Submission to the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee Guardianship and Administration System in WA

Submission to the
Community Development and
Justice Standing Committee

Guardianship and Administration
System in WA

ADVOCACY KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY WA

Inquiry into Guardianship and Administration in Western Australia

The Community Development and Justice Standing Committee will inquire into and report on the guardianship and administrative system in Western Australia. The Committee will investigate how the Public Trustee and the Office of the Public Advocate deliver services to vulnerable people, including how they deliver services in collaboration with other relevant organisations in the health, disability and aged care sectors. In particular, the Committee will consider:

1. The organisational capability of the Public Trustee’s office and the Office of the Public Advocate to represent and protect the human rights of vulnerable people.
2. The organisational culture of the Public Trustee’s office and the Office of the Public Advocate and how this is impacting delivery of services to vulnerable people.
3. The adequacy of mechanisms currently in place to resolve complaints, disputes and allegations.
4. Accessibility of information, including whether the Public Trustee’s office and the Office of the Public Advocate provide information to relevant individuals and organisations in a timely, fair and transparent manner.
5. Outcomes experienced by represented persons and their families because of decisions made by the Public Trustee and Public Advocate.
6. Whether current oversight mechanisms are adequate to ensure guardians and administrators are held accountable for their decisions.
7. The role and conduct of the State Administrative Tribunal as far as it relates to the above.

Submission to the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee

Developmental Disability WA (DDWA) is the peak body for people with intellectual and other developmental disabilities and their families in Western Australia. For the past decade, through direct advocacy services, DDWA has had considerable engagement with the agencies being investigated by the Standing Committee, of the Office of Public Advocate (OPA), the Public Trust Office (PTO) and the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

The invitation to make a submission identifies areas of interest to the Standing Committee relating to ‘organisational capacity and culture’ of the agencies, which are internal features that DDWA/the community has little access to, other than how these are expressed at the human level of interface with the agencies. Accountability or oversight measures that are needed may be identified by the information in the DDWA submission but are not addressed specifically in any detail. Transparency, disclosure and openness to the public in meaningful ways, is a fundamental social good. Annual reports play some role in this area of disclosure but do not assist in the key areas of organisational capacity and culture.

‘Provision of information’ is a wide-ranging subject of profound significance for the Committee, for all three agencies in different ways. The legal powers conferred by SAT orders, and the tribunal status of SAT itself, appear to allow very little information to flow outwards to individuals and advocates. Individuals need to be consulted before decisions are made, and advocates need pathways for engaging with agencies to obtain information for individuals and for exercising their human rights role.

This submission draws on direct involvement with people and their families that seek advocacy support to challenge SAT orders, make SAT applications or to have a substitute decision maker appointed. It is important to recognise that advocacy services are most often sought when there are conflict, complexity and limited information or support available to engage with these agencies. Individuals and supporters may find DDWA by word-of-mouth or referral. This submission will address concerns and issues seen, as well as refer to areas of excellence in practice have been encountered through the advocacy process.

Key thematic statements that frame the DDWA submission

The State Administrative Tribunal provides the gateway to both OPA and PTO and often avoids the scrutiny applied to those agencies when they are directed to assume the decision-making responsibilities for the life and financial affairs of people in our community. Examination of SAT processes from the individual and community experience is critical.

Guardianship and Administration are vital protective societal mechanisms for people without decision-making capacity in key areas of life, including managing finances. DDWA’s involvement in this work is due to the constituency of the organisation being

1

Key thematic statements that frame the DDWA submission (cont.)

people with intellectual disability and difficulties engaging with State agencies due to complex communication needs. A related concern is to have only the people who need substitute decision-makers drawn into this arrangement so that the loss of autonomy and freedom has a benefit, not a damaging impact. Supporting a person to express themselves within a fair and accountable SAT process is the main role of DDWA in this area.

Services of OPA and PTO are provided to people deemed by SAT to lack capacity to make good judgements for themselves. This ‘lack of capacity’ determination can then define that person entirely and take from them the credibility they need to speak up for themselves and challenge the systems they have been compelled to enter. This loss of autonomy can have a damaging impact on personhood and mental health. A person’s views, wishes and individuality can be completely dismissed and diminished by an ‘incapacity’ finding by SAT.

SAT, OPA and PTO are jurisdictional clusters relating to support for vulnerable people by our society and serve vital protective roles. All agencies are also quite distinct and operate independently of each other due to their particular scopes (making orders, making life decisions and managing finances) so comments will be specific to each agency. All agencies have unique historical and current purposes and must be examined separately and in relation to each other.

Individual situations will identify systemic issues that are invisible to most of the community but significant to the people directly affected. It is the obligation of DDWA to bring these issues forward in the hope that others with higher level knowledge of the powers of these agencies can see the systemic reform needed. DDWA may be able to assist with supporting people impacted by these systems to give personal experience evidence to the Standing Committee.

DDWA recognises that community guardians and administrators can also be appointed by SAT but this is not pertinent to this inquiry.

State Administrative Tribunal

SAT’s role is to make, revoke or change orders relating to substitute decision makers for a person (the Human Rights stream). DDWA provides advocacy in this setting (non-legal) in a supportive manner for the person at the hearing. Advocates do not ‘speak for’ or represent a person as a lawyer would. Advocacy serves to empower the person to speak for themselves, through discussions in preparation for a hearing, independent support at a hearing and de-briefing and support post-hearing - described in Attachment I, starting p13.

State Administrative Tribunal (cont.)

This quasi-judicial process is very court-like and formal for members of the general community. The anticipation of the hearing and the fear of loss of autonomy will make most people anxious and very worried, so the presence of an advocate can be very helpful with managing this anxiety.

SAT Members will exercise their role in different ways, from inquisitorial/information seeking, to adversarial and combative (culture of hearings). The setting and the language of a tribunal process can be unfamiliar and difficult for many/most community members, which must be taken into account by Members. The hearing becomes the primary forum for a person to express themselves and argue for or against an order so the culture of the hearing must be safe and supportive. Written statements can be provided to SAT before the hearing and some engagement with case managers is possible, however the hearing is the 1-3 hour opportunity a person has to participate in the process and present themselves and their perspective.

The entry way to SAT (human rights stream) is through an application for the consideration of the need for protective orders for a person who may have reduced capacity for decision-making in life and/or financial decisions. This application is in a digital format, requiring ecourts (online) access, with a paper form sometimes provided after pleading.

In simple, human terms, an application for a hearing is a way to have a person declared incapable of managing their own affairs and an alternative decision-maker appointed that may be a government worker in OPA and/or PTO. Applications can be made for good or sinister reasons. The existence of the NDIS has seen more applications made, apparently to bypass existing family and supporters and the person themselves, to dictate NDIS services, as well as health and living arrangements. Bad actors have sought to be appointed as guardians themselves or to have OPA guardians appointed in the hope of influencing where NDIS funds are directed.

Culture of hearings

Culture in this context is used to describe how safe, open and accessible the tribunal hearing needs to be for a person to feel able to express themselves. Advocates can describe hearings they have attended with these characteristics, and also hearings that were poorly managed and unsafe for people concerned. Where hearings are conducted as legalistic, controlled and adversarial as well as silencing participants, the wrong outcome can be reached and trauma caused to the person who is impacted by this. Where a hearing is gently paced, with a kind tone and open/flexible to interjections, a person can feel fairly heard, even if the outcome is not the one they

3

Culture of hearings (cont.)

hope for. Brusque and controlling hearings can cause harm to a person’s sense of self and diminish regard for Government in general, beyond the SAT and other related agencies. Where a SAT decision is seen by a person to be the wrong one made, this can require the person (and advocate) to make an application for a further hearing for review of that decision by a three-person Tribunal.

Engagement with SAT outside hearings is variable in respect to ease and practicality. Frontline SAT staff are friendly and supportive and deal with a wide range of people in respect to the human rights stream, including deeply distressed and shocked people with a sudden notification of a scheduled hearing. The frontline team is the interface between the public and the legal machine that supports the tribunal process and work hard to soften the impact of this process on people.

The ecourts portal has replaced use of emails and document sharing with SAT officers and diminished accessibility of this system. There are references to ‘faxes and attending in person’ as options for people to submit material, which is limiting for anyone outside the metro area and outdated in respect to faxes as an uncommon transmission system. A SAT Case Manager for each matter (application + hearing) is the most useful person in the lead up to a hearing but is much harder to reach due to the ban on email communication. The ecourts portal embeds the SAT processes in a legalistic framework, when lawyers may not be frequent participants in the human rights stream. Advocates are generally office based, so able to interact with the ecourts platform, but this is harder for people without experience or technical resources. It is a worthy question of whether this electronic system makes SAT seem more accessible or more remote to the general community.

Short hearings are becoming more prevalent, leading to adjournments, reserved decisions, rushed processes and delays in the resolution of the issue. As there are prescribed phases of a hearing in terms of declarations and statements by Members, as well as evidence gathering and discussions, short hearings can be rushed and feel to be driven by process, not the need for the sharing of information and contested opinions.

Information provided

SAT has produced an excellent document about its location, purpose and other logistical details, that has photographs and illustrations included to make this accessible to the general public and people with intellectual disability or difference. SAT reports in the Annual Report on education sessions held for the community, but this appears to be broad brush about the role and law, not the facilitation culture that can be expected and prepared for in a hearing. SAT does not provide any

4

Information provided (cont.)

information about the expectations that SAT has of its Members in the manner of running a hearing and the way that participation will be facilitated. If such information were available to the people attending SAT hearings, it would form a basis for measuring and monitoring the culture of a hearing and the experiences people have of participating. Advocates report a wide variance of presiding skills and demeanors of Members in respect to encouraging participation of the person and their supporters. Advocates can be welcomed or chastised by different Members, for the same style/pattern of advocacy practice at hearings, reflecting the freedom of Members to apply their own ‘rules’ and structure to their hearings. Where Members have a legalistic mind set, the structure of the hearing can be evidence and submission-based, including long opening orations about the law that is being administered. For non-legal community members and advocates, this can be rigid, overwhelming, and limit the information shared with the Member. An intentional inquisitorial approach (welcoming relevant information and evidence) can enable complex, contested and controversial matters to be dealt with productively and justly. Hostility, or a welcoming approach to advocates supporting a person, makes the experience of the hearing entirely different for a person who is subject to an application or a mandatory review. In simple terms, when an advocate is bullied by a Member, or explicitly silenced, this can make it harder for a person to speak up for fear of a hostile response.

Recommendation

SAT develop, with community input, a best practice description of a hearing process that can be publicly available and set a clear standard that guides participation and assists with expectations of all parties, including presiding Members, advocates and the person at the centre of the hearing.

Once an order is made, when OPA and/or PTO are appointed, SAT has no further role. The person under an order, and their supporters, must negotiate with those agencies on their own behalf, leaving the hearing with little or no knowledge of the landscape ahead for them. The SAT Member can be asked at a hearing, ‘can you please tell them to do this/change my Guardian/let me get most of my pension?’ and there will be a frank statement that this is not within the scope of the tribunal and no specific directions can be included in the order made.

Internal review (17a Review) is critical for original decisions by a single Member. If an original decision is unsatisfactory or seems frankly wrong for a person or their supporters, a review application is possible within 28 days if a person is aware of this

5

option. Support for a person or their supporters with the navigation of seeking a review is critical, as a review does not re-visit the original hearing, but starts a new hearing afresh. This needs to be understood so that energy is not mis-spent on comments on the first hearing but used to engage with the new 3 Member tribunal on existing, or new and further information. Some 17a hearings benefit from the ‘trial run’ of the original hearing where the key areas of concern or conflict have been aired.

Where a person consults a lawyer for assistance, this can be a costly and traumatic experience. In 2025, DDWA advocacy supported two parties to review hearings where lawyers may have been involved if they had taken steps to engage with SAT.

• One young woman’s family paid $11,000+ to a lawyer for no actions in representation on SAT but only for ‘report writing’ and meetings to discuss the situation. Without advocate involvement, the young person would still be under orders and restrained in travel and in other domains of their life.
• Another older person consulted a ‘SAT specialist’ lawyer and was quoted $9,000 for assistance but told bluntly to ‘let it go, accept the situation and to not embarrass themselves with making an application’.

DDWA’s advocacy support throughout the 17a review did lead to a positive outcome aligned with their wishes and at no cost to the person.

Benefits provided by advocate involvement in the processes of SAT

Advocate participation in SAT hearings has been discussed in a range of areas in this submission. Advocates are the only genuinely independent supportive human service practitioners for people responding to an application or attending a hearing for a review of an order. Ethically minded family or friends can support a person and provide some of the buttressing for the person in the stress and uncertainty of the process. However, advocates are managed employees, within a service with governance and professional standards that require independence and accountability. Advocates with experience in SAT processes and contact with peers with this experience provide a unique and valuable Human Rights service to individuals, family and the community, as well as to the Tribunal. Advocates are problem solvers and mediators, without the adversarial training of lawyers, or the novice standing of lay people dealing with a significant Government agency and complex law.

Advocates are agile and able to operate creatively and flexible, unlike lawyers constrained by legal conventions and strict reference to a law.

DDWA advocates also operate as ‘communication partners’ for people with complex communication (able to support a person to participate through assisting in the expression of their views and wishes, including people who do not use speech to communicate). This role also assists the Tribunal to understand the communication

6

Benefits provided by advocate involvement in the processes of SAT (cont.)

needs and ensure participation. See attached Accessibility and Communication Profile documents 2a, 2b and 2c.

The majority of citizens will avoid restraints of detention or the loss of control of their affairs and being subject to an order that declares their capacity diminished. The loss of autonomy needs to be experienced to be truly understood at a deep human and social level, such as the experience of a mental health order dictating compulsory psychotropic medication by needle fortnightly, against a person’s will. Advocates may also lack this experience, but as communication partners for a person in the SAT setting, advocates will support a person to express this impact, so that the Tribunal can weigh this as a factor in the person’s need or benefit of an order being made. Tribunal Members will express awareness of the impact of orders on a person’s sense of self; however this is likely an objective awareness. An advocate can assist the Tribunal to appreciate the subjective and individual impact for the person before them in a hearing. SAT Members can regard the impact of an order to be benign or helpful and resist seeing the harm of this for the wellbeing of a person. The loss of autonomy in life decisions and in financial decisions on a day-to-day basis into the future for the Represented Person can have a profound impact.

Advocates will very often be able to start to build an understanding of the issues within the SAT process and promote systemic changes based on this knowledge, such as this submission at a time when the wider questions are being asked. Advocates participate in hearings conducted by a range of Members and can see the cultural and process variations, and the human impact of the many aspects of peoples’ involvement with SAT. Where an advocate assists a person to make a 17a Review application and proceed to the review, the advocate can be aware of the precedent law that is created by the decisions of the 3-person Tribunal. If the presiding Member refuses to release the decision onto the WASAT public database, the benefit of the decision is not widely available for other advocates and the community. Attachment 3, starting p27, provides an illustration of this issue.

People who are tied to the OPA and/or PTO have a particularly acute vulnerability to feeling powerless in relation to the State, with no real or accessible means for challenging either the SAT order or the day-to-day issues that may arise. This is not a suggestion that there is systematic mistreatment of Represented persons, simply a factual circumstance for people with no voice and no mechanism to elevate their voice. Involuntary mental health patients have a community law centre, a Review Board, the Chief Psychiatrist and the Mental Health Advocacy Service; and community and family advocates that assist them to challenge or endure the restraint imposed on them. People within the criminal justice system have powerful checks and balances to monitor their rights and treatment, including an Inspectorate to oversight the prison system. SAT is not concerned about the experience people have of their Trust Manager

7

Benefits provided by advocate involvement in the processes of SAT (cont.)

or their OPA Guardian. SAT bars evidence being presented at hearings that critiques the performance of those roles by State employees, effectively silencing this critique. Beyond SAT, the OPA and PTO ‘protective’ systems have little external oversight that is independent, with the agencies free to accept or deflect critique or complaint.

The mental illness of a Mental Health consumer does not disqualify them from exercising a challenge on their treatment and their restraint, even where they appear to lack insight into their illness or symptoms. A person deemed to have a lack of capacity to manage their big and smaller life decisions cannot bring any form of independent support in to assist them, particularly in regard to finances.

By firewalling the person’s financial information from them and others, their isolation and marginalization is further deepened. State substitute decision-makers are trusted to self-regulate - to be their own watchdogs. It is only independent advocates/ monitors with clearly prescribed powers that can shift this profound disadvantage of the people streamed by SAT into delegated decision-maker agencies. There is a point in all progressive societies that enclaves of self-regulation are opened to the light of accountability and external influence, such as the medial profession and the airline industry. Where people’s voices are dismissed or disempowered, it relies on others such as DDWA to exercise the duty to the people served, to state the truth as it has been observed over years of advocacy.

Recommendations

• Specialist advocacy designated and promoted to assist with SAT issues and hearings.
• 17a Review decisions routinely published on the WASAT database (mandatory de-identification) unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so.

Office of the Public Advocate

DDWA knowledge about OPA is drawn from advocacy contact with Guardians for individuals and families and through activities relating to SAT, as well as in the making of decisions for a person in the areas of authority held by a Guardian (housing, health, contact, services and legal).

Public advocate staff from OPA (Guardians and Investigators) are encountered by

8

Office of the Public Advocate (cont.)

the community through being appointed as a person’s Guardian, when investigating a person’s situation to make a report to SAT, and at a SAT hearing when attending to provide evidence or reports; as well as in the exercise of their powers. A Represented Person may not meet their Guardian from one year to the next or may have numerous changes to their assigned Guardian. There are requirements for annual contact between a Guardian and their person, but work processes and staff changes can interfere with this. Accessibility of Guardians can be difficult due to the work pattern of Mon-Friday, 9-5pm, despite the operation of a Duty Guardian system for out-of-hours decisions. This remoteness of Guardians, possibly due to workload and complexity of their role, as well as staff turnover and case allocations, supports the case for SAT Orders to only be made when these are absolutely needed. (An unsupported person at a brief hearing can languish on the case list at OPA for years, without the legal authority to make decisions for themselves.)

OPA is the agency that provides Guardianship as a last resort for SAT orders when there is no alternative available from a community or family member, or a friend or other party. When OPA Guardians have a genuine opportunity to build a connection with and knowledge of a represented person, there can be supported participation in the decision-making process that allows the person to grow skills and demonstrate this to their Guardian. Excellent Guardians continue to presume competence and capacity of a person to some degree and encourage participation and expression of wishes. Generous and supportive Guardians can recommend to the SAT that orders are revoked, based on their observations and opinion. For some Guardians, the inherent power in the role can extend to over-reach and control beyond the limited authorities held, especially in the Services domain. Guardians with a controlling tendency can find it hard to encourage decision-making participation of the person and can aggressively stand against them at SAT review hearings, presenting curated ‘evidence’ from files that carries the weight of the Guardian’s standing in SAT.

Recommendation

Where complaints emerge about damaging power dynamics for a represented person with an OPA Guardian, this is addressed through supervision to remove this factor from the culture of the OPA.

9

Public Trust Office

The PTO is a deeply historical and large agency with only one part devoted to managing trusts under SAT orders. Trust Managers (TMs) can be called on frequently by people who do not have direct access to their funds and need to seek TM approval and facilitation of that access. This is difficult work and requires strong customer service skills and ethical reasoning and consistency in application of policies.

DDWA advocates will at times contact TMs for a person to raise the person’s concerns or argue for a decision they seek. TMs are accessible by phone, through leaving a message or by email and are generally responsive and helpful, reflecting a healthy service ethos in this area of the PTO. As a practical strategy to allow a person access to their funds for daily living, PTs must ration the funds into a person’s bank account over a weekly timetable. This control by the TM and the lack of control by the person receiving rationed funds, can create a reaction and rebellion of itself, leading to behaviours that are a product of the power dynamic. Trust Managers are at constant risk of being accused of being ‘controllers’, when in fact they are agents of the system established to create substitute managers of people’s finances.

Administration impacts and PTO

There are trust managers in the finances of vulnerable people, in both private firms and in parts of the PTO, that are out of reach of the people to whom those funds belong. A person can have their subsistence income (pension) managed by a trust manager (TM) for their day-to-day living needs. That person may also have a compensation award (including Redress, Criminal Injuries Compensation) locked in another trust within PTO or elsewhere that they cannot access or use. A person may even have the Administration order revoked for their subsistence income, but still be unable to access their money, due to not having the financial resources to apply to a court for a different outcome (a person would need to ask the Trustee for funds to challenge the trustee’s control of their finances). A person can know that they have a significant fund of money that is theirs, against their name in an account or trust, but not be able to use those funds. Money is a form of social power, where the choices made in the use of funds reflect a person’s identity and personal agency and governance of their life. To know of your wealth but be unable to use this is a terrible situation that would be appalling to any other citizen. Mechanisms of the law that trap the money of a person in the control of a state agency with a benefit drawn from those funds are a Human Rights issue.

The ‘protective’ role of Administration orders can perversely place the State as the agent of denial of fundamental rights and social isolation due to the loss of capacity to participate in society through the use of cash as a form of self-expression and choice.

An illustration of this is on the following page.

10

Case example (provision of information and outcomes)

In early 2025, a 55yo man approached DDWA for assistance in dealing with their Trust Manager (TM) to find out how much money they had in their account. The man had a stroke 5 years earlier and had been under administration since. He had a Disability Support Pension (DSP) for his subsistence income and knew he had another sum of money from his years of working and saving. A call to the TM was made and the advocate left the room for the person to have a private conversation with the TM to ask about the money held against their name. The TM would not provide this to the man due to him ‘not asking the question in the right way’ and he would have to wait for the annual statement to be sent out to him in October. It is clear that a conservative and protective position is held by PTO staff in respect to preventing others (support workers, family, friends, advocates) from know personal details over the phone, including the confirmation of the address held for the person where the annual statement would be sent. The situation was disempowering and very frustrating for the person to be closed out of knowing about their financial affairs.

See attached Easy Read PTO document, ‘Reading my financial statement’ stating ‘Statement of Transactions [received] every 12 months’ Attachment 4 on p29.

Recommendation

A specialist advocacy service be established to actively and rigorously support Represented Persons in their access to their funds and negotiations with their Trust Managers (PTO and elsewhere) in the use of their funds.

Final comment

DDWA provided input to the Law Reform Commission Project 114 Guardianship and Administration Act WA. The Final Report lists nearly 400 items of reform in this Act. DDWA substantively affirms these proposed variations and improvements and commends this Report to the Standing Committee. This avoids the need to duplicate these items in this submission, such as the removal of the ‘gag’ on any person who has been involved in the GAA processes being able to make this known in the public domain. The Report is Attachment 5, shown on p30.

Maxine Drake - Advocate 11

Submission to the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee

Attachment 1

DDWA Individual Advocacy Service

Advocacy Practice Document

Version 8 (2026)

Definition of Advocacy

Individual advocacy supports a person to have their needs expressed and their rights realised.

An individual advocate stands up for a person to get what they need.

Scope statement

DDWA provides advocacy services to people in the following groups.

• People with Intellectual Disability or difference
• People who have or had developmental disability in childhood
• Family or close supporters of people in these groups

With a specialty focus in the following domains

• Education settings
• Guardianship and Administration
• Complex communication
• Parents with Intellectual Disability
• NDIS

Funding statement

DDWA advocacy services will be provided free of charge, through funding obtained from grants and other sources.

13

Advocacy Practice statement

DDWA provides an advocacy service founded in the concepts of Individual Self-determination and Family Leadership, where experienced advocates respond with energy and optimism to support people to resolve the issue that is immediate and present for them. DDWA recognises that people generally seek advocacy in the moment of need and deferring assistance to a later time is usually unhelpful. This reflects a commitment to respond as soon as possible in a manner that suits the needs of the person, including text, phone, in person, email, or virtual presence at a meeting.

Advocacy outcomes

People receiving an advocacy service feel better able to progress their service negotiations/family leadership roles because the DDWA advocacy service has provided

• Independent affirmation or analysis of the line of thinking or the strategic approach a person is already undertaking, for themselves or their family member
• Contribution of new information or alternative perspectives on the situation being described
• Independent third-party presence and advocacy support at a meeting or other setting where negotiations or discussions are occurring
• Subject matter expertise or an informed statement of support on an issue, or
• Direct petition to a system representative on behalf of a family, under the auspices of DDWA

Critical defining words in DDWA advocacy

Responsive

Responsive advocacy will

Address the issue then and there and only refer on when the issue is out of scope or better addressed elsewhere.

Say ‘Yes we can help now’ unless there is a compelling reason to not provide an advocacy service.

14

Not contemplate use of a waitlist (or intake or other administrative processes that delay access)

Resourceful

Resourceful advocacy will

Draw on the resources and capacity of the person with the advocacy need

Bring the resources of optimism, creativity and solution focus to the exchange

Bring the influence of the organisation to bear on the issue

Demonstrate finesse in problem solving and excellence in analysis

Independent

Independent advocacy will

Be ready to assert and speak truth fearlessly to defend Human Rights

Remain loyal to the person and their interests

Be ethical in respect to any conflicts of interest that need to be named

Compassionate

Compassionate advocacy

Recognises the impact on people of powerlessness and loss of agency

Sees the humanity of all parties to any dispute or negotiation

Seeks to harmonise relationships and avoid trauma within disputes or negotiations

Relationship forms the foundation of advocacy

Service users will form a relationship or impression of the DDWA advocacy service based upon the quality of the interactions with the organisation as a whole, including any staff member or any service process. The DDWA advocacy service benefits from advocates being open, authentic and warm in all dealings with people contacting the service. Where advocates are in contact with others when assisting a person or family,

15

these contacts also need to be respectful and support ongoing good relationship with DDWA and the advocacy service.

Information collection and documentation will generally be minimal and for the exclusive purpose of providing the service

The DDWA Data base requires only a few fields to be completed for a record to be formed and advocates will not actively seek to acquire information for other than what is needed for the advocacy transaction, though can record information volunteered, such as suburb or family composition.

Referral and intake processes will be smooth and economical

DDWA does not require a prescribed form or process to be followed for a service to be offered. Contact with the organisation by phone or electronically, by the person or through another service, is sufficient. Reception staff or advocates will determine from early discussion whether a service contact is within the scope of DDWA service offerings.

Strengths and individual resources recognised

A strengths-based approach to advocacy (in line with a Family Leadership ethos) recognises that the advocate is a partner to a person and not a director or case manager of a situation presented. An advocate must listen to a person’s narrative or account of their situation for evidence of actions already taken and strategies used to the point of seeking advocacy.

Consent for advocacy services

Consent may be obtained in a range of ways that demonstrate that the person with disability is agreeing to the advocacy service being provided to them, including

• Coming to a meeting and participating in the meeting
• Talking to the advocate on the phone
• Having a visit by the advocate to their home or other place they may be
• Signing a form or note that gives consent
• Joining a phone call where the issues are being discussed
• Giving testimony to another party on their agreement

Criticism and feedback will be invited and the complaint process promoted

16

Third party referrals

Other people around a person with Intellectual or developmental disability are able to make contact with DDWA to start an advocacy conversation. Parents will naturally do this in relation to a child/person under 18 years. Parents and others may do this for an adult who appears to be in need of advocacy support. Other referrers may be service providers, including NDIS-funded agents, therapists or clinicians, community member.

General scope of services within each domain

Education advocacy

• Supportive listening to the situation of concern to the parent of a child within the Education system
• Analysis and exchange of interpretations and perspectives on the facts and dynamics of the situation
• Problem solving and strategy proposals to assist the parent to determine further action
• Attendance at meetings relating to the parents’ negotiation of education services for their child, including routine meetings and complaint escalations

Advocate Levels of Engagement at School Meetings

Level 1

• Observer
• Note taker
• Supportive presence

Level 2

• Active clarification of key issues
• Active reflection of comparative practice
• Proposing solutions or options

Level 3

• Proxy mediator or Chair
• Agenda setting
• Assertive negotiation

17

Guardianship and Administration (including State Administrative Tribunal – SAT) advocacy

• Supportive listening to the person calling with a concern about a person within scope of DDWA services and relating to questions of capacity, vulnerability, substitute decision-making in respect to life or financial matters
• Analysis and exchange of interpretations and perspectives on the facts and dynamics of the situation (including in-office workshop session)
• Provision of information or referral to sources of expertise or more specialist advice
• Lodgment of applications to SAT where this is deemed the next step to take
• Preparation of reports as required
• Preparation of Communication Profiles for people with complex communication or challenges in participating in hearings
• Direct engagement with SAT as the nominated ‘advocate’ in the matter, including to apply for access to papers, submit witness lists, submit reports.
• Attendance at SAT hearings where the support of an independent third-party advocate could assist in the process for the person and/or the family
• Contribution to the hearing of information as deemed necessary
• Support appeals or reviews of decisions where necessary

Complex Communication advocacy

• Meeting a person in the setting and manner that best enables the establishment of a relationship and rapport
• Specialist communication engagement to determine capability and capacity to indicate wishes and respond
• Promotion to others in the person’s life, the Rights and Responsibilities relating to supporting communication and decision-making
• Generation of Individualised Communication Profiles to support participation in particular settings, including SAT, child safety services and other mainstream services.

Parents with Intellectual Disability (or intellectual difference) advocacy

• Work with parents or other agencies where there is a concern that a parent is being disadvantaged in their dealings with child safety services due to questions of capacity to parent based upon the presence of an Intellectual Disability.

18

• Attend relevant meetings at child safety offices with the parent, to bring an independent, disability-aware third-party perspective to engagements between workers and the parent/family
• Support parents to access legal services to respond to applications by child safety services for care and protection orders
• Offer communication partnership support to parents in situations where communication is an impediment to access to just and fair processes.

NDIS advocacy

• Critique, analysis and advice provided relating to any point of the NDIS journey for a family or individual
• Information provision to support self-advocacy, including templates for Carer’s Impact Statement, types of evidence, explanations of terms and language and correct appeal stages for the issue being presented
• Active engagement into NDIS systems and administration, including at planning meetings and to escalate an individual issue
• Support and representation before AAT
• Peer support to foster Hope and realism

Version Eight

May 2026

Maxine Drake

Advocate

19

ee

ADVOCACY KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY WAY

Kathleen Halden

Executive Officer

State Administrative Tribunal

565 Hay Street

PERTH WA 6000

Dear Ms Halden

Inaccessible hearing processes disadvantage people with communication challenges in the Human Rights stream

We understand that Tribunal hearings are to be held with participants unable to attend in person. This development is of significant concern to us as a breach of the standards of accessibility and procedural fairness for people with cognitive or intellectual disability. DDWA has consistently observed the rule of attending hearings in person wherever possible. Through our Complex Communication Needs (CCN) program we are actively exploring the barriers to people being able to participate in hearings and speak on their own behalf.

On 3 February a hearing was held with a number of people in the hearing room, including the technical assistant to the Tribunal and a language interpreter. The Represented persons were twins, being heard together. The Member was not in the room so there was a farcical situation of the hearing being ‘managed’ in the room by myself and others, while the Member did their best with the audio cues available to them. The right outcome was achieved so the manner of the hearing did not become an issue within a 17a application and the participants accepted the situation.

A 17a application hearing is scheduled this Friday with the three-member panel sitting in the hearing room and all other parties attending remotely. The person for whom the hearing is occurring is adamant that remote attendance will not work for her. She says that she needs to see the faces of the people she is engaging with and cannot participate properly by phone, due to difficulty speaking at a phone in the way she is expected to.

DDWA seeks to lodge in the strongest terms, the objection to remote hearings within the Human Rights stream of SAT. We urge SAT to commence high level examination of this issue within the context of the DAIP (Disability Access and Inclusion Plan), the Public

Working with people with intellectual & other developmental disabilities and their families

phone 08 9420 7203 email ddwa@ddwa.org.au address 2 Delhi St, West Perth WA 6005 web www.ddwa.org.au

as pe |

ADVOCACY KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY WAY

Health necessities and Disability discrimination issues. The natural structure of SAT hearing rooms creates distance barriers and the security arrangements in the SAT building lend themselves to good infection control management. We seek to understand the basis for this shift to remote attendance so that we can advocate more effectively for the people

that we support.

Maxine Drake

Advocate

15 February 2022

Working with people with intellectual & other developmental disabilities and their families

phone 08 9420 7203 email ddwa@ddwa.org.au address 2 Delhi St, West Perth WA 6005 web www.ddwa.org.au

ATION EDUCATION

Attachment 2b

Communication Profile.

MM GAA XXX/2020 Hearing on May 2020

22

Page 2

My Top Tips For You When Talking With Me:

• Talk clearly.
• Don’t speak fast.
• Make it clear.
• Keep it simple.
• Use short, direct questions and simple words.
• Respect me, reassure me.
• Abusive behaviour, disrespectful behaviour shuts me down.

23

Attachment 2c

Communication Profile – AB

Guardianship Hearing

The objective of this profile is to provide information to the Tribunal on the capacity of AB to express her wishes if this could be facilitated.

The DDWA CCN Advocacy team met with AB at her father’s home on the morning of Saturday 10th April.

On arrival, AB was lying on the couch, awake though sleepy or perhaps feeling a little unwell. Despite looking pale and tired, she immediately gave me strong eye contact, pushed herself up slightly to lift her head off the couch and held my gaze as I introduced myself and the other team members. I sat on the floor next to the couch to chat with her and used four different Alternative and Augmentative Communication (AAC) apps on my iPad to add visual supports to my spoken language as we interacted. The apps used were PODD for Compass, SimPODD, Proloquo2go and Chatterboards. AB was immediately interested in the iPad apps and tried to push herself up to see better, looking from the iPad to me and back again repeatedly. She was most engaged when the voice output from the AAC systems used an adult, female Australian voice.

During our interaction, there were multiple times that AB appeared to be having seizure activity. These were moments when she appeared to lose focus, appeared to stare vacantly, close her eyes and sometimes lie back down for short periods of time. When she reopened her eyes she seemed initially confused for about a minute. When what seemed to be possible seizure activity passed, she was able to refocus and engage again with us. After about 15 minutes these moments seemed to become less frequent and she pushed herself up into an upright sitting position and allowed me to sit next to her.

24

25

NY abs

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY 6642 KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITY

Based on these observations and the meaning derived from our observations, we suggest the following strategies may help AB participate in the SAT. It is also important to note that her engagement may be limited by other factors, also listed below.

Strategies that may help AB participate in the SAT:

A communication support person using a full language AAC app to model language used during the SAT, or to explain language used during the SAT, to support AB’s understanding.

An iPad set up with both a full-language AAC app for modelling and simple decision-making displays (e.g. yes, maybe / not sure, no) to support participation.

Asking AB direct questions with simple language.

Allowing time for a communication support person to repeat that question using language on the device.

Allowing a communication support person to scan aloud possible responses (e.g. yes, no, maybe / not sure).

Giving plenty of time for AB to respond to a simple, direct question.

Factors that may limit AB’s participation in the SAT:

Unfamiliar, formal environment, with unfamiliar people using formal language.

Limited exposure to and experience with using AAC tools to support her participation, engagement and interactions.

If AB is experiencing seizure activity, this may interfere with her ability to participate in the SAT.

Complex Communication Consultant

26

Attachment 3

Case example to support request for release of reasons

Background: Key parties are (1) Jacob* – young person in care with complex disability including Intellectual disability, non-speaking, hearing and vision challenges. Loves music, family, crafts, going out. (2) Clare* – foster parent for over 8 years until Jacob was age 15. (3) Child safety services/NDIS provider/Public Advocate investigator. * not real names

When Jacob was approaching 18 years of age he had been placed in the care of a disability service organisation (DSO) and child safety services (DCP) applied to SAT for government agencies to be appointed to Guardianship and Administration for him. Clare wanted to be appointed as his Guardian and Administrator and to take him back to live with her in the home they had shared. Jacob still had a room at her home, and she is part of a big family that know him well. The Investigator from OPA had formed a view after talking with the child safety services and the DSO, that Clare was not suitable to be considered for the Guardianship role. Clare had been a strong advocate for Jacob and had often pointed out issues and failures of the DSO and DCP.

Critically, the OPA Guardian made a claim that the foster parent was seeking the NDIS funding that would otherwise go to the accommodation support provider and was therefore conflicted and motivated by money.

Key arguments put by the other parties at the first hearing

• Jacob was happy in the DSO accommodation under a 2:1 support ratio, with staff who care about him.
• The foster mother only wanted the NDIS funds that the DSO is getting and is conflicted because they will be providing a home for him for money.

The impact of the wrong Guardianship decision for Jacob was that he was to spend the rest of his life in institutional care, with staff unfamiliar with his unique communication style, with limited access to his earlier family contacts from childhood. The key arguments above were accepted, despite these being incorrect and against human rights principles.

The Public Advocate was appointed Guardian and the Public Trustee as Administrator.

Advocacy role

Support had been provided at meetings over the years of Jacob being in the care of Clare. This provided an understanding of the issues, insight into who Clare was as a person, and provided a ‘witness’ to the situation and conduct of other parties. When the matter finally went to a SAT hearing, the advocate role was to support the foster parent to present their case and monitor the evidence provided by others, as well as contribute a perspective when justified.

27

ty Lbs

ADVOCACY KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY 6A~

Internal (17a) Review of the original decision

The law allows for a review.

The advocacy role continued to a further review of the decision to not appoint Clare to the Guardian and Administrator roles (called a 17A Review). This review is held before 3 Members, with a Judge running the hearing. All previous evidence is considered and any new evidence at the review hearing.

This decision was overturned on review, with Clare appointed to both roles, allowing Jacob to return to living in a family home.

Requests for the decision to be placed on the WASAT data base were refused by the presiding Member and at second request, by the President of SAT. No substantive reasons were provided for this refusal, as follows

’Section 79 of the SAT Act provides that a written transcript of the part of the hearing in which reasons for the decision were given orally is ‘sufficient’ to satisfy the requirement that reasons be given in writing. That is, the transcript provided to Ms Clare is considered to be the written reasons for the decision; the Tribunal is not obligated to separately publish or provide a ‘WASAT’ version of the decision. His Honour is therefore satisfied that a written version of the reasons given in the above matter have previously been provided and there is therefore nothing more to do.

Why it is important for the Reasons to be released into the public domain (de-identified onto the WASAT data base)

The Review decision corrected the wrong statements about NDIS funding going to a carer and supported accommodation being a better place for a person to live than a home setting if this is available.

The WASAT database holds precedent law for others to refer to in future matters on a similar theme.

Maxine Drake

Advocate

August 2025

28

Attachment 4

Statement of Transactions

A Statement of Transactions shows the money in your Public Trustee account or accounts.

You will get a Statement of Transactions every 12 months.

It shows your money coming in (Receipts column).

And it shows where your money has been paid (Payments column).

Reading my financial statement PM09 2026

29

Attachment 5

The Law Reform Commission Western Australia

Project 114

Guardianship and Administration Act

1990 (WA)

Final Report

December 2025

Full document available at:

https://www.wa.gov.au/media/159210/download?inline

30

Inquiry into Guardianship and Administration in Western Australia

Question 1

Do you feel that the Public Trustee or Public Advocate did the right thing by you, your friend or family?

No C=

@

I am not sure

Question 2

Can you tell us how fairly you, your friend or family felt you were treated by the Public Trustee and/or Public Advocate? 1 star = very unfairly. 5 star = very fairly.

kkkk (ED

kkk*x @

tok 6

• CD

Question 3

Have you tried to report something that you are unhappy or worried about?

Yes

No CD

1 am not sure 0)

Question 4

If you have tried to report something would you like to say anything about this?

15 written responses were provided. These responses have been de-identified and listed on the following pages.

32

Question 5

Have the Public Trustee and/or Public Advocate given you information when you needed it straight away?

Yes

No

1 am not sure

Question 6

Was the information they gave you easy to access and understand?

Yes

No

|

1 am not sure

Question 7

How have the choices made by the Public Trustee and/or Public Advocate affected you, your friend or your family?

33 written responses were provided. These responses have been de-identified and listed on the following pages.

Question 8

Do you think choices made by the Public Trustee and/or Public Advocate are checked by someone outside the agency?

Yes

No 2

1 am not sure 17

w |

wo

Question 4: De-identified responses

If you have tried to report something, would you like to say anything about this?

• Response 1: No. Honestly I don’t know what a public trustee does.
• Response 2: No.
• Response 3: No. Honestly I don’t know what a public trustee does.
• Response 4: You don’t get a positive outcome. We raised legitimate concerns about the guardian’s decision making process (going against the recommendations of numerous professional reoorts) and while they suspended the decision to get more information the guardian went on to essentially punish the family for making a valid complaint and then tried to reduce contact and move the PWdD out of the family home (also against professional advice).
• Response 5: When I.waned to do my own think even with money they wouldn’t let me
• Response 6: They allowed my sister access to over $400000.00 with no life skills & ppl ended up taking it all from her
• Response 7: In my experience, the system, in its role as safeguard institutions for the Disability, Aged Care, and Mental Health (DAM) sectors, made up of the Office of the Public Advocate, the Public Trustee and The State Administration Tribunal, not excluding The Public Sector Commission, HaDSCO and the Mental Health Tribunal, are in many ways all in cahoots. They serve to protect each other or evade responsibility and send complainants to other offices in a manner like a merry-go-round. To make matters worse, the Quality and Safeguard Commission is so insipid and quite inept that it beggars’ belief it even exists. The harm perpetrated on people with disabilities is quite shocking and amounts to gross negligence.
• Response 8: no response received. submitted a complaint.
• Response 9: Yes, I disclosed concerns about a family member to the investigator that were to become joint guardians of one of my family members and said I strongly disagreed with one of them being a guardian due to what I suspected as elder abuse. I strongly suggested for The Office of the Public Advocate to be Guardian, but I was dismissed and this person was made a joint Guardian.

34

• Response 10: Both my parents were under Public Trustee. I was never allowed to know what funds my parents had, and there was no accountability. We never got a statement of funds used and how much the trustee charged my parents for times I contacted them or to pay a bill. It made it very hard to do things for my parents to help them prior to going into aged care homes.
• Response 11: Most of the people I have dealt with really make an effort, but they are asked to look after to many cases to be able to really follow up issues.
• Response 12: When I took on administration of my child who has Down Syndrome I was not informed about the implications of the extensive reporting I feel as a parent who looks after a child and yes a vulnerable child. I should not have to spend extensive hours reporting and it has been a very stressful experience and has been of no benefit to my child because it has taken hours away that I could’ve spent with him. I never had to report any of his money for the first 18 years of his life and I do not understand why when he is over the age of 18 it’s necessary.
• Response 13: The responses and accountability from the Public trustee was minimal and dismissive, not ;looking at compromising or collaborating to get the best outcome.
• Response 14: Through a Testamentary Trust and a Special Disability Trust, the Public Trustee administers the inheritance left to my severely disabled adult son by his late father to be expended for “my son’s benefit”. Over the past 13 years since my son’s father passed away, my experience is that the Public Trustee seems entrenched in the way it approaches its decision making and does not seem open to considering the specific needs of individuals nor to responding with any flexibility to best meet these needs. Responses are often curt and poorly explained with rarely any rationale provided for the decisions made. I suspect the office may be understaffed and staff overworked but the estate and trust managers seem to have no willingness to establish a personal relationship with the people about whom they are making decisions nor to better understand their needs as a basis for person-centred decision-making. This level of detachment, disinterest and lack of initiative seems to have deteriorated even more markedly in recent years. Were it not for my involvement and advocacy, it seems likely that my son would have derived NO practical or lifestyle benefit from the money left to him by his late father in accordance with his father’s wishes.
• Response 15: After several years of compliance we suggested that most of the financial reporting that we had to submit was duplicitous as our son’s finances were mostly run through the organisation that provided his supported living arrangements. The Public Trustee investigated and promptly exempted us from this requirement - a much appreciated and sensible response.

35

Question 7: De-identified responses

How have the choices made by the Public Trustee and/or Public Advocate affected you, your friend or your family?

• Response 1: Unfair.
• Response 2: Unsure
• Response 3: they charge way too much in fees and they appear to not listen to people and their wishes
• Response 4: I need more answers about long term planning for loved ones, when the parent dies.
• Response 5: Yes was not heard.
• Response 6: Financially as she gave money to person.
• Response 7: Our dealings are few and simple. I report once a year on the financials for my 2 family members I support. My orders are in place for 5 years. I am the administrator and my sister is the guardian- so we are the decision makers- not the Public Trustee.
• Response 8: Tried to remove person from their family. Guardian only ever visited once, didn’t listen, difficult to get hold of and seemed to have an agenda before they visited. Caused significant carer stress.
• Response 9: By controlling me and made it hell
• Response 10: Was felt listened too and supported
• Response 11: It was not explained to us clearly what each of the orders meant and the daily affect it has. We were unable to make the right decision on the type of orders we needed, and had to return to have the orders changed. First time they said I did not need to report financially on going. The second time they did not advise, later they told me that I had to report to them the finances and I had not maintained the documents in such a way to make it easy.
• Response 12: Formalised existing arrangements. Makes decision making process clearer, especially when accessing health care.
• Response 13: It has destroyed her
• Response 14: They positively affected the client.

36

• Response 15: Not helpful, boarding on deceit, fabrication, exaggeration and defamation during State Administration Tribunal appeals.
• Response 16: Family stress and anxiety with worry.
• Response 17: We manage our son’s finances and have been able to make decisions without interference.
• Response 18: The joint Guardian does not follow any direction regarding the wellbeing of our elderly family member and makes it very difficult for the guardian who is doing the right thing by our elderly family member. I do believe joint guardianship is impossible to navigate at times and needs to have regular check ins by the department especially when joint guardianship is shared in families.
• Response 19: The person represented had their assetts held back when they were struggling for everyday items. The formula used for releasing a person OWN funds is too restrictive and not serving the person it is supposed to. Also the stance by the trustee was paternal, self serving and unnecessarily combative.
• Response 20: Yes, their lack of accountability affected the way I tried to help my parents. Why can’t we know how much my parents had? and no statement of charges. This is an unsatisfactory organisation to deal with. I know this from some disabled people living in care can’t get answers quick enough to requests for funds for holidays or concerts or daily spending when they are out with support workers.
• Response 21: often the workers have little training or understanding of the complex issues many of their clients are living with.
• Response 22: I have no reply or information on how my accounts were recieved, ie more info or less info than required.
• Response 23: Continued choices that are not in the best interest of the person with a disability. Especially putting safety at risk. Even though issues are discussed before the event, they choose to ignore the insights of professionals that have worked with the person for decades and make decisions based on short term money or convenience, rather than long term benefits and understanding of the person with a disability.
• Response 24: We have not needed to enforce any decision using the findings, although the person affected sometimes forgets the benefits of the supports provided through the management of their affairs.
• Response 25: As my son’s Administrator, the seeming detachment and disinterest of the Public Trustee in distributing my son’s inheritance in

37

accordance with his late father’s wishes has added considerably to my own advocacy and administrative workload requiring me to submit and justify detailed submissions on a regular basis. These demands have also diminished my capacity to ensure that my son enjoys the benefits of his inheritance in accordance with his late father’s wishes. It feels more like a constant battle between the parties involved rather than a cooperative partnership towards achieving a shared goal.

• Response 26: Not really.
• Response 27: We have never had any issues with either
• Response 28: They were very supportive and really helped my to understand my rights
• Response 29: Five yearly reviews are much easier now to attend for us living in rural WA. Attending via MSTeams means no trip to Perth, not even to a local videoconference facility. Our son is far more relaxed in a known environment which makes the review easier for him.
• Response 30: There needs to be a less onerous option where family is able to apply for NDIS for their unwell member with paranoia who won’t sign anything but is not looking after their health but doesn’t meet the requirements for not capable.
• Response 31: It has allowed me to provide care and guidance to my son who was born with a rare and life long disability. Due to his disability he has significant cognitive impairment and he is unable to administer his own affairs or make decisions that impact on his life. Having guardianship and administrator capacity has allowed me to directly assist my son in his health and wellbeing and to provide guidance and support that is necessary to enable him to live his life in a safe and financially proper manner.
• Response 32: My good friend who lives in sheltered accommodation has his finances overseen by the Public Trustee. In redacted he needed new shoes, and the office of the public trustee were staggering in their sheer incompetence, and utter disrespect for him and his vulnerable state. In particular an indescribably incompetent and disrespectful staff member called redacted should be utterly ashamed of how disgusting her incompetence and arrogance were, and her absolute failure to do her job. It took over a year for a simple pair of shoes to be approved, and over the course of over fifty phonecalls, dozens of emails, and promises that she would get back to us given by other staff, redacted wilfully and negligently refused to be in contact with us at any time, and was never once at the office. | sincerely hope that the outright disgrace of her employment is no longer current.

38

Question 9: De-identified responses

What was it like to deal with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) when they were making choices about you?

• Response 1: Terrible.
• Response 2: I found it to be incredibly overwhelming and difficult to understand.
• Response 3: the member was fantastic I appreciated the kindness and thoroughness and professionalism
• Response 4: We visit every 5 years, I’d like to be able to chat with someone in between that time and ask questions. I don’t feel I have enough information on the services they can provide to assist.
• Response 5: We had a hearing for guardianship for our son who has special needs and unable to make decisions for himself. Everyone made us feel at ease during the hearing and explained everything very well. We can’t speak more highly about the whole process.
• Response 6: Satisfactory
• Response 7: Our dealings are simple. We hold guardianship and administration. Not them.
• Response 8: The process was rushed, they seem to be over worked and keen to get through procedures as quickly as possible rather than listening. They take what the Public Advocate says as gospel and dont explore this fully. They are not prepared to direct the Public Advocate or reprimand them.
• Response 9: That they control me i didnt get a say
• Response 10: When first dealing with the investigators they were not listening to my issues about my ex husband which resulted in an additional duress on me and my son. Luckily after 12 months he was removed from the guardianship. I felt they did not acknowledge my concerns of my abusive ex husband and dismissed me. I was told politely that if I couldn’t work with him I would effectively be the obstructive one and be reported that way (I felt that I had no choice and not listened to and my concerns not heard). 12 additional months of duress on our family unnecessarily. The SAT was great and after the 12 months looked at the information provided fairly and heard my son and understood and took note of his demeanour with his father. They truly put him first to ensure he was the one represented.

39

• Response 11: very short and succinct, which is ok, if we had a good pre-session to explain and understand.
• Response 12: I was very wary of guardianship, having been made to feel fearful by scare stories and also by the ABC 4 Corners tv show. I didn’t want to apply but was advised to do so by the hospital social worker who advised me it would be required for my son in SDA and needing some restrictive practices. I was really happy with how respectful the process was. The member was so friendly and supportive and explained things clearly and orders arrived promptly. I feel there is a lot of uncertainty and fear in the disability parents’ community about guardianship but I had a very positive experience.
• Response 13: I am completing this as an advocate. The overall impression re: public advocates/guardians is that they have heavy workloads and are at times difficult to get hold off due to been so busy.
• Response 14: The State Administration Tribunal needs to be closed down. Its agents are hostile, disrespectful, and they simply serve the Guardians. Anyone who endeavors to advocate on behalf of a represented person, will be demeaned, treated with disrespect, transcripts of Hearings denied, and orders sought by advocates or family members of the represented person are also summarily denied. The agents and Members of SAT lack fundamental operational knowledge of people with disabilities and fail to recognise the operational deceitful tactics of guardians, service providers, and their employed clinicians.
• Response 15: we felt like we were ignored. They seemed very biased. Do not believe they understood the situation.
• Response 16: They considered my situation and applied guardianship and administration orders as requested.
• Response 17: The SAT tribunal itself is fair and helpful, the trustees are not.
• Response 18: As my parents were difficult people, having the Public Guardian was OK to deal with. They responded well to me when it was necessary.
• Response 19: Again too many clients and not enough training about the issues disabled people have in their lives.
• Response 20: The hearing was done very well . But what is expected in the accounts took me many days to complete, it just adds to the Burden of caring for our Daughter ,especially as I have been doing all her book keeping for 51years with no problems. Without having to write them all up in every small detail.
• Response 21: Devastating and humiliating. To be judged, questioned and

40

assumed that they know better than someone who had lived and worked with the person with a disability their whole lives. The funds of knowledge of the family, carers and long term service providers should be held in more esteem by the people making decisions, not based on a cookie cutter template of what they believe should happen. Humans are individuals and their care should be tailored to meet those individual needs.

• Response 22: Very easy.
• Response 23: Very good.
• Response 24: We recently applied to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of my son’s Administration Order to enable a second (joint) Administrator to be appointed as back-up security to the current over-reliance on me as sole Administrator … particularly given my age and my own failing health.

The requirement to submit the application via the eCourts portal was immediately problematic as the online lodgement process would not upload accompanying documents and the application would not submit as a result. Nor could the text of the application be saved for multiple subsequent attempts. As the State Administrative Tribunal does not accept applications by email, and after many failed attempts, it was eventually necessary to print off the application and submit by registered mail.

At the online hearing the Tribunal Member was dismissive of the case put for the appointment of a second (joint) Administrator saying that she had never been asked to appoint a second Administrator previously and explaining that, if such an appointment was made, it would require both Administrators to meet and work together on all financial decisions and transactions - including presenting in person at the bank for withdrawals. On the strength of which, we decided NOT to proceed with the application leaving me, once again, as my son’s sole Administrator.

Yet again, I found the process abrupt, bureaucratic, disinterested and insensitive to individual needs and circumstances.

Further research on my part indicates that a number of other Australian jurisdictions (notably Queensland, Victoria and South Australia) do, in fact, allow for the appointment of joint administrators who have the authority to act both jointly AND separately for the benefit of the Represented Person. Online references cite the benefits of these arrangements relative to over-reliance on a single Administrator. Western Australia seems to be lagging behind other jurisdictions in enabling similar joint and separate Administrative arrangements.

• Response 25: I thought they were fair and understanding.

41

• Response 26: We had 2 excellent hearings at SAT prior to the unexpected death of our son. We were congratulated on our full and concise summary of our son’s capacities and needs that provided a smooth pathway to the granting to us of 2 x 5 yearly Plenary Administration and Guardianships.
• Response 27: Simple.
• Response 28: Difficult.
• Response 29: It was very formal and for someone with an intellectual disability, it was scary. The language was too difficult to understand properly.
• Response 30: It was considerate and thoughtful process and provided a prompt and positive outcome and response.
• Response 31: It all takes too long.

42

Compiled by DDWA in May 2026.

gs)p | 12

ADVOCACY KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY (WAY

Supporting people with developmental disability and their families since 1985 in Western Australia.

Phone: 08 9420 7203

Email: ddwa@ddwa.org.au

Web: ddwa.org.au

ABN: 61889 503 484

City West Lotteries House

2 Delhi Street, West Perth WA 6005