Public Submission: WA Guardianship and Administration Inquiry

Public Submission: WA Guardianship and Administration Inquiry

On behalf of Huntington’s Australia clients subject to guardianship

Executive Summary

Huntington’s Australia submits that the current operation of guardianship in Western Australia is inconsistent with the principles of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) redacted: s22, and in some cases is causing direct harm to vulnerable individuals.

Evidence from client experience and stakeholder engagement demonstrates:

• Systematic denial of choice and control redacted: s22, particularly in relation to trusted providers
• Decisions inconsistent with the person’s wishes and best interests
• Gatekeeping and exclusion of relevant stakeholders from decision-making processes
• Unreasonable or incorrect application of NDIS rules
• Delays and refusals that restrict access to essential supports

Case evidence presented in this submission indicates not isolated incidents, but a pattern of practice that raises serious concerns regarding accountability, transparency, and adherence to legislative principles redacted: s22.

These issues are occurring at a time when:

• The Commonwealth is implementing major NDIS reforms that will reduce access to funded supports
• Western Australia’s first neurological strategy remains in early development and will not be implemented until at least 2027

Without urgent reform, there is a significant risk that guardianship will compound systemic pressures and undermine the rights, dignity, and wellbeing of represented persons redacted: s22.

1. Legislative Framework

The Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) requires that:

• Decisions are the least restrictive option (s.4(2))
• Actions promote the best interests of the person (s.4(3))
• The person’s wishes are taken into account (s.4(7))

The evidence below demonstrates repeated departures from these principles in practice.

2. Systemic Issues Identified

2.1 Denial of Choice and Control

Stakeholder evidence confirms a pattern of restricting client choice:

“We are getting a lot of pushback in having more than one [Huntington’s Australia] service wrapped around a client.”

In multiple cases, individuals were denied access to trusted providers despite:

• Established relationships
• Demonstrated engagement
• Expressed preference

This represents a failure to properly apply s.4(7) of the Act.

2.2 Gatekeeping and Exclusion from Decision-Making

Evidence shows that guardianship practices can actively limit participation:

• Excluding relevant stakeholders from meetings
• Restricting communication flows
• Controlling who is involved in care planning

This undermines transparency and prevents collaborative, informed decision-making.

2.3 Inconsistent and Incorrect Application of Rules

There are instances where:

• NDIS rules have been incorrectly interpreted or applied
• Legitimate service models (e.g. plan-managed use of non-registered providers) were denied
• Decisions were reversed only after escalation

This creates unnecessary barriers to care and delays access to essential services.

2.4 Administrative Failures

Ongoing concerns include:

• Delayed responses
• Failure to respond
• Frequent reassignment of guardians

These issues directly affect care continuity and service coordination.

3. Case Evidence

The following de-identified case examples illustrate systemic issues in practice.

Case 1: Michael

Stakeholder concerns raised across multiple engagements indicate:

• Perceived personal bias influencing decision-making, including views unrelated to disability
• Decisions described as obstructive to care, including limiting appropriate supports
• Refusal to approve plan reviews despite low funding levels
• Exclusion of key stakeholders during a period of crisis

Of particular concern were reports that decisions appeared to be influenced by views about the individual’s behaviour rather than their disability-related needs.

Implication: This raises serious questions regarding:

• Compliance with best interests obligations (s.4(3))
• Objectivity and impartiality in decision-making
• Safeguards against bias within the guardianship system

Case 2: Ian

Key issues included:

• Refusal by the OPA to approve services from non-NDIS registered allied health providers,> despite:
  • The plan being plan-managed
  • The providers being known and trusted by the client
• This position was inconsistent with NDIS rules
• After intervention, the matter did not progress further
• Subsequently:
  • All allied health providers were changed at the OPA’s request
  • Huntington’s Australia was asked to exit service provision

Implication: This reflects:

• Incorrect application of policy
• Disruption of continuity of care
• Removal of trusted providers without clear justification

Case 3: Tamara

Key issues included:

• Refusal to approve a trusted worker for both counselling and training
• Justification based on the organisation already receiving funding for support coordination
• Despite:
  • A long-standing relationship
  • The client expressing clear preference
  • Alternative providers being offered and declined

Outcome:

• Approval granted for counselling only after escalation

• Training support remained restricted

Implication: This demonstrates:

• Partial recognition of client preference, but ongoing restriction of choice
• Failure to fully recognise the importance of established relationships
• Decision-making that does not fully align with least restrictive principles

4. Broader System Context

These issues must be understood in the context of broader system pressures:

• Increasing demand for neurological services
• Workforce shortages and limited specialist providers
• Fragmented care systems

At the same time:

• NDIS reforms will likely reduce access to funded supports
• WA’s neurological strategy is still in development and not yet operational

Result: Guardianship decisions are being made in a system where:

• Alternatives are limited
• Community supports are already stretched
• The consequences of restrictive decisions are amplified

5. Analysis: Failure to Meet Legislative Intent

Across the cases presented, there is evidence of:

Legislative Principle	Observed Failure
Least restrictive (s.4(2))	Unnecessary limitation of service options
Best interests (s.4(3))	Decisions not aligned with practical care needs
Wishes of the person (s.4(7))	Preferences overridden or only partially considered

The pattern suggests that systemic practices may be prioritising control and administrative processes over person-centred decision-making.

6. Recommendations

Huntington’s Australia calls for urgent reform:

6.1 Strengthen Safeguards Against Bias

• Introduce independent oversight mechanisms
• Require justification of decisions affecting service access

6.2 Enforce Recognition of Choice and Relationships

• Require guardians to prioritise existing therapeutic relationships
• Prohibit unjustified refusal of preferred providers

6.3 Improve Transparency and Accountability

• Mandate documentation of decision-making processes
• Ensure all relevant stakeholders are included in care planning

6.4 Clarify and Standardise Policy Application

• Provide guidance on NDIS interface issues
• Prevent inconsistent or incorrect interpretation of rules

6.5 Improve Responsiveness and Continuity

• Establish performance standards for guardians
• Reduce unnecessary reassignment

7. Conclusion

The Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) is clear in its intent: to protect and support individuals in a way that respects their rights, dignity, and preferences.

However, the evidence presented demonstrates that:

• These principles are not consistently upheld
• Individuals are being denied appropriate, reasonable supports
• The system lacks sufficient safeguards against poor decision-making

Without reform, there is a real risk that guardianship will continue to: restrict autonomy, disrupt care, and undermine the wellbeing of those it is intended to protect.