Submission from Umbrella Multicultural Community Care

21 April 2026

Mr Peter Rundle MLA
Chair Community Development and Justice Standing Committee
Parliament House
4 Harvest Terrace
West Perth WA 6005
By email: cdjscsubmissions@parliament.wa.gov.au

Dear Mr Rundle

INQUIRY INTO GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission to the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee’s inquiry into guardianship and administration in Western Australia.

Umbrella Multicultural Community Care is a Western Australian community based aged care provider that supports older people, including many from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Through our service delivery and care finder work, we regularly assist older people who are experiencing vulnerability, social isolation, limited support networks, and difficulty navigating complex systems.

This submission draws on our practical experience working alongside older people, families, service providers and, at times, the guardianship and administration system. It is intended to assist the Committee by highlighting issues we have observed in practice, particularly in relation to accessibility, client autonomy, interagency coordination, complaints pathways, and the role of decision makers where vulnerable older people require support across multiple systems.

Issues and observations

1. Cultural and linguistic responsiveness

Many older people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds face additional barriers in engaging with guardianship and administration processes. These barriers include language, limited understanding of legal and administrative concepts, differing family and cultural expectations, and a lack of communication that is tailored to the person’s background and circumstances.

In practice, this can affect a person’s ability to understand their rights, participate meaningfully in decisions, and raise concerns when something is not working for them.

It can also make it harder to distinguish between genuine supported decision making and family influence that may not reflect the person’s own wishes.

greater use of interpreters and translated information
communication that is clear, plain English and culturally responsive
better recognition of family dynamics and cultural context when assessing the person’s circumstances

2. Client autonomy and family influence

We have seen situations where a client’s stated wishes were overridden or diluted by the views of family members, even where the client had clearly expressed a preference about their care, accommodation or next steps. These situations can be especially difficult where there is no timely, clear or independent mechanism to safeguard the person’s own voice.

This raises concerns about whether the system is consistently protecting autonomy, dignity and least restrictive decision making in practice.

stronger safeguards to ensure the person’s wishes and preferences are actively sought, recorded and revisited
greater access to independent advocacy where there is conflict, pressure or uncertainty

3. Complexity of the system and complaints pathways

The guardianship and administration system is difficult for vulnerable people and their families to navigate. Even with support, clients often struggle to understand who does what, what rights they have, how to question a decision, and where to go if they are concerned about delay, inaction or poor communication.

The complexity is compounded where several agencies are involved at the same time, including health, housing, aged care, the Public Advocate, the Public Trustee and the State Administrative Tribunal.

simpler, plain language information for clients, families and service providers
clearer complaint and escalation pathways that are easy to locate and understand
timelier and more transparent communication when matters are delayed or decisions are under review

4. Interagency collaboration and role clarity

In our experience, collaboration across systems does occur, but it is not always consistent or well defined. We have observed situations where older people who are already subject to guardianship or administration arrangements are referred to care finder services for support that sits more properly with the legal decision maker.

This can create confusion about accountability, duplicate effort, and delay practical decisions for the person. It can also place care finders in a difficult position. Care finders can provide intensive support to help vulnerable older people understand and access aged care and other supports, but they do not hold legal authority to make substitute decisions on a person’s behalf.

Where those boundaries become blurred, risk increases for the client and for the services involved.

clear guidance on the respective roles of guardians, administrators, care finders and service providers
formal communication and escalation pathways between guardianship bodies and frontline service systems
a stronger expectation of timely collaboration where delay is placing a client at risk

5. Outcomes for represented persons and their families

Where decision making is delayed, fragmented or poorly coordinated, the practical impact on older people can be significant. We have supported clients who experienced repeated housing instability, social isolation, distress and deteriorating wellbeing while agencies and family members navigated competing views about what should happen next.

In one de-identified case, an older man from a culturally and linguistically diverse background moved between unsuitable shared housing arrangements, spent long periods isolated, and repeatedly expressed a preference to move into residential aged care. A placement was identified and the client had agreed to the move, but the transition did not proceed after family intervention redirected him elsewhere. This cycle repeated, prolonging instability and distress. The matter was eventually escalated to the Tribunal due to concerns about decision making capacity and the need for a guardian to support timely decisions.

delays and external influence can prolong harm for vulnerable people
client preferences are not always carried through in a way that is timely or consistent
service providers may be left trying to manage high risk situations without the authority needed to resolve them

6. Oversight, accountability and the role of the Tribunal

The current framework under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 is intended to protect adults who need assistance in their personal or financial affairs and provides the Tribunal with jurisdiction in guardianship and administration matters. In practice, however, oversight and accountability can still feel difficult to access from the perspective of clients, families and frontline services, particularly when there are concerns about delay, communication or whether less restrictive options have been fully explored.

There is value in considering whether review and oversight mechanisms are sufficiently visible, timely and accessible, and whether there is a stronger need to demonstrate that major decisions have properly considered the person’s wishes, available alternatives, and likely impact on the person’s wellbeing.

clearer and more visible review pathways
stronger requirements to document the person’s wishes and the alternatives considered
regular review of significant decisions that have major impacts on accommodation, care or personal autonomy

Recommendations

Embed culturally responsive practice across guardianship and administration services, including interpreter access, culturally appropriate communication, and training on family and cultural dynamics.
Strengthen safeguards to ensure client wishes and preferences remain central to decision making, particularly where there is family conflict or pressure.
Improve access to independent advocacy for vulnerable people navigating guardianship, administration and related service systems.
Develop simpler, plain language information and clearer complaint pathways for clients, families and service providers.
Clarify roles and responsibilities across the Public Advocate, Public Trustee, Tribunal, aged care providers, care finders and other service systems, with practical guidance on when and how each party should act.
Formalise communication and escalation pathways between guardianship bodies and frontline services to reduce duplication, delay and role confusion.
Strengthen requirements to demonstrate that less restrictive options have been considered and that client preferences have been actively sought, documented and revisited.
Review oversight and accountability mechanisms to ensure concerns about delay, communication, decision quality and client impact can be raised and addressed more effectively.
Promote earlier, better coordinated intervention in complex cases so that vulnerable people are not left in unsafe, unstable or unsuitable arrangements while systems work through process issues.

Umbrella appreciates the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry. We would be pleased to provide any further information that may assist the Committee, including practical examples from the aged care and care finder context if that would be helpful.

Yours sincerely,

redacted

Borhan Milani Chief Executive Officer Umbrella Multicultural Community Care Services Inc.