can only be used in cases of serious abuse and may only be exercised in the course of a section 26 investigation.

While investigators will have the requisite power to ensure they have the capability to do their job properly, there will be limits. Authorised officers who have the power to investigate will be required to get a legitimate warrant prior to using force to enter any premises, place, vehicle or vessel, unless the circumstances are urgent, in which case the director can approve entry. This provides assurances to the public that this power will be used legitimately while simultaneously ensuring that the power that has been granted is sufficient to achieve the desired results. That is the key part—ensuring that we have the power to prevent these occurrences and the power to investigate them properly when they unfortunately do occur.

The bill also imposes a mandatory response to report the abuse or suspected abuse of a vulnerable adult. Offenders will not be able to hide behind silence, comforted by the knowledge that if they keep their mouth shut then in all likelihood they will be able to get away with their heinous crimes. These criminals or suspected criminals will be required by the law enshrined in this legislation to divulge information that is important to the crime, again ensuring that investigators have the capability to properly investigate these crimes and to weed out those offenders.

Importantly, actual reporting of these crimes will remain voluntary. Government should not be in the business of dictating to adults capable of making their own decision what they should and should not report. That responsibility remains wholly with the subject, and for this I applaud the minister. It should also prevent frivolous reports, with discerning adults able to decide whether any given incident is part of a malicious string of attacks, worthy of report or incidental conduct in the course of ordinary, everyday life. This legislation strikes a perfect balance.

Those voluntary reports that are made by the free will of the subject will be assessed by the director. Upon completion of that assessment, a decision will be made as to whether an investigation should be carried out. The choices for the director at that point are whether the investigation should be carried out in-house, whether the matter should be referred to an alternate state agency authority or to another person or body, or declining to take the matter any further. Every single report will be assessed and a decision made about further action. Those who are in a position where they feel compelled to make a report can be assured that, no matter what happens, their matter will be considered and given proper consideration.

In the event that a person making a report is upset or dissatisfied with the decision of the adult safeguarding unit, then the opportunity exists for a review of that decision. A decision made in relation to the safeguarding of a vulnerable adult may be reviewed by the chief executive in the first instance, with the option of an external review by the Ombudsman available as a second option in cases relating to serious abuse.

This unit will be set up with a mission statement revolving around protecting our most vulnerable. It is likely that each report will be given exceedingly careful consideration by the relevant decision-maker. This is in line with the Marshall government's commitment to transparency and accountability and is a further step in the direction of decision-making in line with community expectations.

By way of further support for the bill and the operation of the new adult safeguarding unit that we are creating, a charter for the rights and freedoms of vulnerable adults will be developed. Again, in what is becoming a familiar refrain, the Marshall government's commitment to open and transparent government will see this charter developed in consultation with vulnerable adults, their carers and families.

They are the key stakeholders, the people at the epicentre of these issues. Therefore, they are the ones being consulted on its creation—not some bureaucrats or hand-picked committee, people on the front line dealing with these issues. Similarly, regulations and a comprehensive code of practice will also be developed, which will outline in a detailed and practical way how the act will be implemented and, in particular, how prescribed agencies will work together to fulfil their obligations.

The Marshall Liberal government is leading the way in implementing this legislation and establishing this unit. It is the first of its kind anywhere in Australia. In order to ensure that it is rolled out properly, this government intends to stage its implementation and operationalisation of the act after it is proclaimed. To that end, the decision review processes will not come into operation until 12 months after the commencement of the act. Secondly, the safeguarding provisions will only apply to vulnerable adults aged 65 years order, or 50 years or older for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander vulnerable adults, for the first three years of operation.

That staggered implementation will then be tested by a mandatory review of the act's operation within its first three years. That independent review will reveal whether or not the unit is meeting community expectation and, even more importantly, whether it is meeting the needs of vulnerable adults in our community. That review will hold this government to account and ensure that we are able to continue to ensure that we are progressing in a manner consistent with the wishes of the people of South Australia.

Importantly, none of this works without money. In the 2018-19 state budget, $538,000 was put aside for this wonderful initiative. That funding will grow to $756,000 per annum by 2021-22, ensuring that this initiative will continue to be properly funded to achieve the goals set out for it. These are simple goals outlined in section 12, and perhaps best articulated by paragraph (a), that 'all vulnerable adults are entitled to be treated with respect for their dignity, autonomy and right to self-determination'.

This government is ensuring that vulnerable adults retain their dignity by introducing investigative powers and preventative measures to reduce or eliminate the abuse that many have had to endure. But we are also preserving their right to self-determination by making reporting voluntary and ensuring they continue to act how they so choose.

I also note with interest that Professor Wendy Lacey, Dean and Head of the School of Law at the University of South Australia, has worked closely with the government to develop this new bill. She was actually a lecturer of mine whilst I was at Law School at Uni SA. It is good to see her playing an active role in developing this new legislation, and I congratulate her on her contribution. I am looking forward to seeing it rolled out.

These recommendations came out of a report in 2011, but it took until March 2018 for a government to enact these changes. I am pleased but not surprised that it was a Liberal government that finally enacted these changes. Our community is better for it and our vulnerable adults will be better for it. If only these changes had been made earlier. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay) (12:20): I rise today to support this bill and acknowledge that it is an important addition to protecting the rights of older South Australians. As others have talked about, we will be the first to lead the country in a safeguarding unit for older South Australians.

I would like to reflect on the significant work that has happened over many years to raise awareness and understanding within the community about elder abuse and particularly the work of the Office for the Ageing. To make sure that we are clear in our understanding, elder abuse has been a key aspect since 2015, when we raised awareness of it. Specifically, it is about an older person who is prevented from exercising their rights. It is a deliberate or unintentional action or a lack of action carried out by a person in a trusted relationship.

We looked at some of the research in this area and it is estimated that one in 20 Australians experiences some form of abuse from a person they know or trust. When you unpack what that abuse is, we can see that that trust can be broken in a variety of areas. It can be:

social, where someone is isolated from communicating with family members and friends, particularly if they have mobility issues and are reliant on people for transport and support;

neglect, which is obviously a key area in relation to the support of a person's potential medical and care requirements, including the proper food they need;

physical;

financial, which we often see in situations where people are reliant on extended family members as to where they live, and the difficult relationships that can form there;

chemical abuse, which may result in the withholding of medication from someone;

emotional abuse; and

sexual abuse.

In South Australia, 50 per cent of cases are financial abuse, 75 per cent are emotional abuse, 80 per cent of abuse is by a family member, 65 per cent of victims who experience elder abuse live in a family home and 19 per cent of cases involve dementia. Considerable risk factors have been identified here.

One of the key issues is ageism. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Council on the Ageing, which is trying to change our conversation about how we depict older people. As I said before, dependency and living arrangements are risk factors, as is gender—there is a gender lens to abuse. People who experience substance abuse in a caring role as well are more likely to be a risk factor.

While we come here today to talk about the legislation, I want to talk about the build-up to it, including the strategy to safeguard the rights of older South Australians released in 2014 and extended from 2014 to 2021. Along with that strategy was an action plan, which was released the following year and which talked about raising awareness, stronger community connections, responding to vulnerability and risk, and looking beyond policies to new strategies and legislative avenues.

Once again, I want to raise the good work of the Office for the Ageing in this area. In 2014, they ran a campaign called Elder Abuse Can Be Stopped. You may recall that we had quite a bit of advertising material out, particularly on bus shelters and on radio stations. It depicted a poster that stated, 'Elder abuse can be financial, emotional, physical, sexual', and then highlighted at the bottom, 'stopped'. It provided information to people in the wider community to raise awareness about elder abuse. This was followed up in 2016 with, 'Elder abuse can be stopped—protect your rights'. It talked about who you could talk to in the community, health, financial and legal fields if this was a concern you had, and it extended the South Australian elder abuse prevention phone line. That was advertised throughout 2016.

In 2017, when we followed through with the action plan, the message was, 'Speak up and stop elder abuse'. Some of the advertising was put out broadly to the community, but it also focused on carers and the volunteering community. Through our analysis, we understood that many volunteers had interaction with people but were not quite sure what to do or how to help them. It also talked to carers about reaching out. Some of the communication was, 'Sometimes they need a voice. Stop elder abuse. Start knowing the signs,' and, 'Elder abuse can be fear, sadness, neglect, stopped if you speak up,' and it gave the 1800 number to contact.

Part of the action plan was to develop strong community connections. I would like to raise some of those groups here, including the Aged Rights Advocacy Service (ARAS), who talk to people and run the prevention helpline around, 'Stay connected, stay active, stay healthy and stay in control'. I would like to thank them for their work in this area—and this work continues. They have significant funding from the federal government and some from this state.

We also had a very good relationship with South Australia Police and worked with them to have a responsive police service for older people. Often, going to the police would be the main recourse for people who believed a crime had occurred. With an awareness and the introduction of the safeguarding unit, we are now building up additional avenues for people to seek assistance.

I would like to thank Carers SA. They are a fantastic organisation that provides support for the many carers we have in South Australia. Any one of us could become a carer at any time, with an older parent, a partner or, potentially, a child who needs our support day on day. Introduced during this time was Age Friendly SA. We have 19 Age Friendly councils to understand what is important to older people and to help them remain connected.

We understood that one of the concerns was how to respond to vulnerability and risk. That was an issue in the workplace that was raised with the Office for the Ageing, to look at good practice guidelines, identify workplace champions, complete organisational assessments, look at action plans and implement and communicate the plan. It is important for people to understand, if someone expresses to them a concern of elder abuse, what are the actions that they can take. I have already spoken about the elder abuse phone line, which had additional funding during that time.

One of the key areas in the action plan was making people aware of what their rights were. A significant document was distributed, called 'Knowing your rights: a guide to the rights of older South Australians'. I would like to thank the people who were involved with that. We translated that document into Greek, Italian and Polish to make sure that our culturally and linguistically diverse community was also aware of that.

That was a key part of the role of the Office for the Ageing. At the same time, people may recall that we were introducing the Planning Ahead opportunities for people to detail what they wanted if they were not able to express their beliefs and what they wanted at the time. The reason I talk about this today is that, although this government has now brought in this legislation, it has been over a period of time in South Australia that we have been talking about increasing awareness and building community understanding about what elder abuse is.

We have had a long-term strategy called Prosperity Through Longevity, which is the South Australian ageing plan, and we know that with an increasing ageing population there are concerns about people remaining engaged. One of the areas we also looked at was Better Together, which was an effective engagement with older people. I would like to thank the YourSAy team in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet for their work in this area and particularly in the review of the discussion paper that was launched.

Leading up to the drafting of the bill, I was also looking at the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Matters Relating to Elder Abuse. I recall that the member for Hurtle Vale was a key member of this committee. They spoke to me at length in my role as minister for ageing, including about the recommendations. It came at a similar time to when the Australian Law Reform Commission established the national elder abuse inquiry, which reported in June 2017.

I rise today to speak about this because it is a challenging area of our culture and requires cultural change. I recall changes within my lifetime about child abuse and recognition of how important it is to call that out. In more recent years, we have had conversations about domestic violence, and I recognise that we have had some bipartisan conversations about that in this house. Only last week, we passed the bill for additional legislative requirements and support. This is another area of cultural change and, with an ageing population, people need to know that they are supported. They need to know how to seek help when they need to and that they will be backed up in a variety of areas.

One of the areas we want to be in in this is 'no wrong door'; that is, whether you go to the police, you ring up the Aged Rights Advocacy Service, or you contact the office for ageing well, as it is now, that would be the way we would look to the future. I would like to say to the Minister for Health and Wellbeing that it is great that you have brought this to the house, which has built on substantial work. Recognition has been given to Professor Wendy Lacey, who has been talking about this area over a period of time and who also responded to the discussion paper that was released in 2017 when I was the minister. I also recognise Jeanette Walters and the Office for the Ageing team and their involvement in this. I support the legislation.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (12:33): I rise to support the Office for the Ageing (Adult Safeguarding) Amendment Bill and commend the Hon. Stephen Wade of the other place, our Minister for Health and Wellbeing and all things to do with having a great life, for this important initiative, a first in Australia, which needs to be progressed in a staged manner in its unique form. This starts with the legislation and the bill before us. It will be followed, I am advised, by a charter of rights and freedoms for vulnerable adults and the regulations and comprehensive code of conduct, yet to be developed. These are the machinery operations in respect of how this may operate.

Members have already referred to the many recommendations presented to this parliament and others—the Closing the Gaps report, the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into Protecting the Rights of Older Australians from Abuse, and the final report of the Joint Committee on Matters Relating to Elder Abuse, which was tabled late last year. The shocking report received from Bruce Lander QC, the commissioner dealing with the investigation into Oakden, described it as a shameful chapter in our history. It only highlights the reasons why we are here and why it is important that we have this new adult safeguarding unit.

Obviously, we have the support of our police and other government and non-government agencies to manage extreme circumstances, but the thinking behind this is to have an approachable body that has the statutory responsibility and accountability to respond to reports of abuse, neglect and mistreatment of our vulnerable adults. The key focus of the unit will be on prevention, awareness raising and community education. I just heard a contribution by the former minister for ageing.

I commend her for the work that she did in this area during her time as the minister for ageing, but all these things in relation to educative action seem to have fallen on deaf ears in the past because how could you possibly allow matters such as Oakden to occur and then be exposed during that time? There has been continuous concealment in relation to the activities there and, whilst I do not blame the minister for ageing, she sat next to—I say that in a general way—the former minister for mental health in a cabinet, and some responsibility has to be taken for the continued cover-up.

Because I am in the habit of keeping records of just about everything—beware—I refreshed my memory on the Senate committee affairs' reference submission by the then South Australian government in August 2017 on the effectiveness of aged-care quality assessment and other protections for residents. It sets out a summary of the Chief Psychiatrist's report that had been prepared as a result of a 20 December 2016 decision to conduct a review in relation to Oakden. Guess what? Not a word is mentioned of what really happened in relation to the instigation of this report.

It commends the proposed—at that stage—ICAC inquiry and says that it welcomes it, but it still tries to claim credit, as the former government, for initiating the inquiry into the scandalous conduct in the Makk and McLeay wards and Clements House at Oakden. It just glosses over the plight of a family who had to go public in January 2017 to expose the concealment of month after month of complaint from Mrs Sprigg, who, as we know, became a South Australian of the Year for her advocacy in this area. Let's not gloss over the reality of what happened. Let's not write reports and submissions that attempt just to gloss over what really happened.

Notwithstanding the importance of this bill as part of an area of reform, when the member for Cheltenham, the last Labor premier of this state, was the minister for ageing he published a pamphlet under his name called Regaining Your Control. It is another thing I have kept, I might say. On page 4 of this booklet, he described elder abuse:

Elder abuse is any act occurring within a relationship where there is an implication of trust, which results in harm to an older person. Abuse can include physical, sexual, financial, psychological, social and/or neglect.

He went on to say, under his own hand:

The State Government has a zero tolerance for the abuse or harm of older people and we are committed to protecting older people from harm and to keeping them safe in their homes and in their community.

That was 15 years ago. We then find, a decade later, the shameful exposure of Oakden and a litany of other examples where people have been the victim of abuse, culminating in our own inquiry here in the parliament.

I can think of circumstances, for example, that resulted in much debate about having surveillance cameras in aged-care facilities. This was important because it followed Mrs Noleen Hausler's protests at the treatment of her father in the Mitcham home. The information about this scandalous conduct went around the nation and culminated in the person responsible at the facility being prosecuted and convicted. So we know there is a litany of behaviour that is unreported and continues to leave our aged people vulnerable.

Anne Gale, our Public Advocate, presented a submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission's inquiry, which I have just referred to. In her submission back in September 2016—and remember that she is the Public Advocate who is responsible for people with disability in aged areas—she wrote about a number of areas in relation to elder abuse. One was acknowledging that elder abuse of older persons was under-reported, and she provided data in relation to that. She felt that there needed to be an Australia-wide attempt to deal with a number of these issues. I think to a large degree, with the inquiries that have followed and indeed the recent announcement of the royal commission by the federal government, which is to be based here in South Australia, these warmly adopt some of the recognition in that regard.

She also made significant comment about the assessment of programs within aged-care facilities. She raised again the advance care directives, formerly known as the enduring powers of guardianship, and some of the limitations in relation to the 2013 legislation. She made comment generally in relation to enduring powers of attorney, which of course deal with the financial decision-making for a party. Interestingly, she also raised considerable concerns about deficiencies and extra orders that ought to be able to be available on the part of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT), which is responsible for dealing with guardianship matters as a very substantial cohort of its work.

What is concerning to me is that a number of these issues are still left unresolved. So it is a commitment of this government that we do look at how we better protect people in terms of financial abuse circumstances or exploitation to ensure that they are not able to be exploited by often a member of family in the inappropriate use of a power of attorney in the management or use of funds or property owned by the older person.

Advance care directives also need to have considerable tightening, and that is a matter which I can assure the house is under review and legislation is being considered for ultimate determination by this parliament. We will act on these things, because we cannot leave them unattended to. I do not want to have a government—and I think we are completely at one in this on this side of the house—that will simply write another pamphlet, make another promise or have another review. There has to be real and effective statutory protection and policy programs that actually work and are going to protect people.

It is fair to say that probably I was, like a lot of people who come into this parliament, largely unaware of the plight of vulnerable older persons or even significantly of the disabled community before coming into the parliament. In our own families we have older parents or people with disability who are known to us, and of course we see them fall into areas of vulnerability.

Obviously, in the law I had quite a bit of exposure to dealing with issues regarding power of attorney and the like. In fact, I used to give a lecture called 'Sex in the 70s', which was designed for an audience of older people. I am sure they came along to it hoping to learn about more enjoyable activities in the bedroom, but it was, in fact, a lecture about protecting themselves against the sometimes rapacious and certainly exploitative 'greedy little grandchild' sector, as I call it.

It ensured that whatever their financial arrangements or personal arrangements regarding their cohabitation—whether they had been married, widowed, re-cohabiting, remarrying, sharing a house with another person who was a friend—these were all things that needed to be clearly thought about. This was especially the case if there was issue—that is, children or grandchildren—of unions in their lifetime because the testamentary intent of a will is not always even enough to stop exploitation while they are alive in terms of getting access to property or money, or stop big fights after someone dies.

These are important things that we ask our older South Australians to think about and protect themselves against as much as possible to ensure they have access to their rightful assets and income and that they are not exploited by others—sadly, frequently family members. Of course, that is not only a relationship of trust but also a relationship of affection, which makes that person even more vulnerable. As we mature, these issues become more important.

I had the privilege of chairing the Home and Community Care board for a number of years in the 1990s, prior to coming into parliament. This was quite a significant advance in the care of mature age people, assisting them to stay living in their homes. Jane Mussared, who is now in charge of the Office for the Ageing, was a member of that board, and I thank her for her support on this bill as well as for her continued support, over her lifetime really, in this area. It is an area where we, as best we can, we provide our vulnerable aged with the services they deserve, the support they need and the freedom to continue to make decisions, whether that be about their own accommodation or their own assets, for as long as they are able.

During that time I also had the privilege of serving as co-chair, in a way, with the late Dame Roma Mitchell. She was chair of another board that dealt with the ageing, and she would laughingly say, 'I've been asked to be the chair of this board, Vickie, because I'm a consumer.' She was quite mature age herself at the time, and we would sometimes go around the state together visiting different stakeholders and members in the community. She did not drive, so I had the chance to drive her a few times, and I would drive and listen while she chatted away. She provided a wealth of experience and information.

She was very keen to ensure that no matter how old you were, even if you were facing a loss of licence or some infirmity, or not being as ambulant as you had been in the past, or your physical strength was waning and things of that nature, you still had a chance to be able to enjoy your life, have holidays, go on trips, go exploring or bushwalking, whatever you want to do. That is what we expect our senior people to be able to do.

As members know, we have just come through a weekend celebrating the centenary of armistice. The generations before us have made a magnificent contribution to all the freedoms we enjoy today, and I think we are honour-bound to ensure that our mature, older population, as well as those with a disability, are protected by the benefit in this legislation.

By the initiation of this legislation and the protection that we want it to give, we can make sure that, if someone is concerned, they do not even have to pick up the phone and ring the police. They will have access to an approachable process, with an important area of review—an appeal process through the Ombudsman if necessary—to ensure that their concerns are raised, investigated and remedied.

The only other matter I really want to cover in this regard is that in addition to advance care directive legislative reform, the powers of attorney to deal with property—often known as enduring powers of attorney—will be on this government's agenda. We will be looking at some of the reforms that have recently been published by the South Australian Law Reform Institute, which has done considerable work in relation to succession law, the right of a testator, the importance of a person having the right to distribute their estate according to their wishes, and the review of the inheritance family provision law, which of course fits neatly into this question of the right of the testator. These are all matters that we consider need some attention.

Specifically in relation to financial abuse—because I think we will find in all these inquiries it is increasingly an area of exploitation or abuse that is permeating the distress to our older citizens—we think it is important that the obligations of someone who accepts responsibility as a power of attorney are explicitly referred to in the law so that it gives a very clear instruction and guide to those who take on this responsibility, whether they are a family member or a friend, or in a professional capacity as the accountant or lawyer or whatever.

We do have the Trustee Act. We do have obligations there. We do have laws in respect of powers of attorney, but we need to have some very explicit direction to ensure that people know exactly what their obligation is in this regard. While I consider that, I also record my appreciation to the Public Advocate, the Office of the Public Trustee, the Guardianship Board and all those in this area who currently provide assistance in relation to protection and support in a number of areas, but I particularly refer to financial support in the meantime.

I conclude by saying that it is not all bad. We need to make sure that there is a chance for our older persons to have a wonderful life and enjoy their twilight years. It is incumbent on all of us. I suppose we get a bit more pressed to the attention of this when we are no longer looking after our own relatives but might be rapidly approaching it. My time in the parliament has taught me a lot in relation to this area, and I would like to assure the parliament that this is another area of challenge that on this side of the house we are going to take up. We are not going to write a pamphlet about it: we are going to do something about it.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (12:53): I rise to contribute to this debate in regard to the Office for the Ageing (Adult Safeguarding) Amendment Bill 2018. Reflecting on the Attorney's contribution, it really does bring to the forefront why this bill is here, why it is before the parliament and why we have reached this point of discussion that clearly needs to be had. It is a cohort of people who have been identified over the last number of years as being vulnerable.

I think the events in regard to the systemic issues at the Oakden aged-care facility have been sufficiently fleshed out by the Attorney. As has been said before, and well identified, it is a shameful chapter in the history of South Australia, which we as a state will hopefully use as a turning point to create an environment where people in that vulnerable cohort are seen as respected and provided the dignity that they sufficiently require.

While there has obviously been a range of responses in regard to the institutional issues, I think that this bill is incredibly important because it goes further to address issues and complaints from people who report activity in regard to this vulnerable cohort in the community. We know that there are a growing number of people in this cohort who are not looking to spend their twilight years within an institution: they wish to age in their homes in the presence of loved ones and family, perhaps in the family home.

We must recognise that not everybody within this cohort is going to spend time in institutional care, so having a mechanism to report this sort of activity not just within the context of institutional care but also within a community context is incredibly important. While we can talk about the fact that this was obviously an election commitment that our government brought forward in the policy protecting our vulnerable adults, we must also remember the wider and probably more pressing context of why this legislation is here.

The policy being put forward concentrates on three key areas. Obviously, the first is education and prevention, but there is also early intervention, case coordination and information sharing within the newly established unit. Importantly, it empowers the government agency to conduct investigations into reports of abuse or neglect of vulnerable adults. The commitment to table the bill here in the parliament within 100 days of coming to government was met when the bill was tabled on 20 June this year. In line with the election commitment, the bill reaffirms the clear focus on this important area of reform.

The legislation passed the other place on 23 October this year. As others have reflected, this piece of legislation is the first of its kind in Australia. We are really pioneering what this unit, these new functions and the new mechanism mean here in Australia, but this has not been put forward without any context at all. Many elements are modelled on similar legislation in British Columbia in Canada. As an aside, as a country I think the Canadians do an incredible job of recognising their most vulnerable citizens in regard to those of mature age, those with disability and other cohorts of people deemed to be vulnerable.

Before getting into the operational aspects of the bill, I want to spend some time highlighting the change brought forward in part 2 of the bill, which provides for the name change of the Office for the Ageing to the 'office for ageing well'. It reflects this government's commitment to combating ageism and challenging the way ageing is perceived and framed in the language and the structure of the services that this government delivers. It is ultimately the responsibility of all of us in this place and all of us in the community to collectively shift the existing mindset about ageing.

We need to make sure that ageing is seen as an opportunity rather than a burden on our society, and proactively changing our language is an important step in reshaping the views and perceptions around ageing. I know that the member for Kaurna outlined—and statistically it is well and truly backed up—that we are an ageing population here in Australia. In fact, in the western suburbs of Adelaide, we have one of the more mature communities in Australia. With that short contribution, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.