Page 1892 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 22 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Finally, in relation to clauses 11 and 12 on page 5, the amendments will narrow the conditions under which the public trustee can apply for appointment as manager of property, in keeping with Mr Stefaniak’s aim of giving more power to the families of missing people to take action to manage their affairs. While it seems reasonable that the public trustee should be able to apply for appointment as manager in cases where the owner of a property is unknown, I believe it is only fair that in cases where the owner is known but is either missing or presumed dead the first preference should be that that person’s family or loved ones take over the management of their affairs.
As I understand it, the amendments will not completely prevent the public trustee from taking over a person’s property, as there is still room for them to do this under the general management of their affairs. All that these amendments will do is tip the balance slightly in favour of families and private individuals, as it will not automatically be assumed that the public trustee will take over a person’s property when they are missing or presumed dead. I do not understand why the government would block this, but I will not support their attempt to do so.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra—Leader of the Opposition) (5.45): I appreciate the points Dr Foskey raised. I also had concerns when I spoke with the government officials. Whilst I like the couple of additions in relation to people not incurring liability, I too have concerns about the public trustee jumping in when quite clearly it would be more appropriate for someone’s husband, wife, brother, sister, daughter or son to be involved.
The reality in the Assembly is that the government has the numbers, and I think it is important to have legislation in place. I would hope that the public trustee would not jump in unreasonably. Certainly, that intention was not outlined to me by the government officials when I quizzed them in relation to that matter.
What I had proposed, along with a couple of additions, would have been the absolute optimum. I refer especially to the additions in relation to liability of manager and third party dealings, which I think are very good. So I hear what Dr Foskey says. I also have some concerns about that matter. I have been reassured that the public trustee is hardly going to jump in and take over from members of the family unless there are good reasons to do so, but that is clearly something that we need to monitor. I appreciate her concern in that regard and I share some concern in relation to it. I hope it does not eventuate and become a real problem. We need to monitor that. We need to ensure that families are the ones who are administering the estates, unless there is a good reason for them not to do so. This bill enables them to do so. When the missing person, hopefully, turns up, it should be a fairly simple process for them to administer their estate again.
I thank members for their support and also for their comments. I think the comments made by you, Dr Foskey, were quite constructive. As I said, I had some similar concerns, although I have been somewhat reassured. Time will tell, and we can always amend it down the track if there are some substantive problems. This at least represents a great step forward.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .