SUB.001.03168_01_0001
Mailing: PO Box 5649
West End QLD 4101
Phone: 07 3255 1244 Fax: 07 3255 1266 Email: sufy@sufy.org.au Website: www.sufy.org.au
ABN: 58 812 329 872
SPEAKING UP FOR YOU INC. protects and defends vulnerable people with disability through individual advocacy to address injustices and make a positive and sustainable difference to their lives.
Speaking Up For you (SUfy) Submission to the Disability Royal Commission — Hostels Phone: (07) 3255 1244
Email: sufy@sufy.org.au
Introduction
The issues experienced by people who are vulnerable living in hostels and boarding houses, and the restrictions imposed upon people with disabilities living in group homes, have been well documented over the past two decades. One only has to read SUFY’s annual reports over many years to realise that people living in these situations continue to experience violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. At best, it is due to the inappropriateness of hostel accommodation and the support that hostel managers can provide for individuals. At worst, unscrupulous hostel owners abuse the power they have over residents who cannot advocate for themselves. In either scenario, it is clear that while hostels may be regarded by state governments as an appropriate form of accommodation for people with no other alternative, life is dominated for these people by disadvantage, power imbalances and lack of appropriate support and opportunities to thrive. The meagre incomes people do have from disability support pensions are controlled by their landlords, leaving them with no resources to participate in life outside the hostel environment.
Experiences Of People living In Hostels
All too often, we observe the impacts on the lives of people who have no choice about where they live and who supports them. Take for example, the case study below taken from SUFY 1999-2000 annual report.
i A} is an HI lady, who for 22 years lived in a very abusive hostel. The advocacy workers
at SUFY first met; A. ’ whilst they were working for another individual who lived at
this hostel. SUFY was successful in getting the other individual out of the hostel and into alternative accommodation. However, at this time the workers could not geti Ay out
Unit F2, The Precinct, 12 Browning Street, West End, Queensland 4101, Australia
SUFY IS AN INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL SOCIAL ADVOCACY ORGANISATION FOR PEOPLE
WITH DISABILITY IN BRISBANE and THE MORETON BAY REGION
SUB.001.03168_01_0002
The hostel owner was adamant that A J had to stay at the hostel. r·-·-A-·-·1 was not an active !· person; she did not complain about her abusive treatment, and she did not cause trouble with the other residents. In fact, L__A_ _ f was at risk because of her fear to speak up. Other residents would often take advantage of this and vent their frustration out on :.__ A J, knowing that she
would not fight back. l_ __ and her fear was greatly entrenched over a twenty-year AJ••■ period. For the hotel owner l_ __ A___i was easy money.
__ __ _
When the SUFY workers first started to take !___A_J out for a coffee,[“ A j was hesitant and did not want to talk about the conditions in the hostel. She said she was frightened of the hostel
owner, and she knew she would be questioned about her outings with SUFY. !.__ A _ _ i knew she
could not keep a secret from the hostel owners, and it is now alleged that the hostel owners
punishedi.__ A _ _ i for not complying with their wishes.
The advocacy workers were also noticing other subtle abuses. It was noticed that!__ A__ i spent a lot of time in her bed and often the bed was soaked with urine, as r-·-A·-·1 was not given assistance to get to the toilet. Her mattress was not supported and sagged to the extent that it touched the floor. When the workers complained about this, an old door was placed under
the mattress. On several occasions it was noted that I A jhad not been supported to bath or ' '
.- change· - · - · - · - · -·-•-. her clothes for several days. r· - · - · - · - · - · - · ·1 i health generally appeared to be poor and on one occasion!.A’s __ i eyes were infected l A’s_ and fly blown.
SUFY applied successfully for funding forL___ A _ _ i so that she could move from the hostel.
However, the hostel owners were very opposed to this idea. Consequently, the advocacy workers were banned from entering the hostel. This meant that SUFY lost all contact with l_ __ A_J and she was not supported to contact SUFY. SUFY had to take immediate action of a serious nature and requested the involvement of the Office of the Adult Guardian to investigate the concerns we had regardingl_ __ A’s_j lack of care in the hostel. This investigation lasted 7 months and only ended when [ _ _ A _ _ :was placed in respite on the instruction of the Office of the Adult Guardian. For the first time in 22 years ! _ A _j was out of the hostel, and she promptly stated that she did not want to return. !____A _ lstayed in respite for a few months while other support options were investigated and arranged. During this time SUFY reconnected with i____AJ and ensured safeguards were put in place. For example, a service was organised to visit!.__A __i and monitor her care in respite. SUFY’s vision for[ __ _ A__j was:
-
That!__ A__ j has control and influence over decisions that affect her life and where this is not possible, she has the support of an independent advocate to act in her best interests.
-
To live in a “home” where her needs for support are appropriately met, where she is safe, valued, included and well cared for. To have her health needs recognised and addressed appropriately without delay.
• That !____ A ____! has the opportunity to develop long term meaningful relationships with
SUB.001.03168_01_0003
people who share her vision. To become part of a local community and enjoy the benefits that belonging to this community brings.
e That future supports incorporate: A’ S_$ desires, dreams, and emotional needs to belong.
Some creative thinking and good fortune were needed, and | A's 4 future support and
accommodation was arranged.: A ‘now lives with a family who fee agreed tocare fori A:
for as long as she wishes. The family quickly included | AL as a family member. They
iPrindirenae
acknowledge the injustices that: A _! was subjected to in the past and are sensitive to both
i A’s $ physical and emotional needs.
The advocacy workers are astounded at | A's iH progress and state that she is now the
happiest and healthiest they have ever seen her. A_‘herself has stated that she does not want to leave the family and that she will live with them until she dies. She adds that she hopes that this will be a long way off.
The Role Of Advocacy
While this case is historic in nature, it emphasises the important role that advocates continue to play in assisting people to live a life that they choose, free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. It also highlights the inappropriateness of hostel accommodation for people with high support needs, whose individual circumstances are not recognised or respected by hostel owners whose sole interest is in making money, often at any cost.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) was touted as the solution which would address the inequalities and disadvantages faced by people with disabilities. However, it must be remembered that many people are still not eligible for the scheme, and that even for those who are, engagement with the scheme is often fraught with frustration, barriers, and misunderstandings. SUFY’s advocates report that people are being subjected to massive reductions in their NDIS plans and told that they need to live with someone who can provide intensive support, rather than be funded for the twenty-four-hour support that they actually require. This constitutes a failure by the very scheme designed to empower people with disabilities to have choice and control, to recognize that choice of accommodation and the appropriate support to facilitate that choice is a fundamental human right.
While the focus of this paper is hostel accommodation, it has become apparent from examining SUFY’s archives that if the relationships which exist in parallel with any form of accommodation lack integrity and are built upon unequal power imbalances, people who are
SUB.001.03168_01_0004
vulnerable will inevitably experience violence, abuse, neglect and/or exploitation. The case study below is an excerpt from a newspaper article written about the experiences of a man
in a aged care facility. It should be noted that this man was highly articulate ■■■■■I
and capable of advocating for himself, yet he still found himself at the mercy of people who did not take his best interests as seriously as they should have done.
A newspaper article reported that a man who had become tetraplegic as a result of I went on a hunger strike because many of his basic needs were not being met in the aged care facility in which he resided. He had no option but to enter this facility, as there was no alternative accommodation which could support his needs. He invested his own money to purchase a suitable electric wheelchair, paid for rehabilitation and even purchased his own custom designed cutlery so he could eat independently. He bought himself a computer and had the internet connected so he could communicate. This was necessary, as he had to have his voice box removed as a result of his accident and breathes through a stoma. Below is the list of needs this man said he was not having met:
-
To have fresh water each day in his drink bottle
-
To have appropriate creams applied to his body as directed by doctor
-
To have his medication at the times set by the doctor
-
To have sauces on his meals to enable him to swallow
-
To have a care plan drawn up so as every staff member knows his requirements without him having to type up on the computer his every need.
-
To have staff attending to him competent in dealing with someone with his condition. To have staff attending to his stoma care to be competent in such care.
-
To have proper pressure area care attended to. As a result of lack of pressure care he has developed pressure sores on his bottom and his heel.
-
To have a proper heel wedge to prevent pressure sores on his heals. At present he has a ‘donut’ which a nurse made which is TOTALLY not allowed as a pressure care tool. He requires a proper heel wedge. As a result he now has a pressure sore on his heel.
-
To have a physic plan which he is assisted to maintain. At present he has a plan but no person to put it into practice with him, so the plan sits in a drawer.
-
To have his meals placed at a distance he can reach it with everything on the tray.
-
To have cutlery made to suit him (he has since had some made himself as he has asked for this over the past 12 months)
-
To have access in and out of the facility as the front door is often locked and he has no way of letting people know and has sat outside for up to an hour until someone happens to walk by and see him.
-
To have a suitable table made for eating inside when it is raining (this was only done two weeks ago after asking for 12 months)
-
To have his room made safe as there are electrical cords everywhere and the hoist that is used to lift him gets caught on it thus jolting him each time he is moved.
-
To have a suitable mattress for his pressure care (he has since bought one himself as his bottom has pressure area sores on it)
-
To have competent staff shower him as if not competent they get water down his stoma (straight into his lungs)
SUB.001.03168_01_0005
-
To have a buzzer system that works when more than 30 meters away from the box. A door bell system is used now which is inadequate.
• To have access to the outside, i.e.: doors open to the secured lawn and outside area.
To have regular pressure care.
One can only imagine, if this man had not had the financial resources he did, how much worse his situation would have been. Nobody who freely chooses the accommodation they reside in is restricted by not having independent access to the outside world, and to return to the inside of the residence when they so choose. A person who is not vulnerable due to high support needs does not experience the indignity of not being able to reach their own food because it is not close enough, or of waiting to have fresh water to drink. The man only lived in an aged care facility because there was no other choice. Imagine the uproar if a person without disabilities was told where they had to live, subjected to the withdrawal or inaccessibility of food and water, or forced to spend their time in an environment that was unsafe. Regardless of the form of accommodation being discussed, if it is forced on a person who is vulnerable and who is unable to advocate for themselves, the results can only be disturbing.
It is acknowledged that efforts were made by the Queensland government to regulate the hostel and rooming accommodation industry. The Residential Services (Accommodation) Act 2002 ( was introduced in response to advocacy from SUFY. However, the measures introduced concentrated on aspects of physical safety, and did not address the exploitative nature of the relationship between hostel owners and vulnerable tenants. The act was later repealed and replaced by the On 20 June 2009, the Residential Services (Accommodation) Act 2002 (Qld) was repealed along with the Residential Tenancies act of 1994 (Qld) and replaced by the
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld). A bill proposing
amendments to this act was introduced to parliament in May 2021, but has not yet been debated at the time this paper is being written.
While the bill does make significant changes which will improve general protections for all tenants, it will not protect those who are most vulnerable against violence, abuse, neglect and/or exploitation by hostel owners. People who live with intellectual impairment or acquired brain injury for example, will still require assistance from advocates to ensure their rights are implemented. Without an understanding of the legislation, even the rights which are protected cannot be enforced by a person who cannot apply the legislative framework to their specific situation.
As a result, it must still be asserted that hostel or rooming accommodation is not appropriate for people who have intellectual impairments, acquired brain injury or a severe mental illness.
SUB.001.03168_01_0006
An advocate who was interviewed in the preparation for this submission stated that she is aware of hospitals who discharge people considered not to be able to benefit from further medical treatment or maintenance will often send them to a hostel if they have nowhere else to go. These people are often still in need of very high levels of support, but their conditions are regarded by the medical profession as not able to be improved. Hence, regardless of their ongoing needs, they are discharged with no transition plan being organised so that the accommodation they move to is appropriate and services in place to meet their often complex needs.
Conclusion
The cases discussed in this submission are just a handful of examples to demonstrate the unsuitable nature of hostel accommodation for people who are vulnerable due to factors such as acquired brain injury, intellectual impairment or mental illness. Similarly, accommodation that by its nature, creates power imbalance by way of imposed routines or care from staff who are not adequately trained in specific types of care place people who are vulnerable at very high risk of exacerbated health conditions and even death. While efforts have been made to regulate the rooming accommodation industry, these have not got far enough to address the needs of people who require a level of support that hostel managers cannot provide, or are unwilling to provide. Further, exploitation of people who are vulnerable living in hostels is of major ongoing concern.