Page 31 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 9 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I welcome the comment from Mr Hanson today that these commissioners should be more separate from government than less separate. I think the construct of officers of the parliament provides the perfect opportunity to deliver that. I will discuss this further with members of the Assembly. I think there is an opportunity this term—if members are agreeable—to enable the Human Rights Commission and the Commissioner for the Environment to move into that structure. I will canvass this with other members in an attempt to get support for that opportunity.
The last comment I will make on the bill is that it consolidates the Office of the Public Trustee and public guardian. The Public Trustee will take on the guardianship functions in the Public Advocate Act. The proposal has caused some concern about an apparent conflict of interest. As the guardianship unit within the Public Advocate submitted, the fundamental principles of service delivery and client interaction of the public trustees can be in direct conflict with those of the public guardian service. In particular, they were worried about the perception that care decisions will be driven by financial implications.
My main concern when considering this proposal was to ensure there was no compromise in the care of vulnerable people. I am confident the proposed model offers full and proper protections and does not compromise the ability of public guardians to do the job they need to do. Public guardians will still operate in their discrete role and must do so in accordance with legislated decision-making principles. These protect the interests of the person with impaired decision-making ability.
It is worth noting that decision making by public guardians who can sometimes be a person’s guardian as well as the manager of their property does require an understanding of a person’s finances. The Guardianship and Management of Property Act specifies, in fact, that a person’s financial security and the prevention of the wasting of their resources are interests that guardians are to protect. So already guardians are required to take on board financial considerations as part of their decision making. It is spelt out in the exiting act. Collocation with the Public Trustee is likely to make it easier for public guardians to consider a person’s financial circumstances when they are relevant.
I think that combining the offices will make it easier for people who need to access both of these services. This was a point raised by several of the stakeholders who were pleased that there would be a single point of reference for those who need to access both functions, as well as the fact it would allow for a measure of independence and oversight of the functions of the guardians.
Under the proposed model, the Public Advocate will also provide oversight by being able to inspect the books and records of the Public Trustee. I think the Law Society makes a reasonable point in its submission that the combined public trustee and guardianship model should be monitored to ensure it is not at risk of becoming too insular or losing the broader perspective brought by having separate trustee and guardianship services.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video