Riccardo and Salim

Riccardo, from a culturally and linguistically diverse background and father to Salim and Rafiq, was legally blind and had dementia. He died in his late 90s.

Salim told the Royal Commission about the obstacles he faced seeking the help of the Office of the Public Advocate (OPA) and the state’s civil and administrative tribunal to remove his brother’s control over Riccardo. Riccardo lived in the family home with Rafiq who, Salim said, was neglecting and mistreating him.

Salim’s struggle to protect his father began when Riccardo’s aged care workers became concerned that Rafiq was not acting in his father’s best interests. Salim applied to the state tribunal to appoint a public guardian for Riccardo and the family supported the application. The tribunal found that Riccardo had lost capacity and appointed the OPA as guardian.

Salim soon became dissatisfied with the OPA’s management of his father’s case. The family believed that an aged care facility would be better for Riccardo’s needs than the family home. However, the OPA decided that Riccardo should continue to live with Rafiq. The tribunal ordered that Salim and his mother could visit Riccardo, but Rafiq denied access and changed the locks of the home.

Salim had concerns with the way Rafiq dealt with his father’s health issues. Using Riccardo’s money, Rafiq applied expensive ‘natural’ treatments for Riccardo’s medical conditions, including one that was banned by government medical authorities.

Rafiq refused to treat his father’s eczema with prescription medication, causing Riccardo considerable suffering.

In one instance, Salim asked the OPA not to allow Rafiq to accompany Riccardo to a specialist appointment. ‘They let my brother take him,’ Salim said. The specialist reported that Riccardo had ‘no problems’. The OPA and the tribunal accepted the report, resulting in Riccardo going without treatment.

Salim also believes Rafiq emptied Riccardo’s bank account.

Fearing Riccardo was experiencing elder abuse, Salim made many complaints to the OPA, but said nothing was done. He thinks the OPA is not equipped to deal with elder abuse.

Salim also complained to police who, apart from occasional welfare checks, refused to intervene. They said it was a guardianship issue, not a criminal matter, and directed him back to the tribunal. Salim feels he ‘wasted five, six years’ going back and forth to the tribunal.

Salim said that OPA seemed unable to protect Riccardo from Rafiq’s abusive behaviour and the tribunal would not intervene. He feels that some tribunal members were not impartial because of former associations with the OPA. The tribunal ‘appointed the OPA who let [Rafiq] continue doing whatever he wanted’.

Salim questions the OPA’s accountability if the tribunal will not intervene, and believes there should be an inexpensive alternative to state tribunals for people with disability to seek redress.

‘My father … died having no proper contact with his wife and family for many years, he endured what I believe to be elder abuse … at the hands of my brother. OPA was supposed to protect him from abuse … They failed my father … and so did the [tribunal] system.’