Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (Tas); ss 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 51, 54.

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

1. MXT currently lives in rented accommodation with his mother UKO, and his sister HBT, who are his primary supports. MXT is a participant of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and both UKO and HBT are his NDIS nominees. MXT turned 18 years of age on the 31 May 2025. At the time of hearing, MXT had completed his schooling and was not working.
2. An application for administration for MXT was filed by with the Tribunal on the 12 October 2025 by UKO (the application), who sought to be appointed MXT's administrator.
3. The application was listed for hearing in Hobart on 14 November 2025.

1. The hearing proceeded on the 14 November 2025 and was attended in person by MXT, UKO, HBT and Melanie O'Connell from the Public Trustee.
2. After hearing evidence and submissions, we reserved our decision. These are our reasons for decision.

1. Section 51 of the Act set out the criteria which must be met before the Tribunal can make an administration order. These require the Tribunal to be satisfied that the person:

(i) has impaired decision-making ability in respect of decisions relating to financial matters; and

(ii) is in need of an administrator; and

(iii) the Tribunal is satisfied that the order will promote the person's personal and social well-being.

1. Financial matters are defined in s 3 of the Act as:

financial matter, in relation to a person, means any matter relating to the estate of the person including the income, assets, debts, liabilities, real property, personal property and financial affairs of the person, and includes any legal matter that relates to the property or finances of the person;

2. Decision-making ability is defined in s 11 of the Act. Section 11(2) of the Act sets out when an adult has impaired decision-making ability in respect of decisions.

11. Decision-making ability > > ... > > (2) For the purposes of this Act, an adult has impaired decision-making ability in respect of a decision if the adult is unable, even with the provision of access to practicable and appropriate support, to - > > (a) understand information relevant to the decision; or > > (b) retain information relevant to the decision for a sufficient time to make and consistently communicate the decision; or > > (c) use or weigh information relevant to the decision; or > > (d) communicate the decision (whether by speech, gesture or other means).

3. When determining the element of need, the Tribunal must consider: the wishes and preferences of the person; whether need can be met by other means less restrictive of the person's freedom of decision and action; and the wishes and preferences of any close family members, carers and other significant persons.
4. Section 5 of the Act sets out a non-exhaustive list of ways a 'person's personal and social well-being' can be promoted.
5. When making its decision, the Tribunal must observe the principles contained in s 8 of the Act.
6. When considering appointment of an administrator s 54 of the Act applies.

54. Persons eligible to be appointed as administrators > > (1) The Tribunal may only appoint the following persons as an administrator for a proposed represented person in respect of financial matters: > > (a) a person, including the guardian for the proposed represented person, who is eligible for appointment under subsection (2); > > (b) if no person is eligible for appointment under subsection (2) - > > (i) a trustee company within the meaning of the Trustee Companies Act 1953; or > > (ii) The Public Trustee; or > > (iii) the Public Guardian. > > (2) A person who is an adult is eligible for appointment as an administrator for a proposed represented person in respect of financial matters if - > > (a) the person consents to act as administrator; and > > (b) the Tribunal is satisfied that the person - > > (i) understands their obligations and duties and will act in accordance with the requirements of the Act; and > > (ii) is a suitable person to act as administrator for the proposed represented person in respect of those financial matters. > > (3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a), a person consents to act as an administrator if the person gives to the Tribunal a written declaration, in a form approved by the Tribunal, that states the following: > > (a) that the person consents to act as the administrator for the represented person in respect of that person's financial matters; > > (b) that the person understands their obligations and duties under this Act; > > (c) that the person understands the consequences of failing to comply with their obligations and duties under this Act; > > (d) that the person undertakes to act in accordance with this Act; > > (e) such other information as may be prescribed. > > (4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b)(ii), in determining whether a person is a suitable person to act as the administrator for a proposed represented person in respect of financial matters, the Tribunal must take into account the following: > > (a) the wishes and preferences of the proposed represented person (so far as they can be ascertained); > > (b) the desirability of preserving existing relationships that are important to the proposed represented person; > > (c) the compatibility of the person proposed as administrator with the proposed represented person and with the proposed represented person's guardian, if any; > > (d) the extent to which the person's interests may conflict with the interests of the proposed represented person; > > (e) the desirability of appointing a person who has a personal relationship with the proposed represented person, rather than a person without such a relationship; > > (f) whether the person will be available to act as administrator for the proposed represented person in respect of those financial matters; > > (g) whether the person has the requisite skills or access to appropriate support to perform the role competently. > > (5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(d) - > > (a) the fact that the person is a close family member of the proposed represented person does not, of itself, mean that the person's interests are likely to conflict with the interests of the proposed represented person; and > > (b) the fact that the person may be a beneficiary of any part of the proposed represented person's estate on the proposed represented person's death does not, of itself, mean that the person's interests are likely to conflict with the interests of the proposed represented person; and > > (c) the fact that the person is in conflict with a close family member of the proposed represented person does not, of itself, mean that the person's interests are likely to conflict with the interests of the proposed represented person.

1. A Health Practitioner Report (HPR) from Dr XN dated 8 September 2025 had been lodged with the Application. Dr XN, who had been MXT's general practitioner since 2007 noted he had seen MXT on the 8 September 2025 for the purpose of assessment and report. Dr XN's evidence was that MXT has impaired decision-making ability for all financial matters as he is unable to retain and use and weigh information about both simple financial matters such as operating a bank account, paying accounts or budgeting and for complex financial matters. The HPR also stated MXT has limited ability to communicate decisions. The HPR indicated MXT has a diagnosis of intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
2. A Behaviour Support Plan for MXT from TC, psychologist dated 24 June 2024 was also provided with the application. TC reported that MXT has intellectual disability, ASD and generalised anxiety and global development delay. Further a functional capacity assessment report from KB, occupational therapist (OT report) was lodged by UKO which indicated MXT has 'reduced learning capacity due to impairment to cognition, particularly reduced information processing speed, cognitive flexibility, abstract thinking and reasoning skills'. The OT report also indicated MXT has 'reduced attention, memory and executive functioning skills including planning and problem-solving skills.
3. UKO gave evidence that MXT does not understand the value of money, could not use an ATM, would be unable to engage with Centrelink, and has limited understanding about any financial matters.
4. No one at hearing opposed the medical and allied health evidence. When we asked MXT about the reports, MXT demonstrated difficulty in responding directly to questions.
5. Based on all the medical and allied health evidence of Dr XN, TC, KB and the oral evidence of UKO at hearing, we find MXT has impaired decision-making ability for financial matters.

1. In the application UKO indicated 'N/A' to the question 'Why do you believe the person needs an administrator?' At hearing UKO confirmed she had been informally managing MXT's finances and sought an administration order so she can do the banking for MXT, allocate him money for his own personal spending, and to protect him.
2. UKO stated she was going to take MXT to Centrelink next week to apply for a pension for him. UKO indicated it was necessary to get reports confirming MXT's disabilities, before applying for the disability support pension. When questioned why MXT was not receiving any Centrelink benefits, UKO stated that as MXT is 18, if he received a youth allowance, she 'would miss out on family assistance.'
3. UKO indicated that once MXT received a pension he would have to pay $270.00 a fortnight for board and would receive personal spending of $100.00 a fortnight. UKO also commented that she would like MXT to have a funeral plan.
4. UKO stated MXT had a bank account with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA). When questioned why registry enquiries with the CBA had not produced any record of a bank account for MXT, UKO indicated she had opened a dolomite account when MXT was a child and thought the account was in both their names and confirmed she had received a bank statement in the last week. UKO raised concern that her name may be removed from the account given MXT was 18 and that is why she wanted 'guardianship so she could put her name back on the account.' UKO also noted that MXT had a card allocated to him and the account had a balance of $93.00. UKO indicated that sometimes MXT would get angry and upset over financial decisions she made, as he did not understand budgeting and the cost of things.
5. UKO and HBT supported their need for an order and MXT confirmed he could not manage financial matters himself. Ms O'Connell also supported there being a need for an administration order.
6. Based on all the evidence we find there is a need for an administration order. Despite turning 18 years of age on the 31 May 2025, MXT is not receiving a pension from Centrelink, and this needs to be applied for. Further MXT does not have a bank account in his sole name, which he is entitled to have. An administrator would need to have lawful authority to change MXT's banking arrangements and ensure he has his own bank account. An administrator can ensure all MXT's financial needs are being met and can assist MXT with budgeting, ensure payment of his expenses, manage any savings and assist him in identifying financial goals. We are satisfied there is no least restrictive way to proceed.

1. In the application, UKO did not answer "How will an administration order promote the person's personal and social wellbeing? At hearing, UKO indicated she wanted to protect MXT from other people taking financial advantage of him.
2. We find that an administration order is protective of MXT's financial wellbeing and reduces the likelihood of others taking financial advantage of him. An order ensures MXT's funds are spent on his needs and wants and ensures payment of his living and other expenses. An administration order also allows for steps to be taken to support MXT in building his savings and to encourage his own financial independence.
3. We are satisfied that the appointment of an administrator would promote MXT's social and personal wellbeing.

1. The Tribunal may only appoint a person if they are found to be eligible for appointment. If a person is not eligible for appointment, it is open to the Tribunal to appoint the Public Trustee.
2. UKO sought to be appointed as MXT's administrator and lodged with the Tribunal a written declaration "Part C - Suitability for appointment and consent to act as administration if appointed" (Part C Declaration). When questioned at hearing UKO confirmed she had read the declaration before signing and lodging it with the Tribunal.
3. MXT indicated clearly, he supported the appointment of UKO as his administrator. It was clear to us that MXT and UKO have a close relationship.
4. At hearing UKO demonstrated difficulty in understanding her obligations and duties under the Act. She confirmed she was unable to use the internet and appeared to rely heavily on HBT to manage financial matters and make transactions online. When UKT was questioned how she worked out a sum for the board payment, HBT interjected and confirmed it was the same amount she paid. UKO indicated this sum went to the payment of household expenses, but no breakdown of these expenses had been done. When UKO was asked about her understanding of the reporting requirements of an administrator, she was unable to respond. UKO confirmed she had difficulty understanding the Part C Declaration she had signed, which set out all duties and obligations of an administrator including reporting to the Tribunal. When questioned, UKO was unable to articulate what a conflict of interest was, and when one may arise.
5. We explained the decision-making process required of an administrator as set out in s 9 of the Act. When asked if she would give effect to MXT's wishes and preferences UKO indicated she would most of the time 'but if it's something silly, that one's too expensive and it's not gonna [sic] be worth it' she wouldn't. When explained a decision maker can only override a person's wishes and preferences if is necessary to prevent serious harm or risk of serious harm, UKO had difficulty understanding this and articulating what 'serious harm' could be. UKO considered if MXT wanted to buy a knife or wanted to go to the pub to drink or gamble this would be serious harm. UKO demonstrated no understanding of the decision-making process under s 9 of the Act, and how that should be applied.
6. Ms O'Connell expressed concern about the amount of time it had taken to get Centrelink payments organised for MXT. Ms O'Connell stated that the disability support pension would have been paying a higher amount of funds to MXT than what UKO would have lost in family tax benefit. UKO did not respond to this.
7. Ms O'Connell indicated the Public Trustee would take a different approach if managing MXT's finances, which would include setting a budget with MXT and getting input from family members; separating out individual expenses and paying for them; and allowing MXT to spend his money on items he wants, if affordable and not causing him harm or risk of serious harm.
8. Section 54(2)(b)(i) requires us to be satisfied that UKO understands her obligations and duties and will act in accordance with the requirements of the Act. UKO was not able to demonstrate at hearing an understanding of the role of administrator and compliance with the requirements of the Act. It was evident that UKO did not understand the contents of the Part C Declaration, which she signed. We accept Ms O'Connell's submissions and note that MXT is not in receipt of a pension despite being entitled to one, on the basis UKO did not want to forgo receipt of family benefits being paid to her. Based on all the evidence, we cannot be satisfied that UKO understands the obligations and duties of an administrator or would be able to act in accordance with the Act.
9. Given our finding that UKO does not meet s 54(2)(b)(i) it is not necessary for us to consider s 54(2)(b)(ii) of the Act, that is whether UKO is a suitable person to be administrator. However, given we heard evidence at hearing as to UKO's suitability, we make the following finding. As part of suitability, we need to consider whether the proposed administrator has the requisite skills or access to appropriate supports to competently perform the role of administrator. Given UKO's own evidence at hearing, and her lack of actioning an application for Centrelink benefits for MXT and ensuring he had a bank account in his sole name, we are not satisfied that UKO has the requisite skills, even with support, to be administrator.
10. Appointing the Public Trustee as administrator for MXT ensures that UKO's financial needs and wishes are met in a way that respects his rights and preferences, while also safeguarding his financial wellbeing. Having an independent administrator also reduces the likelihood of conflict between MXT and UKO in respect of financial matters.

1. After considering and applying s 8 principles of the Act and finding the criteria in s 51 of the Act is met, we determine to make an administration order.
2. The medical and allied health evidence does not indicate at this time there is a likelihood for change of MXT's decision-making ability, or evidence that there will be changes to MXT's circumstances which will mitigate the need of an order. We find an administration order is the least restrictive of MXT's decision and action as is possible in the circumstances. We determine the duration of order should be three years.
3. We made an order allowing for gifting from MXT's property of $200.00 per annum, and within the discretion of the administrator, given MXT has close relationships with UKO and HBT.

1. The Public Trustee (Tas) is appointed as administrator for [MXT] until 23 November 2028.
2. The administrator is to lodge with the Tribunal a financial summary relating to the financial matters of [MXT] within six weeks from the date of this order.
3. The administrator is authorised to distribute gifts from [MXT's] property to a maximum of $200.00 per year. Such gifts are subject to the administrator's discretion.