Local Government Reform Archives - SEQ Community Alliance

The South East Queensland Community Alliance Inc. (SEQCA) recently made a submission about proposed Queensland legislation that responds in part to “Let the sunshine in”, the Final Report of Professor Peter Coaldrake’s Review of Culture and Accountability in the Queensland Public Sector (the Coaldrake Report).

The reforms, set out in the Integrity and other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 are being considered in an inquiry by Queensland Parliament’s Economics and Governance Committee.

The Committee has now published various submissions to this inquiry.

Republished below is the SEQCA submission.

SEQCA submission on the Integrity and other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

The SEQCA is an umbrella organisation for various
community groups. Our focus is on planning and governance issues at all levels of government.

We welcome the reforms set out in the Integrity and other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 which
are intended to implement some of the recommendations made by:

Let the sunshine in: Review of culture and accountability in the Queensland public sector (Coaldrake Report); and
Strategic Review of the Integrity Commissioner’s Functions (Yearbury Report).

We also note that other recommendations from these reports have already been implemented in
the Integrity and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2022, passed by Parliament in November 2022.

Sunshine and darkness

While these various reforms may let a little more sunshine in, much of state and local government in
Queensland still operates in darkness.

The Coaldrake Report discussed Queensland’s Right to Information (RTI) laws and the role of the
Information Commissioner, and noted that:

“Decisions ultimately determined by the Information Commissioner influence the information
available to citizens who themselves are a valuable check on accountability of government” ¹ .

However, the Coaldrake Report also noted that the “level of apprehension, even fear, within
departments about the consequences of being ‘caught’ by an RTI request” fosters a “culture
predisposed to nondisclosure” ².

The Coaldrake Report recommended that:

“Cabinet submissions (and their attachments), agendas, and decisions papers be proactively
released and published online within 30 business days of such decisions” ³.

The Coaldrake Report also says that: “agencies should not be quick to agree to confidentiality
clauses which are proposed by sophisticated commercial parties to protect their own interests” ⁴.

The need for restraint in using confidentiality and commercial in confidence clause is then explained:

An agency can exercise its discretion to disclose information even where that information
qualifies for an exemption, but the RTI process cannot overcome a lack of transparency if
expectations are not clear in the procurement process about the openness and accountability
to the community that is required when dealing with government. Government procurement
policies provide that confidentiality and commercial-in-confidence clauses should not ‘be
used as a matter of course and only included where there is strong justification for
confidentiality’. As was noted in a 2018 report of the Queensland Audit Office, ‘the public has
a right to know how much public money government is spending, on what, and with which
vendors’ ⁵.

The Coaldrake Reports advocates a cultural shift to more openness in government, saying:

“It is to be hoped that acceptance of this Review’s recommendations, particularly the more ready
release of Cabinet documents, and its comments on the need for greater scrutiny over what is
deemed commercial-in-confidence, will provide the impetus for a cultural shift toward much more
openness in government” ⁶.

Government response to the Coaldrake Report

We note that in responding to receipt of the Coaldrake Report on 28 June 2022, the Premier said:

“We will accept all of his recommendations and we will implement them lock, stock and barrel”.⁷

The Premier also said that once these reforms were implemented, “Queensland will have the most transparent and accountable government in Australia’.

But a year later there seems to be no progress in ensuring that cabinet decisions will be made public
within 30 business days. Nor has the Government explained what measures it is taking to ensure
that commercial in confidence clauses will only be used “where there is strong justification for
confidentiality”.

Very recently, the Government said that more than $180 billion in procurement opportunities are
estimated to be available in the lead-up to the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games. ⁸

Before this spending spree gets underway, the community should be given confidence that it will be
done with exemplary transparency. The community and media should have genuine rights to obtain
information about “how much public money government is spending, on what, and with which
vendors”.

We suggest that greater transparency (and integrity) should be achieved through Parliament
amending Queensland’s RTI laws to ensure that they better meet community expectations.

Current RTI exemptions such as ‘commercial in confidence’ should be reviewed and clarified
legislatively to ensure that the community can find out about matters of public interest occurring at
both the state and local levels of government.

Local Government laws

On the subject of local government, we note that despite many worthwhile reforms legislated in
recent years there is still too much scope for local governments to act secretively by declaring
matters to be confidential, thereby restricting access to reports and discussions at Council meetings.

So, reforms to Queensland’s RTI laws should be accompanied by amendments to local government
laws which significantly curtail the ability and proclivity of some local councils to keep matters secret
from their residents and ratepayers.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.

Chris Walker
President
South East Queensland Community Alliance Inc.

References

1 Review of culture and accountability in the Queensland public sector | Final Report | 28 June 2022 p. 27
2 Ibid
3 Ibid p. 3
4 Ibid p. 65
5 Ibid
6 Ibid p. 29
7 “Lock, stock and barrel” Premier embraces Coaldrake Review, Government media release 28 June, 2022
8 Queensland businesses the big winners in lead-up to Brisbane 2032, Government media release, 20 July 2023

Cover image is by Fiktube

At the June 2019 meeting of the Alliance, mention was made of a letter sent to Cameron Dick on the changes to the Retirement and Age Care Package of Brisbane City Council (BCC). This exchange of correspondence was suggested for inclusion on the SEQ Alliance website as an example of a letter (well researched and professional) and the response (as an example of an “inadequate” reply).

Dr John Mayze and Michael Wynne who are authors of the letter and they are happy for it to be put o the website for public access.

It is expected a further response will be made, in collaboration with Dr John Mayze, to the inadequate response by Christopher Aston (the response on behalf of Cameron Dick).

Ministerial correspondence on behalf of Ministers is of increasing concern when the key issues are almost dismissed without regard to the arguments and research being put forward.

Letter to Cameron Dick: retirement and aged care

The Honourable Cameron Dick
Minister for State Development Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning
PO Box 15009
CITY EAST QLD 4001
statedevelopment@ministerial.qld.gov.au

cc The Honourable Steven Miles Minister for Health
health@ministerialÆqldÆgovÆau

Dear Minister
Proposed Changes to the Brisbane Plan 2014: retirement and aged care
We write to you as retired medical specialists and a past professional in the planning area on the proposed changes to the Brisbane City Plan 2014 – retirement and aged care amendments package.
The Brisbane City Council recently sought public submissions on these proposed amendments and on 27 November the Council endorsed them. The proposed package has now been submitted to the Queensland Government for final review.
Along with a number of our professional colleagues, we made submissions during the public consultation period. We have concerns about how the matters raised in our submissions were addressed by the Brisbane City Council, and as such, we
contacted a Council town planner who suggested we raise our concerns with you.
The focus must be on best practice
We are concerned that the Brisbane City Council’s proposed changes to the Brisbane City Plan 2014 will not ensure our elderly are accommodated in best practice residential aged care designed with therapeutic benefits as a priority.
Extensive evidence shows that low-set, home-like, non-institutionalised environments with space to roam and gardens for therapeutic value, lead to better outcomes for the health and wellbeing of residents, especially those with dementia.
Our experience and knowledge concerning best practice for management of these patients indicates that the changes to building design included in the Aged Care Code will not deliver best practice.

A need to prioritise aged-care beds
The Council’s amendments package conflates “retirement living” with “aged care” rather than focusing on where the need lies which is the provision of residential aged care beds.

An expert panel within Queensland Health reported that the average wait in hospital for older patients who were ready for discharge but left waiting was 53 days, and the leading reason for this delay (71% of cases) was waiting for an aged care bed.
The Federal Government’s nationally agreed target is for one residential care place for every 12.8 people aged over 70 by 2020/21. The 2016 Census showed there were 475, 749 Queenslanders aged 70 and over which would equate to a target of
37,110 places. As at June 30 2017, Queensland had 36,616 operational residential care places.
Based on those figures, Queensland needs 494 new residential care places by 2020/21 particularly specialist care places for people with dementia or behaviour (disability, mobility, eating, incontinence, medication) requirements.
Further data underscore why all levels of governments must respond to the high-needs nature of people entering aged care:

* Almost 80% of people prefer to age in their own homes so the people who enter residential care (around 7%) are older with an average age of 83 years. Thesepeople require higher-needs care.

* Ninety-two (92%) of patients in these Aged Care Facilities are rated by aged-care providers as requiring High Care which results in the maximum payment from the Federal Government (taxpayers) to the organisations that run these facilities.

* Forty-two (42%) of these patients never receive a visitor in 12 months.

* Slightly less than 60% of patients have dementia and can no longer be cared for in the home environment. As a result of their dementia they are unable to communicate effectively and interact in a normal fashion with other people, so they cannot protect themselves.

Dementia is a mixture of brain disorders that affects thinking, behaviour and the ability to perform everyday tasks which results in brain function being affected enough to interfere with the person’s normal social interactions and working life.

Because a person has dementia it does not mean that they should be confined to their room and heavily medicated to keep them ‘out of sight” and “out of mind”. Many such people are still mobile and interested in what is going on around them.

These people can no longer fend and speak for themselves and as a result cannot make a submission like this to any level of government.

Because we are aware of these problems, we feel compelled to speak up for these frail and elderly patients especially as their needs are inadequately addressed in the proposed amendments as we outline below.
Shortcoming of the proposed amendments package
The Brisbane City Council’s proposed amendments package fails to enshrine best practice aged-care design in the City Plan. In its report in response to public submissions the Brisbane City Council also fails to explain why reasonable suggestions from submitters were ignored and why other positions were supported.
From our review of the proposed changes we believe that:
* There is a clear need to appropriately plan for future residential aged care -not retirement units – in Queensland.
* It is not appropriate to have the same planning code applied to both retirement living and aged care as high-needs residential aged-care must be fit for purpose
and differs markedly from retirement living.
* The design of such facilities must prioritise the health and welfare needs of the people using them over the needs of development proponents.
* The Brisbane City Council must base its decisions on evidence that can be understood and accepted by the community and must not be open to the perception that it is being politically expedient. This only serves to reduce the
trust of concerned members of the community in Government at all levels.
* There is a lack of evidence that those preparing the code have adequate healthcare expertise. To ensure that best practice is being applied it is recommended that the views of an independent third party with relevant healthcare expertise be sought prior to any State endorsement of the proposed amendments package.

With a Royal Commission due to commence next year, the aged-care sector is under intense scrutiny and any decision relating to aged-care development codes
that will profoundly impact the quality of accommodation provided to our elderly, must be approached with the same level of scrutiny.

Recommendation
I request that you do not endorse the proposed changes to the Brisbane Plan 2014 and that you meet with us, management from Brisbane City Council, and other experts from the medical profession to establish what changes need to be made to
the Brisbane City Council’s proposed amendments to the retirement living and aged care package.

Yours sincerely
Dr John Mayze, Dr Michael Wynne and Howard Briggs
Dated 11 December 2018

Minister Cameron Dick’s response (by delegation) is cursory

Despite the best intentions and the expertise being offered no meeting was agreed to and the response sound just like so many other pieces of ministerial correspondence. A follow up letter to mr Ashton is proposed but the response to date gives little to suggest the Minister is open to hearing views contrary to that of his Departmental planning officers.