Page 1891 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 22 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.40): Can I check whether we are going through these amendments one by one?
MR SPEAKER: No.
DR FOSKEY: Okay, but I will respond to them one by one. With respect to clause 4, proposed new section 8AA (1A) on page 2, this amendment adds more detail about the conditions under which families and partners can apply to manage a missing person’s property. While subparagraph (a) seems reasonable, in that we should not disrupt the legal process while the Supreme Court is in the process of making a determination, subparagraph (b) will effectively give the public trustee precedence over the families and loved ones of a missing person—something which surely undermines the purpose of the opposition’s amendments to the original act.
What about cases where a family may have already been out of touch with a person for some time and only find out that they are missing after the public trustee has been appointed as manager of their property? Admittedly, this will only be in a minority of cases, but surely there should still be some provision for families to apply for management of property even after the public trustee has been appointed.
With respect to clause 4, proposed new section 8AA (4) and (5) on page 3, this amendment seems unfair, given the content of previous amendments. Why should the appointment of the public trustee prevent families from applying to manage a person’s property, when the appointment of the family as manager does not preclude the public trustee from applying for this? I understand the need for the public trustee to have some power in reserve for those rare cases where the family may be abusing their managerial power, but the provisions of section 34 of the Public Trustee Act 1985, under which the government is proposing to give them this power, are much too vague to protect families once they are appointed as manager and give them little recourse to challenge the public trustee’s application.
With respect to clause 4, proposed new sections 8AB and 8AC on page 4, which removes business partners and employees from the list of people who can apply to be managers of property, this answers one of the concerns that I mentioned about Mr Stefaniak’s amendments, so I would support that amendment. Proposed new clause 4A on page 4 protects managers and third parties from liability incurred in the process of carrying out their management of property as long as their actions are conducted honestly and in good faith. That is a reasonable amendment, and I support it.
With respect to proposed new clause 4B on page 4, which seeks to insert a new section 30A, this amendment seems to give guardianship precedence to the public trustee over and above the families of missing persons. If it is to be the case that at any time a person can have their appointment as manager terminated under the very loose provisions of the Public Trustee Act, I fail to see why we are bothering with these amendments at all. It seems that although the government are not prepared to oppose Mr Stefaniak’s amendments outright, they do want to water them down to the point of near ineffectuality.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .