Guardianship stream - Application for guardianship - Review of Administration - Decision-making ability - Need for Guardian and/or Administrator.

Guardianship and Administration Act 1995, ss 8, 20, 51, 67

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

1. EDDI is a 32-year-old man who lives in Northern Tasmania. His mother lives in the same town, and his father lives in a different town, approximately 130 kilometres away.
2. On 18 March 2022 the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT) appointed EDDI's father as his administrator, with powers to manage a Term Deposit account, and to add the funds to that account from another account.
3. On 28 January 2025 EDDI's mother made two applications to TASCAT. One application sought an order appointing herself as EDDI's guardian, and the other sought a review of the administration order and the appointment of herself as EDDI's administrator. Those documents are lengthy, and each contains a number of appendices.
4. At a directions hearing on 7 February 2025, an order was made for EDDI to be separately represented. Other procedural orders and directions were also made.
5. When the matter came on for hearing on 28 March 2025, the Tribunal dismissed the application for guardianship and revoked the administration order.
6. These written reasons have been requested by DNO, EDDI's mother.

1. Attending in person at the hearing room in Launceston were:
   • EDDI - the represented person
   • DNO - EDDI's mother
   • UDI - EDDI's father
   • HCO - DNO's husband
2. Those attending the hearing by video link were:
   • Mr Toby Macgregor - the Separate Representative for EDDI
   • Ms Reid from the Public Trustee's office
   • Ms C Fougere - a TASCAT Senior Member (attending only as an observer)
3. Dr Paule Teare, EDDI's General Practitioner, (the doctor) attended the hearing by telephone.
4. The Public Guardian was not represented at the hearing.

1. The Presiding member of the Tribunal listed the documents available to it at the start of the hearing.

1. When the Tribunal assesses an application for the appointment of a guardian for a person in respect of one or more personal matters and/or an application for the appointment of an administrator in respect of the person's financial matters, it needs to be satisfied, in accordance with sections 20 and 51 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (the Act), that the proposed represented person:
   1. has impaired decision-making ability in respect of decisions relating to those personal matters and/or financial matters;
   2. is in need of a guardian and/or an administrator; and
   3. the Tribunal is satisfied that the order (or orders) will promote the person's personal and social well-being.
2. When determining whether a person is in need of a guardian and/or administrator, the Tribunal must consider the following:
   1. the wishes and preferences of the person, as far as they can be ascertained;
   2. whether the needs of the person could be met by other means less restrictive of that person's freedom of decision and action; and
   3. the wishes and preferences of any close family members, carers and other significant persons in the life of the person who are present at the hearing and are entitled to be heard at that hearing.
3. When making an order for guardianship or administration, the Tribunal is to observe the principles set out in section 8 of the Act. That includes:

a) a person's decision-making ability is to be respected and promoted; > > b) a person who requires support in decision making is to be provided with access to the support necessary to enable the person, as far as is practicable in the circumstances - > > 1. to make and participate in decisions affecting the person; and > 2. to express the person's will and preferences; and > 3. to develop the person's decision-making ability;

1. the views, wishes and preferences of a person with impaired decision-making ability in respect of decisions are to be respected and used to inform those decisions;

d) the role of close family members, carers and other significant persons in the life of a person with impaired decision-making ability in respect of decisions is to be recognised; > > e) the importance of preserving the cultural and linguistic environment of the person is to be recognised; > > f) the personal and social well-being of a person with impaired decision-making ability in respect of decisions is to be promoted; > > g) the means which is the least restrictive of a person's freedom of decision and action as possible in the circumstances is to be adopted.

4. Pursuant to Section 67 of the Act, the Tribunal may review an order for the appointment of an administrator. The Tribunal needs to determine whether any existing order should continue, be varied, or be revoked. As part of that process, the Tribunal must determine whether the requirements set out in Section 51(1)(b) and (c) of the Act are met.

1. Because the doctor told the Tribunal that he was in a consultation list at the time of the hearing, it was decided that he should give his evidence first. He was then permitted to leave the hearing after all participants had been given an opportunity to ask him questions.
2. The doctor confirmed that he had been EDDI's General Practitioner for approximately twelve months. EDDI had been very unwell twelve months previously, with high blood pressure and cardiac and kidney failure. However, EDDI is now back to normal health.
3. The doctor told the Tribunal that EDDI's father was present on all occasions that EDDI had attended.
4. The Tribunal had before it a Health practitioner report of Dr PT dated 11 March 2025 (the HPR). The Tribunal took the doctor through what he had written in the HPR in relation to EDDI's decision-making ability with respect to both personal and financial matters. He confirmed what he had written and stated that EDDI has "mild to moderate impairment" of decision-making capacity.
5. The Tribunal referred the doctor to the fact that he had "ticked the yes boxes" in relation to having decision making ability, to which the doctor said "on a day to day basis [EDDI] makes decisions about his life, and he only needs assistance with major matters". He added that EDDI discusses these with family and friends and added "as we all do".
6. The doctor told the Tribunal that EDDI had been supported by his father to make medical decisions and that EDDI had told him that he did not want his mother to be involved in his medical care. EDDI had also specifically told him that his mother should not be given access to medical records under any circumstances.
7. In response to a question from Mr MacGregor, the doctor stated that "autism spectrum" is on EDDI's list of diagnoses.
8. EDDI's mother sought to question the doctor about his failure to mention autism and other matters, to which the doctor stated that EDDI has mild to moderate impaired decision-making ability, which is multifactorial regardless of causes.
9. Mr MacGregor submitted that the Tribunal did not have any evidence of impaired decision making.

1. DNO was questioned at some length about whether there are any decisions about personal matters that need to be made for EDDI. While it is not necessary to repeat everything that she said, it was apparent from her answers that she was not able to identify any current decisions that need to be made in relation to EDDI's personal circumstances
2. It was clear that DNO had been very concerned about EDDI's health before he became a patient of Dr Teare, but she conceded that there has been a significant improvement in his health in the last 12 months. She expressed concern about being unable to call an ambulance if EDDI needs one. However, after some questioning and discussion, she appeared to accept that she does not need to be a guardian in order to call an ambulance for him in an emergency.
3. DNO did not identify any current decisions that need to be made about services required by EDDI. UDI informed the Tribunal that he is EDDI's plan nominee in relation to the NDIS.
4. When she was asked by the Tribunal whether there are any current decisions that need to be made in relation to where EDDI will live, DNO agreed that no such decisions need to be made.
5. Mr MacGregor submitted that there are no guardianship decisions that need to be made at this stage. In relation to medical matters, EDDI is happy with his change of doctor and EDDI says that he can make his own decisions in relation to medical matters.
6. Mr MacGregor informed the Tribunal that if a Guardian is to be appointed, EDDI would prefer it to be the Public Guardian rather than his mother. When asked by the Tribunal, EDDI confirmed that.

1. It is not necessary to list all that DNO said in her application about why she wished to replace EDDI's father as his administrator, but it is sufficient to say that the views expressed by her indicate that she does not believe that EDDI's father has been administering his finances properly.
2. When she was asked why she felt that an administrator was needed, she said that EDDI does not do any internet or phone banking, and she believed that a lot of the transfers of funds were being done by EDDI's father. She said that she wants EDDI to be taught how to manage his own finances.
3. When EDDI was questioned, he said that he does manage his finances and that he pays all his own bills. He said that he has a debit card and when he receives bills, he pays those usually at the post office but sometimes at Service Tasmania. In addition, some of his bills are paid by a direct debit from his account. For example, he had arranged for a direct debit for the payment of his rent.
4. EDDI agreed that his father does help him with his finances, and he was happy for that to continue. EDDI indicated that he plays games online, and that could make him more vulnerable to being hacked through his own computer.
5. EDDI told the Tribunal that he has three accounts. He has his "everyday account" from which he pays his bills. The other two accounts were the accounts referred to in the administration order. EDDI referred to those accounts as the "main account" and the "investment account".
6. EDDI's Centrelink income is paid to his "main account". He informed the Tribunal that his father paid a regular sum of $300 from the "main account" into his "everyday account", which he said was like an allowance.
7. DNO expressed concern that EDDI had not bought a car or a computer chair. She said she would like to help him look for a car.
8. EDDI told the Tribunal that he is currently looking for a car and he has funds to be able to buy one. He also said that he could get a computer chair whenever he liked, but he wanted to get his health issues sorted out first.
9. DNO was clearly concerned about payments from EDDI's account for fuel used in his father's car. UDI gave the Tribunal a reasonable explanation of how he calculates how much fuel should be purchased for what he does for EDDI, and it was clear that EDDI was happy for that to continue. (Earlier in the hearing it had been noted that while DNO lives approximately 300 metres from where EDDI lives, his father lives approximately 130 kilometres away.)
10. UDI told the Tribunal that EDDI's accounts are not touched without EDDI's permission. He said that if it was necessary for EDDI to go to a doctor, he would put extra money into EDDI's everyday account so that EDDI could pay for that. He commented that on occasions EDDI has asked him to transfer excess funds back from the everyday account into the main account.
11. UDI informed the Tribunal that EDDI is becoming "more and more aware of his financial responsibilities" and he thought "parental guidance" is needed now rather than "control". He said this was why he had been reluctant to continue as administrator, but he added that if an administrator is needed, he would be quite prepared to be fulfil the role again.
12. Earlier in the hearing DNO had said: "If [EDDI] wishes for his father to run his accounts, that's OK."
13. UDI was questioned about two loans (totalling $1,700) that he had borrowed from EDDI. He told the Tribunal that the loans were for repairs to his car. The funds had come from the main account, not from the everyday account. When UDI was asked if he had EDDI's approval for that, EDDI answered quickly for his father and said "Yes". EDDI went on to say that he was happy with the arrangement.
14. UDI told the Tribunal that he had already repaid $1,400 and that $300 was still owing. He added that if EDDI had said "No", the loans would not have happened.
15. UDI informed the Tribunal that, in the last 12 months or more, EDDI has been consulted about every aspect of his payments and banking.
16. UDI informed the Tribunal that he had been EDDI's administrator for six years. He had set up the two accounts for EDDI that are referred to in the administration order. He said that "the whole idea was for EDDI to learn to handle his finances" and he added that "it is working". However, he did say it had been "two steps forward and one step back" in the early stages.
17. Ms Reid informed the Tribunal that she did not see that there was a need for an administrator at this time.
18. Mr MacGregor said that EDDI pays his bills. He is happy with the current arrangement and is aware of transactions. He also said that EDDI was happy with the loans to his father.
19. Mr MacGregor said that EDDI can be supported in his decisions in relation to the term deposit and buying a car.
20. Mr MacGregor informed the Tribunal that if an administrator is to be appointed, EDDI would prefer it to be the Public Trustee rather than his mother. When asked by the Tribunal, EDDI also confirmed that.

1. The Tribunal is not satisfied to the requisite extent that EDDI has impaired decision-making ability in relation to personal or financial matters. Although the Tribunal was told by the doctor that EDDI has "mild to moderate impairment", we are satisfied that he has sufficient decision-making ability for his current needs.

Conclusions - Need for a Guardian and/or Administrator

1. In addition to the conclusions about EDDI's decision-making ability, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that EDDI needs a guardian or an administrator. The Tribunal cannot make "just in case" orders because something might happen in the future. There must be a current need.
2. EDDI's medical situation has stabilised significantly over the past twelve months and there are no decisions that need to be made about his housing or services.
3. EDDI makes decisions about financial matters. He gets help from his father in relation to managing his finances and he appreciates that. He is also able to instruct his bank to allow his father to be involved.

1. The Tribunal concludes that the guardianship application should be dismissed, and the order for administration should be revoked. The orders are set out on the cover page to this statement of reasons.