Guardianship and Administration Act 1995; ss 3, 5, 8, 11, 51, 52, 54

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

1. NG is a 55-year-old man who lives in supported independent living (SIL).
2. On 12 November 2024 the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) received an application for administration in respect of NG (the application). The applicant is Chloe Patman, practice leader from Possability.
3. The application was initially listed for hearing on 6 December 2024, but was adjourned. The matter was again listed for hearing on 23 January 2025. At that hearing the Tribunal was told that the applicant had sought leave on 16 January 2025 to withdraw the application and that this request was denied by Deputy President Mollross that same day. The applicant was not present at hearing. This denied the Tribunal the opportunity to question the applicant about her request to withdraw the application. NG's sister, MG, who lives overseas was present at hearing and advised the Tribunal she wanted to be considered for appointment as her brother's administrator. To allow time for a Part C application to be completed by NG, and to allow her time to consider the obligations as administrator under the Guardian and Administration Act 1995 (the Act), the Tribunal again adjourned the matter.
4. The application for administration was relisted for hearing before the Tribunal on 20 March 2025.

1. The hearing was attended by NG; the applicant, Chloe Patman of Possability, Avon Li on behalf of the Public Trustee, NG's two sisters, DI and MG, and Rebecca Redman-Walsh of Speak Out Advocacy.
2. The Tribunal, as a matter of formality, asked the applicant her reasons for seeking leave to withdraw the application for administration order. Ms Patman told the Tribunal that she had spoken with NG's sisters, who both live overseas. The sisters indicated that they were in a position when visiting the State to assist NG to secure the larger part of his estate and support NG with managing his day-to-day finances in line with his wish to be in charge of his finances. Ms Patman said that at the time of this conversation it was agreed she would withdraw the application, and they would go ahead with the plan that NG's sisters support him to manage his own finances.
3. Ms Patman told the Tribunal that she was aware that MG had competed a Part C application to become her brother's administrator.
4. For reasons outlined below, the Tribunal appointed MG as administrator for NG to make financial decisions for him.
5. A request for written reasons from Ms Redman-Walsh was received on 2 April 2025. These are the reasons.

1. Pursuant to s 51 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (the Act) the Tribunal, after a hearing may make an order appointing an administrator for a person in respect of the person's financial matters if it is satisfied that the person:
   1. has impaired decision-making ability in respect of decisions relating to financial matters;
   2. is in need of 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 an 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. 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;

1. 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.

(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).

1. Section 5 of the Act sets out the ways a "person's personal and social well-being" can be promoted:
   1. Meaning of promoting a person's personal and social well-being

For the purposes of this Act, and without limiting the ways in which this may occur, the personal and social well-being of a person is promoted by -

(a) respecting the inherent dignity of the person and the person's individual autonomy, including the freedom to make their own choices and their right to independence; and

(b) respecting and promoting the person's own decision-making ability; and

(c) ensuring that the person is free from neglect, abuse, exploitation and other forms of harm; and

(d) the importance of preserving the dignity of risk of a person with impaired decision-making ability in respect of decisions is to be recognised and to inform those decisions; and

(e) respecting the right of the person to be treated without discrimination; and

(f) respecting the person's individuality, including personal or lifestyle activities that provide pleasure, purpose and fulfilment to the person; and

(g) having regard to the person's existing supportive relationships, religion, values, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation and cultural and linguistic environment; and

(h) respecting the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to enjoy their culture, including with other people who share that culture; and

(i) respecting the person's right to privacy and to have contact with and correspond privately with others; and

(j) recognising the importance of, and facilitating access to, the provision of supports that enable the person to exercise the person's autonomy; and

(k) recognising the importance to the person of any companion animal that the person has and having regard to the benefits that may be obtained from the person having a companion animal.

1. If the Tribunal is satisfied to make an administration order, the duration of the order must be considered.
   1. Expiration of administration orders

(1) An administration order has effect for 3 years, or such shorter period as the Tribunal may specify in the order, unless the order is continued in effect under section 68.

(2) In determining the duration of an order, the Tribunal must take into account the following:

(a) the likelihood of improvements to the represented person's decision-making ability;

(b) the prospect that changes to circumstances, including interventions to establish support arrangements, will mitigate the need for a guardian or administrator (or both);

(c) the requirement that the order is the least restrictive to the person's freedom of decision and action as is possible in the circumstances.

1. If the Tribunal is satisfied to make an administration order, the Tribunal needs to consider persons eligible to be appointed as administrator.
   1. 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. When making an order for administration, the Tribunal must have regard to the principles in s 8 of the Act, which provide:

(1) A person performing a function under this Act is to observe the following principles:

(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 -

(i) to make and participate in decisions affecting the person; and

(ii) to express the person's will and preferences; and

(iii) to develop the person's decision-making ability;

(c) 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.

1. We had before us a Health Practitioner Report (HPR) authored by Dr EE, NG's General Practitioner, on 7 October 2024, and second copy of the same report amended on 16 January 2025 following her assessment of NG. Dr EE stated that NG has impaired decision-making ability due to an intellectual disability that has affected NG since birth. Dr EE also opined that NG had been diagnosed with anxiety and low cognition.
2. Dr EE stated that she had been assessing NG for over 5 years and sees NG every 6-8 weeks. Dr EE indicated that NG had decision-making ability about some day-to-day financial matters but did not have decision-making ability regarding more complex financial and legal decisions.
3. Ms Redman-Walsh told the Tribunal that NG had "objections" to Dr EE's report as he believes he has capacity to manage his own finances on the basis that he has managed his finances for many years. It was Ms Redman-Walsh's submission that NG could manage his own finances with support. No other person present at the hearing had any objections to the HPR. No other medical evidence was provided.
4. The Tribunal referred to Dr EE's assessment of NG that he did not have decision-making ability regarding more complex financial and legal decisions such as purchasing and selling a major asset, managing large sums of money and pursuing entitlements such as superannuation or income owing. The Tribunal asked Ms Redman-Walsh what she thought about that assessment. She in turn asked NG if he agreed with this. NG's response was not audible to the Tribunal, but Ms Redman-Walsh said that he agreed and stated that NG had organised his own independent financial advice.

1. To make an order appointing an administrator, we must be satisfied that NG is currently in need of an administrator as required by s 51(1)(b) of the Act. The application indicates that NG requires an administrator as his decision-making skills are minimal. The applicant states that the service provider Possability supports NG in managing his day-to-day personal spending and that there is concern as NG has inherited a large sum of money that requires appropriate financial management and Possability were not in a position to assist. The applicant also indicates that, in the past, NG had been "financially abused" and there was concern that this may occur again.
2. DI told the Tribunal that in the past, there was an occasion when one of the carers at the house where NG was residing had accessed some of NG's funds in an improper way. MG added that there has been a significant financial embezzlement from NG's funds via a previous supported living service. MG said that NG was a kind and generous person, and that this personal characteristic is easily taken advantage of.
3. At hearing we heard that NG was unable to manage his day-to-day finances without support and NG was unsure of how much money he had in his accounts. With assistance from Ms Redman-Walsh, NG said he had $130,000.
4. From the documentation before us, we were able to ascertain that NG has $4,952.13 in a savings account and $137,881.68 in a pensioner security account. The Tribunal was not privy to any information relating to any pension that NG may be receiving.
5. The Tribunal was provided with a letter authored by [TC] Director and Senior Financial Planner of [a financial advisory company] advising that NG had been accepted as a client of the company under a pro-bono financial planning scheme. [TC] advised that the company "will be providing [NG] with comprehensive financial planning advice and ongoing support to help ensure that his financial affairs are managed in a way appropriate to his needs and objectives". The Tribunal asked Ms Redman-Walsh if NG sought this financial advice of his own accord or whether she had organised access to the advice for him. Ms Redman-Walsh said that she had supported NG to seek this advice.
6. The Tribunal asked NG about his financial situation. He was able to state that he has two bank accounts and he knew the balance of funds in one of those accounts. NG was asked about his mother's Will and what he was due to benefit under the that Will. NG indicated he did not know.
7. On both the written and oral evidence, we are satisfied there is a need for an administration order for NG. An administrator can support NG in managing his day-to-day finances and manage the large sum of money in his pensioner security account. We are satisfied that NG's needs cannot be met by less restrictive means. We are also satisfied that NG's sisters, MG and DI are supportive of an administration order being made to manage NG's finances.

1. In respect of whether an administration order will promote NG's personal and social wellbeing, MG told the Tribunal that both she and her sister DI were in full support of NG's wishes to manage his day-to-day finances and that an order would enable support for NG in this management but would also safeguard his finances for the future.
2. The Tribunal is satisfied that an order will promote NG's decision-making and freedom to make choices on how to spend his money on day-to-day matters. We are also satisfied that an order will ensure NG is free from abuse or exploitation of his finances that has occurred in the past.

1. MG, NG's sister completed the Part C application and indicated she was seeking appointment as NG's administrator. In signing the Part C declaration, MG acknowledged the considerable duties and obligations as an administrator under the Act.
2. At hearing, MG stated she and her sister, DI had concerns about the management of NG's finances and how best to support him. MG said it was logical that a family member would be in the best position to support NG with his finances and in particular, to make sure some of his funds were in a high interest account and to make sure those funds were protected whilst giving NG the independence to manage some of his own day-to-day expenses, pleasures and activities.
3. MG further stated that she and DI had concerns they were not always informed about matters concerning their brother. They provided the example of Ms Redman-Walsh seeking financial planning advice, without their knowledge, from [a financial advisory company] about the management of NG's finances and ongoing support to manage his funds. MG stated that if she and her sister DI remained in an informal role assisting NG with his finances then there was no mandate for anybody to provide them with any information regarding their brother's financial circumstances.
4. MG stated that she did not have confidence while in an informal role that she and her sister DI would receive the information they needed to help NG make good decisions about his money.
5. MG told the Tribunal she was in a good position to assist NG with managing his finances. MG raised concerns at the hearing that she had been sent a copy of the hearing papers that detailed NG's bank accounts. MG thought the amount in the account with the bulk of his funds was lower than she expected as the money in that account had come from their mother's superannuation payout. MG expected the amount to be around $200,00.00. Ms Patman told the Tribunal that the total amount of NG's mother's superannuation money that was deposited into NG's bank account had been taxed prior to being deposited into his account. MG stated that she thought that made sense.
6. The Tribunal asked Ms Patman of Possability had a record of the amount of superannuation gifted to NG, the pre-tax amount and the amount actually deposited. Ms Patman told the Tribunal that NG had all the paperwork relating to his finances and that Possability does not keep these records.
7. The Tribunal asked NG if he was aware of the total amount of money gifted to him from his mother's superannuation fund and the amount of tax that was taken out before it was deposited into his account. NG indicated he did not. The Tribunal asked Ms Redman-Walsh if NG had provided her with these records. Ms Redman-Walsh said he had not.
8. In relation to the Part C application by MG, Ms Redman-Walsh said she was "directed by [NG], and [NG] wants to manage his own finances and he is happy for his sisters to be a part of that".
9. The Tribunal queried Ms Redman-Walsh about the future involvement of [a financial advisory company] in managing NG's financial matters and the fact that they would directly correspond with NG, and asked how would [a financial advisory company] involve NG's sisters? Ms Redman-Walsh said they could meet NG's sisters via online mediums and that "NG would be happy with that".
10. In considering MG's application to be administrator, the Tribunal asked MG about possible options that could be set up for her as administrator such as having a various range of powers, for example the management of the large cash funds while leaving NG in charge of managing his pension. The Tribunal asked MG's opinion of such an arrangement.
11. MG told the Tribunal she thought that was a logical option but made comment that in her observation the more organisations became involved in NG matters, the worse the communication to them as a family had become. MG was concerned that another organisation was potentially being drawn into the management of NG's funds. (This was another reference to the potential engagement of [a financial advisory company] at the apparent instigation of his advocate, Ms Redman-Walsh.) The Tribunal shared that concern. MG agreed that NG manages his day-to-day funds really well and that it was part of his enjoyment as he is able to choose some of the things he spends his money on, but it was the large sum of money that causes the most concern for her.
12. We accepted MG's evidence that she would be available to act as administrator to manage NG's finances and that she is a suitable person to act as administrator and would take into account the wishes and preferences of NG. She impressed the Tribunal with her evident kindness and good will towards her brother, NG. Based on all the evidence we are satisfied that MG is a suitable person to act as administrator for NG in respect of his financial matters. We are also satisfied that MG understands her obligations and duties and will act in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

1. The Tribunal was provided with a copy of NG, MG and DI's mother's Will. The Will provides MG and DI with a remainderman interest in their mother's home, subject to a life interest for NG. Should he cease to reside there the home effectively falls to MG and DI.
2. The Tribunal put it to MG as an administrator that she would not have any ability to effect NG's accommodation but, as a guardian MG could, and asked if MG felt any discomfort that there was the potential for financial benefit to her and her sister DI if NG no longer lived in the house. MG clarified that NG currently did not reside in the house anyway and that it was only a potential plan at this stage that he move into the home. MG also said there was ongoing work around whether this was a realistic plan.
3. MG told the Tribunal that it does not cause her any discomfort should NG move to the house as the issue at hand was making the best plans for NG. MG stated she was not in a position financially to want or need the house to be sold and that the house still has emotional value for the family.
4. MG stated the house is currently sitting vacant and that NG goes to stay at the house occasionally, usually when a family member is visiting and staying there also. A maternal aunt also stays at the house intermittently when in the State.
5. DI told the Tribunal the house is in the hands of the executors of their mother's Will.
6. Ms Redman-Walsh raised the issue of a potential conflict should NG want to move into his mother's home. She told the Tribunal that NG had raised this issue with her also. Ms Redman-Walsh said it was NG's wish to move back to the family home and while NG's sisters were currently happy for this to occur it was a concern that their position could change.
7. Ms Redman-Walsh also stated there was a trust fund set up for the undertaking of maintenance works on the home. Ms Redman-Walsh raised concerns that there may be ongoing maintenance costs that the trust fund could not cover, and that NG would have to cover the maintenance costs himself.
8. MG clarified there was no trust fund in place but there was the remainder of their mother's estate and the family home which is held in trust for NG. MG said initially there were discussions before their mother passed away that the executors of the estate should apply for financial administration in order to safeguard NG's amount of money from the estate. MG said she and DI would always support whatever was decided was best for their brother and that if he wanted to move into the family home and it was financially viable then they would support the move. The Tribunal accepted those assurances.
9. In considering appointing MG as administrator for NG, we considered s 54(d), that is the extent to which the person's interest may conflict with the interest of the proposed represented person. In considering this section we had to look to s 54(5)(b) of the Act [as outlined in paragraph 16 above]. The Tribunal determined that MG and DI's remainderman interest in their mother's Will did not amount to a conflict of interest of NG.

1. The medical evidence before the Tribunal states NG has had an intellectual disability from birth. We heard evidence that NG requires support in making day-to-day financial decisions and will require an administrator to manage complex financial and legal decisions. We are satisfied an administration order is the least restrictive of NG's decision and actions as is possible in the circumstances. In considering these matters, we determine the duration of the administration order for NG should be 3 years.

1. MG is appointed as administrator for NG, until 19 March 2028.
2. The administrator is to lodge with the Tribunal a financial summary relating to the financial matters of NG within 8 weeks from the date of this order.
3. The administrator is authorised to distribute gifts from NG's property to a maximum of $200.00 per year. Such gifts are subject to the administrator's discretion.