Geoff Rowe
–– INTERVIEW ––
Geoff Rowe has occupied the role of CEO of ADA Australia since September 2014. Geoff’s career in the human services sector spans more than 30 years, including fifteen years in senior and executive positions in the Queensland Government, and more than 20 years in the not-for-profit sector. In November 2018 Geoff was awarded the prestigious Paul Tys Churchill Fellowship to study world’s best practice in preventing and responding to Elder Abuse in aged care and the community. Following the Royal Commission on Aged Care, Geoff speaks with TLP Editor, Greg T Ross about the federal government’s response to the commission’s findings.
PODCASTS: www.thelastpostmagazine.com/tlp-interviews
Greg T Ross: Geoff Rowe, welcome to The Last Post podcast. You’re CEO of Aged and Disability Advocacy Australia. How’s your role at the moment in light of the federal budget? Geoff Rowe: Hi Greg. Look, the federal budget has made us busy in some ways, and certainly in the not too distant future, very busy. As you know, the Aged Care Royal Commission recently handed down its report on its findings in Aged Care and provided to government something like 148 recommendations for improvement. In summary, what they were saying is that the aged care system is broken and needs a complete overhaul. The federal government since the release of that report has been saying we will provide our response to the Royal Commission in the context of the budget. We were all waiting anxiously to see what the budget might have, and as governments often do, they certainly have provided a response, have packaged it up to look rather spectacular. And, you know, in a lot of ways it is spectacular increased funding for aged care, but in the context of what the Royal Commission was asking for, it’s really the first step in a long journey. So, hoping that it’s not a one-off cash splash. GTR: I suppose you’ve really answered this question with your introduction there too, the thoughts of has the federal government delivered with this budget. It’s a very complex argument Geoff in regards to a lot of issues, I guess, wages for workers being amongst them. Look, absolutely. I think if you asked the average punter in the street, they’d say, 17.7 billion is a lot of money. But, I recall an old saying that said “some people use statistics like a drunk uses the lamppost” for support rather than illumination. Potentially this is an example of that. 17.7 billion is to wrap up a five years funding, you divide 17.7 by five and you get about three
and a half billion. Seeing that there needed to be a spend of something like 9 billion a year to fix the aged care system. And as you indicated, one of the clear omissions from the budget was anything to address the poor wages in aged care and also staffing ratios in aged care. We’ve heard many times that aged care providers find difficulty getting staff and particularly getting good staff. It’s not a very sexy industry to work in. I guess particularly the last couple of years, I really feel for staff who are working in aged care because of how they’ve been portrayed. The reality is that there are a lot of very good providers. There are a lot of very good staff and very committed staff. Clearly we need to do more to make sure that we’re not talking about many, we’re talking about all staff being good and being well trained, and being appropriately remunerated as well. GTR: Yes. I think on that point too, Geoff with wages and attracting a decent standard of worker, we go back to the need to make sure that they are looked after, wages included, and perhaps that hasn’t been the case in the past. Greg Hunt’s declared this, Geoff as the centerpiece of this financial years federal budget. So, they’re hoping obviously that the numbers, as you say, with the drunk and the lamppost, they use those numbers as, a way of convincing people that they’re actually doing something about aged care. Do you think the proof will be in that materializing in the future rather than getting too carried away about it now? GR: Yeah, look certainly if this is the first step in a journey, then it’s a great first step. If it’s the only step in the journey, then we’ve missed the mark. I think, there are a number of really good initiatives within this budget, and I’m certainly not wanting to take away from that, but I’m really just wanting to say this budget doesn’t fix a system that’s
76 THE LAST POST – 2021 TENTH BIRTHDAY EDITION
broken. I think it’s important for people listening too, to actually understand when we’re talking about aged care, often we think about nursing homes or residential aged care facilities. Something like 1.3 million Australians access aged care services each year, and only about 240,000 of that cohort actually use nursing homes or residential aged care. So a lot of aged care is provided in the community and people may have heard about the home care packages or about the Commonwealth Home Support Programme. There are a number of schemes that are designed to allow people to continue to live in their own homes for as long as possible, and I think none of us ever think, “when I get old, I want to go into a nursing home.” We think, “when I get old, I want to be able to continue to live at home and to be as independent and as well as I can be.” So, the recent inclusion of 80,000 new home care packages, and those packages are designed to be attached to an individual for them to be able to employ people to come in and provide support in the garden, support with showering, with meals or whatever it is that you individually need to continue to live at home, that’s a massive step forward. Over the last few years, we have heard story after story where someone’s been approved for a package, but they’d been on a waiting list. I think last year, something like 16,000 Australians died on the waiting list before they actually got a service. That again reinforces how the system wasn’t working, and I could use the story of my own parents who had low level home care packages. Dad had a fall, it was assessed for a high level as with mum who had dementia, but because they couldn’t access that, they ended up in a nursing home. That was really a poor outcome for them personally, even for us as taxpayers that was a poor outcome because
