Former Tasmanian premier gives evidence to aged care royal commission about governance of provider

A former premier who was on Southern Cross Care board for 12 years has answered concerns raised by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.

A FORMER Tasmanian premier has defended the governance of an aged care provider, for which he chaired a board for 12 years — but admits he had no knowledge of some of the incidents raised.

Ray Groom, who was chairman of the Southern Cross Care board until June last year, was questioned alongside current chairman Stephen Shirley at the Hobart hearing of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.

The commission has earlier this week heard a number of stories of neglect of residents linked to cuts to staffing hours at two of the organisation’s Tasmanian facilities — Yaraandoo at Somerset, near Burnie, and Glenara Lakes in Launceston.

Mr Groom said the organisation was established in 1972 as a not-for-profit charity to provide quality care.

MAN ‘DEHUMANISED’ BY TOILETING DELAYS

‘DRAGONS’ SENT TO INTIMIDATE WIFE OF RESIDENT

Mr Groom and Mr Shirley agreed to a suggestion from counsel assisting the commission, Richard Knowles QC, that there was a responsibility on directors to ensure that happened.

“Well, issues have been raised and these terrible incidents that have been referred to during this week, I had no knowledge of,’’ Mr Groom said.

“But generally speaking we’ve had a good, I think quite a rigorous reporting process and the image that you might have of us as an organisation I think is a little bit distorted.

Former Southern Cross Care chairman Ray Groom. Picture: LUKE BOWDEN

“The image recently might suggest otherwise but I would have to say … our governance has been extremely good, including on clinical issues.”

The make-up of Southern Cross Care’s board — including the fact that directors act on a voluntary basis — was probed by the commission.

The board’s diversity was also questioned, and it was suggested that a certain number of people with clinical experience or knowledge should be on the board at any given time.

The commission heard the board needed to be better informed about how its decisions were directly impacting upon the quality of care of residents.

Mr Knowles suggested the Department of Health could have some oversight or input to the appointment of board directors to ensure an appropriate mix of skills and knowledge.

Mr Shirley said he could see the benefits in theory, but was wary of too much regulation.

The idea of modest remuneration for board directors was also raised, with Mr Stanley saying the pool of talent to choose from in recruiting directors was somewhat limited.

But he said in the current economic climate, it would be “inappropriate” to consider payment of board members.

The hearing continues.