HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-09-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Ageing and Adult Safeguarding (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 August 2025.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:53): I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition in this place on the Ageing and Adult Safeguarding (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2025. The proposed legislation is, of course, supported by the opposition, as we indicated in the other place. Indeed, while we are pleased the measures outlined in this bill are finally being introduced and consider them to be actually bipartisan priorities—indeed perhaps multipartisan priorities is a fairer way of putting it—we would like to have seen these initiatives implemented by the state government much sooner. It has taken some considerable time.

We are of the firm belief, though, that our parliament has a responsibility to ensure older South Australians and vulnerable adults living with disabilities are protected from abuse, neglect and exploitation via state legislation wherever possible, and this bill does goes some way to achieving that; hence our support.

The bill implements the government's response to the South Australian Law Reform Institute's statutory review of the Ageing and Adult Safeguarding Act 1995, which was mandated when the Adult Safeguarding Unit commenced its statewide remit in 2019, so it does go back some way. Back then, the Labor government obviously had this report as it was initiated back then for some years, and the opposition is pleased that public pressure, along with high profile cases of some horrific abuse that we have all seen highlighting some significant failings with the system as it exists, have led to the government instigating this reform in response to the report's finding. Again, we support those reforms.

The recommendations made as a result of SALRI's review, a review that included extensive stakeholder consultation such as round tables, focus groups, regional forums and peak body meetings, underpinned most of the proposed amendments in this bill. Again, for that reason, we will be supporting it. It is a wideranging bill and seeks to make changes to almost every part of the act. The amendments update outdated definitions, modernise the stated objectives of the Office for Ageing Well and clarify the role and powers of the Adult Safeguarding Unit.

Further, it overhauls the process for assessment, investigation and safeguarding action, which relocates and expands the powers of authorised officers and shifts certain matters to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT), which we hope will have sufficient resources to cope with its additional responsibilities as a result of this, because I firmly suspect they will need them.

This bill also incorporates references to human rights instruments, which the government has been keen to highlight. However, the opposition trusts that these inclusions are not merely symbolic but are accompanied by the operational capacity to deliver real protections on the ground. One of the things about this bill is that it will create additional responsibilities—more work, if you like—and of course with that goes the responsibility for providing the resources to make that possible.

The opposition wants to see that the government makes every effort to ensure that any legislative change strikes the right balance between autonomy and intervention to prevent potential overreach when authorities are acting on behalf of the most vulnerable without consent. That is one of the more contentious areas in the bill, although, again, it is supported by the opposition. Providing adequate resourcing and ensuring the ASU has the capacity to meet new legislative obligations is also imperative and is ensuring that reforms reach diverse communities, including culturally and linguistically diverse groups and regional populations.

As I mentioned previously, the opposition's position is that it supports these safeguards in full and in principle, but appropriate resources, accountability and tangible outcomes are what South Australians deserve and are seeking. I reiterate what my colleague the shadow Minister for Ageing stated in the other place: that is, governments of all persuasions must establish a robust, resourced and responsive safeguarding system. It is unacceptable that shortcomings within our state's current system have, sadly, resulted in unimaginable physical and psychological harm and, regrettably, even deaths have been widely reported.

We can simply no longer delay enacting these laws, necessary to meet and realise our community's expectations of how the ageing of South Australians should be handled and the responsibilities that befall government—even broader, how we as a community care for the elderly amongst us. With those few words, I indicate the opposition's support for the bill. I will have some questions during the committee stage; however, they are merely to clarify some of the government's workings and intentions with the bill.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (15:58): I rise today to speak in support of the Ageing and Adult Safeguarding (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2025. This legislation represents a vital and compassionate step forward in our commitment to protect the rights, dignity and safety of South Australians, particularly those who are ageing, living with disability or otherwise vulnerable to abuse.

The original Ageing and Adult Safeguarding Act 1995 laid the foundation for a more inclusive and responsive approach to ageing. In 2018, this parliament took the important step of establishing the Adult Safeguarding Unit, the first of its kind in Australia. Since then, the unit has become a cornerstone of our safeguarding infrastructure, responding to the evolving needs of our community and expanding in scope to ensure that all vulnerable adults across South Australia are safeguarded against abuse and mistreatment.

This bill is a result of a comprehensive statutory review conducted by the South Australian Law Reform Institute and stakeholder consultation. It addresses all but one of the recommendations made in the South Australian Law Reform Institute's review. The only recommendation not adopted relates to restitution for victims of abuse—a matter that will remain appropriately within the jurisdiction of the civil courts.

It will be comforting for so many in our community that the reforms contained in this bill are both practical and principled. They modernise the language of the act, clarify key definitions such as 'abuse', 'safeguarding' and 'serious financial abuse', and empower the Adult Safeguarding Unit to act earlier and more flexibly in response to risk. The bill also strengthens confidentiality protections, improves information sharing protocols and ensures that safeguarding actions can be taken even in complex or urgent circumstances.

Importantly, the bill enhances the unit's ability to collaborate across jurisdictions. It includes an explicit power that the unit may refer a matter to SAPOL and enables referrals to federal agencies such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. It also allows for sharing information with other state authorities, further strengthening our capacity to protect vulnerable adults, ensuring that safeguarding concerns are addressed collaboratively and are not siloed.

The bill introduces provisions for high-level feedback to notifiers—those who raise concerns—ensuring that they are kept informed of outcomes where it is safe and appropriate to do so. This is a critical step in building trust and transparency in the safeguarding process.

The work of the Adult Safeguarding Unit is critically important. I understand that approximately 60 per cent of the calls the safeguarding unit receives are in relation to older persons, 30 per cent are about people living with disability, and 10 per cent are about other vulnerable adults. While anyone may contact the unit for support if they are worried about themselves or others, the majority of the reports and referrals come from service providers—those on the frontlines of care who recognise the signs of abuse and seek help to respond and prevent it.

This bill acknowledges the reality of those calls. It responds to the urgency of those referrals and ensures that our legislative framework is equipped to meet the needs of those who are most at risk. The bill also affirms that safeguarding is not the responsibility of government alone. We all have the responsibility and role to play in supporting adults to protect their rights and live free from abuse.

Safeguarding vulnerable, multicultural older people requires culturally safe services that respect their backgrounds, languages and values to prevent abuse and mistreatment. I have a long association and have worked very closely with multicultural aged-care organisations and service providers, such as Co.As.It., Chinese Welfare Services, GOCSA, Bene and St Hilarion.

I have indicated to the minister earlier that I would really appreciate it if she can provide further information about how the Adult Safeguarding Unit can provide culturally appropriate services. I also would like the minister to outline what strategies and resources the Adult Safeguarding Unit will provide to CALD senior citizens. With those remarks, I commend the Adult Safeguarding Unit for their vital work, particularly in relation to the continuous efforts to raise awareness within diverse communities. I commend the bill.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:03): I rise to speak in support of Ageing and Adult Safeguarding (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2025. The Ageing and Adult Safeguarding Act 1995 created the Office for Ageing Well. In 2018, that was amended to establish the Adult Safeguarding Unit, the first unit of its kind in Australia, which began operating in October 2019 and has played an important role in South Australia's response to abuse and neglect.

The unit was tasked with receiving and responding to reports of abuse involving older adults and people with disabilities. Its responsibilities have since expanded to include all vulnerable adults in South Australia. To support South Australians to age with dignity and remain active and engaged in the community, the 2018 amendments included a requirement for an independent review of the act's operation within three years of the 2018 changes. The South Australian Law Reform Institute (SALRI) is the independent body that conducted the review.

This bill reflects the Malinauskas government's ongoing commitment to strengthen protections for vulnerable adults. The SALRI review process involved discussions with people with lived experience, various government agencies and community members. It determined and recommended that various parts of the act need updating to better support the work of the office and the unit, including clearer definitions, improved safeguarding powers and better information-sharing processes.

This bill implements the government's response to these recommendations. It updates the goals of the Office for Ageing Well and confirms that protecting at-risk adults is the Adult Safeguarding Unit's main role. It clearly defines key terms like 'relevant adult', 'abuse', 'consent' and 'serious abuse' so the meaning of these terms is clear. For responses to be faster, the bill allows the unit to take protective action as soon as an assessment has started. It clearly describes when investigations can happen, what must be recorded and when the unit can update a report while still protecting people's privacy.

Legal applications for safeguarding orders move from the Magistrates Court to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) to make access easier and quicker. The bill stipulates that the law must be reviewed again in five years to keep it up to date. Based on feedback from stakeholders, the bill references relevant United Nations standards, recognises the community's role in protecting vulnerable adults and tidies the act's structure by grouping officer powers in one place, which strengthens rules around information sharing and clarifies internal delegations.

The Adult Safeguarding Unit (ASU) works with the adult's consent wherever possible and only gets involved without consent if the person lacks capacity or is at serious risk. In 2023-24, the ASU received over 3,300 contacts, including more than 1,600 reports of suspected abuse that mostly involved older people and people with disability. Emotional and financial abuse, often involving family members, are the most common types reported.

The ASU supports and aligns with the Office for Ageing Well's elder abuse prevention strategies, especially the Tackling Ageism campaign, which is run every year and links ageism to a higher risk of abuse. The campaign aims to change how we think and feel about older people, which is fundamental to creating a safer and more inclusive society for people of all ages.

At the Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, the Adult Safeguarding Unit's chief practitioner, Belinda Lake, outlined how the unit protects adults in complex, often hard-to-navigate family situations. The bill proposes to help the ASU keep working more efficiently with clearer powers and processes so that the unit can continue to assess, investigate and coordinate with other agencies to get relevant support in place.

The bill ensures our safeguarding system is not only legally sound but grounded in lived experience, informed by best practice and responsive to the evolving needs of vulnerable South Australians. Importantly, the legislation highlights that we all have a role to play in safeguarding vulnerable adults.

On behalf of the Malinauskas government, I thank those who contributed their time and insights to shape this bill: the people with lived experience of abuse, frontline care and safeguarding workers, and the dedicated teams at the Office for Ageing Well and the Adult Safeguarding Unit. I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:10): I rise very briefly to speak to the Ageing and Adult Safeguarding (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill and I associate myself with the remarks that have been made today. We know that this bill is in response to SALRI's review of the legislation, which, as we have heard, was one of the requirements three years post that bill coming into effect.

During my briefing with the government, I took the liberty to ask—and I think it is useful and helpful to place this on the record—which of the recommendations from SALRI the bill actually picks up, which it does not and the reasons for that. I think that is useful for the purpose of the public record. We know there were 46 recommendations in total. It was about a 60:40 split between ageing and disability, in terms of the issues that they dealt with. Thirty-nine of those recommendations are actually implemented in this bill in full, three recommendations are supported in principle and they are recommendations 24, 33 and 35—this is the advice I have received from the government—and four recommendations were noted, namely 34, 36, 38 and 46.

Regarding the ones that were supported in principle, I do note that, since the formal response was published, I have been told that recommendations 33 and 35 were actually subject to further consultation and they have also been supported and included in the bill. A component of 35 that relates to the scope of persons who can apply to SACAT was narrower than in the recommendation to ensure consistency with the principles of the act and other legislation.

Recommendation 24 related to training, education and assessment regarding decision-making capacity. The component of the recommendation relating to training and education was supported. The component of the recommendation regarding clinical capacity assessment being conducted in all circumstances identified the unit retains the discretion to engage a specialist where the circumstances of the case require and the unit comprises of practitioners and are guided by the code of practice.

The one recommendation that I was particularly keen to hear about was recommendation 34, but of the four recommendations that were noted, I think it is important also to just bear in mind that three of those actually do not apply to the operation of the act—36, 38 and 46—and they have actually been referred to the Attorney-General as they relate specifically to the Attorney's portfolios. So we know we have three outstanding recommendations that are now being considered separately to this bill by the Attorney.

In relation to that last one—and I think this is the one that I will focus on just for a moment, as it is certainly one that I asked lots of questions about—there was a recommendation in relation to SACAT being able to make orders for compensation or restitution, and the government deemed that inappropriate. On the face of it, that was a little concerning, but I think that, when you consider it in the context of the explanation given to me, given that we are moving from the magistrates' jurisdiction to the SACAT jurisdiction and that no such provision applies in the magistrates' jurisdiction outside of the normal civil claims procedure that someone would ordinarily follow, it makes sense that, if we are moving to SACAT, we would not impose something that does not already apply in the Magistrates Court jurisdiction.

I guess that is the easiest way I can explain it, but I do note that no jurisdiction makes these types of orders under any of the acts that currently exist across Australia. Based on the advice given, I am satisfied with that response now, although I note that it may be something that is looked at further when the bill is reviewed in the future. There is an existing mechanism, as we know, through civil claims, to make a claim for compensation or restitution, and nothing changes in relation to that. That remains as is.

There is also no suggestion that a claim that was previously heard in the Magistrates Court would be combined with a claim for compensation, so they are two very distinct procedures and applications before the court and were dealt with as such, and will continue to be dealt with by SACAT in the same way, noting, of course, that we have not accepted the amendment that will allow a claim for restitutional compensation to be made to SACAT.

I think, broadly speaking, we have two other jurisdictions, Tasmania and New South Wales, with very similar legislation. The only other issue I sought to discuss with the government, bearing in mind that we have had a very extensive salary review, was—it has just escaped me, Mr President. It was important because I wanted to put it on the record, but I did not write it down. It was the issue of—it has gone. It was very important, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: You might remember it at clause 1, the Hon. Ms Bonaros.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Perhaps I will remember it at clause 1, and come back to it. I think overwhelmingly the point that I am trying to make is, and for anyone trying to follow this outside of this place, it is very useful for people to understand the number of recommendations. When we say in full and in part, when you break that down, we have come very close, subject of course to further consultation as well, to effectively capturing I think everything that SACAT would have intended in terms of its recommendations to this place. Mr President, if I do remember what it is that I wanted to say, I will say so at clause 1.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:17): I rise to speak on the government's Ageing and Adult Safeguarding (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2025. The presentation of this bill before the chamber today is timely indeed, given the passage of the government's Guardianship and Administration (Tribunal Proceedings) Amendment Bill earlier this week. The bill before us today largely gives effect to the government's response to the recommendations made by the independent statutory review conducted by the South Australian Legal Reform Institute. Interestingly, the recommendations make clear that safeguarding against abuse and mistreatment is the primary purpose of the Adult Safeguarding Unit.

It is unfortunate that the importance of safeguarding vulnerable people is not the priority of the Attorney-General's office when pushing through amendments earlier this week to expedite applications for orders to facilitate the discharge of older patients from hospitals. What is even more interesting is that the proposal before the chamber today incorporates some additional amendments not considered by the South Australian Law Reform Institute as part of the independent review.

As the minister in the other place pointed out, some of these amendments were made in response to feedback from stakeholders, including relevant references to UN instruments and acknowledging that the whole community plays a crucial role in supporting relevant adults to uphold their rights and live free from abuse. I have no doubt that some of these stakeholders the minister refers to also gave feedback to the Attorney-General's office with their concerns about amendments to the Guardianship and Administration Act.

These concerns included submissions by the Aged Rights Advocacy Service about the potential erosion of safeguards necessary to protect vulnerable individuals from being lost in the system, given that South Australia has the lowest level of hospital patient autonomy and self-determination in all of Australia. There was also widespread concern from all stakeholders about the potential for inappropriate family members to be given authorised control over vulnerable people, thus facilitating the occurrence of elder abuse.

Given all of this, the government's ageing and adult safeguarding amendments to improve safeguards and uphold the rights of vulnerable individuals against elder abuse is welcome and worthy of support. However, any commendation of this proposal should not come without reference to the glaring contradiction with the amendments to the Guardianship and Administration Act.

In short, the vulnerable people in our community do not deserve to be played by a government that gives with one hand and takes with the other. I will always fully support appropriate government measures to uphold and protect the rights of the aged in our community, but I cannot and should not be expected to remain silent in the face of such blatant contradiction in the government's policy and principles.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (16:19): I would like to start by thanking the speakers who provided their feedback and words of support across the board today: the Hon. Dennis Hood, the Hon. Jing Lee, the Hon. Sarah Game, the Hon. Tung Ngo and the Hon. Connie Bonaros. I would also like to thank Minister Cook, her office and department, and the many who participated in the consultation process, which I understand there were many.

It is never easy to share your story, but it is also very important to help us shape the valuable feedback and to form the recommendations that we see today. Obviously, I also want to thank SALRI, which helped pull together the independent review and recommendations that we are putting through the parliament today to make sure that we can do something that we all aim to do, which is to remain active and age well in our community.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Referring back to the second reading contribution I just gave, one of the points that I did raise with the government and ask, and I would like the minister to clarify, is that the number of matters that are actually heard in the Magistrates Court are very low—that is the advice I have received—so, given that we keep putting all this extra workload on SACAT, we do not expect, as a result of the change of jurisdictions, to see that workload increase and that SACAT will be able to at this point, from their perspective, absorb the additional workload that they will receive through the move of jurisdiction?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I thank the member for her question. It was worth the wait. It is not anticipated that these amendments will have a material resource impact upon SACAT. The Adult Safeguarding Unit seeks to work voluntarily with the relevant adults wherever possible and the use of the orders will also only be utilised as a last resort in case of serious abuse. To date, no applications for an order under this act have been made.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I indicated in my second reading contribution that the opposition will be supporting the bill, and that is the case. We did ventilate a number of these issues in the other place in some detail, so there is no need to traverse that ground again; however, there are a few issues which I would like the minister to provide some clarity on. The first one is perhaps quite a general question. I think the minister would probably agree that this has been a very long process—it has been going on for a number of years—and I would seek to have some clarity as to why that has been the case. Why has this been such a long process?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I thank the member for his question. As has been advised to me and as highlighted, it was paramount that we awaited the recommendations of the important work of the disability royal commission to ensure the bill could align as much as possible and as closely as possible with those recommendations.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The next question is with respect to consultation. Who has been consulted throughout the process?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: My understanding is that it is a broad range of government organisations; statutory bodies; non-government and community organisations; peak bodies; older South Australians; relevant adults, including those who have lived experience of abuse or mistreatment; and members of the South Australian community who have an active interest in the reforms of this act. As I commented in my closing remarks, it is never easy to share your story but it also is very important to enable us to create policy change like this and make recommendations that are done through an independent review, which we know is being done by SALRI. I thank all of those people who provided that feedback and made sure that these stories could influence change.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Did any of those groups who were consulted express a negative attitude towards what was being proposed?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Not that I have been advised, but I am happy to look into that further.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the minister please reflect on why this bill does not include the recommendation from the royal commission concerning the regulation of restrictive practices in nursing homes?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: It is my understanding that that is outside the scope of this particular act.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is the government intending to act soon on that particular recommendation?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Again, I would have to look into that further for the member.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: A final one from me on clause 1. I mentioned in my second reading contribution that one of the consequences of this passing into law will almost certainly be the requirement for greater resources to make these things happen, essentially. So I ask the minister: what planning does the government have in place? What are the government's intentions in that regard?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that there is sufficient budgeting at this point in time. In this act the recommendation that is being put forward today is to give them the tools to modernise how they respond and make sure that safety is paramount for people in our community.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I foreshadowed in my second reading speech that I have a question for the minister regarding culturally and linguistically appropriate services, as well as resources that have been allocated by the unit. Can the minister provide some further information regarding that?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I thank the member for her question and ongoing interest and support for the multicultural community. The Adult Safeguarding Unit seeks to be accessible for all South Australians and provide services in a culturally safe manner that maximises accessibility and enhances opportunities to participate, tailored to each adult's communication needs, cultural background, language, traditions and beliefs.

The Adult Safeguarding Unit actively ensures that it works safely and has knowledge, expertise and the capability to respond effectively and efficiently to support people within the community. My understanding is that participants will be supported through training. All participants complete cultural awareness training where required. The unit uses translating and interpreter services or hearing assistance and other communication aids or technology.

Wherever possible, the unit works with organisations already involved with and trusted by the relevant adult to build the organisation's capabilities to support the adult and to protect their rights. As we know, knowledge and training is key in making sure that changes can be made, and it is something that has been taken into consideration with these changes.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: This is really just a point of clarity, if I may, from the minister. Clause 3 substitutes sections 3 and 4 of the existing act, and the new sections talks about who is a relevant adult, essentially. It really is new section 3(2) that I am interested in, which to make it even more complicated, refers back to new section 3(1). Section 3(2) states 'whether an adult may be vulnerable to abuse is to be determined by reference to the circumstances of the adult'. I guess my question is simply: who decides that? Is there a definition, or how do we know who that is? Who does it cover?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: My understanding is 'relevant adult' replaces the existing definition of vulnerable adult. It refers to section 3 for a comprehensive definition and is defined in section 2 inserted by the clause.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: To be explicit, can you read that out for me so it is clear, please?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have been advised that in clause 4, which amends section 2—Interpretation, the new term 'relevant adult' replaces the existing definition of the 'vulnerable adult' and refers to section 3 for a comprehensive definition.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: This is really just a definitional issue as well and something about which I could not be quite clear within the bill. I may stand corrected—or perhaps it is in the act and I did not locate it—but section 4B specifically uses the term 'serious abuse' quite a few times. Is that defined? I could not find the definition. I guess the obvious question is: when would not it be serious if it is abuse? I presume that it has an extra level of gravity to it, and I am just what trying to understand what that is.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that it is defined in clause 5:

For the purposes of this Act, serious abuse of a relevant adult means abuse of a kind referred to in section 4 which has had, or is likely to have, a significant impact on the relevant adult.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: To further clarify that if I may, and then I will not pursue this matter any further, did you mean section 5 of the act rather than the bill?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Yes, section 4 of the bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: You said 4; is that right? I thought you said 5 originally.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised clause 5, but it is section 4 of the bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Got it—that makes sense then, thank you.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (5 to 43), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (16:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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