Guardianship Orders

The Hon. S.L. GAME (15:01): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before directing a question to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, representing the Minister for Child Protection, regarding state guardianship.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: I raise concerns about state guardianship because the Office of the Public Advocate (OPA) and the Public Trustee are currently largely unaccountable for their decisions. This lack of accountability allows the wishes of a protected person and their family to be ignored. It also permits excessive charging, enrichment and conflict of interest to thrive.

Once the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) appoints the Public Advocate as a guardian of last resort, the OPA guardian and the Public Trustee have control over where a protected person lives, who they see, their income and their assets. The problem with this arrangement is that the statutory framework does not envisage a subsequent review of whether the decisions made by the OPA as guardian or the Public Trustee were the right decisions or avoided conflict of interest.

The Guardianship and Administration Act 1993 needs to be reviewed to ensure decisions made by the OPA or the Public Trustee are the right decisions. My question to the minister is: will the minister undertake a public review of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993 and the decision-making of the OPA and Public Trustee?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:03): I am happy to answer those questions. SACAT, the Office of the Public Advocate and the Public Trustee come under the Attorney-General's portfolio, so I am happy to answer the honourable member's questions.

For most of the decisions made in terms of appointment of either a guardian or sometimes the Public Advocate, or the administration of an estate involving the Public Trustee, there are hearings where there is an opportunity for interested parties, which often involves family members, to make submissions and be part of those hearings. Generally, the Public Trustee or Public Advocate are administrators or guardians of last resort where there isn't someone else who can do it or—as often, sadly, happens—where those who might be able to do it form part of the concern about why sometimes an application has been made to SACAT for such an appointment.

There are mechanisms for reviews and appeals of decisions made and certainly it's correspondence that I receive regularly from members of parliament on behalf of constituents who have family members who are subject to SACAT orders with the Public Advocate or Public Trustee, but also from members of the public. So there are significant review and appeal mechanisms already in the system, but we are always happy to look at if there are ways to make changes that make the operation of these things more efficient or more effective.

Sadly, it's often very difficult and emotional decisions that are made. It is a very big step for a tribunal like SACAT to step in and, because of the circumstances in someone's life or the things that are affecting someone, make a decision that someone else, whether that's a family member or another person or, indeed, of last resort, the Public Advocate or Public Trustee, should be making decisions about how someone's finances are spent or lifestyle decisions.