Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (Tas); ss, 3, 5, 8, 11, 20, 21, 51, 54, 67, 68.

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

1. SH is a 64 year old woman who lives in her own home in southern Tasmania.
2. On the 24 December 2024 the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) received an application for guardianship and administration from SH's sister DH.
3. On the 15 January 2025 the Tribunal held a hearing and made a guardianship order for SH appointing the Public Guardian to make substitute decisions for the provision of care services to [SH], including NDIS services, until 14 April 2025. The Tribunal ordered it would conduct a review of the guardianship order of its own motion prior to the expiry of the order and ordered the Public Guardian to provide a report to the Tribunal as to actions taken under the order, no later than 14 days prior to the review hearing. The Tribunal adjourned the application for administration to allow time for a Health Practitioner Report pertaining to administration, to be obtained.
4. The application for administration and the Tribunal own motion review of the guardianship order were listed for hearing before us, a different constituted panel of the Tribunal, in Hobart on 11 April 2025.

1. The hearing was attended by SH, her sister DH, Daniel Peacock from the Office of the Public Guardian; Avon Li from the Public Trustee and Paul Roebuck from Advocacy Tasmania, as advocate for SH.
2. After hearing evidence and submissions, and for reasons outlined below, we dismissed the application for administration and revoked the guardianship order.
3. Mr Roebuck requested written reasons. These are the reasons.

1. The power of the Tribunal to review guardianship and administration orders is derived from s 67 of the Act, while s 68 outlines actions the Tribunal may take after undertaking a review which include varying, continuing or revoking an order.
2. Sections 20 and 51 of the Act set out the criteria which must be met before the Tribunal can make or continue a guardianship order or administration order. These require the Tribunal to be satisfied that the person:

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

(ii) is in need of a guardian and/or 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. Personal matters are defined in s 3 of the Act as:

personal matter, in relation to a person, means a matter relating to the personal affairs or lifestyle of the person, including, but not limited to, the following matters: > > (a) where and with whom the person lives, whether permanently or temporarily; > > (b) who may contact (whether by post, telephone, or electronic or other means) or visit the person, including - > > (i) restrictions on contact with the person or visits to the person that are necessary to promote the personal and social well-being of the person; and > > (ii) the prohibition on contact with, or visits to, the person by any person if that contact or those visits would have an adverse effect on the person; > > (c) the provision of care services to the person; > > (d) what education, training or work the person undertakes; > > (e) except as provided under Parts 5A and 6 , consenting to or refusing or withdrawing consent to the provision of health care or medical or dental treatment to the person; > > (f) except as provided under Part 6A , consenting to or refusing or withdrawing consent to the conduct of health and medical research in relation to the person; > > (g) any legal matter that relates to the personal affairs of the person;

3. 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.

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).

4. 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 person.
5. Section 5 of the Act sets out the ways a "person's personal and social well-being" can be promoted.
6. If the Tribunal is satisfied that an order should be made, then the criteria provided in ss 21 and 54 must be applied to determine the suitability of the person seeking appointment.
7. When making its decision, the Tribunal must observe the principles contained in s 8 of the Act.

1. A Health Practitioner Report (HPR) relating only to guardianship, from general practitioner, Dr Sweety Goswami dated 6 December 2024 was filed by DH with the application. In her report, Dr Goswami indicated SH was usually accompanied to appointments by a support worker or DH, who is her person responsible. Dr Goswami stated she had known SH since 15 September 2023 and was of the view SH had impaired decision making for all personal matters and all financial matters. Dr Goswami indicated SH was unable to understand, retain and use and weigh information relevant to personal and financial decisions. Dr Goswami stated:

She is unable to weigh information given to her. Repeats the same lines told and cannot communicate back effectively due to word finding difficulty and forgetting.

2. In relation to care services including NDIS, Dr Goswami stated "observations as reported by sister." During the hearing SH confirmed her sister had attended the medical appointment on 5 December 2024 with her and provided her input.
3. A HPR for both guardianship and administration matters, from Dr Frank Osz, psychiatry registrar with the Older Person's Mental Health Service, dated 23 March 2025 was filed with the registry on 7 April 2025. Dr Osz states he met SH for the purpose of assessing her and writing a report for the Tribunal hearing. Prior to the assessment, Dr Osz noted he had performed a file review and considered entries from other clinicians and read a report from the Island Clinic dated 14 February 2024 where SH had "neuropsychological studies and received the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment." Dr Osz reported that SH has major depressive disorder, mild cognitive impairment and other physical ailments. In respect of personal matters, Dr Osz stated:

there is no specific decision to be made and no concern about [SH's] ability to make decisions about personal matters.

4. Further, in respect of financial matters Dr Osz states:

Yes, [SH] has decision making ability about financial matters. She demonstrated a good understanding of her sources of income, assets, debts, liabilities, personal property, and financial matters. She was able to use and weigh her knowledge of her finances and information provided by the interviewer to arrive at appropriate and sensible approaches and decisions in relation to her finances. There was no issue with retention of information.

5. Neither Dr Osz or Dr Goswami attended the hearing to give evidence and to expand on their reports. The Tribunal preferred the evidence of Dr Osz because his evidence more directly responded to SH's decision making about personal and financial matters than the report from Dr Goswami, and he had opportunity to consider the Island Clinic's report and other medical entries on her medical record from other psychiatric registrars. Dr Osz' response in relation to financial matters was more detailed and demonstrated a more detailed assessment had occurred.
6. Further we note the observational evidence of Mr Peacock set out in his report dated 7 March 2025 and referred to at hearing:

Observationally, I have found [SH] easy to converse with, and have been able to clearly understand her desires and preferences, which she expresses well when she is comfortable. When [SH] is comfortable and is in a relaxing environment, she appears to be very reasonable, speaks clearly and can elaborate her thoughts.

7. Based on the medical evidence of Dr Osz and the observational evidence of Mr Peacock we are not satisfied SH has impaired decision-making ability in respect of personal and financial matters.
8. Given our finding in paragraph 23, it is not necessary to address whether there is a need for the appointment of an administrator and/or guardian, in these reasons. However, given the Tribunal heard evidence and submission as to need during the hearing we shall set out our findings.

It is unclear what decisions would be required within the next 12 months. [SH] is currently waiting for a response from the NDIS Home and Living Team as to whether or not she will receive NDIS funding, and what level that funding may be. Once this outcome has been recognized (sic), [SH] will be able to engage with the NDIS Support Co-ordinator, who will then be able to assist her to implement her NDIS plan. [SH] has indicated preferences regarding a Support Coordinator (Preferably Woman, Older, Easy to get along with) and is currently already receiving support from Baptcare to manage her application, who would be able to assist with this task. > > [SH] has discussed wishing to move house, due to some of the unsuitabilities of her current residence, such as steep steps into the backyard. [SH] is receiving support from Housing Connect, who have indicated that [SH] is on a 'Priority' waitlist for housing.

2. At hearing Mr Peacock stated during the period of the guardianship order he had supported SH to make her own decisions and had advocated on her behalf in the context of NDIS. Mr Peacock confirmed he had not made a substitute decision for SH during the period of the guardianship order. Mr Peacock indicated that he did not believe there was a need for a guardianship order moving forward, as SH could continue to be supported to make her own decisions. No one disagreed with this submission.
3. DH initially expressed concern that SH was financially vulnerable and had been subject to online scams previously and was concerned about savings. SH gave evidence that she had nominal savings and lived from one pension payment to the next. She confirmed she had sufficient funds for her medication and food and had two interest free loans through Centrelink where the sum of $478.00 remains outstanding. DH also gave evidence of the significant support she had provided to SH in respect of managing her finances. This included ensuring she had paid off her debts since the last hearing; advising on budgeting; and setting up Centrepay for regular expenses. SH indicated that Baptcare had offered her support with budgeting. Mr Roebuck indicated Advocacy Tasmania could provide support with decision making moving forward.
4. After hearing evidence from Mr Peacock, SH and DH and then submissions by all parties, no party was able to identify any need for a guardianship or administration order. SH's will and preference, particularly for financial matters, was that there be no order.
5. Based on all the evidence we were not satisfied SH was in need an administrator or guardian.

1. The guardianship order for SH made on 15 January 2025 has been reviewed and is revoked.
2. The application for administration is dismissed.