Public hearing: Homes and living, Melbourne - Day 4
Video transcript
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Good morning, everybody. I commence this fourth day of the hearing by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet today, the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation. I pay respects to their elders past and present and I honour their young people who one day will take their place as custodians. Ms Eastman.
MS EASTMAN SC: Thank you, Commissioners. Good morning. The program today is that we will start with Sherene Devanesen, who is the CEO of Yooralla. And then later today, Commissioners, you will hear from a panel of advocates who will discuss a range of issues in relation to advocacy but also their experience acting as advocates for people with disability in group homes. And then our last witnesses of the day will be from the Summer Foundation, George Taleporos and Dr Di Winkler. If I can move directly to calling Ms Devanesen.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Yes. Thank you. Ms Devanesen, you may take the oath or affirmation as you wish. Please follow the instructions that you will be given. Thank you.
<SHERENE DEVANESEN, SWORN [10.03 am]
<EXAMINATION BY MS EASTMAN
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you very much. Please sit down. Ms Eastman will ask you some questions.
MS EASTMAN SC: You are Dr Sherene Devanesen?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, I am.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you are currently the CEO of Yooralla?
DR DEVANESEN: Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you’ve held that position since 16 February 2015?
DR DEVANESEN: That’s correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: And before holding that position you were the acting CEO from February 2015.
DR DEVANESEN: No, I was the acting CEO from November 2014.
MS EASTMAN SC: November 2014. Thank you.
DR DEVANESEN: To February 2015.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you first joined Yooralla as the Chief Operating Officer in January 2014.
DR DEVANESEN: And the end of January 2014, yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. You’ve prepared a statement for the Royal Commission. Do you have a copy with you?
DR DEVANESEN: No, not really. No.
MS EASTMAN SC: You don’t have a copy of the statement?
DR DEVANESEN: Because I was just going to say a few words, that’s all. I hadn’t ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: All right.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Can we provide ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: Can we make sure that the witness has her statement. It’s behind tab 150 in the tender bundle. There will be a number of documents that I will need to take Dr Devanesen to during the course of the morning, and I understand that there is a bundle on its way or it should be here. We will work as we can ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Can we magically produce a hardcopy? Yes, we can.
MS EASTMAN SC: Ms Firkin can magically produce a hardcopy. Thank you very much. Can I ask you to have a look at the statements.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: You do have a copy.
DR DEVANESEN: I do have a copy. I just misunderstood your question.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. So let’s start again. You’ve prepared a statement for the Royal Commission.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, I did.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you have a copy of that statement.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, I do.
MS EASTMAN SC: And have you read that statement?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, I have.
MS EASTMAN SC: And are there any changes that you wish to make ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ to the statement?
DR DEVANESEN: Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: Can I just ask you, just so we can do this: if you could let me finish asking the question before you jump in and answer, it will make it a little easier for you to follow me, me to follow you, and everybody listening to follow. All right. So that’s okay. We will slow down. If I’m going too fast, let me know. All right. Are the contents of this statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, they are.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, in addition to the statement, it’s the case, isn’t it, that Yooralla provided a submission to the Royal Commission dated 3 October 2019. Now, do you have a copy of that submission with you?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Commissioners, you will find a copy of that submission behind the tender bundle at 151.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: And with respect to that submission, is this a document that you prepared?
DR DEVANESEN: With the help of others.
MS EASTMAN SC: Well, when you say “with the help of others” ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: With information provided by other people in the organisation.
MS EASTMAN SC: Is it the case that with respect to this submission that you wrote the submission and then engaged with others ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ or is it that somebody else wrote the submission and ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: No, I wrote the submission but we correlated the information with others just to make sure that all the information was accurate.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. So when the submission – when the Commission looks at a copy of the submission, can the Commissioners be confident that this is your document?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: It’s not someone else’s document.
DR DEVANESEN: Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: And when that submission was provided to the Royal Commission, can we assume that its contents are true and correct?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. Now, I want to ask you a little bit about your background, and you’ve set this out in the statement. So if I can ask you to turn to your statement. To paragraph 4 which is on page 3.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. So you tell the Royal Commission that before joining Yooralla you held the position of the Chief Executive Officer of Peninsula Health.
DR DEVANESEN: That’s correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you have over 30 years’ experience in management of health services and medical administration.
DR DEVANESEN: That’s correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: Could I ask you just to elaborate a little in terms of your professional experience, and in particular the management of health services and medical administration.
DR DEVANESEN: So I am a qualified and registered medical practitioner. And I have – I have specialist qualifications in medical administration, that is a fellowship with the Royal Australasian of Medical Administrators. For the past 30 years or so I have worked, not as a clinician but as a medical administrator, first in the Northern Territory for a period of about 13 years, and then in the Victorian Public Health Service for a period of 25 years where I held the roles of director of medical services at Peninsula Health and the Alfred Health then the role of the chief executive officer of Peninsula Health prior to joining Yooralla in 2014.
MS EASTMAN SC: Prior to joining Yooralla what experience, if any, did you have working in the disability sector and with people with disability?
DR DEVANESEN: While I was the CEO of Peninsula Health I also had an honorary position as a Board Director with Wesley Mission Victoria. I was a board director for eight years and the chair of that board for two years.
MS EASTMAN SC: So how did your role on the board – how was that relevant to work with people with disability?
DR DEVANESEN SC: I think Wesley Mission Victoria is an organisation that provides disability services. So during that eight year period I came to learn about the provision of disability services, the needs of people with disability and the importance of providing high quality safe services for people with a disability.
MS EASTMAN: All right. Now, I now want to turn to ask you a few questions about Yooralla.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And its structure and its operations.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So these are matters that you’ve also addressed both in the submission and in your statement.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So Yooralla is a not-for-profit disability support service provider; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you provide services to Victorians?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And these are Victorians living with disability; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And how many Victorians do you provide services to?
DR DEVANESEN: Approximately 4000.
MS EASTMAN SC: 4000. And you employ nearly 2000 staff; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: And these staff work in people’s homes, in the community, and throughout various sites in Victoria; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And in terms of the services that Yooralla provides, they’re not just limited to the provision of residential group home facilities; that’s right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: It’s broader than that.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So can you tell us a little bit about the nature of Yooralla’s services more broadly.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you’ve set some of this out, if it helps you to look at or read what you’ve set out in paragraph 6 of your statement.
DR DEVANESEN: So Yooralla provides a broad range of services from early childhood intervention to providing supports to people in their own homes. We run about 14 – what we call day service hubs that provide activities for people with disability during the day. We have our residential services which provide permanent accommodation but we also have respite services. We have a recreation service. We provide support coordination. And we also have business enterprises where we support people with a disability to work. So that’s the broad range of services that Yooralla provides.
MS EASTMAN SC: So if we turn to look a little more closely at residential accommodation services. So you describe these services as being provided to Yooralla customers.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And in paragraph 11 of your statement you use the word “customer” in inverted commas.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Can I ask you why the word “customer”; there are probably a range of descriptions in terms of recipients of services but throughout your material
we see reference to “customer”. Is there any particular reason why the expression “customer” or “residential customer” has been used?
DR DEVANESEN: There was a discussion about this matter at Yooralla. The discussion included the views of people supported by Yooralla. It would be fair to say there was not unanimous agreement about what the term should be but the majority believe that customer was acceptable. It’s not a term that we’re wedded to. If there is a better suggestion or something else that we should change to then we’d be happy to do that. We particularly didn’t go with participant because we do support about 800 people who are not supported by the NDIS, and the word “participant” generally relates to people supported by the NDIS.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. So in terms of the residential accommodation provided by Yooralla, you provide accommodation supports to the following range of people: adolescents and young people.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Adults.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And people over the age of 65.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So can I ask you in relation to the residential accommodation supports for adolescents and young people, what is the nature of accommodation support provided for that cohort?
DR DEVANESEN: The nature of the accommodation support provided for adolescents and young people is two-fold. There is a respite service that young people use, and we have in recent times developed, in conjunction with Mission Australia, a facility of independent units where younger people reside. They are people who lived in nursing homes or were at risk of being sent to nursing homes. We also provide very specialised and individualised services to younger children identified by the Department of Health and Human Services as having quite complex needs and funded specifically to be supported separately with a very high ratio of staff to customer for those residents as well, and we have three children in that category.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. And then for adults and people over the age of 65, these services include a range of residential accommodation supports; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Indeed.
MS EASTMAN SC: And Yooralla currently has 302 residential customers ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ residing across a range of different ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ accommodation options.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: In terms of group homes in particular, when you use the expression “group homes” you’re referring to houses where multiple residential customers live together?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: That each customer will have their own room.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And they will have shared common areas.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: But the customer doesn’t have a self-contained unit. So if they have a self-contained unit that’s not what you describe as a group home.
DR DEVANESEN: We – when we talk about all our residential customers in group settings, there are 17 other locations where they – they are actually separate units. And sometimes they’re adjacent to a group home. So the – the whole location might be referred to a group home but it also has separate independent units. And we have 43 people living in separate independent units out of the 302.
MS EASTMAN SC: So is that what’s sometimes called congregate housing or cluster housing?
DR DEVANESEN: It’s not terms that we use.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, with the group homes that Yooralla operates ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ there’s 48 group homes, and 80 per cent of – which is 80 per cent of the residential supports and accommodation provided; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: That’s right.
MS EASTMAN SC: So there’s 249 Yooralla residential customers?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And they live in group homes, be it in metropolitan areas or regional areas.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, in relation to the 48 group homes, how many of those group homes have more than six residents or six customers living together?
DR DEVANESEN: About four.
MS EASTMAN SC: About four. And for customers with five, five plus ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Many have five, sorry, but there are four that have – two have seven, one has nine, and one has eight.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. The facility that has nine, can you tell us a little bit about how that group home is structured; its layout and its operation.
DR DEVANESEN: Similar to all the other group homes, and it’s not ideal, and we have said that if a vacancy comes up in the – in those residential facilities, we won’t fill them in order to decrease it to a more acceptable number and bring it down to about five people.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. And what’s the average? Is the average five customers per home?
DR DEVANESEN: The average is five.
MS EASTMAN SC: Do you have any of the 48 group homes that has less than five customers?
DR DEVANESEN: All of them can cater for five customers.
MS EASTMAN SC: So five and then there’s two with seven and one with eight and one with nine. All right. And that collectively covers the 249 customers.
DR DEVANESEN: That’s right.
MS EASTMAN SC: I want to ask you now a little bit about the employees of Yooralla.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: When you’ve said earlier that you have several thousand employees, can you just help the Royal Commission have an understanding in terms of the employees how many of those employees are disability support workers, people working in group homes?
DR DEVANESEN: 900.
MS EASTMAN SC: 900. And of that 900, are all of them Yooralla employees?
DR DEVANESEN: No. We have a small percentage of people that we use from agencies in an emergency but the rest are all – about three per cent of agency utilisation occurs at Yooralla, the rest are all people employed by Yooralla.
MS EASTMAN SC: And breaking down, though, that group of the 900, how many of the 900 are employed on a full-time basis?
DR DEVANESEN: I can’t answer the question about a full-time basis. I can say – tell you that in our residential facilities, 78 per cent of the disability support workers are permanent employees. 19 per cent are casual employees. And three per cent are – are from agencies.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right.
DR DEVANESEN: The 19 per cent that are casual employees are recruited to Yooralla in a similar manner to the permanent employees. So they go through the same recruitment, induction and training processes. And they’re part of what we call the Yooralla bank. And they’re allocated around the organisation.
MS EASTMAN SC: So the Royal Commission has heard over the course of this week from a number of witnesses that one of the concerns is the very high rate of casuals in the workforce, and particularly the high rate of casuals working in group homes, which in turn results in a lot of support workers coming through a group home. So I don’t know – you haven’t been here during the hearings.
DR DEVANESEN: I’ve heard some of them.
MS EASTMAN SC: So you may – so have you been aware that this is ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ some of the evidence?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So what has been your experience at Yooralla in terms of the use of casual workers?
DR DEVANESEN: So at Yooralla for the residential facilities, it’s our aim to have 95 per cent of our staff as permanent. So at the moment we only have 78 per cent, and we continually try to encourage the 19 per cent that are casual on to permanent positions, but without much success. The turnover of disability support workers is quite high. The turnover for – at Yooralla all up is about 22 per cent, but the turnover of the casual staff that have been recruited and trained is 37 per cent.
MS EASTMAN SC: Is that per annum?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Yes.
DR DEVANESEN: So it’s a challenge to encourage the people who prefer to do casual work to become permanent staff. I think there is something here to do with the value of this job and how this job is valued. I think it’s not that – many people it’s their first job, and they have an intention of it being an interim position until they find work elsewhere. Sometimes amongst the casual work group, people who are also studying. So they’re unable to take on more permanent jobs. But I – but I do think that the actual position of the disability support worker should be more valued. They’re not paid much. It’s not considered a vocation and together all of us, as a system, need to address this issue in order to increase the number of permanent staff that will be prepared to work in this setting.
MS EASTMAN SC: When you say that being a disability support worker is not a vocation, would it be fair to understand that the very nature of the work that people do as a disability support worker is not the type of work that gives them career options and promotional opportunities? It’s a fairly flat job, isn’t it, in the sense that there’s not – there’s not much by way of development or progression?
DR DEVANESEN: I think that’s correct. I think that a limited number of people who are disability support workers progress into, if you like, managerial positions within the sector. I – and it – there’s a high percentage of disability support workers who are unqualified, and if we were to say that only qualified staff, that’s people with Certificate III and Certificate IV, were employed there would be a shortage. So at Yooralla 50 per cent of our disability support workers have a Cert III or a Cert IV. We have stratified various services where the complexity is higher to try and increase the percentage of the qualified people in those services, but, you know – so they have other options. They don’t have a qualification. They’re unskilled. The only training that they get is what the training that the organisation provides.
Yooralla believes that providing training initially when people join the organisation, and we provide quite comprehensive training and it’s mandated, is insufficient. That people need to be retrained because they – by virtue of the fact that they don’t have professional qualifications where you would automatically retrain anyway. So it’s – it’s quite challenging, I think. And – and I think the workplace is quite challenging for disability support workers as well. So ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: So are many of the disability support workers young people, say, university students or, as you say, some are studying?
DR DEVANESEN: Many are young. Yooralla doesn’t have that many university students. I know of people with disability who choose their own support workers outside of a disability provider setting and they have said to me that they find university students to be really good and flexible, and – and – but in the setting of permanent employment, there aren’t any university students.
MS EASTMAN SC: And what’s the gender breakdown of the disability support workers? Is this a predominantly female workforce?
DR DEVANESEN: It’s around 50 – 58 per cent or so female and the rest male at Yooralla. Majority is female but not that much of a discrepancy.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. Now, in addition to a disability support worker working in a group home, can we assume that there is also representative of management? Is there a house manager ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ or someone who’s connected in with the day-to-day management ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ of Yooralla?
DR DEVANESEN: So ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: Can you tell us about the house managers and their qualifications?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. So we call them service managers. And a service manager could be responsible for one or two homes. So where the complexity and the needs are very high, there is one service manager to the home. Where the complexity is not so high, the service manager might manage two homes. In addition to that, we have senior disability support workers who are more qualified and more experienced, and they are allocated to work with the group managers in those areas where the support needs are quite complex.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. In addition to the service managers, is it the case that Yooralla relies on volunteers quite heavily?
DR DEVANESEN: No, that’s not the case. In fact, Yooralla uses volunteer – doesn’t use volunteers in that capacity at all.
MS EASTMAN SC: So in the Annual Report there’s a reference to volunteers.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So where do the volunteers fit in, in terms of Yooralla’s services and are they relevant at all to the operation of group homes?
DR DEVANESEN: Not really. The volunteers run the op shops and those sorts of facilities but they’re not really a key – don’t play a key role in the running of group homes. But the service managers have another support layer. We have group managers. And we have six group managers and the number of facilities across Yooralla are divided equally within the six group managers. So the group managers have service managers reporting to them and the service managers directly manage the group homes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And these are the matters that you’ve set out in paragraph 9 of the statement; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. Now, you are responsible for the overall leadership and management of the organisation.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And in paragraph 7 – sorry, paragraph 8 of your statement you say there are seven senior managers who report to you.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you set out the managers there.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Can you just help the Royal Commission – I don’t want you to spend a long time on this ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ but just a little bit in understanding what their respective roles and responsibilities are.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So starting with the Chief Practitioner. Commissioners, this is paragraph 8.
DR DEVANESEN: So the Chief Practitioner is responsible for safeguarding the rights and dignity of people with disabilities, drives Yooralla’s research program, leads evidence-base – basically responsible for providing high quality safe services and evidence-based services, is a resource to all of the other executive directors who are directly responsible for the day-to-day operations of the organisation. Our chief practitioner is very experienced, worked in the disability sector for 30 years, and so has a wealth of experience that he readily shares with all the other executive directors.
MS EASTMAN SC: The Executive Director of People and Culture.
DR DEVANESEN: That’s the traditional human resources role.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. And the Executive Director of Residential and Respite Services.
DR DEVANESEN: The Executive Director of Residential and Respite Services are responsible for the services that we’re talking about today. At Yooralla the person has a nursing background and has experience of working one-on-one with people that require complex services.
MS EASTMAN: Right. And what is the function of the Executive Director of Community Services?
DR DEVANESEN: So the Executive Director of Community Services is responsible for all the services we provide in the community. So she’s responsible for the support coordination service, she’s responsible for the provision of one-on-one supports to people in their homes. She’s responsible for the day services, for the recreation services, and also for the supported employment opportunities. I should also add that the Chief Practitioner is also responsible for the allied health services in the organisation. So Yooralla has a strong cohort of allied health professionals, physiotherapists, speech pathologists, psychologists, and a behaviour support team and the Chief Practitioner is responsible for that service as well.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, Yooralla also has a Board of Directors, is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: There are currently eight Directors on the Board.
DR DEVANESEN: That’s right. Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: None of the Directors are people with disability.
DR DEVANESEN: None of the Directors are people with a disability but four Directors have children with a disability.
MS EASTMAN SC: But there are no Directors with a disability.
DR DEVANESEN: No Directors with a disability.
MS EASTMAN SC: And the Board has a range of functions; is that right? Does it have a Board Charter.
DR DEVANESEN: We don’t have a Board Charter. We have a – a structure. We have a framework which – we have a board with – which has Terms of Reference, and then we have board subcommittees that report to the Board. So we have a service delivery ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: Just pause there. I might turn up a document.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So, Commissioners, this is tab 162 and we now have a volume of documents which I can give to Dr Devanesen which might make it easier for her to follow these documents. All right. Dr Devanesen, that’s two folders. There should be some tab numbers in there, and if I could ask you to turn to tab 162. Commissioners, do you have that document?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, I do.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. So this document is the Terms of Reference for the Yooralla Board subcommittees and advisory committees.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And when you were about to say the Board has subcommittees ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ if we look at the contents of this document ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ there’s a Nominations and Remuneration Committee ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ an Audit and Risk Committee, a Finance Investment Infrastructure Committee and a Service Delivery and Quality Committee. Now, which of those committees has direct responsibility for reviewing the day-to-day affairs of the residents in group homes?
DR DEVANESEN: The Board.
MS EASTMAN SC: The whole of the Board?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Not one of the subcommittees?
DR DEVANESEN: The – the Service Delivery and Quality Committee looks at – particularly looks at the quality of the services that are provided at the – analyses the incidents that are reported. Here is about the research agenda. So they look at the quality of the services, but the overall provision of services is monitored by the whole Board.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. If we look at the Terms of Reference for the Service Delivery and Quality Committee, and that – if you follow the page numbers on the bottom right-hand corner, it’s 16 of 21, and it’s paragraph 2.4. Can I ask you to turn to that.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, I’ve got it. Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. And, Commissioners, you will see that, on this page at 2.4.3, Terms of Reference are set out.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And did you have a role in drafting the Terms of Reference for this particular subcommittee?
DR DEVANESEN: I probably had a role in enhancing the Terms of Reference of the subcommittee.
MS EASTMAN SC:
One of the responsibilities of this subcommittee is to ensure senior management have regard to the following board approved guidelines –
and reference is then made to relevant legislation such as the Disability Act of 2006, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, and:
Contemporary service and practice that are based on research evidence to promote the intent of the CRPD.
Can I just ask you to explain subparagraph (c). What does it mean that this Committee has responsibilities in relation to:
Contemporary services and practice based on research evidence and promote the intent of the CRPD.
And what I’m interested in is why it refers to the intent of the Convention, rather than the terms of the Convention itself.
DR DEVANESEN: I think it’s – it’s meant to represent the terms of the Convention.
MS EASTMAN SC: Then why does it say “intent”?
DR DEVANESEN: I’m – I can’t answer that question. I will have to take it on notice and get back to you.
MS EASTMAN SC: But you would agree, wouldn’t you, that if the promotion is only to the intention of the Convention, rather than ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: It’s inadequate.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ the rights, that that seems to be a lesser commitment.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Would you agree with that?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: As far as the members of the Board are concerned, who might be members of this committee or generally, have the board members had any training in relation to the operation of the CRPD or any of the relevant legislation?
DR DEVANESEN: The Chief Practitioner is – regularly informs the Board about these issues.
MS EASTMAN SC: But just pausing there, I’m asking you about training of Board members. Not being told about things, but the Board members have been trained?
DR DEVANESEN: Well, it – more recently, when the NDIS put out their new quality and safety module, it was assigned to the board directors, and the Board directors have all completed the module. So in that ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: What does the module involve?
DR DEVANESEN: The module has a section that refers to human rights – upholding the human rights of people.
MS EASTMAN SC: Have the Board members done any in-depth training in looking at the particular rights of the convention and understanding how those rights might apply to their role as directors?
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: No, they haven’t. It’s the case, isn’t it, that the approach taken by Yooralla in relation to the Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities is that Yooralla is not a government agency, but Yooralla agrees to treat itself as a public authority on the basis that it’s been funded by the Victorian Government, and that funding nexus has resulted in Yooralla seeing itself as a public authority and then bound by the Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And with the transition to the NDIS, what will that mean for Yooralla’s approach to the Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities? So if I can put it this way: if the source of funding to Yooralla is no longer Victorian Government and the source of the funding is the Commonwealth, it follows, doesn’t it, that Yooralla wouldn’t treat itself as a public authority for the purpose of the Victorian Charter, and so does Yooralla have an intention in relation to how it might deal with the Charter rights into the future?
DR DEVANESEN: Firstly, Yooralla will continue to be funded by the Victorian Government because all the early childhood intervention services that we provide are funded by the Department of Education. So we have an obligation – we have a continuing obligation.
MS EASTMAN SC: So that – is it Yooralla’s intention ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: And is it Yooralla’s intentions to uphold the Victorian Charter.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, I want to ask you about another board advisory committee.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So if you could turn to page 19 of 21, and it’s paragraph 3. There’s a body described as Yooralla Community Partnership and Advisory Committee. I think there’s a shorthand expression you use for that. What’s that.
DR DEVANESEN: YCPAC.
MS EASTMAN SC: YCPAC. All right. So I hope those following the transcript will follow me when I say YCPAC. So what is YCPAC? It says, in its background:
It’s an initiative to seek the participation of people with disabilities, parents and carers who access Yooralla services.
And we’ve got some Terms of References there, but this is a subcommittee that you participate in.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So can you give us a sense, lifting off the paper here, to what this committee does; what YCPAC does?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: When does it meet; what does it do?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. So this committee was established in 2014, and it was one of the initiatives to increase Yooralla’s engagement with its community and with the people that it supports. People are appointed the committee via a process of expression of interest, but we try to represent the different types of services provided by Yooralla and the geographical distribution of our services. So there are 10 members of the committee. They are either people with disability supported by Yooralla, or family members of people with disability supported by Yooralla.
MS EASTMAN SC: How do they become members of this committee?
DR DEVANESEN: We put out a general expression of interest in 2014, and then there was an interview process and 10 people were chosen. Since then, when a vacancy is – becomes available, we put out an expression of interest again and people are chosen based on their application.
MS EASTMAN SC: Are any of the members of this committee customers with disability living in group homes?
DR DEVANESEN: One member of the Committee lives in an independent unit that’s adjacent to a group home.
MS EASTMAN SC: But not in a group home?
DR DEVANESEN: But not in a group home.
MS EASTMAN SC: So there’s no member of the Committee who lives in a group home.
DR DEVANESEN: There are two family members whose relatives live in group homes.
MS EASTMAN SC: But there’s no person ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: There’s no person who lives in a group home.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ from a group home on this committee. How then are the interests of people who live in group homes conveyed to this committee if there’s no one who represents people with disability who live in a Yooralla group home on the Committee? How does that work?
DR DEVANESEN: The – the – the people who live in group homes are asked whether they would like to have regular meetings in the group home with their families and carers. 60 per cent of the group homes would like to have such a meeting; the others would not. They prefer to act – interact individually with the service manager or with the disability support workers. Matters are raised either individually or at these family meetings in group homes. Those matters are conveyed from the service manager to the group manager to the Executive Director of Residential and Respite Services ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: But not to the YCPAC.
DR DEVANESEN: ‑ ‑ ‑ who brings it to the YCPAC Committee.
MS EASTMAN SC: So how – and what form are the results of these meetings and concerns that are raised? In what form do they come to the YCPAC?
DR DEVANESEN: Usually, they’re presentations made by the management staff. There is an opportunity at every meeting for members of the Committee to nominate agenda items or to raise particular issues, and on every occasion that this has happened, the particular issue that has been suggested has been discussed in a manner in which the member of the YCPAC Committee wanted it to be done.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. Can I ask you to look at page 20 of 21 under 3.1.5, Responsibilities, and subparagraph (d) refers to the responsibilities:
Is to act as a conduit between the members of the Yooralla community and the Yooralla board and management.
Do you see that as part of their function?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And in paragraph (g), their responsibilities include signing a non-disclosure agreement. What’s a non-disclosure agreement and how is it relevant to the operation of their responsibilities?
DR DEVANESEN: I think the non-disclosure agreement is only around not disclosing commercial in-confidence information. So we often discuss financial challenges with the Committee. We – we – they have all the information about the – how the organisation is performing operationally. It’s those sorts of issues.
MS EASTMAN SC: But there’s nothing in the responsibility or the Terms of Reference that indicate that the members of the YCPAC are privy to any financial information.
DR DEVANESEN SC: But they are because we – we present to them, from time to time, financial issues or challenges that we have. If I could give you an example, in – in a recent times, there was a discussion with the members of the committee about the ability of Yooralla to get the revenue that it ought to be getting from providing services via the NDIS. And so, at Yooralla, 50 per cent of our customers’ funds are managed by the NDIS. 30 per cent are managed by a third party called plan managers. 20 per cent are managed by the individuals and their people who self-manage their funds.
We have a bit of a challenge getting people who self-manage their funds and who use plan managers to respond to the invoices that they’re sent in a timely manner, and so we had a discussion then with the community advisory committee about what they thought would be the best approach to meet with these customers and how we should approach them about this fairly sensitive issue and ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: But they didn’t need to sign a non-disclosure ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: In that context ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ agreement.
DR DEVANESEN: ‑ ‑ ‑ that context, they were told about the dollar value of the amounts owing to Yooralla, for example.
MS EASTMAN SC: But paragraph (f) requires, as part of their responsibilities:
Maintaining a high level of sensitivity and confidentiality.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And if they were taking their responsibility seriously, they would understand what was confidential ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ information and what was not.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So why, then, is there a necessity for them to sign a non-disclosure agreement which, may I say, reading this document, seems to suggest a non-disclosure agreement about the entirety of the work of the committee.
DR DEVANESEN: It’s not how it works in practice, and I think that we could review our Terms of Reference and remove that – that section of it. In reality, it’s a very open discussion and there has never been an occasion on which we have asked the members of the committee to particularly keep anything confidential or not disclose it to others.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, did the YCPAC have any role in preparing Yooralla’s submission to the Royal Commission, the 3 October submission?
DR DEVANESEN: Not directly, no.
MS EASTMAN SC: Were the members of the YCPAC given a copy of a draft submission before it was lodged with the Royal Commission?
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: Were any members of the YCPAC contacted or consulted about the preparation of the submission at all?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: They were.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Who were? How many – don’t give me the names.
DR DEVANESEN: Two.
MS EASTMAN SC: Two. And were those two people, people with disability?
DR DEVANESEN: One is a person with a disability, and one is the sibling of a person with a disability living in a group home.
MS EASTMAN SC: And why only two; why not the rest of the Committee members?
DR DEVANESEN: Because they are the people using group homes or had connections with group homes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So the ones who had connections with group homes weren’t consulted?
DR DEVANESEN: Were consulted.
MS EASTMAN SC: They were, but not anybody else.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: But Yooralla’s submission wasn’t limited just to group homes, was it?
DR DEVANESEN: No, it wasn’t. But they were the people that were consulted.
MS EASTMAN SC: Have members of this committee been provided with a copy of the submission provided to the Royal Commission?
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: No. Why not?
DR DEVANESEN: No particular reason. It wasn’t deliberately not provided. An oversight.
MS EASTMAN SC: Well, if one looks at the Terms of Reference and the responsibilities, would it be fair to say, on our reading of it, that the preparation of a submission of the kind made by Yooralla to this Royal Commission fits absolutely squarely within the Terms of Reference of this group, doesn’t it?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: But you can’t explain why they may have been excluded?
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: Commissioners, I’m about to turn to a topic which I will give a warning, and the same warning that I gave on Monday in opening. I’m about now to turn to the events leading to the convictions of a number of individuals who worked at Yooralla at different points in time. So, again, I will pause and if anyone feels uncomfortable or wishes to pause the broadcast for the time being, then probably from now until the morning break at 11, I will be dealing with some matters of some sensitivity.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Just before you do that, can I just ask a couple of questions. I don’t think that your statement includes annual reports or financial information. Can you tell the Commission how Yooralla is funded?
DR DEVANESEN: The majority of the funding that Yooralla now gets come from the NDIS. So 97 per cent of our existing customers have transitioned to the NDIS. So most of the funding comes from there. The majority we get funded by the Department of Education for the early childhood intervention services. And for those people who are over the age of 65, and we have 17 such people, they’re funded by the Commonwealth.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Is Yooralla a charitable organisation?
DR DEVANESEN: It is.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Does it receive donations?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: What proportion of your funding comes from donation?
DR DEVANESEN: A very minimal proportion. Less than a million dollars a year and the total revenue for Yooralla is about $170 million a year.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: So of that $170 million something like $160 million now comes via the NDIS.
DR DEVANESEN: Something like that.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: As far as the pay of workers, how is that determined?
DR DEVANESEN: We have an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement. And it’s – we have negotiated our own Enterprise Bargaining Agreement and that is how the workers are paid.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Is there a standard pay schedule that – under an award of some sort that applies to this industry?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: And how does the Enterprise Agreement compare with the Award provisions?
DR DEVANESEN: It’s pretty similar to the Award.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: It would be open, I take it, for Yooralla to pay more than the Award if the board determined to do so.
DR DEVANESEN: It would be but Yooralla would have to be able to afford to do that. So my belief is that under the NDIS, there is – there is not that much of a margin to enable the organisation to consider paying more than that at this stage.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: And did Yooralla in the last financial year have a surplus or a deficit?
DR DEVANESEN: It had a surplus. Its operating budget had a surplus of 800,000.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: All right.
DR DEVANESEN: And an overall surplus when everything else was taken into consideration, because we sold some buildings, was 2.2 million.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Ms Eastman asked you some questions about a non-disclosure agreement. I’m not entirely clear whether each member of the YCPAC actually does sign a non-disclosure agreement as a matter of course.
DR DEVANESEN: Could I just take that question on notice ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Yes, certainly.
DR DEVANESEN: ‑ ‑ ‑ and get back to you. I will check.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you.
DR DEVANESEN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Thank you. So Dr Devanesen, can I ask you – keep a note of what you need to come back to.
DR DEVANESEN: That’s what I was doing.
MS EASTMAN SC: So in the tender bundle in front of you there will be a tab which is tab 151. That’s a copy of Yooralla’s submissions. Can I ask you to turn to page 5 of the submission and direct your attention to paragraph 2. So you refer there in 2.1 to historical incidents. Do you need – Ms Beattie will help you.
DR DEVANESEN: I think I’ve got the page.
MS EASTMAN SC: Page 5.
DR DEVANESEN: Where’s page 5?
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. So this is part of the submission.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And the heading is ‘Historical Incidents’. So you say there:
Yooralla treats all incidents involving our customers with the utmost seriousness.
Do you see that?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you:
...recognise that these incidents are traumatic and painful experiences for survivors, other customers, their families and our staff, and we have therapeutically supported survivors and their families by offering trauma counselling and support.
I want to ask you in a minute about the support provided to survivors. But while we’re on this paragraph, can you explain what you mean by “a therapeutic support”. Is that intended to have any particular meaning?
DR DEVANESEN: Psychological support.
MS EASTMAN SC: Just psychological. So when you’re talking about therapeutic support, you’re talking about psychological support.
DR DEVANESEN: Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. And is that support trauma counselling ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ and support? Yes. All right. Can I ask you to turn over the page to page 6. And you’ve got a heading there ‘2011 Disclosures’.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: You say:
In late 201, disclosures of acts of a sexual nature being perpetrated against some customers with intellectual and physical disabilities at Yooralla metropolitan residential services were made against a casual Yooralla employee. This perpetrator was convicted and sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment.
So that’s all you have chosen to tell the Royal Commission in the submission in relation to the incidents involving Mr Kumar. That’s all you’ve said in the submission. Do you agree with that?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, can I ask you why you have chosen to use the word “disclosures”, and why you have used the description “for acts of a sexual nature” when you know them to be crimes of a sexual nature? Did you think carefully about the language that you were using to describe those events?
DR DEVANESEN: There was no intention to deny the seriousness of the ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: I’m not asking you about your intention. I’m asking you was there any particular reason ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ why you used that language?
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: Would you agree with me that describing the events of Mr Kumar’s criminal offending would probably be seen as downplaying them by using the expressions “disclosure” and “acts” to describe his conduct? Do you agree?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. Except in the witness statement that’s not the language that has been used and all the details have been provided.
MS EASTMAN SC: No, we will come – we will come to the witness statement in a moment. But this is the submission that you provided to the Royal Commission.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Were you seeking to downplay the seriousness of Mr Kumar’s offending?
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: Can I ask you about 2.1.2. This is the – described as the 2012 disclosure and, again, you’ve used the language of:
...a disclosure of acts of a sexual nature –
this time being perpetrated against a person with intellectual disability, and you refer to the perpetrator being convicted and sentenced to five years. Again, were you seeking to downplay the disclosure and the reference to “acts of a sexual nature” to downplay the criminal conduct?
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: And then at 2.1.3, you refer to a 2014 disclosure. And, again, you’ve used the language “disclosure” and “acts” to describe the criminal conduct. Do you agree with that?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you’ve sought to describe these events in 2011, 2012 and 2014 as historical events. How can you characterise them as historical? What makes them historical?
DR DEVANESEN: The – the term “historical” was only used to separate out the incidents that occurred from the time post that where we’ve been on a journey of reform and change.
MS EASTMAN SC: That’s the only reason?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Is it then used in the sense that they’re historical because they’re bad things that happened in the past, but things are much better now. Is that why you’re seeking to ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ characterise them as historical?
DR DEVANESEN: No. It was just – just to delineate between the two timeframes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. Now, as you said, in your statement you provided some more information. And this part of the statement was in response to particular questions asked of you by the Royal Commission to address. You agree with that?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So can I ask you to turn to your statement. It’s page 32.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Paragraph 166. And you say there:
As set out in the submission, Yooralla has direct experience of the tragic impact that abuse has on people with disability. Yooralla regrets the historical abuse of people with disability –
in your care. And you understand:
…the pain and trauma that this abuse causes our customers and families.
And you, on behalf of Yooralla:
...apologise once again for these failures.
Do you see that?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: When you say “Yooralla apologises once again”, is that that you apologise again in addition to the apology that’s in the submission to the Royal Commission?
DR DEVANESEN: No, that was the previous inquiries that were held, the federal Senate inquiry and the Parliamentary inquiry; in those two public inquiries, Yooralla apologised.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you apologised for failures. So that’s an apology for Yooralla letting the survivors down; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Has there ever been an apology to any of the survivors?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Personal apologies to them?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And when were they made?
DR DEVANESEN: Recently.
MS EASTMAN SC: Recently. When you say “recently”, after the announcement of the Royal Commission?
DR DEVANESEN: No, before the announcement of the Royal Commission but after – after the events, long after the events and after the perpetrators were sentenced.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. So can I deal first with Mr Kumar, and you set out some detail in paragraph 167 and 168. And you were asked by the Royal Commission in preparing the statement to tell the Royal Commission what support had been provided to the four survivors of Mr Kumar’s offending. Do you recall being asked that question?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And at paragraph 170 you set out four items which you call as the “range of supports”. Do you see that?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And do we take it that for each of the survivors, the same supports were provided?
DR DEVANESEN: So before I answer that question, I – I would like to just make a statement.
MS EASTMAN SC: No, I’d like you to answer the question and we can come back to a statement later. So I will draw your attention to paragraph 170.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. So at the time that these disclosures came to the fore, and even at the time of sentencing, I was not at Yooralla.
MS EASTMAN SC: I understand that. But you ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: The ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: But you – let me finish. But you have prepared this statement and you have ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ told the Commission this morning ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ that this statement is true and correct.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: I am asking you: are the four areas of supports that are identified in this paragraph, were each of those supports provided to each of the four survivors?
DR DEVANESEN: So the point that I wanted to make ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: No, can I just ask you to focus on the question, please.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, I am going to answer the question but the point that I wanted to make was that I ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: No, no, please answer the question directly, if you don’t mind.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: I will ask Ms Eastman to ask the question again. If you wouldn’t mind concentrating on the question and answer that question. Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: What I’m asking you is, with respect of each of the survivors, were each of the survivors provided each of the supports identified in (a) through to (d)?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, looking at paragraph (a):
Support to attend medical appointments –
is that a special support that was provided to the survivors in response to the offending against them
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: But isn’t it the case that one of the services that Yooralla provides to the customers in group homes is to assist them to attend medical appointments?
DR DEVANESEN: But these were specific appointments post the disclosure of the abuse.
MS EASTMAN SC: Well, you don’t say that, do you, in paragraph 170(a)?
DR DEVANESEN: No, I don’t.
MS EASTMAN SC: But there was nothing particularly special about taking the customers to a medical appointment that they needed to attend. Do you accept that?
DR DEVANESEN: I think that once the abuse was known, the organisation supported people to get support from their medical practitioners.
MS EASTMAN SC: Paragraph (b) is:
Support from the Centre against Sexual Assault.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And that was provided to all survivors.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And immediately after the events came to light; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And, in some cases, the events did not come to light until many months after the offending and the assaults.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And the reference to:
Access to and support to attend private counselling –
is that the counselling that you referred to as the therapeutic counselling?
DR DEVANESEN: Therapeutic counselling, yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And then in paragraph (d):
Support to make statements to Victoria police and be present at court appearances.
So that support was provided.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Is that the entirety of the support that was provided to each of the survivors?
DR DEVANESEN: At the time, yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: At the time, there was no apology provided to any of the survivors; would you agree?
DR DEVANESEN: Not that I’m aware of.
MS EASTMAN SC: At the time, no legal advice was arranged for any of the survivors; would you agree?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, I’m not aware of any legal advice that was arranged.
MS EASTMAN SC: At the time, there was no support to organise a specialist advocate from one of the specialist advocacy services to assist the survivors; would you agree?
DR DEVANESEN: I’m not aware of any such arrangement.
MS EASTMAN SC: There was no support for any of the survivors to make an application for criminal compensation under Victorian legislation; would you agree?
DR DEVANESEN: Well, one of the survivors did make an application for compensation and was supported by an external advocate in doing that.
MS EASTMAN SC: For criminal compensation as a victim of crime?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So a victim of crime, but you haven’t mentioned that in your statement.
DR DEVANESEN: I’m – I’m – I’m not sure about the detail, but I know that one of those – one of those survivors was supported by an advocate to make a claim for compensation, but I – I – I don’t think that Yooralla was involved in referring the person to the advocate.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. You’re not referring, are you, to a claim brought by ‘Jacqueline’?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, that’s the one I’m referring to.
MS EASTMAN SC: That’s what you’re referring to.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So if you turn over the page, “Jacqueline” was the pseudonym used by the judge in the sentencing remarks. You’re aware of that?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you’ve adopted the same pseudonym in your statement?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you say, in paragraph 172, that:
As a result of the criminal conduct of Mr Kumar, on the 5th of September 2014, Jacqueline initiated legal proceedings claiming negligence by Yooralla in the Supreme Court.
And you say, there, that:
That involved a proceeding alleging that she had suffered loss – injury, loss and damage arising out of the abuse, including post-traumatic stress disorder, aggravation of adjustment disorder, depressed mood and alcohol abuse.
Have you read the Judge’s remarks on sentence?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Have you read that the Judge referred to victim impact statements made by the survivors including ‘Jacqueline’?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Do you accept that ‘Jacqueline’ did suffer post-traumatic stress disorder, aggravation adjustment disorder, depressed mood and alcohol abuse?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Then why is it, in this statement, you have referred to her alleging that she suffered these injuries?
DR DEVANESEN: It was incorrect to do so.
MS EASTMAN SC: Well, I asked you earlier whether you wanted to correct any part of your statement and you didn’t draw attention to this paragraph, did you?
DR DEVANESEN: No, I did not.
MS EASTMAN SC: In relation to ‘Jacqueline’s’ claim in the Supreme Court, it was commenced about a year or – just over a – under a year or so after Mr Kumar’s conviction; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: There had been no offer to compensate ‘Jacqueline’ prior to her commencing proceedings in the Supreme Court; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: That’s right.
MS EASTMAN SC: And it’s the case, isn’t it, that a few months after she commenced proceedings, there was a conciliation process. You describe that in paragraph 172.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And a confidential settlement was reached?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And that confidential settlement is subject to a deed of release.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And that has confidential terms.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: It includes an obligation on ‘Jacqueline’ not to disclose anything about the subject matter of the proceedings; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: I was present at that conciliation conference. My recollection, which I – which I think is correct, is that Yooralla did not ask for a confidentiality deed. It was the person representing ‘Jacqueline’ that did.
MS EASTMAN SC: Asked for the confidentiality deed.
DR DEVANESEN: Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. But you agreed to do that.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And the settlement was reached without any admission of liability on Yooralla’s part; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: And it involved the payment of some money.
DR DEVANESEN: It did.
MS EASTMAN SC: The settlement didn’t include any apology being made at that time.
DR DEVANESEN: It did not.
MS EASTMAN SC: Was an apology made at that time?
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‘Jacqueline’ remains a customer of Yooralla; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: That’s right.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you spoke to her about the Royal Commission proceedings.
DR DEVANESEN: I did.
MS EASTMAN SC: And, in paragraph 174, you say that you met with ‘Jacqueline’ following the announcement of the Royal Commission, and you wanted to discuss with her, her participation in the Royal Commission, and you wanted to check on her ongoing support needs. Now, surely, those would have been conversations that you would have had with ‘Jacqueline’ before the announcement of the Royal Commission, checking about her ongoing support needs and the like.
DR DEVANESEN: Her ongoing support – conversations about her ongoing support needs are held on a regular basis with her service manager, with her group manager, but, more particularly, with the Executive Director of Residential and Residential Support Services who has a – a – regular conversations with ‘Jacqueline’. On this occasion, it was about the support that might be required if she wanted to participate in the Royal Commission. We also talked – she came to the meeting with her advocate, and we – they wanted to talk about and we wanted to talk about the best way in which they believed that the survivors of abuse could be supported during this process, and they gave us advice on how we ought to do it.
MS EASTMAN SC: Did you think that there might be a risk of any conflict of interest in Yooralla speaking to a survivor of violence and abuse in a Yooralla home?
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: I don’t know if that’s a convenient time. I’ve gone a little bit longer than my ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Do you mean to adjourn?
MS EASTMAN SC: Yes, to have a morning adjournment.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Yes. Very well. We will have a morning adjournment till 11.30.
MS EASTMAN SC: Thank you.
ADJOURNED [11.09 am]
RESUMED [11.31 am]
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Yes. Ms Eastman, please. Can we go back ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: If Dr Devanesen can return – not a witness box but a table with a black table cloth.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: No. This is our notional witness box.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. Dr Devanesen, I want to now ask you about ‘Ruth’. She’s also one of the survivors. And you know who ‘Ruth’ is.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And do you recall that in relation to the offending against ‘Ruth’ that occurred between October 2011 and mid-January 2012, that the Judge said this:
Ruth did not tell anyone about it whilst Mr Kumar was employed at her residence because she was scared of him and afraid he might hurt her. She said she thought he might be angry with her if she complained about your conduct.
Do you remember reading that?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And in terms of the injuries to ‘Ruth’, is it the case that she also suffered a form of post-traumatic distress or other mental health illness? Do you know that?
DR DEVANESEN: I believe so.
MS EASTMAN SC: You believe so. And ‘Ruth’ didn’t receive any ex gratia payment or compensation; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: That’s right.
MS EASTMAN SC: You might just have to speak up a little bit. I’m having ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: That’s right, yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And is the reason for that, as you describe in paragraph 172, that she didn’t initiate legal proceedings or seek compensation?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Do you know if anyone gave her advice about initiating legal proceedings?
DR DEVANESEN: I don’t know.
MS EASTMAN SC: Did anyone ask her whether she wished to seek compensation?
DR DEVANESEN: I don’t know.
MS EASTMAN SC: Has anyone ever asked her that?
DR DEVANESEN: I don’t know.
MS EASTMAN SC: You don’t know?
DR DEVANESEN: I – not that I know of.
MS EASTMAN SC: But you’ve spoken to her as well, haven’t you, in relation to the Royal Commission ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: I personally didn’t speak to her. The Executive Director of Residential and Respite Services spoke to her.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. About the Royal Commission?
DR DEVANESEN: About the Royal Commission, yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Do you not think there’s some inequity that ‘Jacqueline’ received compensation and ‘Ruth’ did not?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Do you not see there’s some inequity that unless the person with disability asks for compensation or commences proceeding, that they will receive no compensation? This seems to be your account. Is that the case?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Is that acceptable?
DR DEVANESEN: If there was to be a scheme where survivors of abuse were able to receive compensation without going through a legal process like the National Redress Scheme, Yooralla would join such a scheme.
MS EASTMAN SC: You don’t need a scheme to consider compensation for Ruth, do you?
DR DEVANESEN: I understand that. No.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: You participated, I think you told us, in the conciliation process for ‘Jacqueline’; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: I was present, yes.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: You were present. So you understood what was happening as far as the compensation of ‘Jacqueline’ was concerned.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Correct? Did anything – did it occur to you as a result of that that there might be some purpose in the other survivors getting some independent advice and assistance as to what they should do?
DR DEVANESEN: We didn’t – we didn’t act on it. We ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: No, no, not we, you.
DR DEVANESEN: I didn’t.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: No.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: I just want to understand this.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: These are people in closed environments.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Who suffer from intellectual disability.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: And notwithstanding that you knew one person who had initiated legal proceedings had obtained presumably substantial compensation because it’s a very serious crime, rape; an act of serious violence ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: ‑ ‑ ‑ in these circumstances particularly, that other women who were raped were not given the opportunity by Yooralla to seek independent legal advice as to what their rights were, notwithstanding you knew what their rights were. Is that the case?
DR DEVANESEN: I – I don’t think it’s – it was as – it wasn’t intended to prevent anybody from doing anything.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: No, I’m not talking about preventing people. I’m talking about what Yooralla did.
DR DEVANESEN: Well, we – yes, we did not initiate support for the other survivors.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: And as a result, you paid money, presumably a substantial amount of money, to one survivor, and nothing to the others.
DR DEVANESEN: No, that’s right.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: And that’s still the case.
DR DEVANESEN: That’s still the case, yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: And presumably, you didn’t give them any advice that they could seek criminal compensation.
DR DEVANESEN: No, we did not.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: And the time limits have passed for that. And you describe these incidents, as you call them in your submission, as acts of a sexual nature. Now, a rape of a woman in a closed environment by a man who is a personal carer offering the most intimate of circumstances, is an act of violence, is it not?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: It’s not an act of a sexual nature.
DR DEVANESEN: No.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: And the Terms of Reference of this Commission deal with acts of violence.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Now, Ms Eastman asked you why you described it as an act of a sexual nature. Is there some reason why that was done?
DR DEVANESEN: It wasn’t to downplay the seriousness of what occurred.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Sure. Well, what was the reason then?
DR DEVANESEN: I’m – I – I can’t answer that question. There wasn’t any particular reason.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: Has there ever been an apology made to ‘Ruth’? You will have to keep your voice up.
DR DEVANESEN: I don’t know.
MS EASTMAN SC: You don’t know. Surely, you would have examined any documents or asked people before preparing your statement ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. I have asked people. I’ve examined all the documents that I have been able to get, and there is no evidence of an apology being made to Ruth.
MS EASTMAN SC: None. No record of anything.
DR DEVANESEN: No record.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: You could have made an apology to ‘Ruth’ after you participated in the conciliation concerning ‘Jacqueline’, couldn’t you?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, I could have.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Why didn’t you?
DR DEVANESEN: I didn’t think of it.
MS EASTMAN SC: I want to draw your attention to paragraph 173 of your statement. And you say:
Yooralla continues to actively engage with Jacqueline, Ruth and Kimberley who all remain in Yooralla’s care.
And then you tell the Royal Commission this:
In 2019, the group home at which Jacqueline and Ruth live was refurbished. Jacqueline was relocated at her request to a different room from that where the abuse occurred.
Are you telling the Royal Commission that it took until 2019 for ‘Jacqueline’ to be relocated into a different room to the room in which the abuse occurred? Is that – is that what you’re saying?
DR DEVANESEN: As far as I know, that was the first occasion on which Jacqueline requested it.
MS EASTMAN SC: Did anyone ask her before that?
DR DEVANESEN: Not that I know of. I don’t know the answer to that question.
MS EASTMAN SC: Do you agree with me that maintaining her in that room for eight years after the abuse is wholly inconsistent with a trauma-informed approach to the care of a victim of sexual violence?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Do you have any explanation as to why no one made that inquiry for eight years?
DR DEVANESEN: No, I do not.
MS EASTMAN SC: And has the refurbishment and the relocation occurred because of the calling of this Royal Commission?
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: Had there been any earlier refurbishment to their home prior to 2019?
DR DEVANESEN: I don’t know. I can take that question on notice. These refurbishments occurred as a part of a series of refurbishments occurring in residential facilities in Yooralla.
MS EASTMAN SC: And there’s a very significant concern, isn’t there, on Yooralla’s part about the risk of re-traumatising ‘Jacqueline’ and ‘Ruth’ because of the Royal Commission; isn’t that the case?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And what about the ongoing risk of re-traumatising them by both of them remaining in the same group home where the abuse occurred?
DR DEVANESEN: I think that the – that is where they want to remain. And I think as a cohort of people who have gone through this horrific experience together they want to remain together and they are happy to remain in that group home as it is now.
MS EASTMAN SC: And is that something they have told you personally?
DR DEVANESEN: Two of them have told me that.
MS EASTMAN SC: Two, ‘Jacqueline’ and ‘Ruth’?
DR DEVANESEN: No. One of the other residents in the home.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‘Kimberley’?
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: A different person?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: I want to ask you now about ‘Kimberley’. She lived in a different location to ‘Jacqueline’ and ‘Ruth’ when Mr Kumar’s offending occurred.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And in relation to ‘Kimberley’, the Judge in her sentencing decision made some remarks about how ‘Kimberley’ was treated when she sought to raise her concerns about Mr Kumar. Do you remember reading them?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So her Honour said that:
Kimberley may be intellectually impaired but she knew what Mr Kumar was doing was wrong and she didn’t want him to touch her. And when she pulled her hand away when he first exposed his penis to her and tried to grab her hand, she wanted to swear at him and to tell him to fuck off, but she knew it was against the rules of the house to swear so she didn’t say that.
Mr Kumar then made an allegation that ‘Kimberley’ had spoken to him inappropriately, and a complaint was made by Mr Kumar about ‘Kimberley’ to the team leader. You’re aware of that?
DR DEVANESEN: I’m aware of that, yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: The team leader accepted Mr Kumar’s version of events because the team leader went to remonstrate with ‘Kimberley’ for swearing in breach of the house rules. You remember that? Is it still a case that people who live in group homes are not able to swear?
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: So they can swear now?
DR DEVANESEN: They have the freedom to say what they want to say.
MS EASTMAN SC: But at the time, are you aware – and I know you weren’t there – but at the time were you aware that there were rules about ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: No, I’m not ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ swearing?
DR DEVANESEN: No, I’m not aware of that.
MS EASTMAN SC: The judge said: ‘Kimberley’ was crying so she went ino her room and the team leader didn’t ask why ‘Kimberley’ had engaged in the conduct before remonstrating with her. ‘Kimberley’ was told that her behaviour towards Mr Kumar was inappropriate.
Remember reading that?
DR DEVANESEN: I do remember reading that.
MS EASTMAN SC: I’m paraphrasing here.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN: And the Judge said it was a measure of ‘Kimberley’s’ strength and maybe the impact of Mr Kumar’s behaviour that as the Judge said:
Despite the unfairness of the team leader reprimanding her without first ascertaining her side of the story, that Kimberley immediately responded to the remonstration by alleging Mr Kumar had touched her private parts and exposed himself to her.
Do you remember reading that?
DR DEVANESEN: I do.
MS EASTMAN: And the Judge then says this:
Unfortunately for Kimberley, the Yooralla response was less than adequate. Kimberley’s complaint was described in a client incident report as a sexual harassment allegation made by Kimberley against casual staff member Johnny Kumar.
Her Honour says that ‘Kimberley’ was taken to the police station but when she – she said she didn’t want to have a medical examination and didn’t want to make a statement until she had spoken to her sister. She was returned to the group home. These concerns of ‘Kimberley’ were about not having the medical examination and wanting to speak to her sister, the Judge said, seemed to be reasonable concerns given the level of her intellectual disability and what she said had happened to her.
Although ‘Kimberley’s’ sister told her the allegations that same day and came that day to see ‘Kimberley’, her Honour says this:
It appears no attempt was made to follow up to take a statement from Kimberley or to launch a formal police complaint or investigation after Kimberley had, as she had wanted to, spoken to her sister. And it was not until a report was made to the police with respect to other residents that Kimberley’s complaint was followed up.
Now, reflecting on those events, and her Honour has specifically referred to Yooralla’s failing, I assume that you don’t disagree with any of those findings as demonstrating a number of failures along the way.
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: Failures in relation to Mr Kumar’s offending; yes?
DR DEVANESEN: Mmm.
MS EASTMAN SC: Then how there was a complete failure to believe ‘Kimberley’ ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ and accept on face value ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ Mr Kumar’s report.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And then a failing in not asking ‘Kimberley’ what she wanted to do in relation to the response, either going to the police station or having a medical examination. You agree they’re Yooralla failings?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And then recording the incident as one of sexual harassment. This was a crime, wasn’t it?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Not just mere sexual harassment.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And then nothing being done until other incidents were raised; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, ‘Kimberley’ didn’t commence any legal proceedings.
DR DEVANESEN: She did not.
MS EASTMAN SC: And is she – she’s part of the description in paragraph 172 of not seeking compensation.
DR DEVANESEN: Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: And she has received no compensation.
DR DEVANESEN: That’s correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: Has there been an apology made to ‘Kimberley’?
DR DEVANESEN: Not that I’m aware of. I don’t know.
MS EASTMAN SC: Not that you’re aware of.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Where is ‘Kimberley’ now?
MS EASTMAN SC: She lives in the same home in Yooralla – with Yooralla.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: In the submission that you provided, there is mention of:
Yooralla being on a journey that includes promoting the independence of people who live within Yooralla’s facilities, upholding their human rights, empowering customers to live the life they choose.
How is it that, in the time you’ve been at Yooralla with the survivors of this – these crimes being in your facilities, that the concept of independence hasn’t extended to providing them with the support and assistance to get advice to take action that, obviously, may well be available to them against Yooralla?
DR DEVANESEN: It’s – it’s taken a long time to gradually regain the trust of the survivors of this abuse. Very early in the piece, when I was appointed as the CEO of the organisation, I requested to meet with the survivors of abuse and to speak with them, and many of them are not prepared to do so. They said they didn’t trust the management and the organisation and were not prepared to do so. And it has been – it has taken this long, and over a gradual process of providing stable staff that they trust, responding to their requests when they ask for, say, only female staff to support them, responding to their requests when they’ve asked for two staff to be on during a particular period of time instead of one, that they – slowly beginning to believe that, currently, in Yooralla, they are listened to; that their concerns are listened to; that their input is sought, and that people are now assisting them to – well, their needs are being met.
So it – it – it’s not that easy to do it in a quick space of time. I know, with ‘Kimberley’, she was supported to do some work with Yooralla, and she worked as a courier when there was a Yooralla office in Box Hill, and then when the Yooralla office in Box Hill was closed, there was an office in Surrey Hills, and she continued to work in the Surrey Hills office. But when that office was closed, she felt that the city was too far for her to participate in – in the work that she was doing with Yooralla. So there was an opportunity provided for ‘Kimberley’ in that respect.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Can I just ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: What does ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: What does your answer have to do with the absence of advice and assistance to enable the survivors to demonstrate independence by taking advantage of the rights available to them? I’m not sure I understand why the answer you gave is responsive to that question.
DR DEVANESEN: I – I don’t know how else to answer that question.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: All right. Fine. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: So just – I just want to explore this conflict of interest situation that Ms Eastman referred to before the morning adjournment. You said you weren’t in a conflict of interest situation and couldn’t see there was one.
DR DEVANESEN: In speaking with the survivors?
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Yes.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: In speaking with the survivors.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Now, just – let’s explore the conflict of interest situation. Yooralla has been on one side of the legal process with one of the survivors, and you provide services to empower the other survivors, but those services haven’t included the capacity, ability to seek independent legal advice. That’s correct?
DR DEVANESEN: That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: And that’s classic conflict of interest situation, is it not, because if they did seek independent legal advice, then the entity that would
have to pay the compensation to which they’re obviously entitled, and you must know that, is Yooralla.
DR DEVANESEN: The – Yooralla is insured by the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority, and Yooralla works in conjunction with that authority on these issues, and the compensation was paid by the insurance agency.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: All right. Do you understand that you’re in a classic conflict of interest situation with regard to the legal rights of the survivors for whom – to whom you have not offered any compensation?
DR DEVANESEN: When you put it that way, I – I understand what you say. Our intention of ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: No, no, I just want an answer to your ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: I have answered ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: I don’t want to know what your intention is. Do you understand that it’s a classic conflict of interest situation?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. But ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: And what, if anything, have you done to resolve that conflict of interest in favour of the residents, the survivors?
DR DEVANESEN: So one of the things – one of the conversations we had was to ask the residents whether they would – would like to get in contact with external advocates over this process, and so that was one of the things that we suggested to them. So we weren’t necessarily going to advocate on their behalf for – during the Royal Commission.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Thank you, Ms Eastman.
MS EASTMAN SC: Can I ask you about ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER McEWIN: I have one question, sorry, Counsel. You said earlier, just now, that when you began as CEO, you asked to meet with the survivors and they – you said they declined to meet with you. What steps did you take immediately, then, to ensure that those survivors had access to all supports that anyone in the community would expect to have? What step did you take immediately to ensure that?
DR DEVANESEN: The steps that we took were to ensure appropriate and good quality staffing, permanent staffing, service manager that they trusted and came to know over a long period of time, and that enabled them to have the relationship – trusting relationship with the person that would support them, and I think that was a
key in the survivors then gradually gaining a little bit of confidence because they began to trust the people who were working with them directly and who were with them most of the time.
COMMISSIONER McEWIN: Can I clarify, one of those steps wasn’t to facilitate access to independent legal or other ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER McEWIN: ‑ ‑ ‑ support.
DR DEVANESEN: It wasn’t.
COMMISSIONER McEWIN: Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: So if I could just – I want to briefly finish on the compensation issues. So, with ‘Phillip’, he was the fourth survivor in relation to Mr Kumar’s offending. ‘Phillip’ is no longer in Yooralla’s care; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: No, Phillip is in ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: He’s still there?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And – but he is in a different home?
DR DEVANESEN: No, it’s the same home.
MS EASTMAN SC: Still with ‘Jacqueline’ and ‘Ruth’?
DR DEVANESEN: Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: And there has been no compensation or ex gratia payment.
DR DEVANESEN: That’s right. That’s right.
MS EASTMAN SC: Has there been an apology to ‘Phillip’?
DR DEVANESEN: I don’t know. Not that I know of.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. So the same situation as for ‘Kimberley’ and ‘Ruth’: you don’t know.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you don’t know whether he’s been asked whether he wants to seek compensation ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: No, I don’t.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ or – all right. Now, you may recall, when I opened on Monday, I also referred to some offending outside the group home and in other Yooralla services. So I briefly want to deal with these matters. So, first of all, there was Mr Hoyle, and you’ve dealt with this at paragraph 177. So are we right in understanding that, in relation to Mr Hoyle’s offending, that the young woman who he sexually abused was an employee of Yooralla at the time, not just using the day services.
DR DEVANESEN: So Yooralla has business enterprises ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: Yes, but just – can you focus on my question.
DR DEVANESEN: I’m just – I am answering your question. So for the people with disability that work in business enterprises, we call them employees, rather than customers.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. Okay. So they’re using the services. When you call them employees, are they paid?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, they are paid.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. For that work. So in relation to the survivor of Mr Hoyle’s offending ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ I think she is described as ‘Larissa’ as a pseudonym in the judge’s reasons.
DR DEVANESEN: I don’t think it’s ‘Larissa’.
MS EASTMAN SC: She – no, that’s Mr Hampson.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. So I don’t think we have a pseudonym for the ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ Mr Hoyle’s victim. In paragraph 178, you say that:
Yooralla offered counselling to –
the young woman and her mother ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC:
…for an extended period of time.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And then you say:
At her mother’s request, the young woman returned to work in the position with Yooralla.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Was there any inquiries made of the young woman herself or was the decision made because of the mother’s request?
DR DEVANESEN: I don’t know.
MS EASTMAN SC: And that young woman continues to work as a supported employee; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: She does. She does.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, in terms of any redress or compensation for her, at paragraph 179, you set out that – what happened. So you say:
As a result of the criminal conduct of Mr Hoyle, on the 7th of January 2015, she and her mother initiated joint legal proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court.
So both the survivor and her mother were plaintiffs; is that right? They started proceedings.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, I want to understand this because the resolutions of the mother’s claim and the survivor’s claim was different.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: The survivor’s claim was resolved as a WorkCover compensation claim.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Does that mean that what occurred to her was treated as a workplace injury?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: What part of being raped on the Yooralla premises could possibly be described as a workplace injury?
DR DEVANESEN: Well, I – I’m – I cannot answer the question as to why it ended up being treated as a WorkCover claim. These were decisions made by legal representatives and the insurers at the time, but that is the outcome that I know of.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. But you’d agree with me that being sexually assaulted at work is not an injury occasioned during the course of performing your duties ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: I do agree with that.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ as an employee.
DR DEVANESEN: I do agree.
MS EASTMAN SC: So a settlement was reached of her claim in July 2016; you tell us that. But that’s a number of years after Mr Hoyle is convicted and about four years or so after the offending occurred.
DR DEVANESEN: That’s correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: So it took four and a half years for compensation for her.
DR DEVANESEN: It did.
MS EASTMAN SC: And the mother’s claim was also the subject of a confidential settlement.
DR DEVANESEN: Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you say the mother had alleged psychiatric injuries. Again, you use that reference to “alleged injuries”. Do you intend to suggest that there might be some doubt about those injuries?
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: And both of the resolutions of those claims are confidential; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And without going into the detail of the settlement amounts paid, it’s the case, isn’t it, that the mother received a significantly greater sum than her daughter.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And the daughter’s claim was resolved as a workers’ compensation claim.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And the mother’s claim was resolved following a negotiation between Yooralla and the mother.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Can you explain why it is that the victim of the crime received a significantly lower sum than her mother?
DR DEVANESEN: I can’t explain.
MS EASTMAN SC: Then in relation to Mr Hampson – you’ve dealt with this at paragraph 181, and this is the pseudonym of ‘Larissa’; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, what happened in relation to ‘Larissa’ was that after Mr Hampson was sentenced, Yooralla received a letter of demand. This is paragraph 187. And you say there:
The letter of demand alleged negligence resulting in injury, loss and damage arising out of the abuse.
Have you read the Judge’s sentencing remarks in relation to Larissa ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: I have.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ and ‘Larissa’s’ Victim Impact Statement ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: I have.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ and her sister’s Victim Impact Statement?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, I was there. I heard the ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: You were there.
DR DEVANESEN: I heard the victim impact statements being read out in court.
MS EASTMAN SC: How, then, can you describe the impact on ‘Larissa’ and her family as “alleged”?
DR DEVANESEN: It’s incorrect to describe it as “alleged”.
MS EASTMAN SC: And in relation to ‘Larissa’, there was a confidential settlement reached?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: She was required to sign a deed of release, or her guardian?
DR DEVANESEN: I don’t know.
MS EASTMAN SC: And was this a case where the confidentiality agreement arose because this was ‘Larissa’ or her guardian’s request, or was it Yooralla’s request?
DR DEVANESEN: I – I will have to take that question on notice. I – I don’t know the answer to that.
MS EASTMAN SC: Can I ask you, over the years, have you had the opportunity to reflect on these events of serious criminal conduct? Have you reflected on them?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Have you asked yourself how could these crimes have occurred?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, but I think what we have done is to realise that there were failures, significant shortcomings, and to then embark upon a – a path of reform and change.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. And I’m going to turn to that now. Now ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ you said, I think, earlier, that you wanted to make a statement in relation to these matters.
DR DEVANESEN: Just a short statement.
MS EASTMAN SC: Do you want to say something about that now?
DR DEVANESEN: I would. So, on behalf of Yooralla, I – I – I deeply regret the abuse to people with a disability. I acknowledge that the pain and trauma continues to affect the lives for the survivors, their families and their carers. We’re grateful to those who exposed the abuse, and we’re very sorry for the events that took place. Yooralla has undertaken a program of reform and change and, as we continue this journey, it is our hope that we will build trusting partnerships with people with disability. We are committed to our vision of a world where people with disability are equal citizens.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Does it follow from that statement that Yooralla would consider compensating the people who have not been compensated for the crimes committed against them?
DR DEVANESEN: I think it does follow that Yooralla could consider that.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: “Could”?
DR DEVANESEN: Would.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Can I ask just a couple of ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: Yes, I’ve finished ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ yes, on that topic.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: I thought I’d ask ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: We’re about to move ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: ‑ ‑ ‑ permission, but, thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: About to move to reforms. Thank you. Yes, of course, Chair.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Do you understand the concept of a fiduciary relationship? Are you familiar with that term?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Do you regard Yooralla as in a fiduciary relationship with the people you describe as customers? Has anybody ever put that question to you?
DR DEVANESEN: No.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: All right. Thank you. Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So I wanted to now ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Sorry, I don’t understand what “no” is the answer to.
DR DEVANESEN: Nobody ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Is “no” an answer to, “No, that question has never been put to me,” or, “No, I do not consider us to be in a fiduciary relationship”?
DR DEVANESEN: No, the question has never been put to me.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: All right. Well, what about the first question then?
DR DEVANESEN: I will have to take that question on notice and answer it later. Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: So I want to turn to the reforms and the measures taken by Yooralla following these events and, in some cases, these were measures that were initiated before some of the events came to light. So can I ask you to turn back to Yooralla’s submission of 3 October. So this is behind tab 151, and take you back to page 6. The Commissioners have got that.
DR DEVANESEN: Sorry, what page was that?
MS EASTMAN SC: So it’s page 6 – if you need assistance, Ms Beattie will turn that up.
DR DEVANESEN: I think – is that the one that’s got the Joyce Report ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: Yes, that’s right.
DR DEVANESEN: ‑ ‑ ‑ on 2.2.1?
MS EASTMAN SC: All right.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, I’ve got that.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, I’m not going to ask you to go into a lot of detail about each of these reviews.
DR DEVANESEN: Sure.
MS EASTMAN SC: But I just briefly want to deal with the reviews that were undertaken so the Royal Commission can understand the process of reform ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ and the extent of the reform that you say has been undertaken.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So the first step was the Joyce Review and Report, and that’s described in 2.2.1.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And that was undertaken by the Department of Health Services; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So the Government Department came in ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. I understand that it was jointly commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services and Yooralla, and Bryan Joyce undertook that review.
MS EASTMAN SC: And that report resulted in 20 recommendations.
DR DEVANESEN: That’s correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you’ve done a summary of those key recommendations and action plans that followed, and that appears at 2.2.1.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And the dot points.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you say here:
All of the Joyce recommendations were implemented by June 2013.
So then the next form of review or oversight was what you describe as the Health and Disability Auditing Australia, Independent Audit Review; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: That’s correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: So you just – were you at Yooralla at this time or during this ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: I was at Yooralla – so HDAA did two reviews. They did one and they came back and did a second one, and I had just joined Yooralla when they were completing the second review.
MS EASTMAN SC: And so what was the purpose of the audit? What was the focus of the audit?
DR DEVANESEN: So the – the 20 recommendations from the Joyce Review had been converted into over 100 actions for Yooralla, and the purpose of the HDA review, which was an external review, was to confirm that Yooralla had completed all of the actions that they had proposed that they would take as a result of the Joyce Review.
MS EASTMAN SC: So it was an audit to follow up ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ whether or not the Joyce recommendations ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: That’s correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ had been implemented?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So there were two audits, is that right ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ in 2013 and 2014. Now, then the next item that you describe on page 7 at 2.2.3, that’s the Victorian Ombudsman investigation.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And this is a two-phase investigation that was undertaken in relation to allegations ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ of abuse in the disability sector.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: This review was not confined to Yooralla, was it?
DR DEVANESEN: No, it was not.
MS EASTMAN SC: So this was a broader investigation ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ undertaken by the Ombudsman.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: But Yooralla was considered as part of the review.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you say, here, that you provided extensive information about what you call, in 2014, “transformational change”. Now, I don’t mean to be rude about it, but might it be over stating that, by 2014, Yooralla had achieved transformational change?
DR DEVANESEN: Perhaps. It focused on the actions that Yooralla had taken as a result of the previous review, and it – it also focused on, particularly, the extent to which Yooralla had reviewed and revised the way in which incidents were being reported. So, as a result of the incidents of abuse that we’ve just talked about, one of the conclusions that were made was that Yooralla did not have an open and transparent culture. That when concerns were raised, they were covered up, they were not investigated appropriately and thoroughly, and that, therefore, people felt there was no point in – in – in raising issues with Yooralla.
I think people also felt that they might be punished if they raised these issues. So the initial part of trying to change the culture of the organisation was to try and give people confidence and the ability to have the confidence to raise issues and for them to believe that everything that they raised would be taken seriously, investigated, and that we appreciated people raising incidents and that – and that they would be reported and looked into. So to make that happen, we put in the RiskMan reporting system.
MS EASTMAN SC: I do want to come and talk to you about that.
DR DEVANESEN: So the reason I just want to talk to you about that is that was one of the main things that the Victorian Ombudsman actually came and viewed the system because – because it was the first time, I think, that, in disability services, such a system had been put in.
MS EASTMAN SC: But I’m asking you about this concept of transformational change, and it’s a word that we hear quite a lot of, and what I’m struggling a little bit with is, on one hand, you’re describing disclosures, as you say on page 6, in 2011, 2012 and 2014 as historic. And then, on the other hand, you’re talking about events in 2014 and the Ombudsman’s recommendations in December 2015 as about
transformational change. Do you see that there might be a slight conflict in how you’re describing ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: I do understand that, yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And in terms of transformational change, you also – not just talking about the systems and practices for how incidents are reported, but are you speaking also to change in the culture of the organisation?
DR DEVANESEN: I am.
MS EASTMAN SC: And would you accept that to make an effective change of culture, that that is something that really can’t be achieved in one year.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And so do you accept that you’re overstating, in terms of 2014, that there was transformational change by this stage?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, in 2014, there was also a Commonwealth Senate Inquiry and Yooralla participated in that Inquiry.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: But, again, that wasn’t directed specifically to Yooralla.
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: And then, over the page on page 8, there was, then, the 2015 Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Again, that wasn’t focused just on Yooralla, but Yooralla contributed and participated in the Victorian Inquiry.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, the last two that you’ve identified in the submission are described as the first KPMG external review and the second KPMG external review.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So the first was done in 2015 and the second done in 2017, and these are Yooralla specific reviews; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: They are. That’s correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: And are we right in understanding that the 2017 Yooralla KPMG review is the most recent review that’s been undertaken?
DR DEVANESEN: No, because in parallel with this, Yooralla is subject to a recertification against the disability standards, and so Yooralla has been reviewed from November 2017 on a regular basis by external reviews against the disability standards.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. But in terms of a Yooralla-commissioned review, is that – are we right in understanding that the 2017 ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Well, the first KPMG review was not a Yooralla-commissioned review. It was a review commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services.
MS EASTMAN SC: But the second one ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: The second one ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ that’s Yooralla-commissioned.
DR DEVANESEN: ‑ ‑ ‑ was commissioned by Yooralla to – to confirm that, you know, we were progressing in our journey, as our safeguarding journey and embedding practices at Yooralla.
MS EASTMAN SC: So the second KPMG review – so Yooralla set the terms of reference for KPMG; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: And Yooralla opened its doors, so to speak, to KPMG ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ to do. All right. I want you to have a look at the KPMG review. Commissioners, this is behind tab 171. You’ve got that there. On the screen is the coloured version of it but you’ve got the – a print of that. So it’s called A high level assessment of safeguarding related systems, policies and processes at Yooralla. And the document we’ve got says December 2017 updated March 2018. Now, can you turn over to the first substantive page, page 2.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And KPMG has set out on that first page under the heading Inherent Limitations ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ some limitations in terms of the scope of this review; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And in the second paragraph KPMG records:
The findings in this report are primarily based on a review of policy and procedure documents provided by Yooralla and are not informed by consultation with relevant stakeholders, including staff, customers and families.
DR DEVANESEN: Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: And then if you look at the Executive Summary, at the bottom of that page 3, KPMG say that:
Due to the desktop nature of the analysis, the above findings are limited by KPMGs inability to verify the implementation of the policy and procedural documentation at a practice level or to consult with Yooralla’s staff or customers to determine the perceived effectiveness of Yooralla’s safeguarding systems from their perspective.
So was there a conscious decision, when you asked KPMG to come and undertake this review, that it would be limited just to a desktop review.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So reviewing the papers?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And was there a conscious decision that KPMG, in undertaking its review, wouldn’t speak to Yooralla staff or customers?
DR DEVANESEN: It – it – yes, because it was meant to be a desktop review. It was about looking at whether the policies and procedures were relevant, had been updated appropriately, and would be the right – would be the right framework for embedding a safeguarding culture in the organisation. But it – it was done – it – it was not – it’s not the only review that’s done to establish whether safe and high quality services are being provided at Yooralla.
MS EASTMAN SC: I understand that.
DR DEVANESEN: So – so ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: But I’m just asking you about that review.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, but I think it’s complementary to other external reviews.
MS EASTMAN SC: So looking at all of the reviews that have been undertaken that are Yooralla-specific ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ and I appreciate you’ve prepared your statement in a very short period of time, and the Royal Commission is grateful for you and your legal teams to prepare that material in such a short period of time. What we were not able to see in the process of review is where and how people with disability, particularly from group homes, and particularly in the circumstances of ‘Jacqueline’, ‘Ruth’, ‘Kimberley’ and ‘Phillip’, have contributed to any of these reviews. Now, we may be wrong, and I may be wrong, that I’ve missed something in reading the material, but with your knowledge of the reviews that have been undertaken, where can we find that there has been active participation and consultation with the survivors and the people who live with disability in group homes?
DR DEVANESEN: So if we think about the external reviews that are conducted as part of the recertification process for disability service providers, I’m just going to briefly describe it. This is a tri-year process and once every three years external reviewers come into the organisation and they review the organisation against – up to date it has been for us both the National Disability Standards and the Victorian Disability Standards because we’re funded by both – both sets of government. And during that process – so they come every three years and they – and they review all the types of services of the organisation. And then in between the three years, at 18 months they come back and they review residential services and community services, and in that three-month period they come back twice-yearly to do corporate services and the supported employees and the business enterprises. So there is a regular process of review and surveillance.
And then three years on they do a complete review again. So Yooralla has had two of those comprehensive tri-year reviews in 2014 and 2017, and it’s had the interim reviews as I’ve described. On each occasion the sites that will be visited are chosen by the external auditors. Yooralla has no say in that. And at each site the external auditors request the organisation for the list – the names and the contact details of the customers that are supported at that site. And the auditors randomly choose customers and they have discussions with those customers when they are doing their audits with no Yooralla person present. And you will see in the audit reports that have been submitted to the Commission that there are specific sections there where there are verbatim comments from the customers because the external reviewers meet with the customers to get their feedback.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. So if we look at the process of review, those – that process of the triennial review is where you will find the voices, opinions ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Of people with disability that are supported. Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ of people with disability. And that that process is required to comply with statutory obligations; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: It’s required to be a registered provider, and – and shortly we will be now assessed against the NDIS Quality and Safety Commission standards.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. And I will come to this shortly. There’s also the customer survey process ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ where Yooralla is able to capture the information from ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ the residents of – with disability from group homes. So we will come to that in a minute.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. What I want to turn to now is some of the practical steps that Yooralla has taken in response to the events that occurred, the criminal offending. One of the significant reforms was the appointment of an internal investigator; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you dealt with this in paragraph 191 of your statement on page 36. So if it’s helpful ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ to turn that up.
DR DEVANESEN: I’ve got – I’ve got that.
MS EASTMAN SC: So this, as you say, was in light of the incidents of historic abuse, Yooralla sought to enhance its safeguarding practices.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And in April 2014 Yooralla allocated a budget to appoint an internal investigator. So this person commenced in September 2014, and the internal investigator is legally qualified.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Also accredited as a conciliator.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: A licensed investigator.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And someone with 20 years’ experience.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And this person is a Yooralla employee?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So not independent ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ of Yooralla? And the role of the internal investigator is set out in a couple of places. One is in a summary in 193 of your statement, and there’s also – and I won’t trouble you with this but there’s a document described as Management of Customer Incidents Policy.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And a Management of Customer Incidents Procedures Manual. And you’ve provided those to the Royal Commission.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. So understanding what the role of the internal investigator is, is – the first question is how do matters come to the internal investigator?
DR DEVANESEN: So the – all incidents are reported via the RiskMan system and they are risk-rated based on the definitions provided by the bodies to which we have to mandatorily report incidents and the terminology “incidents” comes because that’s the terminology used by the Department, and so on.
MS EASTMAN SC: I think just pausing, we had some evidence from the Disability Services Commissioner yesterday. And he talked about categories of incidents in terms of the matters reported to him.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And then ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ other types of incidents.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So the RiskMan is a computerised software system, is it, for recording incidents.
DR DEVANESEN: It’s for reporting incidents.
MS EASTMAN SC: And then, what, the staff member has to identify when recording in the software whether the incident is of a particular category?
DR DEVANESEN: So at Yooralla the decision on the categorisation of the incident is not made by the staff member that reports the incident. It’s made by the Chief Practitioner.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right.
DR DEVANESEN: So – and in our attempt to encourage the reporting of incidents, we want to be quite sure that we don’t minimise the seriousness of any incident by under-reporting the category in which it’s reported, and that’s why it goes up to the Chief Practitioner to make a decision about the category of the incident.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. So the incident might be reported regardless of whether it comes about because of a complaint being made by a customer. It might be an observation made by another staff member.
DR DEVANESEN: Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: An observation made by family member.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So there could be a wide range of sources to ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: And ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ identify an incident.
DR DEVANESEN: And – and sometimes it comes through a different channel which is the complaints process and we make a decision – the Chief Practitioner
makes a decision that this is not just to be managed in the complaints process, this is actually a reportable incident as well and an incident report is created.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. So once all the collection of that information is available, and the Chief Practitioner has identified the level of severity of the incident ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ then what are the incidents that are referred to the internal investigator? I assume they’re – that the internal investigator is not investigating criminal matters that should be the domain of the Police.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. So the internal investigator doesn’t investigate any criminal matters. So if there are incidents that are criminal matters, the organisation immediately reports it to the police and encourages, say, if a customer raises it, to report to the police and supports the reporting to police. And we always wait for the police to tell us whether they are going to take it further or not, whether they think it’s a criminal matter or not. When the police have decided that they’re not going to take it further, Yooralla’s internal investigator still looks into the – investigator to come up with, you know, a decision about whether action needs to be taken by Yooralla irrespective of the fact that the police don’t want to take it any further.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. So then if the internal investigator commences an investigation ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ you say in paragraph 201 ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ that the investigation is what you describe as person-centred ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ and includes interviewing impacted customers ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ as well as relevant witnesses.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: The internal investigator ensures the voices of the customers is heard ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ by working with customers, their families, carers and staff to ensure customers are interviewed in a manner that optimises communication ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ and minimises any potential trauma.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So the investigator might conduct a number of interviews and collect documents; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: They may visit the particular sites.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Sorry. She may visit the particular site.
DR DEVANESEN: She.
MS EASTMAN SC: Then she will make a finding as to whether an allegation can or cannot be substantiated on the balance of probability.
DR DEVANESEN: Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: And that process is set out in the manual and the policies.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, what I wanted to ask you about is this: you say in paragraph 203:
Impartiality is ensured as the senior management is unable to alter the findings made by the internal investigator.
So how does that work?
DR DEVANESEN: So the – the internal investigator does a report. And if she says something is substantiated or not substantiated nobody else challenges that outcome.
Nobody else can challenge that outcome. She is not involved then in the decision that’s made about what would happen to the perpetrator of an incident ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: Right.
DR DEVANESEN: ‑ ‑ ‑ that was substantiated.
MS EASTMAN SC: That’s what I wanted to ask you.
DR DEVANESEN: That – that is done separately and so there is no conflict there. And in order to reassure ourselves that there was no conflict there we have also recently done an external review.
MS EASTMAN SC: Yes.
DR DEVANESEN: That was pretty positive about Yooralla’s internal investigation process and we have submitted that review to the Commission.
MS EASTMAN SC: Yes, you have. Thank you. So in terms of the role of the internal investigator, at paragraph 207 you’ve told the Royal Commission that since her appointment in September 2014, she has conducted 162 separate investigations.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And then in paragraph 208 – and this might come up on the screen – there’s a table of the 162 ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ investigations.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. Now, pausing there, I accept that what’s contained here is a brief description and that we don’t have the benefit of the entire context.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So with that caveat, I want to ask you about some of the investigations that have been undertaken and the nature of the conduct that has been the subject of investigation. So when we have a look at the total number of allegations, the highest category of allegations concerns physical abuse.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you say for us to understand what physical abuse is, the definition, if I can loosely describe it that way, is in paragraph 209, subparagraph (a).
So that includes allegations such as tugging, bumping, pushing, slapping, and punching a customer. But would it be fair to say that what you seek to do is to describe physical abuse as all forms of physical abuse.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And then sexual abuse is the second highest category of allegation. And sexual abuse includes:
...allegations such as touching a customer’s chest when providing personal support, kissing on the cheek and touching breasts or genitals.
Now, there’s quite a range of conduct from touching somebody’s chest to a kiss on the cheek to touching breasts and genitals ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ or private parts.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: How has this definition of sexual abuse come about? Does that come from any particular statutory description, or is that Yooralla?
DR DEVANESEN: I don’t know. I would have to take that question on notice, I’m sorry.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. And then I think over the page – and I won’t go through all of them – you then set out other forms of abuse: verbal, financial, restraint, and the like.
DR DEVANESEN: Mmm.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. If we come back to the table ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ on 208.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: The table helpfully summarises the number of allegations but also where those allegations have been substantiated.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Partly substantiated.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Not substantiated or withdrawn.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So just following through with the allegations of physical abuse ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ it’s fair to say that a significant majority of the allegations of physical abuse are not substantiated.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And if you follow through with the sexual abuse, again ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ that the significant number of allegations are not substantiated.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Then I want to just ask you to drop down a little bit to the area of restraint.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And restraint is defined to include allegations such as holding a customer’s arms, turning off a customer’s wheelchair and moving a customer contrary to the customer’s wishes.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So while we’re just on restraints – and I have – were you aware or did you hear Claire Spivakovsky’s evidence earlier this week about her description of restraints that may be used in group homes?
DR DEVANESEN: No, I didn’t.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. Well, she spoke about chemical restraints.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Physical restraints.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Mechanical restraints.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And seclusion.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: As different forms of restraints.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. Yes. And we would use the same definitions for looking at restrictive practices.
MS EASTMAN SC: So is the reference in this table to complaints about – sorry, incidents involving restraint about restraints in the way that we’ve looked at them earlier in the week, chemical ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ mechanical ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Unauthorised restraint because we do have people with authorised restrictive practices so this is when it’s unauthorised but in the same categories.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. Looking at that, for over the period that the investigator has been doing her job ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ there has been eight allegations and half of them have been substantiated, four of them.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, in terms of the nature of the allegations concerning restraint, I don’t think in this part of your statement that you’ve gone into that in any detail. So you’ve ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ given us, for example ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: The example ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ the allegations of physical abuse, and you’ve given us a description of the allegations of sexual abuse and I might come back to them but – and, again, if you need to take this on notice ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ let me know.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: But do you have any personal knowledge in relation to the allegations of restraint, and the type of matters that were substantiated?
DR DEVANESEN: Not today, I don’t.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right.
DR DEVANESEN: But I can take the question on notice.
MS EASTMAN SC: Okay. So your statement has focused on providing to the Royal Commission some of the descriptions of the incidents that have been the subject of investigation, and some of the findings made by the investigator. So can we briefly look at some of these. The first is the physical abuse.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: It’s paragraph 211.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And this covers the period from some time in 2015 through to page 40, subparagraph (m), an event which is current; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. Now, looking at these allegations – and I’m mindful of the time and we won’t go through all of them – some of them seem to have multiple aspects of abuse. For example, you’ve got in paragraph 211(c), an allegation in 2016 that an employee:
...hit the customer over the head with a bag of onions, after the customer had rammed the employee and grabbed her breasts.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And the matter was reported to police. So you’ve there got an allegation of physical abuse by the employee.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: But you’ve also got an allegation, haven’t you, of possible sexual abuse towards an employee.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So how would an incident like that be investigated where you’ve got two sets of allegations involving the person with disability, the customer ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ and a staff member? How would the internal investigator do that?
DR DEVANESEN: So the internal investigator generally investigates the incidents that have a harmful or potentially harmful effect on customers. Other members of the employee relations team look into the incidents associated when there’s harm to a staff member. So they are also reported seriously. So in the discussions yesterday at the Commission there was talk about how there are people seem to be reporting less number of incidents now because we’ve changed from Category 1 and Category 2 to incidents with harm and with no harm. One of the reasons why we are reporting less incidents now is because previously a customer to staff incident was reportable, and now it is no longer required to be reported.
So it’s reported as a staff incident separately within Yooralla. And the other reason that there are so much fewer incidents being reported now is that all incidents associated with illness used to be reported – reportable incidents, and in the new definition they are not. So the staff incidents are reported separately from the customer incidents.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. Can I ask you to turn over the page.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: There’s an incident in 2016 – and this is in paragraph (d):
The employee placed duct tape over the customer’s mouth and the matter was reported to the Victorian police and the employee was charged in relation to the incident.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So is that an example where the internal investigator also undertook an investigation after the police ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ investigation had commenced.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. And what is recorded in paragraph (d) is that:
As part of the diversion program ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Is that in relation to the criminal law consequence?
DR DEVANESEN: Correct. Correct.
MS EASTMAN SC:
...the employee was required to write an apology to the customer, be of good behaviour and make a $200 donation.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: A charitable donation.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: The employee was terminated.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Was there any redress or compensation payable to the customer whose mouth had been sealed by the duct tape?
DR DEVANESEN: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: So the charitable donation is not – not intended that we read that as a donation to Yooralla or to the – the victim of this crime?
DR DEVANESEN: No. It was to neither.
MS EASTMAN SC: Okay. Now, I want to just very briefly deal with the sexual abuse allegation. This is 213. And there’s two events in September 2015 and December 2015. And these involve a TAFE student or two TAFE students.
DR DEVANESEN: Two separate – yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: They’re different students.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: They were on placements at Yooralla. So just pausing there, remember earlier I asked you about volunteers and who was working in the home.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So how do TAFE students come to be on a placement at Yooralla? Is that part of the TAFE training?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. We have an agreement with TAFE and it’s part of their training and their placements.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. For both these TAFE students the allegation was that they had kissed ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: A customer.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ a customer on the cheek as a greeting. So I just – how does that become sexual abuse?
DR DEVANESEN: So Yooralla would not support – does not support that gesture as being appropriate, and we certainly wouldn’t support our staff doing the same thing. So we have instituted training for our staff on boundaries, and not breaching professional boundaries. And this would be one of those examples, that we wouldn’t expect our staff to participate in such behaviour.
MS EASTMAN SC: And has that work been informed by asking the customers with disability how they would like to be greeted?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. And in fact, this – the internal investigator is the person who did that. And it was based on the investigations that she was conducting and the conversations that she had with customers and their families that the – the training is scenario-based and the scenarios come up from the discussions that she has – that she has had with customers.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. Now, the first one, just the description is a little unclear to understand what this incident was that was being investigated. So this is November 2014. So:
A Yooralla employee took a customer to see a sex worker on her own time.
So could I just pause there. Is the allegation that this was outside the Yooralla employee’s ordinary duties?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. So this is something the Yooralla employee shouldn’t have been doing.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. And the allegation is that:
The employee also allowed the customer to touch her bottom and allowed the customer to place her hands on his penis on two occasions.
So this was reported to the Victorian Police and that employee was terminated. So the allegation of the sexual abuse is in relation to the touching.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Was there any investigation in terms of the first line, which is taking a customer to see a sex worker on her own time.
DR DEVANESEN: Was there any investigation?
MS EASTMAN SC: Yes. Was that the subject of separate investigation?
DR DEVANESEN: I can’t answer the question today.
MS EASTMAN SC: And how does this fit into the broader policy of Yooralla in terms of providing assistance?
DR DEVANESEN: Can I answer the question later?
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. Commissioners, I want to move in the time remaining to the prevention strategies and the action taken by Yooralla to work to avoid circumstances of violence and abuse arising at Yooralla. So that’s the next topic.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Right.
MS EASTMAN SC: So before I move there if the Commissioners have got any questions about the matters that I’ve just discussed with the witness.
COMMISSIONER McEWIN: I have one quick question. Thank you. With the reports that are found to be not substantiated, do – does the person with a disability who has made the report, what steps or what right of review – did they have a right of review for that?
DR DEVANESEN: So this – this is an example of a matter that was discussed with that community advisory committee. And a member of the community advisory committee raised the issue of it’s an inadequate response when a matter is not substantiated, and particularly when it’s not substantiated because there is lack of evidence rather than it couldn’t possibly have happened.
And so there’s a new policy created on advice from the Yooralla community advisory committee that says when allegations are not substantiated, that the staff member doesn’t work alone and unsupervised for a three-month period, that they are monitored for a three-month period, and that they get mentoring and coaching over that three-month period. And if there is any evidence that the type of behaviour that was caused in the allegation recurs, then the staff member is dismissed. So there’s an added protection when an allegation is unsubstantiated in that matter.
COMMISSIONER McEWIN: Is that the only action that’s taken in regard to that ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Unsubstantiated ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER McEWIN: ‑ ‑ ‑ example you’ve just given?
DR DEVANESEN: Unsubstantiated allegations, yes.
COMMISSIONER McEWIN: No other look at reforms or anything else?
DR DEVANESEN: The – the nature of the incidents are all analysed for themes, and then there is a systemic response to making conditions – improvement to address those issues, but – so that’s done as part of reporting on all incidents and doing a bi-monthly analysis – a thematic analysis of all the incidents and then taking further action if we already don’t have appropriate actions in place to address the themes that come out of that analysis.
COMMISSIONER McEWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Does the internal investigator prepare a report in relation to each of these matters?
DR DEVANESEN: She does.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: And is that report shown to the complainant if there is a complainant?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: And does the complainant’s advocate, if there is one, also see the report?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: The – I take it that it is Yooralla that pays the internal investigator.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Who determines the salary?
DR DEVANESEN: I – I can’t recall how the salary range was determined, but ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: But it’s Yooralla.
DR DEVANESEN: ‑ ‑ ‑ it would be determined by the executive director of people and culture at the time.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: But it’s Yooralla that determines; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, yes, indeed.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: So that the salary will, in part, depend upon Yooralla’s assessment of the effectiveness of the internal investigator.
DR DEVANESEN: I think the salary depends on the role and the qualifications and experience of the person.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: But salaries are adjusted from time to time, I take it.
DR DEVANESEN: Not really. Unless it’s just a normal indexation.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: On the question of unsubstantiated allegations, I think you said because there wasn’t sufficient evidence. So, presumably, there has been a complaint by someone, and then there’s a response. Why would the complaint not be regarded, as it obviously usually isn’t, as sufficient evidence?
DR DEVANESEN: When the investigation is done, and if it involves two people and the people have differing accounts of what happened ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Yes.
DR DEVANESEN: ‑ ‑ ‑ and there have been no other witnesses ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Yes.
DR DEVANESEN: ‑ ‑ ‑ and no other evidence to substantiate, all the circumstances are taken into consideration. That’s the occasion that I was referring to. That’s the type ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: So if someone alleges that they’ve been the victim of some kind of abuse or sexual abuse ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: ‑ ‑ ‑ and it’s denied and no one witnessed it, that would be regarded as unsubstantiated?
DR DEVANESEN: No, if somebody alleged sexual abuse, it would be reported to the police. That is the first step that Yooralla takes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: All right. But these are the ones the investigator is looking at ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: ‑ ‑ ‑ and the investigator has looked at a number of allegations sexual abuse ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: ‑ ‑ ‑ that’s in your table.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. The incidents referred to were kissing on the cheek on two occasions and, on the third occasion, the disability support worker did a dance in front of a customer and slapped herself on the bottom. That was the third incident.
MS EASTMAN: So I think, Commissioner – some – I think the evidence was some of these incidents are complaints ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ but some of them might be matters that are just recorded because they’ve been witnessed by others ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Someone else.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ and not necessarily described as a complaint, per se. Is that – I just want to – I just want to make sure that ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Yes. Sure, that I’m not ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ there’s the dealing of complaints ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ and then there’s the non-complaints, but, nevertheless, an incident.
DR DEVANESEN: An incident.
MS EASTMAN SC: Is that right or ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, that’s correct.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: I’m just trying to understand why it was when it comes to physical abuse, for example ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: ‑ ‑ ‑ there are 72 allegations, only 10 of which were substantiated according to your table, and 54 of which were not substantiated.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Because you said, I think, in your evidence, that was because of insufficient evidence.
DR DEVANESEN: No, no, no. I didn’t say the – I see what you mean. Yes. I don’t think that – not every incident that’s not substantiated is because of insufficient evidence. So my point was around when the new policy is applied.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: I’m trying to understand why it is that there are 72 allegations of physical abuse and a large majority of them, a massive majority of them are regarded as not substantiated.
DR DEVANESEN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: What’s the process that leads to most allegations, as you call them, of physical abuse being not substantiated?
DR DEVANESEN: Would I be able to review every one of those reports and get back to you on that once ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Of course.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: I think the issue that is being raised is how does the internal investigator assess the respective veracity or accuracy of competing accounts of events, when the two people involved, one is a customer and the other is the, often, presumably, the person providing services.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: And I think what is being asked is whether there might be an issue as to how the internal investigator assesses veracity or accuracy as between those two competing accounts.
MS EASTMAN SC: And I think, Commissioners, we have received, in the documents, the review that was done of the internal investigators. We haven’t drawn the witness’ attention to it directly, but ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ that’s material available to the Royal Commission.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: Can I turn to this policies and strategies now, Dr Devanesen. So deal with protecting people from abuse, and you’ve addressed this at paragraph 214, paragraph 41 – sorry, page 41, paragraph 214.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So there’s a long list of policies that start with the balancing choice and risk policy and, over the page, to the whistleblower policy.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Are all of these policies that have been developed over the last five years or so?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And are all of these policies regularly reviewed?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And are the policies in a form that they are accessible for people with disability?
DR DEVANESEN: No, not all the policies are, no.
MS EASTMAN SC: Are some of the policies accessible?
DR DEVANESEN: Some policies are.
MS EASTMAN SC: Is there any reason why all of the policies are not accessible to people with disability?
DR DEVANESEN: No particular reason. I – we have got some of the policies in plain English, but not all of them. Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Can I ask you, then, to look at paragraph 215 on page 42, and you identify five strategies for preventing abuse, neglect and exploitation ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ and violence towards people with disability.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So this has been Yooralla’s focus on the key areas.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: The first is promoting and upholding human rights.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: And you set out, in subparagraph (a), how that’s to occur.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Can you briefly give the Royal Commission an example about – from a very practical perspective, how this strategy may have been implemented in relation to customers in group homes? Can you give us a practical example?
DR DEVANESEN: So in – in order to assist – what Yooralla was attempting to do was to empower people with a disability and set up the empowerment team in Yooralla in response to all the incidents that occurred previously. It started out with the customer empowerment team, which is three staff members, visiting the Yooralla homes and talking with customers there and – and interacting with them. They then trained 200 customers to speak up and, as a result of that training, people who participated in that have now got an ongoing peer support group that meets on a regular basis. So the majority of people that received that initial training were – the training was taken to the group homes and given in the group homes.
MS EASTMAN SC: But from a practical perspective, have you seen an example of somebody who lives in a group home with disability have a difference in outcome or a different approach to how they might deal with issues that arise in the home.
DR DEVANESEN: Okay. So ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: I’m just trying to see is there a really practical example that you can give the Royal Commission about how this strategy works?
DR DEVANESEN: Yes. So – so we have a – a service at Yooralla that supports people who live on ventilators, and these – these people have high needs, but we seek to uphold their rights. From time to time, support workers working at the facility and/or other staff feel that maybe the – the health-related condition is deteriorating and the person needs to, say, go to hospital, but the – but the person with the disability doesn’t want to do that. They say, “I would like to exercise my right and I don’t want to go to hospital.” So how we assisted the people to make the decision that was then upheld is what we said was, “Yooralla staff have not got the training to make an assessment of the risk of not – of you not getting further medical treatment. So can we call the paramedical team out, the ambulance team? We allow the ambulance team to give you full information, then you can make your decision and if you still decide that you don’t want to be taken to hospital, we will uphold your decision,” and so that’s what happens now.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. So that’s a practical example. The customers in the ventilator units, that’s not a group home. That’s a specialist facility ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: It’s got – it’s got four homes for five people in each homes, but – so there are four homes on one campus.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. Now, I just – in the interests of time, I’m not going to ask you to give us practical examples of how the strategies are applied, but can I ask you to take on notice that with respect to each of the items in paragraph 215, if you can provide the Royal Commission with some practical examples about how these strategies have worked. The final topic that I want to ask you about is about options for the customers in group homes to either transition out of a group home environment into different forms of independent living. So I want to ask you a few questions about that. In a statement that the Disability Services Commissioner provided to the Royal Commission, he said – and this is paragraph 87 of Mr Rogers’ statement. It’s behind tab 26. He said – and I will just read it to you:
On average, Victorians with disability in receipt of disability services die approximately 25 to 30 years younger than the general population. In 2018 to 2019, the median age at death for people in receipt of disability services was 56 years for females and 54.5 years for males compared to 54 years for females and 52 years for males 2017 to 2018.
And he said:
While people with disability may experience complex health conditions and comorbidities that increase ill health, it is clear, through our investigations, that deaths are preventable.
So this is what Mr Rogers said yesterday. So given the evidence in relation to the median age before the death of somebody receiving disability services, I wanted to ask you, first of all, what is the average duration for a person in a Yooralla group home to be a customer in a particular group home? Is it two years, 10 years, 20 years? Do you – have you got information that can help the Royal Commission understand ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: I can ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ how long someone might remain ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: I can get you that information.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right.
DR DEVANESEN: So the Yooralla owned homes, the oldest home is 24 years. I don’t think we’ve got anybody that’s lived there for 24 years. We probably have people who have lived there for 10 years or so, but I can give you the accurate information.
MS EASTMAN SC: Because if we come back to ‘Jacqueline’, ‘Ruth’ and ‘Kimberley’ and, probably, ‘Phillip’, if we look at when the criminal offending occurred in relation to them and they’re still residents, then we’re looking at probably a period close to eight, maybe nine years; is that right?
DR DEVANESEN: Sure.
MS EASTMAN SC: So looking at that lifespan, how does Yooralla work with the customers with disability to consider options other than group home living against this background about the statistics in relation to life expectancy? Is there a particular program that Yooralla uses to give its customers options other than life in a group home?
DR DEVANESEN: We – we respond to customer requests for consideration to move out of a group home. We have successfully effected that for many customers. We have two facilities at Yooralla which we call transition facilities. They require support in a more independent setting than the setting of a group home, and when a customer wishes to transition out into a – into a more independent setting, they – they use the transition facility at Yooralla to – to experience living in a setting different to a group home, and most people who have used the transition setting and with the assistance of Yooralla have successfully transitioned to living, say, in an independent unit.
MS EASTMAN SC: Is it the general policy of Yooralla that, for everyone in a group home, that they should be given information and choice about options other than living in a group home?
DR DEVANESEN: It would – it would be – it would – Yooralla would want people to have choice, and Yooralla would want people to have a series of options to choose from. I’m – I’m uncertain – I think, possibly, we don’t have enough alternate options to group homes currently.
MS EASTMAN SC: No.
DR DEVANESEN: So from a practical point of view, it’s probably difficult to assist everybody who might wish to transition out of a group home, but I think it’s – it’s the customer’s decision where they want to live, and Yooralla would facilitate achieving the goal that the person wants to achieve.
MS EASTMAN SC: Now, just – I’m conscious of the time and I know some of the Commissioners have got questions on this topic. Yooralla does have a policy called Transition Planning Policy.
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: It’s behind tab 153 in the bundle. That policy is focused on someone entering the service ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes, it is.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ and how that transition will occur, but in terms of exiting the service, the policy also acknowledges that people, from time to time, might choose to leave or no longer require Yooralla services. So you have a policy to assist someone when the decision’s made, but there isn’t a standalone policy to say for everybody ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ “We will continually be reviewing and looking at options ‑ ‑ ‑”
DR DEVANESEN: I – I ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: “‑ ‑ ‑ other than a group home environment.”
DR DEVANESEN: I think that’s correct.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right.
DR DEVANESEN: And I think that’s something we should look into.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. Commissioners, I’m conscious of the time and I don’t want to delay those who need the luncheon adjournment. That will complete
my questions. I don’t know whether Ms Firkin has any questions, and I think Commissioner McEwin wanted to ask some questions in relation to these matters.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: He assures me he’s only got one question.
COMMISSIONER McEWIN: Yes. Thank you. You just said, just now, that – and I’ll quote:
It’s probably difficult to assist everybody who might wish to transition out of a group home.
On what basis do you make that assessment ‑ ‑ ‑
DR DEVANESEN: It’s ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER McEWIN: ‑ ‑ ‑ that it is probably difficult.
DR DEVANESEN: Anecdotal, I think, because there aren’t that many choices available. So I know that support coordinators, for example, have difficulty in accessing more independent accommodation for people when they request it.
COMMISSIONER McEWIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: All right. Well ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: That complete the witness’s evidence. I was going to ask the Commissioners if it’s convenient that we adjourn till quarter past 2.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: My position precisely.
MS EASTMAN SC: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: We shall adjourn until 2.15.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW
ADJOURNED [1.05 pm]
RESUMED [2.16 pm]
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Yes, Ms Eastman.
MS EASTMAN SC: Commissioners, you will see that our witness table has now become a fairly lengthy table. And we’ve got a number of advocates in the disability sector in Victoria who are going to participate in a panel. And the focus of our session this afternoon is to have an understanding about the range of advocacy services that operate in Victoria, the type of work that the advocates do, and the strategies for effective advocacy. So I’m hoping that this will be a conversation between the advocates and any questions the Royal Commissioners have, and then we’ve got a number of issues that we’re going to ask the advocates to focus on.
So I know they all have to give oaths or affirmation. If we could do it, perhaps, in a way where each person can identify themselves. And to tell you a little bit about who they are, the organisation that they are representing today, and just something about the nature of the work that they do. So that will be our first part of the panel session. So can we do that with the oaths and affirmations.
<NADIA MATTIAZZO, AFFIRMED [2.17 pm]
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: So Nadia, can I just ask you to introduce yourself to the Royal Commissioners?
MS MATTIAZZO: Good afternoon, Royal Commissioners. My name is Nadia Mattiazzo. I’m the acting chief executive officer of Women With Disabilities Victoria. We are an organisation obviously representing women with disabilities in Victoria. Our main role is really in the systemic field. We provide systemic support for women with disabilities. We also run a number of programs such as leadership programs for women with disabilities, and we work in the violence prevention and workforce development space.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. So next is Sarah Forbes.
<SARAH FORBES, AFFIRMED [2.18 pm]
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. I hope people don’t mind me using their Christian names. If you object, let me know. So, Sarah, can you tell us a little bit about your role as the advocacy manager at VALID?
MS FORBES: My name is Sarah Forbes. I’m the advocacy manager at VALID. I do both systemic advocacy work and manage a team of individual advocates. We work with adults with intellectual disabilities, many of whom live in group homes, and many of whom were formerly institutionalised.
MS EASTMAN SC: And Pauline Williams is next.
<PAULINE WILLIAMS, AFFIRMED [2.19 pm]
MS EASTMAN SC: So Pauline, you’re the Projects Coordinator of Action for More Independence and Dignity in Accommodation but that’s got a shorthand.
MS WILLIAMS: AMIDA. Thank goodness. It’s very long.
MS EASTMAN SC: AMIDA. All right. So if you tell the Royal Commissioners about your role.
MS WILLIAMS: So at the moment I am project coordinating but prior to that I worked for 23 years as an advocate with AMIDA. We do individual advocacy, self-advocacy support and systemic advocacy. Our organisation is also a partner with two self-advocacy organisations and we manage the self-advocacy resource unit.
MS EASTMAN SC: Thank you, Pauline. Colin – Colin Hiscoe is next.
<COLIN HISCOE, AFFIRMED [2.20 pm]
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Yes. Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: So Colin, you are a self-advocate with Reinforce. Do you want to tell the Royal Commissioners what you do in that role?
MR HISCOE: Yes. Good afternoon. Thank you for letting me be here today.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you.
MR HISCOE: And thank you for the opportunity. Like I said, my name is Colin Hiscoe. I am the President of the organisation Reinforce. We’re an organisation that fights and tries to uphold the rights of all people with an intellectual disability no matter where they are. We run some training sessions. We run different sessions on different things. So for example you might come to us and say, “Can you run something on how a commission can work effectively with people with disability?” And we will go away, we will think about that, get a bit of support from other places and we will come and there’s your information that you want.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: That’s good to know.
MR HISCOE: But please don’t ask. I’ve just got one quick question, and maybe for you to think about. I was just talking before in the other room. I got told to please ask. So there was two things that concerned me about this Royal Commission. The first one is that, yes, we are here, we are coming, we are talking about what our knowledge and experience is of people with a disability in group homes. Fantastic, great. Congratulations. Well done. Pats on the back all around.
But I don’t think that you are getting to the real people that matter. This Royal Commission is about people in group homes. I think you need to get there into the group homes. The biggest problem might be that no matter what you do, the people there are going to be really scared, they’re going to be afraid, they’re frightened of retribution, they’re frightened of being in trouble, they’re frightened of being hit, whatever, and they’re really scared. So you might need to somehow get what I call a neutral venue.
One of the things I was thinking about, and I was talking to Pauline, was using one of the offices in AMIDA. It’s private and you’ve got a roundtable and you can talk. Then probably you might need to get or think about – and again it might be a time factor, and that is – because I don’t know you from a bar of soap. You don’t know me from a bar of soap. What do I do; I don’t know how to answer you. I don’t know what to talk – I’m scared. So I think you need to build up the relationship somehow. I think you also need to try and explain to people that if anything happens they can go back to somebody, and who that somebody is, and maybe a phone number.
The other thing just quickly is that we produce a resource that we made. It’s called the rights of residents in group homes, community residential units. And we’ve done this for staff, one in Moe and the other one in Bendigo. I believe the lawyers have got a copy and you will get to see that eventually. Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you very much.
MS EASTMAN SC: Commissioners, we have been provided with a copy and this will be part of the material before the Royal Commission.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Good. Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: Thank you. Naomi.
<NAOMI ANDERSON, AFFIRMED [2.24 pm]
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. Naomi, you’re a solicitor at Villamanta Legal Centre.
MS ANDERSON: Yes, I am.
MS EASTMAN SC: Can you tell the Royal Commissioners a little bit about your role and the work that you do at the legal centre.
MS ANDERSON: Certainly. Commissioners, we are a community legal sent at Villamanta but also disability advocates. The areas of law we practise in are those areas that nobody else does. So the Disability Act and actions under the Disability Act or defending actions under the Disability Act, guardianship and administration, but more recently some NDIS work but as Colin has also alluded to, it’s a lot about assisting people with disabilities, especially intellectual disabilities to participate in legal action where it’s happening. So if somebody is going to VCAT because a guardianship application has been made, supporting and assisting them to have their say so that we’re not acting for them entirely; they are acting for themselves to the extent that it is possible and they actually have some agency in those proceedings.
The – the issues that we deal with are heavily focused on intellectual disability because of the nature of our work and the history that we have, and so, therefore, we often have referrals and interactions with the other panellists around members of the public who are complaining about issues in group homes, about their clients who requested advocacy services in group homes, and from family members who are also talking about those sorts of issues. So we work alongside each other but we all have slightly different roles.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. I’m reminded that if we can speak slowly for the interpreters so that they can follow our discussion. So I want to start by opening up perhaps, Sarah, with you. How well do you think people with disability who live in group homes understand their rights and understand what human rights are?
MS FORBES: Well, I would have to agree with Colin, and we do similar work in terms of getting into group homes, talking to people about their rights, teaching people how to take more control of what is happening in their group home. The fact is that to exercise their rights, the group home environment makes that difficult.
MS EASTMAN SC: Why is that?
MS FORBES: You don’t choose who you live with, you don’t choose often where you live, you don’t choose the staff who come into your home or who sleep overnight or who touch your body to provide you with personal care. Those are fundamental choices that allow people to exercise their rights. So while people may have a right under the UN Convention to choose who they live with, to choose where
they live and to not be obliged to live in a place in order to receive support, that’s not the reality for most people living in group homes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So do you think there’s a limited or lack of understanding for people living in group homes about the nature of their rights?
MS FORBES: I think we are constantly both shocked and dismayed as advocates at how little people understand about their rights. They do have rights that they don’t know about, and that they don’t exercise. They also have experiences of attempting to exercise their rights and not being respected. Or in fact being retaliated against for doing that. Being laughed at for suggesting that they should be able to make certain choices. Having certain choices used as collateral, as punishments. So I think there’s – people receive very mixed messages. They receive the message in Victoria that “It’s OK to complain”, but what happens when you do is often not what was promised.
MS EASTMAN SC: Right. Colin, you’re nodding, and Pauline you’re nodding.
MR HISCOE: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Colin, I will start with you. Do you agree with what Sarah has described?
MR HISCOE: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: What’s your experience of people understanding their rights?
MR HISCOE: I don’t think they do. I really don’t. I don’t think they do. If I can maybe just say that when part of Kew closed down there was 100 residents that moved out into group homes. First question: did they have a say? Second question: did they choose the people they lived with? Third question: did they get a chance to say no?
MS EASTMAN SC: So you think there’s not an understanding of rights ‑ ‑ ‑
MR HISCOE: No.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ and it goes back even to deinstitutionalisation?
MR HISCOE: Yes. Yes. Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: Pauline.
MS WILLIAMS: I agree. But it isn’t just about not understanding rights. I think what Sarah is saying, too, is that you could understand what your rights are but not be able to exercise them.
MR HISCOE: Yes.
MS WILLIAMS: But it would be helpful if people had information about their rights. One of the things we found is that it’s very difficult to actually have access to people to provide them with that information. And when we did try and do that a while ago we put together a DVD package that clearly shows what people’s rights are in group homes under the Disability Act. This was some time ago now. We tried to roll that out into group homes but couldn’t be given the addresses.
So we tried intermediaries to distribute them through the service providers and the government. And then, through contacts with advocacy organisations, we pieced together places where we were welcome and went in and tried to talk to people face-to-face about their rights. We went to 84 homes, all group homes, and in not one of them had anyone ever seen this. It had never been received and it had certainly never been looked at. So it’s very difficult to give people information about their rights. There are all sorts of obstacles.
But the group home model doesn’t really lend itself to discussions of rights because, in reality, people’s rights aren’t respected and – I mean, we have terrible cases of abuse and violence that we advocate for people to get resolutions to, and time and time again, we find that there’s just blockages. That it takes, sometimes, years to try and get resolution when people are actually in situations of violence and abuse. So it’s minimised when people complain. No resolution comes; no action is taken. So why would anyone think that they had rights. And – and we find that, as advocates, that it’s just so frustrating when, you know, we’re constantly trying to push for solutions and there aren’t any.
One of the big barriers, one of the big pressure points, is there are no alternatives. That – that even – even if you have people with the best of wills, there isn’t accommodation options and alternatives out there when the group home model’s not working. So you can wait a really long time. You know, we have people putting in 20, 30 applications for an alternative housing place and waiting years to be able to move. They may well find a place and move, and then that vacancy is quickly filled by somebody who’s desperate for housing and support, even though that place is probably not a safe house to move into. So it’s a revolving door of moving people around. There’s really no solutions because there are no alternative housing options out there apart from group homes. It’s very frustrating.
And even with the NDIS coming in, which supposedly gives people choice and control, what we see is that the model of specialist disability accommodation that’s being developed and – and property developers are, you know, bringing housing down the pipeline now, 450 group homes are being built and, you know, we just despair, I guess. It just doesn’t make sense to us when we can see the model’s not working. There are some smaller group homes coming through the investment, but they’re all being clustered together. So people won’t have choice of service provider. So rights, again, are very much secondary to the needs of funding models and developers, service providers, people with disability, very, very last on the list.
MS EASTMAN SC: So, Naomi, at a community legal centre based on what the other members of the panel have said, I mean, how on earth does somebody find their way to the Villamanta Legal Centre?
MS ANDERSON: Firstly, many of them don’t, or if they do, it’s too late. By the time we have met them, any legal enforceable right has passed, but the biggest issue, I think, really is that the rights that my peers are alluding to don’t really count for much if they’re not legally enforceable. If there is nothing you can do to enforce that right, it actually may as well not exist. We tell people that they have a right to make their own decisions, but then we see government agencies, service providers and all sorts of people finding it easier to deal with a nominee than the person themselves.
So what good is the right to make your own decisions if everybody goes around you and speaks to somebody else anyway? We talk about the right to safety and to being safe in your own home, but there is nothing that a legal service can do to ensure the safety of somebody in a group home. There is no legally enforceable right available to them to prevent the violence. We can complain on their behalf, we can advocate on their behalf, we can do all sorts of things which have been outlined in our submissions, but at the end of the day, there is no legally enforceable right to safety for a member of a group home.
MS EASTMAN SC: So you can’t use the Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities or ‑ ‑ ‑
MS ANDERSON: Not by itself.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ the Equal Opportunity Act or ‑ ‑ ‑
MS ANDERSON: There needs to be some legal action that can be taken, in and of itself, before I can invoke the charter. I will talk about a woman who is living in a house where she was sexually assaulted by another resident 18 months ago where the family did all of the right things, the police were called, the service provider was taken to Disability Services Commission. All of the complaints mechanisms were brought into play, promises were made, agreements were brokered. The two people still live in the same house 18 months on. What point is there telling her about her rights when it doesn’t actually achieve anything for her? We talk about the right to physical autonomy and, yet, we chemically restrain people. We talk about the right to choice, but there is no choice about where you live, with whom you live. As Sarah said, who comes into your home, who provides service. We’re still a long way from really talking about rights when they’re just ideas.
MS EASTMAN SC: Well, Nadia, that perhaps brings me to you ‑ ‑ ‑
MS MATTIAZZO: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ because the work that you do – and you’ve recently been made CEO of the Women with Disability in Victoria; is that right?
MS MATTIAZZO: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So the work that your organisation does is systemic advocacy for women with disability?
MS MATTIAZZO: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: So Naomi has just talked of an example about the impact on a woman ‑ ‑ ‑
MS MATTIAZZO: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ with disability. What have you seen in the work that your organisation does of being the barriers that women with disability face?
MS MATTIAZZO: So there’s clearly the – the level of double disadvantage that women with disabilities have: (a) they’re a woman; (b) they are a woman with a disability. We – we see that the – the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence found that women with disabilities experience – experience violence at a higher rate, increased severity and for longer than other periods. We absolutely agree with previous speakers to say that, for women in group homes, there is – they don’t have the choice. They can’t get out of a place where they feel unsafe. They can’t choose who they live with. They can’t be involved or, often, aren’t involved in making the house rules.
We know that violence, in many instances, is increased in those kind of homes, and – and basically they don’t – we don’t see that they do have rights. So I would agree we – in a number of the programs that we run, the leadership programs that we run for women with disabilities, this – this is exacerbated in the way that the women come together as a group to learn about their rights and how to be in respectful relationships, whether it’s with a partner, with family members, with, you know, other peers in their community, and this doesn’t always happen. And many of the women who participate in our groups often are surprised that they do have rights, but they – they don’t feel confident and empowered enough to, I guess, use those rights and speak up about their rights.
MS EASTMAN SC: Yesterday, the Royal Commission heard some evidence from Patsie Frawley, and some of you may be familiar with her work, but she talked about intersectionality ‑ ‑ ‑
MS MATTIAZZO: Yes.
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ and that disability plus the other characteristics can be an issue. So we’ve just talked about women. Can I ask, in the work that you’ve done, what issues arise in relation, for example, to First Nations People, to people from linguistic and culturally diverse backgrounds or people with disability who identify
as LGBTQI? Have those issues come up around the intersectionality – and I’m just using that shorthand expression. Who wants to say anything about that?
MS WILLIAMS: I certainly could say that, yes, we’ve found that navigating systems is really difficult. For professionals, even, it’s really difficult, and for people whose language – first language isn’t English and who aren’t familiar with, you know, kind of, the way in which, you know, government departments and service providers operate, let alone, sort of, the rules of the NDIA which are very complex, it becomes, really, very difficult to exercise any choice you do have. So, yes, definitely, we find that with – with people whose first language isn’t English, it becomes doubly more difficult.
MS EASTMAN SC: So what happens in that situation? If you have a person with disability living in a group home who – English is not their first language, where would someone go ‑ ‑ ‑
MS WILLIAMS: Or nor – nor their family’s first language so, you know, the people who ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: So what happens?
MS WILLIAMS: ‑ ‑ ‑ are often their main advocates don’t understand either. It’s very difficult.
MS EASTMAN SC: So what happens?
MS WILLIAMS: They struggle, and advocacy services try to assist, and there are some specific CALD advocacy services, but very much underfunded. And, you know, we – we found that the role of support coordinators becomes very important in trying to break down and explain the way systems operate, and what’s really frustrating is that, often, support coordinators aren’t neutral and perhaps should be independent. So if you’re relying on the – the people to provide you with information and they’re not neutral, that becomes really difficult. So they might work for the same service provider that is providing the support. There’s – you know, there’s – there’s difficulties anyway, but, yes, that just makes it worse.
MS EASTMAN SC: Naomi, has this been an issue that’s arisen in the clients that you support at the legal centre?
MS ANDERSON: In general terms, anyone who has more than one identity that is vulnerable in the community or that is disadvantaged will find that things are more difficult for them. In terms of the specific topics you’ve raised, I would say for the LGBTQI community, the reliance on families for supports can be extremely problematic ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: Why is that?
MS ANDERSON: ‑ ‑ ‑ when families don’t accept a gendered or sexuality identity. The ability for those people to access the supports where both government and – and support providers will assume that families speak on their behalf can be extremely problematic. For Indigenous people, we see it mostly where you’re talking about parenting and interactions with the law, given their own history with how the law has treated them as parents and as family members. They become very reluctant to engage, and quite often find, as non-Indigenous families, do that if you have an intellectual disability, your right to parent is going to be suspect – suspect from the very beginning, and that you will have to prove that you are capable of parenting, unlike every other family that doesn’t have to have that burden of proof from the outset.
And – and for CALD communities, it really is about all of the things that we know that CALD communities will struggle with, but exacerbated by the number of supports available in various language groups, exacerbated by complex processes, bureaucratic procedures and – and just the level of information that is needed that is not necessarily available in that language, and is not necessarily able to be understood even by those of us with university degrees and who speak English as a first language, much less trying to advocate for themselves or a family member in another language in another culture. It’s extremely difficult, and for them to then reach out to an advocate and/or a lawyer is actually extremely difficult because how do they even begin to frame the question? “What is it I’m even asking for help with? I don’t even know.”
MS EASTMAN SC: Sarah, has this been an issue in terms of the advocacy work of VALID?
MS FORBES: I think it’s fair to say that we get a lot fewer calls from the people who we should expect to receive them from and that’s because information isn’t passed on to people in particular, but also because even the technology to contact us is very difficult for anyone. So if you are a person living in a group home, you may not have a phone that you can use without asking for permission. If you need an interpreter to call an advocate and you live in a group home, you are relying on staff to support you to do that. Staff who may well also be on shift supporting two or three other people at the same time.
So a lot of what happens to people in group homes, particularly where there are issues of marginalisation around intersectionality, it relies on the service provider and the staff they employ to understand their obligations to support those people with additional measures, and my experience is that that happens rarely. People’s particular cultural identities are typically not well executed inside group homes, and there is a imposed culture, sometimes, of the staff themselves that controls what cultural celebrations happen in the house.
Whether or not you get to go and go to church or go to temple or wherever you go depends on whether staff are going to support you to go, and it may end up being the staff member’s decision. We’ve had numerous cases where service providers are
blocking a relationship between same-sex partners because they do not believe the two people involved have capacity to consent to that relationship. And consent to having relationships is hard enough inside group homes and for people with intellectual disability broadly, much more difficult for people in same sex relationships because people doubt you twice as often.
MS EASTMAN SC: All right. Colin, I want to move to a different topic. And I want to ask you about these important issues of choice and control. So in the work that you do as an advocate how do you explain choice and control for people who live in group homes? What work do you do there?
MR HISCOE: I think it’s very, very hard. And the reason I’m saying that in the – some time in the eighties when we approached somebody to ask if we can go – if we can have addresses for the group homes so we can send them our newsletter, send them information. We were told no you can’t have that, it’s private and confidential, which I understand and I agree. But if you give it to the person they will make sure that it gets out to every CRU. One of our members who lives in a CRU, I was asking him if he got this newsletter. And he said no. So that made me think what happened to that newsletter? Why is it so – sorry, I’m starting to get angry and I’m trying not to.
MS EASTMAN SC: That’s okay.
MR HISCOE: I apologise.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: That’s all right.
MR HISCOE: Why is it so hard and why is it so damn difficult to be able to get in those CRUs or the group homes. Why is it so difficult for people with disability to have the same basic human right as anybody else in this room or in the community? Why is it that we can’t have the same basic things? You’re allowed to get married. I might not be because I’ve got a disability. You’re allowed to go to the pub. I’m not, I’ve got a disability. I’m in a group home. Those get locked at 6 o’clock. You’re allowed to have children, I’m not. Why; because I’ve got a disability. When is it going to end that people with a disability have the same basic human rights as anybody else in this community! I apologise for yelling and screaming. I just get so passionate.
MS EASTMAN SC: That’s fine.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: That’s okay.
MS EASTMAN SC: It’s fine.
MR HISCOE: So to try and answer your question, how do we do it? We can’t because we can’t get in there. We can’t talk to anyone.
MS EASTMAN SC: So how – what do you think could be done to have greater access to the group houses or the CRUs? What would be your suggestion?
MR HISCOE: I think to start off with, like I said before, with that question in my opening statement when I was asking the Commissioners about going – going and seeing people who are the main focus of this – this convention, and do it on a neutral safe ground. And also if people – advocacy groups like Reinforce or VALID or Villamanta or whoever else can get in there and talk to the staff. Maybe we should be running this training that we’ve done for more staff. Maybe we should be asking them to sit down with the residents and explain what this is. Explain what the basic human rights are. If one person out of this room – if one person with a disability said, “Well, he’s right. I’m going to go ahead and try and do that.”
Now, if for some reason they can’t because they – the staff or the manager or whatever you want to call them might say, “No, you can’t”, all I would ask is that you tell me why I can’t have it. I’ve been told I’ve got human rights. I’ve been told I can do this, this and this. Now, you’re telling me I can’t. Please explain to me. And then just sit down and explain why.
MS EASTMAN SC: So Pauline, related to that I think some of the work that you do is the Self Advocacy Resource Unit. Can you tell us a little bit about that unit and that type of work to assist people with disability living in group homes in terms of self-advocacy?
MS WILLIAMS: So the self-advocacy movement – and it’s a civil rights movement, really, that grew up at the time that people were fighting to have institutions closed, and self-advocacy groups around Victoria and Australia are, you know, very poorly funded, I would have to say, but people have fought over the years to come together because they know that their voices are stronger when they come together, and – and those groups in Victoria get some resourcing through the Self Advocacy Resource Unit. So a lot of the groups don’t get actual direct funding. It would be great if they did, but the resource unit at least allows some support to groups to come together so that they can learn some skills and build sort of capacity to lobby politicians and be able to be part of the wider civil society to – to try and improve the lives of people with a disability.
And that model, I think, has a really good potential, along with other sort of rights, you know, sort of points of contact with people, to build that strength and to build capacity to be able to stand up for yourself. Obviously, you do need independent support as well if you’re living in a group home but a lot of people in group homes come to self-advocacy groups when they meet, and it provides that sense of, “I’m not alone and I can maybe do something about this and get some support.” And we – we think that it plays a big role in sort of safeguarding people’s rights if they’re – if they’re strong self-advocates who stand up they’re less likely to have their rights infringed. And it would be really great if that model could be rolled out across Australia. I think it’s been very successful in Victoria.
So if funding could be found through the – you know, something like the NDIS information linkages capacity building to see that model rolled out for resourcing of independent self-advocacy groups across Australia, I think that would really help. At the moment, it doesn’t look like there is in the funding framework potential for that. There is potential for resourcing but they want those resourcing units to be for all people with disabilities, and what we found is that for people who have intellectual disability or acquired brain injury or complex communication support needs, that really – it’s important that they receive their own resource – resourcing to come together and to – to not be competing, I think.
Sometimes there’s competition that goes on even between people with a disability and people with cognitive impairments and complex communication needs often miss out. So we think there should be dedicated self-advocacy resource support across Australia for those target groups, only because we’ve seen it; it’s really effective and is working in Victoria.
MS EASTMAN SC: Sarah, yesterday Kevin Stone gave some evidence and talked about the long waiting lists and some of these funding issues. Is this something you want to expand on or talk about in the context of how self-advocacy can work or grow in Victoria?
MS FORBES: Well, there’s a lot of work that VALID does in supporting self-advocates because our view is that the stronger self-advocates are, both individually and acting together, the more likely they are to get what they want and what they need. And so as – in everything we do, we use an empowering advocacy model that seeks to raise people’s voices to say exactly what they want. What I would say is that there are a lot of people who are not listened to. So it doesn’t really matter how hard they try to tell you. They’re not going to get what they’re asking for, for a range of reasons including just plain old lack of housing, as Pauline said, just lack of anywhere else to go.
But there is a particular group of people who I work with a lot who don’t have any family support and live in group homes, and it is almost impossible to get their choices upheld, even when they’re clear about what it is that they want. There’s a whole – there’s a whole other group of people who are living on the edge of nowhere. They ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: What do you mean by living on the edge of nowhere?
MS FORBES: Everything is at risk and it’s at risk all the time. So typically they might be people who have an intellectual disability, and are autistic and have a mental health diagnosis, and often that’s related to trauma that has happened to them in group homes. And they are moved from place to place. One client we had had lived in 30 group homes before he finally found, with the support of his family, a very dedicated well-resourced family, and a lot of advocacy, and legal intervention, finally got himself into a place of his own, and unsurprisingly, the reasons that he was kept in group homes, which was because of his behaviour and demonised for
that behaviour, and having restrictive practices put in place for that behaviour, that behaviour went away when he moved into his own home. We see it time and time and time again.
But there’s a lucky few who make it through that net. And the reality for most people with that profile is that there isn’t anywhere to go. So at VALID at the moment, we have never seen as many people who don’t need to be in prison, who are in prison waiting for housing only – the only reason. We have never seen people restrained in hospital to the numbers they are right now. We had a client who was in hospital restrained physically to the bed for six months because he didn’t have anywhere to go. And he didn’t have anywhere to go because his group home had broken down because of constant unexplained injuries despite having two staff supposedly with him at all times.
There is a group of people who need either to live on their own or certainly to be able to choose exactly who they live with for it to work well for them. And what we’re seeing now is the construction of housing with NDIS funding that has in-built environmental restrictive practices where tables ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: What do you mean by that?
MS FORBES: Tables and chairs are bolted to the floor, where paintings or pictures are screwed to the walls. There’s no glass; there’s Perspex on every television and not a person has moved in yet. They’re designed as group homes, and they’re designed for a particular person with a profile that has allowed people to assume that they are violent and that they are aggressive, and that, therefore, things need to be chained to the floor in order to manage their behaviour.
And the idea that we would be building group homes for people who very clearly do not enjoy living with people who share all of the same labels that they have, for good reasons, are going to get stuck in group homes for another 30 years. And I think there’s a lot of advocates and families, and particularly people with intellectual disability, who are desperate for something better, something ordinary. A house just like anyone else.
And at the moment, their options are more of the same or something that is basically exactly the same thing but it has much nicer paint on the walls than the ones we had five years ago.
MS EASTMAN SC: Anyone else have had that experience with those who you help advocate for or coming to the legal centre or – Nadia, perhaps if I ask you, is this something that you’ve also seen in the advocacy for women?
MS MATTIAZZO: Yes. I think absolutely what Sarah said I would agree with wholeheartedly. I think there’s a sense – there’s still that sense of gatekeeping. I don’t know how we resolve that issue. For us there is – we see there’s extreme power differentials between staff in group homes and – and the residents. There’s –
for women who have experienced, I guess, domestic violence, in those instances we see there’s a lack of independent response and investigation for the victim, for the – or survivor.
And that being that – being external to the actual service operator, you know, if – if they’re perceived – if they’re the problem, then you can’t go to them to talk to them about the issue. There’s – I guess there’s a lack of advocacy resourcing for organisations, and we’ve heard about that. We would recommend providing more support to Victorian advocacy sector to support the rights and the capacity and empower women with disabilities to be able to truly absolutely make their own choices in terms of where they live, who they live with, and how they get out of an unsafe situation.
There’s definitely a lack of alternative housing options for women wishing to leave abusive situations. Affordable housing is – is another issue. And, again, as has been said before, housing that is built to a perceived level of – I don’t know – restraint, I guess the word might be. You know, would you live in a house that has tables and chairs bolted to the floor? Would you live in a house where you don’t have the choice of who you live with? That I could never imagine myself not having the choice of who I live with, where I live, and – and if I can’t live there and if I feel unsafe, not being able to get out.
I – I just cannot understand how we have allowed, I guess, things to get to the way that they are, and just hearing Colin speak, hearing other people speak that are involved in more individually supporting the women with disabilities, I – I’m – I’m not shocked, but I guess hearing it is just really confronting for – for me personally, but I think for an organisation such as ours who know that it’s happening, but because we don’t provide the individual supports, we don’t necessarily get the direct implications of that, but we – you know, it’s just awful to hear that it’s – that it’s happening so consistently.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Ms Eastman, can I ask ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: I just wanted to ask a couple of questions. Nadia, it’s Roslyn Atkinson speaking. Just following from what you said ‑ ‑ ‑
MS MATTIAZZO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: ‑ ‑ ‑ are there shelters available – there has been a whole movement for many decades now for women who are fleeing abusive relationships to be able to go to women’s shelters. Are there shelters available for women with disabilities who are leaving an abusive situation, whether it’s with an abusive partner ‑ ‑ ‑
MS MATTIAZZO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: ‑ ‑ ‑ or in an abusive group home? And added to that, a woman who has a child with a disability. Are there safe – is there safe shelter housing for them to go to?
MS MATTIAZZO: We don’t see a lot of that. You know, there is some, but there’s – of course, everybody’s an individual, so let’s use me as an example. I have a seeing eye dog, a working dog. How do I, if I’m escaping a violent situation, that – that’s the consideration I need to have. Where do I go? Some people are afraid of dogs, whether they be working dogs or pet dogs. So if I was to seek shelter in a – in such an accommodation, they – they would be the things I would need to be aware of.
If I was a woman with a disability who used a wheelchair, I obviously cannot seek refuge in a shelter where I can’t get in; where there’s not appropriate accessible toileting changing facilities; the bedding is inappropriate; I don’t have privacy. And then let’s not think about if you are a woman with children, how do you get away from that situation? If I live in a rural or regional area and I’m isolated, how do I actually – I don’t drive. How do I actually get out of the situation? It’s – you know, it could be a 40 K walk to the nearest anything. How do I get out of that situation?
My partner might be managing my finances. My partner might be – I can’t reach the telephone. I don’t have my own phone. There are so, so many barriers to women escaping forms of violence, and I – I – I really think there needs to be a lot of work done in the area of accessible and safe accommodation for women escaping those types of situations. You know, often, they’re – they might be put up in motel rooms, you know?
Whilst that’s okay for a while, I – I don’t know how safe that is. You don’t get the – supposedly, I guess, the same support that you might get in a – in a – in a – in a shelter that is specifically designed to support women to get away from those kind of situations. I – I don’t believe that – that we are travelling in the right direction in terms of providing enough and appropriate ways, I guess, for women to get away from those situations.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Thank you. And, Sarah, you mentioned a couple of times that there are – these houses being built, and your description of them was even more graphic the second time. Who’s building these houses?
MS FORBES: Well, it’s a combination of developers, both Australian and overseas, who are interested in investing in specialist disability accommodation. It is also service providers who can see that they would like to provide both the specialist disability accommodation and the supported independent living funding, and we have seen examples where providers are providing both, and it is certainly possible that one of the reasons that those things are attractive to providers and developers is because you can make significant amount of money from both putting those people in the same house together, by saving costs on construction, but, also, what you do is
you maximise the price that you can get for each person if they are constantly fighting with each other because you will ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Sorry.
MS FORBES: If the ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: You will have to explain that.
MS FORBES: If the people who are living together ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Yes.
MS FORBES: ‑ ‑ ‑ cannot stand each other ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Yes.
MS FORBES: ‑ ‑ ‑ then, typically, there is a clinical response. That clinical response is to get a psychologist to write a behaviour support plan to train the staff to report on incidents ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Right.
MS FORBES: ‑ ‑ ‑ and there’s a whole apparatus about justifying behaviour management which often comes directly from the fact that you are living with people that you do not want to live with. There is a way to ensure that people remain dependent because the environment that they are in does not allow them to get well.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Thank you. Thank you, Ms Eastman.
MS EASTMAN SC: In the time that we’ve got, I want to move to some strategies for effective advocacy. I’m hoping there might be some good news maybe. We heard, over the last few days, about the important role of community visitors, and you may or may not have heard the evidence of the two community visitors. Just from the work that you’ve done in your particular organisations, have you also had occasion to work with the Community Visitors or have any insights into whether the role of community visitors is helpful in having – I think they describe the eyes and ears. So, Naomi, can I start with you?
MS ANDERSON: Absolutely, and, yes, we’ve had the Community Visitors be very useful, but in a similar vein and specifically related to people who are living in group homes, the people who contact me as their lawyer, most often, who are able to run things by me even though it may not be a legal issue, but they’re not sure what is and what isn’t a legal issue and who are able to just give an opinion on minor questions are the people who either have a mobile phone or access to Skype. They can contact me directly. They don’t need somebody else to assist them.
If they have communication problems, Skype makes it much easier whether they need assistive communication technology, or if they need to be seen and to be using body language. So many people in group homes have no access to either of those things. They don’t have access to the internet. Even though the internet is in the house, they’re not allowed to use it.
The Community Visitors coming into the house is one way of reducing the barriers, but we need, also, to get the people in group homes out, whether that’s online using social media, using the internet, using just a mobile phone, or whether it’s physically out into the community. When all of the people that you see work for one service provider and, to Sarah’s example, that means your support workers, the managers, your support coordinator, your psychologist, your therapists, everybody works for one provider, you are not going to have choice and control and you are not going to be connected to your community because you don’t know who the community is. The rest of us exert choice and control because we speak to each other. We speak to the person at the shop. We speak to the person on the train. We speak to each other wherever we are, personally, physically or online.
So I would just like to give you three very quick snapshots of individuals, one of whom lives in a group home and two of whom don’t, to explain the difference. So we had one woman who had one on one support every time she left the group home to go out into the community, and for those who don’t know what that means, it means every time she went, there was another person, “Colin, you can be my one on one support,” and the two would go out into the community together, and, “Colin, you’re supporting me right now to go out into the community. Thank you.” There were concerns about her behaviours and Colin wasn’t particularly happy about the way things were going, and so she was taken to the doctor and she was chemically restrained to sedate her.
At the time we were introduced, Colin had said, “This is not enough. I need two people to come into the community. I can’t do it on my own.” When you look through all of the paperwork, there was a very clear document dated within the last six months by an occupational therapist who says that person does not like swimming. Take a guess where the behaviours of concern were springing from. Take a guess where Colin was trying to take this person. They were being sedated and asked to go swimming with two people despite the fact that the whole point of having a one on one support is so that person can go where they want.
The next time we talked about the situation with this person, we were told that it had been resolved and, yes, it was agreed only one on one support was needed, but a sentence or two later, I was told that they were at the pool. Why are they at the pool? “Oh, well, she’s not swimming.” Who in the community goes to sit at a swimming pool for no reason? No choice, no control, despite the fact she had one person to herself to assist her to access the community. The other two lived in other settings: one with a friend who also had a disability and one with a mate who didn’t. The one with the friend who also had a disability had supports coming in that she was starting
to be wary of and had concerns about. Things weren’t quite right. She felt like her money was disappearing. She felt like things weren’t – there was something up.
She talked over it with her friend that she lived with. The two of them had concerns, but they couldn’t put their finger on it. The people who came into the house were employed by the service provider, and they didn’t want to risk their jobs by raising the concerns. The person who could raise the concern who had no bias, no concerns whatsoever about their job, no pressure, was the hairdresser. How many people confide in your hairdresser? You’re sitting there so long. This woman started to open up to the hairdresser. The hairdresser had no involvement in the situation and could raise the alarm and the situation could get sorted. By being a part of her community, she could actually be safe and she could have her views known.
And the last one is a very simple one. A guy who was sitting at home and the TV broke. He wanted to watch the footy. Where do you go to watch the footy when you don’t have a TV? He went to the pub. Somebody at the pub said, “I’ve never seen you before.” He said, “Yes, I live around the corner, but I never come here because I don’t drink, but my TV broke.” And the guy says, “Well, tell you what, when the game’s over, I’ll come have a look at it for you.”
MS EASTMAN SC: That sense of belonging to the community.
MR HISCOE: Wow.
MS ANDERSON: Now, he goes to the pub. They play pool.
MS EASTMAN SC: Well, they seem like relatively simple things to do if one thinks ahead. I mean, Colin, has this been your experience as well if there’s just some thought given to decisions that need to be made or opportunities to be in the community?
MR HISCOE: Yes, I think so. I think that if you try and help and support me and give me the chance to try to do something, you may – you may be really surprised of what can happen, and I think all that we really need is that one chance. Now, you might say to me, “Colin, I don’t want you to go and make toast because you might burn it and set the place on fire.” How do you know that? Yes, I might burn it. You might burn it. But unless I try, I will never know. And I just wanted to tell you a little story about – there was this gentleman who was in a CRU. And he couldn’t speak properly. He had trouble speaking. Sorry, I don’t know the proper words. And the – he was getting a bit violent and aggressive, angry because none of the staff or anybody could understand him.
So they called for the – somebody to – the – the bloke that used to be there. That’s the one, thank you. The senior practitioner, they called him to come because to medicate somebody or to do something to somebody is violence, then you have to get permission. So he came along and he wanted to speak to the person all on his
own, so that happened. Guess what the – can you guess what the reason was he was yelling and screaming and getting angry?
MS EASTMAN SC: No, what?
MR HISCOE: No? He had a very sore back and he needed to have an X-ray to make sure there was nothing wrong. As soon as that happened, all his behaviour had gone. One other quick story. One of our workers that we had in the eighties was taking a group of people up in the CRU. One of the residents – I don’t know who or what or why – got lost. Their support – the worker couldn’t – the person that’s taking them out couldn’t find him. Rang the police, rang everybody. Descriptions going around, kids in the towns going around looking for this – looking for this person. And the worker was really scared about what to tell the manager when she got back home. So she rang up and said, “I’m sorry, I’ve got some bad news for you. One of our – one of your residents has gone missing and I can’t find him.” “Don’t worry about that. He’s here sitting in the chair.” Now, if a person with a disability can do that, someone must have taught him what to do. Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: Pauline, can I ask you about effective strategies, things that you’ve observed would work or if – with relevant supports or commitments would work.
MS WILLIAMS: I think that it’s very difficult to have relevant strategies when you’ve got policies in place that actually prevent your activities from actually succeeding. So, for example, the group home model is inbuilt within this new NDIS, with the rollout of Specialist Disability Accommodation, there’s actually a requirement that people share. And it’s couched in terms of cost effectiveness, and I don’t think it is all that cost effective, actually. But it also goes totally against the whole choice and control of the NDIS, what it’s all about. And – and it’s very difficult to advocate for people’s choice to, you know, live where they want to and with whom they want to if they actually have to share in order to get housing and support.
And it makes me think about what happens to the rest of our community. There is housing provided on the public purse through public housing but you would never dream of saying to someone, “Well, you’ve got a spare bedroom, you have to share with a stranger who’s going to move in.” That would never happen. And it doesn’t happen to anyone else. But it does happen to people with a disability, and it doesn’t just happen for a short period of time. It happens for their whole lives. So I just think that some of the policy and the systemic changes that are needed have to happen first because advocacy is very difficult to manage effectively without that.
MS EASTMAN SC: Can I ask you all if there’s any final things that you want to say, because I know some of you had particular things that you would like to tell the Royal Commissioners. Nadia, can I start with you. Are there any final observations that you wish to make or things that you wish to tell the Royal Commissioners? You don’t have to but if you would like to, I would certainly invite you to do so.
MS MATTIAZZO: Just a couple of points, really, it would be for us. Women with disabilities who are experiencing violence whether it be in group homes or in other situations, we need to listen to them, we need to listen to what is happening and we need to believe them. We need to develop gender sensitive approaches. Understanding the – the differences and the needs of women with disabilities. And we need to – whilst we have been a significant – a leader in responding to, I guess, violence and those situations, we need to, I guess, grow that experience and expertise throughout Australia.
Staff in support services, violence response organisations, the people who are involved in responding to the – to violence against women with disabilities need to be adequately supported, adequately resourced, and adequately supervised, so that they feel confident about how they support the women that they’re actually supposed to be supporting.
MS EASTMAN SC: Thank you. Naomi?
MS ANDERSON: For people with disability to be free of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation, they need to know that the community has their back. They need to know that when people do things that are unlawful or illegal that they will be protected and that action will be taken to ensure it doesn’t happen again. And until that happens, we’re letting everybody down. We’re letting ourselves down; we’re letting our peers down; we’re letting our family members down. We’re letting the people in our community who are relying on us for those protections to be made real down every single day.
MS EASTMAN SC: Is that an issue in relation to people coming to engage with this Royal Commission?
MS ANDERSON: Absolutely. If people are made to feel that the people who are in the closest contact with them can say whatever they like whether it’s intended to intimidate or not, comments like, “Why would you do that? You’re not going to dob on me, are you?”; “Why? What did you say?”; these are all meant to reduce the confidence of the person who is planning to come here, and it’s not legal. They need to not do it, that service providers need to tell their staff not to do it, and the community needs to make it very clear we will not put up with this. This is an opportunity for people with disability to have their say and if they can’t come and do it then we have all failed.
MS EASTMAN SC: Pauline?
MS WILLIAMS: Yes, give people a way out of violent and abusive situations. We haven’t done that. So that’s the first thing. And I guess, you know, it would be great if there was more support for independent advocacy. We were – we have a Disability Advocacy Network Australia that was defunded, its core funding was taken away. So it’s very difficult to get together with other advocates. It’s great to see people today but we’re all just at the coalface. We don’t get a chance to get
together and share information as often as would help our efforts. So that would be another thing that would be great to see reinstated is core support for Disability Advocacy Network Australia.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Where did the funding come from? So who cut it?
MS WILLIAMS: Yes, good question. That would be something that – I’m pretty sure it came through DSS.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: You can take it on notice if you like. That’s fine.
MS WILLIAMS: Yes, yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: If you put in a submission to that effect.
MS WILLIAMS: Yes, will do.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: I would be interested to see. Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: Sarah?
MS FORBES: Well, I think there’s three things that we have seen work that are helpful to people. The first one is that people need to be in charge of the services that they use. If people with disabilities were in charge of their group homes, they would look very different. If people were choosing who they live with and where they live and how that house operates, group homes as they are would be unrecognisable.
MS EASTMAN SC: Sorry to – would we even call them group homes?
MS FORBES: No, we wouldn’t call them group homes because they wouldn’t be group homes, because in our experience it’s not what people want. So I think the first thing is actually about taking leadership from people who use these services, and also holding services to account to those service users. We’ve just launched a project recently where people with intellectual disabilities will be going into services including group homes to audit them on whether or not they’re delivering on what the people who use that service should expect. And that has been a tried and true strategy for us as an advocacy organisation for many years. And we think that people with intellectual disabilities themselves are a really good judge of what quality looks like.
The second thing is around investing in frontline staff. Whether or not your experience in your home is good or awful typically depends on the quality of staff that are coming in and out of your house. And it also depends on how well those staff are supported by an organisation with a strong culture. And I, like most other people here, would receive more calls from disability support workers and family
members and other professionals than I would from people with intellectual disability themselves because they don’t have access to communications to get to us. And so part of it is about disability support workers understanding the role they have in supporting people to speak up for themselves, and for organisations to make very clear to staff that that is their expectation.
That staff will be protected if they need to actually come forward and say that something wrong is happening for the person. And at the moment, a lot of staff are afraid. We get a lot of anonymous calls from staff who are desperate to get us to come and help the person, and it’s very difficult for them to come forward. I think the – the third thing is, as Pauline said – and I’m sure every advocacy organisation in the country is going to tell you – we are wildly under-resourced for the work that we are expected to do. And to do it to a level where we can respond to every call and pick up every case, we’re not even close. We have – most advocacy organisations that I speak to in Victoria have had their intake either closed or very limited intake for at least 12 months now.
And the truth is that you’re not going to get good outcomes for people in group homes without strong independent advocacy and supported decision-making. This is particularly important for people who don’t have strong family support, and at the moment VALID has many, many clients who do not have families, who live in group homes, who are stuck, and it’s very, very hard to get any movement when the only people that you are in touch with are paid to know you. Unsurprisingly, they’re not necessarily encouraging you to dump the group home and to move out on your own. In fact, most people are discouraged. And without others involved who aren’t paid to know you, whether that’s family or friends or interested community members who are willing to help you with that, there is no easy way out.
And, certainly, I would hope that governments will start investing in supported decision-making that is independent from people’s service providers, that can start helping them understand what choices they have and then can actually help them to make those choices that they want to make happen.
MS EASTMAN SC: Colin, I’m going to give you the final word. What would you like to say to the Royal Commission?
MR HISCOE: Okay. First of all, I would sincerely with all of my heart wish to say that, again, I apologise for my behaviour before. I get really passionate sometimes and sometimes it gets the better of me. So first of all, I just want to say how sorry I am. The second thing I would like to say is to please, please make sure that somehow you will get to the people that really matter. That is the people in the group home. Please don’t forget them. Please. Please help and support us and we’ll try to help and support you to make change. Please be there for everyone and everybody, especially the people what the Commission is supposed to be all about, and that’s the people who are living in the group homes. I beg of you, please don’t forget them.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: We won’t, and we will do our best.
MR HISCOE: Thank you. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you. Ms Eastman, is that all that you wanted ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: They’re all the questions that I wanted to ask.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Just let me check whether there are any more questions. No. Let me thank everybody who has come to the panel today for your contributions. They are very important to us and I think we will probably be asking, if not all of you, many of you for some further help as the Commission proceeds and Colin, we will be trying to do the things that you have identified. They’re not easy.
MR HISCOE: I know they’re not. I will give you a hard one.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Yes, well, we hope you will give us a hand because we need help from you just as you us to help you, and it’s ‑ ‑ ‑
MR HISCOE: Anyway I can, please just let me know.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: We shall. Thank you very much.
MR HISCOE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: Commissioners, there are some statements provided by members of the panel and I might deal with that separately in terms of identifying where the statements are. Could we take a short break so we can ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: How long do you need?
MS EASTMAN SC: Probably five minutes just to reconstitute, and then Mr Fraser is taking the final two witnesses today.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you.
MS EASTMAN SC: So five minutes.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: We will adjourn. Thank you again.
<THE WITNESSES WITHDREW
ADJOURNED [3.30 pm]
RESUMED [3.40 pm]
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Yes. Now, Mr Fraser, I understand you’re in charge.
MR FRASER: Yes. Thank you, Chair. The two witnesses that are giving evidence as a panel from the Summer Foundation, they are Dr George Taleporos, and Dr Di Winkler.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you very much and thank you for coming today. I will ask you, please, to take the oath or affirmation as you wish. I’m sure it has been explained to you, and if you just follow the instructions. Thank you very much.
<DIANNE FAY WINKLER, SWORN [3.41 pm]
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you, Dr Winkler. Please sit down.
<GEORGE TALEPOROS, AFFIRMED [3.41 pm]
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you, Dr Taleporos. Thank you. Mr Fraser will now ask some questions. If, at any stage, you need a break or anything like that, just let us know. Thank you.
MR FRASER: Thank you. I intend to commence with some – four matters to acquaint the Royal Commission with Dr Taleporos and Dr Winkler. I will then invite Dr Taleporos to make a prepared opening statement to the Royal Commission. After which, I will ask each to address the various workings of the Summer Foundation and related matters. Now, I will begin with Dr Taleporos. You are Dr George Taleporos.
DR TALEPOROS: Yes, Counsel.
MR FRASER: And you hold the following qualifications: PhD in the field of psychology, a Graduate Diploma in Educational Psychology and an Honours in Sociology.
DR TALEPOROS: That’s correct, Counsel.
MR FRASER: And you are the Policy Manager for the Summer Foundation.
DR TALEPOROS: That’s correct.
MR FRASER: And how long have you been in that role?
DR TALEPOROS: Three years and two weeks.
MR FRASER: And can you describe your responsibilities within that role?
DR TALEPOROS: My responsibilities relate to our policy positions including our advocacy to government and making sure that that is informed by an evidence base.
MR FRASER: And, in fact, you have over 20 years of experience in the disability field focused predominantly on advocacy, human rights policy and practice service development and management; is that correct?
DR TALEPOROS: That’s correct. Prior to the Summer Foundation, I worked as the manager of a statewide advocacy service.
MR FRASER: And for the purposes of today, you have provided a joint statement with Dr Di Winkler for the Commission dated 28 November 2019.
DR TALEPOROS: That is correct.
MR FRASER: And the contents of that statement are true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
DR TALEPOROS: They certainly are.
MR FRASER: Commissioners, the joint statement is at tab 138 of the tender bundle with annexures referred to in the statement appearing at tabs 139 to 142.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Yes, thank you.
MR FRASER: Now, Dr Winkler, your full name is Dr Di Winkler.
DR WINKLER: Actually, Dianne Fay Winkler.
MR FRASER: Dianne Fay Winkler. Thank you. You are the Chief Executive Officer of the Summer Foundation.
DR WINKLER: Yes.
MR FRASER: And how long have you been in that role for?
DR WINKLER: About 11 years.
MR FRASER: You are also an occupational therapist.
DR WINKLER: Yes.
MR FRASER: And, in fact, you’ve worked with people with severe brain injury for more than 20 years; is that correct?
DR WINKLER: Yes.
MR FRASER: And you have provided a joint statement with Dr Taleporos dated 28 November 2019.
DR WINKLER: Yes.
MR FRASER: And the contents of that statement are true and correct to the best of your knowledge.
DR WINKLER: Yes.
MR FRASER: Now, Commissioners, as I mentioned, I understand Dr Taleporos has prepared an opening statement he would like to present to the Commission. I invite Dr Taleporos to do that now.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Please, do go ahead.
DR TALEPOROS: Thank you, counsel. I might start by introducing the Summer Foundation and what we do. We work to make sustainable systems change in order to stop young people from being forced into residential aged care. We know that people with disability, including those of us with high support needs, have the same right as everyone else to decide where we live, who we live with, and how we are supported, and we want people to have access to high quality housing and support options. With the introduction of the NDIS, we believe that we are getting closer to achieving that outcome, but we’re not there yet, and that is all I’ve got for now.
MR FRASER: Now, the – perhaps I will address this to Dr Winkler. The Summer Foundation was established in 2006; is that correct?
DR WINKLER: Yes.
MR FRASER: I might ask some questions now about some of the problems that your organisation has identified, and I’m happy for either of you to answer these questions and to add onto each other’s answers as you think appropriate. At paragraph 58 of your statement, which is at page 14, you refer to what housing do we need and you talk about some of the shortcomings that you see in the community as to housing. Can I ask you to expand on some of these problems identified to the Commission. Dr Taleporos, would you like to start?
DR TALEPOROS: Yes. So thank you, counsel. So, obviously, people with disabilities have the rights to live where to choose and how we are supported. The
problem that we have though is that, as you may have heard, the majority of housing options are coordinated to two options. And for people who live – people who want to live in the community, this is not a suitable option for us. A lot of people who are currently in residential aged care may have been offered the option of a group home. Now, because that option is so unattractive to them, they chose to live in residential aged care. Di, do you want to add anything?
DR WINKLER: We think people who live in aged care are often people with acquired disabilities, so they’re people who might have partners or children in either group homes or aged care. Doesn’t really work and just assumes that you’re a single person. And I guess what we want to see – we have developed a model of housing and support, but we don’t think that there’s, kind of, one solution. That we want to see a whole range of options, contemporary housing options that enable people to live in the community like anyone else.
DR TALEPOROS: And I’ll just add to that that – that we learn that for many people who live in residential aged care and all the abuse that happens to them, that somebody – a lot more – who are abused and neglected because of the fact that they have no other option. So they might not be in a group home. You can be abused and neglected in another setting. However, they are stuck in this abusive, neglectful situation because they don’t have options.
MR FRASER: Now, each of you have referred to a need for options, and the Summer Foundation has actually commenced some initiatives or generated some options to assist in housing and accommodation. Dr Winkler, I will ask you to explain some of these to the Commission, but perhaps starting with what you referred to as the 10 plus one option which is dealt with at paragraph 16 of your joint statement.
DR WINKLER: Sure. So, probably, 25 years ago, I was travelling on some holiday in North America and saw an – a model in Canada that had people with disability living in apartments that were peppered throughout a larger development and, at the time ,I was working with people with really severe brain injuries and I remember thinking that that would actually work really well for a lot of the people that I was working with, but, at the time, there was no such thing in Australia.
And so Summer Foundation developed a couple of demonstration projects and the model is that we purchased 10 apartments in a larger development with at least 70 apartments, and then redesign them to be fully accessible for people with disability, and then have an additional apartment which is a base for support workers, so people are co-located so that there’s some efficiencies in being able to receive support. But, also, with a lot of the people that I’ve worked with over the years, they want support when they need it, but they don’t want support in one-hour blocks, and so this model gives them a little more flexibility in terms of being able to share support and then get – in addition to getting their one on one support. So ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Where did the – sorry, I’m over here. Where did the funding come from?
DR WINKLER: Mostly philanthropic funding initially, but, now, we’ve hived off. So we’ve set up a new entity called Summer Housing which is an SDA provider, and Summer Housing has 200 apartments in the pipeline with signed contracts with developers all over Australia. So some of the, kind of, largest developers. So we’re making it work. The financial model works with the SDA payments from the NDIS.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: And those apartments will be part of larger developments in the same way as 10 plus one.
DR WINKLER: Yes. Yes. Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Right.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: And you said all over Australia?
DR WINKLER: Yes, we – less two jurisdictions where we don’t have any plans yet.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Which are those?
DR WINKLER: So we – I don’t think we’ve got anything in the Northern Territory or Hobart yet. Sorry, Tasmania.
DR TALEPOROS: I would also like to say that Summer Foundation doesn’t provide housing. We have a sister organisation that provides housing, and that’s called Summer Housing, so it’s a – it’s a separate entity.
DR WINKLER: Yes, and I’m – I’m on the board of Summer Housing as well, but it is a separate entity with a separate CEO and board.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: You said a few moments ago, and it’s something that follows on from what we’ve heard, that the group-housing model really does assume that people are single, doesn’t it?
DR WINKLER: Yes, absolutely. And it work – like, it can work for some people, but we just need a whole range of options and real choice and control and, particularly, control over service providers.
DR TALEPOROS: I think what we’re saying, your Honour, is that this solution can work for people who are married or have children. However, there is a problem, at the moment, around the way that SDA payments is offered. That that has made it a lot difficult for providers to accept tenants who are married, and that relates to the payment and the fact that the way SDA rules are currently written, that the – the
landlord receives a lower amount if they live there with another person, even if that person is their partner.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Yes. That’s .....
DR TALEPOROS: But we’re working on that.
MR FRASER: Now, another initiative that you’ve referred to in your statement is something called The Housing Hub website, and on page 4. Can you explain to the Commission what this initiative is.
DR WINKLER: Yes. So The Housing Hub is like realestate.com for housing for disability. So, at the moment, we have 5000 properties on there and about 80,000 visitors, and we’re, I guess, continually developing The Housing Hub. There’s another platform called Nest which is similar. The Summer Foundation board have just approved for us to develop the next iteration of The Housing Hub which will be a real sort of two-sided matching platform where people will be able to list their needs and preferences and then the platform we will let them know when a relevant vacancy becomes available.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Is it Housing Hub Victoria or Housing Hub NDIS? I just thought I would Google it.
DR WINKLER: It should be www . housing – The Housing Hub.org.au.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: This is the technological side of the Commission.
DR WINKLER: Yes. The other important thing about The Housing Hub is that being able to provide demand data on the real needs and preferences of people with disabilities so that SDA providers can start building in the right locations but also in the right sort of formats that work for people with disability.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: We’ve heard repeatedly that there are severe shortages of appropriate accommodation for people with disability wishing to exercise choice. How do you make judgments as to who will be accepted into your housing?
DR TALEPOROS: I will have a go and you can help me out.
DR WINKLER: Sure.
DR TALEPOROS: So at the moment, it was anyone getting enough options on board. There are a lot of group homes on there. I think there was only ..... group homes and they’re not endorsing the – the options that we are telling people that these are the options. Now, that’s a lot better than before when people didn’t know what was out there.
DR WINKLER: So in terms of finding people for the apartments so the Summer Foundation has a tenancy matching service which it provides a service for both Summer Housing and other providers. Given we know there’s a huge demand, it might sound strange but it’s actually much more difficult to actually find people that want a particular – live in a particular location with a particular kind of level of support.
So this – the model that we’ve developed, the 10 plus 1 really works for people who are independent enough to be able to let someone know when they need support but they need to – need a level of support that warrants having 24-hour on-site support with the – with the staff unit.
And so I guess with – with the NDIS at the moment there’s just no easy way to find people who are ready to move and also have the level of SDA in their plans and the – and SIL funding available to move in immediately. So the tenancy matching service works with projects before they come online and work in the local area to engage with people with disability and let them know about the housing option so they can make an informed choice about moving in.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: That housing option you’ve just described is similar, isn’t it, to some of the options available for older people, aged care, where in some cases there are people able to live independently to a point but do require on-site services to be available 24 hours. Is there an analogy with that?
DR WINKLER: I think – I think the difference is that in our model that it’s integrated into mainstream housing and so people have neighbours like everybody else which I think is the other thing that keeps people, you know, safe is when they have neighbours and acquaintances. And so ‑ ‑ ‑
DR TALEPOROS: The other – the other major difference is that you – they’re not forced to have a particular support provider. So a in residential aged care facility you are forced to have whoever the facility chooses to provide them support. In the Summer Housing model, the housing is separate to the support. So people use their NDIS plan to purchase support separately.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: They choose?
DR TALEPOROS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: So I see on the website that group homes are now being called SSAs or shared supported accommodation.
DR TALEPOROS: There are ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Is that just another word for group home?
DR TALEPOROS: There are lots of lovely words for group homes. Separate supported accommodation, community residential unit, a shit place to live.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: A what place to live?
DR TALEPOROS: I just swore, your Honour. Is that okay?
DR WINKLER: And share houses is the other term that people use to make it seem more palatable.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Mr Fraser, it’s your turn.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Sorry, Mr Fraser.
MR FRASER: Thank you, Commissioners. You mentioned before the tenancy matching service. Can you give a little bit more detail about how that works?
DR WINKLER: So there’s a – so I guess if we – with these projects they take quite a while to build. It could be – so we have plenty of notice because they’re large developments. And so perhaps eight months before the apartments are built there’s an engagement strategy in the local community to find people with disability. And some of the other people who have spoken today have talked about the – sometimes the difficulty of engaging people with disability that are in group home situation. And so there is some – some gatekeeping in terms of being able to offer people alternatives both in aged care and in – in more traditional disability services.
And then – but we also engage with occupational therapists, support coordinators, everyone in the disability sector, and there’s a process of assessing people to see whether they’re likely to be eligible for the SDA and the level of support and meet the criteria – the NDIS criteria for living – being supported to live in one of these apartments.
MR FRASER: And it’s the case that you’ve worked with eight different SDA providers and you’ve supported – and the foundation has supported around 112 people to receive an offer for tenancy.
DR WINKLER: Yes. It’s now more like 130 people, yes.
MR FRASER: I suppose given the time I might take you to the recommendations that you’ve got for the Commission at paragraph 64 of your joint statement. And you talk there about things that you would like to see this Royal Commission do. Can I ask you to – or, really, this is your opportunity to say these things directly to the Commission. Can I ask both of you to, I suppose, say what you would like to see this Royal Commission achieve.
DR TALEPOROS: Thank you, counsel. So our statement outlines a range of recommendations, so they’re there for you. You can just do a copy and paste and put
them in your report in three years time. Please go ahead. But I want to focus on a couple of key ones, if that’s okay, and this is a bigger picture thing. As we’ve said before, it’s about options and it’s about people living like everyone else in the community. So we need more housing in general, that’s accessible and affordable for people to live in. We need minimum standards in accessibility in all new housing. We can’t obviously retrofit every house, but moving forwardit would be really helpful if houses were built in a way that they were accessible for people, and I would recommend the Livable Housing Australia guideline standard of gold for all new housing.
Through the NDIS people with disabilities must be supported to develop and implement their own vision for how they want to live. It’s not about fitting into a model that only exists. It’s about asking that person themselves: how do they want to live, where, and who do you want to provide the support, and that way we will be a lot closer to being included in the community. We just want what everyone else wants. We want an education. We want jobs. We want friends. We want relationships. It’s not that special. But we can’t do that if we’re forced to live where we don’t want to live.
MR FRASER: Thank you, Dr Taleporos.
DR TALEPOROS: I’m not finished. I’m not done.
DR WINKLER: Just have a break. That’s fine.
DR TALEPOROS: I’ll have a break.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Keep going.
DR TALEPOROS: I am up here speaking now. There’s a lot of people who can’t speak but we want access to advocacy, independent advocacy, well-funded independent advocacy for people who can’t speak for themselves. We need that principle of choice and control that’s in the NDIS Act. It’s in the Act. It’s written there. But it needs to be upheld. We need Article 19 of the UNCRPD recognised, upheld. I can’t stress the importance of the right to choose where you live, who you live with and how you are supported. We must also take action to free people who are captive of providers. Even though we have the NDIS we have providers who effectively provide everything for that person.
They don’t tell them about their options, and that fact with that provider. And that’s not okay. All of these things are critical so that people with disabilities can understand their rights, advocate their rights, take action where their rights are abused, so we can all have a good life in the community. And that is what will address abuse and neglect: people having the ability to speak up, understand their rights, and have providers that respect us. And now I’m done.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you very much, Dr Taleporos. Dr Winkler.
DR WINKLER: I don’t think I could add much to what George says, unless you have any specific questions.
COMMISSIONER McEWIN: One question. One question for both of you, thank you. You’ve talked about the right to choose – people with disabilities for the right for how they choose to be supported. We’ve heard this week that, for example, here in Victoria you need a minimum of Certificate IV in disability to become a disability support worker. Do you have any research or data that demonstrates or tests the theory that having more qualification will result in less risk of abuse in the home or in the environment for which people are being supported.
DR TALEPOROS: Can I answer this?
DR WINKLER: Yes.
DR TALEPOROS: Firstly, I thank you for that question. There has been a lot of discussion about training for support workers. I think training is very important. I think people need to know how the person needs to be supported. They need to know how to provide support safely, competently in a way that respects the person but I can confidently tell you hand on heart under oath, mandatory qualifications for all support workers is not the answer.
The reason it’s not the answer is because, once again, we are telling people with disabilities what’s good for us. As a person with disability, I should have the right to decide who supports me, whether that’s someone with a Cert IV or a PhD, that choice should be up to me. I also recognise that if you are providing support in this environment, that you should do a level of training that provides you with the skills that you need to do the job effectively. Sadly, I do not believe that course currently exists, and that’s very sad.
DR WINKLER: So the training for people with disability really needs to come from – sorry; the training for support workers needs to come from the people with disability. So another initiative that is being – that we’ve piloted and evaluated is called participant-led videos which is specifically developed for people with cognitive and communication difficulties, and the idea is that there are people who – in the moment, they cannot provide direction to their support workers.
But if they’re provided with some structure and support, they can articulate their specific goals and exactly how they want to be supported and then be supported to produce a video that provides direction to their support workers, and that also means that they don’t have to – have to, kind of, repeat their story and repeat their goals to people over and over. And so I think that that kind of tailored individual training that enables people to take control and provide direction to support is going to have bigger impact than a Certificate IV.
DR TALEPOROS: When you ask people with disabilities what they want from support workers, the main – the flaws that they say have included attitudes and values. I don’t know if you can teach that in a course, but I think that there – that there is a real need for involve people with disabilities with training. Currently, hundreds of courses are provided that do not involve people with disabilities. And the other problem is if you’ve never met a person with a disability until your first day at work, you are not going to have any idea what to do. You can’t teach the stuff in a textbook.
COMMISSIONER McEWIN: Thank you both.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Can I ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: I’m sorry.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Can I ask a question about the website. Just interested to know how it works. So I’ve just opened one at random. So it’s South Village at Kirrawee in Sydney, southeast in Sydney. There are – it’s a new building pending completion with 10 one bedroom and one resident high physical support apartments.
DR WINKLER: Mmm.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Now, if someone applies for it – it says, “Contact the provider,” so I presume someone can contact the provider, they contact you.
DR WINKLER: They contact Summer Housing in that situation.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Summer Housing.
DR WINKLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: And how does Summer Housing decide who gets the apartment?
DR WINKLER: So just been through a similar process and so there’s a panel of people who decide, and it’s based on, I guess, people’s needs, but also whether they’re – their likelihood of actually getting SDA in their plans at the right level and – and getting the support they need.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Now ‑ ‑ ‑
DR WINKLER: But it can be really a, yes, difficult situation if there are more people than there are apartments. So, ideally, people who miss out on one group of apartments will actually be referred to another – another project in the same city.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Say, there were nine of these apartments already taken ‑ ‑ ‑
DR WINKLER: Mmm.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: ‑ ‑ ‑ would you involve the nine people who are already there in the choice of the other person?
DR WINKLER: No, because there’s no expectation that – that those – that people will interact with each other more than you would your regular neighbour.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Right.
DR WINKLER: So I guess one important thing is, though, that the – at some point, the group of tenants need to have a say in who the support provider is that provides the shared support. They can choose their own individual support, and so that’s where – that’s the only kind of group decision that’s really made.
DR TALEPOROS: And the way ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: I – yes.
DR TALEPOROS: The way you can visit that – I just think another way to understand it is like just your average apartment complex where 10 of those apartments happen to be accessible, and there’s also a lot of the apartment where there’re some staff who are on site if you need them, but you don’t need to access them if you don’t want to. That is not an obligation.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Yes.
DR TALEPOROS: With the shared support, obviously, there needs to be some agreement among tenants around who – who they hire, but the control is with the tenants, not the provider, and that’s key.
DR WINKLER: And apartments are ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: I posed a question yesterday, I think it was, my kind of version of a human rights question is would you like to be – would you like that to happen to you? Would you like to be treated like that?
DR TALEPOROS: Mmm.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: But when I look at this, I think, well, if I wanted to live in a one-bedroom apartment, it looks very nice.
DR WINKLER: Yes. So ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: You know, it’s ‑ ‑ ‑
DR WINKLER: So one of the principles of the design is that it absolutely is an apartment that any of us would be happy to move into.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Yes.
DR WINKLER: And as a secondary thing, you notice that it has adaptable features, but they don’t – it doesn’t shout ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: No.
DR WINKLER: ‑ ‑ ‑ accessible.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: If you want to enlist Commissioner Atkinson as an ambassador for the project, I’m sure she’s available.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: I think I’ve just done it.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you both very much for coming. As you know, we – our job is difficult and substantial, and we’re not only required to expose abuse, violence, neglect, exploitation, but to develop proposals, solutions for the problems you’ve identified, and the solutions that you’ve come up with are, if I may say so, highly innovative and proposals that we need to explore in considerable detail.
DR TALEPOROS: I would like ‑ ‑ ‑
DR WINKLER: Thank you.
DR TALEPOROS: ‑ ‑ ‑ to say one more thing. One thing that we do at the Summer Foundation is that we – that we prototype things. So this isn’t perfect and we evaluate. So there’s an evaluation process that sits alongside, and if we find that people are saying that – that we can do things better, then we will then realise that – I think that providers need to learn from their mistakes.
DR WINKLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Quite so.
COMMISSIONER ATKINSON: Actually, you brought up something very important: flexibility, rather than rigidity.
DR TALEPOROS: Absolutely.
DR WINKLER: Yes, and we’re completely open source with our IP, with our apartments. So if somebody does it better than us, that would be fantastic.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Thank you very much.
DR TALEPOROS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Ms Eastman, what ‑ ‑ ‑
MS EASTMAN SC: Well, Commissioner, that ‑ ‑ ‑
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: ‑ ‑ ‑ are we going to do tomorrow?
MS EASTMAN SC: ‑ ‑ ‑ concludes the evidence today, so we’ll start at 10 am tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Yes. When do you think we’re going to finish?
MS EASTMAN SC: I might have to let you know that in the morning, but we won’t take the whole of the day. We will just attend to confirming some arrangements with some of the witnesses coming in the middle part of the day.
COMMISSIONER SACKVILLE: Okay. Thank you very much again. We will adjourn until 10 am tomorrow.
<THE WITNESSES WITHDREW
MATTER ADJOURNED at 4.19 pm UNTIL FRIDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2019