Page 710 - Week 03 - Thursday, 22 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Contact has also been made with the ACT Council on the Ageing, the welfare rights bureau here and the ACT Council of Social Service. Preliminary comments based on an earlier discussion paper have been made by Koomarri and the ACT Council for the Intellectually Disabled.
The Law Reform Commission's report suggests that the ACT should adopt the Victorian Government model of a guardianship and administration board and office of the public advocate for our jurisdiction, and I note that Mr Wood endorses that. I note that Mr Wood referred and suggested, from that ideological stance that the ALP cannot get out of, that we would see this as some way of cutting costs or that we would crimp this development because it might cost some money.
I am advised that the Victorian model as it works there is impressive; that it provides freestanding, specialist tribunal advice to administer these important matters. In addition, the public advocate there acts as guardian of last resort and investigates the performance of other guardians.
The Alliance Government is taking a responsible and measured approach in this matter. The Government is committed to reform of the current archaic law on guardianship. The importance of a responsible, responsive and professional system in this matter is beyond doubt. The Government must, however, as all members would concede, propose a system that is both workable and cost effective. We must have due regard to the likely costs of such a system. I can inform Mr Wood that the Victorian model costs about $2m per annum to administer.
The Victorian population is far in excess of the ACT population, but my officers inform me that a smaller version of that model for the ACT would cost in the order of half a million dollars. This Government stresses that it does not place financial considerations ahead of the very real need of those residents who carry the heavy burden of caring for people who are incapacitated. A responsible government, however, is required to weigh all the relevant considerations, including cost.
The Alliance Government welcomes the report. As Attorney, I undertake to bring forward an appropriate response as soon as the consultative steps, which Mr Wood enjoined us to take, have occurred. Mr Wood usually does his homework very well, but I wish to draw his attention - I do not do this in any churlish manner - to paragraph 5.12 of the report, in which the commission says:
The commission is acutely aware of the cost implications of establishing a new Tribunal. The population base of the Australian Capital Territory is small and cannot support an entirely new Tribunal with its own Registry and support staff. For this reason it is preferable to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .