Page 3707 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Sutherland, Robyn Creyke and Warwick Everson have been very helpful. There were submissions from other bodies such as ACTCOSS as well. All of those assisted in the formulation process of this very important package of legislation.
There will be a number of amendments put forward by the Liberal Party. I am indebted to Mr Connolly, the Government Law Office and my colleague Mr Collaery for fairly lengthy discussions. Basically, we had a working party this afternoon to thrash out a number of problems in relation to amendments which we would propose. A number of points were explained and argued, and I think a very satisfactory outcome will evolve from that. I am pleased to see that the Government has accepted a number of very sensible amendments which we will be proposing on behalf of the various community groups involved in relation to this essential piece of legislation. There are a couple of other very minor points which I think may still be slightly contentious, although I think even those will be overcome.
Most of our amendments will centre on the Guardianship and Management of Property Bill. Mr Collaery has mentioned the problem of cost. It would be very nice indeed if the Guardianship and Management of Property Tribunal to be established under clause 57 of the Bill could sit in its own place and if all its members could receive remuneration. But times are tough and space is limited.
However, I was pleased to see, as a result of pressure from the various community groups, the Government take on board some of their suggestions and some of their concerns in relation to not wanting the tribunal to sit in a courtroom and be as a normal court, because that is not what is intended in this legislation. Today the Government indicated that it would make some amendments which will go most of the way towards alleviating some of the problems the community groups felt would be inherent.
I would like to put on the record a couple of other points in relation to some of the community groups' concerns which have been partially allayed by the Government or, indeed, in many cases, actually taken up. There was a concern that "guardian" and "manager" were not properly defined in clause 4 and that there should be a reference in both definitions to clause 67, where there are some further definitions of temporary guardians and managers. Clause 67 says that the tribunal may make emergency appointments. The tribunal may, under clause 7, appoint the community advocate to be a guardian for a person or, under clause 8, appoint the community advocate or the public trustee to be a manager of a person's property.
So, when one looks at the reference to clause 7 and the definition of "guardian" in clause 4, and the definition of "manager" in clause 4 and the reference to a manager in clause 8, both of which are dealt with in clause 67, one
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .