PUBLIC TRUSTEE

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. A.M. Bressington:

That the Statutory Authorities Review Committee inquire into and report upon the Office of the Public Trustee, and in particular—

1. The management systems, processes, procedures and protocols in place to deal with allegations of misappropriation of funds and any other improper conduct at the Office of the Public Trustee (but excluding any matter which may currently be sub judice).

2. The management of client files and their funds, including the management systems, processes, procedures and protocols in place to ensure that clients' files and funds are effectively and efficiently managed.

3. The management systems, processes, procedures and protocols in place to deal with allegations of inefficient or incompetent handling of client files.

4. Allegations of workplace bullying and harassment in the Public Trustee's office and the management systems, processes, procedures and protocols in place to deal effectively and efficiently with such allegations.

5. Whether clients and/or potential clients of the Public Trustee are appropriately advised as to likely consequences and costs of engaging the services of the Public Trustee, particularly in relation to the drawing of wills and the management of estates.

6. Any other matters relevant to the operation of the Office of the Public Trustee or the legislation under which it operates

(Continued from 13 February 2008. Page 1673.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:35): Since it was established in 1881, the Office of the Public Trustee has played an important role in the life of South Australia. Originally it was primarily responsible for the management of deceased estates but, since then, it has expanded its operations to deliver a wide range of trustee services to the South Australian community, but estate management does remain its primary area of activity.

The Public Trustee assumes special responsibilities for people who are unable to handle their own financial or legal affairs due to accident, disease, age, illness or disability. These people are among our community's most vulnerable and, as such, it is especially important that they receive quality management of their affairs from an agency such as the Public Trustee. Without an institution such as the Public Trustee, there is a danger that these people may fall victim to abuse. It is for this reason that the office of the Public Trustee must have the complete trust of the South Australian community.

Effective, efficient and honest management of estates, especially those of people who are unable to manage their own affairs, is one of its primary roles—a role that it can carry out only if it has the trust and confidence of the public. However, since April last year, a number of concerns have been raised in relation to the operation, management and actions of the Public Trustee and staff within the office of the Public Trustee. Some of these allegations are serious, and could serve to seriously undermine public trust in the office.

For example, there have been allegations of misappropriation of funds and the delay of payments. I understand that concerns have been raised in relation to the procedure for and the adequacy of the auditing of clients' files and funds; the cost and efficiency of the CBIS computer system; the practice of placing public servants from the Public Trustee's office within other sections of government and the cost thereof; the bullying of staff; relationships with carers; and the need to disclose to consumers the costs of using the Public Trustee, including when the Public Trustee is assisting with the preparation of wills and it is envisaged that the Public Trustee would undertake the executor role.

In moving this motion, the Hon. Ms Bressington highlighted several other cases that raise some serious concerns in relation to the Public Trustee. The Hon. Ms Bressington also highlighted an independent audit of the Public Trustee ordered by the Crown Solicitor's office. I also know that the Public Trustee, Mr Mark Bodycoat, expressed concern that the recent media allegations against the office of the Public Trustee were having an adverse effect on the office and could undermine the community's faith in the office. It is for these reasons that the opposition will be supporting the motion.

While some, such as the Attorney-General, have expressed their faith in the office of the Public Trustee, the concerns raised by others are of a serious nature. If they are true, they need to be dealt with. If they are not true, it is in the best interests of the Office of the Public Trustee that the truth be told and the faith of the community be renewed. It is difficult to ask the public to place complete trust in an office while these allegations stand unresolved.

I draw the attention of the council to the fact that the motion does not envisage a select committee. It is a proposal for a reference to the Statutory Authorities Review Committee. It is the opposition's view that this is exactly why the Statutory Authorities Review Committee exists: to review the operation of public agencies. In that regard, we do not believe that it is an addition to the healthy workload of the council but, rather, that it can be managed within its existing workload.

As I said earlier, the role of the Public Trustee in administering estates is important for the South Australian community, and it is essential that the office has the support and confidence of the community. The opposition supports this motion, because we believe it supports that end.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:39): I also will be supporting this motion. I received a letter in November last year from Mr Mark Bodycoat, the Public Trustee, expressing concern about recent adverse publicity. He set out in his letter a number of what he said were inaccurate statements, and his conclusion was that they did go to the confidence of the public in the Office of the Public Trustee. My response to Mr Bodycoat at that stage, with respect to his invitation to meet, was to say that I had not heard of any particular concerns from constituents and, therefore, I did not see the need for a meeting. But it appears to me that, if he is correct and that public confidence is being undermined by allegations in the community, some of which might be untrue, I can see no better way to clear the air than to give the Public Trustee a forum to correct the record.

I note the comments made just recently by the Hon. Stephen Wade that we are not setting up yet another select committee but that we are in fact referring this matter to the Statutory Authorities Review Committee. I agree with the Hon. Stephen Wade that that is precisely why that standing committee was established, and I think that it would be a good and useful reference for it to take, which will allow both sides of the debate—those who wish to raise allegations and those who wish to defend the Public Trustee—to have their say. So, I support the motion.

Motion carried.