Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3103 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

Looking at it in a generous way, it aims to protect people who are not perhaps in a position to look after their own interests as well as they might. It is for the protection of people. But I believe it is also for the protection of governments, maybe for the protection of the public purse.

These amendments have arisen out of one case-there is no reference in all the background discussion of any more than that-where the Guardianship and Management of Property Tribunal endeavoured to make decisions on behalf of one person. That person was certainly well enough in control of his affairs to see that the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court of the ACT, where he won. The steps taken by the tribunal were overturned.

It is an interesting case. This man, I believe, was suffering from some form of mental illness, and he also had an accident and had quite a reasonable amount of cash from a compensation payout. The tribunal determined that they knew best what this man should do with his money. He apparently said that he was going to invest it. There was some suggestion that it may have been in places where you lose money fairly quickly. I have no doubt the indications he gave were that the money would not be wisely spent, and the tribunal wanted to protect him and prevent him from making decisions that would lose money.

Is there much wrong with that? I do not know. I am in a bind here. I am not sure yet which way to go. I am holding on for the moment, because I think Ms Tucker wants to adjourn this debate for another day. On that basis I do not have to say right now how the Labor Party will vote. It is one of those difficult ones. How far do we go to protect the rights of a citizen?

There is no question but that this citizen, as reported-accurately, I expect-used his money very badly. In the end the state will have to pick up a good deal of expense, because the compensation payout has gone. I can take you to many people around the community who disposed of their money very badly. Do not point to me, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: I was circling the Assembly.

MR WOOD: Are we not also protecting the government in this case? Where are our responsibilities? It is very difficult. I am not sure that these amendments make much basic difference to the ability of the tribunal to make decisions like that. These amendments are technical to avoid the problem that occurred and to remove some confusion. If the Assembly voted this bill down, I do not know that it would really change things very much.

It is a difficult one, and I do not mind another day or two to consider it. Ms Tucker, it seems, wants to do some more talking to people. In the talking I have done, other issues have been raised. One was that the tribunal could be a little more user friendly. I had a briefing which was very solid and very good, and I have no doubt that the tribunal believes that it hears everybody and gives everybody an equal chance and they are very careful to see that everybody is thoroughly heard. Yet I get comment that they are not really user friendly. Bodies can be like that, no matter how hard they try.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .