Page 3702 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
GUARDIANSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTY BILL 1991
[COGNATE BILLS:
GUARDIANSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1991
COMMUNITY ADVOCATE BILL 1991
CHILDREN'S SERVICES (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 2) 1991]
Debate resumed from 17 September 1991, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Guardianship and Management of Property (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1991, the Community Advocate Bill 1991 and the Children's Services (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) 1991? There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that in debating order of the day No. 1 they may also address their remarks to orders of the day Nos 2, 3 and 4.
MR COLLAERY (8.29): I feel privileged to stand in reply to the introduction of this package of Bills. It is another milestone in the process of self-government in the ACT. One should remember, in mentioning that milestone, that the Commonwealth had failed to deal with the problems, particularly problems relating to the archaic provisions of the Lunacy Act, over years and years. I am proud to be in this Assembly tonight. I am very pleased to have noted a strong bipartisan spirit in the Assembly over this piece of legislation. We have had very productive sessions today, with the accommodation of the Attorney, in dealing with some of the refinements that all legislation needs, but particularly innovative legislation of this nature.
I trust that many people will read this debate; so I will start off by introducing the concept of guardianship. I am not going to follow necessarily the order of the Bills before the Assembly. Guardianship, on the advice that I had previously - I do not mind plagiarising the good words of an excellent law officer in the Government Law Office, Brendan Bailey - embraces a range of circumstances touching upon the need for day-to-day decisions on purchases for the necessities of life, accommodation, medical treatment and property matters. Those who need guardianship orders range from those with profound disabilities, particularly profound mental disabilities, to elderly people with senility and persons with alcohol or drug induced illnesses. It may also stretch to those with brain injuries, as well, particularly the continuing line of injuries that stem from traffic accidents.
Most people are used to the manifestations of this when we think of those in institutionalised or nursing care. The common manifestation for those of us who have some professional experience in this area is when we are called
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .