Speaker 1: Sarah, can you tell me about your dad.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so dad was an engineer, but he had a
Speaker 2: lot of hobbies. He was very sort of engaged with
Speaker 2: the arts. He played piano, he played the trumpet, he
Speaker 2: read a lot, he liked philosophy. He was just a
Speaker 2: sort of brilliant man. And when I was eighteen, he
Speaker 2: was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, and that was a really
Speaker 2: tricky thing for someone who'd got a lot of joy
Speaker 2: out of the mind. And so that was sort of
Speaker 2: the beginning, I suppose of our journey in the age
Speaker 2: care system.
Speaker 1: Sarah Hole and Bat had never thought about age care
Speaker 1: until her father got sick.
Speaker 2: All of a sudden, you're faced with this conundrum of
Speaker 2: what home, and you're not really equipped with many skills
Speaker 2: to work out what makes a good HK home. I
Speaker 2: think Mum and I initially were focused on the wrong things,
Speaker 2: like the aesthetics, whether it felt nice, you know, and
Speaker 2: really of course the question that you and I now
Speaker 2: know you need to be asking this more like well,
Speaker 2: how many staff do you have? How qualified are they?
Speaker 2: And then you know it's only in time that you
Speaker 2: start to realize the gaps and when things start to
Speaker 2: go wrong.
Speaker 1: It's a common story, not really putting much thought into
Speaker 1: age care or where a loved one might go until
Speaker 1: someone you know, someone you love, comes into contact with it. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: once in age care, Sarah's father experienced something which is
Speaker 1: also far too common.
Speaker 2: Dad experienced some deliberate abuse from a worker, a personal
Speaker 2: care worker in his home and we were alerted to
Speaker 2: that by a lovely nurse who we'd known for several years,
Speaker 2: who was a whistleblower and who came to us and
Speaker 2: said she'd seen this person belittling Dad, deliberately shutting the
Speaker 2: door on him when he needed a shower, when he
Speaker 2: wasn't clean. I was enraged. I've never been more furious
Speaker 2: about anything in my life, and so as I sort
Speaker 2: of went through the system, my rage just deepened and
Speaker 2: the questions just piled up about well, how is this
Speaker 2: actually happening?
Speaker 1: From Schauce Media, Imbrick Morton and this is seven AM.
Speaker 1: In twenty eighteen, then Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a
Speaker 1: Royal Commission into age care, which shed light again on
Speaker 1: the astonishing amount of abuse that occurs in residential facilities
Speaker 1: and home care providers around Australia. It's been three years
Speaker 1: since the final report from the Royal Commission was headed down,
Speaker 1: and advocates say very little has improved. The Commission highlighted
Speaker 1: just how difficult it can be to get any accountability
Speaker 1: when someone in care is actually harmed, especially from the
Speaker 1: people who run nursing homes in home care services. The
Speaker 1: federal government is attempting to remedy that with new laws
Speaker 1: that could potentially see directors in management jailed for up
Speaker 1: to five years in particularly egregious cases. Today, Poet and
Speaker 1: Age Care get Sarah Holan bat on whether the government's
Speaker 1: new laws will actually be enough to turn around the
Speaker 1: disaster that is our age care system. That's coming up.
Speaker 1: It's Thursday, July eleven. Sarah, after your father's experience, you
Speaker 1: were deeply involved in advocating around the Royal Commission into
Speaker 1: age care and made a submission to it. What was
Speaker 1: in your submission?
Speaker 2: My submission? I suppose the focus of it was that
Speaker 2: I felt strongly that if someone liked myself, you know,
Speaker 2: relatively educated, capable of understanding, you know, capable of making complaints,
Speaker 2: capable of pursuing issues, wasn't getting a good outcome from
Speaker 2: that process? Then something was really deeply broken with the
Speaker 2: complaints process. As I pushed and pushed and pushed to
Speaker 2: try and get an outcome, I couldn't get anyone to
Speaker 2: go and inspect the home. No one was interested. The
Speaker 2: care home manager was only interested in identifying the whistleblower,
Speaker 2: had no interest in dealing with the person involved. So
Speaker 2: I thought, if I was unable to get a reasonable
Speaker 2: outcome for my father, which for me would have just
Speaker 2: been getting this person taken out of the age care workforce,
Speaker 2: if I was unable to get any sort of satisfactory
Speaker 2: outcome at all, there was no outcome. That was the
Speaker 2: sort of impetus for my submission to the Royal Commission.
Speaker 2: It was around the inadequate regulation of age care, the
Speaker 2: fact that there was really no one, you know, advocating
Speaker 2: on behalf of these really vulnerable people who have cognitive issues,
Speaker 2: physical issues. So that's been the passion of mine, I think,
Speaker 2: is to see greater protections for older people's human rights
Speaker 2: come through out of the Royal Commission, and to see
Speaker 2: some professionalization of that personal care workforce.
Speaker 1: And having sat through all of the many of them
Speaker 1: hearing through the Age Care or Commission and then thin
Speaker 1: the final report read those recommendations. What stood out to
Speaker 1: you in that final document as being substantial recommendations and
Speaker 1: can you just walk us through some of those.
Speaker 2: I'm going to afternoon everyone, I'm here to release the
Speaker 2: raw Commission in agepre quality and safety. This is the
Speaker 2: worst of many problems. I think there were lots of positives.
Speaker 2: There's certain aspects around staffing and around qualifications that have
Speaker 2: been proposed to have been good.
Speaker 3: The report recommends a registered nurse to be on duty
Speaker 3: twenty four hours a day, more nurses giving hands on care,
Speaker 3: mandatory training for personal care workers, and most significantly, a
Speaker 3: Medicare style levy to fund the massive short form in
Speaker 3: aged care funding.
Speaker 2: I do think that the introduction of guardrails around staffing
Speaker 2: numbers was important. I do think that so minimum standard
Speaker 2: of qualification to ensure a level of familiarity, say with
Speaker 2: working with people with dementia, would be very, very helpful.
Speaker 4: The Royal Commission has recommended an urgent review of the
Speaker 4: country's specialist dementia care units to ensure their up to scratch.
Speaker 4: It also says there should be more support for people
Speaker 4: living with dementia, their cares and families. Once a diagnosis
Speaker 4: is made.
Speaker 2: I thought the Commission's recommendations around sort of penalties could
Speaker 2: have been stronger, And there were some disappointments in the
Speaker 2: final report in that there were a lot of split recommendations.
Speaker 2: I think that really diluted the power of the final report.
Speaker 2: There were split recommendations around the funding of the system
Speaker 2: and around the regulation of the system, and both of
Speaker 2: those I think the Commission really should have tried its
Speaker 2: hardest to speak in one voice about that, because it's
Speaker 2: sort of given government. Now we've had two governments who've
Speaker 2: had a responding to this and still no act. It's
Speaker 2: given government a little bit of an out to go
Speaker 2: with the easier path.
Speaker 1: That was going to be my next question, of course,
Speaker 1: because it did recommend it an entirely new Age Care
Speaker 1: Act to replace the one from nineteen ninety seven that
Speaker 1: John Howard implemented, but of course we didn't know exactly
Speaker 1: what that Act was going to look like. And given
Speaker 1: everything else that was in that report, did you have
Speaker 1: any kind of hope that things might change for the
Speaker 1: better in age care after that?
Speaker 2: I mean I did, and I think the new Act,
Speaker 2: even if it's not perfect, and of course you still
Speaker 2: want to advocate for it to be perfect, because I mean,
Speaker 2: let's be real, we'll all be touched by this system
Speaker 2: in one way or the other, whether it's us, our parents.
Speaker 2: Whatever we do in this Act, we'll see my mother
Speaker 2: through her journey if she ever needs age care, and
Speaker 2: you know, after Dad's experience, I hope she doesn't have
Speaker 2: to go into residential age care. But realistically, it's taken
Speaker 2: twenty plus years to get a replacement act after Howard's Act.
Speaker 2: That seems to be roughly the time frame to make
Speaker 2: major changes. So whatever we lock in here now we're
Speaker 2: sort of stuck with.
Speaker 1: After the break, how the government wants to hold bad
Speaker 1: providers accountable with criminal penalties and the risk of those
Speaker 1: proposals being warded down. Sarah, it's now been three years
Speaker 1: since the Royal Commission handed down what was quite a
Speaker 1: harrowing expose into age care in Australia. In that time,
Speaker 1: what has actually changed, Well, that's a good question, Rick.
Speaker 2: I mean, one of the big wins was pay rises
Speaker 2: for workers, although that's been sort of delayed and stepped
Speaker 2: out in its implementation. Another win was the introduction of
Speaker 2: mandatory care minutes, which again has been stepped out and
Speaker 2: there's a big caveat with that care minutes when you
Speaker 2: look at the actual numbers that are being reported, and
Speaker 2: you can see that through my aged Care through the
Speaker 2: star rating reportings, very few homes are meeting the required standard.
Speaker 2: And then when you look at the serious incident reporting scheme,
Speaker 2: you see that providers are sort of chronically underestimating the
Speaker 2: impacts of serious incidents such as physical altercations, unlawful sexual conduct,
Speaker 2: unexplained absence from the service, which is when a resident
Speaker 2: has been allowed to leave the premises unsupervised, really major issues.
Speaker 2: Providers are chronically underestimating the psychological and physical impact on
Speaker 2: age care residents. So in terms of is the situation
Speaker 2: actually better for an older person in an age care
Speaker 2: home that it was three years ago, I'm not sure
Speaker 2: that there are really any profound indicators saying yes. I'm
Speaker 2: yet to see any statistics showing that, say, malnutrition, dehydration,
Speaker 2: rates of chemical and physical restraint. We don't have any
Speaker 2: indication as yet. It depends on whether you're viewing it
Speaker 2: from a sort of legislative viewpoint, which things seem to
Speaker 2: be happening, or whether you're viewing it from the perspective
Speaker 2: of a person in residential age care or in home
Speaker 2: care has their reality improved. I don't think that we
Speaker 2: have any data to support that.
Speaker 1: And so the Government's new Age Care Act is going
Speaker 1: to be tabled in Parliament soon. What does their proposed
Speaker 1: new act actually look like and what have you made
Speaker 1: of it?
Speaker 2: I think there are aspects of it that are positive,
Speaker 2: and I think one of the strongest things that I
Speaker 2: feel most passionate about is the proposed introduction of criminal penalties.
Speaker 2: I think it's a sector that really does need some consequences.
Speaker 2: It's had there been no consequences of providers who failed
Speaker 2: and failed and failed, and you know that means lots
Speaker 2: of older people and their families going through heartbreak. I
Speaker 2: do think that will be positive, but I do have
Speaker 2: concerns that it replicates some of the faults of previous legislation.
Speaker 2: The Government is touting this as a human rights based act,
Speaker 2: but you know, the statement of rights that's in the
Speaker 2: draft legislation it's about to be tabled to Parliament are
Speaker 2: not enforceable. There is no obligation on providers now in
Speaker 2: the draft legislation to provide high quality care, and that
Speaker 2: was a strong recommendation from advocates, from people like me,
Speaker 2: from people in the workforce, from people working at the
Speaker 2: coal face, and instead what we've got in the current
Speaker 2: kind of version of that now there's just going to
Speaker 2: be a duty imposed on providers to not basically actively
Speaker 2: harm older people or put them at risk of grave
Speaker 2: injury or illness or harm. And you know, in an
Speaker 2: age care home you have a term called quote unquote
Speaker 2: rough handling, which anywhere else means assault. That's where you know,
Speaker 2: in order to get an older person to do what
Speaker 2: you want, you drag them by the wrist and end
Speaker 2: up with a giant bruise and you know, or they
Speaker 2: end up with a dislocated shoulder or something like that
Speaker 2: that is wall papered with this term rough handling. So,
Speaker 2: I mean, it's kind of astonishing that we could say
Speaker 2: it is a rights based piece of legislation, yet the
Speaker 2: rights within it are not enforceable.
Speaker 1: What is that one of those areas that've gone further
Speaker 1: in is you mentioned in the criminal penalties, particularly for
Speaker 1: directors of age care providers? Right?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So the Royal Commission recommended that there should be
Speaker 2: the statutory duty and post to provide high quality care.
Speaker 2: If that duty was not upheld. The Royal Commission recommended
Speaker 2: that civil penalties should apply, fines should apply, So the
Speaker 2: government has sort of watered this down from an emphasis
Speaker 2: on higher quality and safe care, so that the duty
Speaker 2: that the government's proposing in the new legislation is that
Speaker 2: there is a duty to take quote reasonable steps to
Speaker 2: avoid their actions adversely affecting the health and safety of
Speaker 2: persons in their care. But what the government is proposing
Speaker 2: goes beyond the Royal Commission in that they're proposing there
Speaker 2: should be civil penalties but also criminal penalties in the
Speaker 2: very worst cases of up to five years jail. Effectively,
Speaker 2: it's a serious case that would warrant jail only in
Speaker 2: cases where a provider's breach has involved significant failures, systemic
Speaker 2: patterns of conduct, especially when there's a death, serious injury
Speaker 2: or illness, or reckless conduct involved. And then there's a
Speaker 2: loophole though that says providers and responsible persons won't be
Speaker 2: held responsible if they have a reasonable excuse for causing
Speaker 2: the death of an older person, then you could be
Speaker 2: subjected to five years of jail. You know, if you
Speaker 2: ask the average person in a pub, does this seem okay?
Speaker 2: Should the people who are responsible for this neglect to
Speaker 2: go to jail. I think you'd struggle to find someone
Speaker 2: who would say no. So I think it does meet
Speaker 2: community expectations. It certainly meets, you know, advocates expectations that
Speaker 2: there should be some criminal provisions somewhere in the system
Speaker 2: so that in the very worst instances there is a
Speaker 2: lever to punish these individuals. But yeah, you know, the
Speaker 2: lobby doesn't want it. Providers don't want it, they don't
Speaker 2: want any more liability, and the Opposition spokesperson and Rustin
Speaker 2: has also come out against this as well.
Speaker 5: There but if we continue to put the kind of
Speaker 5: pressure that we are on the sector by making all
Speaker 5: of these demands, like bringing forward the recommendations of the
Speaker 5: Royal Commission, knowing that they can't be delivered, it just
Speaker 5: continues to put the negative pressure on We know that they're.
Speaker 2: The lobby's talking point on this is just beyond face,
Speaker 2: which is that it might discourage good people from directing
Speaker 2: an age care home rather than eliminate the very few
Speaker 2: but horrific directors. And there are some, there are some
Speaker 2: people who have gone into age care to make a buck.
Speaker 2: It's the same old talking points that we've had the
Speaker 2: entire time, which is just that providers have too much
Speaker 2: regulation already, too much paperwork, too much red and what
Speaker 2: they really would like is just to be left alone
Speaker 2: to their own devices with more money.
Speaker 1: I'm really interested in the lobby itself, right, because they've
Speaker 1: really been the only voice in age care policy full stop.
Speaker 1: The lobby is a provider lobby, and they have a
Speaker 1: very big voice.
Speaker 2: I think, so, Rick, And I think, you know, there's
Speaker 2: an element of regulatory capture here, I think where people
Speaker 2: are rotating out of either government into aged care or
Speaker 2: out of age care into regulation, you know. But I
Speaker 2: think the worry is that, you know, it's a very loud,
Speaker 2: very powerful voice, you know, the aged care lobby. They're
Speaker 2: very good at sort of collopting useful individuals in and
Speaker 2: out of government to their cause. Really, it's so important
Speaker 2: that the perspectives of older people are vociferously represented, because,
Speaker 2: of course, in aged care, those people aren't able to
Speaker 2: represent themselves because of the very nature of their vulnerability
Speaker 2: in certain ways. So yeah, I despair a little bit
Speaker 2: at the sort of influence that the age care lobby
Speaker 2: has had. I think it has argued on the side
Speaker 2: of deregulation, inevitably stood in the way of financial transparency,
Speaker 2: inevitably raised concerns about any moves to create guardrails around
Speaker 2: staffing levels or professionalization of the workforce. All of these
Speaker 2: things have been resisted. So in a way, it's a
Speaker 2: sector that's sort of been dragged kicking and screaming to
Speaker 2: these changes.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately for them, they sent the poet Sarah Hall of
Speaker 1: that to advocate for people in the sector, which is
Speaker 1: a very powerful enemy to have. I think, Sarah Holmbat,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us. I really appreciate
Speaker 1: your advocacy and your insight on this issue.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Rick, and it's a pleasure to chat to you.
Speaker 2: I also have appreciated for many, many years your work
Speaker 2: at reporting on this issue, so it's been a joy.
Speaker 1: Also in the news today, a study published in the
Speaker 1: Lancet Medical Journal has estimated the true death toll of
Speaker 1: Israel's ongoing offensive in Gaza could be one hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty six thousand people. According to Gaza's Ministry of Health,
Speaker 1: more than thirty eight thousand Palestinians have been killed, but
Speaker 1: the study, based on methodology applied by public health scientists,
Speaker 1: says the official toll doesn't take into account the dead
Speaker 1: buried under rubble or indirect death due to destruction, disease
Speaker 1: and the absence of medical care. And advocates have warned
Speaker 1: that age verification for young people on social media is
Speaker 1: a trap by tech companies to avoid regulation in other
Speaker 1: areas being imposed on their platforms. A parliamentary inquiry into
Speaker 1: the impact of social media has heard that age restrictions
Speaker 1: on Star social media platforms would not make the sites
Speaker 1: ay safer and government should instead be looking at other
Speaker 1: safety standards that could be implemented. That's awful today. I'm Rickporton.
Speaker 1: This is seven am. See you tomorrow.