Guardianship and Administration Act 1995; ss 3, 5, 8, 11, 51, 67, 68.

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

1. OKU is a 46-year-old man who, is in receipt of a disability support pension and successfully living independently in Tasmania.
2. Since 9 March 2017, OKU has been subject to an administration order appointing the Public Trustee (Tas) as his administrator. The order was reviewed in June 2020, May 2023, and again on 29 April 2024 when it was continued to 24 April 2027 (administration order).
3. On 22 January 2025, FGK, a parent of OKU, lodged an application with the Tribunal to review the administration order. The application stated there was a 'change' in OKU's decision-making ability and the administration order was 'no longer required'. FGK has a close and supportive relationship with OKU.
4. On 16 February 2026, the application came before the Tribunal. The hearing was attended in person by OKU, FGK, Ms Claudia Thomas of Advocacy Tasmania and family friend, MD. Attending via video conferencing was Ms Kira Jago from the Public Trustee and BE, NDIS support coordinator for OKU. After hearing evidence and submissions, the Tribunal revoked the administration order.
5. On 17 February 2026, Ms Claudia Thomas advocate for FGK requested a statement of reasons. These are the reasons.

1. The power of the Tribunal to review an administration order is derived from s 67 of Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (the Act). Section 68 outlines the actions the Tribunal may take after undertaking a review which include varying, continuing or revoking an order.
2. Section 51 of the Act set out the criteria which must be met before the Tribunal can continue or vary an administration order. These require the Tribunal to be satisfied that OKU:

(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 is 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, in this case OKU, 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).

1. When determining the element of need, the Tribunal must consider: the wishes and preferences of OKU; whether need can be met by other means less restrictive of OKU's freedom of decision and action; and the wishes and preferences of any close family members, carers and other significant person.
2. Section 5 of the Act sets out the ways a 'person's personal and social well-being' can be promoted.
3. When making its decision, the Tribunal must observe the principles contained in s 8 of the Act.

1. In addition to the application to review the administration order the Tribunal had the following documents made available to it:
   1. Administration Order made 29 April 2024.
   2. Submissions prepared by FGK's advocate received by the Tribunal on 12 February 2026.
   3. Health Practitioner Report by Dr Elisabeth Robin (Dr Robin) of 2 October 2025.
   4. Consultation notes for OKU by Dr Robin on 2 October 2025.
   5. Health Care Practitioner Report by Dr Robin of 1 March 2024 (HCPR).
   6. Tribunal notification of examination of accounts of 2026, and 4 April 2025.
   7. Administrator's Annual Reports received by the Tribunal on 21 March 2025 and 10 February 2026.
   8. Letters from Services Australia to OKU of 21 March 2025 and 10 February 2026.
2. At the outset of the hearing OKU indicated that he also sought to have control of his pension and budget meaning, he sought a revocation of the administration order.
3. OKU's financial matters were made up of his disability support pension, bank account, modest funds held by the Public Trustee as administrator, OKU's day to day expenses and a renewal of residential lease. It was submitted those financial matters were not complex financial decisions.
4. Dr Robin's report in 2024 stated that OKU had a disability. She stated he had an intellectual disability (low IQ) which she characterised as mild. Furthermore, he had a mental illness with diagnoses of 'episodes of past depression + substance abuse, anxiety' which she characterised as mild, fluctuating and improving. She opined the disability caused OKU to experience deficits in his planning and reasoning skills, and being susceptibility to influence/suggestibility. The disability affected his capacity to make reasonable judgements about day-to-day financial requirements and complex financial and legal decisions.
5. Dr Robin's most recent HPR stated that OKU expressed a clear desire to manage his finances and would prefer support through 'Centrelink financial adviser support'. Dr Robin stated that OKU had current medical conditions of intellectual disability since birth, 'developmental delay FSIQ 55, anxiety, previous mental related substance abuse - noted well'. In relation to the question does OKU 'have decision-making ability about some or all of their financial matters?' Dr Robin stated 'yes' because he can understand, retain, use and weigh information relevant to the decision and communicate the decision (whether by speech, gesture or other means). By way of clarification Dr Robin underlined the words 'about some' and further stated 'complex decisions would require some support but happy to do this through Centrelink, when mental health decline happens this is more difficult'. In relation to day to day financial requirements she opined that he could 'budget with support' and more complex financial and legal decisions 'not able + not relevant'. Dr Robin further stated that OKU was 'working hard to improve his life and achieving good goals + gaining independence. With decreasing in surrounding bad influences and stress his mental health had improved + he is now seen to increase financial independence with contribution + support teams support'.
6. FGK and OKU agreed with the recent opinion of Dr Robin. Ms Jago did not dispute the content of the HPR.
7. FGK stated in the application that there was a change in OKU's decision-making ability and the administration order was no longer required. In addition to supporting Dr Robins' HPR she stated that an order did not promote OKU's personal and social wellbeing. She promoted his right to independence. In October 2025, OKU had made the significant step in moving into private rental accommodation living on his own. FGK stated that he was 'doing very well' and 'is capable of living independently'.
8. FGK's application also expressed concerns regarding lack of communication and provision of information to OKU by the administrator however this was not explored at hearing.
9. At the hearing FGK stated that previously she had supported the administration order because OKU 'needed it'. However now he was thriving in his own home, cooking for himself, keeping his property immaculate. He had gained weight, had supports and was socially active. He accessed the community with supports going shopping and attending regular sporting activities. Since October 2025 there had been a significant and positive improvement in OKU's capability to live independently.
10. At the hearing BE endorsed FGK's comments regarding OKU's success in living independently.
11. Ms Jago informed the Tribunal that the usual client account manager for OKU had left the Public Trustee on 9 February 2026, and she took over the file on 13 February 2026. Ms Jago had been informed by FGK that OKU had 'turned his life around', was well supported and had budgeting assistance from Centrelink. Ms Jago submitted that the financial matters were not complex, she did not dispute the opinion of Dr Robin and did not oppose the administration order being revoked.

1. The Tribunal was grateful to OKU and his supports attending the hearing and answering our questions. The Tribunal considered all the evidence before it.
2. The Tribunal acknowledged the improvements that OKU had made in his personal life with his successful transition to independent living. The Tribunal congratulated OKU for the progress he had made and encouraged him to build on the gains he had made.
3. The Tribunal acknowledged FGK as a strong support and advocate for OKU. The caring and loving relationship was evident at hearing.
4. The Tribunal accepted that whilst the financial matters for OKU are significant and important to OKU, the financial matters for OKU did not constitute complex financial decisions.
5. The Tribunal accepted the opinion of Dr Robin outlined in her HPR par 17 and was not satisfied that OKU had impaired decision-making ability in respect of decisions relating to his financial matters.

The administration order for OKU made on 29 April 2024 was reviewed and revoked.