HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-10-31 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Elder Abuse

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:58): My question is to the Attorney-General. When will the Attorney-General introduce legislation to protect vulnerable aged-care residents by enabling video cameras in aged-care facilities?

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (14:58): This is a matter that I thought we had canvassed reasonably thoroughly in this place 18 months ago or two years ago, but I am happy to go over that ground again. We were presented with a case some time back now by a Mrs Hausler, who was very concerned about the treatment of her father. She actually installed a camera of her own initiative in order to capture what she perceived may have been mistreatment of her father, and it turned out she was dead right.

I met with her and had discussions with her. We did make investigations into this matter and at the time that we were making investigations into this matter there was a furphy floated by some, possibly people I can see a few metres from me, which was to the effect that in some way the Listening Devices Act of South Australia was interfering with the opportunity for these people to look after their relatives. Of course, that was a completely bogus point—absolutely bogus point.

It turns out that there is no South Australian statutory impediment for a person to use a surveillance device, and by that we include in our definition now a listening device or something capable of capturing an image. There is no statutory impediment of South Australian origin to prevent a person to do that to protect their lawful interests or the interests of a person with whom they have a good reason to be looking out.

This then brings us to the question: what if anything is preventing this happening? The answer is partly, despite the fact that I have written to the umbrella group that looks after these people and said, 'Look, will you just have a consensual agreement with the families of those whose elderly members are in your care that they may at their discretion opt into a voluntary arrangement whereby you facilitate an image to go in there?', they have not agreed to that.

The licensing of these people is a commonwealth government matter. They are regulated by commonwealth law both in terms of an overarching act and regulations under that act. They are licensed by the commonwealth, and all of the matters in relation to what they do or do not do within their agencies is basically covered by a network of commonwealth legal arrangements. So, to the extent that the South Australian parliament or this government has any capacity to permit, or authorise, or agree with, or facilitate people looking after the lawful interests of their elderly relatives in nursing homes, we have got nothing in the way of it—we have got nothing in the way of it.

If somebody cares to read the Listening Devices Act, or the Surveillance Devices Act as it now is, it will be obvious what I'm talking about. There is no impediment for a person to use these devices to protect their lawful interests and, clearly, protecting an elderly relative from being abused is well within the scope of that opportunity. I am afraid everything that we can do we have done. It is now a matter for the federal authorities to deal with the matter from their end.

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