Search

Jacqui Lambie fires up on Coles and Woolies

Jacqui Lambie has taken aim at Coles and Woolworths, after an inquiry has been launched against the supermarket giants. The supermarkets look set to be ordered to front up to a senate inquiry, to examine whether they are price gouging to get record profits amid a cost of living crisis. However, Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie said the supermarkets should face more than just an inquiry, and called on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to take real action. “Let’s be honest, they are like a bloody cartel,” she told Sky News on Monday. “I think what I find really shameful … is that we’ve got to run another inquiry to tell us the same thing, when we know very well that if we bulked up the (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) and gave it more powers they could actually fix this." “Where is the prime minister? Where is he?” Before the inquiry can officially be launched, the competition watchdog requires a referral from the Treasurer. Senator Lambie's opinions come after the Agriculture Minister Murray Watt called on the supermarket chains to freeze the price of a leg of Christmas ham, as Aussies continue to struggle with the cost of living crisis. “We know families are doing it tough at the moment and the cost of a lot of things is going up,” the Queensland senator said. “Presents for the kids, fuel to get to the other side of town to see your parents, fresh seafood as well as drinks, the cost of Christmas can really add up.” “Anything that can be done to give families a hand during this time would really be beneficial.” Coles and Woolworths have both insisted they will not be looking to hike up prices as it gets closer to the silly season, as both supermarkets have committed to dropping prices of popular Christmas items. Image credits: Getty Images

Money & Banking

A COVID inquiry has been announced. But is COVID still a thing? Do I need a booster?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-toole-18259">Michael Toole</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/burnet-institute-992">Burnet Institute</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/heidi-drummer-1472642">Heidi Drummer</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/burnet-institute-992">Burnet Institute</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/suman-majumdar-117988">Suman Majumdar</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/burnet-institute-992">Burnet Institute</a> Thursday’s <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-21/inquiry-to-be-announced-into-aus-government-covid-19-response/102882616">announcement</a> <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/improving-future-preparedness-inquiry-response-covid-19-pandemic">of an independent inquiry</a> into Australia’s COVID response will examine how we’ve handled the pandemic and how we could better prepare for the next one. But the pandemic is not just a once-in-a-lifetime event that’s over and needs to be analysed. It’s still with us. The Omicron variant <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-evasive-and-transmissible-is-the-newest-omicron-offshoot-ba-2-86-that-causes-covid-19-4-questions-answered-212453">continues to mutate</a> and <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-21/new-covid-strain-variant-pirola-ba-2-86-in-australia-symptoms/102873304">new sub-variants</a> emerge. For instance, the highly-mutated BA.2.86 (known as Pirola) has just been <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-21/new-covid-strain-variant-pirola-ba-2-86-in-australia-symptoms/102873304">detected</a> in Australia. The SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID, then becomes more adept at evading immunity from infections and vaccines. COVID is not yet predictably seasonal and we expect waves every three to six months. The United States has seen a <a href="https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_weeklyhospitaladmissions_select_00">threefold increase</a> in hospitalisations since mid-July due to waning immunity and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-who-has-declared-eris-a-variant-of-interest-how-is-it-different-from-other-omicron-variants-211276">EG.5 sub-variant</a> (known as Eris). The United Kingdom has also seen a <a href="https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1702790082749448202?t=FLc5f9FoMS6ksioFS8ATpA&s=09">significant increase</a> in adult and child hospitalisations due to COVID in the past month. In Australia, more than <a href="https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/">5,000 people</a> have died due to COVID so far this year. Excess deaths from any cause are <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/latest-release">13% higher</a> than expected. We expect many of these are related to COVID. The median age of COVID deaths is <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/covid-19-mortality-australia-deaths-registered-until-31-july-2023">around 85 years old</a> in Australia. But there were 267 reported deaths in people under 50 until the end of July 2023; some may have had weaker immune systems. The impacts of <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/longandrepeatedcovid">long COVID and re-infections</a> are significant, which <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-20/younger-active-female-data-reveals-long-covid-profile/101251352">one study shows</a> mainly affects people of working age and most commonly women. <h2>I’ve had a booster. Does that still protect me?</h2> We know immunity from COVID vaccines wanes over time. In a paper published in May, a <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2804451?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=050323">systematic review</a> of 40 studies showed by how much. Protection by the first two doses of the vaccine (known as the primary series) against symptomatic infection from Omicron waned from almost 53% one month after the second dose to just over 14% after six months. The same review found a booster (third or fourth dose) increased protective immunity to the same levels as the primary series. However, that immunity waned to just 30% nine months later. A number of studies have shown protection against severe disease and death from the Omicron variant also wanes over time. For example, <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(23)00365-1/fulltext#seccestitle10">a UK study</a> found a primary series plus a bivalent booster (targets two strains) provided 53% protection against hospitalisation four weeks after the booster among people aged 50 or over. Protection dropped to 36% at ten weeks. An <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4445191">Australian study</a>, yet to be independently verified by other researchers, suggests protection against death from COVID also wanes. Of 3.8 million adults over 65 years, protection of a third dose booster against death from COVID waned from an estimated 93% within three months to 56% after six months. So we believe a reasonable interpetation of the above data is to recommend a booster every six months in people aged 75 and older, and younger people with impaired immune systems. But in Australia, just over <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/covid-19-vaccine-rollout-update-15-september-2023.pdf">50%</a> of people aged 75 or older have received a booster in the past six months; only about 38% of people aged 65-74 and about 9% in those aged 18-64 years. <h2>I’ve had COVID recently. Surely that’s enough</h2> There is a widespread perception that if you’ve been infected with COVID and have had the primary series of the vaccine then you’re immune and, therefore, don’t need to get a booster. This is commonly described as having “hybrid immunity”. However, a very <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02465-5/fulltext">large study</a> across 19 countries found infection conferred different levels of immunity, depending on the variant. While infection with COVID effectively protected against reinfection by the original, Alpha, Beta and Delta variants, this was much less effective against the Omicron BA.1 variant. Since BA.1, there have been many new sub-variants that are even more adept at evading immunity. <h2>Who can get a booster?</h2> Earlier this month, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/news/atagi-update-on-the-covid-19-vaccination-program">recommended</a> all adults aged 75 or older “should receive” an additional dose of the bivalent vaccine if six months have passed since their last dose. Additionally, people aged 65-74 and immunocompromised younger adults should “consider” an additional dose. ATAGI argues that the baseline risk of severe illness in people under 65 is low if they have already been vaccinated, and particularly if they have also been infected. So, a further 2023 dose for this group would offer little additional benefit, even if it has been more than six months since their last dose. The US has taken a different approach. Last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2023/p0912-COVID-19-Vaccine.html">recommended</a> all people over six months who have not received a COVID vaccine in the previous two months should get a dose of the newly approved monovalent (single strain) vaccines. These have been developed by Pfizer and Moderna to specifically <a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-action-updated-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-better-protect-against-currently-circulating">target the XBB.1.5</a> sub-variant of Omicron. <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2023/09/health-canada-authorizes-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-targeting-the-omicron-xbb15-subvariant.html">Health Canada</a> has adopted similar recommendations. These new monovalent vaccines are expected <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/should-i-get-covid-19-booster">to be effective</a> in preventing infection by recently emerging Omicron sub-variants, such as EG.5 and FL.1.51 derived from the XBB.1.5 sub-variant, and the newer highly mutated <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-sars-cov-2-variants-of-concern-variant-risk-assessments/risk-assessment-for-sars-cov-2-variant-v-23aug-01-or-ba286">BA.2.86</a>, which arose from an earlier sub-variant and is a significant evolutionary leap. While Canada and the US move into the northern hemisphere winter, Australians should not believe they are at lower risk during the summer. After all, <a href="https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/">two large COVID waves</a> in Australia were in the summers of 2021/22 and 2022/23. Monovalent XBB.1.5 vaccines are not yet available in Australia, but are being evaluated by the <a href="https://www.tga.gov.au/products/covid-19/covid-19-vaccines/covid-19-vaccines-regulatory-status">Therapeutic Goods Administration</a>. So, in the future, Australia’s advice about who’s eligible for a booster, and which type of booster, may change. <h2>So, how do I decide if I need a booster now?</h2> There is evidence in Australia of <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-21/new-covid-strain-variant-pirola-ba-2-86-in-australia-symptoms/102873304">growth of</a> the newer subvariants, including the detection of BA.2.86. So all Australians aged 75 and over who have not had a booster in the past six months should immediately have the currently available bivalent vaccine. Younger age groups may wait until further ATAGI advice about the new monovalent vaccines. <h2>COVID is not over</h2> While there is no need for alarm, Australians need to be aware of the ongoing significant impacts of COVID. The SARS-CoV-2 virus is still a formidable foe as it continues to mutate. COVID vaccines will be <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/improving-future-preparedness-inquiry-response-covid-19-pandemic">among the topics</a> the newly announced inquiry will investigate. But we cannot rely on vaccines alone. Avoiding (re)infection is also vital. Breathe <a href="https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/ventilation">clean indoor air</a>, wear <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/types-of-masks.html">high quality masks</a> and get tested so you can access <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/health-alerts/covid-19/treatments/eligibility">antivirals</a> if eligible.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213469/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-toole-18259">Michael Toole</a>, Associate Principal Research Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/burnet-institute-992">Burnet Institute</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/heidi-drummer-1472642">Heidi Drummer</a>, Professor and Co-Program Director, Disease Elimination, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/burnet-institute-992">Burnet Institute</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/suman-majumdar-117988">Suman Majumdar</a>, Associate Professor and Chief Health Officer - COVID and Health Emergencies, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/burnet-institute-992">Burnet Institute</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-covid-inquiry-has-been-announced-but-is-covid-still-a-thing-do-i-need-a-booster-213469">original article</a>.

Body

Bruce Lehrmann condemns damning inquiry and labels trial conduct as a "dark chapter"

Bruce Lehrmann has expressed his strong disapproval of a damning inquiry into his rape trial, referring to it as "a dark chapter" in the justice system. In response to the inquiry's findings, Bruce Lehrmann has criticised the Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold, for his conduct during the trial, stating that it was a troubling episode for the justice system. The former Liberal staffer, who intends to pursue a multimillion-dollar compensation claim over the trial's handling, commended his legal team, led by Steve Whybrow SC and Kamy Saeedi lawyers. Mr. Lehrmann stated to <a href="https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/bruce-lehrmann-slams-damning-inquiry-describes-trial-conduct-as-dark-chapter/news-story/b5b6ec06d5b435f8870a1e7d5b9ae4b8" target="_blank" rel="noopener">news.com.au</a>, "Much of what we are reading, my brilliant criminal defense team led by Steve Whybrow SC suspected all along. I owe everything to the lawyers who have surrounded me. This is overwhelming and alarming reading." He also acknowledged Mr. Sofronoff and his team for revealing the truth and shedding light on what he perceives as a dark chapter for the ACT Justice system. Mr. Lehrmann promised to share more details once the Chief Minister releases the full report to the public. The landmark inquiry found that the prosecution's legal initiation was appropriate, but it severely criticised Mr. Drumgold's actions during the trial. Walter Sofronoff KC, a former Supreme Court judge in Queensland, affirmed the lawfulness of the police's charges against Mr. Lehrmann and agreed that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was justified in prosecuting based on the available evidence. It is essential to note that this finding does not reflect Mr. Lehrmann's guilt or innocence but focuses on the conduct of the police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr. Lehrmann remains innocent under the law since he was never convicted, as the trial collapsed following an allegation of juror misconduct. However, the inquiry revealed damning evidence against Mr. Drumgold, accusing him of "knowingly lying" to the ACT Supreme Court regarding his alleged warning to Lisa Wilkinson concerning her Logies speech. The report uncovered unethical conduct by Mr. Drumgold, including his use of a note related to a discussion he had with Ms. Wilkinson just days before her speech. The Australian newspaper <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/sofronoff-report-reveals-shane-drumgold-lied-during-bruce-lehrmann-rape-case/news-story/07d25b9c79364a10473806e3df48dfa7" target="_blank" rel="noopener">obtained a complete copy</a> of the extensive 600-page Sofronoff report, which confirmed the seriousness of the findings against Mr. Drumgold. This led Mr. Sofronoff to contemplate whether the DPP was suitable to continue holding the office. The inquiry was initiated after Mr. Drumgold wrote a letter to ACT Chief Police Officer Neil Gaughan in November 2022, demanding an inquiry and making "scandalous allegations" about political interference. However, the inquiry revealed that these allegations were baseless and untrue. The report further criticised Mr. Drumgold for not disclosing crucial material to the defence, which is a significant violation of the principle of disclosure in criminal litigation. Chief Justice Lucy McCallum's stern criticism of Ms. Wilkinson's Logies speech led to a four-month delay in the trial and sparked a firestorm of adverse publicity. The report favoured Ms. Wilkinson's account over Mr. Drumgold's, suggesting that he had knowingly lied to Chief Justice McCallum about his warning to the broadcaster. Mr. Sofronoff stated that while Ms. Wilkinson should have exercised caution in making the speech given the trial's proximity, Mr. Drumgold had a responsibility to the court and failed to act appropriately. In conclusion, the Sofronoff inquiry found significant misconduct on the part of Mr. Drumgold and raised concerns about the fairness of the trial conduct in Bruce Lehrmann's case. Images: Getty

Legal

Could the Senate inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and children prevent future deaths?

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains names of deceased people and mentions domestic violence and murder. <hr /> <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/FirstNationswomenchildren/Public_Hearings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Public hearings</a> have officially commenced into the Senate Committee <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Missingmurderedwomen" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Inquiry</a> into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Children. The inquiry has <a href="https://www.aapnews.com.au/news/indigenous-legal-service-funds-fall-short" target="_blank" rel="noopener">found</a> “Murder rates for Indigenous women are eight times higher than for their non-Indigenous counterparts”. This came as no surprise to many of us who have worked in this field for a long time. In fact, these numbers are likely to be higher when they include manslaughter rates. The rate at which women are murdered in Australia over time (<a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/FirstNationswomenchildren/Public_Hearings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2005-06 to 2019-20</a>) have been declining. But according to the <a href="https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-03/sr39_homicide_in_australia_2019-20.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Homocide Report Australia 2019 -20</a>, report, this sadly is not the case for Indigenous women. When women are murdered in Australia, there is understandable <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44491670" target="_blank" rel="noopener">outrage</a>, displays of <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-09/hannah-clarke-children-funeral-service/12024138" target="_blank" rel="noopener">grief</a> and moments of reflection in our parliament. However, there is often silence in the media and in public discussion about the violence Indigenous women experience, as Indigenous studies Professor Bronwyn Carlson has <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-public-outrage-no-vigils-australias-silence-at-violence-against-indigenous-women-158875" target="_blank" rel="noopener">discussed</a>. This inquiry has the potential to provide voice to the Indigenous women and children we have lost and continue to lose to violence, as well as ending the silence that follows. <h2>What is this senate inquiry?</h2> In November 2021, First Nations Greens senators Dorinda Cox and Lidia Thorpe called for a Senate inquiry into the high rates of missing and murdered Indigenous women and children in Australia. Through measures including hearing testimony from survivors of violence and examining police responses, this will be an opportunity to investigate what can be changed to better address violence against Indigenous women and children in Australia. Available data tell us Indigenous women represent up to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-09/linda-burney-wants-senate-inquiry-into-missing-indigenous-women/11773992" target="_blank" rel="noopener">10%</a> of unsolved missing persons cases in Australia, many of whom are presumed dead. Indigenous women are also <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/indigenous-community-safety" target="_blank" rel="noopener">30 times</a> more likely to be hospitalised for assault-related injuries. As part of its public hearings, the inquiry is examining these damning statistics. However, the inquiry is also delving deeper, <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/FirstNationswomenchildren/Public_Hearings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">asking more</a> about the women’s stories, with the intention to go beyond statistics and hear how people are affected by their experiences with family violence. <h2>Police and domestic violence services are not helping</h2> My research has found violence against Indigenous women is significantly <a href="https://www.telethonkids.org.au/globalassets/media/documents/aboriginal-health/working-together-second-edition/wt-part-5-chapt-23-final.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">under-reported</a> and perpetrators regularly go unpunished. This is not to say Indigenous women are not crying out for support: they are and have been. However, they are often confronted with a dilemma of who is safe to turn to, and what the consequences of reporting might be. For First Nations women, there are significant risks to consider when reporting violence to police or seeking assistance from domestic violence services. These risks include their children being <a href="https://theconversation.com/another-stolen-generation-looms-unless-indigenous-women-fleeing-violence-can-find-safe-housing-123526" target="_blank" rel="noopener">taken from them</a> by child protection services, the women themselves being arrested for unrelated criminal matters, and the risk of being misidentified as the perpetrator. Criminology and law researcher <a href="https://academic.oup.com/bjc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjc/azab103/6430028" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Emma Buxton-Namisnyk’s</a> study of domestic violence policing of First Nations women in Australia found “there were very few examples of police interventions that did not produce some identifiable harm”. Buxton-Namisnyk found this harm was through police inaction and non-enforcement of domestic violence laws. Some instances involved police action resulting in “eroding victim’s agency” through criminalising victims and increasing police surveillance over their families. In June 2022, Acting Coroner Elisabeth Armitage handed down <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-10/coronial-inquest-roberta-findings-darwin-local-court/101141340" target="_blank" rel="noopener">damning findings</a> against the Northern Territory Police in the death of Roberta, an Aboriginal woman from the Katherine region. Armitage said the police “did nothing to help her”. In fact, the fatal assault was the seventh time Roberta’s partner had abused her in less than two weeks. It was five days after Roberta had been told by police to “<a href="https://justice.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/1113600/D01052019-Roberta-Curry.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stop calling us</a>”. Armitage summed up this case as one in which police failed to follow any of their procedures concerning domestic violence complaints. She also found their manner towards Roberta was rude and dismissive. These actions and failures were not confined to the actions of police. The triple-zero call operator incorrectly classified Roberta’s calls for help, and the parole officer tasked with supervising Roberta’s partner was oblivious to his breaches of parole conditions. The breakdown in communication across these services and the lack of support available to Roberta created the conditions that led to her death. This case also speaks to a broader issue of bystanders who fail to act on our women’s cries for help. The Northern Territory is a unique jurisdiction in that it is <a href="https://nt.gov.au/law/crime/domestic-family-and-sexual-violence/report-domestic-family-and-sexual-violence" target="_blank" rel="noopener">mandatory</a> for all adults to <a href="https://legislation.nt.gov.au/en/LegislationPortal/~/link.aspx?_id=2AB69753FCA64C5281F9E2ED1FF089E7&_z=z" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report domestic violence</a> “when the life or safety of another person is under serious or imminent threat” or be liable for a fine up to $20,000. Despite this, Armitage explained there were witnesses to the violence Roberta endured, who did not report. To my knowledge, no one has been held accountable for failing to report. <h2>There are stories behind the numbers</h2> During this Senate inquiry, politicians need to consider the stories behind the statistics, such as Roberta’s. It is these stories that demonstrate the need for domestic and family violence death reviews in all of our states and territories. They provide the opportunity to understand the victim’s story and how it is affected by services and systems currently in place. But it’s also critical Indigenous people are included in the process of reviews and the analysis of what keeps going wrong with services that are meant to save lives. In addition to this, there needs to be an extensive review of cases over time to understand trends in missing and murdered Indigenous women and children. We need to find out whether systemic problems or issues in practice are responsible for failing these women. As the United Nations’ violence against Indigenous women and girls <a href="https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G22/323/90/PDF/G2232390.pdf?OpenElement" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> states, Indigenous women already have to navigate violence in the form of racial discrimination and system inequities. Our calls for help need to be met with a culturally safe person who can hear our stories and respond with care and respect to help us navigate our way to safety. This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/could-the-senate-inquiry-into-missing-and-murdered-indigenous-women-and-children-prevent-future-deaths-192020" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. Image: Getty

Legal

Despite more than 30 major inquiries, governments still haven’t fixed aged care. Why are they getting away with it?

It is fair to say the findings have been highly critical of the way aged care is run in this country. Many of these concerns have been brought to light again — along with new issues raised — in the ongoing Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Yet, as the royal commission has noted, successive Australian governments have shown a “lack of willingness to commit to change”. Responses often come years after the review and recount what has been done in an almost tangential way. Even the establishment of the royal commission was not based on previous inquiries or recommendations, but in response to media exposés of the appalling conditions in some aged care facilities. From these dysfunctional circumstances, three questions arise. First, what are the ongoing issues with aged care in Australia? Second, why have successive governments been comfortable making do with piecemeal solutions rather than truly “fixing” aged care, once and for all? Finally, and most perplexingly, why have Australian voters let them get away with it? What’s the problem? It is important to emphasise that aged care is predominantly a federal government responsibility. The 1997 Aged Care Act is the main law covering government-funded aged care. This includes rules for funding, regulation, approval of providers, quality of care and the rights of those in care. Since 2019, the federal Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act regulates complaints, sanctions and enforcement, but has been criticised for lacking teeth. The 1997 act diluted many preexisting regulatory protections, such as strict financial accreditation and staffing requirements, and opened the sector up to privatisation. At the time, concerns were raised the new regime could compromise standards of care in aged care facilities and disadvantage older people on lower incomes. The concerns were raised again and amplified in subsequent years. For example, in 2011, a Productivity Commission report noted Australia’s aged care system needed a “fundamental redesign”. Here is a brief summary of the recurring issues raised in multiple reports: <ul> <li>the huge difficulty people have navigating the aged care system, including finding accurate information about facilities</li> <li>failure to meet the needs of vulnerable older people</li> <li>poor quality care, especially for those with dementia and other disabilities</li> <li>the use of chemical or physical restraints</li> <li>inappropriate staff ratios and poor training</li> <li>the rising cost of care, especially in light of an ageing population</li> <li>adherence to accreditation standards</li> <li>ineffective complaints mechanisms.</li> </ul> Why haven’t these problems been fixed? One of the major hurdles to real reform is the relationship between the aged care industry and the federal government. The government funds the sector and provides a relatively “light-touch” oversight, while the providers attend to the day-to-day running of the facilities. However, there is concern this alignment has meant successive governments are not as involved as they should be and proposals for change are diluted by the influence of industry lobbyists. Another reason for governments’ reluctance to intervene is many of the providers are “too big to fail”. A facility’s licence and government funding can be withdrawn if standards are not met. Yet this rarely happens. Why? Because if a licence is revoked, residents need somewhere to go. The issues here can be seen in the closure of the Earle Haven nursing home in July 2019. Here, 68 elderly people were left homeless and had to be moved to hospitals and other aged care facilities. As a further example, Bupa, one of Australia’s largest providers, continues to operate, despite sanctions or failing fundamental assessments. Why isn’t aged care a vote winner? After so many inquiries and so many horror headlines, the problems in aged care are well and truly common knowledge. But do Australians care enough about aged care for it to influence their vote — and so, influence the way governments respond? If we cast our minds back to the 2019 federal election campaign, the hot button issue concerning older people was the potential demise of franking credits and negative gearing. In-home and residential aged care barely rated a mention in the campaigns of the major parties. Even now, despite the publicity surrounding the royal commission, if an election was held today, would this issue actually influence voting intentions? Sadly, it seems unlikely. During the July 2020 Eden-Monaro byelection, a survey of nearly 700 voters showed while 84% believed the aged care system was “in crisis”, this influenced the vote of less than 4% of respondents. It also ranked last in a list of seven issues of importance. When heartfelt concern does not translate to winning votes, there is little incentive for the federal government to provide meaningful solutions to well-documented problems. We only need to look to the record spending in the 2020 Budget, which provided only 23,000 extra home care packages and deferred consideration of funding for residential aged care until the royal commission’s final report next year. It comes back to voters Why does concern for the plight of people in aged care fail to generate public action? We suggest it is because many Australians consciously or unconsciously have ageist attitudes — that older people are inherently not important. On this front, look no further than arguments made by prominent commentators about the fate of older people during COVID-19. Yes, most fair-thinking Australians care about our older citizens, yet until either we or our family members are directly impacted, we do not prioritise it. If we don’t care enough or care about other things more, nothing will change. And, while this remains the case, the government will have no reason to do more than just tinker with an unsatisfactory status quo. Written by Eileen Webb, Christie M. Gardiner and Teresa Somes. This article first appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/despite-more-than-30-major-inquiries-governments-still-havent-fixed-aged-care-why-are-they-getting-away-with-it-147736">The Conversation</a>.

Retirement Income

Vic's top public servant resigns "effective immediately"

The secretary of Victoria’s Department of Premier and Cabinet Chris Eccles has resigned, saying he feels staying in the position would be a “significant distraction to the ongoing work of the Victorian public sector”. Mr Eccles fronted the state’s hotel quarantine inquiry in September, and stated neither he nor the Premier’s department made the decision to use private security in the program. He also revealed that he was unaware whether or not he passed on a Commonwealth offer of ADF support in early April. The inquiry was told that on March 27, the day the hotel quarantine program was introduced, the chief police commissioner Graham Ashton texted Mr Eccles at 1:16 pm saying: "Chris I am getting word from Canberra for a plan whereby arrivals from overseas are to be subjected to enforced isolation from tomorrow. The suggestion is Victorian arrivals are conveyed to a hotel Somewhere where they are guarded by police for 14 days. Are you aware of anything in this regard?? Graham." In a written statement the the hotel quarantine inquiry, Mr Ashton said he did not receive a response to the message and couldn’t remember if anyone rang him about the private security arrangements. Mr Ashton's evidence said at 1:22pm, he texted Australian Federal Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw and said: "Mate my advise [sic] is that ADF will do Passenger transfer and private security will be used." Mr Eccles also told the inquiry that he could not remember whether he called Mr Ashton after receiving the message, but records show he called him for two minutes at 1:17 pm that day. "There has been much commentary and speculation about whether I or anyone else at [the Department of Premier and Cabinet] spoke to Mr Ashton during that narrow timeframe on 27 March," Mr Eccles said in his resignation statement. "It is now evident I did." Mr Eccles said he did not have his full phone records until the hotel quarantine inquiry requested them on Saturday. But he went on to say that while the records show the did call the then chief commissioner on March 27, it does not show that he or anyone in the Premier’s department made the decision to use private security. "I am absolutely certain I did not convey to Mr Ashton any decision regarding the use of private security as I was unaware any such decision had been made, and I most certainly had not made such a decision myself," Mr Eccles said.

News

5 questions about superannuation the Australian government's new inquiry will need to ask

The government’s new <a href="http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/josh-frydenberg-2018/media-releases/review-retirement-income-system">retirement incomes review</a> will need to work quickly. On Friday Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said he expected a final report by June, just seven months after the issues paper he wants it to deliver by November. The deadline is tight for a reason. In recommending the inquiry in its report on the (in)effeciency of Australia’s superannuation system this year, the Productivity Commission said it should be completed “<a href="https://theconversation.com/frydenberg-should-call-a-no-holds-barred-inquiry-into-superannuation-now-because-labor-wont-114079">in advance of any increase in the superannuation guarantee rate</a>”. In other words, in advance of the next leglislated increase in compulsory superannuation contributions, which is on July 1, 2021. The next increase (actually, the next five increases) will hurt. The last two, on July 1 2013 and July 1 2014, took place when wage growth was stronger. In 2013 wages growth was 3% per year. <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265468/original/file-20190324-36267-olwp2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265468/original/file-20190324-36267-olwp2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/key-superannuation-rates-and-thresholds/?anchor=Superguaranteepercentage" class="source">Source: Australian Tax Office</a> And they were small – an extra 0.25 per cent of salary each. The next five, to be imposed annually from July 1 2021, are twice the size: <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/key-superannuation-rates-and-thresholds/?anchor=Superguaranteepercentage">0.5% of salary each</a>. If taken out of wage growth, they’ve the potential to cut it from its present usually low 2.3% per annum to something with a “1” in front of it, pushing it below the rate of inflation, for five consecutive years. If we were going to do that (even if we thought the economy and wage growth could afford it) it would be a good idea to have a good reason why. After all, compulsory superannuation is the compulsory locking away of income that could otherwise be spent or used to pay down debt or saved through another vehicle, regardless of the wishes of the person whose income it is. Question 1. What’s it for? Fortunately, the new inquiry doesn’t need to do much work on this one. For most of its life compulsory super hasn’t had an agreed purpose. At times it has been justified as a means of restraining wage growth, at times as means of restraining government spending on the pension, at times as means of boosting national savings. In 2014, more than 20 years after compulsory super began, the Murray Financial System Review asked the government to <a href="http://fsi.gov.au/publications/final-report/executive-summary/#recommendations">set a clear objective for it</a>, and two years later the government came up with one, enshrined in a bill entitled the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5762">Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2016</a>. The bill lapsed, but the objective at its centre lives on as the best description we’ve come up with yet of what compulsory super is for: <blockquote> to provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the age pension </blockquote> Which raises the question of how much we need. For compulsory super, the answer is probably none. People who want more than the pension and their other savings can save more through voluntary super. People who don’t want more (or can’t afford to save more) shouldn’t. Question 2. How much do people need? Assuming for the moment that how much people need in retirement is relevant for determining how much compulsory super they need, the inquiry will need to examine what people need to live on in retirement. The “<a href="https://www.superannuation.asn.au/resources/retirement-standard">standards</a>” prepared by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia are loose. The more generous of the two allows for overseas travel every two or so years, A$163 per couple per fortnight on dining out, $81 on alcohol “or equivalent spent with charity or church”. It isn’t a reasonable guide to how much people need to live on, and certainly isn’t a reasonable guide for how much the government should intervene to make sure they have to live on. They are standards it doesn’t intervene to support while people are working. And there’s something else. Super isn’t what will fund it. Most retirement living is funded outside of super, either through the age pension, private savings, or the family home (which saves on rent). Most 65 year olds have <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/912-Money-in-retirement-re-issue-1.pdf">more saved outside of super than in it</a>, and a lot more than that saved in the family home. It’s a slight of hand to say that retirees need a certain proportion of their final wage to live on and then to say that that’s how much super should provide. Question 3: Does it come out of wages? The best guess is that, although paid by employers in addition to wages, compulsory super comes out of what would otherwise have been their wage bill. <a href="http://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-09/foi_2534_document_set_for_release_re.pdf">Treasury</a> puts it this way: <blockquote> Though compulsory superannuation guarantee contributions are paid by employers, wage setting generally takes into account all labour costs. As such, it is widely accepted that employees bear the cost of higher superannuation guarantees in the form of lower take home pay. </blockquote> The inquiry will probably make its own determination. If it finds that extra contributions <a href="https://theconversation.com/productivity-commission-finds-super-a-bad-deal-and-yes-it-comes-out-of-wages-109638">do indeed come out of what would have been pay rises</a>, it will have to consider the tradeoff between lower pay rises (and they are already very low) and the compulsory provision of more superannuation in retirement. Question 4: Does it boost private saving? It’d be tempting to think that the compulsory nature of compulsory superannuation meant that each extra dollar funnelled into it increased retirement savings by an extra dollar. But it doesn’t, in part because wealthy Australians who are already saving a lot have the option of offsetting it by saving less in other ways. For them, the increase in saving isn’t compulsory. For financially stretched Australians unable to afford to save (or for Australians at times in times life when they can’t afford to save) the compulsion is real, and unwelcome. The inquiry will have to make its own assessment, updating <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2007/pdf/rdp2007-08.pdf">Reserve Bank research</a> which found in 2007 that each extra dollar in compulsory accounts added between 70 and 90 cents to household wealth. Question 5: Does it boost national saving? Boosting private saving (at the expense of people who are unable to escape) is one thing. Boosting national savings (private and government) is another. The tax concessions the government hands out to support superannuation are expensive. The concession on contributions alone is set to cost $19 billion this year and $23 billion in 2022-23, notwithstanding some tightening up. It predominately benefits high earners, the kind of people who don’t need assistance to save. On balance it is likely that the system does little for national savings, cutting government savings by as much as it boosts private savings. But because the question hasn’t been asked, not since the Fitzgerald report on national saving in 1993 shortly after compulsory super was introduced, we don’t know. It’ll be up to the inquiry to bring us up to date.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124400/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-martin-682709">Peter Martin</a>, Visiting Fellow, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</a> This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/5-questions-about-superannuation-the-governments-new-inquiry-will-need-to-ask-124400">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

5 questions about superannuation the government's new inquiry will need to ask

The government’s new <a href="http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/josh-frydenberg-2018/media-releases/review-retirement-income-system">retirement incomes review</a> will need to work quickly. On Friday Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said he expected a final report by June, just seven months after the issues paper he wants it to deliver by November. The deadline is tight for a reason. In recommending the inquiry in its report on the (in)effeciency of Australia’s superannuation system this year, the Productivity Commission said it should be completed “<a href="https://theconversation.com/frydenberg-should-call-a-no-holds-barred-inquiry-into-superannuation-now-because-labor-wont-114079">in advance of any increase in the superannuation guarantee rate</a>”. In other words, in advance of the next leglislated increase in compulsory superannuation contributions, which is on July 1, 2021. The next increase (actually, the next five increases) will hurt. The last two, on July 1 2013 and July 1 2014, took place when wage growth was stronger. In 2013 wages growth was 3% per year. <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265468/original/file-20190324-36267-olwp2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265468/original/file-20190324-36267-olwp2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/key-superannuation-rates-and-thresholds/?anchor=Superguaranteepercentage" class="source">Source: Australian Tax Office</a> And they were small – an extra 0.25 per cent of salary each. The next five, to be imposed annually from July 1 2021, are twice the size: <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/key-superannuation-rates-and-thresholds/?anchor=Superguaranteepercentage">0.5% of salary each</a>. If taken out of wage growth, they’ve the potential to cut it from its present usually low 2.3% per annum to something with a “1” in front of it, pushing it below the rate of inflation, for five consecutive years. If we were going to do that (even if we thought the economy and wage growth could afford it) it would be a good idea to have a good reason why. After all, compulsory superannuation is the compulsory locking away of income that could otherwise be spent or used to pay down debt or saved through another vehicle, regardless of the wishes of the person whose income it is. <h2>Question 1. What’s it for?</h2> Fortunately, the new inquiry doesn’t need to do much work on this one. For most of its life compulsory super hasn’t had an agreed purpose. At times it has been justified as a means of restraining wage growth, at times as means of restraining government spending on the pension, at times as means of boosting national savings. In 2014, more than 20 years after compulsory super began, the Murray Financial System Review asked the government to <a href="http://fsi.gov.au/publications/final-report/executive-summary/#recommendations">set a clear objective for it</a>, and two years later the government came up with one, enshrined in a bill entitled the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5762">Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2016</a>. The bill lapsed, but the objective at its centre lives on as the best description we’ve come up with yet of what compulsory super is for: <blockquote> to provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the age pension </blockquote> Which raises the question of how much we need. For compulsory super, the answer is probably none. People who want more than the pension and their other savings can save more through voluntary super. People who don’t want more (or can’t afford to save more) shouldn’t. <h2>Question 2. How much do people need?</h2> Assuming for the moment that how much people need in retirement is relevant for determining how much compulsory super they need, the inquiry will need to examine what people need to live on in retirement. The “<a href="https://www.superannuation.asn.au/resources/retirement-standard">standards</a>” prepared by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia are loose. The more generous of the two allows for overseas travel every two or so years, A$163 per couple per fortnight on dining out, $81 on alcohol “or equivalent spent with charity or church”. It isn’t a reasonable guide to how much people need to live on, and certainly isn’t a reasonable guide for how much the government should intervene to make sure they have to live on. They are standards it doesn’t intervene to support while people are working. And there’s something else. Super isn’t what will fund it. Most retirement living is funded outside of super, either through the age pension, private savings, or the family home (which saves on rent). Most 65 year olds have <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/912-Money-in-retirement-re-issue-1.pdf">more saved outside of super than in it</a>, and a lot more than that saved in the family home. It’s a slight of hand to say that retirees need a certain proportion of their final wage to live on and then to say that that’s how much super should provide. <h2>Question 3: Does it come out of wages?</h2> The best guess is that, although paid by employers in addition to wages, compulsory super comes out of what would otherwise have been their wage bill. <a href="http://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-09/foi_2534_document_set_for_release_re.pdf">Treasury</a> puts it this way: <blockquote> Though compulsory superannuation guarantee contributions are paid by employers, wage setting generally takes into account all labour costs. As such, it is widely accepted that employees bear the cost of higher superannuation guarantees in the form of lower take home pay. </blockquote> The inquiry will probably make its own determination. If it finds that extra contributions <a href="https://theconversation.com/productivity-commission-finds-super-a-bad-deal-and-yes-it-comes-out-of-wages-109638">do indeed come out of what would have been pay rises</a>, it will have to consider the tradeoff between lower pay rises (and they are already very low) and the compulsory provision of more superannuation in retirement. <h2>Question 4: Does it boost private saving?</h2> It’d be tempting to think that the compulsory nature of compulsory superannuation meant that each extra dollar funnelled into it increased retirement savings by an extra dollar. But it doesn’t, in part because wealthy Australians who are already saving a lot have the option of offsetting it by saving less in other ways. For them, the increase in saving isn’t compulsory. For financially stretched Australians unable to afford to save (or for Australians at times in times life when they can’t afford to save) the compulsion is real, and unwelcome. The inquiry will have to make its own assessment, updating <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2007/pdf/rdp2007-08.pdf">Reserve Bank research</a> which found in 2007 that each extra dollar in compulsory accounts added between 70 and 90 cents to household wealth. <h2>Question 5: Does it boost national saving?</h2> Boosting private saving (at the expense of people who are unable to escape) is one thing. Boosting national savings (private and government) is another. The tax concessions the government hands out to support superannuation are expensive. The concession on contributions alone is set to cost $19 billion this year and $23 billion in 2022-23, notwithstanding some tightening up. It predominately benefits high earners, the kind of people who don’t need assistance to save. On balance it is likely that the system does little for national savings, cutting government savings by as much as it boosts private savings. But because the question hasn’t been asked, not since the Fitzgerald report on national saving in 1993 shortly after compulsory super was introduced, we don’t know. It’ll be up to the inquiry to bring us up to date.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124400/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> Written by Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University. Republished with permission of <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/5-questions-about-superannuation-the-governments-new-inquiry-will-need-to-ask-124400" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.

Retirement Income

Major development in William Tyrrell inquiry as local claims sighting

A local man has claimed to have seen William Tyrrell being driven away “with speed” from the direction of his foster grandmother’s house on the morning of his disappearance. Ronald Chapman told the court on Wednesday he was standing in front of his Kendall home on the morning of September 12, 2014, when he saw an “old box-type four-wheel drive” with a woman behind the wheels and <a rel="noopener" href="https://10daily.com.au/news/australia/a190828wrstg/major-development-in-william-tyrrell-inquiry-as-witness-claims-sighting-20190828" target="_blank">a boy in the back seat wearing a Spider-Man suit</a>. “A young boy with his hands up against the window. He was standing, he was unrestrained, he wasn’t crying,” Chapman told the inquest. “I did utter a profanity under my breath about the woman being stupid and not having the kid restrained.” He said the woman seemed to be in her late 20s or early 30s with blonde hair. “She was driving with speed, I couldn’t estimate how fast, and almost lost control as she came around the corner at a wide angle,” he said. Chapman claimed to see a blue sedan driven by a man follow shortly after. “It was virtually on two wheels on the grass as he came around the corner on the wrong side,” he said. He said he later saw a news report that night about William Tyrrell being missing and identified him as the boy he saw in the car. “I recognised the boy’s face and features,” he said. “I’m 100 per cent sure it was William in the back of the car … No doubt.” Chapman said after waiting “several weeks” for the police to come to his doors, he went to report the sighting. The court heard last week that Chapman was well-respected in the neighbourhood, and that police believed he was a credible witness. The inquest continues.

News

Aussie life insurance providers under scrutiny

As the parliamentary inquiry into life insurance continues, the practices of providers in this beleaguered industry have come under increasing scrutiny. Fairfax journalist Jessica Irvine highlighted many of these concerns in a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/many-of-us-dont-even-know-we-have-life-insurance-often-its-worthless-20170224-gul0ow.html" target="_blank">commentary piece published by Fairfax Media</a> this morning, writing, “Australians now fork out more than $44 billion a year in premiums for life insurance policies, including for death, total and permanent disability and income protection. The scandal is – sorry – one of the scandals of life insurance is that many Aussies don't even know they're doing it.” Ms Irvine was also highly critical of the lengths life insurance providers will take, to avoid paying claims, writing, “Life insurance claims have increased markedly in the past half decade, partly because many Aussies are waking up to the fact they have cover. In response, many life insurers have become explicitly focused on trying to reduce claim payouts. Indeed, insurance companies are even paying money to super funds whose members have low claim rates.” Ms Irvine concludes <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/many-of-us-dont-even-know-we-have-life-insurance-often-its-worthless-20170224-gul0ow.html" target="_blank">her piece</a> with a scathing attack: “Life insurance now appears little more than a costly gamble on protection that for many will never pay off, when it should be an important protection for the most vulnerable period of our lives… The committee will report its recommendations by June 30. It can't come soon enough.” What’s your opinion on the life insurance industry? Related links: <a href="http://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/insurance/2016/08/how-to-guard-yourself-against-insurance-fraud/">How to guard yourself against insurance fraud</a> <a href="http://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/insurance/2016/08/how-to-cope-if-you-owe-an-insurer-money/">How to cope if you owe an insurer money</a> <a href="http://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/insurance/2016/08/resolving-disputes-with-insurance-brokers/">Resolving disputes with insurance brokers</a>

Money & Banking

Workplace age discrimination is starting younger

An Australian inquiry has heard that workplace age discrimination is starting younger than ever. An inquiry into discrimination by the Australian Human Rights Commission has found complaints of age discrimination have been received by people who are in their 40s. Official complaints to federal and state advocates about age discrimination are starting well before retirement age, with cases including an employee in the 45-54 age bracket who was told that they were too old to use the stairs at work and fired for safety reasons. Other cases include workers being made redundant because they need “fresher faces”. Australian Age and Disability Commissioner Susan Ryan is touring Australia as part of the inquiry and stated, “Although the bulk of discrimination happens in an older age bracket with those who are 50 and over, there are widely held prejudices toward older workers and that's why it takes place.”

News

NSW inquiry launched into aged care staffing

A New South Wales parliamentary inquiry has been launched to investigate the adequacy of the nursing staff levels at residential aged care facilities. Also on the agenda is the potential need for wider regulatory reform and minimum standards for personal carers. The inquiry will also investigate the changes to the Aged Care Act that requires a registered nurse be in charge and on duty at all times in a high-level care facility. The minimum staffing requirement applies to approximately half of the residential aged care facilities that are defined as a “nursing home” in NSW. The inquiry’s committee chair and Greens MP Jan Barham said the concern over potential changes had prompted the inquiry. “Residents of aged care facilities are often vulnerable, and the residents and their families should be confident that they will receive the highest quality care possible,” said Ms Barham. “We hope that this inquiry will identify and address any gaps in the level and quality of care provided by nursing homes and other aged care facilities.” Another important part of the inquiry will be an assessment of the “nurse-to-patient ratios” in residential aged care, as well as the regulation and minimum qualifications of the staff. In the past 12 months the NSW Nurses and Midwives’ Association has strongly opposed the removal of the requirement of a registered nurse (RN). They presented a petition recently to Parliament with 10,000 signatures. During the state election the NSW Labor Party announced its support to the facilities to have an RN on duty at all times. Alzheimer’s Australia NSW and Cancer Council NSW have also expressed their concern over possible changes by writing to the health minister. But the idea of a registered nurse being employed at all times in every facility has been deemed unsustainable and a waste of resources by employer peak groups. This is especially the case, they say, in areas that have difficulty getting staff. NSW is currently the only state with the requirement for a registered nurse to be on duty for every shift in a high care facility. Victoria will soon become the first state to set nurse-to-resident ratios in aged care facilities owned by the state. The NSW inquiry will be accepting submissions until 23 July. Related links: <a href="/news/news/2015/07/cost-of-victoria-public-holidays/">Victoria's TWO new public holidays could cost $900 million per year</a> <a href="/news/news/2015/07/saudi-prince-gives-away-fortune/">This Saudi prince is giving away his $42 billion fortune to charity</a> <a href="/news/news/2015/07/are-baby-boomers-to-blame/">Are baby boomers to blame for the problems facing young Australians?</a>

News

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Jacqui Lambie fires up on Coles and Woolies

A COVID inquiry has been announced. But is COVID still a thing? Do I need a booster?

Bruce Lehrmann condemns damning inquiry and labels trial conduct as a "dark chapter"

Could the Senate inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and children prevent future deaths?

Despite more than 30 major inquiries, governments still haven’t fixed aged care. Why are they getting away with it?

Vic's top public servant resigns "effective immediately"

5 questions about superannuation the Australian government's new inquiry will need to ask

5 questions about superannuation the government's new inquiry will need to ask

Major development in William Tyrrell inquiry as local claims sighting

Aussie life insurance providers under scrutiny

Workplace age discrimination is starting younger

NSW inquiry launched into aged care staffing

Our Partners