A secret decision to abandon in-home aged care. Strong but polite community opposition ignored. Drip-feeding information over months. Eleventh hour avalanche of information regarding future options with very tight deadline. Elderly residents signing in haste for fear of missing out on services. That is the Whitehorse City Council story. Shameful.
Fait accompli
Unprecedented community opposition
The strength of community opposition was exceptional but it was late in getting off the ground. Grass roots anger with the council was not able to overcome the significant head start of the council managers. They had a well planned strategy ready to go well before Whitehorse residents knew what was happening. Management also had the active support of the federal government in facilitating the so-called ‘transition’ of the 2,500 elderly residents receiving care to a group of private providers nominated by the federal Department of Health and Aged Care.
Union powerless; politicians feeble; management unchecked
There was anecdotal evidence of widespread distress among the stable and well trained workforce of 190 carers. However, their low unionisation rate meant the intervention of the Australian Services Union cut no ice. Local politicians, federal and state, were feeble. Council managers just steamrolled on.
Dominoes will continue to fall
The next domino to fall in the privatisation of in-home care will be Manningham Council and there is no sign of resistance there. Unlike Whitehorse, there is no active ratepayers and residents association. When this chapter in the history of aged care is written, the irony of a federal Labor government presiding over the final phase of the privatisation of a rapidly growing segment of Australia’s health sector will be apparent.
Democracy denied
Whitehorse City residents have been respectful toward their councillors but they have been denied public debate. An absence of democracy began with council’s closed door decision to abandon well regarded in-home aged care services. Rejection then followed of the Ratepayers Association’s FOI request for access to the information and reasoning on which council’s secret decision was probably based.
Many courteous letters to councillors received no acknowledgement. A packed public gallery at a March council meeting was respectful and ratepayers’ objections were aired politely during brief public presentations. The council bulldozed on ignoring its residents.
The Whitehorse Ratepayers and Residents Association organised a petition calling on the Local Government Minister to urge council to review its decision. It obtained an impressive 3,815 signatures but this important achievement resulted in a dead end. In a detailed response the Minister offered no useful assistance. Her letter ignored the number of signatures, emphasised council autonomy, her limited powers and the absence of any breach of the Local Government Act. There was also: muted, implicit criticism of the federal government funding model for in-home aged care; tacit support for council decisions to exit the field and a puzzling reference to prequisites for dismissing a council, something not contemplated in the petition. This issue laid bare the discretionary power of local governments. See also Editorial: ‘You can’t beat City Hall: how Whitehorse City Council evaded transparency and community engagement’.
