RC interrogates provider on group homes

Evidence from Life Without Barriers was given over the past two days.Yesterday, the witness was a Policy Director who didn't have close knowledge of the case studies (he had been with the organisation for less than 3 years). Still, he acknowledged a number of deficiencies, including rules stating the resident needed to have 'intimate meetings' off-premises, and more generally about poor communication and lack of consultation with residents and families. The resident's suspension from her day program meant she was home without supports, but her service agreement hadn't been updated. The RC was critical when the witness said the change was reflected in emails rather than detailed in the service agreement.Today, the CEO of the organisation opened by reading an apology to residents and families associated with the houses that formed the case studies in this hearing.Questions to the CEO focused on organisational governance, communication with the board, incident reporting, and apologies. They included consideration of balancing duty of care with dignity of risk, how to respond to resident-on-resident violence, and the appropriateness of minimum qualifications.As in previous disability services hearings, Counsel Assisting was interested in what information was travelled from CEO to Board around incidents, and if an apology and any redress had been offered. The Chair said he was concerned with the witness’s assertion that the resident's sexual assault was not communicated to the Board because it did not occur under the organisation’s care. The witness denied this implied the organisation took no responsibility for the incident.The RC wanted to know when the organisation would call Police in response to resident-to-resident violence. The witness said organisational guidance would assist workers who would ultimately have to make the decision in the moment, recognising Police presence could sometimes escalate service users’ behaviour.

Counsel asked about a report on resident-to-resident violence by the Victorian Office of the Public Advocate, which suggested SIL workers should have competency equivalent to Certificate IV. A minimum of Certificate III was required in the ‘Melbourne house’, providing workers with the ‘basics’, the witness said. She said the matter of qualifications in the sector is ‘vexed’. The witness was asked about Community Visitors’ assertion that the house often only had agency and casual staff. She said agency staff were useful when regular staff were not available but disagreed that using casual staff necessarily indicated poor quality service. While she regretted Community Visitors’ unsuccessful attempts to access incident reports at the ‘Melbourne house’, she denied documents were being deliberately withheld.The CEO expressed remorse for not apologising to a different resident when she became aware of her sexual assault by a worker and said the organisation’s current approach to apologies is more active. She articulated difficulties an organisation may face in undertaking redress but accepted there was no impediment for this occurring for the resident.That concludes the hearing. The Chair noted a date for oral submissions will be scheduled ‘in due course’.