ISSN 1329-2080
Copyright Guardianship Tribunal 2003.
Guardianship Tribunal
2a Rowntree Street
(Locked Bag 9)
Balmain NSW 2041
This report is copyright. People or organisations wishing to reproduce any part of this report must obtain permission from the Guardianship Tribunal.
Editor: Anita Ray
Layout and design: Anita Ray
Photography: Alex Craig
Printed by: Robert Burton Printers
The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, MLC
Minister for Disability Services
Level 25, 9 Castlereagh Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear Minister,
I have pleasure in presenting the Annual Report for the Guardianship Tribunal for the year ended 30 June 2003, in accordance with the Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984.>
Yours sincerely
Nick O'Neill
President, Guardianship Tribunal
The Guardianship Tribunal must observe the principles in the Guardianship Act 1987. These principles state that everyone dealing with people with a disability should:
Legislation relating to the Guardianship Tribunal
The role of the Guardianship Tribunal
How the Guardianship Tribunal functions
How the Guardianship Tribunal deals with an application
Plan for your future: enduring guardianship, enduring power of attorney
Appeals from decisions of the Tribunal
Community awareness and education
Tribunal staff as at 30 June 2003
2002/2003 was a big year for the Guardianship Tribunal in many ways. Our workload increased significantly. We undertook a major restructure of our staff and had a substantial turnover in Tribunal members. We had new legislation to deal with. We produced an important video and we undertook an ambitious program of community education. At the same time, we maintained our quality service to people with decision-making disabilities, their carers, families and service providers.
In 2002/2003, the Tribunal received 4,191 new applications, an increase of 2.8 percent from the previous year. In fact, the number of guardianship and financial management applications increased by 4.2 percent but the number of medical consent applications declined. The Tribunal also dealt with 1,616 reviews of guardianship and financial management orders, an increase of 11.8 percent. While the total number of applications and reviews increased by 5.2 percent, the actual workload increased by more. This was because the number of guardianship and financial management applications increased by 4.2 percent, or more than three extra new applications each week.
In addition, the enquiries work of the Tribunal increased by 15 percent to 12,687 enquiries logged for the year. This occurred despite an increasing amount of information being available to the public on a continuous basis through the Tribunal's website www.gt.nsw.gov.au.
While coping with their increased workload, Tribunal staff had a substantial reorganisation of work functions into new units. This restructure is dealt with in more detail on page 5. One of the key changes was the revamping of the Tribunal's enquiries service and a team to develop how information is provided to the community through the website, publications and information seminars about the alternatives to guardianship and financial management and about the Tribunal's role and how it operates.
The restructure has introduced a new dynamism into the operations of the Tribunal. It has given the Tribunal's excellent and experienced staff a new focus and a new set of challenges to meet as part of the Tribunal's strategy of continuously improving the services it offers and how it operates.
A key challenge for the 2003/2004 financial year will be the review of the operations of the Coordination and Investigation Unit to ensure improved timeliness to hearings. In addition, the review will clarify the content and quality of the service that staff provide to the parties and others involved in applications or reviews.
Change inevitably causes anxieties but the Tribunal's staff dealt with the change processes with great forbearance and goodwill. They were more concerned about ensuring that the changes were effective than how the changes affected their personal interests. Although some staff had concerns, they continued to work effectively so that the change process did not cause any substantial delays in matters being prepared for hearing or in the way the key aspects of the Tribunal's work were carried out. This confirmed the commitment and professionalism of the Tribunal's staff. Staff were guaranteed positions within the new framework and it was possible to achieve this with staff members volunteering for the revamped positions.
Thirty members named in last year's annual report have left the Tribunal. Sixteen new members have joined the Tribunal (listed in the section Our people).
Even with the pressures of increased workload, a substantial reorganisation and a large changeover in membership, the Tribunal achieved a number of other goals.
We produced a video, In Their Best Interests (see the section Production of new video), which shows how hearings are conducted so that people attending a hearing will be prepared and know what to expect.
The Tribunal played an important role in ensuring that legislation with improvements relating to appointments of enduring guardians was prepared for Parliament and, when enacted, brought into force. These amendments are dealt with in more detail on page 8. In addition, the Tribunal has been contributing its experience to the development of policies and guidelines being developed by government departments and relevant to people with decision-making disabilities.
At the end of 2002, the Parliament enacted the Guardianship and Protected Estates Legislation Amendment Act 2002, which was brought into force on 28 February 2003. The Act provides for appeals from decisions of the Guardianship Tribunal to be made to an external appeals panel of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. No appeals were lodged against decisions of the Guardianship Tribunal under that legislation as at 30 June 2003.
In 2002/2003, we organised eight community education sessions and gave 43 presentations to seminars and training sessions organised by a range of non-government organisations and professional bodies. In addition, the Deputy President, Marion Brown, and I gave eight papers between us at conferences or continuing legal education sessions. The conference papers and community education generally focussed on promoting alternatives to guardianship and financial management. These alternatives include making an enduring power of attorney, appointing an enduring guardian and making an advance directive.
In the 2002/2003 financial year, the Tribunal spent $6,640,734.
I thank Minister Carmel Tebbutt and her staff and the Director General, Margaret Allison, and the staff of the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care for their support, given in appropriate ways, throughout 2002/2003.
The effectiveness of the Tribunal in carrying out its difficult and sensitive responsibilities in 2002/2003 was due entirely to the dedication, professionalism, efficiency and commitment of the members and staff of the Tribunal. It is an honour to be their leader.
Nick O'Neill, President
The Guardianship Tribunal consists of two separate groups of people. The first group - the Tribunal staff - are full-time NSW public service employees who manage the day-to-day administration of the Tribunal. As at 30 June 2003, the Tribunal employed 69 staff. The second group - the Tribunal members - are appointed by the Governor on recommendation of the Minister for Disability Services to make decisions at hearings. During 2002/2003, there were 70 Tribunal members, most of whom were available on a part-time basis to attend hearings. The Tribunal staff and members are all experienced people who are committed to promoting the rights of people with disabilities, including making their own decisions wherever possible.
Of the 69 staff, the senior staff person is the Executive Officer. The staff and their work are organised into the Executive and four units: Business Services, Coordination and Investigation, Client Information Services, and Hearing Services. Each unit plays an essential role in producing positive outcomes for people with disabilities. Greater detail on the restructure is provided in the section Restructure.
The Tribunal members conduct the hearings and make the determinations. They are appointed on the basis of their significant professional and personal experience with people who have disabilities or their legal skills and experience. Each time a panel of the Tribunal is convened to deal with an application about a person with a disability, it comprises a legal member who presides and two expert members. One expert, the professional member, has experience in the assessment or treatment of adults with disabilities. The other expert, the community member, has experience, usually familial, with people with disabilities. The combination of the three members ensures the Tribunal not only conducts its proceedings fairly, relies on credible evidence and remains within its jurisdiction but also that it focusses on the physical, psychological, social and emotional aspects of the person the hearing is about. This enables the Tribunal to take a holistic approach to its decision-making.
The panel considers the written evidence and takes evidence from the person the hearing is about and other parties and witnesses at the hearing or by telephone or video conference. They keep the hearing relevant, by asking questions and directing the parties and witnesses to the issues being considered. At the end of the hearing they assess the evidence and decide if there is a need to appoint or reappoint a guardian or a financial manager for the person the hearing is about. The Tribunal members then announce their decision at the end of the hearing and provide written orders and written reasons for their decision within 12 working days. The backgrounds of individual Tribunal members are detailed in the section Our people.
In September 2002, the report 'Review of Case Management Processing and Structures - Recommended Improvement Plan', was presented to the Guardianship Tribunal. The report was the end result of a review of the case processing system at the Tribunal by the consultants, In Corporate Pty Ltd. The consultants interviewed staff and gathered information through focus groups as well as by conferring with a reference group to work through the data before reaching their final recommendations.
The original aim was to review how cases were processed at the Tribunal (from applications being received to post-hearing outcomes) to determine how the system can be improved to provide a better service to clients. During the review, the consultants proposed that realigning the Tribunal's structure would improve the case processing system and have a positive impact on other processes and systems at the Tribunal, leading to a better service for clients and work environment for staff. The consultants made eight recommendations in their report and proposed a new internal structure for the Tribunal. The Tribunal's management agreed to proceed with implementing all the recommendations.
The new structure of the Tribunal is based on the concept of improving the flow of cases through the organisation. This has reshaped the old branch structure into new functional groups. The functional groups are:
In addition, there is a fourth functional group, with a focus on providing the necessary internal supports to allow the other three functional groups to work well.
There are now four new units that, in addition to the Executive Unit (which has remained unchanged from the old structure), form the new organisational structure.
A project team planned the implementation and a reference group of staff representatives liaised and consulted with staff about the implementation planning. Following the planning phase, a staged implementation of the new structure was launched on 3 March 2003.
A key benefit has been the opportunity for some staff to take on new or expanded roles under the new structural arrangements. Staff were able to indicate their interest in undertaking new roles or acting in higher graded positions and, where feasible, management tried to accommodate these interests as part of the new structure.
By 30 June 2003, all staff had moved to and, where necessary, received training in their new roles. The reallocation of functions across the four new units has also been completed. Further consolidation of systems and processes under the new structure will continue in the second half of 2003.
The Guardianship Act 1987 sets out the legislative framework for guardianship in NSW. The Act establishes the Guardianship Tribunal and the Public Guardian and details the role of both institutions. The Guardianship Regulation 2000 should be read in tandem with the Guardianship Act as it contains further provisions about enduring guardians and medical treatment as well as setting out the prescribed forms required by the Guardianship Act.
Both the Guardianship Act and the Protected Estates Act 1983 deal with financial management and the Protective Commissioner. The Protected Estates Act makes provision for financial management for people who are incapable of managing their own affairs and sets out the powers of the Protective Commissioner. The Guardianship Act deals with the process of making applications for financial management to the Guardianship Tribunal.
In 2002/2003, there were two major legislative changes to the Guardianship Act. The first was the Guardianship Amendment (Enduring Guardians) Act 2002, which came into operation on 1 January 2003. This legislation amended the provisions of the Guardianship Act that relate to the appointment of enduring guardians and the role of the Guardianship Tribunal in reviewing such appointments. The major changes are that:
The second was the Guardianship and Protected Estates Legislation Amendment Act 2002, which came into operation on 28 February 2003. These amendments provide that parties to certain proceedings before the Guardianship Tribunal have a new right of appeal from the Tribunal decision to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of NSW. The right to appeal to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal coexists with the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of NSW. The same issue cannot be appealed to both the Administrative Decisions Tribunal and the Supreme Court.
An external appeal panel of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal will determine appeals from the Guardianship Tribunal's decisions. Appeals can only be made on questions of law unless leave is granted for appeals on any other grounds.
Mr Z is a long-term alcoholic, living as a homeless person. Generally, he looked for squats in abandoned houses but often he lived on the streets where he was in danger of being assaulted and robbed of his pension money and his few personal belongings. Mr Z has had no contact with his family. For some 10 years, Mr Z continued to live as a homeless person, spending his pension money on alcohol. A local policeman, concerned with the number of times Mr Z had been assaulted while living on the streets, made an application for a guardianship and financial management order to the Guardianship Tribunal in December 2002.
At the hearing, the medical evidence indicated that Mr Z had a number of physical problems, such as vision impairment, head injuries and memory problems, arising from his life on the streets and alcohol abuse but there was no clear evidence of cognitive disability. Two policemen, one of whom was the applicant, stated that they were concerned for the client's welfare as he was being assaulted and robbed. Mr Z said that he only drank one or two beers a day and did not fear for his safety. Mr Z also said that he had applied for Department of Housing accommodation and therefore did not require guardianship and financial management. The guardianship application was adjourned for three months for additional medical evidence to be obtained. However, the Protective Commissioner was appointed the financial manager under an interim financial management order as the Tribunal deemed it appropriate as Mr Z's money was being stolen.
Three months later at the March 2003 hearing, no new medical evidence was presented. Mr Z did not attend the hearing although the police officer said he had spoken to him about the date and place of the hearing. The police officer reported that Mr Z was now living at a local boarding house. In addition, Meals on Wheels was providing three meals a day to Mr Z at the boarding house. The report from the Protective Commissioner indicated that the rent and an account to the local chemist for Mr Z's medicines were being paid by direct debit. In addition, a $20 daily payment was being made into Mr Z's account so that he only had limited access to his finances.
The Tribunal was satisfied Mr Z was not capable of managing his finances. The Tribunal decided to appoint the Protective Commissioner as Mr Z's financial manager. As there was insufficient medical evidence to establish that Mr Z was suffering from a decision-making disability, the application for guardianship was dismissed.
The perseverance of a couple of local policeman finally resulted in a desirable outcome for Mr Z.
The Guardianship Tribunal is a New South Wales government tribunal established under the Guardianship Act 1987. The principal role of the Guardianship Tribunal is to hear and determine applications made to it for the appointment of guardians and financial managers of adults with decision-making disabilities. The Tribunal also reviews the guardianship orders it makes and may review its financial management orders. It has jurisdiction to give substitute consent to medical and dental treatment and a number of other smaller jurisdictions.
Under the Guardianship Act 1987, the Guardianship Tribunal may conduct proceedings with as little formality and legal technicality and form as the circumstances of the case permit. Nevertheless, the legislation also assumes that the Tribunal will operate in a way that is procedurally fair. It also provides that the Tribunal may obtain information on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit. The provisions of Part 6 of the Guardianship Act deal with the Tribunal and proceedings before it.
Through the Tribunal's community education programs, its videos and publications, and its enquiry service, the Tribunal educates and informs the community about the work of the Tribunal and various informal arrangements that may overcome the need to make an application or for the Tribunal to make orders.
Miss A, a young woman, has no permanent address and suffers from psychological symptoms related to post-traumatic disorder and depression. Her father, Mr H, made an application to the Tribunal for a financial management order and a guardianship order soon after his daughter had been assaulted and suffered from post-traumatic stress. At the initial hearing, the guardianship application was dismissed and the financial management application was adjourned for three months to see whether informal arrangements put in place would work.
At the second hearing, Mr H advised the Tribunal that the $40,000 which Miss A had received as victim's compensation payment, has been invested on Miss A's behalf. Miss A told the Tribunal that, since she was living again with her parents, she no longer had to pay rent but had outgoings on her health insurance premiums and mobile phone.
In the meantime, Miss A said that she had made considerable progress since the first hearing and had applied to resume studying at university. After receiving counselling, her self-esteem had improved. She stated that she was happy with the informal arrangements and she and her father had been able to address any money issues that had arisen. Miss A and her father agreed that they were both happy to continue with the arrangements until she is well enough to manage her own finances.
After hearing the evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the application for financial management order as there was no need for an order. The informal arrangements in place were working well for Miss A and everyone concerned was happy with the arrangements. With the progress made since the first hearing, it is expected that she will be in a position to manage her own finances in the near future.
The Tribunal differs from other courts and tribunals in the kinds of proceedings it hears. The proceedings in nearly all other courts or tribunals involve a dispute between two parties which is then concluded by the decision of the court or tribunal. In most matters coming to the Guardianship Tribunal there is no dispute. Sometimes, the person with a decision-making disability may not appreciate the need for decisions to be made or actions to be taken in relation to them. Occasionally, there is conflict between those involved about what should be done for the person with disabilities. Only rarely will the conflict be about whether or not the person has lost their decision-making capacity.
Proceedings before the Guardianship Tribunal are about whether a person with a decision-making disability needs a substitute decision-maker and, if so, what powers or functions that substitute decision-maker should have. Put another way, proceedings before the Guardianship Tribunal are essentially about a single person and their right to continue to make their own decisions.
In most matters before the Tribunal, the Tribunal's decision affects the person the hearing is about. In some cases, the emotions and interests of other people involved in the hearing are affected as well. For these reasons, the Guardianship Tribunal conducts its hearings differently to other tribunals. The Tribunal operates in an inquisitorial manner. It controls the proceedings by setting out the issues and obtaining the evidence through a series of open questions at the hearing. The Tribunal then considers this evidence along with the report evidence it has received. It determines whether or not the person the hearing is about has lost their decision-making capacity and needs a guardian or financial manager and, if so, who that guardian or financial manager should be. If a guardian is appointed, the Tribunal will decide what decision-making functions they should have.
This different approach explains why there are professional and community Tribunal members as well as legal Tribunal members. Because of their knowledge of disabilities and the available services, the professional and community members play an essential role in determining whether an order should be made and, if so, what its content should be.
Most people with a disability do not need a guardian or a financial manager. There is no need to contact the Guardianship Tribunal unless there is a breakdown in informal arrangements in caring for a person with a disability or there are no informal arrangements available. Lodging an application for the appointment of a guardian or financial manager for a person with a disability is a serious matter. The person submitting the application is, in effect, asking the Tribunal to take away a person's rights to make their own lifestyle or financial decisions and to give those rights to someone else.
Applications can be made to the Tribunal by anyone with a genuine concern for the welfare of the person with a disability. Someone with a genuine concern for the person with a disability may be a family member or a friend or their doctor, caseworker, professional carer or other service provider.
Most people are generally comfortable with the idea of planning ahead for retirement through superannuation or other retirement schemes but few people actually prepare themselves for the possibility of losing the capacity to make decisions for themselves. If you are 18 and over you can put into place provisions for someone else to take charge of financial and lifestyle matters.
Everyone likes to make their own decisions about where to live, which doctor to see, where to invest their money, and so on. We all expect that we will be able to do this well into retirement or even until our death.
But...what happens if you are involved in a car accident and suffer a brain injury? What happens if you slowly develop dementia or Alzheimer's disease without being aware of its progress?
If you plan for your future, you can decide who will look after you or who will manage your finances before you lose the capacity to make decisions for yourself.
Under NSW legislation, there are two ways for adults to plan for their own future, through appointing:
On 1 January 2003, new legislation came into effect (see the section Legislation relating to the Guardianship Tribunal for information on Guardianship Amendment (Enduring Guardians) Act 2002) amending the provisions of the Guardianship Act 1987 that relate to the appointment of enduring guardians. By appointing an enduring guardian, a person can nominate someone else to make personal decisions for them if they are no longer able to do so themselves. It is possible to define what functions the enduring guardian will be able to perform, such as making decisions on what services will be received or consenting to medical and dental treatment.
The legislation relating to enduring powers of attorney is being reviewed currently. New legislation is expected late 2003 or early 2004. Under the existing legislation, a person can appoint an attorney under an enduring power of attorney to manage their financial affairs. An enduring power of attorney continues to have effect even after the person who made it has lost capacity to manage their affairs.
Why would you appoint an enduring guardian or an enduring power of attorney?
By appointing someone to make decisions on your behalf if you become no longer able to do so yourself, you are selecting the person that you want to assist you in the future. You can also, at the same time, decide what functions you want them to exercise and how you want them to exercise their functions. Enduring guardianship and enduring power of attorney appointments allow you to choose who will make decisions for you if you are unable to.
The Tribunal actively promotes enduring guardianship and enduring powers of attorney through its various community education seminars, website and publications (see the section Working with the community). A major focus of the Tribunal's community education program is to encourage people to plan ahead so they may never need to seek the intervention of the Tribunal.
Mr L wants his mother to give him an enduring power of attorney to manage her finances. Mrs L is Chinese and cannot read, write or understand English and cannot read or write in Chinese, other than to sign her name. She does not have a cognitive disability. Mr L has been advised that he should arrange for his Chinese-speaking accountant to explain the implications of an enduring power of attorney to Mrs L. The accountant can also witness her signature. Mr L was also advised that even if he did this he would not be able to use the power of attorney to deal with land.
In order to give a valid power of attorney, a person must have mental capacity to do so when making it. This means that Mrs L must fully understand the implications of giving her son a power of attorney.
Mrs L has consulted a solicitor who speaks her language and has explained the power of attorney to her. Mrs L is then able to sign the power of attorney in Chinese. She is also able to have the enduring power of attorney witnessed by the solicitor.
By having the implications of an enduring power of attorney explained to her in her own language, Mrs L was able to plan for her own future by appointing attorney under an enduring power of attorney. If anything should happen to her where she is unable to make decisions for herself, at least she knows that her son will be able to look after her financial affairs as her attorney.
The Tribunal's enquiries service, which operates from 9.00 am to 5.15 pm Monday to Friday, dealt with 12,687 telephone enquiries over the past year. The enquiries service is staffed by experienced officers to ensure that the advice provided is always of the highest quality. Because the enquiries service is often busy dealing with several callers at the same time, often callers are asked to leave their contact details on an answering service and their calls are returned within a few hours.
An important function of the enquiries service is to discuss the need for a guardianship or financial management application. In many cases, Tribunal staff will be able to suggest alternatives. For instance, an elderly person who is no longer able to cope alone may be helped with a Centrelink 'nominee' arrangement for pension payments and a family member making medical or dental decisions and arranging services that allow the person to receive services without the need for formal Tribunal orders.
In some cases, an informal alternative may not be possible, such as where a property needs to be sold to cover special accommodation needs or medical costs. To be able to make such decisions on behalf of the person with the disability, someone else may need the formal authority of Tribunal orders. Enquiries staff will discuss the particular circumstances with the caller and send the appropriate application forms and information by mail or fax.
In 2002/2003, the Tribunal received 4,191 new applications. Of these new applications received, 1,962 (46.8 %) were for the appointment of a financial manager; 1,809 (43.1%) were for the appointment of a guardian; and 411(9.8 %) were applications for consent to medical treatment. The Tribunal also received nine applications for the review of an enduring guardianship appointment.
Table 1 shows a breakdown of the new applications received this year and a comparison with the two previous years.
Guardianship
00/01: 1799
01/02: 1745
02/03: 1809
Financial management
00/01: 1860
01/02: 1873
02/03: 1962
Medical/dental consent
00/01: 441
01/02: 449
02/03: 411
Enduring guardianship
00/01: 2
01/02: 8
02/03: 9
TOTAL
00/01: 4102
01/02: 4075
02/03: 4191
Anyone with a genuine concern for the welfare of the person with a disability can make an application to the Tribunal. This genuine concern can arise from being a family member or a friend of the person with the disability or because of a professional relationship with them, for example their doctor, caseworker, professional carer or other service provider.
In 2002/2003, 48.9 percent of the applications received were made by family members, friends or advocates. The rest were made by professionals, such as social workers, case managers, doctors or residential care staff.
As in previous years, the most common primary disability identified on new client applications was dementia (45.5 %). The next most common types of disabilities identified were mental illness (15%) and intellectual disability (14 %). Table 2 shows a breakdown of the disability types of new clients.
Dementia: 45.5%
Mental illness: 15%
Intellectual disability: 14%
Other: 7.7%
Stroke: 6.4%
Alcohol/drug related: 5.7%
Brain injury: 5.6%
Of the new applications received, 47.1 percent related to men and 52.9 percent to women. Unlike previous years when the majority of applications relating to people over the age of 65 were for women, this year male subjects of applications in this age group exceeded the women (52.7 % for men and 47.3 % for women). For people under 65 years, 60 percent of applications related to men.
Applications were made about people with a wide range of cultural backgrounds. Applicants are asked to identify the cultural background of the person the application is about. The most frequent of these were Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander, Polish, Italian, Greek and German.
Information was also provided by applicants about the language spoken at home by the person with the disability. A total of 38 languages other than English were identified, including Aboriginal languages and Auslan (Australian sign language). German, Greek, Italian, Polish, Maltese and Russian were the most frequently nominated languages other than English.
Where appropriate, the Tribunal provides interpreters to assist people attending hearings. Interpreters were provided on 226 occasions during the year across 38 different languages. Interpreters for Arabic, Cantonese, Croatian, Filipino (Tagalog), German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Macedonian, Maltese, Mandarin, Polish, Serbian, Spanish, Russian and Vietnamese were provided on five or more occasions. Auslan (Australian sign language) interpreters were provided on eight separate occasions during the year. Also, where appropriate, the Tribunal will arrange for documents to be translated into other languages and Braille.
In 2002/2003, the Tribunal dealt with 1,802 guardianship applications. Most were lodged during 2002/2003; some in the previous year. The outcomes are summarised in Table 3.
Orders made: 40%
Withdrawn: 34%
Dismissed: 16%
Adjourned: 8%
Non reviewable: 2%
Of the 42 percent of applications that resulted in a guardianship order, a private guardian was appointed in 36.2 percent of the cases and the Public Guardian in 62.4 percent. In the remaining 1.4 percent, a private guardian was appointed for some functions and the Public Guardian for other functions.
Dementia: 45%
Intellectual disability: 16%
Mental illness: 12%
Alcohol/drug related: 7%
Other: 7%
Brain injury: 5%
Stroke: 4%
Unstated: 3%
Eating disorder: 1%
The Tribunal dealt with 2,107 financial management applications during the year. Of these, 54.7 percent of applications resulted in a financial management order (total of 1,153 orders) and 45.3 percent were withdrawn, dismissed or adjourned. The outcomes are summarised in Table 5.
Orders made: 55%
Withdrawn: 26%
Adjourned: 10%
Dismissed: 9%
Of the 54.7 percent of applications in which financial management appointments were made, 81 percent resulted in final financial management orders; 13 percent had a review period stipulated in the order and 6 percent were interim financial orders.
Dementia: 43%
Intellectual disability: 16%
Mental illness: 13%
Brain injury: 7%
Alcohol/drug related: 6%
Other: 6%
Stroke: 6%
Unstated: 3%
A total of 421 applications for consent to medical or dental treatment were dealt with by the Tribunal during the year. The outcomes of these applications are summarised in Table 7.
Consent given: 79%
Dismissed: 10%
Withdrawn/closed: 5%
Not required: 4%
Adjourned: 2%
The Tribunal dealt with nine applications to review the appointment of enduring guardians during the year. Three enduring guardianship appointments were confirmed and one appointment was suspended when guardianship orders were made in its place.
Most guardianship orders are reviewed at the end of their terms. They may be reviewed on request during their term. Requested reviews are usually made by guardians to increase or vary the guardianship functions. Others may also request a review because the circumstances relating to the person under guardianship have changed significantly or because of some other new issue relating to the guardian.
The Tribunal dealt with 1,581 reviews of guardianship matters during the year. The results are summarised in Table 8. In 59.7 percent of matters, the guardianship order was renewed, while in 31.75 percent of matters the order was not renewed as it was determined that there was no longer a need for an order.
Renewed: 60%
Not renewed: 32%
Adjourned: 4%
Withdrawn/closed: 3%
Non reviewable: 1%
The Tribunal receives applications to revoke financial management orders on the grounds of regained capacity or best interests. During the year, the Tribunal received 138 applications. Of the matters considered by the Tribunal in 2002/2003, 64 orders were revoked.
The Tribunal also received 61 applications to replace the current financial manager. These applications were made for a variety of reasons, including that the manager no longer wanted to or was unable to carry on with this role, or when there were concerns raised about the manager's suitability. Fifty-nine appointed managers were replaced during the year. In 61 percent of these cases, the Protective Commissioner was appointed in place of a private manager.
During the year, the Tribunal conducted 3,791 scheduled hearings over 959 scheduled sittings. This was an average of 3.95 hearings per sitting. In addition to this, the Tribunal conducted 49 hearings after hours. Together, a total of 3,840 scheduled and after-hours hearings were held during the year.
The Tribunal conducted approximately 74 percent of its hearings either at its Balmain premises or in the Sydney metropolitan area. The remaining 26 percent of hearings were conducted elsewhere in NSW. Of these, 32.2 percent were held in either Newcastle or the Central Coast. Table 9 shows a breakdown of the major hearing locations.
Albury
Armidale
Bathurst
Blue Mountains
Bowral
Broken Hill
Campelltown
Cessnock
Coffs Harbour
Dubbo
Goulburn
Grafton
Lismore
Lithgow
Maitland
Merimbula
Moree
Morisset
Moruya
Mudgee
Nowra
Orange
Penrith
Port Macquarie
Queanbeyan
Singleton
Stockton
Tamworth
Taree
Tweed Heads
Ulladulla
Wagga Wagga
Wollongong
Balmain
Hearings: 2483
Sittings: 583
Sydney Metrpolitian
Hearings: 306
Sittings: 81
Newcastle
Hearings: 164
Sittings: 48
Central Coast
Hearings: 159
Sittings: 41
Wollongong
Hearings: 80
Sittings: 22
Other country
Hearings: 599
Sittings: 184
SUB Total
Hearings: 3791
Sittings: 959
After hours
Hearings: 49
Sittings: 49
TOTAL
Hearings: 3840
Sittings: 1008
The Tribunal is able to determine some procedural matters with less than three members. In 2002/2003, the Tribunal conducted 134 of these procedural hearings. These matters were determined by either the President or Deputy President and included applications for legal representation, applications to be joined as a party and requests for withdrawal of some matters. Of the 81 applications for legal representation considered, representation was granted on 65 occasions.
The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to recognise the appointment of guardians and managers appointed under corresponding law in other states and territories. The Tribunal is able to recognise appointments made by relevant guardianship bodies in all Australian states and territories and in New Zealand. During 2002/2003, the Tribunal recognised 11 such appointments.
Mrs B, an elderly woman in her late 70s, lived in her own home until recently. After a severe fall and hospitalisation for three weeks, she resided at an aged care facility on a respite basis.
While in hospital, Mrs B was assessed and an occupational therapist visited her home. The medical team found that she suffered from frontal lobe disease and lacked skills in planning and had concrete thinking. The occupational therapist concluded that Mrs B's home was unsafe to live in because of a leaking roof, termites, mouldy carpets and no hot water. A builder, estimated that the cost of repairing the roof was more than the value of the cottage.
Mrs B's only son made an application for guardianship and financial management when Mrs B insisted on returning to her own home rather than being placed in a hostel. He asked for the Public Guardian and for the Protective Commissioner to be appointed as her guardian and financial manager.
At the hearing, her son pointed out that he had been looking after Mrs B for the past 20 years but he was unable to continue looking after his mother as he had recent surgery. His mother was profoundly deaf and written notes were the only way of communicating. She refused to let tradesmen in to make repairs on her house. Alternative accommodation was available for her now and, when sold, her house could provide the bond for her hostel placement.
The Tribunal appointed the Public Guardian as Mrs B's guardian for 12 months to make decisions about accommodation, health care, and medical and dental treatment. The Protective Commissioner was appointed as her financial manager.
The Guardianship Tribunal believes its work systems and processes contribute to the achievement of good outcomes for people with disabilities who are the subject of applications to the Tribunal. Fundamental to this is the need to continually review work systems and processes so that quality improvements can be identified and made where necessary. During 2002/2003, a number of projects have been undertaken as part of reviewing how we can continually improve delivery of our services.
The 2002 Corporate Plan states that the Guardianship Tribunal's focus for the next three years will be 'improve our services and our service quality'. To achieve this, six strategies were identified, with a number of actions and initiatives to accomplish them. Over the past year, the achievement of these strategies has incorporated some major projects for the Tribunal, such as the case processing and structure review and the information technology plan. For each of the six Corporate Plan strategies, as outlined below, a working group was established to work on the actions and initiatives.
Strategy 1: Gain a better understanding of the impact of orders and use this knowledge to improve our effectiveness.
An 'Improving Effectiveness Project Committee' was established to research the impact of Guardianship Tribunal orders and to make recommendations for improvements. Its major task was to gather and collate information and data from previous research projects and the case processing review as a basis for determining refinements needed to the Tribunal's processes. This initiative is still underway and will continue into the 2003/2004 year.
Strategy 2: Expand and improve the ways people access our information and services.
An 'Information Access Steering Group' was established to research and develop improved means of providing information about our services. One of the initiatives was the production of the new Guardianship Tribunal video early in 2003 (reported in the section Production of new video). The video's intention is to prepare parties to hearings about what to expect when they come to the Tribunal for a hearing.
Strategy 3: Examine and review the major work flows of our organisation and identify improvement opportunities and implement them where agreed.
A major review of the case processing system was completed, with a number of system improvements implemented or in the process of being implemented (reported in the section Restructure). Also, a 'Systems and Processes Project Team' was established to identify and establish a process for reviewing other major work flows.
Strategy 4: Actively identify new ways to use information technology in our business to apply this and keep ourselves current.
In the past year, we have completed the development of an information technology plan that documents activities, timelines and required resources to establish the necessary infrastructure and systems to meet the Guardianship Tribunal's current and future information technology needs. A 'road map' is being finalised that details how to implement the information technology plan and the plan will then be implemented in the second half of 2003. As well, an 'Information Technology Working Group' has been established to assist in implementing the information technology plan and to identify alternative ways of using information technology to improve the delivery of Guardianship Tribunal services.
Strategy 5: Redesign our office environment to meet current and future needs for clients and ourselves.
An 'Office Environment Project Group' was established to develop and implement an office environment plan. The implementation of the restructure needed to be completed before a full assessment and plan development could be undertaken. This will occur in the second half of 2003.
Strategy 6: Improve the effectiveness of our internal communication.
A 'Communications Working Group' was established to review and develop communications within the Guardianship Tribunal. Initiatives have included the development of a quarterly newsletter for staff and members, a monthly Tribunal members' newsletter and greater attention by management to the need to keep staff and members informed. Following implementation and consolidation of the new structure, development of further initiatives under this strategy will occur.
In August 2002, the Tribunal submitted a proposal to the Office of Information Technology for funding under the 2002/2003 Connect.NSW Funding Program. The proposal was accepted and the Tribunal provided a detailed business case on the proposed project to the Office of Information Technology in November 2002. In February 2003, the Tribunal was advised that it had been successful in its request for funding and the Tribunal has since received $164,000 to complete the project by December 2003.
The project is called 'GT Connect' and has three components. The major component involves a redevelopment of the Guardianship Tribunal's website to make it as accessible as possible to all users, encompassing people with disabilities, including those with a cognitive disability. This required an innovative design for the website and provides challenges for the Tribunal and the consultant. GT Connect will be used as a model for other government agencies as an example of how to improve the accessibility of a website for people with disabilities.
The second component of the project will enable the Tribunal to receive applications online via the website. It will give the Tribunal the ability to make appropriate use of available technology and assist clients to make applications to the Tribunal.
The third component of the project involves the establishment of a separate website, an extranet, which will not be available to the public but will be used by the Guardianship Tribunal to post relevant information and data from the Tribunal's client database. The Office of the Protective Commissioner and the Office of the Public Guardian will have password access to the site to view and/or retrieve the information and data. It will also be possible for reverse posting and retrieval to occur. The site will eliminate the need for paper based documents to be exchanged between the Tribunal and the other agencies and will make regular information exchange quicker, more efficient and more reliable.
Work on the GT Connect project commenced in March 2003 and will conclude in December 2003. At the conclusion of the project, the redeveloped website will be operational, the ability to receive applications online will be established and the extranet site will be established.
The client database used by the Tribunal is called the Case Management System and is a system that was custom-made to meet the requirements of the Guardianship Tribunal. It has been in use since 1997. A major upgrade of the Case Management System has been planned to coincide with the implementation of the information technology plan and the completion of GT Connect. This will be implemented over the first half of 2003/2004.
The formulation of three-yearly disability action plans by NSW Government agencies is a requirement of section 9 of the NSW Disability Services Act 1993. The Tribunal's Disability Action Plan provides a strategic framework with clear goals for improving the accessibility of the Guardianship Tribunal's services and facilities and for measuring the progress towards those goals.
The Tribunal's current Disability Action Plan identifies actions and initiatives in the areas of physical accessibility, positive community attitudes, training of staff, information about services, employment in the public sector and complaints procedures. During the year, there have been a number of activities that work towards addressing these actions and initiatives, such as:
The Guardianship Tribunal is committed to ensuring that its services meet the needs of people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. A key part of doing this is having an annual Ethnic Affairs Priority Statement, which identifies objectives, strategies and performance indicators that work towards meeting these needs. Over the past year, the Tribunal has undertaken a number of activities that address these, including:
Before it makes an order, the Tribunal is obliged to use its best endeavours to bring the parties to a settlement, unless it considers that it is not possible or appropriate to attempt to do so. The Tribunal uses a range of different methods to do this.
Conciliation is one approach to offer a further means of alternative dispute resolution in a limited number of cases. For example, conciliation may be appropriate if a formal order is likely to result in the person with a disability becoming isolated. Conciliation must operate within the principles of the Guardianship Act 1987 (see the section Principles guiding the Tribunal). The principles require the welfare and interests of the person with a disability to be given paramount consideration. Conciliation is not appropriate if the interests of the person with a disability are compromised by the process (eg. if the person is at risk of abuse or neglect). The Tribunal has been conducting a trial conciliation scheme for a couple of years.
The Tribunal's enquiries service filters enquiries so as to encourage people who do not need to consider making an application to the Tribunal to take other appropriate courses of action. When an application is lodged at the Tribunal, it is checked for the possibility of it being resolved prior to the hearing. Also, Tribunal staff assess the possibility of settlement of any disputes prior to the matter going for hearing. Sometimes, their efforts bring about a resolution of a matter.
The Tribunal has a statutory obligation under section 66 of the Guardianship Act 1987 to use its best endeavours to bring the parties to a matter to a settlement without the need for making orders. This results in a number of matters being resolved at hearing through conciliation processes. Staff have permission to refer matters and, occasionally, Tribunals will adjourn a hearing to refer the matter to be dealt with through the trial conciliation scheme.
Several members of the Guardianship Tribunal are experienced mediators and some of them have been used in conciliation cases. There is no compulsion for parties to participate in this form of conciliation. Conciliation is offered only in cases where there is a likelihood that a settlement may avoid the need for orders or when an agreement can be reached as to the orders needed.
The Tribunal will review and determine whether to approve an agreement reached in conciliation. The Tribunal can only approve an agreement if it is satisfied that it is acting within its jurisdiction and the agreement supports the best interests of the person with a disability.
Six matters have been referred to the conciliation trial. An agreement that seems to have been effective was reached in five of the six cases. No substantive agreement was reached in the sixth matter.
It must be remembered that most applications made to the Tribunal will not be suitable for the Tribunal's conciliation project - either because there is no dispute, there is a need for an order, or there are aspects of the matter that do not make it suitable for conciliation.
P is a young man with an intellectual disability. In recent years, he has mainly lived with his Aunt M about 50 kilometres from a regional centre. A couple of years ago, he went for a holiday with his mother and another Aunt U. All three women are sisters and Aunt U also has an intellectual disability. P did not come back and made allegations of financial exploitation against Aunt M. Later, he went back to work with his Aunt M and had very little contact with his mother or Aunt U.
Aunt M applied for guardianship and financial management orders. The Tribunal decided to refer the matter to conciliation. The conciliator contacted an advocate from an advocacy group in the regional centre. The advocate's role was to help P participate in the process and to highlight services and other options available in the area.
With the help of the advocate, P took an active part in the conciliation. Agreement was reached that:
As a result of the conciliation, there was agreement between P and his mother and aunts on how best to maintain good relations, reward P's work, and increase his skills. It was a good arrangement for everyone concerned.
There are two avenues of appeal from decisions of the Tribunal: the Supreme Court or the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of NSW. Only parties to the proceedings can appeal a decision of the Tribunal.
The Supreme Court can hear appeals from any decision of the Guardianship Tribunal. The Administrative Decisions Tribunal can only hear appeals from decisions made after 28 February 2003. There are some decisions, such as decisions about medical treatment, which cannot be appealed to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.
There have been no appeals to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal from decisions of the Tribunal during 2002/2003.
There were two appeals from decisions of the Tribunal lodged with the Supreme Court during 2002/2003. Only one matter proceeded to be dealt with by the Court. The appeal was dismissed. The other matter is still pending.
Mrs KD was said to have a significant cognitive impairment due to advanced dementia which affected her ability to make decisions. Mrs KD resided at home with her daughter, Ms MD, who provided her with care. However, Mrs KD required 24-hour care and was admitted to a nursing home after consultation with Mrs ND who was Mrs KD's eldest daughter.
Ms MD requested the nursing home to discharge her mother into her care as she was confident she was capable of caring for her at home. Mrs ND and two of her other sisters applied to the Tribunal for a guardian and financial manager to be appointed to make decisions on behalf of Mrs KD.
The Guardianship Tribunal appointed Mrs ND as Mrs KD's guardian and committed the management of Mrs KD's financial affairs to the Protective Commissioner. The Tribunal reviewed the guardianship order after 12 months and renewed it for a further three years.
Ms MD appealed these decisions to the Supreme Court. Both appeals were lodged with the Supreme Court well after the appeal period had expired. The financial management order was made one year before the appeal was lodged and the renewed guardianship order was made nine months before it was appealed by Ms MD. Ms MD sought leave to appeal outside the time limits allowed.
The Court heard submissions from Ms MD on the question of extending the statutory time limit for lodging an appeal and about whether a question of law was involved in the appeal. The Court rejected Ms MD's submissions on these points and dismissed her application for leave to appeal.
The Tribunal received no applications for access to information under the Freedom of Information Act. Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act states that the Act does not apply to the judicial functions of courts and tribunals.
The Tribunal has a complaint procedure which is set out in the brochure, We Welcome Your Feedback. Anyone who wants to complain about the actions of a staff or Tribunal member must write to the Registrar of the Tribunal. The Tribunal will ensure that the complaint is properly investigated. The person lodging the complaint will be advised of the outcome of the investigation. During 2002/2003, the Tribunal received 48 complaints relating to 43 clients.
Mr S, an elderly man in his late 80s, suffers from dementia and cognitive disability, resulting from alcohol related complications. The Tribunal received an application for a financial manager from the head of nursing in his aged care facility. The applicant stated that Mr S had won almost a quarter of a million dollars in the NSW Lottery. After news of his win, his daughter and one son visited him at the aged care facility. The head of nursing was concerned that, prior to this, Mr S seldom received visits from his children. His daughter had asked for the winnings to be deposited into the bank account to which she was a signatory.
Because of the regulations governing NSW Lotteries about releasing monies, the hearing was listed as a matter of urgency.
The Tribunal spoke to Mr S alone. Mr S said he did not know what to do with the money but he did not want either his family or the aged care facility managing his money. He also said that his relationships with his daughter and son were not close and they did not visit him regularly.
The head of nursing related that the home had been looking after Mr S's money for him as he had difficulty in budgeting his monthly allowance. She had made the application for a financial management order as she was concerned about the family stepping in and taking control of the money. Mr S's daughter stated that she did not want the Office of the Protective Commissioner managing the money and proposed that she along with her brother should manage her father's money.
The Tribunal were concerned at the lack of evidence of Mr S's capacity although his doctor did not believe Mr S was capable of managing large sums of money. The aged care facility did not want to be the financial manager and appointing his children would be against Mr S's stated wishes. However, as there was a clear need for the winnings to be secured and protected, the Tribunal determined that the Protective Commissioner be appointed as the interim financial manager of Mr S for six months. The application was adjourned for six months to enable a thorough investigation to be made of Mr S's capacity.
The purpose of the clinical trials provisions of the Guardianship Act 1987 (Part 5, Division 4A) is to ensure that people who cannot consent to their own treatment can gain access to treatment only available through a clinical trial.
To ensure that people who cannot consent to their own treatment may take part only in those clinical trials that may benefit them, the legislation contains a number of safeguards.
The first safeguard is that the Guardianship Tribunal must give its approval to the clinical trial as one in which those who cannot consent to their own treatment may take part. This requires those proposing the clinical trial to make their case to the Tribunal before they can treat adults unable to consent to their own treatment in the clinical trial. The Tribunal will not give its approval unless each of the following criteria is satisfied.
Another safeguard comes into play if the Tribunal gives its approval to the clinical trial. Individual substitute consent must be given for each person taking part in the clinical trial. The legislation is structured so that this consent will usually be given by the 'person responsible' for the person unable to consent to their own treatment. The 'person responsible' is usually the spouse, family carer or adult child of the person unable to give consent. In all cases in which the Guardianship Tribunal has given its approval to a clinical trial, the 'person responsible' has been empowered to give the individual substitute consent.
A further safeguard in the legislation is that anyone who provides treatment to a person in a clinical trial not in accordance with the legislation commits a serious offence and is liable to imprisonment for up to seven years.
A final safeguard is that the Tribunal must include, in its annual report, details of any clinical trial it approves.
During 2002/2003, the Tribunal received six applications for the approval of clinical trials. The Tribunal approved five of those applications and dismissed the other one.
Of the approved clinical trials, two were for new treatments for people with sepsis or pneumonia, one for patients with severe traumatic brain injury, one for treatment for patients with Parkinson's disease and dementia and another was for patients with septic shock. The Tribunal did not approve a clinical trial that involved a comparison of markers of sepsis in the diagnosis and outcomes of sepsis.
As required by Section 76A (2A) of the Guardianship Act 1987, the Tribunal sets out details of those trials below.
Trials for patients suffering from severe traumatic brain injury
1. An efficacy and safety evaluation of a single intravenous dose
of Dexanabinol in patients suffering from severe traumatic brain injury.
Trial site
St George Hospital
Outcome of Tribunal hearing
Trial approved
Individual consents to be given by the 'person responsible'
Yes
Trials in the treatment of patients with Parkinson's disease and dementia
2. A 24-month, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled
study of the efficacy, tolerability and safety of Donepezil (Aricept) in Parkinson's
disease patients with dementia.
Trial site
Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Hospital Central Coast
Neuroscience Research Westmead Hospital
Outcome of Tribunal hearing
Trial approved
Individual consents to be given by the 'person responsible'
Yes
Trials for treatment of patients with sepsis/pneumonia
3. A phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled safety and
efficacy study of recombinant chimeric monoclonal antibody against
human CD14(IC14) in hospitalised patients with community-acquired pneumonia
and sepsis.
Trial site
Nepean Hospital
St. George Hospital
Outcome of Tribunal hearing
Trial approved
Individual consents to be given by the 'person responsible'
Yes
4. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3b study of Drotrecogin Alfa (activated) administered as a continuous 96-hour infusion to adult patients with early-stage severe sepsis
Trial site
Prince of Wales Hospital
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
Outcome of Tribunal hearing
Trial approved
Individual consents to be given by the 'person responsible'
Yes
5. A comparison of measurements of Indocyanine Green (ICG) Clearance with standard markers of sepsis (SIRS Criteria, Serum Procalcitonin and C-reactive Protein levels) in the diagnosis and outcomes of sepsis.
Trial site
Prince of Wales Hospital
Outcome of Tribunal hearing
Trial not approved
Individual consents to be given by the 'person responsible'
not applicable
Trials for treatment of patients with septic shock
6. A phase 1 study into the effect of Vasopressin on vital organ function in patients with septic shock.
Trial site
Prince of Wales Hospital
Nepean Hospital
Outcome of Tribunal hearing
Trial approved
Individual consents to be given by the 'person responsible'
Yes
The major focus of the work of the Guardianship Tribunal is to protect the rights of individuals in the community with a decision-making disability. Providing information to the general community through community education sessions, videos, website and publications are a way of doing this.
All our publications and presentations are designed to explain the role of the Tribunal. Each year the Tribunal presents community education seminars in various locations. These seminars explain planning ahead for one's own future, making an application to the Tribunal and the role of the Tribunal and other organisations. The Tribunal responds to requests for speakers at various community and other groups.
In all our community education sessions and planned community education sessions, we receive feedback forms from the participants. These assist us to be responsive to our customers' needs and to plan future community education and other information tools.
In addition, the Tribunal has an important role in educating the community about enduring powers of attorney and enduring guardianship. We distribute brochures on power of attorney and enduring guardianship that explain how people can plan for their own future and who will make decisions for them if they are unable to make decisions for themselves.
A total of 250 people (203 professionals and 47 carers) attended the Tribunal's planned community education sessions for 2002/2003. The Tribunal conducted seminars for private carers, family members and friends of people with a disability, as well as seminars for service providers and other professionals in Wagga Wagga, Newcastle, Liverpool, and Dubbo.
Various organisations contacted the Tribunal and requested a speaker to explain the work of the Tribunal and all aspects of guardianship, including informal arrangements in the community. Other seminars looked at particular aspects of our work, including workshops on particular case studies. Many of the seminars focussed on the importance of planning ahead with enduring guardianship and enduring power of attorney.
The Tribunal conducted sessions for a variety of organisations, including hospitals, service providers, aged care facilities and nursing homes, disability organisations, legal organisations, universities, community groups and culturally and linguistically diverse community groups. Seminars were conducted for the Central Sydney Division of General Practitioners, College of Law, NSW Refugee Service and the Alzheimer's Association among others. The Tribunal also participated in induction programs for the Office of the Public Guardian and the Office of the Protective Commissioner.
During 2002/2003, the Client Information Services Unit undertook research into website accessibility particularly for people with disabilities and for people who speak languages other than English. This research will be the basis for the new website through the GT Connect project, which is currently under development.
In addition, there was research on further Tribunal publications to be made available in languages other than English. We are looking to expand translations of our general information brochures into more community languages. We explored other media for our publications, including having brochures translated into talking pamphlets by the Royal Blind Society.
During 2002/2003, the Guardianship Tribunal produced a new video, entitled In Their Best Interests, to illustrate how an application comes to hearing and the whole hearing process. As many of the Tribunal's clients may be unable to understand what is happening, it is up to their carers and families to explain why they are coming to the Tribunal and to prepare them for the occasion. This video makes the hearing process even more accessible by enabling parties to a hearing to prepare themselves adequately. It shows how a hearing progresses from beginning to end, including the formal aspects of greeting, and how everyone has a chance to voice their views.
In Their Best Interests is being distributed in a number of ways, including through libraries. Parties to a hearing are being encouraged to view the video in the days preceding the hearing.
In Their Best Interests was entered in the AIME film and video awards in the United States during the year and received a certificate of merit as a finalist in the external communication section. In addition, it won a silver plaque at the 2003 Intercom awards (Chicago Film Festival) in the legal category. This follows a fine tradition of award-winning videos produced by the Tribunal that have been recognised in international competitions for their high-quality production and communicative medium.
The Tribunal continues to show and sell its two award-winning videos, For Ankie's Sake and Substitute Consent when the Patient Can't Give a Valid Consent. These videos are an important information tool and the feedback from the community continues to be very positive.
A new display was produced for the Guardianship Tribunal's community education sessions. The display graphically outlines how the Tribunal relates to the Office of the Public Guardian and the Office of the Protective Commissioner; the Tribunal's functions and responsibilities; and the hearing process. The display provides a clear and simple illustration of how we work.
The Guardianship Tribunal produces a number of publications that are used to inform people with disabilities, carers and the public about the Tribunal, its work and alternatives to accessing the Tribunal's services. The Tribunal publications are an excellent tool for promoting the concept of substitute decision-making and are part of the overall strategy for community education. Publications are distributed through the Tribunal's enquiries service and the website, at community education seminars and requested education sessions, and when requests are made to the Client Information Services Unit.
The Tribunal produced four publications: What Does the Guardianship Tribunal Do? brochure; We Welcome Your Feedback brochure; Planning Ahead... Enduring Guardianship brochure and application form; and Separate Representation information sheet. Over the past year, the Tribunal sent out 59,569 brochures and booklets. In total, the Tribunal distributed over 115,000 brochures, application forms and information sheets, representing a 30 percent increase since 2001/2002.
By far the most widely distributed publication is the brochure What Does the Guardianship Tribunal Do? (more than 17,319 copies distributed in 2002/2003). Other publications that were widely distributed in 2002/2003 included the brochure Enduring Guardianship (13,934 copies), the general information sheet Person Responsible (9,094 copies), the brochure 3 Separate Organisations (8,466 copies), the brochure Power of Attorney (NSW) (8,229 copies), and the information sheet Medical and Other Professional Assessment Reports (9,240 copies). The new enduring guardianship legislation meant large numbers of the Enduring Guardianship brochure were sent to solicitors' offices and to the Office of the Public Guardian.
3 Separate Organisations (the roles of the Guardianship Tribunal, the Office of the Public Guardian and the Office of the Protective Commissioner)
What Does the Guardianship Tribunal Do?
We Welcome Your Feedback
Enduring Guardianship (includes form)
Getting Ready for Your Hearing
Power of Attorney (NSW) (includes form)
Behaviour Management and Guardianship
Substitute Consent - What the Law Says
What does the Guardianship Tribunal do? (available in Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, English, Greek, Italian, Macedonian, Polish, Serbian, Spanish, Tagalog, Turkish, Vietnamese)
Person Responsible
Special Medical Treatment: Guidelines (plus information sheets about specific kinds of special medical treatments)
Access to New Treatments through Clinical Trials
Application for Approval of a Clinical Trial
Medical and Other Professional Assessment Reports
Guardianship Orders - What Happens after the Hearing?
Financial Management Orders - What Happens after the Hearing?
How to Revoke Your Guardianship Order
Guardianship Hearings
Financial Management Hearings
Guardianship and Financial Management Hearings
Representation at Hearings
Preliminary Hearings
Separate Representation
Hearings to Review/Revoke Financial Management Orders
Hearings for Review of Guardianship Orders
Application for guardianship and/or financial management
Application for consent to medical or dental treatment
Application to be joined as a party to a matter
Application for recognition of appointment
Application to review a financial management order
Application to revoke a financial management order
Application to revoke enduring guardianship
Application to review enduring guardianship
Annual Report 2001/2002
In December 2002, the Guardianship Tribunal took over the task of managing the content of the Tribunal's website. This enabled regular updates to be made on new publications and information on community education sessions.
In connection with the development of a new website through the GT Connect project, users were requested to provide feedback on the usefulness and accessibility of the Tribunal's current website. By the end of June 2003, feedback had been received from a number of users and the information will be used to plan the content and structure of the new website.
'Clinical trials and adults unable to give a valid consent to their own treatment-the truth revealed', paper given to Experimenting on the Aged Conference, Centre for Elder Law, University of Western Sydney, 12 July 2002.
'Enduring guardianship', a presentation to the Benedictine community, St Benedict's Monastery, Arcadia, 29 August 2002.
'Let's get physical-the hearing process at the Guardianship Tribunal', a presentation to the Representing Justice Conference 2002, University of Canberra, 14 December 2002.
'Process and procedure of the Guardianship Tribunal', a presentation to the NSW College of Law, 25 March 2003.
'Protecting older people with decision-making disabilities from abuse and neglect-the role of the Guardianship Tribunal', paper given to the Aged and Community Services Association of NSW and ACT Community Care Conference, Sydney, 27 March 2003.
'The developing law and policy relating to enduring guardianship, enduring powers of attorney and advance directives in NSW', a presentation for Continuing Professional Education Department of The College of Law, Blue Mountains, 29 March 2003.
'Opening welcome', Forum on Health and Settlement Needs of Older Refugees, 2 June 2003.
'Substitute consent to medical treatment', a presentation to a Continuing Professional Development session, Parkes, 18 June 2003.
'Substitute decision-making-the developing law', a presentation at Legalwise Seminars, Macquarie School of Management, Sydney, 19 June 2003.
'Making end-of-life decisions-a legal perspective', a presentation at the Aged and Community Services Association of NSW and ACT Residential Aged Care Conference, 2 August 2002.
Workshop on working with the Vietnamese community, 11 November 2002.
'Risks for financial attorneys-powers of attorney, the good, the bad and the ugly', a presentation to the NSW College of Law, 6 March 2003.
Submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal inquiry into fees charged by the Office of the Protective Commissioner, 1 April 2003.
President
Nick O'Neill
Deputy President
Marion Brown
Executive Officer
Trevor Fairbairn
Executive Secretary
Jennifer Reynolds
Personal Assistant
Lisa Whittaker
Legal Officer
Esther Cho
Manager
Ryan Williams
Team Leaders
Theresia Khoudair (part-time)
Margaret Watson (part-time)
Sue Young
Amanda Legge (part-time)
Senior Investigation Officers
David Evans
Loretta Rosicky
Peter Heffernan
Geraldine Northcott
Lee Dargan
Frances Massy-Westropp
Louise Smith
Susan Wright (part-time)
Amanda Legge
Jane Samek
Melissa Simcoe*
Natalie Clough
Investigation Officers
Trudi Cusack (part-time)
Andrew Gabriel*
Christopher Moore
Katrina Morris*
Paula Norris*
Kathryn Tidd*
Assistant Investigation Officers
Maxine Spencer
Lois Warnock
Zebun Haji*
Manager Client Information and Hearing Services
Janette Ogilvie
Assistant Manager
Lesley McGowan
Senior Hearing Officers
Kerrie Menken
Leanne Robinson
Rada Stevanovic*
Gary MacDonald
Hearing Officers
Ruth Pearson (part-time)
Cynthia Nejal
Assistant Hearing Officers
Ruth Pearson (part-time)
Christopher Mitchell
Michelle Savage
Doreen Gray
Sita Singh
Mariella Eberl (part-time)
Eleanor Torry
Elizabeth Evans*
Manager Client Information and Hearing Services
Janette Ogilvie
Assistant Manager
Sonia Bernardi* (part-time)
Robyn Barlow* (part-time)
Publications Officers
Anita Ray (part-time)
Donna Crotty* (part-time)
Senior Information Officers
Robyn Barlow (part-time)
Diane Brehaut (part-time)
Information Officers
Tania Hibbert
Patrika Sheehan*
Assistant Information Officers
Sonia Tomasetig (part-time)
Cristyn Davies* (part-time)
Robyne O'Connor*
Tina Pasa* (part-time)
Angela Ogden*
Sally Shaw* (part-time)
Janet Stringer
Diane Cracknell* (part-time)
Manager
Linda Sengstock
Training and Development Officer
Gail Yueh (part-time)
Business Services Coordinator
Maria Sardisco
IT Systems Management Officer
Dennis Maby
CMS Systems Management Officer
Patrick Gooley
Business Services Officer
Christine Small
Assistant Business Services Officer
Sin-Lee Yeoh
Assistant Systems Officer
Christine Triantafillopoulos*
Catherine Asquith*
Stephan Cassar*
Tia Covi (on extended leave)
Rosa De Sio*
Luke Duncan*
Yvonne Jackson*
David Joy*
Jacqueline Klarkowski
Tim Lim*
Veronica Loh
Frank Maguire
Anastasia Murnane*
Amanda Smith*
* Temporary or acting
To ensure that staff of the Guardianship Tribunal are able to provide an efficient service to our clients, the Tribunal provides regular training opportunities. Over the past year, staff have attended a variety of training courses both internally and externally. Some programs, such as staff selection techniques and fire safety training, were conducted at the Tribunal by external training providers. Staff also attended courses at external training organisations in areas such as computing and occupational health and safety.
As the Tribunal has undergone a recent restructure, many Tribunal staff required internal training. This involved mainly on-the-job training to provide staff with the skills and knowledge to efficiently and effectively perform new duties required under the restructure.
It is important that staff are able to work safely in the office environment. Training to ensure staff are aware of safe work practices is regularly conducted at the Tribunal by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service.
The use of technology in business is increasing daily. Tribunal staff members attended a forum on e-government, convened by the NSW Government. The Tribunal will be expanding its website to make information about the Tribunal more easily accessible to people, including those with a disability. Two staff members attended a program on web accessibility while another attended training in website development. Courses conducted by external organisations that staff have attended include:
Microsoft Outlook
Microsoft Access
Microsoft Excel
Microsoft Powerpoint
Dreamweaver
Web accessibility
Legal sites on the internet
Occupational health and safety consultation
Office safety
Fire safety training
Staff selection techniques
NSW e-government forum
Managing people
Leadership
New managers and coordinators
A separate training program is conducted for the Tribunal members. Each year four half-day seminars are conducted for presiding members and another four for all Tribunal members. The seminars provide Tribunal members with the opportunity to come together to discuss and listen to presentations on relevant issues. Topics covered in the last year have included:
Nick O'Neill, President
Nick O'Neill is a human rights lawyer in Australia and the Pacific and has taught, consulted and written on human rights in that region. He is co-author of Retreat from Injustice: Human Rights in Australian Law. He also has a strong administrative and constitutional law background. He is a former academic and practising lawyer in NSW, Victoria and Papua New Guinea, and official visitor to Rozelle Hospital.
In Papua New Guinea, he was a trial and appeals lawyer before being appointed Counsel Assisting the Commission of Inquiry into Land Matters. He established the Papua New Guinea Law Reform Commission and was its first secretary. He later played a significant role in the development of the Faculty of Law, University of Technology, Sydney.
Since joining the Tribunal, Nick has contributed chapters on the jurisdiction, practice and procedures of the Tribunal to various publications, including The Law Handbook, Lawyers Practice Manual, and Older Residents' Rights. He has also given numerous presentations on all aspects of the Tribunal's work and associated issues, including medico-legal issues to a wide range of audiences.
He has acted as an advisor, consultant and trainer to guardianship organisations both in Australia and overseas.
Marion Brown, Deputy President
Marion joined the Tribunal as Deputy President in May 1995. She was formerly the principal solicitor at the Women's Legal Resources Centre-a community legal centre-and practised mainly in the fields of family law and violence against women and children. She served as a community representative on the NSW Child Protection Council and the NSW Sexual Assault Committee. She was also a commissioner on the NSW Legal Aid Commission and a part-time hearing commissioner with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
Marion has conducted many community legal education presentations, including the Women Out West project in which a multi-disciplinary team worked with Aboriginal women in western NSW to help women in various communities explore options to protect themselves and their children.
Currently, she is a member of a number of committees including the Specialist Advisory Committee for the Centre for Gender Related Violence Studies at University of NSW, Client Capacity sub-committee of Law Society Ethics Committee at the NSW Law Society. She was a representative on the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care Steering Committee for Planning Ahead Project and Dementia Awareness for Lawyers Forum.
Marion has contributed to several publications, including The Law Handbook and Law and Relationships: A Woman's A-Z Guide.
John Boersig
Solicitor. Director, University of Newcastle Legal Centre. Also coordinates
a coalition of Aboriginal legal services to produce policy and research. Experience
in criminal and personal injury law, victims' compensation and public interest
advocacy.
Sally Ann Chopping
Lawyer and former Chairperson of the Residential, Fair Trading, and the Consumer,
Trader and Tenancy Tribunals. Experience in alternative dispute resolution.
John Cipolla
Solicitor. Experience representing clients with psychiatric and other disabilities
both through Legal Aid and Mental Health Advocacy Service. Previously Principal
Solicitor, Inner City Community Legal Centre. Experience in refugee law and
as senior conciliator, Disability Discrimination Unit of the Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission. Part-time member of Consumer Trader Tenancy Tribunal
and Migration Review Tribunal.
Anthony Giurissevich
Solicitor in private practice. Former legal member, Veterans' Review Board and
Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Experience in general litigation and advocacy
for people with brain injury and mental illness.
Robin Gurr
Former barrister and Registrar in the Family Court of Australia. Former President
of the NSW Community Services Appeals Tribunal and Senior member of the Fair
Trading Tribunal. Currently workers' compensation arbitrator and presiding member
on GREAT. Experience in alternative dispute resolution.
Christine Hayward
Lawyer and former member of the Refugee Review Tribunal and Senior Deputy District
Registrar in the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
John Hislop
Solicitor, now retired after more than 40 years in private legal practice. Former
partner with firm with emphasis on business law, property, estates and litigation.
Ten years (part-time) teacher with Faculty of Law, University of Sydney.
Geoffrey Hopkins
Solicitor since 1979. Private practice and legal aid work. Experience in advocacy
across range of courts and tribunals. Emphasis on criminal and civil law, especially
housing law and consumer remedies and legal issues relating to people with disabilities
and the aged. Involvement with community groups. Mediator with community justice
centres, Supreme Court and Law Society panels. Chairperson with Government and
Related Employees Appeal Tribunal.
Tony Krouk
Accredited family law specialist. Experience representing people with brain
injury, mental illness and dementia, as both a private and community lawyer.
Julie Lulham
Solicitor and social worker. Experience in private practice and community legal
centres. Experience in head injury rehabilitation and geriatric medicine.
Carol McCaskie, AM
Barrister. Member, Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal and Mental Health Review
Tribunal. Arbitrator, Workers Compensation Commission. Former general manager,
Langton Centre. Qualifications in management, dispute resolution, geriatric
nursing, nurse education and nursing administration.
Monica MacRae
Solicitor. Experience in private practice, particularly family law and general
litigation. Member, Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Member, Mental Health
Review Tribunal.
Peter Molony
Barrister with extensive experience as a tribunal member, including the Social
Security Appeals Tribunal, Small Claims and Residential Tenancies Tribunal and
Refugee Review Tribunal. Judicial member of Administrative Decisions Tribunal.
Loretta Re
Barrister. Member, Mental Health Review Tribunal. Revised the law of evidence
and formulated proposals for a Guardianship Tribunal (ACT) at the Australian
Law Reform Commission.
Kim Ross
Solicitor and consultant in human rights and mental health law. Extensive tribunal
experience and current member of Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, and
Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Anita Sekar
Solicitor. Worked with the Equity Division of the NSW Supreme Court, Commonwealth
Director of Public Prosecutions, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission,
and Australian Broadcasting Authority. Worked in community legal centres, Disability
Discrimination Legal Centre and Intellectual Disability Rights Service. Experience
as a conciliator with NSW Anti Discrimination Board.
Bernie Shipp
Solicitor. Experience with Legal Aid and Community Legal Centres. Now a member
of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal.
James Simpson
Solicitor, mediator and policy consultant. Former deputy president, Community
Services Appeals Tribunal. Former coordinator, Intellectual Disability Rights
Service.
Ivan Beale
Recommenced October 2003.
Angela Beckett
Clinical psychologist; admitted as solicitor. Experience assessing and providing
services to people with a disability, including intellectual and psychiatric
disabilities and dementia. Established Home Respite Service for people with
dementia. Experience in behaviour management and positive programming. Qualifications
and experience in dispute resolution. Family experience with dementia and physical
disabilities.
Hayley Bennett
Clinical neuropsychologist in private and public practice, specialising in the
assessment of mental capacity.
Isla Bowen
Pyschologist with extensive experience in development and implementation of
behaviour intervention and support programs for people with intellectual disabilities.
Lectures in developmental disability at Wollongong University.
Mary Ellen Burke
Clinical psychologist and consultant. Experience providing services to people
with an intellectual disability who have challenging behaviour and their families/carers.
Experience monitoring, developing services and service systems.
Barbara Burkitt
Psychiatrist. Experience in psychogeriatrics, formerly psychogeriatrician, Central
Sydney Area Health Service.
Rhonda Buskell
Qualifications in psychiatry and in rehabilitation medicine. Formerly Director,
Lidcombe Brain Injury Rehabilitation Unit. Currently, consultant psychiatrist
in private practice as consultation-liaison psychiatrist in public hospital
system. Member, Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Sandra Dingle
Psychologist. Experience assessing and assisting people with dementia, stroke
and brain injury. Founding coordinator of Home Respite Service, Wollongong.
Imelda Dodds
Social worker. Consultant with extensive experience in practice and administration
in the fields of disability and guardianship. Former Public Guardian of Western
Australia. President International Federation of Social Workers.
June Donsworth
Psychiatrist and civil forensic psychiatrist. Member of Mental Health Review
Tribunal, part-time member of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Former psychiatrist
on South Australian Parole Board and former member of South Australian Guardianship
Board. Medical assessor with Health Quest.
Sharon Flanagan
Clinical neuropsychologist with extensive experience of people who have suffered
traumatic brain injury. Experience in adult rehabilitation in hospital and community
settings and assessment of people with dementia and other acquired brain impairments.
Michael Frost
Former medical superintendent and chief executive officer, Marsden. Former chief
executive officer, Western Sydney Developmental Disability Service.
Julie Garrard
Social work manager at Calvary Health Care Sydney with experience in palliative
care. Experience in working with people with intellectual disabilities, brain
injury and HIV. Worked at the Health Care Complaints Commission.
Julie Hendy
Clinical neuropsychologist now working in private practice, mostly seeing people
with head injury. A Churchill Fellow, she recently co-authored a textbook on
paediatric neuropsychology.
Jean Hollis
Old age psychiatrist. Previously staff specialist (part-time) with Aged and
Community Care Services Team at Concord Repatriation General Hospital.
Susan Kurrle
Geriatrician. Member of Aged Care Assessment Team. Experience assessing and
managing abuse of older people, and dementia.
Pamela Lockhart
Registered nurse. Experience assessing and providing services for people with
dementia.
Brenda McPhee
Medical practitioner. Experience in women's health, aged care, and counselling.
Member, Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Medical officer, Bankstown Women's
Health Centre.
Meredith Martin
Special educator. Expertise in behaviour management and positive programming
for people with a disability, particularly intellectual disabilities.
Helen Newman
Clinical neuropsychologist in private practice. Experience assessing people
who have suffered brain impairment.
Michael Pasfield
Psychiatrist. Member NSW and NT Mental Health Review Tribunals. Former member
Social Security Appeals Tribunal, Repatriation Review Tribunal and Veterans'
Review Board. Consultant practice, psychiatric hospitals and government departments.
Carmelle Peisah
Consultant old age psychiatrist and research fellow at the Academic Department
for Old Age Psychiatry, Prince of Wales Hospital and conjoint senior lecturer
University of NSW. Expertise in family therapy. Experience in medicolegal cases
of competency and testamentary capacity in older persons.
Suzanne Stone
General practitioner. Currently in private practice; including assessment and
management of elderly patients with dementia, both in institutional settings
and in their own homes. Published in the field of pre-senile dementia. Experience
in the field of women's reproductive health and with patients with eating disorders
in community settings.
Susan Taylor
Social worker. Experience in community mental health services and providing
support services for people with multiple sclerosis. Member, Social Security
Appeals Tribunal.
Carolyn West
Specialist in rehabilitation medicine. Head of Spina Bifida Unit, New Children's
Hospital, Westmead. Visiting medical officer, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and
Westmead Hospital for adult services for people with spina bifida.
Wai-Kwan (Tim) Wong
Psychologist with experience in positive programming for people with intellectual
disabilities. Has also worked with people with intellectual disabilities in
areas of sexuality and sexual behaviours. Currently working with people affected
by HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C.
Janice Wortley
Psychologist with experience assessing people with psychiatric disabilities,
acquired brain injury and intellectual disabilities. Experience in behaviour
intervention and support. Family experience of disability.
Robert (TH) Yeoh
General practitioner since 1975. Currently president Alzheimer's Association
of Australia. Member of the medication advisory committees of several aged care
homes. Official visitor under the Mental Health Act 1990. Member of Ministerial
Advisory Committee on Ageing NSW. Representing ADGP on National Aged Care Alliance.
Stanley Alchin, OAM
Retired director of nursing, Rozelle Hospital. Registered psychiatric nurse.
President, After Care Association of NSW. Member, Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Vice President, Sydney Male Choir.
Rhonda Ansiewicz
Lecturer in social work and community work, advocacy and human rights. Coordinator
Aboriginal Rural Education Program in Community Welfare, University of Western
Sydney. In private practice, works with people with a mental illness. Family
experience with schizophrenia. Activist for social change.
Andrew Barczynski
Social worker. Currently Manager of Quality Assurance Team on NSW far north
coast for Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services. Experience
working with people with a range of disabilities. President of community agency
providing services for older people from a non-English speaking background.
Elaine Becker
Social worker. Experience working with people with dementia and their carers.
Worked with the Office of the Public Guardian. Family experience as private
guardian.
Mary Butcher
Nurse with extensive aged care experience in residential and community settings.
Previously coordinated community care packages to support elderly people at
home. Family experience of providing care to a person with dementia.
Maria Circuitt
Advocate for services and support for people with a disability. Parent of a
son with an intellectual disability and mental illness.
Janene Cootes
Social worker. Community visitor to residential services for adults and children
with disabilities and educator at the Intellectual Disability Rights Service.
Past experience with people with an intellectual disability and as the first
Manager of Investigation and Liaison at the Guardianship Tribunal.
Faye Druett
Long-standing involvement in the disability field. Has significant physical
disabilities herself. Currently private guardian for a woman with intellectual
disability. Worked in federal and state (NSW and Queensland) governments, including
as a service provider, policy development, management and administration of
legislation.
Annette Evans
Social worker. Experience in managing community aged care program for Jewish
community. Involved in living skills, family and housing support for people
with psychiatric disability; support for people with dementia and their carers.
Past experience in tenants advice and advocacy and refuges for young people
and women.
Jane Fraser
Parent of a young woman with a developmental disability. Welfare worker and
former executive officer for People with Disabilities. Past Chairperson for
the Disability Council of NSW for four years. Family experience caring and supporting
a person with mental illness and dementia.
Steve Kilkeary
Social worker with experience in fields of mental illness and HIV/AIDS. Former
primary carer for family members who had disabilities.
Jennifer Klause
Extensive experience as a social educator for people with intellectual disabilities.
Consultant working on communication with people with intellectual disabilities.
Marika Kontellis
Previously social worker, now community sector adviser for aged care and disability
service providers. Managed community options programs, assisting older people
and people with disabilities to remain in their own homes. Member, Disability
Council of NSW. Family experience of mental illness.
Kerrie Laurence
Teaches in the Intellectual Disability Unit of TAFE and works with students
with intellectual disabilities and acquired brain injuries. Relevant family
and tribunal experience.
Michael McDaniel
Member of the Wiradjuri Nation, Associate Professor and Director Warawara Department
of Indigenous Studies at Macquarie University. Part-time member, NSW Administrative
Decisions Tribunal. Part-time Commissioner, NSW Land and Environment Court.
Leonie Manns
Has a psychiatric disability and has been a longstanding consumer advocate in
the field of disabilities. Former chair of the Disability Council of NSW. Family
experience of dementia.
Jeanette Moss AM
Family experience of, and advocate for, people with a disability.
John Mountford
Former Chairperson of the NSW Committee on Ageing. Accountant with extensive
experience in private business, public service and charitable organisations.
Jennifer Newman
Lecturer, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Programs, Faculty of Education,
University of Technology Sydney. Previously taught Aboriginal Studies for the
Associate Diploma of Aboriginal Health and students of Rehabilitation Counselling
and Occupational Therapy. Family and social experience of people with disabilities,
including dementia, alcohol-related brain damage, intellectual disability and
HIV/AIDS.
Alan Owen
Psychologist and senior research fellow, University of Wollongong. Former coordinator
of a community mental health service, policy analyst, manager, coordinated care
projects. Member, Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Robert Ramjan
Social worker. Experience in mental health including chronic mental illness
and psychogeriatrics. Executive officer, Schizophrenia Fellowship of NSW.
Robyn Rayner
Social worker with experience in aged care, palliative care, dementia, neurological
rehabilitation and crisis intervention.
Alexandra Rivers
sssPsychologist/specialist educator. Experience working with people with intellectual
disabilities, behaviour difficulties or mental health problems and their families.
Lecturer (Hon), Faculty of Education, University of Sydney. Vice-President,
Schizophrenia Fellowship of NSW. Board member, Aboriginal Education Council,
NSW.
Leanne Stewart
Social worker. Consultant in aged and community services sector, specialising
in retirement living and dementia care. Previous experience managing retirement
villages, nursing homes and community aged care services.
Susan Warth
Psychologist and consultant with extensive experience with people with intellectual
disabilities.
guardian — a substitute decision-maker with authority to make personal or lifestyle decisions about the person under guardianship. A guardian is appointed for a specified period of time and is given specific functions (eg. the power to decide where the person should live, what services they should receive and what medical treatment they should be given).
guardianship order — the Tribunal issues a guardianship order when a guardian is appointed. It outlines who the guardian is, what decisions they can make on behalf of the person with the disability, and for how long. It is a legal document, giving the guardian the power to make certain decisions for and instead of the person with the disability.
review of guardianship order — most guardianship orders are reviewed before expiry. Orders are made for a specific period of time. The Tribunal undertakes a review hearing where the order will either be allowed to lapse or it will be renewed.
requested review of guardianship order — a guardian can request a review to increase or vary the guardianship functions. Others can request a review if the circumstances relating to the person under guardianship have changed or because of some other new issue relating to the guardian.
financial manager — is a legally appointed substitute decision-maker with authority to make decisions about and manage a person’s financial affairs (eg. their money, property and other financial assets, such as share portfolios).
financial management order — the Tribunal issues a financial management order when a financial manager is appointed which outlines who the financial manager is. It is a legal document, giving the financial manager the power to make decisions for and instead of the person with the disability. Most financial management orders are permanent.
review of financial management order — the Tribunal can order that a financial management order be reviewed within a specified time. However, it can be revoked only if the person regains the capability to manage their own affairs or if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is in the person’s best interests to revoke the order.
requested review of financial management order — sometimes the Tribunal is asked to review an order because the private financial manager no longer wants to or is unabl