DEPARTMENT OF AGEING, DISABILITY AND HOME CARE RESIDENTIAL SUPPORT WORKERS PROTECTION
Page: 4323
The Hon. JOHN RYAN [10.26 p.m.]: Recently the Government acknowledged that nurses who work in our public hospitals system have been the subject of harassment and attacks from disgruntled or dissatisfied patients. While we all find it difficult to comprehend such attacks, we acknowledge that they occur. No-one would suggest that nurses should put up with violence, nor would anyone suggest that nurses are to blame. I hope that staff working for the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care [DADHC] will have reason to expect the same support as has been extended to nurses. During this week representations that I received from a residential support worker who is employed in a group home known as Yarabin Street on the northern beaches have caused me to question that assumption. The worker told me that, as a result of a violent attack from visiting relatives of a group home client, she has been force transferred from her normal place of employment, involved in legal action and driven to the point of taking extended stress leave.
Earlier this year the worker became concerned about some increasingly aggressive behaviour being exhibited by the relatives of a particular group home client. The worker reported her concerns to DADHC management. As one might expect, management of the group home raised this matter with the relatives concerned. However, when the matter was discussed, management also unwisely revealed the identity of the worker, placing her at risk of a further attack. Hours later the relatives allegedly arrived at the group home and delivered an enormous level of verbal abuse to the two staff members who were on duty, and they included this particular worker. The attack came very close to an actual physical attack when a fist was raised in great anger. Because no effective action was taken to curb the abuse, the worker reluctantly sought an apprehended violence order [AVO] from the courts.
On 11 February 2003, not only was the DADHC worker successful in obtaining an AVO to restrain the client's relatives from assaulting, threatening, molesting or harassing her, but the magistrate at the Manly court extended the order, on her own initiative, to cover all the other staff working at the group home. In April this year there was further intervention by DADHC's regional director, Mr Chris Woodgate, who informed the worker that, because she had become the subject of further threats from the same person, she had to be forced to transfer to another work site—another DADHC-operated group home in the same neighbourhood. This was allegedly done to protect the worker. I am informed that because she was an additional member of staff at the new location, she was expected to exhaust sick leave to cover days when she could not be gainfully employed. Initially she had been told that the move would be temporary, but as the length of time for which she was at the new location was extended, conflict arose between DADHC senior staff and the worker.
The situation became so strained that the worker went on stress leave. Consequently, she now receives a great deal less income because she received no compensation for lost penalty rates. I understand that the other worker who was attacked on the same night was also transferred. Adding insult to injury, senior staff told the worker that she cannot return to her original place of work because her action in seeking an AVO has created what senior staff refer to as an irreconcilable situation with the client, making her return to work impossible. Comments that were made by the magistrate—that DADHC is hiding behind the excuse of workplace safety to avoid facing the issues created by the violence from group home visitors—add credibility to the submission that this person made to me. I also understand that there are another two or three staff members from the same group home who are involved in conflict with the same family.
No-one should have to tolerate violence at work. If violence arises, workers should be able to count on getting appropriate support from their employer. It would appear that DADHC has been extremely lacking in the support that has been given to this worker and her colleagues. The Minister for Community Services should have the matter thoroughly investigated, independently of the northern regional director, and ensure that the worker is properly compensated for any financial loss suffered by the worker in trying to properly protect herself and for lost salary. Her sick leave should be restored and she should also be compensated for legal expenses associated with the AVO—expenses that that would have been avoided if DADHC had acted more decisively in the first place.Most importantly, DADHC needs to develop and implement protocols and education programs that are similar to those that have been implemented to support and protect staff in the New South Wales public hospitals system. I urge the Minister to address this very important issue of workplace safety for DADHC staff.