Guardianship and Administration Act 1995; ss, 3, 5, 8, 11, 20, 21, 51, 54.

Separate Representative: Toby McGregor (Tasmanian Legal Aid)

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

1. TDD is a 20 year old man who at the time of hearing, was admitted to hospital.
2. On 8 July 2025, the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) received an application for guardianship and administration from the Tasmanian Health Service (THS) authored by Dr CD, psychiatric registrar.
3. On the 12 June 2025, a separate representative for TDD was appointed by the Tribunal. On the 11 July 2025, DFE (TDD's mother), was joined at her request, as a party to proceedings.
4. The application for guardianship and administration was listed for hearing before the Tribunal, in Hobart on 6 August 2025.

1. The hearing was attended by Dr CD; Karen Baldwin from the Public Trustee; Toby McGregor from Tasmanian Legal Aid as separate representative of TDD; DFE; FNE (TDD's grandmother) and DE, registered nurse from THS. TDD did not attend.
2. After hearing evidence and submissions, and for reasons outlined below, we made an administration and guardianship order for TDD appointing FNE as his administrator and guardian.
3. FNE requested written reasons. These are the reasons.

1. Sections 20 and 51 of Guardianship and Administration Act 1995 (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;

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. 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.
2. Section 5 of the Act sets out the ways a 'person's personal and social well-being' can be promoted.
3. 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.
4. When making its decision, the Tribunal must observe the principles contained in s 8 of the Act.

1. A Health Practitioner Report (HPR) was filed with the application by Dr CD. In the HPR, Dr CD stated:

[TDD] has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, which is a permanent and long-term mental illness that requires lifelong psychiatric treatment and care. [TDD] also has a substance use disorder. He has been impacted by adverse childhood trauma. He is also treated for ADHD.

2. In the HPR Dr CD opined that TDD has impaired decision-making ability because he has impairment to his brain functioning resulting in TDD being unable to retain and use and weigh information relevant to financial matters; and personal matters, specifically where and with whom to live and services including services funded by the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).
3. At hearing, Dr CD stated he has known TDD for approximately 8 months as he has assessed and treated TDD, who is under a mental health treatment order. Dr CD stated TDD has been in hospital for approximately 6 weeks, and at the time of admission had presented in a psychotic state, reporting auditory hallucinations and appeared paranoid. There had been reports of violence in the community where he had assaulted members of the public. Despite being in the high dependency unit and receiving antipsychotic treatment TDD was still reporting auditory hallucinations, and had assaulted other patients and staff, requiring a period of seclusion.
4. Dr CD reported that since TDD had been in seclusion and receiving intense treatment, including clozapine and ECT, TDD's positive symptoms have improved, but not resolved and his baseline negative symptoms still existed, both of which are causing ongoing impaired decision-making capacity. Dr CD stated that TDD is unable to weigh up the pros and cons of decisions as to financial matters; and where and with whom to live; and services. Dr CD also opined that TDD's ability to retain information, despite repeated discussions with him about post discharge accommodation, NDIS services and financial matters, is impaired. DFE confirmed that she had noticed TDD's ability to retain information had greatly reduced.
5. Dr CD's medical evidence was not disputed by anyone at hearing.
6. Mr McGregor stated TDD's view was that he could make his own decisions about his money, accommodation and services/NDIS.
7. Based on the medical evidence of Dr CD, both in his HPR and oral evidence at hearing, we find TDD has impaired decision-making ability in respect of all financial matters and in respect of where and with whom he lives and services.

1. At hearing Dr CD stated that TDD has very limited functional ability to budget and prioritise funds for living costs over using his funds to purchase methamphetamine and other substances, which leads then to an acute deterioration in his mental and physical health. Dr CD noted that FNE had previously been providing some support to TDD in respect of his financial matters as he had not been able to manage them in the past.
2. FNE stated TDD receives a youth allowance from Centrelink, has no assets and has fines he has to pay. FNE stated she had been speaking with TDD during the admission, and he has expressed an interest in learning how to budget. TDD is also seeking to open a bank account in his own name, as currently his pension goes to FNE's account. FNE commented that despite TDD's intentions to stop his drug use, it is likely to continue given his addiction to drugs. She agreed an administration order was needed as she did not believe TDD would be able to manage his financial matters and budget. DFE confirmed her agreement with this evidence.
3. In respect to personal matters Dr CD stated TDD needed supported accommodation as previously living in various family members houses has been disruptive for him and has exacerbated and resulted in episodes of deterioration of his mental health. When unwell this has resulted in TDD being violent to others. Dr CD noted there were no discharge plans in place, and it was likely it would be at least several weeks before TDD was discharged as the medications, TDD was receiving, were still being titrated. Dr CD opined that stable accommodation and supports would enable greater consistency with the provision and acceptance of TDD's treatment for his mental illness. Dr CD stated TDD was only improving in his mental health because of the ECT and clozapine treatment, noting clozapine is an oral medication and cannot be missed for longer than 48 hours, and in TDD's situation, requires some supervision in its administration.
4. Mr McGregor asked Dr CD whether he had discussions with TDD about post discharge accommodation, services and treatment and whether TDD could be supported to make those decisions himself. Dr CD confirmed he had had those discussions with TDD and indicated that TDD could not be supported to make those decisions himself, because even if he did agree in the first place, he would soon change his mind, resulting in him becoming homeless or living with a person known to be a drug dealer.
5. Mr McGregor stated when he had spoken with TDD he had indicated his intention to live with his father on discharge from hospital. In respect of services and NDIS Mr McGregor indicated that TDD did not express an opinion about this, as he wasn't clear what the NDIS was or if he had a nominee. In relation to financial matters, Mr McGregor stated that TDD believed he could make his own financial decisions but also referred to FNE helping him with financial matters, which he did not mind. Mr McGregor stated TDD's preference was FNE be his administrator and his father his guardian, if orders were made.
6. Mr McGregor submitted that in his view there was a need for a guardian to be appointed to make decisions about where TDD was to live and with whom, but not in relation to services. Mr McGregor cited that TDD has a NDIS nominee being FNE, he has a support coordinator and has a NDIS plan which negates the need for a guardian to make decisions about services.
7. FNE confirmed she was TDD's NDIS nominee and supported the need for orders. DFE also supported a guardianship and administration order being made, though in relation to guardianship noted that:

Stable accommodation is not going to matter about where he goes. In the meantime, it's the people that he mixes with that are using drugs, like going back to old friends and stuff like that. So, I don't think it's really going to matter whether it's with stable accommodation or people that really love him and care about him. It's encouraging him to stay away from the old habits. That's what makes the difference. > > ... yeah, I agree with the needing for a guardian and stuff.

1. We find there is a clear need for an administration order for TDD. TDD does not have his own bank account and to date has not been able to obtain one even with support. Given his impaired decision making for financial matters, legal authorisation to open and operate a bank account is required. Further, we accept the evidence that TDD is unable to budget and manage his money, including the payment of his living expenses. Due to TDD's impaired impulse control and vulnerability to undue influence and manipulation, an administrator will assist him in ensuring all his expenses are being met
2. Further, we find there is a need for a guardian to be appointed to make decisions as to where TDD is to live, particularly as he is discharging from hospital over the next number of weeks and is requiring stable and supported accommodation, which will hopefully support his compliance with the medical treatment of his mental illness. We accept Mr McGregor's evidence and reasoning, that there is not a need for a guardian to make decisions as to services including NDIS. The NDIA's NDIS nominee scheme is a substitute decision-making model which is contained within the NDIS legislation, and therefore in most cases, does not require the appointment of a guardian with these same powers.

1. Mr McGregor submitted that both an administration and guardianship order would promote TDD's personal and social well-being. Mr McGregor stated orders would ensure that TDD is safe from harm and neglect, and that he has access to supports, and his personal relationships are maintained, which are very important to him.
2. We find that a guardianship and administration order would promote TDD's personal and social well-being. In respect to guardianship, an order would protect him from harm and self-neglect, and would enable suitable and stable accommodation for TDD, which meets his needs, and which promotes and facilitates his ongoing treatment of his mental illness.
3. In relation to administration, we find an order supports TDD have stable accommodation and ensures payment of any rent or board and lodgings; and ensures other expenses are being met. An administrator order can promote TDD's wish to have his own bank account and enables an administrator to liaise with the bank and with Centrelink in respect of his Centrelink benefits, as required.

1. Dr CD indicated he was seeking the appointment of the Public Guardian and Public Trustee as guardian and administrator respectively, for TDD. He indicated this was due to the complicated family dynamics that existed, the vulnerability of TDD and his susceptibility to undue influence and manipulation by others, including those close to him. Dr CD stated TDD or the person who is his administrator may be subject to pressure and influence from others seeking release of funds for the purchase of substances. Dr CD stated:

Placed on anyone individual that's personally related to [TDD] is inappropriate and it's better to have an objective governing body.

2. FNE sought to be appointed guardian and administrator for TDD and confirmed her understanding that these are important roles. She confirmed she can be objective, and capable of communicating with all TDD's family members, including TDD's father.

I'm quite capable of voicing my opinion on [TDD's] behalf with [TDD's] wellbeing and I realise that in all the decisions and I always have been like this with [TDD]. We talk things through. [TDD] listens to me. We have a very good relationship and I'm sort of the same with [TDD's father], really. > > ...I would certainly get all the support that [TDD] needs within [sic] the what's available out there ...it's all about [TDD] and his recovery, his wellbeing and what's best for him. So, it would be a learning thing for me but I would do what's required.

3. We outlined the obligations, duties and requirements under the Act of a guardian and administrator, to which FNE confirmed her consent to act in these roles, if appointed. We drew FNE's attention to the reporting requirements of a guardian and administrator. FNE told us she works in a laundry at an aged care facility and has mandatory reporting requirements to meet and records to keep; and confirmed she could comply with the reporting requirements in the Act. She stated she would get support from an accountant in relation to the administrator's report, if required.
4. DFE who initially sought to be TDD's guardian and administration, but then withdrew this request, confirmed that FNE and TDD have a special relationship.
5. Ms Baldwin stated if the Public Trustee were to be appointed, they would work with TDD and the family. Ms Baldwin outlined most fees would not apply, accept a transaction fee.
6. Mr McGregor submitted that while TDD has indicated his preference for his father as being his guardian, he did indicate that he would seek support from FNE, whom he appeared to have a very strong and trustful relationship with. It was also TDD's preference that FNE be his administrator. Mr McGregor commented that the evidence at hearing supports that FNE is suitable to be appointed as TDD's guardian and administrator.
7. We agree with Mr McGregor's submission and find FNE is suitable to act as administrator and guardian for TDD. We are satisfied FNE understands her obligations and duties and the requirements of the Act. FNE has a close personal relationship with TDD, she has availability to perform the roles and she indicated her willingness to obtain support if required.

1. When considering duration of order, we took into account that the decision as to where TDD is to live on discharge from hospital is limited and relatively imminent. In contrast there is an ongoing need for decisions to be made about financial matters.

1. FNE is appointed as guardian of TDD until 5 February 2026 with the authority to make substitute decisions for the following personal matters:
   1. where and with whom TDD lives, whether permanently or temporarily.

1. FNE is appointed as administrator for TDD, until 5 August 2027

The administrator is to lodge with the Tribunal a financial summary relating to the financial matters of TDD within 6 weeks from the date of this order.

The administrator is authorised to distribute gifts from TDD's property to a maximum of $100.00 per year. Such gifts are subject to the administrator's discretion.

Amended pursuant to s119 of the Tasmanian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2020

Clerical error, Orders made were not stated correctly. Replaced "Application for administration is dismissed. Guardianship order revoked" with "Administration order made. Guardianship order made"