Office for the Ageing (Adult Safeguarding) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 October 2018.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:04): I rise indicating that I will be the opposition's lead speaker on the bill and note from the outset that the opposition intends to support the bill. Sadly, instances of abuse against vulnerable adults, and in particular older South Australians, remain all too prevalent. We know that instances of elder abuse can come in many different and varied forms and this abuse is often severely underreported. The establishment of a stand-alone unit tasked with investigating instances of elder abuse against vulnerable adults is something the opposition believes to have merit. When it comes to the protection of vulnerable adults, we recognise the importance of ensuring we do everything we can to further reduce instances of abuse.

The concept of this unit started with the Joint Committee on Matters Relating to Elder Abuse, which was established by the previous Labor government. The select committee produced a report, tabled in October of last year, which contained a number of recommendations on tackling elder abuse in our community, and much of this has focused on the establishment of a new act and a dedicated unit. In particular, recommendation 4 called on the South Australian government to develop a new South Australian adult protection act, and recommendation 5 called on the government to provide ongoing funding to establish a South Australian elder abuse prevention unit.

We commend the new government for picking up on the recommendations of the committee established under the previous Labor government. Although the opposition supports the overall direction of the bill, we do have some points of clarification that we will tease out during the committee stage, and some amendments will be put into the council for their consideration, which we believe will further improve the operation of the unit in practice.

Before delving into the specific areas of concern the opposition has with the bill, I wanted to note for the council a matter of concern regarding the government's consultation on the bill. During a briefing that was received, we discovered that in their consultation there was one key stakeholder the government overlooked in the process; that is, the Independent Commissioner against Corruption.

The opposition, I am informed, immediately reached out to seek the commissioner's views on the bill. When that was done and the bill run through in detail, there were a number of points of clarification, and I am informed that the shadow minister in another place, who has responsibility for this bill, took the advice and the consideration that was given with that.

I note that the opposition has requested a list of stakeholders who were consulted with on the bill. We are yet to receive this after many weeks of asking, so we cannot comment on the nature of other consultation that may or may not have taken place, but I am confident that in his second reading summing-up, or during the committee stage, the minister responsible will be able to inform us in greater detail of that.

The opposition does have several queries and amendments, which we will delve further into during the committee stage. We are concerned that yet again we are seeing the appearance of a clause attempting to exclude the bill from the typical two-year maximum enactment period under the Acts Interpretation Act. We have seen this clause in several bills put to us by the health minister so far, without a compelling reason why this should be the case. If the government is prepared enough to bring a bill before the parliament and is asking for this chamber, the opposition and crossbench to consider its merits, surely the government should be prepared enough to enact this legislation within what is not an unreasonable two-year time frame.

If the government is not ready to put a scheme into place within two years, perhaps they need to reconsider the amount of background work that has been done on the preparation of the bill and come back at a time when they think they can have a scheme in operation within two years. Introducing a bill to parliament does not equate to delivering on an election promise. There is a lot more that needs to happen in between.

The inclusion of this clause is particularly confusing when we look to the minister's own second reading explanation, where he notes the unit is anticipated to come into operation in early 2019. To exclude the possibility of the bill coming into operation within two years, we do not understand. When we discussed this clause during the briefing, it was noted that the chart and regulations were yet to be developed, and as such it was difficult to determine when this unit would be ready to come into operation. There seems to be a disconnect between what was said in the briefing and the minister's statements in the second reading explanation that it was anticipated in early 2019.

We are also concerned about the lack of clarity when it comes to the independence afforded to the director of the adult safeguarding unit and the delegated officers acting under the director. During the verbal briefing, it was not clear whether the unit was independent. It was something to be worked through. We would say, given the bill is before parliament, we need clarity on that now rather than later. We certainly want to ensure that the director and their delegates can act knowing with confidence that they have full independence from the chief executive and the minister.

Another key concern we have is that the unit is constrained to investigating specific incidents of abuse in isolation rather than possessing the ability to investigate, consider and report on more systemic issues of abuse. When we asked the government about this during the briefing, they clarified that this was an intentional decision, that they did not want to broaden the scope of the unit too much. From the opposition's perspective, if the unit is going to have this amount of oversight over so many individual instances of alleged abuse they should also have the ambit to link those cases and to act accordingly where linkages and trends are found.

The opposition is of the opinion that the unit should possess the ability to provide additional public reports, where they are of the belief that the matter is of public importance, in the spirit of openness and accountability. If this government truly does believe in openness and accountability I think they will see the merits of such amendments. All of the concerns I flagged are those we will be considering in more detail in the committee stage. As I said, the opposition overall supports this bill and recognises the importance of taking these steps forward. I look forward to fleshing out further details during the committee stage.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:10): I rise today to speak in support of the Office for the Ageing (Adult Safeguarding) Amendment Bill, and I commend the Marshall government for its swift action and getting it to this point. I will not repeat much of the same level of detail about this bill as others have in the second reading thus far. Regrettably, it took the revulsion of Oakden to shock authorities both here and interstate into action. We had the damning ICAC report, which indirectly led to a royal commission which will be based in South Australia.

The federal government is yet to work out the terms of reference, but when it does I sincerely hope there are going to be safeguards built in for whistleblowers. The royal commission will undoubtedly bring forward more appalling stories of abuse and neglect in aged and disabled-care facilities, mental institutions and, most likely, even in the homes of vulnerable people. It is particularly pleasing that whistleblower protection is enshrined in this bill. This will empower and encourage care workers and others who are or were witness or privy to the abuse to come forward with impunity.

The bill makes it an offence for anyone trying to prevent another from making a report or attempting to hinder or obstruct them from doing so. It will also be an offence to victimise an informant where they suffer injury, damage or loss, intimidation and harassment, be discriminated, disadvantaged or adversely treated in their work and threats of reprisal. Furthermore, there are important safeguards. There are protections, immunities and legal privileges, including being able to refuse to answer questions or produce documents if they may incriminate them.

The safeguarding unit will work with other regulatory and enforcement bodies to respond to reports of abuse. However, this needs to happen in a timely manner, not be allowed to drag on to the detriment of the victims of the loved ones. However, I can foresee problems with getting consent from vulnerable persons with a decision-making capacity before any action is taken by the unit. While they may seem to be capable or sensible enough to make that decision, people can be beguiled either by family members caught in acrimonious divisions or come under the influence of opportunistic carers. I have only recently met with constituents caught up in that type of situation, who are left powerless to act.

As a journalist, I documented many cases like this. Twenty years ago, I investigated horrendous abuse in a large nursing home in the eastern suburbs. The contact came from distraught family members, usually at the behest of some brave staff who needed to remain anonymous because they were in genuine fear of retribution not just from the place where they worked but also from their employment agency. Exposing wrongdoing is difficult to tell without evidence. I had to deploy staff and family members with hidden cameras, crude and lacking the technology available today, to capture the footage that revealed abject neglect and cruelty which was beyond my comprehension.

Dementia patients unable to eat, choking on food, poor standards of basic care and despairing elderly people crying out in the middle of the night because they were left freezing cold after management turned off air conditioning to save on heating, and then locking the controls so they could not be turned back on. There was no love in this hellhole that was run for profit and not for the wellbeing of seniors in their last years. It took a six-month court battle to defeat an injunction and finally broadcast that story nationwide on the Seven Network's Today Tonight. Sure, there was the usual hue and cry for a while. The Howard government beefed up compliance inspections, which were essentially useless because they were pre-empted with advance warnings.

Sadly, public and media interest in the aged-care sector tends to ebb and flow depending on the extent of the next scandal. Only two years ago, I reported on a tragic case where a 58-year-old resident with Down syndrome had to be rescued or, to put it bluntly, abducted by her Adelaide-based uncle from neglect in one of Sydney's biggest care facilities. Nicky was in such a frail state from a lack of proper nutrition that one worried staff member called the family, urging them to remove her. There was also alleged financial abuse in Nicky's case, where staff, acting as her carers, took her on unnecessary expensive exotic holidays that they seemed to enjoy more than Nicky. Her uncle informs me that Nicky could not be in a better emotional and physical state in her new surroundings in Adelaide. He happily said, metaphorically, 'It's like she died and went to heaven.'

I think it is shameful that in 2018 we are still revisiting this type of abuse and the absence of acceptable quality standards. The cover-ups will continue unless government authorities do what they promise: take charge and take firm control. Thankfully, the advent of sophisticated communications technology like smart phones make it much easier to quickly and instantly gather the necessary evidence to assist investigations. I am predicting that one of the cornerstone recommendations of the coming royal commission will be the mandatory installation of CCTV cameras in all communal areas in care facilities. But it needs to go a lot further and South Australia has an opportunity to lead the nation on this.

After consulting with people like Stewart Johnston of the Oakden residents' action group; Noleen Hausler, who had to resort to using hidden cameras to capture a staff member brutally abusing her father; and aged-care advocates, SA-Best is now drafting a bill for CCTV in communal areas and an opt-in measure in individual rooms. Any fears that people and operators of care facilities may have about this initiative can be dispelled with the advent of a stunning new camera system known as Care Protect that is currently in use in the UK.

We were given a demonstration of the system at Parliament House yesterday by Priory health care and Care Protect's managing director, Philip Scott. I can say that it has the overwhelming endorsement of Mr Johnston, Ms Hausler, representatives from aged-care reform and advocate for the aged, Mr Ian Henschke. The Minister for Health and Wellbeing, the Hon. Stephen Wade, was also present for part of the presentation, and I could see that he too was impressed and plans to follow it up. This is cutting edge 24/7 monitoring done by an independent third party using trained observers, qualified nurses and social workers with full security clearances to monitor and document activities of staff and residents, incidents and performance in care facilities and hospitals.

Another advantage is to deter and detect criminal activity, with the information collected used in investigations and any subsequent prosecutions. Monthly reports to care providers, as well as families of loved ones, are provided. The system puts personal safety and the wellbeing of adults first. It has the capacity to create instant alerts to the facility if there is a risk to the wellbeing of a patient in the event of a serious or life-threatening incident, and provides details.

Cameras would be active and in permanent use in all communal areas. In resident bedrooms the cameras will only be activated where the resident has provided the necessary consent or where a resident is deemed to be unable to consent and it has been decided that it is in the resident's best interests. The cameras can be programmed with what is known as virtual motion windows, which will only record where there is an audio or visual image to the room which is above the usual setting, like someone experiencing a fall or crying out. Recorded events are reviewed by Care Protect off site.

One of the concerns often cited about CCTV cameras is privacy. The system can apply redaction windows or thermal imaging in specific areas of the camera's view that will block out personal care situations like bathing and changing. There is also an ability for family members to be able to log in to check on a resident's wellbeing; however, this is restricted to about three minutes. Recordings will be deleted after a maximum of 90 days unless, of course, they are required for any review. The collected data has a high level of data security and is unable to be accessed by the provider.

Mr Scott also reported on another coming innovation to the system: Fitbit bracelets which, when worn by residents or patients, can provide vital information about a person's state of hydration. Dehydration and nutrition deficiencies are the main causes of admissions of aged persons in hospitals in the UK and most likely here, too. In the four years these systems have been used in the UK, Mr Scott claims there has been a 24 per cent reduction in safeguarding incidents like falls, and facilities have obtained acceptable key performance indicators. He says they highlight good and poor practices and, where they have been installed, monitoring has changed the culture and improved care.

So to the costs. Well, it is not as expensive as many might think. Care Protect pay for the equipment and installation; the monitoring costs the facility and/or the resident just $20 a week plus GST. For a 100-bed care provider it would be around $104,000 a year. Care Protect says it now has legal opinion which supports its system in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and now South Australia, where it will not infringe privacy laws provided consent has been obtained from individual residents being recorded in private areas.

Every second person in Australia will end up in residential care. That is a staggering figure. The average age of entering an aged-care home is around 84. The latest data suggests that almost two-thirds of people in aged care have some form of dementia, and the mortality rate is around 30 per cent per year. So we are talking about end-of-life care when people are at their frailest and most vulnerable. The picture is of someone who is no longer able to look after themselves at home, or their family or partner can no longer look after them. If they are in their mid-80s they are more than likely to have dementia and, on average, to die within three years of entering the home.

To encourage technology which costs $20 a week which can help monitor their care and wellbeing is a small price to pay. In fact, caring for them better will keep them out of the hospital system by helping put an end to preventable falls and other health-related incidents, resulting in significant savings to the health budget.

This technology is world's best practice in the care of aged and vulnerable adults. Had it been available we may never have had the horrendous Oakden situation that left families of residents devastated, like Mr Johnston, Barbara Spriggs, Deanna Stojanovic, Patrina Cole, Rina Serpo and her daughter Alma Krecu. It would have stopped the violent abuse of Noleen Hausler's father, instead of Noleen having to do the detective work herself to get justice. It would have sounded the alarm sooner for Nicky's family in another state, and it would have avoided the totally preventable, gruesome death of Dorothy Baum at the hands of a dementia patient and the attempted cover-up by some staff at the St Basil's Aegean Village nursing home in 2012. Perhaps we may not have even needed a royal commission. We support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (16:25): I would like to sum up the debate, and in doing so I thank honourable members for their contributions. Sadly, one in 20 older Australians experience some form of abuse, often by someone they know and trust. 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 or neglect and are left to navigate complex systems alone. The complex nature of abuse means there is no one-size-fits-all response, with potential responses ranging from a person just needing information, advice and follow-up through to the coordination of a number of services to effectively support the person.

In the shadow of Oakden, the Marshall government made an election commitment to introduce legislation to safeguard the rights of vulnerable adults within our first 100 days of forming government. This bill fulfils a recommendation of the 2011 Closing the Gaps report into elder abuse. The report's author was Professor Wendy Lacey, Dean and Head of School of Law, University of South Australia.

The government worked closely with Professor Lacey in developing the Office for the Ageing (Adult Safeguarding) Amendment Bill to establish an adult safeguarding unit within the Office for the Ageing within the Department for Health and Wellbeing. This bill also provides that the name of the Office for the Ageing will be changed to the 'office of ageing well', in line with the government's commitment to challenging ageism and supporting all South Australians to age well.

As a member of the Joint Committee on Matters Relating to Elder Abuse, I beg to differ with the Leader of the Opposition's interpretation of history with regard to the committee being the genesis of this bill. I remind the honourable Leader of the Opposition that the former Labor government received the Closing the Gaps report in 2011. A clear recommendation of that report was the introduction of legislation in relation to vulnerable adults.

In June 2017, the Australian Law Reform Commission urged legislation such as this. It was not until October 2017 that the Joint Committee on Matters Relating to Elder Abuse reported. The fact of the matter is that if the former Labor government had taken up the recommendations of the 2011 Closing the Gaps report on elder abuse, there would have been less likelihood that the Oakden saga would have reached the level it did.

Prior to its introduction in the parliament, the Office for the Ageing undertook a targeted consultation process on the draft bill with a range of state and commonwealth government agencies with an interest in this area, as well as key community organisations. People involved in the Oakden Response Plan Oversight Committee and those affected as friends and carers in relation to Oakden were also consulted.

With the events of Oakden and the topic of elder abuse more broadly still prominent in the media and public consciousness, the South Australian community wants an adult safeguarding unit that is empowered, accountable and transparent but also approachable. We know that people are often hesitant to report elder abuse, especially when the perpetrator is a family member. This is because, in many cases, the vulnerable adult does not necessarily want to see the perpetrator punished; they just want the abuse to stop, while preserving the relationships that are important to them.

This bill provides for an adult safeguarding unit—an agency that is empowered with the ability to investigate and pursue matters, whose role is to walk alongside a vulnerable adult and their supporters and work together to help them navigate complex systems, understand their options and put in place the support the vulnerable adult wants and needs.

The intent is to safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse and to support them to live their lives free from abuse or exploitation. The bill does this by taking a consistent rights-based approach, which places the vulnerable adult at the centre of any safeguarding measures, actions or interventions. Under this legislation the adult safeguarding unit will have a statutory responsibility and accountability for responding to reports of vulnerable adults, whether these reports are about abuse happening in the community, in an aged-care facility or some other place. Anyone with concerns or suspicions about abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult will be able to report their concerns to the adult safeguarding unit, whether they are family, friends, service providers or the person themselves.

The bill, however, does not require a person to make a report against the express wishes of the vulnerable adult. Securing consent before making a report or undertaking an investigation is important in respecting the vulnerable adult's autonomy and self-determination, and this importance is widely supported by stakeholders. It is important to ensure that the community meets the expectation that, as adults, we all have the right to make our own decisions, even if these decisions are considered by others to be wrong or risky. Just because an adult is vulnerable for some reason does not mean they lose their right to self-determination and to live their life as they choose.

The practical challenges of obtaining consent, creating opportunities for a vulnerable adult to freely express their wishes, responding to the needs of vulnerable adults who need support with decision-making, and how this will be operationalised as part of the day-to-day work of the unit, will be addressed in the code of practice, which will be developed in consultation with key stakeholders and guided by best practice examples.

The bill deliberately sets a high threshold for acting without the consent of the vulnerable adult, that is, that the person is at immediate risk to life or physical safety. The guiding principle is that a vulnerable adult with decision-making capacity who is experiencing abuse has the right to decline support, assistance or other measures designed to safeguard them from abuse.

Mandatory reporting for adult safeguarding in the community is not supported for these reasons. It also raises a number of other issues, including an increase in required resources to cope with demand; additional training for the health, aged care, legal and financial sector workforce so that they can understand their legal obligations; and an increased stigma further driving abuse behind closed doors.

However, once a report of actual or suspected abuse is made to the adult safeguarding unit, the bill creates an obligation for the unit to assess this report and then take specified action; that is, a mandatory response is required. This is consistent with the recommendation in the Closing the Gaps report. The bill provides that, when a report of alleged or suspected abuse is received, the director of the adult safeguarding unit must assess the report and then 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, in a small number of circumstances, decline to take further action.

Authorised officers within the unit will be empowered with a range of information-gathering powers to enable them to effectively investigate reports of serious abuse, such as the power to require a person to answer questions and produce documents. These investigatory powers are in line with the Australian Law Reform Commission's recommendation and are similar to the powers conferred on authorised officers by other legislation.

The Office for the Ageing is gathering information from a range of other government authorities with investigative powers, including police, child protection and the retirement villages unit, to guide the development of clear protocols around how investigations will be conducted. Key to this will be balancing functional effectiveness of the investigation, whilst ensuring that the powers are used appropriately and not misused, and still maintaining the rights and wishes of the vulnerable adult as the core consideration.

Where this report relates to a residential aged-care facility, as was the case with Oakden, the unit will work in collaboration with other agencies, including the commonwealth Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, to respond to the concerns in a way that puts the vulnerable adult at the centre. Whilst the investigation into the matter might rightly be referred to another agency, the adult safeguarding unit will have the power to follow up on what happened to that referral, to receive a report on how the matter was dealt with by that other agency, to talk to the vulnerable adult and any other person or organisation to ensure that appropriate action has been taken, and to liaise with other organisations, such as the Aged Rights Advocacy Service, that can assist the vulnerable adult with advocacy support in their dealings with a residential aged-care facility.

It is important to note that the intention of the adult safeguarding unit is to be an individual support agency, to investigate current individual cases of suspected abuse of a vulnerable adult and to walk alongside that person to ensure that they understand their options and receive the support they require through the development of a safeguarding plan. The unit is not intended to be a watchdog agency nor duplicate the functions of other agencies. It is also not within the remit of the unit to punish perpetrators. Where the circumstances require such steps the unit will have the power to refer matters to other appropriate agencies such as the police, the Ombudsman or the commonwealth Aged Care Complaints Commissioner on a case-by-case basis.

Instead, a key role of the unit will be to investigate the circumstances around a particular report of suspected or actual abuse and then work collaboratively with other relevant organisations to support the referral of clients between services or coordinate a multiagency response, multidisciplinary safeguarding plan, as agreed with the vulnerable adult. By adopting such an approach to case management the unit will be responsible for ensuring that early intervention can occur, ensuring that abuse does not escalate and that serious cases can be responded to in a timely and coordinated manner.

A key focus of the unit will be on awareness raising and education and it is expected that this will build on the existing work of the office for ageing well, the Department of Human Services and the Mental Health Commission. The unit will use trusted networks, community groups, social media and other forms of media to share information about rights and strategies, to stay informed, independent and connected. All are important protective factors from abuse. Discussions are currently underway with relevant parts of government to work together on a coordinated approach to this work.

The bill provides for the development of a comprehensive code of practice which will be developed in consultation with key stakeholders across government, non-government and the community. The purpose of the code is to outline in a detailed and practical way how the act is to be implemented and how the service model for the unit will operate. In particular, it will set out how the various organisations will work together in a way that does not duplicate effort nor create excessive burden but maximises the vulnerable adult's right to autonomy and self-determination.

An adult safeguarding advisory group and implementation working group are being convened to provide advice on the establishment and operationalisation of the unit and to guide the development of the code of practice in alignment with international best practice examples. These groups will be made up of senior representatives from a range of government and non-government organisations across the ageing, mental health and disability sectors. A charter of the rights and freedoms of vulnerable adults will also be developed to ensure that the rights-based approach informs the operation of the act and the adult safeguarding unit.

It is anticipated that the charter, which will be developed in consultation with vulnerable adults, their carers and families, will be an adaptation of the South Australian Charter of the Rights and Freedoms of Older People, which was designed and developed in response to the Closing the Gaps report. Given that the Oakden Older Persons Mental Health Service was an SA Health facility and that SA Health may be the subject of future reports, transparency and accountability of decision-making was a key consideration in the drafting of the bill. Locating the unit within the Department for Health and Wellbeing provides a clear reporting line between the unit, the chief executive, SA Health and the Minister for Health and Wellbeing, enabling the director to quickly brief up if abuse is reported to be occurring within an SA Health facility or by an SA Health employee.

This bill includes the statutory right of review of decisions of the unit or the director made in relation to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults by the chief executive of SA Health and, as a secondary step in cases of serious abuse, to the Ombudsman. This further ensures that the unit is acting appropriately and responsibly to reports received. These additional checks and balances will work to strengthen our response to elder abuse by providing a place where vulnerable adults can have their voices heard, where their concerns will be responded to and where issues can be followed up to ensure that matters raised have been acted on appropriately, both by the unit and other agencies.

The operation of the act will also be independently reviewed within its first three years of operation to ensure that it is meeting the needs and expectations of the South Australian community. This bill is the first of its kind in Australia. This bill is an important milestone for South Australia and I trust it will lead the way for adult safeguarding reform across the nation.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My question to the minister is: why did the government not think to consult the ICAC commissioner regarding this bill?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The bill supports the role of the Office for Public Integrity and the obligation on all public officers to report conduct that they reasonably suspect raises a potential issue of corruption, misconduct or maladministration of that office. In particular, section 6, which relates to the interaction with the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012, provides that:

Nothing in this Act limits the operation of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012.

As all staff of the unit will be public sector employees, they will be subject to the obligations to report reasonable suspicions of corruption, misconduct or maladministration under public sector conditions of employment, including the obligations set out in the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012.

The commissioner has subsequently provided feedback on the bill and will be invited to participate in the development of the regulations and code of practice for the unit. The regulations and code of practice will set out how the legislation and the unit will operate in practice, including criteria for referring matters to relevant agencies.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My question to the minister is: when did the government then seek the views of the ICAC commissioner? Was it before or after the opposition received a briefing on the bill?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am told that the engagement of the ICAC—or presumably ICAC and the Office for Public Integrity—occurred after the briefing with the opposition. The initial targeted consultation with stakeholders was targeted on agencies with a focus on elder abuse. The vulnerable adults unit is primarily focused on supporting individual adults. It is not about maladministration and it is not a monitoring agency. The ICAC commissioner was not identified as a relevant stakeholder in that stage of the consultation phase. I would stress that the provision that I have referred to initially was in the bill, as tabled. The ICAC/OPI has expressed no concerns with the bill that is before the parliament.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am just wondering if the minister can elaborate. The minister made much, in his second reading summing-up speech, about what has been uncovered through inquiries that the ICAC has made in relation to instances of abuse against elder or vulnerable adults, particularly at Oakden. If the minister was genuine about the concerns raised there, is he telling us that he did not turn his mind at all to the ICAC commissioner or the ICAC at all being consulted until the opposition raised it in a briefing? Is that what the minister is telling the chamber?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Can I just make it clear that the consultation was managed by officers and I think the targeted consultation, which focused on agencies that were active in the elder abuse alliance and beyond, was appropriate. Of course, the bill is tabled for broader consultation and we welcome the ICAC commissioner's input.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Who are the stakeholders that the minister thought of consulting without having to be suggested by the opposition?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: First of all, I will take the opportunity to again pay tribute to Professor Wendy Lacey, the Dean and Head of the law school at the University of South Australia. I think it is important, as a matter of record, to acknowledge the steadfast work of Professor Lacey in promoting vulnerable adults legislation. Her Closing the Gaps report of 2011 has not only been influential within this state, but, I know, beyond this state.

In terms of what has happened since 2011, during May 2018, the Office for the Ageing undertook a targeted consultation process on the bill with a range of state and commonwealth government agencies with an interest in this area, as well as key community organisations. The consultation process included an information forum where stakeholders from across government had an opportunity to hear from Professor Lacey on key issues related to the bill, as well as a number of one-on-one meetings with Professor Lacey and Office for the Ageing staff.

People involved in the Oakden Response Plan Oversight Committee and people affected as family, friends and carers in relation to Oakden were also consulted on the draft bill. Feedback on the draft bill was received from entities such as the Attorney-General's Department, SA Police, the Ombudsman SA, the commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, the commonwealth Department of Health, the Office for Data Analytics, Housing SA, the Legal Services Commission, the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the Office of the Public Advocate, the Public Trustee, the disability policy unit in the Department of Human Services, Domiciliary Care, the Crown Solicitor's Office, the Courts Administration Authority, the Office for Women, the Department of Treasury and Finance, Cabinet Office, the Aged Rights Advocacy Service and the Council on the Ageing South Australia (COTA SA).

Overall, our stakeholders were overwhelmingly in support of legislative change that recognises the need to safeguard the rights of vulnerable adults who are experiencing or are at risk of abuse and neglect and responded positively to the draft bill presented. In particular, stakeholders were supportive of the rights-based approach underlying the bill and of the human rights principles guiding its operation.

Support was also given to the establishment of an adult safeguarding unit within the office for ageing well and to the voluntary reporting mandatory response approach proposed. Much of the specific feedback provided on the draft bill was able to be either incorporated in the final version that is now before the parliament, or collated into a list of matters relating to the implementation of the act, which can be addressed in either the regulations or the code of practice.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I take it that the minister correctly answered my questions and was not misleading the council again, and that this was the list of organisations that were consulted with before the briefing with the government. If that is the case, can the minister explain why, for example, he thought it was more important that the Courts Administration Authority was consulted with than OPI or ICAC?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I make the point again that as minister I did not personally direct the consultation, but it makes eminent sense that my officers would have consulted the Courts Administration Authority, considering that the bill itself—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, you are interfering with the minister trying to answer your own question, and you are also interfering with my ability to listen to the minister.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The bill itself provides for court orders. It only makes sense that my officers engaged the Courts Administration Authority on the implementation of the bill, considering it related to court orders.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will not labour the point anymore. The bill does actually also provide to the interaction with ICAC, but that was not thought by the minister important, be that as it may. In correspondence—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have not finished asking my question. In correspondence, the AMA—

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, complete your statement and then, minister, you can speak.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Thank you, Mr President. The AMA queried, I believe, in correspondence, whether other countries' models were considered, to ensure the unit would be in accordance with the best practice or evidence-based policy. My question is: what other countries' experiences were relied upon in the formation of the bill?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If the honourable member had consulted the Closing the Gaps report, considering how often I have referenced the Closing the Gaps report, he would realise that Professor Lacey's treatise, for want of a better word, specifically focuses on the models in British Columbia and Scotland. There is an officer of SA Health, from the Office for the Ageing, currently in North America, specifically looking at overseas models. To be frank, considering that this is the first piece of such legislation in Australia, we can only look overseas for models.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to confirm, I think the minister referenced British Columbia and Scotland. Were they the only two jurisdictions that were looked at and analysed?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It is one of the challenges of being pioneering that there are not that many models to look at. From my recollection, I persistently hear talk about Britain, Scotland and some other UK jurisdictions, but the fact of the matter is that in pioneering legislation we draw on what we can from other jurisdictions, but in pioneering situations you also need to blaze a few trails. To put it explicitly, being the first Australian jurisdiction to have a vulnerable adults legislation, we are the first to tackle the idiosyncrasies of such legislation in the Australian context.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If I can ask the minister about a comment he made earlier. Did I hear correctly that there is an officer of his department based somewhere overseas specifically looking at this issue of adult safeguarding?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I indicated earlier, an officer from the Office for the Ageing—as it currently is, and hopefully after the passage of this bill it will be the office for ageing well—is in North America at the moment. It is not the sole purpose for her trip, but it is part of her trip. She will be specifically speaking to officers in the government of British Columbia about the issues that SA Health will need to consider as it operationalises the bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to be clear, the minister has an officer from somewhere in his department overseas at the moment, and part of the reason they are overseas is to investigate how these schemes operate, yet we are debating a bill right now before we know the results of those investigations from the overseas travels. Did the minister personally authorise that overseas travel for that officer?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It demonstrates that the Labor Party seems to be determined to demonstrate its naysayer approach to this legislation. They failed to act on a report that they themselves were part of commissioning. My understanding is that the Closing the Gaps report in 2011 was at least partly commissioned by the government of South Australia, yet over the seven years since this parliament has waited in vain for legislative action. If the honourable member is serious in suggesting that I should withdraw this bill and wait until my officer comes back to see if adult safeguarding is a good idea, then it completely casts a pall over his so-called support for this bill.

We are relying on the Closing the Gaps report of 2011, the Australian Law Reform Commission report of 2017 and the Joint Committee on Matters Relating to Elder Abuse to know that this is not just a good idea: it is a moral imperative. We make no apologies for taking the opportunity to learn what we can, to do the best job we can and implement what is a very important piece of legislation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for his answer, but he did not answer a significant part of that question. Did the minister personally authorise the overseas travel of the officer involved, who is investigating the issues that we are debating today?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I did not personally organise the travel.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Did you sign off on it?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not sign off on officers' travel before it occurs. I am provided with overseas travel reports in relation to officers in different parts of SA Health.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to be clear, because I think the minister has had some problems recently with being clear to this chamber, the minister at no stage before the travel has to authorise officers to travel overseas?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that overseas travel is authorised by the chief executive. The fact of the matter is that I welcome the fact that this officer is taking the opportunity to learn more about what we will need to do to effectively implement this legislation.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: During the second reading debate, minister, you indicated a key focus of the unit will be on the prevention of abuse through raising awareness and community education. Can you inform us about what that campaign is likely to look like? For instance, will the unit have its own office? Will there be a website? How will we target interest groups? When is that campaign likely to commence?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable member for her question. It is proposed that awareness raising and education will build on the existing work developed by the office for ageing well, Department of Human Services and the Mental Health Commission. It will use trusted networks, community groups, social media and other forms of media to share information about rights and strategies to stay informed, independent and connected, all of which are important protective factors from abuse. Discussions are underway with the relevant parts of government to work together on a coordinated approach to this work. There is also a small budget to raise awareness about the work of the unit, how to make contact and what to expect.

There is a strong foundation for the unit to build on to raise awareness of safeguarding vulnerable adults through the range of resources, programs and partnerships currently funded by the Office for the Ageing to safeguard older people's rights and prevent elder abuse. This includes the 'stop elder abuse' media campaign and educational resources, which is on our bus stops as we speak, and the statewide abuse prevention, education, support and information program provided through the Aged Rights Advocacy Service. The office for ageing well will be well placed to garner support from its range of government and non-government partners to assist in raising community awareness of the role of the unit.

The Office for the Ageing is also currently negotiating with commonwealth and statewide collaborative projects to explore what role they may have in supporting the work, awareness-raising and education role of the unit. I think it is important to stress that it will not be two different silos in the unit. A key part of walking alongside a vulnerable adult to support them to deal with abuse is to provide them information: information to know what abuse is, information to recognise abuse when they see it and information that provides them options in how they might respond. That is an important part of developing trust so that people do not feel as though they will lose control of their own situation.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Following on from that, the minister indicated that there would be a small budget to deal with some of those issues. Do we know what that budget will be?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think it is important to make the point, first of all, that the office for ageing well will continue to have responsibility for awareness but, in relation to this unit, I am advised that the advertising budget for 2018-19 is estimated to be $40,000 and communications $10,000.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: On the budget issues, I understand the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists have stressed the need for a unit like this to be well resourced and that mandatory reporting responses are likely to fail when they are not properly resourced. I know the minister has just quoted some numbers, but where are the figures in the budget papers; and, over the forward estimates, exactly how much has been set aside specifically for the changes being detailed here?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the leader for his question and I advise that the 2018-19 state budget provides $538,000 in 2018, growing to around $756,000 per annum from 2021, for the establishment of a new adult safeguarding unit. An additional $100,000 will be reallocated from the existing SA Health budget in 2018-19 towards the establishment of the new unit.

Whilst actual demand on the resources of the adult safeguarding unit is currently untested, we have estimated costs based on a phased commencement of the act and the potential for increasing demand. In 2018-19, the following public sector employees will be recruited to establish the adult safeguarding unit: a principal project officer, a chief adult safeguarding practitioner, a senior social worker, an investigator and an administration officer.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The minister said a phased commencement of the act. If there is a plan already in place that phases in how the act operates, what are the parts that will come in last?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable member for his question. There are two key phase-in elements. The first is that the review provisions will not apply for the first 12 months. Secondly, it will only apply to people under the age of 65 after three years of operation. In particular, that would be relevant to people living with disability.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: During the second reading debate I think I flagged some questions—and this is not the position that we have adopted, but I just flagged it—as to whether a mandatory reporting scheme in relation to serious physical or sexual abuse or neglect was something that was on the government's radar. This would be limited to abuse that is at the higher end of the spectrum, so it would have to be serious abuse or neglect. Can the minister provide any details as to whether that has been taken into consideration?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable member for her question. This issue is very important so, if you do not mind bearing with me, I will give a fulsome answer. The bill's intent is to safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse, to support their right to live their lives free from abuse or exploitation and to uphold their right to autonomy and self-determination. Anyone with concerns or suspicions about abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult can report their concerns to the safeguarding unit, whether they are family, friends, service providers or the person themself.

However, the bill does not require a person to make a report against the express wishes of the vulnerable adult. The bill and the role of the safeguarding unit is to support and uphold the human rights of vulnerable adults. Securing consent before making a report or undertaking an investigation is one way of respecting that person's human rights, particularly their right to autonomy and self-determination. Taking action against an adult's express wishes compromises these basic human rights.

I might pause at that point to stress that both the Closing the Gaps report and the Australian Law Reform Commission report support voluntary reporting. It is important to ensure that the bill meets the community expectation that adults have the right to make their own decisions, even if those decisions are considered by others to be wrong or risky. Just because an adult is vulnerable for some reason does not mean they lose their right to self-determination and to live their lives as they choose. The importance of this was widely supported by stakeholders.

Having said that, there is provision in the act for acting without the consent of the person, but that is limited to the immediate risk to life or physical safety. I am aware that there are some provisions in commonwealth residential aged-care facilities which require mandatory reporting in specified circumstances below that threshold. However, I indicate that those provisions are not without controversy.

I think it is very important to appreciate that if a person does not have the capacity to say whether they want their particular issue to be pursued, you run the risk that people will actually avoid contacting the unit because they feel they might lose control. We are acting in line with the guiding principle that:

(f) a vulnerable adult with decision-making capacity who is experiencing abuse has the right to decline support, assistance or other measures designed to safeguard them from abuse;

I think it is very important to stress that this is a voluntary reporting/mandatory response regime. Once a report of actual or suspected abuse is made to the unit, the bill creates an obligation for the adult safeguarding unit to assess the report and then take specified action; that is, a mandatory response is required. As I mentioned earlier, this is consistent with the recommendations in the Closing the Gaps report.

The bill provides that the consent of the affected adult must be obtained before the adult safeguarding unit investigates reports of abuse or takes any other action, except in a small number of exceptional circumstances. It is expected that the first step for the unit will be to speak with the vulnerable adult about their situation, where possible.

Mandatory reporting for adult safeguarding in the community is not supported for these reasons. It also raises a number of issues, including an increase in the required resources to cope with demand; additional training for the health, aged-care, legal and financial sector workforce so that they can understand their obligations; and increased stigma, further driving abuse behind closed doors. As has been mentioned earlier in the committee stage, British Columbia, a province of Canada, has similar legislation; however, there are no mandatory requirements.

The act sets out a number of guiding principles similar to those contained in this bill, particularly that all adults are entitled to live in the manner they wish and to accept or refuse safeguarding support. The Scottish act is focused on safeguarding the rights of adults unable to safeguard their own rights. There is not one central unit; rather, responsibility to respond to reports rests with local councils.

A review of the act is required after three years of operation. By this time, demand on the unit will be known. Mandatory reporting could be considered as part of this review process. It will be critical to ensure that the community's views on mandatory reporting are canvassed and that the experience of three years of operation are taken into account. On the basis of the best models available to us, and consistent with the advice of stakeholders in consultation, we believe it is most appropriate to maintain a voluntary reporting regime.

By way of postscript, I would mention that people might have mandatory reporting duties under all sorts of other legislation. In particular, the two that come to mind are legislation pertaining to health professionals under the AHPRA framework, and also obligations on people in relation to residential aged care.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I appreciate that very detailed response from the minister. Often one of the criticisms we hear in this place is that the loved ones of those who are subjected to other assessments find it very difficult to either be involved in that process or to receive a fair hearing during those processes, insofar as there are issues raised with them about vulnerable people.

I am assuming that that will be covered under this. If we are having an assessment being undertaken in relation to someone who is deemed to be a vulnerable person, then the family and/or friends and loved ones of that person are equally able to participate in that assessment because, as you said, people have a right to self-determination and there may be things that agencies, departments or units do not consider appropriate, but that individual deems fit for themselves. That is an important point that needs to be clarified.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable member for highlighting what is a very important point. Vulnerable adults will be more vulnerable if they are isolated from networks of social support, whether that is family, friends, community organisations and the like. It is important to stress that families and friends are expected to play a key role in the operation of this legislation, significantly in relation to reports. Anybody can make a report; it is whether or not that report is pursued through assessment and investigation that the consent of the person becomes an issue for the unit.

So the families and friends can be involved in reporting. You would also expect that they would be actively engaged in the assessment and investigation phase. Often families and friends will be able to provide validation, a better understanding of the wider context, and every individual is different, every situation is different. The way a particular cultural family interaction might take place might be seen as abuse by somebody from the unit, but understanding it, discussing it with their families and friends, and the vulnerable person, can give the unit a more fulsome understanding.

The next stage where families and friends are likely to be very important is, as we leave the assessment investigation phase and develop a multiagency response, moving towards a safeguarding plan, you would expect that families and friends would be actively engaged in developing a safeguarding plan.

As the Hon. Frank Pangallo mentioned in his second reading speech, CCTV is seen by many stakeholders as a key way for families and friends to, if you like, be with their loved one inside a residential aged-care facility and, whether the vulnerable adult is in a residential aged-care facility or beyond, families and friends will be an important phase, whether it is keeping an eye on their loved one, reporting abuse that they suspect or are aware of, being part of the assessment and investigation phase, or the implementation of a safeguarding plan. It is certainly intended that the vulnerable adult would be respected in their social context.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In relation to that same point, individuals who find themselves in this situation, or their families, often access respite facilities. One of the concerns that I have personally is that those respite facilities are not geared towards looking after young people with serious health issues. The options available to a young person in their 20s or 30s are either aged-care facilities or somewhere for people with, for instance, learning disabilities.

I know Minda provides those services as well but they are not geared towards dealing with individuals who simply have health issues. Is this something that the minister and, indeed, the government is willing to look into further with a view to ensuring that we do have suitable beds for those people who are young and still relatively fit, or whatever the case may be? There is nowhere where they fit at the moment. So that is something that we need to explore. Is that something that this government is open to exploring?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable member for her question. Certainly, the government is aware and the response is primarily a response for the Minister for Human Services, being the minister responsible for disability services. However, I think it would be fair to say that the disability sector in South Australia is acutely aware of this issue. I know of a lot of work done by Purple Orange, the Julia Farr Association, to try to keep an eye on this group.

In terms of how this legislation will impact on respite facilities, the first point I would make is that the legislation applies no matter where you are, whether you are in a registered or unregistered aged-care facility, whether you are in a respite facility, or in the community, the unit, through the legislation, is empowered to walk alongside any South Australian. In terms of a young person with serious health problems in a respite facility, for the first three years they will not be able to apply. In that transition phase it is not available for young people—people under the age of 65. I am glad that I have just put myself in the young people's category.

However, Icertainly acknowledge the issue. The government, through the Minister for Human Services and her officers, is aware of the issue. As this bill matures through the effluxion of time, if nothing else, it will also be able to provide some support to people in that situation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: On that point, what is the rationale behind this scheme being operational, the adult safeguarding scheme, in the Office for the Ageing bill? Were there no other bills that were suitable? I might expand on that to help the minister. Was consideration given to placing it in another bill? Stakeholders have raised with the opposition concerns that by placing this bill within that act and the unit under ageing it leaves the possible impression that vulnerable adults are constrained solely to older persons, which we know is not the case. Why not a stand-alone act or another act so that it does not create the impression that it is only aged people who are vulnerable?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable member for his point, and his point well made. I think it is very important that, when we legislate on vulnerable adults and when we engage with South Australians about this bill, we do not inadvertently reinforce ageism which says that every older person is vulnerable and needy. Considering that under some state government legislation I am already aged, we need to make sure that we have a community that allows people to live to the full and that we should not assume that every older person is vulnerable.

The honourable member raises a very legitimate question: why is the adult safeguarding unit being located within the office for ageing well? What other options did the government consider? The government has chosen to establish the adult safeguarding unit as a function of the new office for ageing well primarily because it enables coordination with the continuum of responses to elder abuse that unit already provides, including statewide policy development, awareness raising, including across culturally and linguistically diverse groups, workforce training and other policy initiatives.

A core function of the current Office for the Ageing is the implementation of the strategy to safeguard the rights of older South Australians. The office currently undertakes a significant program of work in the area of elder abuse awareness, prevention and response. This aligns well to the new adult safeguarding unit's focus on early intervention and the supporting and empowerment of vulnerable adults to age well through awareness raising and community education.

The adult safeguarding unit's other key functions of coordination, monitoring and, where necessary, investigation are also complementary to the statewide investigation and mediation functions undertaken by the Office for the Ageing through the administration of the Retirement Villages Act and the statewide service coordination and referral functions for older South Australians seeking aged care through the office's role in administering the statewide aged-care assessment program and advising on aged-care reform. I just pause to make the point that, in that sense, the Office for the Ageing already has a piece of legislation that reaches below the age of 65, because the Retirement Villages Act applies to any South Australian over the age of 55.

The other point the officer quite rightly makes is that the Office for the Ageing does not itself have an age limit. After all—I am sure there is a quotable quote here but I do not know it—we are all ageing from the day we are born. Acknowledging the honourable member's interest and passion for Aboriginal people, there is recognition in a number of pieces of legislation and policies that Aboriginal Australians may well be experiencing elements of ageing at an earlier age than other Australians. In that sense, the office for ageing well supports all South Australians to age well at whatever stage they are in their journey.

In terms of alternatives, the Office of the Public Advocate was an alternative considered. However, this option was not preferred due to the potential conflict of interest that may be created in instances where the Office of the Public Advocate is required to act as both advocate and investigator and the perception that locating the unit in the Office of the Public Advocate may undermine the independence of that office in advocating for persons with limited capacity. Locating the new adult safeguarding unit within the Office of the Public Advocate would also complicate the governance arrangements with crossing over of responsibilities between departments and ministers. Premier Marshall has a clear preference that we maintain clear lines of accountability.

The Aged Rights Advocacy Service undertakes significant work in promoting elder abuse awareness and prevention, but it was not considered as a potential location for the new adult safeguarding unit, as the Closing the Gaps report recommended that the power to coordinate a multiagency response in cases of actual or suspected abuse should be located within government.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his response to that question. Another question in particular comes from a concern that was raised by COTA about the reviewability of the work of the unit. Can the minister confirm that the unit is reviewable by statutory officers such as the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner and the Ombudsman?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In the bill itself—I am advised it is part 5—decisions of the adult safeguarding unit can be reviewed in the first instance by the chief executive and, secondly, in cases of serious harm, by the Ombudsman.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner, what role will they have, if any?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner is always an avenue that a person might take. They might actually report a particular incident to both the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner and the adult safeguarding unit.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for that answer. To be clear, can the actions of the unit or any individual officer of the unit be investigated by the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would need to consult the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner legislation, but I doubt if it would. The Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner reviews health services, such as hospitals and community services such as disability group houses. This is an administrative unit and that is why we believe it is appropriate that the reviews are made by the Ombudsman. I reiterate my earlier point that there is nothing stopping anybody reporting to both the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner and the adult safeguarding unit.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to the transparency of the work of this unit, I understand that COTA also recommended a statutorily-enshrined external committee to ensure the transparent operation of the act and the unit. What was the reason that the minister decided to dismiss this suggestion?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable Leader of the Opposition can clarify if he wants me to unpack more of part 5 and how decisions will be reviewed. If I hear him correctly, to put it in a binary term, what he is asking me is: if the choice was between decisions being reviewed by SACAT and decisions being reviewed by the Ombudsman, why did we choose the Ombudsman?

If I could address that issue, the issue that people are most likely to want to have reviewed out of the vulnerable adults unit is the unit's decision whether or not to investigate a matter. Considering that that is not a decision about enforcing a decision on somebody, it is therefore more like a decision that would be considered by the Ombudsman than a decision that would be considered by SACAT. The department engaged Professor Wendy Lacey, and it was her view that the Ombudsman would be a more appropriate agency to undertake reviews.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not sure what the SACAT reference was in relation to. If it helps the minister, I am referring to dot point 10 of COTA's submission. Maybe he would like to speak to that, because I am not sure of the relevance of SACAT.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not have a copy of the COTA letter with me, but our understanding is that COTA's concern was that decisions were reviewable, and the legislation, through part 5, first of all through the CE and secondly through the Ombudsman, does ensure that decisions are reviewable.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Maher–1]—

Page 3, lines 8 and 9 [clause 2(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

This is a similar amendment that we have seen in other legislation that the minister has brought to this parliament. As a general rule, the Acts Interpretation Act allows that, if an act has not been proclaimed after two years, it is deemed to have come into force. Again, in this bill, that provision of the Acts Interpretation Act is sought to be circumvented by not having the bill presumed to come into force after two years. We are seeking to take that out of this bill.

We think that if this is, as we agree it is, a bill of enough importance, that there ought not be concern about it coming into force after two years because the government will want to have it in force well within two years. I think the minister has even talked about large parts of this coming into force in early 2019. We think it makes sense to not have a part of the bill that says, if we do not want to, we are not going to enforce, enact or have proclaimed parts of this bill within the two years that the Acts Interpretation Act would presume it to come into force.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: This amendment, as the honourable member has highlighted, proposes to delete the clause stating that section 7(5) of the Acts Interpretation Act does not apply. The effect is that, if an earlier proclamation day is not set, the act will automatically come into effect two years after it was assented to. It is intended that all the provisions of the act will be proclaimed within the first two years of the act being assented to, so the effect of this section is nil and the government supports the amendment. I am delighted that the opposition has suddenly, after ignoring the Closing the Gaps report for seven years, developed an eagerness for it to be implemented.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 3 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Maher–1]—

Page 11, after line 19 [clause 6, inserted section 13]—After inserted subsection (1) insert:

(1a) The Adult Safeguarding Unit is, in the performance of functions under this Act, independent of direction or control by the Crown, the Minister, the Chief Executive or any other Minister or officer of the Crown.

This amendment seeks to clarify and make abundantly clear that the unit is independent of the minister and the chief executive in the performance of its duties. We believe it is important that a unit such as this acts knowing they are not bound by the specific directions of the minister or the department in performing their functions.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government will not be supporting this amendment. This amendment would, in effect, require the unit to be set up separately to the Office for the Ageing without any clear lines of accountability. It would be highly unusual to establish a unit as an independent statutory authority that is independent of the Crown, the minister, the chief executive or any other minister or officer of the Crown. It may in fact diminish the accountability of the unit and excuse the unit from complying with a whole range of government policies and procedures.

It is important that the adult safeguarding unit be accountable through both a chief executive and a minister. The office of the unit will have important statutory responsibilities and interface with vulnerable adults. Its effective functioning and conduct will be imperative in ensuring community confidence in the unit through accountability to the chief executive and the minister. Both the chief executive and the minister will be ultimately responsible for the actions of the unit. The proposed amendment to establish the unit as an independent statutory agency does not align with its operations. I remind members that it is a support agency for individuals, not an independent regulator.

The intention of the adult safeguarding unit is to be an individual support agency to investigate individual cases of suspected abuse of a vulnerable adult and to walk alongside that person to ensure that they receive the support they require. The primary outcome of the unit's work with a vulnerable adult will be to develop a multiagency, multidisciplinary safeguarding plan to ensure that the person is receiving the supports they want and need to safeguard them against abuse.

The unit is not intended to duplicate the functions of other agencies or to investigate perpetrators' criminal or other conduct. Where the circumstances require such steps, the unit will be required to refer matters to either appropriate agencies such as the police, the Ombudsman or the commonwealth Aged Care Complaints Commissioner on a case-by-case basis. Parts of the unit will be to facilitate and coordinate safeguarding plans to support the vulnerable adults to live free from abuse or neglect, if that is the person's wish.

Having the adult safeguarding unit as a part of the Department for Health and Wellbeing will facilitate a close working relationship with the department's wide network of support services, ensuring that the unit is able to provide a coordinated and multiagency response to individuals wanting safeguarding support. Rather than a need for the unit to be independent, it is important that the adult safeguarding unit be accountable through the chief executive, the department and the minister to ensure that the chief executive and the minister are kept informed of, and are ultimately accountable for, the actions of the unit.

Independence, as is proposed by this amendment, would not facilitate access to support services and networks. It would hamper a seamless response for the individual wanting safeguarding support and is not consistent with the Closing the Gaps report.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for his views on the opposition amendment. The amendment is designed to make sure that the adult safeguarding unit is free from the direction of the minister. Can the minister outline what directions he would envisage giving this unit?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My reading of the amendment is that it frees the unit from direction or control by the Crown, the minister, the chief executive or any other minister or officer of the Crown. It is basically a carte blanche to ignore all government policies. For example, considering that the Treasurer is a member of this chamber, being free from direction or control by any other minister would include the Treasurer: 'You can basically spend what you like because the parliament has put in a provision which says you are not subject to direction or control.'

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think the minister is being ridiculous. The Courts Administration Authority, for example, is an independent body that sets its own policy but is given a budget from the government each year to work within and, of course, that would be the situation here. Given the minister is concerned that he would not be able to give directions to the adult safeguarding unit, I repeat my very simple question: what sort of directions would the minister envisage directing the unit on that he is so concerned about losing?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable member's amendment does not have any of the sophistication of statutory authority legislation. This amendment is a carte blanche. Basically, the adult safeguarding unit would be a part of the bureaucracy which would live by its own rules.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might put the question this way: what directions does the minister think he would give the unit? Can the minister give an example of how he would intend to direct the unit? Just so it is on Hansard, would the minister envisage that he would ever be directing this unit?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not expect that I will be directing this unit any more than I would other units within my portfolio.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I have not weighed into this debate a great deal but given that this is a live one, as they say, where the government and the opposition have different views, I thought I would. First, I will pose a question to the mover of the motion. The amendment provides that this body is to be independent of direction or control. The body is to be comprised of public servants, who by their very nature are under direction and control. I am wondering: how does this amendment fit in with clause 14, which basically makes the entire membership of this unit public servants?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Essentially, the amendment is designed so that in the exercise of their functions, on a day-to-day basis, operations are not under the direction or control of the minister.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The point that the minister made a little earlier, I think, is an important one, because the Greens have traditionally supported ensuring that bodies that have regulatory functions, prosecutorial functions and licensing functions have to be independent of the minister. You cannot have a situation, for example, where the minister can say, 'Make sure you give my mate a licence,' or, 'Don't prosecute my mate.' Those sorts of directions are entirely inappropriate, so for some organisations, absolutely, we need to write into the letter of the law that they must be at arm's length from the minister.

Where I am struggling with this particular one is that the functions of the adult safeguarding unit are set out in clause 15. They hear reports, they assess reports, they follow-up reports and they advise the minister. They do not issue licences and they are not responsible for determining prosecutions. It is possible to foresee in a worst-case scenario, and this I guess flows from the opposition leader's questioning, that a minister could direct these people not to assess a report or not to receive a report. It is hard to see that happening; it does not sit that comfortably with my understanding of how a body like this would work. So, again, a question of the mover of the amendment: which of the functions under clause 15 is the Leader of the Opposition most worried might be interfered with by a minister?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I think he has largely answered his own question in asking the question. I think we always need to be wary of any of the functions of an oversight body, which this is in effect, having any suggestion of ministerial interference. As it currently stands, as the minister has pointed out, it is directly responsible to the chief executive, and of course the chief executive is responsible to the minister. So it is not a specific concern about one of the functions; it is a concern about the minister being able to direct in the functions of what is an oversight body.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government fundamentally disagrees with the characterisation of the Leader of the Opposition and concurs with the characterisation of the Hon. Mark Parnell. This is not an investigatory body. This is not a watchdog body. It is not an oversight body. This is a body which is to receive reports of suspected abuse or neglect and to coordinate a multiagency response. As I mentioned earlier, it has been suggested by stakeholders that the best way to coordinate a multiagency response is within government, because most of those responders will be government agencies, whether it is police, the Department for Health, or the like.

Of course, many of the bodies that the unit will refer to are watchdog bodies and they have their own independence. That is to be respected. But the blending of the multiagency response with awareness and information and connecting with other government agencies within the government framework is widely seen as being the optimal response. Of course, there is a need for investigators; there is a need for watchdogs. That is why both the commonwealth and the state government are taking action in other domains. This is, if you like, a hub to walk alongside people who may be experiencing abuse to help them keep safe.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If I can just ask one question very specifically on the comments made. I presume, then, from what the minister said, that it is not a function of this body to investigate reports relating to the suspected abuse of vulnerable adults. I think he said it is not an investigatory body at all; so that is not one of its functions?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: This body is not a regulatory body. The investigations it undertakes are about information gathering to form a view about what support the person needs to stay safe. The investigations are not those of an investigator to punish or those of a regulatory body that seeks to monitor and enforce standards.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I agree with the government on this point, and therefore I will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I absolutely acknowledge the right of the Leader of the Opposition to put important things like this before us, because we do need to tease out the true nature of this body and the work it is going to do. But for the reasons the minister has explained, I do not think it is practical or appropriate for it to have the level of independence that would be granted by the opposition's amendment.

That is not to say that the Greens would accept, for one minute, political interference in the work of this body. My understanding would be that any attempt to behave in that way would probably come to light fairly quickly, especially those people who saw themselves as being leant on or being encouraged to perform their duties in a certain way. I do not think the government would get away with it for too long, but I do not think the amendment, as drafted by the opposition, warrants support at this stage.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will not be supporting the opposition amendment, but I do have a question for the Minister for Health and Wellbeing. Regarding the unit, can the minister explain the composition of the unit, the type of people who are going to be on this unit, how many are going to be in this unit to carry out these investigations, and how much is it going to cost to set it up?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In 2018-19, the following public sector employees will be recruited to establish the adult safeguarding unit: the principal project officer, the chief adult safeguarding practitioner, the senior social worker, an investigator and an administration officer. The early intervention and coordination approach will be less expensive than, for example, a formal police-style unit. It is intended that the unit will focus on prevention and early intervention and take a family therapeutic approach to resolving issues of abuse or neglect rather than a punitive one, such as a criminal response, which is much more costly to run in the long run.

If I could steal the preventative health analogy, it is important to stress the fact that if a person can report their concerns about abuse and engage with information and support at an early stage before it escalates, I think it would be welcomed by stakeholders. The police, on the other hand, often have to wait until a situation escalates before they are entitled to intervene. That is consistent with the approach.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I think I pointed out in my speech earlier that it is important that these events are actioned urgently, quickly. Is there a time frame for taking action and responding to them?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable member for his question. The legislation itself does not include specific time frames. It is anticipated that in the development of the regulations and the code of practice that will accompany the legislation, there will be time frames within that. It is highly likely that there will be different time frames for different elements of the responses.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Maher–1]—

Page 12, after line 27 [clause 6, inserted section 15(1)]—After inserted paragraph (k) insert:

(ka) to prepare and publish reports on matters relating to the abuse of vulnerable adults at a systemic level; and

(kb) to prepare and publish reports on issues relating to vulnerable adults that are of public importance; and

This amends clause 15(1), which are the functions of the adult safeguarding unit. I think this is quite a simple amendment that I hope the government sees fit to support. This amendment allows the unit to prepare and publish reports on systemic issues and on matters they deem to be of public importance. We note that clause 15(1)(k) allows the safeguarding unit to advise ministers on matters relating to the abuse of vulnerable adults at a systemic level, but there is nothing in there that allows the actual publication of reports.

We think, if it is good enough that ministers can be advised of it, that it ought to be allowed that reports be published. We believe it is incredibly important for the unit to be able to investigate, consider and report on such systemic issues. I know the minister has made much in his second reading contribution and in debate on this about matters such as Oakden. We think it would not make any sense to have a unit like this that prepares reports but had no ability to publish reports, particularly when it is to do with systemic issues.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It is important to note that the intention of the unit is that it be a support agency for individuals, to investigate individual cases of suspected abuse of a vulnerable adult and to walk alongside that person to ensure that they receive the support they require. The resources of the adult safeguarding unit will be required, and most appropriately be used, to investigate and respond to individual cases of actual or suspected abuse of vulnerable adults.

It should be noted, however, that the unit will report on trends or issues of public importance in a general way as part of their annual report, which is required to be tabled in parliament each year. Where trends or systemic-level issues are observed, the adult safeguarding unit will have the power to refer these issues to agencies that already have a remit to prepare and publish reports relating to systemic issues or issues of importance, such as the Ombudsman.

I acknowledge the fact that the honourable member has recognised clause 15(1)(k), where the government acknowledges that, through the engagement with a series of individual reports, the agency may well glean valuable learnings in relation to systemic issues. That is why the government has in this provision 'to advise ministers, state authorities and other bodies, including non-government bodies, on matters relating to the abuse of vulnerable adults at a systemic level'.

On my reading of that, considering that I am not the only person in that clause, there are all the state government ministers and all the other state government authorities but also, very importantly, other bodies, including non-government bodies. It seems to me that they already have the power to publish systemic information, and basically to send it to who they need to send it to.

The government will not support the amendments, not because we do not think they have learnings for systemic issues and that they should not be shared—that is what we have recognised in 15(k). What we would be concerned about in the proposed additional amendments is that it skews the role of the adult safeguarding unit. It has echoes, to me, of the differentiated roles in the children's space. We have the Guardian for Children and Young People, the children's commissioner, etc., and some people have a role to investigate individual cases and support people in relation to their individual journeys, such as this body, and some bodies primarily have a focus on looking at systemic issues. I think the children's commissioner is more in that category.

We think that the clause as drafted reflects the appropriate balance. The focus is on individuals, and we have some systemic learnings. Clause 15(1)(k) is quite permissive. These learnings will be able to be shared by the unit as they come to them.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will not take long on this clause, but I respectfully disagree with the minister and his interpretation of clause 15(1)(k). One principle of statutory interpretation that can be applied, when something like 15(1)(k) talks about advising ministerial statutory authorities and other bodies, is that someone looking at this later might consider that the legislature turned their mind to whether they would be able to publish and the legislature decided you could not publish because it is read down to just those authorities that are there. If the minister thinks that they ought to be able to publish then there is absolutely no harm in including these amendments, as an abundance of caution, to make sure that they can publish. Let the sun shine in and let there be complete transparency.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government's view is that this is risking outsiders, the parliament or an individual within the unit to not see the appropriate balance for their role. We are being unashamedly tentative in establishing this unit because the worst thing that could happen is for this unit to fall over because it has been overwhelmed by mandatory reporting or because somebody—let's say the parliament—has referred a matter for a systemic report, and we have done that in the past. We are very concerned to make sure that we get it right. We are the first jurisdiction in Australia to try this.

I might stop there because we do not have enough background probably to be able to assert this. Like bodies overseas have been support agencies for individuals; they are not law reform commissions. There are law reform commissions and the like that report on systemic issues as their primary focus. We think that clause 15(1)(k) is an appropriate statement of the incidental role, but it should not be seen as a function for this unit to be making systemic reports.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: We do run the risk of sweating the small stuff in relation to this a little bit. The minister and the Leader of the Opposition both make good points. It could be that, if these paragraphs are included, they may have very little work to do because the safeguarding unit might decide that everything it wants to say to the public it says to the minister in its annual report and that is then effectively published. Having said that, that is a once a year project. There may be an issue that arises—and we can think maybe of a sophisticated internet scam that all of a sudden targets old people—and it is in the public interest to draw attention to it. It may well have some work to do, but I do not think it is worth fussing over too much.

The Greens' position is that we are going to support the inclusion of these two paragraphs. I do not think they detract from the core business of the organisation of the adult safeguarding unit. Paragraphs (a) through to (k) effectively is their core business, and that is what they will do. As the minister has already pointed out, the issue of advising ministers, state authorities or other bodies on matters relating to the abuse of vulnerable adults at a systemic level is already there.

The minister has already pointed out that non-government bodies can be included in the people who are reported to on the basis of systemic issues. It is already in there, so I guess we are just taking one small step further and saying, 'We are going to put it on the website and the general public can read it as well if they want.' I do not think it causes the amount of harm that the minister might be thinking but, in the interests of coming to a settled position, we think that it does not do a great deal of harm. It may do some good and it is worth including these two extra powers.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Our position would be along the same lines as has just been outlined by the Hon. Mark Parnell. Certainly, I accept some of the concerns that have been raised by the minister, but I do not know that they are concerns that will actually come to pass. Given that those provisions already include reference to systemic levels of disclosure, then I think this just broadens that scope and makes it clear what can and cannot be published.

I accept that they are at the systemic level, but can we confirm that that would not matter, that it is obviously a matter that is private and certainly would not be provided in any such report if we were to go down that path? If it assists, I ask the mover that question in relation to the actual material that is intended to be published. I expect that there would be measures there to not include material that is private or relating to private individuals.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Indeed. This would not necessarily go any further than what would be published in an annual report. Obviously, the things that are required, in terms of other interactions with privacy legislation, that would not or would be published in annual reports would I presume be applied to this as well.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Following on from the Leader of the Opposition's comments, I draw the honourable members' attention to new section 49 of the act. This section creates an offence for a person engaged or formerly engaged in the administration of the act to divulge or communicate personal information in the course of official duties except in circumstances specified. That would include any report under the act, even though I do not like the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: We agree with the government in this particular situation and oppose the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clause (7), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (18:14): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.