David Miranda/ Ed Snowden / Corrupt Obama
It appears that it is not only the Australian Federal Police  that are clueless and try and protect corruption in Government Departments.  Here is an example of the UK Police  also doing the same to intimidate David Miranda and Ed Snowden.
It is time the UK Police stopped pulling their cocks and spreading propaganda!!!!!
The UK Police should charge David Miranda if they think they have so much evidence and then David can defend himself  because even if the police continue to intimidate him any reasonable person would be aware that these are not the only set of documents on USB in the world.
Clearly this could all backfire on the UK Police because it is too easy to spread shit but not so easy to produce strong  evidence  in a court of Law  that will be scrutinised and could expose corruption that Obama is trying to suppress.
It looks like   Obama and The Uk Prime Minister are again pulling each others cocks  judging from the following.....................
 Govt says it needs to share data with “foreign third parties” but refuses to say whom. (I think we can assume they’re talking about the CIA)
*****************************************
***************************************
Glenn Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda, was carrying a stunning amount of government documents when he was
detained by British authorities for nine hours earlier this month.
And a U.K. national security adviser said Friday that some of those 58,000 documents were extremely sensitive to national security.
The Daily Telegraph’s David Barrett tweeted out some of the details from the statement made Friday by Oliver Robbins, deputy national security adviser for intelligence, before U.K. judges.
Robbins was making the case that national security teams and police needed to investigate the material, which they seized earlier this month. The court extended an order Friday that will allow officials to continue to inspect the material seized for national security purposes.
Some of the key points of the statement, which intelligence analyst Joshua Foust called “extraordinary”:

• Robbins said that the case material included 58,000 documents that were “highly classified UK intelligence documents.”
• Among the documents was a piece of paper with the decryption password.
• Police decrypted one file on Miranda’s hard drive with the password.
• The material contains “personal information that would allow British intelligence staff to be identified,” including overseas.
• Because of the size and scope of the material gathered, the British government believes that Edward Snowden “indiscriminately appropriated material in bulk.”
• In what could be a particularly troubling development, the UK government has “had” to assume that Snowden’s data is in the hands of foreign governments to which he has traveled: Hong Kong and Russia. (Greenwald told Business Insider last week that it was “highly unlikely” that had happened, however.)
• Robbins argued that it is “impossible” for Greenwald or any other journalist to determine which information could damage national security.

“The material seized is highly likely to describe techniques which have been crucial in life-saving counter-terrorist operations, and other intelligence activities vital to UK national security,” Robbins said.
“The compromise of these methods would do serious damage to UK national security and ultimately risk lives.”
The government told The Guardian newspaper that it had “no confidence in their ability to keep the material safe,” and that the government “appeared to accept our assessment that their continued possession of the information was untenable.”
Miranda, 28, was detained for nine hours at London’s Heathrow Airport earlier this month under a U.K. anti-terror law, while travelling home to Brazil. He had spent a week in Berlin visiting journalist Laura Poitras, who has been working with Greenwald to publish stories based on leaked information from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Miranda is taking legal action against the government. He has argued arguing that his detention was a misuse of Schedule 7 of the U.K. anti-terror law and breached his human rights.
Miranda’s trip, which was paid for by The Guardian, had the purpose of him being a courier between Greenwald and Poitras. Using encrypted thumb drives, he delivered documents to Poitras, and he came back with documents meant for Greenwald.
In a statement after Friday’s court hearing, Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger said that Robbins had made a “number of unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims” in his statement:
“This five week period in which nothing has happened tells a different story from the alarmist claims made by the government in their witness statement,” Rusbridger said.
“The Guardian took every decision on what to publish very slowly and very carefully and when we met with government officials in July they acknowledged that we had displayed a responsible attitude. The government’s behaviour does not match their rhetoric in trying to justify and exploit this dismaying blurring of terrorism and journalism.”
Greenwald blasted Miranda’s detention at the time, comparing it to mafia-style methods:

This is obviously a rather profound escalation of their attacks on the news-gathering process and journalism. It’s bad enough to prosecute and imprison sources. It’s worse still to imprison journalists who report the truth. But to start detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists is simply despotic. Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by. But the UK puppets and their owners in the US national security state obviously are unconstrained by even those minimal scruples.

ress


Glenn Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda, was carrying a stunning amount of government documents when he was
detained by British authorities for nine hours earlier this month.
And a U.K. national security adviser said Friday that some of those 58,000 documents were extremely sensitive to national security.
The Daily Telegraph’s David Barrett tweeted out some of the details from the statement made Friday by Oliver Robbins, deputy national security adviser for intelligence, before U.K. judges.
Robbins was making the case that national security teams and police needed to investigate the material, which they seized earlier this month. The court extended an order Friday that will allow officials to continue to inspect the material seized for national security purposes.
Some of the key points of the statement, which intelligence analyst Joshua Foust called “extraordinary”:

• Robbins said that the case material included 58,000 documents that were “highly classified UK intelligence documents.”
• Among the documents was a piece of paper with the decryption password.
• Police decrypted one file on Miranda’s hard drive with the password.
• The material contains “personal information that would allow British intelligence staff to be identified,” including overseas.
• Because of the size and scope of the material gathered, the British government believes that Edward Snowden “indiscriminately appropriated material in bulk.”
• In what could be a particularly troubling development, the UK government has “had” to assume that Snowden’s data is in the hands of foreign governments to which he has traveled: Hong Kong and Russia. (Greenwald told Business Insider last week that it was “highly unlikely” that had happened, however.)
• Robbins argued that it is “impossible” for Greenwald or any other journalist to determine which information could damage national security.

“The material seized is highly likely to describe techniques which have been crucial in life-saving counter-terrorist operations, and other intelligence activities vital to UK national security,” Robbins said.
“The compromise of these methods would do serious damage to UK national security and ultimately risk lives.”
The government told The Guardian newspaper that it had “no confidence in their ability to keep the material safe,” and that the government “appeared to accept our assessment that their continued possession of the information was untenable.”
Miranda, 28, was detained for nine hours at London’s Heathrow Airport earlier this month under a U.K. anti-terror law, while travelling home to Brazil. He had spent a week in Berlin visiting journalist Laura Poitras, who has been working with Greenwald to publish stories based on leaked information from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Miranda is taking legal action against the government. He has argued arguing that his detention was a misuse of Schedule 7 of the U.K. anti-terror law and breached his human rights.
Miranda’s trip, which was paid for by The Guardian, had the purpose of him being a courier between Greenwald and Poitras. Using encrypted thumb drives, he delivered documents to Poitras, and he came back with documents meant for Greenwald.
In a statement after Friday’s court hearing, Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger said that Robbins had made a “number of unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims” in his statement:
“This five week period in which nothing has happened tells a different story from the alarmist claims made by the government in their witness statement,” Rusbridger said.
“The Guardian took every decision on what to publish very slowly and very carefully and when we met with government officials in July they acknowledged that we had displayed a responsible attitude. The government’s behaviour does not match their rhetoric in trying to justify and exploit this dismaying blurring of terrorism and journalism.”
Greenwald blasted Miranda’s detention at the time, comparing it to mafia-style methods:

This is obviously a rather profound escalation of their attacks on the news-gathering process and journalism. It’s bad enough to prosecute and imprison sources. It’s worse still to imprison journalists who report the truth. But to start detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists is simply despotic. Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by. But the UK puppets and their owners in the US national security state obviously are unconstrained by even those minimal scruples.

.The Law Society of New South Wales v Samaan [2013] NSWSC 1144

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation

The Law Society of New South Wales v Samaan [2013] NSWSC 1144

Hearing Dates

16 August 2013

Decision Date

16/08/2013

Before

Adamson J

Decision

(1) An order pursuant to s 630(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 appointing John Ernest Mitchell receiver for the law practice known as Samaan & Associates Lawyers (the Law Practice) situated at Suite 3, Level 6, 402-410 Chapel Road Bankstown NSW 2200.

(2) An order that the receiver, within one month of appointment and from time to time afterwards, furnish to the plaintiff as it requires, reports of the receivership and that no further or other reports need be furnished by the receiver.

(3) Subject to the plaintiff giving an undertaking as to damages, an order that all transactions involving the receipt or disposal of trust moneys of clients of the Law Practice be effected and transacted through the law practice bank accounts of which John Ernest Mitchell has been appointed receiver.

(4) An order that the defendant and his servants or agents are restrained from:

(a) removing, or causing or permitting to be removed from the State of New South Wales; and

(b) selling, charging, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with or disposing of; and

(c) causing or permitting to be sold, charged, mortgaged or otherwise dealt with or disposed of,

any of his assets within the State of New South Wales provided that this order shall not prevent the defendant from paying his ordinary living expenses up to the sum of $1000.00 per week.

(5) An order that the defendant within 14 days of being served with a copy of this order, deliver or cause to be delivered to the plaintiff an affidavit sworn or affirmed by him setting out:

(a) The name and address of every bank, building society or other financial institution at which there is an account in any name that the defendant is entitled to operate in any capacity, (the Account), together with all the particulars of the Account known to the defendant, including the name, number and balance of the Account at the date of service of a copy of this order upon him;

(b) The name and address of any person or entity indebted to the Law Practice and/or the defendant at the date of service of a copy of this order upon it and/or him and the amount of the debt owed by that person or entity;

(c) An itemised inventory of all business assets owned by the Law Practice and/or the defendant;

(d) An itemised inventory of any other property, whether real or personal, owned by the Law Practice and/or the defendant or in respect of which the Law Practice and/or the defendant has an interest; and

(e) In respect of any of the property referred to above, whether it has been given as security for any debt, and if so, the nature of the security and the debt secured.

(6) An order that the defendant pay to the plaintiff a sum equal to the legal costs and expenses that may be incurred by the receiver in relation to the receivership.

(7) An order that the defendant pay to the plaintiff a sum equal to any fees paid by it to the receiver by way of remuneration.

(8) An order that the defendant pay the costs of this summons.

Catchwords

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS- application to appoint receiver to legal practice

Legislation Cited

- Legal Profession Act 2004, s 630(2)

Category

Interlocutory applications

Parties

The Law Society of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Rabie Samaan (Defendant)

Representation

Solicitors:
The Law Society of New South Wales (Plaintiff)

Counsel: CM Groenewegen (solicitor)(Plaintiff)
No appearance for the Defendant

File Number(s)

2013/247309

Publication Restriction

Nil

Judgment

Introduction

1By summons filed on 14 August 2013 the Law Society of New South Wales seeks orders against Rabie Samaan including an order pursuant to s 630(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (the Act) to appoint John Ernest Mitchell as a receiver for the law practice known as Samaan & Associates Lawyers situated in Bankstown.

2Ms Groenewegen, who appears on behalf of the plaintiff, has filed in support of the summons two affidavits; an affidavit of Ann Marie Ford of 13 August 2013, which was filed with the summons on 14 August 2013, and an affidavit of Cora Groenewegen of 16 August 2013 which was filed in Court today.

Defendant's knowledge of the plaintiff's application for a receiver

3In the latter affidavit the deponent deposed to the attempts that she has made to notify the defendant of these proceedings. I note that the defendant was notified by email on Wednesday 7 August 2013 and the deponent telephoned the defendant on 14 August 2013. Later in that day she emailed the defendant attaching a PDF copy of the sealed summons. Later on that same day she sent a letter to the defendant by express post informing him of the proceedings and the intention of the plaintiff to appear before the duty judge on Friday 16 August 2013 to have a receiver appointed to the practice.

4On Thursday 15 August 2013 the defendant telephoned Ms Groenewegen and said he had received the emails and the PDF of the summons and that he understood the affidavit was too big to send. Ms Groenewegen explained that she had sent it by express post the previous day and that it should arrive that day, being 15 August 2013. She asked the defendant to contact her once he received the affidavit to indicate to her what he proposed to do tomorrow, namely Friday 16 August 2013. Notwithstanding this discussion Ms Groenewegen received no response either by telephone or email from the defendant. This morning at 8.15am she telephoned him and left a message and sent an email to him at 8.55am asking him whether or not he would be attending court today for the hearing of the matter. No response was received to that email or to that phone call.

5I asked the court officer to call the defendant's name outside court before the matter was heard at 10.30am in this Court today and there was no response.

6In all the circumstances I am satisfied that the defendant has been notified of the hearing today and has chosen not to appear. I note, however, that in any event I could make the order even had the summons not been served.

The application for the appointment of a receiver and associated orders

7I turn now to the affidavit of Ann Marie Ford of 13 August 2013, in which she deposed to the background to the application and the grounds on which the application is made. It came to the attention of the Council of the Law Society (the Council) that there were irregularities in the practice conducted by the defendant in that he had misappropriated moneys which were paid to him on trust and also that he had failed to renew his practising certificate and has therefore ceased to be an Australian legal practitioner. At its meeting on 5 August 2013, the Council resolved that a manager be appointed to the defendant's practice and that an application be made to this Court for the appointment of a receiver.

8The material in support of the submission that the defendant has misappropriated trust funds is very strong, in that there is an admission, signed by the defendant on 30 July 2013 confirming that he has misappropriated a sum of $25,196 which was paid to him in cash by a client, Ms Gordana Sirijovska, to pay various accounts relating to the transcript costs, barrister fees and expert fees. Rather than applying the funds for the purposes for which it was paid, the defendant admitted that he misappropriated them for his own purposes.

9In these circumstances, and in light of the admission made by the defendant, I consider it to be appropriate to make an order appointing Mr Mitchell to be a receiver for the law practice pursuant to s 630(2) of the Act.

10The minute of order which has been provided to me by Ms Groenewegen contains other orders, including that the receiver within one month of appointment furnishes the plaintiff reports of the receivership, and also an order that all transactions involving the receipt or disposal of trust moneys of clients of the defendant's law practice be effected and transacted through the law practice's bank account of which Mr Mitchell has been appointed as receiver.

11The plaintiff also seeks an order restraining the defendant from dealing with his assets or removing them from New South Wales subject to his entitlement to pay his ordinary living expenses up to the sum of $1000 per week.

12In all of the circumstances of this case, and on the basis that the plaintiff has given an undertaking as to damages, I am persuaded that it is appropriate to grant this restraining order.

13There are other orders in the minute of order which are also consequential and require the defendant to inform the plaintiff of various matters, including the name and address of every bank, building society or other financial institution at which there is an account in any name that the defendant is entitled to operate. The purpose of these orders is to facilitate the tracing of the misappropriated trust funds into the defendant's property.

14I am satisfied in all the circumstances that, having regard to the evidence referred to above and the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages, it is appropriate to make each of the orders set out in the short minute of order handed up by the Law Society.

Orders

15I make the following orders:

(1)An order pursuant to s 630(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 appointing John Ernest Mitchell receiver for the law practice known as Samaan & Associates Lawyers (the Law Practice) situated at Suite 3, Level 6, 402-410 Chapel Road Bankstown NSW 2200.

(2)An order that the receiver, within one month of appointment and from time to time afterwards, furnish to the plaintiff as it requires, reports of the receivership and that no further or other reports need be furnished by the receiver.

(3)Subject to the plaintiff giving an undertaking as to damages, an order that all transactions involving the receipt or disposal of trust moneys of clients of the Law Practice be effected and transacted through the law practice bank accounts of which John Ernest Mitchell has been appointed receiver.

(4)An order that the defendant and his servants or agents are restrained from:

(a)removing, or causing or permitting to be removed from the State of New South Wales; and

(b)selling, charging, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with or disposing of; and

(c)causing or permitting to be sold, charged, mortgaged or otherwise dealt with or disposed of,

any of his assets within the State of New South Wales provided that this order shall not prevent the defendant from paying his ordinary living expenses up to the sum of $1000.00 per week.

(5)An order that the defendant within 14 days of being served with a copy of this order, deliver or cause to be delivered to the plaintiff an affidavit sworn or affirmed by him setting out:

(a)The name and address of every bank, building society or other financial institution at which there is an account in any name that the defendant is entitled to operate in any capacity, (the Account), together with all the particulars of the Account known to the defendant, including the name, number and balance of the Account at the date of service of a copy of this order upon him;

(b)The name and address of any person or entity indebted to the Law Practice and/or the defendant at the date of service of a copy of this order upon it and/or him and the amount of the debt owed by that person or entity;

(c)An itemised inventory of all business assets owned by the Law Practice and/or the defendant;

(d)An itemised inventory of any other property, whether real or personal, owned by the Law Practice and/or the defendant or in respect of which the Law Practice and/or the defendant has an interest; and

(e)In respect of any of the property referred to above, whether it has been given as security for any debt, and if so, the nature of the security and the debt secured.

(6)An order that the defendant pay to the plaintiff a sum equal to the legal costs and expenses that may be incurred by the receiver in relation to the receivership.

(7)An order that the defendant pay to the plaintiff a sum equal to any fees paid by it to the receiver by way of remuneration.

(8)An order that the defendant pay the costs of this summons.

**********

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.

• Site feedback
• Search
• Sitemap

Last updated 20 August 2013

Veronique Ingram Corrupt Inspector General at AFSA

Veronique Ingram has held various Government roles over a period of years.
Presently she is Inspector General in Bankruptcy. Previously this skank was General Manager Finance Systems Division where she provided advice to the treasurer.
At Present Veronique Ingram and senior Management at AFSA are protecting fraud in the Bankruptcy system.
Although this practice has been referred to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, senior Management at the Ombudsman has made a decision to protect this practice.
This skank was then referred to the Australian Public Service Commissioner, Steven Sedgewick who also fucked the complaint over and made decision to protect her.

Clearly the practice of protecting serious fraud in the Bankruptcy System cannot be taken lightly.
As Veronique Ingram has also worked in other Financial areas how much fraud did the Skanky Bitch protect in the treasury Department?

It gets even more amusing when 7 Australian Federal Police appeared at my door early one morning with a search warrant.
This had been instigated by the Corrupt Enforcement Manager Adam Toma to attempt to intimidate me to take down my bloggs.
5 days latter the AFP came to my work and threatened to handcuff me and throw me in the police cells if I did not stop exposing corruption at AFSA.

Then a month latter I was issued with a warrant to appear in Court. After this appearance in Court I was asked by the AFP what did I really want????
Obviously the AFP are so clueless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chief Executive and Inspector-General

Veronique Ingram was appointed as the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy and Chief Executive in February 2009. Prior to that Ms Ingram was General Manager, Finance System Division, in the Commonwealth’s Treasury Department where she had responsibility for providing advice to the Treasurer about regulatory policy issues relating to banking, insurance and superannuation and the Australian financial system.

For three years from January 2005 Ms Ingram was the Australian Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris.

Ms Ingram also held the position of Chief Adviser, International in the Treasury with responsibility for advising the government on international economic developments and policy issues as well as Australia’s participation in the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, OECD, Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and G20 meeting of finance ministers.

 PRU Goward/ Department of Community Services/  NSW Ombudsmans Report/ &.30 Report
The following is the report Pru Goward  Family and Community Services  Minister referred to in the  7.30 report on Friday  on Child  deaths.
There obviously appears to be tension between the Minister and this department with Goward attacking the department by saying she had been misled.
Clearly, as with most of the other government department, there would be no investigation policy  and anyone who complained would be fucked over by management.

Child Deaths 2010

Annual Report

Learning to improve services

© Copyright, Department of Family and Community Services, Community Services, 2011

Published by

Department of Family and Community Services

Community Services

4–6 Cavill Avenue

ASHFIELD NSW 2131

Phone (02) 9716 2222

www.community.nsw.gov.au

If you think a child or young person is at risk of signifi cant harm,

contact the Child Protection Helpline on 132 111

ISSN 1839-8367The purpose of Child Death Annual Reports is to increase accountability and transparency, and publiclyshare e orts to improve child protection practices in NSW. The reports are designed to better inform thepublic about Community Services, its role in protecting children and its limitations.

This report is not presented as an expert report and should not be treated as such in any Court or Tribunal.To comply with the Law and to protect the privacy of children and families, names or identifying details of individual cases have not been used.Percentages listed in fi gures throughout this report may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Contents

Minister’s Foreword

4

Executive Summary

6

Chapter 1: Child Deaths – the Context

10

1.1

Child Deaths 2010 Annual Report: objectives

11

1.2

Child deaths: the context

11

The child protection system in NSW

11

The role of Community Services: the capacity challenge

12

The social context

12

Public understanding of child deaths

13

1.3

Oversight and review in NSW

14

The NSW Ombudsman

14

The NSW Child Death Review Team

14

The NSW Coroner and NSW Police

15

The Domestic Violence Death Review Team

16

The Children’s Guardian

16

1.4

Community Services’ Child Death Reviews

17

A systems approach to child death reviews

17

Chapter 2: Child Deaths in 2010

18

2.1

Child deaths in NSW in 2010

19

2.2

Circumstances of child deaths

20

Death from illness and/or disease

21

Prematurity related deaths

22

Motor vehicle related deaths

23

Suspected suicide deaths

24

Sudden and Unexplained Deaths in Infancy (SUDI)

25

Suspicious injuries

27

Other circumstances of death

28

2.3

Characteristics of the children and young people

28

Age

28

Gender

29

Aboriginality

30

2.4

Community Services’ involvement with the families

31

Reports to Community Services

31

Prenatal reports

31

Children in out-of-home care

32

Brighter Futures

32

2.5

Reported risk factors

32

Risk factors

32

1

Ch

I

l

D

De

AT

h

S

2010 A

NNUA

l Re

PORT

Chapter 3: Lessons for Improvement

34

3.1

The enduring challenges of child protection

35

Assessing risk holistically

35

Asking the hard questions

36

Focusing on the child

36

Balancing safety and cultural sensitivity

37

Prioritising professional supervision

37

3.2

Working with competing priorities

38

3.3

Assessing cumulative and changing risk

41

3.4

Assessing risk from new partners or adult household members

44

3.5

Working with intergenerational risk factors

46

3.6

e

ngaging parents, caregivers and children

50

3.7

Working with risk in early intervention

54

Chapter 4: Improving Services Through Reform

58

4.1

l

eadership and goals

59

4.2

Reform in Community Services

59

Boosting accountability and transparency

60

Working better and smarter

60

Improving services: the challenge

61

4.3

Conclusion

62

References

63

Glossary

65

Con

TE

n

TS

2

Ch

I

l

D

De

AT

h

S

2010 A

NNUA

l Re

PORT

 Lateline/ Aged Care / Commonwealth Ombudsman

Complaints on aged care sent to the Commonwealth Ombudsman are fucked over . 80% of complaints of these complaints are disregarded the remainder are never handled correctly. Section 15 of the Act requires that systemic problems be brought to the attention of the Minister though this is never done.

The fat ugly  Alison Larkins,  who was acting as Commonwealth Ombudsman was referred to the Australian Public Service Commission for failing to uphold her responsibility under the Ombudsmans Act.

Steven Sedgwick the Australian Public Service Commission   fucked over the complaint under S41. This clearly shows that the Commonwealth Ombudsman is protecting  corrupt and corrupt conduct in Government Agencies and the Australian Public Service Commission is protecting the failure of the Commonwealth Ombudsman  to  carry out its required duty under Ombudsmans Act.

I also wish to mention that Lateline reported that anyone who tried to expose this tragedy into Australia's most vulnerable in a "wikileaks" was risking a TWO YEARS Imprisonment.

It would be similar to the situation I find myself in where , by exposing a corrupt Senior Management at ITSA or now AFSA Adam Toma the corrupt Enforcement Manager  is attempting to have me also jailed.

Adam Toma can  now come kiss my Arse   because his obvious intimidation will clearly not work on me and now he finds himself in a situation where he must appear in court and defend  the systemic corrupt conduct at  AFSA.

Clearly also anyone else at AFSA  who wants to complain about me exposing them  will also have to give evidence in court on  why the protection of FRAUD  is acceptable in this Government Agency

 

Aged Care Accreditation In the Spotlight

Flash version 9 or above required to view video: Get flash.

Print Email

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Broadcast: 23/08/2013

Reporter: Margot O'Neill

Tonight a former senior victorian public servant whose mother died recently in a nursing home speaks out against a system he says is failing Australia's most vulnerable elderly. And lawyers believe families might be able to sue the Commonwealth for not safeguarding adequate standards of care in nursing homes and some families are pushing for a class action.

Transcript

EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: Tonight a former senior Victorian public servant whose mother died recently in a nursing home speaks out against a system he says is failing Australia's most vulnerable elderly.

Lawyers believe families might be able to sue the Commonwealth for not safeguarding adequate standards of care in nursing homes.

Some families are pushing for a class action.

Margot O'Neil reports, and a warning this report contains disturbing images.

MARGOT O'NEILL, REPORTER: At this nursing home in northern Australia a tick-infested dog wanders through a dilapidated building and yet Star of The Sea nursing home on Thursday Island was fully accredited by the Federal Government last year. That decision has since been modified and new management has been given until next month to repair its buildings.

Local Federal MP Warren Entsch is outraged the facility can't get more federal money.

WARREN ENTSCH, FEDERAL MP: Somehow or other they were quite happy to tick it off last year and say righto we're going to give you three years of accreditation at a time when there was still these problems.

MARGOT O'NEILL: The Federal Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency safeguards care in nursing home through a checklist of 44 standards.

They include providing "appropriately skilled and qualified staff" and "appropriate clinical care."

Australia has a near perfect score of 95 per cent of homes gaining full 44 out of 44 accreditation for three years. Adrian Nye's mother was in a Victorian nursing home that was given full accreditation at the same time she developed such serious leg infections, she spent four months in hospital.

ADRIAN NYE, FORMER CHAIRMAN, VIC MANAGED INSURANCE AUTHORITY: In my mother's case its quite bizarre because while my mother was in a bed at that facility the accreditation authority was in their doing its annual or triennial accreditation review. And no blemish was identified in the course of the review.

MARGOT O'NEILL: Adrian Nye, a former senior Victorian public servant, complained about the poor wound management for his mother. The accreditation team was sent back in and the home had to revamp its procedures.

A former chairman of the Victorian insurance scheme including medical indemnity, he believes the two-day accreditation visits was inadequate. He's calculated the accreditors would have needed more than twice as long to do a thorough job.

ADRIAN NYE: Now it's just incredible, either they did things so superficially that nothing could be identified, which is probably my suggestion, or they failed to do some of the things they said they've done.

MARGOT O'NEILL: Critics say accreditation is too much about paper work and box ticking of processes rather than actual clinical outcomes.

There are numerous examples of homes that have been fully accredited only to be involved in media scandals shortly after. Like the home that had no staff at all rostered on overnight, or the fully accredited home that had a mouse infestation.

Staff in contact with Lateline say homes spend weeks preparing for accreditation and allege that some homes deceive accreditors.

An aged care consultant told us "some nursing homes bring in "a quality co-coordinator whose sole job was to present files full of evidence of quality care and fulfilment of standards. Where evidence could not be found it was simply manufactured."

A carer told us "most employers train staff to respond to accreditation agency visits. I have been interviewed several times and often your supervisor is present. I have been in difficult situations where if I told the truth I would be sacked."

The accreditation agency also does unannounced annual spot checks but the results are not public.

For many families and staff the only recourse when things do go wrong is the aged care complaints scheme run by the Department of Health.

ADRIAN NYE: The majority of my life has either been working in the bureaucracy, drafting schemes of this complaint sort or acting as a consultant critiquing their success.

MARGOT O'NEILL: His verdict on the complaints scheme?

ADRIAN NYE: Oh it's a very sick puppy. It's actually a complaints scheme without any investigatory curiosity or power, it's very much a social work model where wanting to hold hands and reconcile and conciliate. But for something as grave as an allegation of gross negligence leading to a wound that puts your mother in an acute hospital for four months with severe pain effects and a risk to life, something more than Kumbaya is required.

MARGOT O'NEILL: The nursing home promised to do better so the matter is now considered closed. But Adrian Nye is left wondering how did the wound start, was it because of poor care, the complaints scheme says it couldn't decide.

ADRIAN NYE: The response to that was, oh we're getting different stories, they say its sunburn, your plastic surgeon says it pressure it's all a bit difficult, the record's are a bit funny, we can't conclude anything definitive. Well, I reckon the cops would have a different view to the same set of facts.

MARGOT O'NEILL: Getting at all the relevant information is a problem for families. The Aged Care Act describes any information relating to the affairs of nursing home providers as "protected information". So a version of aged care WikiLeaks could land you in jail for two years.

ADRIAN NYE: The accreditation agency that ought to use transparency as the, to use the cliche, the sunshine that can keep all this stuff clean and spick and span, it's exempt from FOI. It hides behind the corporate veil of being a company, what's that about?

MARGOT O'NEILL: Industry also believes the accreditation and complaints schemes need reform.

PATRICK REID, LEADING AGED SERVICES AUSTRALIA: I think certainly that more transparency is required. I think the results need to be shared and without that, without more information it is very hard to improve the service.

MARGOT O'NEILL: Lawyers from Slater and Gordon say the Commonwealth could find itself the subject of legal action over nursing home standards, maybe even a class action.

ANDREW BAKER, SLATER AND GORDON: If it can be shown that the Commonwealth owes a duty of care towards the residents of those facilities in terms of its accreditations and it can be shown that they're accreditations that shouldn't have been given or renewed, then there is a potential for people to have a claim against the Commonwealth.

MARGOT O'NEILL: The possible class action is being led by marketing consultant Patrea Salter who's battled for years with a nursing home over her father's care.

PETREA SALTER, DAUGHTER: He's an 84-year-old Australian who has done so much for Australia and he's being made out to be a liar. All his suffering, all his screams for help, all his cries for help, all my cries for help from everyone in the Government, from the scheme are just ignored. It's just a dreadful, dreadful situation. In Australia we should not treat our elderly like this.

MARGOT O'NEILL: Margot O'Neill, Lateline.