Page 3708 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
realises that there is no need for clause 67 to be included. I would make that point because it was discussed with the Law Office this afternoon and it was agreed to by the Opposition. I put that on record to allay any community concerns in relation to that.
Another community concern which was taken up by the Government, I am pleased to say, was the principles to be observed. Mr Collaery has already mentioned the paramount principle of taking into consideration a person's views and wishes so far as they can be ascertained. That should be a paramount consideration. The proposed government amendment to subclauses 3(1) and 3(2) largely satisfies the community groups who were concerned with the way clause 3 of the Bill is drafted.
Another point of concern related to clause 19. Whilst there is provision for the tribunal to hold an inquiry in respect of each order appointing a guardian or manager at least once every three years, there was concern that initially there should be an inquiry within 12 months.
Perhaps it was not fully appreciated that the initial process will be not just an inquiry; each and every case will be gone through very thoroughly to start with. That tends to alleviate the need for an inquiry within 12 months and then having another one within three years. There will be a complete inquiry to start with, which really would make that additional review within 12 months somewhat superfluous, time consuming, and costly. Once that was pointed out, we certainly had no problem with the legislation as it stands. A person's rights are well and truly protected by clause 19 as it currently stands.
The Opposition will be moving amendments to clauses 26 and 27. Whilst the Government says that it reluctantly agrees, nevertheless it does. We want to delete the words "Community Advocate" and make the public trustee the person responsible in relation to accounts and examinations of accounts. After weighing up the pros and cons, we felt that it would be more efficient and would result in better administration of this Act if the public trustee rather than the community advocate carried out the roles envisaged in clauses 26 and 27. I am pleased to see that the Government shares that point of view.
Concern was expressed by community groups, when talking about clause 27, that interested parties, as defined in clause 35, should have access to the accounts; that the public trustee should have a discretion to refuse access; and that there be a right of appeal by interested parties against the exercise of that discretion. Again, after much discussion, it was pointed out that that could be construed as being unnecessarily paternalistic; and also the tribunal, as at present, would allow access by interested
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .