1. In determining whether or not a guardianship and/or administration order should be made, sections 20 and 51 of the Act require that:
   1. the Tribunal consider whether the person's needs could be met by other means least restrictive of that person's freedom of decision and action; and
   2. the Tribunal be satisfied that an order would be in the person's best interests; and
   3. the order/s must be the least restrictive of the person's freedom of decision and action as is possible in the circumstances.
2. Section 54 of the Act provides that -

(1) The Tribunal may appoint as administrator of the estate of a proposed represented person -

(a) The Public Trustee;

(b) The Public Guardian;

(c) A trustee company within the meaning of the Trustee Companies Act 1953; or

(d) Any other person, including the guardian of the proposed represented person, who consents to act as administrator if the Tribunal is satisfied that -

(i) the person will act in the best interests of the proposed represented person; and

(ii) the person is not in a position where his or her interests conflict or may conflict with the interests of the proposed represented person; and

(iii) the person is a suitable person to act as the administrator of the estate of the proposed represented person; and

(iv) the person has sufficient expertise to administer the estate.

(2) In determining whether a person is suitable to act as the administrator of the estate of a proposed represented person, the Tribunal must take into account -

(a) the wishes of the proposed represented person so far as they can be ascertained; and

(b) the compatibility of the person proposed as administrator with the proposed represented person and with his or her guardian, if any.

1. In exercising its powers under ss 20 and 51 of the Act the Tribunal must have regard to the underlying principles of the Act, contained in section 6, which provides:

A function or power conferred, or duty imposed, by this Act is to be performed so that -

(a) the means which is the least restrictive of a person's freedom of decision and action as is possible in the circumstances is adopted; and

(b) the best interests of the person with a disability or impaired decision-making ability, or in respect of whom an application is made under this Act, are promoted; and

(c) the wishes, directions, preferences and values of a person with a disability or impaired decision-making ability, or in respect of whom an application is made under this Act, are, if possible, carried into effect.

1. We had a Health care professional report (HCPR) of Dr LL, consultant geriatrician, and letters of Dr LL detailing a comprehensive neurocognitive and capacity assessment he conducted with CJM in two parts, on 28 January 2025 and 22 April 2025.
2. Dr LL opined that CJM has a disability, namely Alzheimer's dementia, evident for more than two (2) years, which is severe and of rapid progression, and a mental illness, specified as depression, which is moderate and fluctuating. Dr LL also set out other health conditions experienced by CJM. Dr LL provided that CJM experiences deficits in orientation to person, place or time, planning and reasoning skills, impulse control and susceptibility to influence by reason of the disabilities.
3. Dr LL opined that CJM's disability affects her capacity to make reasonable judgments about financial and legal matters including day to day financial requirements, complex financial and legal decisions and legal matters; and personal decisions including where to live, medical treatment and healthcare, and support services. In the HCPR Dr LL explained how he formed his view and referred to assessments which supported the diagnosis and his opinion about decision making ability.
4. We also had medical evidence including a health practitioner report, neuropsychology assessment and occupational therapy report from Queensland variously dated in late 2023. In a nutshell those reports provide that at that time CJM had severe and permanent cognitive impairment and was not able to make decisions about her health care, lifestyle and accommodation choices, and financial affairs.
5. Ms Olsson said CJM disputed the diagnosis of dementia although agreed it was possible she had depression stemming from her current circumstances. CJM also disputed any impairment of her ability to make reasonable judgments about her person, circumstances or estate. Ms Olsson had no alternative medical evidence. Ms Thomas supported what Ms Olsson said. QM disagreed CJM had dementia and said she had a learning disability because of not attending school regularly as a child. DTC disputed the diagnosis of dementia and contended Dr LL's report contained errors. DTC also did not have alternative medical evidence. DTC believed CJM needed some assistance.
6. The representatives from the respective Public Guardian and Public Trustee offices offered no comment about the medical evidence.
7. Mr Te Ua gave a summary of CJM's financial position. CJM is in receipt of an aged pension from which her aged care fees, chemist and Telstra accounts are paid, and from which she receives an amount for personal spending. Mr Te Ua said CJM has a nominal amount of savings, and debts of almost $1900 to her current aged care provider, being paid at the rate of $20 per fortnight, and almost $700 for a bond loan with the Department of Housing in Queensland, being paid at the rate of $16.50 per fortnight. The debt to the aged care facility arose due to the Public Trustee (QLD) not being able to meet CJM's ongoing fees due to her limited income and resources.
8. The Public Guardian (QLD) submitted there was an ongoing need for a guardian to make health care and accommodation decisions for CJM. The Public Guardian (QLD) had made 7 health care decisions for CJM during the term of their appointment, with the last one made on 7 January 2025. In some of those instances CJM did not object to treatment however consent was sought from the Public Guardian (QLD) because CJM showed minimal understanding, and they were appointed. We were told CJM would like to live with QM however that had not been explored because the Public Guardian's (QLD) information was that QM was homeless and living in his car temporarily. At the time of hearing however QM had secured a one bedroom unit. The Public Guardian (QLD) had had a recent discussion with CJM about accommodation with the main consideration being that she be provided the appropriate level of support in the community, and noting there was no funding package available to support the level of care that CJM requires. Whilst CJM was not happy in the aged care facility alternative options had not been explored because the Public Guardian (QLD) had not received a request to explore alternatives. DTC said however that she was exploring alternative facilities for CJM.
9. QM said CJM did not need a guardian. He said his home is a one bedroom private rental and CJM cannot live with him. He needs to secure an appropriate accessible property and a level 4 home care package. QM has been on the public housing waitlist for quite some time and accepted that it may take some time before an appropriate property became available. QM said his sister has come back into CJM's life and she lives locally, and he had recently commenced employment. He recognised that in a perfect world he would look after CJM but his current intention was to continue to work.
10. CJM also said she did not need a guardian or an administrator as she had her daughter and son.
11. Ms Olsson submitted there was no need for a guardian or an administrator, and that CJM could make her own decisions about her person, circumstances and financial matters. However, if the Tribunal was satisfied a guardianship order should be made it ought be limited to those matters identified by the Public Guardian (QLD), and an administration order ought be plenary.
12. Ms Hillier submitted there was not a foreseeable need for a guardian given that QM's accommodation is not appropriate and would put CJM at risk and it would be neglectful for CJM and QM to both be in a one bedroom unit. CJM has an advocate from an organisation which would not support a neglectful situation that would put CJM at risk. Whilst the Public Guardian (QLD) was currently appointed, CJM had DTC who was looking at alternative options for CJM and that was something that could be explored. Ms Hillier also referred to CJM's support network exploring different options.
13. Ms Cheney submitted there was a need for an administrator to assist CJM pay her expenses and debts, and if there was to be a move to a new aged care facility, to sign an aged care agreement for the facility. The Public Guardian (QLD) also submitted there was a need for an administrator.
14. DTC proposed herself for appointment as guardian and administrator for CJM. DTC said she would use her own resources and gift money to CJM to pay her debts. DTC indicated she is financially independent, explained her understanding of the duties and obligations of an administrator and that she has been, and continues to act, in the roles of attorney and administrator for others. DTC said she understood the reporting requirements to the Tribunal and would set up a sub account to her account to streamline the reporting process. Whilst DTC lives interstate, she speaks to CJM regularly on the telephone.
15. CJM indicated that if an administrator was to be appointed, she wanted it to be DTC.
16. Mrs Cheney submitted we should have some reservations about appointing DTC because of her using a sub account to her own account for CJM's finances and using her [DTC]'s financial resources to clear CJM's debt noting it was not the role of an administrator to clear debt. Mrs Cheney submitted the Public Trustee should be appointed.
17. There were no further submissions.

1. We accepted the medical evidence in the HCPR, which is consistent with the 2023 medical reports from Queensland, and found that CJM is a person with a disability, namely dementia, and that by reason of her disability CJM is unable to make reasonable judgements about her person, circumstances and estate.
2. We were not satisfied there was a need for a guardian given no current medical treatment decisions were identified, and there are people in CJM's life that can act as person responsible for her. With respect to accommodation there was not a current or foreseeable decision to be made given CJM's son accepted his accommodation was not suitable and whilst options were being explored, there was nowhere for CJM to go.
3. We were satisfied there was a need for an administrator given that CJM was in receipt of income that needed to be carefully managed in order to pay her living expenses and reduce her debt. We found that CJM's needs could not be met by a less restrictive alternative and that an order was in her best interests.
4. We were satisfied from our questioning of DTC that she was eligible and suitable for appointment, taking account of those matters set out in s 54 of the Act, including CJM's wishes.

DTC is appointed as Administrator of the estate of CJM.

The Administrator is to lodge with the Tribunal a Financial Summary relating to the estate of CJM no later than 6 weeks from the date of this Order.