Recent legislative changes in South Australia have left many justifiably alarmed over the rights of older people. This is particularly the case for people living in residential aged care. Professor Richard Bruggemann has accused the state government of attempting to resolve issues within the hospital system at the expense of the rights of elderly citizens. The new law increases the substitute decision-makers and guardians’ power. While it gives them wider-reaching powers, many are concerned that it might enable the abuse and further disenfranchisement of marginalized communities with little accountability.
Last month, without discussion or publicity, UK parliament passed the bill. This decision raised a growing outcry amongst advocates in the field and families living with dementia. Health Minister Chris Picton defended the changes, asserting that they aim to “align our laws with states across the country” and alleviate delays associated with moving hospital patients into aged care facilities. Critics are worried about what this means.
Legislative Background and Concerns
The new legislation goes further, giving substitute decision-makers the authority to consent to a person’s detention and transportation to residential aged care facilities. They can even do this without any independent review for up to six months. Professor Bruggemann has expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of this law, stating, “I can’t see how this legislation is going to work.” He made clear to stakeholders, very forcefully, that this new authority is fraught with challenges. One key pain point is the lack of places available in residential aged care facilities.
Bruggemann further unpacked his apprehension about how the legislation would be used in practice to abuse the policy. He cautioned against the potential for some bad actors to exploit these developments. Or to use them to pressure an elderly person into care, saying, “I can use this to get mum out of our home and sell that home for money. Carolanne Barkla warned against the motives of accelerated inheritance influencing choices about elder care. Her concerns are indicative of the prevalent panic found across this field.
“We should not be sacrificing the liberty of older people without having some independent oversight and the ability for them to be able to say, ‘I don’t agree, and this is why I don’t agree.’” – Carolanne Barkla
Barkla has lived experience with her parents, both of whom contracted dementia. Given this background, it’s understandable that she’s alarmed by the new legislation. She contended that the untrammeled authority of a substitute decision-maker would jeopardize the agency of seniors. This alarming lack of oversight might be endangering their well-being, too.
Perspectives from Opposition Leaders
Michelle Lensink, a Liberal Member of the Legislative Council (MLC) and Minister for Human Services since January 2018, has been vocal on the record legislative amendments. She is the opposition spokesperson on this bill. She spoke of her difficulties with the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) and substitute decision making. She has been very vocal about the potentially damaging effects these changes could have on families. Lensink has said that she viewed the changes in law as a “minor thing.” She further challenged them to prove that they really could improve people’s quality of life in aged care.
Lensink highlighted a critical aspect of the legislation: while it empowers substitute decision-makers, it does not guarantee that adequate resources are available within aged care facilities. She pointed out that simply granting authority to move individuals into aged care does not resolve fundamental issues, stating, “Because even if you have that authority to have your mum put into an aged care facility, there are no places in aged care.”
Official Responses and Future Implications
The administration argues that these guidance updates are needed to advance projects more efficiently and cut down on long administrative lags. Health Minister Chris Picton emphasized that South Australians should not miss out on federal aged care beds due to bureaucratic holdups that do not exist in other states. His comments demonstrate a desire to bring South Australia’s methods of delivering aged care up to par with national standards.
Through the political firestorm SACAT proved a vital spokesperson noted that SACAT is fully independent. They are the ones tasked with completing key evaluations that parliament requires them to conduct. This specific position raises broader questions about how effectively SACAT will be able to guarantee such oversight once the new legislative powers come into effect.
As worries grow about the real-world consequences of these legislative shifts, Barkla argued that accountability is key. She concluded her remarks by reinforcing the importance of ensuring that any decisions made on behalf of vulnerable individuals must be done judiciously, stating, “Doing that six months later is not appropriate.”
