abandons home care and chooses secrecy
On 24 October 2022, Whitehorse Council decided to cease providing home and community services from July 2023. You would not know this however if you read the Minutes of the meeting at which the Whitehorse elected representatives apparently made this decision. Why? Because there is no reference to the decision in the Minutes, much less an explanation of it.
Agenda item 13.1 Services for Older People Review under the heading CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS was dealt with in camera (behind closed doors) after a unanimous resolution to do so. This was justified on the ground that the matter concerned “Council business information including .. industrial relations matters”. The Minutes record that, following a resolution to move out of camera, the Council meeting was closed.
A week or so later, recipients of Council home care services received a letter from the Chief Executive advising of the decision to cease services. No explicit reason was given, only an obtuse comment that the Australian Government was changing the way it funds in-home aged care and a new national program would be introduced from July 2024. The letter left those receiving home care in the dark and worried.
Ironically, the new Local Government Act which became law during 2020 and 2021 promised “better community engagement”, “increased … councillor accountability” and “increased transparency of council decisions”. Councils must have a Public Transparency Policy. The Whitehorse Policy looks good on paper and is said to recognise “Council’s ongoing commitment to making Council information readily available to its community and general public”. Unfortunately, it does not say ‘timely’ information.
Yet when you look at the Local Government Act provisions which allow secret (in camera) meetings you wonder if the cards aren’t stacked against transparency. Section 3 contains a definition of “confidential information”. It has twelve clauses including “(a) Council business information … that would prejudice Council’s position in commercial negotiations if prematurely released”.
The law does not however compel secrecy. It is still a Council decision to go behind closed doors. The threshold decision ‘do we continue or abandon home care’ could still be debated in public. Also the issue is not necessarily primarily an industrial relations matter, certainly not in the first instance. Further, core arguments for and against could surely be disclosed without jeopardising ‘commercial negotiations’. Finally, ratepayers do not know how their elected representatives voted.
For a matter of such profound importance to many vulnerable residents, Council failure to disclose – at least until such time as it is too late for anything to be done about it – is at best disappointing and at worst disturbing. It makes a mockery of transparency policy.
Carol Williams
Elder Care Watch
23 November 2022