HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-05-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

Joint Committee on Matters Relating to Elder Abuse

Ms COOK (Fisher) (11:03): I move:

1. That it be an instruction to the Joint Committee on Matters Relating to Elder Abuse in South Australia that its terms of reference be amended, by leaving out at the end of paragraph (j) the word 'and' and paragraph (k) and inserting the following new paragraphs—

'(k) the findings of the Oakden report by the Chief Psychiatrist of South Australia;

(l) the selection and screening of staff working in the aged-care sector; and

(m) any other related matter.'

2. That a message be sent to the Legislative Council transmitting the foregoing and requesting its concurrence thereto.

I have provided the house with a list of amendments to the terms of reference of the Joint Committee on Matters Relating to Elder Abuse in South Australia. I express my deep concern for older people in all residences and community settings and their fear of mistreatment by those who would perform such acts against them. I reassure them and express my commitment, as a clinician, to ensure that we, as a government and a parliament, learn from anything that may have happened in the past to ensure that our older people in South Australia can be assured that they are safe into the future. That said, I seek the support of the house on this matter.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:05): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Motion carried.

Ms COOK: Sir, I seek clarification. Is the member seeking to adjourn the debate?

The SPEAKER: I will put it again, whether the debate is adjourned. I will give the member for Flinders a moment to consider the opposition's position.

Mr TRELOAR: I do move that we adjourn this debate, sir.

The SPEAKER: The member for Flinders has moved that the debate be adjourned. I will put the question.

Motion negatived.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:06): I am very pleased to support this motion. We are having a general investigation with regard to matters relating to elder abuse in South Australia that has been initiated by members in this house to look at matters that are of concern to us as members of parliament, and certainly to look at matters concerning people who are older. As we will hear a bit later, to be 'older' you need to be over 45. The brutal fact is that when you look at the Australian Bureau of Statistics' census screening it states that, in the case of a paid worker, someone over 45 is an older worker.

There are many who would be very concerned, I am sure, about any abuses to the older part of our population. We have a number of services and accommodation, including supported accommodation, that are available to older people. Regarding the current investigation and action that is being taken by the government with regard to the Oakden report, I certainly agree with the member for Fisher that that has been of real concern to all of us. It seems to me that it would make sense that we include these terms of reference in addition to the investigation that is already taking place.

I understand that the shadow minister in the other place supports this addition to the inquiry, and I understand that there is a very similar motion in the Legislative Council, to be considered this afternoon by the members, to make sure that this is part of the investigation. So, I am really wondering why we would want to adjourn the matter, or why we would want to delay adding this to an investigation that is already taking place. It seems to me that there must be some misunderstanding between the houses about where we are going with this investigation. I certainly support the motion from the member for Fisher:

1. That it be an instruction to the Joint Committee on Matters Relating to Elder Abuse in South Australia that its terms of reference be amended, by leaving out at the end of paragraph (j) the word 'and' and paragraph (k) and inserting the following new paragraphs—

'(k) the findings of the Oakden report by the Chief Psychiatrist of South Australia;

(l) the selection and screening of staff working in the aged-care sector; and

(m) any other related matter.'

2. That a message be sent to the Legislative Council transmitting the foregoing and requesting its concurrence thereto.

I am really not sure why we would not want to just get on with this unless there has been some misunderstanding.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:10): I rise to speak on the notice of motion in the name of the member for Fisher to instruct a variation to the elder abuse inquiry, which is currently the subject of a joint committee motion, to include consideration of the Oakden issues, including the Chief Psychiatrist's report. The opposition are keen to expand the terms of reference of the existing committee, but not exactly in the terms proposed in this motion, as I understand it; in any event, the addition of 'any other related matter' may well cover that aspect.

The greatest concern we have in respect of the whole Oakden circumstance—notwithstanding that myriad investigations and reviews are going on in respect of it—is what has been identified in the Oakden report by the Chief Psychiatrist, that is, questions on why the deficiencies in the service and management at the Oakden facility, both in the Clements House and in the Makk and McLeay facility, that component being related to residential care. The fact is that all the residents at this facility are aged and, ostensibly, some are there transitioning to other facilities in Clements Ward, and then there is the aged-care residential facility in Makk and McLeay.

It is very concerning to our side of house that, for whatever reason, the Chief Psychiatrist did not pick up some of these deficiencies when he visited in June 2016, but after the report was commissioned by the chief executive of the regional office into the services, standards of care and compliance matters on 19 December last year we now have a scathing document that confirms the worst.

It seems that at present, in addition to allegations that some of our older people are vulnerable in the aged-care sector, we now have a situation that in the only facility owned and operated by the state government we have examples of overdosing of medical prescriptions of up to as much as 10 times the prescribed amount, we have conduct that suggests that there has been overuse—and even illegal use—of restraints on patients, we have had an utter failing of the mandatory obligations on the staff for the recording of and notifications in respect of the use of restraints and we have outstanding allegations of the alleged assault of patients by carers in that environment.

Each and every one of these is recorded and referred to in the Chief Psychiatrist's report, and the owner of this facility, the South Australian government, clearly needs to do something about it. It is very disappointing to us on this side of the house that the minister left in charge of this issue is still the minister, not because she could be directly blamed for the conduct of persons within the facility but because she has utterly failed to act on these matters.

At best she has condoned the intervention by virtue of the report being commissioned to the Chief Psychiatrist. But why would any minister allow that to be the only investigation when, firstly, the Chief Psychiatrist had failed to identify something and, secondly, the Chief Psychiatrist is within the sector, is employed within that sector and is within that division in SA Health?

Why was there not an independent inquiry commissioned straightaway? Why was there no announcement to the people of South Australia that she had authorised or supported this investigation back in December last year? Why was this kept a secret until 17 January 2017 when the plight of the family members of the deceased went to air on ABC television? You cannot just have internal investigations into yourself and then expect the public to have any confidence in what the hell is going on.

I agree with the member for Fisher that we need to expand the terms of reference of the existing committee. We cannot afford to waste time in our joint select committee having to take on a new composition, a new group and a new commission to do this. We urge them to get on with it. I urge the government and those who are in charge of this government to make sure that they put a competent minister in charge of this issue.

In the meantime, as we heard yesterday, she has allowed a person who is alleged to have assaulted a patient at Oakden on multiple occasions to still be working there as we speak. It is just mind-blowing to me that we are in a situation where she has given a ministerial direction that no-one who has had allegations of risks to patients is to be left in the workforce out there, yet she came in here yesterday and told us that that is exactly what has happened, that there is somebody still there with multiple allegations against them.

She did not pick it up and her department did not pick it up. A visitor of a family member recently went to the facility and said, 'This person is still there on the shift.' It is just mind-blowing to think that we have the oldest, sickest and most vulnerable people in a secure facility at Oakden and we do not have a minister who is prepared to explode the public light onto what is going on at that facility.

That in itself is damning, I think, of the senior people who sit in this government who have clearly run 100 miles away from it. None of them wants to know anything about this and they are not prepared to make those decisions. So, yes, we do need to shine a light on this and find out what on earth is going on so that we can protect these extremely vulnerable people. With that, I indicate from the opposition's perspective that we will certainly support this extension of the terms of reference, and I thank the member for Fisher for bringing it to our attention.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (11:18): Thank you to the member for Ashford and the member for Bragg for speaking in support of this important motion, which will expand our terms of reference to include a more detailed investigation into this unique facility and its circumstances. I am particularly interested and determined to look into the clinical governance practices and the professional practice responsibilities around staff working in these settings. With that, I thank the house for its support and commend the motion.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT