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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 3106 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

It is also foreseeable that a guardianship or management order could be required at some stage. It is therefore imperative that such people are not excluded from the ambit of guardianship and management legislation. Confining the provision to diagnosable illnesses only and removing such persons from the effect of the bill is not a viable option.

Further, the normal process in assessing an application for a guardianship or management order would be for the Guardianship and Management of Property Tribunal to seek medical advice on the person's condition, as medical opinion is critical to the tribunal's decision. The provision as it stands simply enables the doctor giving the opinion the option not to have to identify a recognised diagnosable illness. The provision gives the tribunal scope to make an appointment order when the doctor cannot testify to mental illness but can testify to a condition impairing decision-making ability.

It must also be remembered that the tribunal does not make guardianship and management orders lightly. The tribunal is made up of the Chief Magistrate, a lawyer and persons who are trained or experienced in relation to people who, because of a physical, mental, psychological or intellectual condition, need assistance or protection from abuse, exploitation or neglect.

The tribunal is required to take various matters into account before making an order. They include the views of the Community Advocate, and the Public Trustee if property is involved, and evidence of the person's medical condition. The tribunal may inform itself on any other relevant matter in such manner as it thinks fit.

Mr Wood: Like family?

MR STEFANIAK: Yes, I imagine. The Community Advocate prepares a report in relation to every person who appears before the tribunal. She also attends the tribunal at each sitting. These safeguards serve to protect the interests of the person subject to guardianship and/or management orders. Likewise, the application of a consistent test for guardians and managers based on the person's decision-making capacity will complement the safeguards already in place.

Finally, uniformity with other jurisdictions is a relevant factor as it will ensure a consistent approach and ease the recognition of orders by other jurisdictions.

The government will certainly be consenting to Ms Tucker's request for an adjournment of clause 1. I thank her for giving us the amendment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Detail Stage

Debate (on motion by Ms Tucker ) adjourned to the next sitting.

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