Page 708 - Week 03 - Thursday, 22 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is a good report. I hope that the outcomes in this Assembly are as good. When its recommendations are implemented and not varied, one would hope, the procedures for guardianship will be so much better than they are now.
This report is a stage in the implementation of legislation about the power of attorney, guardianship and management. The legislation that it proposes is complementary to Ms Follett's legislation which was introduced last year on enduring powers of attorney. I hope to see these measures introduced as soon as possible in order to guarantee full protection to those involved in circumstances in which enduring powers of attorney are employed.
The report discusses two broad themes: firstly, providing appropriate protection for those who are unable to look after themselves and, secondly, preserving and enhancing the personal autonomy of those people. Obviously, there is potential for doubt or conflict. For this reason, two proposals in the report are very important - the need to establish a tribunal and the appointment of a public advocate. I was concerned to read in the Minister's brief speech that:
... a number of areas of the report will require careful consideration, particularly in the light of their budgetary effects.
I noted also the remarks that Ms Maher made in her speech about the tribunal and where it may be attached. It is essential that the recommendations in this report be fully implemented. "Budgetary effects" might mean "pass the matter over to the magistrates court" or something similar, and that is completely undesirable.
Mr Duby: Hear, hear!
MR WOOD: Thank you, Mr Duby. These are not matters for courts. For the success of the scheme, among other matters, it ought to be understood that courts are not involved. Can we be sure, for example, that there will not be considerable costs attached to court administration? I know there would be costs, but courts are very expensive, and I do not think we need to attach this to courts. Nor would the proposal be as easy to sell if people thought they could get involved in courts in a legal sense, even though that may not be the case. The thought that you have to go to a court in these matters would surely deter a lot of people. The report makes this comment about the tribunal very strongly, that it must be a freestanding body, and I totally support that.
It is just as important that the proposed public advocate be appointed. At this stage, no great staff numbers need be involved, and certainly for that reason no other option is desirable. We do not want to go out into the bureaucracy somewhere or perhaps beyond, find a person and say, "Okay, you can do this job as well". It is simply not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .