Page 3703 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
by one relative or another to have documents signed in nursing homes. Often professionals have some ethical problems about capacity and whether there should be a third party, a guardian, involved.
Indeed, only in the last few weeks a dear old friend of mine died. He spent a difficult time prior to his demise. He spoke only French, by preference, and did not want to make his final testament to an anglophone lawyer. I found myself, in the last few weeks, drawing a will in a situation where, clearly, if we had had this legislative package in hand, we could be more accommodating and make sure that there are more services available, particularly to those of another language who are on their death bed. They could be persuaded to use that language in their dying testaments. So, there are wide implications of this legislation, particularly for the elderly, and the isolated elderly, including those of ethnic and foreign origin.
The Australian Law Reform Commission report on guardianship and management of property was tabled in this Assembly on 15 February 1990. I think it is very creditable that, by December, the Government Law Office had produced a package of Bill instructions for approval by the Alliance Cabinet. The Bill drafts were available in May, prior to the fall of the Alliance Government. I congratulate the Attorney for pursuing the impetus in the matter and bringing the Bills forward to the house.
Mr Speaker, I trust that we can process these Bills so that the archaic nature of the Lunacy Act will no longer apply to persons in the ACT, and I draw the attention of members to the comments of the Australian Law Reform Commission on that matter. Some of the issues that came up recognised the backlog of an estimated 1,500 residents who require guardianship orders, many of whom, or whose families, will not go through the demeaning process of Supreme Court action to find their relatives effective lunatics at law. It is a political imperative, of course, that this Assembly bring forward this package and debate it in an informed fashion.
Mr Speaker, the Victorian civil tribunal approach was a "you beaut" model - a freestanding specialist tribunal. It cost about $2m a year and it serviced a population about 12 times that of the ACT. I will admit quite frankly that the Victorian model is the more attractive one, but we cannot afford it. We have to be frank about that. It will be a long time before we can afford a stand-alone tribunal. Please God, we will not ever need one because we will not have that range of problems. Therefore, the alternative proposal of absorbing and finding innovative solutions has presented itself, and the current model is the best possible option, in my view, that the Government could put to the people. It certainly has the support of the Residents Rally.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .