Submission 8 — Brian Cooper — Inquiry into the guardianship and administration system in Western Australia

Submission to the Western Australian Parliamentary Inquiry

Reform of the Guardianship and Administration System

Regulating Authority in Practice

A Structural Reform Framework for Safeguarding, Accountability, and Human Rights

Proposed Legislative Package

• Vulnerable Persons Authority and Protective Protections Bill 2026 (WA)
• Guardianship and Decision Making Bill 2026 (WA)
• Community Visitor Scheme Bill 2026 (WA) Submitted by

Brian Cooper, Social Demographer, Policy Analyst—Disability, Protection, and Systems Reform

Date of submission

April 20, 2026

Purpose of Submission

Proposed Legislative Framework

Vulnerable Persons Authority and Safeguards Bill 2026 (West Australia) Guardianship and

Decision-Making Bill 2026 (Western Australia) Community Visitor Scheme Bill 2026

(Western Australia)

The submission identifies a structural gap within the current system:

Authority is transferred through legal and administrative processes, but its exercise is not consistently observed or regulated in practice.

The submission proposes a functional, system-wide approach to safeguarding based on:

• continuous visibility of decision-making;
• regulation of authority at the point of use
• integrated oversight across all actors and settings;

Central Proposition

The current system manages who can act. The reformed system must manage how authority is exercised.

Keywords

Guardianship reform • Protection • Authority • Accountability • Disability • Aged Care • Human

Rights • System Design • Oversight • Western Australia

Contact

1

Author Biography

Brian Cooper is a social demographer with more than forty years of experience in disability, safeguarding, and system reform in Australia. His research focuses on the convergence of demographic data, service frameworks, and personal experiences, particularly highlighting the impact of institutional structures on outcomes for those dependent on assistance.

Brian possesses a master’s degree in both social work and urban studies. His academic background supports an interdisciplinary approach that integrates social policy, spatial analysis, and service system design. This combination emphasises the interplay between environments, institutions, and decision-making processes that shape access, autonomy, and inclusion.

He has worked within the disability sector in positions that included support coordination, system navigation, and policy analysis. This experience offers direct insight into the practical decision making process, transcending formal policy and legislative frameworks. His work utilises quantitative analysis and practical experience to investigate discrepancies between policy intentions and actual outcomes.

This proposal presents a cohesive perspective grounded in demographic studies, practical system experience, and policy reform development. A fundamental proposition directs the endeavour:

Systems that exercise authority over individuals must be capable of observing, assessing, and regulating that authority in practice.

Table of Contents

• Submission to the Western Australian Guardianship and Administration Inquiry

Executive Summary—Guardianship, Authority, and Accountability in Western Australia ……………… i

• Chapter 1: Introduction — Reframing Safeguarding in Practice

• Chapter 2: Guardianship as the Exercise of Power

• Chapter 3: Functional Expression of Authority — A Whole-of-Workforce Model

• Chapter 4: Structural Gaps in Oversight

• Chapter 5: Institutional Roles and System Interaction

• Chapter 6: Response to Terms of Reference

• Chapter 7: Reform Framework — Regulating Authority in Practice

• Chapter 8: Conclusion

• References

• Explanatory Memorandum — A Plain Explanation of the Reform

• Vulnerable Persons Authority and Safeguards Act 2026 (WA)

• Guardianship and Decision-Making Act 2026 (WA)

• Community Visitor Scheme Act 2026 (WA)

2

Submission to the Western Australian Guardianship and

Administration Inquiry

Guardianship, Decision-Making Authority and Accountability in Western Australia:

A Structural Reform Framework

Committee Secretariat

Enquiry into the Guardianship and Administration System in Western Australia

Dear Committee Members,

The author submits the attached paper in response to the committee inquiry into the guardianship and administration system in Western Australia.

The submission advances a central proposition: the current system transfers decision-making authority but does not consistently regulate its exercise. This structural gap separates authorisation from accountability and produces measurable consequences for individuals subject to guardianship and related systems, such as increased vulnerability to abuse and neglect due to a lack of oversight in decision-making processes.

The submission identifies three recurring outcomes that arise from this gap.

• Misclassification occurs when system limitations lead to intervention in situations that do not involve incapacity.

• Overreach occurs when decision-making authority extends beyond what is necessary or proportionate.

• Limited visibility of lived experience occurs when oversight relies on documentation rather than direct observation of real-world conditions.

These results do not signify isolated failures. The results indicate systemic design characteristics that national investigations into disability and elderly care systems have similarly recognised.

The proposal outlines a structural reform framework centred on the concept of a Vulnerable Persons Authority (VPA). The framework redirects regulatory emphasis from identification and role to the functional execution of power across all systems and stakeholders. The framework pertains to compensated personnel, volunteers, professionals, and organisational settings.

• The submission outlines a comprehensive reform model.

• Reposition guardianship as a last-resort, time-limited intervention.

• Replace categorical “vulnerability” classifications with context-based assessment.

• Establish a statutory Community Visitor Scheme to provide independent, real-time observation of decision-making environments.

• Introduce a vulnerable persons framework that replaces existing worker and volunteer screening systems with continuous, function-based safeguarding.

• Embed enforceable accountability mechanisms, including activity-based sanctions and criminal offences for misuse of authority.

3

The framework functions as a cohesive system wherein authority adheres to an uninterrupted sequence:

authorised → exercised → observed → held accountable → enforced

The framework aligns with contemporary human rights obligations, including those under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The framework addresses the need for safeguarding systems that operate in practice rather than solely through formal processes, ensuring that the rights and well-being of individuals with disabilities are actively protected and promoted in everyday situations.

The submission supports consideration of implementable, responsive structural reform options that reflect lived experience within the system.

The author acknowledges the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry and is available to provide further information or clarification as required.

Yours sincerely,

Brian Cooper

4

Executive Summary—Guardianship, Authority, and

Accountability in Western Australia

Why This Inquiry Matters

This inquiry matters because the current system determines how decisions occur at critical points in people’s lives. The system carries significant authority, often during periods of complexity, uncertainty, and reliance on others, which can greatly influence the outcomes of individuals’ situations and their overall well-being. The system aims to protect, support, and provide structure where needed. Lived experience shows a different outcome. Many people report decisions made without participation, processes that create confusion, and outcomes that do not reflect lived context or preference. That gap between intent and outcome reflects a structural problem.

The Core Problem

The current model follows a clear sequence: identification of a “vulnerable person,” assignment of decision-making authority, and periodic review. This sequence creates legal clarity and administrative order—the sequence centres on the holder of authority, rather than on the exercise of authority in practice.

Decision-making authority operates through everyday interactions. Practitioners frame options, present information, and shape choices. These actions determine outcomes. These actions influence decision-making processes and shape access to resources and opportunities.

Formal records rarely capture these interactions. The absence of these interactions from formal records creates a reliance on documentation, assumption, and complaint after harm occurs. This reliance produces a visibility gap. The interactions that determine outcomes remain largely unobserved.

The model regulates structural elements such as identification, assignment, and review. The model does not regulate the exercise of decision-making authority in real time.

Fragmented oversight compounds this problem. Separate agencies hold separate information, which prevents consistent pattern identification. Reactive systems respond after escalation rather than before. Limited visibility weakens accountability across settings. This structure produces a system that appears organised yet lacks insight into real decision-making processes.

The Reform Shift

This submission proposes a structural shift in safeguarding.

The central issue is not the classification of vulnerability. The central issue is the exercise of decision-making authority and the extent to which that exercise is observed and regulated in practice.

Authority functions as an activity rather than a role or entity. Authority exists wherever decision making influence materially affects autonomy, access, or outcome. This activity includes professional practices, service systems, organisational processes, and volunteer or student environments. Any exercise of authority that shapes decision-making requires visibility and accountability. This reframing directs attention to real interactions rather than static classification.

i

What Is Not Working

Several patterns emerge from the current design. Substitute decision-making occurs earlier than necessary, even when supported decision-making remains viable, leading to premature loss of autonomy for individuals who could otherwise participate in their decision-making. Oversight remains fragmented across multiple bodies, limiting system-wide visibility and hindering effective monitoring and decision-making support. Safeguarding relies on complaints and retrospective review rather than direct observation. Communication often fails to support comprehension, which limits meaningful participation in decision-making processes, particularly when individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds are involved. Cultural and relational decision-making frameworks receive inconsistent recognition, leading to misalignment between the process and lived reality.

These patterns reflect structural design rather than isolated failure. A system without visibility in the exercise of authority cannot consistently regulate outcomes.

What the Framework Does

The proposed framework reorients rather than replaces existing systems. The framework attaches regulation to actions rather than to titles. The framework applies accountability to behaviours across all settings in which decision-making authority operates.

Entry screening systems remain in place, including the Working With Children Check and the NDIS Worker Screening Check. Entry screening systems identify known risks at the point of entry. Entry screening systems do not predict future conduct.

Ongoing assessment and monitoring address this limitation. Continuous safeguarding monitors the exercise of decision-making authority over time. Continuous safeguarding identifies changes in practitioner conduct, treatment conditions, and decision pathways.

Continuous safeguarding enables early detection of emerging risk. Continuous safeguarding enables timely intervention before harm escalates.

This approach shifts the focus from static classification to dynamic oversight. Entry screening establishes a baseline. Continuous safeguarding regulates how authority operates in practice.

The framework integrates entry screening with ongoing oversight. Entry screening establishes a baseline. Continuous safeguarding regulates the exercise of authority in practice.

Independent observation introduces real-time visibility. A strengthened Community Visitor Scheme observes decision-making environments and captures lived experience directly.

Early detection prevents the normalisation of harmful patterns. Early detection reduces the escalation of harm in community settings. Administrative consolidation connects information across systems without centralising decision-making authority. This approach enables the identification of harmful patterns that remain hidden within isolated systems.

Central coordination supports pattern identification, consistent reporting, and system-wide accountability. The framework positions guardianship as a last-resort intervention. The framework applies time limits and mandatory review to guardianship arrangements.

ii

Supported decision-making operates as the default approach. The framework prioritises support that enables individuals to participate in decisions that affect their personal circumstances.

System Impact

This framework changes system operation at a structural level. Proactive safeguarding replaces reactive response. Coordinated oversight replaces fragmented visibility. Function-based regulation replaces role-based control. Earlier identification of risk becomes possible. A clearer understanding of decision-making processes becomes achievable. Consistent safeguards apply across funded and non-funded environments. Practical application strengthens alignment with human rights principles. The system gains the ability to observe and respond to real behaviours.

If Reform Does Not Occur

Without reform, fragmented oversight will continue. Authority will remain difficult to observe in practice. Accountability will remain inconsistent across settings. Patterns of behaviour will remain hidden across system boundaries. The gap between legal structure and lived experience will continue to widen. Increasing system complexity will amplify these limitations. Reduced trust will follow. Inefficient outcomes will persist.

Final Position

The system holds significant power. The issue is not the existence of authority. The issue is whether the system can observe and assess the exercise of authority in practice. Limited visibility weakens accountability and trust. Visibility enables guidance, correction, and enforcement. This framework places visibility at the core of safeguarding.

Closing

This reform does not create new power. This reform makes existing power visible, coordinated, and accountable. Observation, oversight, and enforcement operate as connected functions. The system reflects real decision-making processes rather than assumed processes. The system strengthens without unnecessary expansion. Every exercise of authority becomes observable, understandable, and open to challenge.

Authority is not the problem. Unobserved authority is.

iii

Chapter 1: Introduction — Reframing Safeguarding in

Practice

1.1 Introduction Western Australia’s guardianship and administration framework provides a structured mechanism for decision-making where individuals require support. The framework operates under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) and defines who may act, the legal basis for decision-making authority, the conditions that justify intervention, and the processes for review and oversight. The framework provides legal clarity, administrative structure, and procedural safeguards. The framework enables substitute decision-making where necessary. The framework establishes formal boundaries for authority.

The framework does not consistently address how decision-making occurs in practice. The framework defines who may act and does not regulate how people exercise authority across real-world environments. People make decisions through communication, interpretation, and constraints within dynamic settings that vary by context and stakeholders. Formal processes do not consistently capture these interactions. This limitation creates a gap between legal structure and lived experience.

1.2 Structural Limitation

The current model operates through a sequence:

authorisation → exercise → episodic review

Formal processes grant authority. Service environments and care settings shape the exercise of authority. Tribunals, complaints mechanisms, and scheduled reviews assess outcomes. Each stage operates within defined institutional boundaries. The sequence creates a structured pathway for decision-making authority.

The sequence assumes the appropriate use of authority after authorisation. The sequence does not provide continuous observation of decision-making processes. Documentation and retrospective review replace direct observation. This reliance limits detection of patterns across settings. This limitation reduces the ability to respond to risk before escalation.

Decision-making occurs in dynamic environments, where information may be incomplete, time pressures influence choices, organisational constraints shape available options, and communication barriers affect understanding. Authority operates continuously within these environments. While the system approves decisions, it doesn’t consistently oversee the decision-making process.

1

1.3 Authority as a Function This submission defines authority as a function:

Authority refers to the capacity, within a structured or service context, to materially influence, direct, or limit decision-making, autonomy, or access to services.

This definition extends beyond formal legal roles. Authority appears through professional judgement, interpretation of information, control over access to services, and environmental or procedural constraints. Authority operates through actions that shape outcomes. Authority becomes relevant where influence affects decision-making.

Authority does not refer to a statutory body, agency, or institutional entity. Authority describes a function that occurs within interactions and systems. This distinction directs regulations toward behavior and practice. This distinction prevents confusion between authority as a concept and authority as an organisation.

1.4 Evidence of Systemic Gaps National inquiries identify consistent issues in systems that involve decision-making

authority. The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of People

with Disability identifies failures in recognition of will and preference. It identifies limitations in oversight and accountability (Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of People with Disability, 2023), which contribute to ongoing systemic issues that affect the rights and safety of individuals with disabilities, such as inadequate protection from abuse and insufficient support for exercising their preferences. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety identifies similar issues in transparency, autonomy, and review processes (Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, 2021), which also hinder the protection and well-being of elderly individuals in care facilities.

These findings demonstrate that risk does not arise solely from individual vulnerability. The misuse of power across many contexts and systems poses a risk. Decision-making processes shape outcomes in ways that formal structures do not fully capture, often leading to unintended consequences that can affect stakeholder trust and engagement. Limited visibility reduces the ability to assess whether decisions reflect individual will and preference. This pattern appears consistently across multiple sectors.

1.5 Limits of Existing Oversight Existing oversight mechanisms include tribunal review, complaint processing, professional regulation, and organisational governance. Each mechanism performs a defined function. Each mechanism relies on documentation, reported information, and retrospective assessment. Each mechanism operates within specific institutional boundaries.

These mechanisms do not provide consistent visibility of decision-making in practice. Documentation reflects recorded decisions and does not capture real-time interaction. Complaints require identifying harm after it occurs. Retrospective review limits early intervention. Fragmentation across agencies prevents system-wide pattern recognition. These limitations reduce the effectiveness of safeguarding.

2

Distribution of administrative oversight across multiple bodies further limits accountability. No single coordinating function consolidates information across systems. No single function identifies patterns of authority across settings. This fragmentation creates gaps in system-level visibility and response.

1.6 From Structure to Practice The current system defines roles, establishes processes, and enables intervention. The system does not consistently capture how decision-making occurs in practice, particularly the specific communication methods, interpretative frameworks, and constraints that influence decisions in real-world environments. Decision-making involves communication, interpretation, and constraint within real-world environments. These elements influence outcomes in ways that formal structures do not record.

This distinction between structure and practice is central to this submission. A system that regulates structure without observing practice cannot fully assess outcomes. A system that relies on documentation cannot fully capture behaviours. A system that fails to observe behaviour cannot consistently regulate authority.

1.7 Reframing the Problem This submission reframes safeguarding away from classification and toward practice. The framework shifts focus from identifying vulnerable individuals to examining how authority operates within systems. Authority becomes the central point of analysis. Decision-making processes become the subject of regulation.

This recontextualisation facilitates the analysis of option presentation, information interpretation, and the influence of constraints on outcomes. This reframing aligns with supported decision-making principles that emphasise autonomy and participation (United Nations, 2006). This reframing also aligns with findings that highlight the role of systems in shaping outcomes (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2014), such as how systemic factors can influence individual choices and access to resources. This approach provides a more precise basis for identifying risk.

1.8 Scope of the Framework The framework applies to all contexts where authority operates within structured or service environments. The framework applies where authority creates a power imbalance and materially affects decision-making, autonomy, or access. The framework includes publicly funded services, privately funded services, volunteer settings, and structured informal environments.

The framework excludes ordinary personal relationships that do not involve structured decision-making influence. This boundary ensures proportionality. This boundary ensures that regulation targets contexts where authority affects outcomes.

Public funding strengthens enforcement through contractual mechanisms. Public funding does not define the scope of regulation. The presence of authority defines the scope.

3

1.9 Implications for Reform Recognition of authority as a function expands the scope of safeguarding. The framework includes informal and distributed decision-making, early-stage interactions, and workforce development contexts. The framework includes students and trainees because these actors influence decision-making processes.

The framework requires real-time observation, continuous monitoring, and evidence based oversight. The framework requires coordination across institutions without centralising decision-making authority, thereby allowing diverse input and flexibility in responding to emerging challenges. The framework requires integration of observation, oversight, and enforcement. These elements form the basis of structural reform.

1.10 Conclusion The current system establishes legal authority but does not consistently regulate its exercise in practice. Authority operates continuously across environments that lack consistent observation. This limitation reduces the capacity to assess decision-making processes and identify risk.

A functional understanding of authority provides a basis for reform. Regulations can relate to behavior rather than roles. Safeguarding can operate continuously rather than intermittently. Oversight can become evidence-based rather than assumption-based.

This reframing lays the foundation for Chapter 2, which examines the limitations of vulnerability-based models and develops a framework centred on the exercise of authority.

4

Chapter 2: Guardianship as the Exercise of Power

2.1 Introduction The idea of the “vulnerable person” is at the heart of Western Australia’s institutions for guardianship and protection. This classification determines when intervention is justified and when decision-making authority may transfer to another party under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA). The classification provides administrative clarity. The classification enables the identification of individuals who may require support, the definition of intervention thresholds, and the allocation of decision-making responsibility.

The classification relies on an underlying assumption. The assumption states that vulnerability exists as a stable condition and that appropriate intervention follows from that classification. Evidence from disability, aged care, and guardianship systems challenges this assumption. Decision-making capacity varies across contexts, over time, and in response to the availability and quality of supports (United Nations, 2006; Australian Law Reform Commission, 2014). A system that focuses on vulnerability as a primary organising principle does not consistently capture how decisions occur in practice.

2.2 Limits of the Vulnerability Framework The concept of vulnerability operates as a relational and context-dependent condition. Environmental constraints, communication barriers, service design, and institutional practices may produce or increase vulnerability, rather than intrinsic incapacity alone (Fineman, 2008). This characteristic creates several limitations.

Classification-based systems may over-identify vulnerability. Over-identification leads to an intervention that exceeds what is necessary and proportionate, resulting in negative consequences for individuals who could have benefited from supported decision-making instead of being subjected to more restrictive substituted decision-making. Evidence from guardianship and aged care inquiries shows that substituted decision-making often replaces supported decision-making where support would remain viable (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2014; Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, 2021).

Emphasising vulnerability conceals how systems and agents determine results. Institutional contexts, professional methodologies, and service limitations shape how people present choices and how individuals understand those choices (Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, 2023). These conditions can distort the nature of available options and lead to misunderstanding.

Classification does not guarantee an accurate account of how people exercise authority. Two individuals with analogous profiles can experience different outcomes. Professional behaviour, service frameworks, and oversight availability drive those differences.

These limitations demonstrate that vulnerability alone does not provide a sufficient basis for safeguarding. The critical issue concerns how authority operates and what effect that operation has on autonomy.

5

2.3 Authority as a Function This submission adopts a functional definition of authority.

Authority refers to the capacity, within a structured or service context, to materially influence, direct, or limit decision-making, autonomy, or access to services.

This definition aligns with legal and policy approaches that emphasise decision-making processes rather than static classifications (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2014). Authority does not refer to a statutory authority, agency, or institutional body. Authority describes a function or activity.

This distinction expands the scope beyond formal roles. Authority appears through professional advice, interpretation of information, control over access to services, and environmental or procedural constraints. This distinction establishes a materiality threshold. Regulation applies only where influence affects outcomes, autonomy, or access. This distinction enables consistent application across settings without creating additional institutional structures.

This functional understanding aligns with human rights frameworks that emphasise autonomy, participation, and supportive decision-making rather than substituted control (United Nations, 2006).

2.4 From “Vulnerable Person” to “Vulnerable Persons Authority (VPA)” This submission shifts the analytical focus from the individual to the exercise of authority. The Vulnerable Persons Authority (VPA) serves as a conceptual tool that identifies where authority affects autonomy. VPA does not refer to a statutory body or organisational entity.

This reframing shifts focus from classifying individuals to identifying influence within decision-making processes (Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, 2023). National investigations consistently show that harm does not arise from classification alone. Harm arises from how people organise decision-making, how they provide information, and how they use authority in practice.

The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with

Disability (2023) identified these factors as primary drivers of harm and improper restriction. Decision-making structures shape outcomes. Information pathways shape understanding. Authority in practice determines whether autonomy is supported or constrained.

This evidence directs attention away from labels and toward interaction. This evidence confirms that regulation must address conduct within decision-making processes. This evidence establishes that oversight must focus on how authority operates, not where systems assign it.

6

A focus on authority enables the examination of how people present options, interpret preferences, and introduce limitations. This approach provides a more precise basis for regulation than classification alone.

2.5 Authority Across Contexts

Authority operates across a wide range of environments. These environments include publicly funded services, privately funded services, volunteer and community settings, and structured informal environments. Funding status does not determine whether authority exists. Comparable risks to autonomy arise wherever structured decision-making influence occurs.

Examples demonstrate this point. A privately funded service exercises authority through care planning. A volunteer organisation influences access to assistance. A student on placement shapes how people gather and interpret information, which affects the quality of support provided to individuals in need.

Enquiry findings indicate that risks to decision-making and autonomy extend beyond funded systems (Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, 2021).

Application of this framework is triggered by the exercise of authority, not by funding status. Public funding strengthens enforcement through contractual mechanisms. Public funding does not define the scope of safeguarding.

2.6 Boundary of Application The framework establishes clear boundaries to ensure proportionality. The framework applies where authority operates within a structured or service context, creates or reflects a power imbalance, and materially affects decision-making, autonomy, or access.

The framework does not apply to ordinary personal relationships or informal interactions that do not involve decision-making consequences. This boundary aligns with legal principles of proportionality and necessity and ensures that regulation targets contexts where risk is demonstrable (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2014).

2.7 Authority as a Source of Systemic Risk Authority is a necessary feature of care and support systems. Authority enables coordination, assistance, and decision-making where required. Authority also creates systemic risk where observation and evaluation mechanisms do not operate effectively.

Evidence from major enquiries demonstrates that unobserved or poorly monitored authority may lead to decisions that do not reflect individual will and preference, gradual expansion of restrictive practices, normalisation of directive or coercive approaches, and delayed identification of inappropriate conduct (Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, 2023; Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, 2021).

7

This risk does not arise from authority itself. This risk arises from the absence of mechanisms that observe, verify, and evaluate how people exercise authority in practice. Systems without observation rely on documentation, complaints, and retrospective review. These mechanisms depend on incomplete information and often identify issues after harm occurs.

2.8 Implications for Safeguarding A safeguarding system that relies primarily on classification cannot fully address these risks. Effective safeguarding requires recognition of where authority operates, mechanisms that ensure observable effects, and processes that assess use over time, such as regular audits and feedback loops that adapt to changing circumstances.

This approach aligns with obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which emphasises autonomy, supports decision-making, and safeguards against misuse of power (United Nations, 2006).

A shift from vulnerability to authority enables safeguarding systems to focus on decision making processes, identify risks earlier, and respond to patterns rather than isolated incidents.

2.9 Conclusion The concept of vulnerability remains relevant. The concept of vulnerability does not provide sufficient primary organising principles for safeguarding. A system that focuses solely on vulnerability overlooks how people make decisions and how individuals experience those decisions in practice.

A functional understanding of authority provides a more precise and operational basis for regulation. Authority shapes outcomes. Where the system does not observe the exercise of authority, the system lacks the evidence required to ensure appropriate use.

This reframing establishes the foundation for subsequent chapters. Subsequent chapters introduce mechanisms that make authority visible, assessable, and accountable across all settings.

8

Chapter 3: Functional Expression of Authority — A Whole of-Workforce Model

3.1 Introduction This chapter establishes the central analytical shift of the submission. Outcomes are determined by how authority is exercised in practice rather than by classification or stated intent. Systems often treat authority as something held by formal roles such as guardians, clinicians, or statutory decision-makers. That treatment is incomplete. Authority operates across multiple actors, settings, and stages of the workforce lifecycle, including individuals in training environments.

The chapter defines authority as a function and sets out four core propositions. Authority operates across systems. Authority depends on context. Actors observe authority only through practice. Authority begins before formal qualification.

These propositions align with findings from the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of People with Disability (2023). The findings show that institutional power operates through everyday practice rather than formal designation. Individuals exert influence and authority in informal settings, and that influence shapes the experiences of people with disabilities.

3.2 Functional Authority

Functional authority refers to any action that shapes, directs, limits, or substitutes decision-making. This definition includes direct decision-making and indirect influence. Actions that influence options, structure environments, or shape interpretation fall within scope.

Functional authority includes making decisions on behalf of an individual, influencing the options presented, structuring environments that enable or constrain choice, and interpreting or communicating information that affects outcomes. Authority, therefore, extends beyond formal decision-making. Authority includes influence, framing, and control. This definition aligns with analyses of institutional power that emphasise diffuse and embedded operations (Foucault, 1977).

3.3 Sources of Authority Authority arises from multiple sources. Each source contributes to how decision-making occurs in practice.

3.3.1 Legal Authority

Legal authority arises through guardianship and administration orders under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) and through decisions of the State Administrative Tribunal. Legal authority provides formal legitimacy and defines scope. Legal authority does not determine how authority is exercised in practice (Carney & Tait, 1997).

9

3.3.2 Professional Authority

Professional authority operates through clinical judgment, assessment, reporting, and recommendation. Professionals regulated by bodies such as the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency exercise significant influence. Professional advice shapes decision-making, particularly where tribunals and institutions rely on expertise (Freidson, 2001).

3.3.3 Administrative Authority

Administrative authority operates through funding decisions, service allocation, and eligibility determination. Systems such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme structure access to services. Resource allocation influences autonomy by shaping available options (Productivity Commission, 2011).

3.3.4 Operational Authority

Operational authority operates through day-to-day control of routines, management of environments, and implementation of care. This form of authority directly affects lived experience by shaping the quality of care individuals receive and influencing their overall well-being. This form of authority often remains the least visible despite having the greatest impact (Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, 2021).

3.3.5 Relational Authority

Relational authority operates through communication, interpretation, and mediated access to systems. Individuals rely on others to interpret complex information and navigate systems. This reliance shapes understanding and decision-making (United Nations, 2006).

3.4 Characteristics of Authority Authority shares four defining characteristics across all sources.

Multiple actors exert influence simultaneously, distributing authority across systems. Formal and informal forms interact, which layers authority. Environment and circumstance shape how people exercise authority, which makes authority contextual. Documentation and review processes fail to capture how people exercise authority in practice, rendering it often invisible.

These characteristics align with systemic analyses that describe power as embedded in routine activity rather than isolated decisions (Foucault, 1977).

3.5 Authority Gradient

Authority operates along a continuum.

Level Description

Level 1 Supported decision-making Level 2 Assisted decision-making Level 3 Substituted decision-making Level 4 Institutional control

10

Systems tend to drift toward substituted decision-making and institutional control where oversight remains limited (Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, 2023). This drift reflects structural conditions rather than individual failure.

3.6 Authority Across the Workforce Lifecycle

Authority operates across the entire workforce lifecycle. Students, early-career practitioners, experienced professionals, and institutional systems all exercise authority in different forms.

Students in placement settings interact directly with individuals, gather and interpret information, contribute to assessment and planning, and influence decision-making through communication. These activities constitute functional authority even where direct decision-making does not occur. Authority begins at first contact rather than at qualification. Workforce research shows that professional norms and practices develop during training and early exposure to institutional environments (Eraut, 1994).

3.7 Pre-Qualified Authority

Pre-qualified authority describes authority exercised by students and trainees. This form of authority operates within a limited scope, functions under supervision, and influences decisions indirectly. Despite these limits, pre-qualified authority shapes how people understand options, frame information, and make decisions.

3.7.1 The Regulatory Gap

Current systems recognise authority at the point of qualification. Current systems regulate professionals through registration and oversight. Current systems do not consistently regulate student practice. This structure creates a gap. Students and trainees exercise authority before regulation begins.

This gap aligns with criticisms of professional formation systems that prioritise accreditation over practice-based accountability (Freidson, 2001).

3.7.2 Consequences of Unregulated Pre-Qualified Authority

An unregulated pre-qualified authority produces predictable outcomes. Students and trainees can normalise poor practice during training. Students and trainees can learn restrictive approaches early. Systems defer accountability until after qualification.

These patterns persist into professional practice. These patterns scale across systems. These patterns become embedded in organisational cultures. Institutional research demonstrates that training environments replicate systemic behaviour (Bourdieu, 1990).

3.7.3 Student as a Covered Actor A functional model requires recognition of students as covered actors within safeguarding systems. Students participate in regulated environments. Students exercise authority through influence and interaction. Students form part of the safeguarding system.

This position aligns with human rights frameworks that require protection against the misuse of authority, regardless of the source (United Nations, 2006).

11

3.8 Functional Boundaries of Student Authority

Students require clearly defined functional boundaries. Students may support communication, gather information, participate in discussions, and contribute under supervision. Students must not exercise independent decision-making, determine capacity, control finances, or authorise restrictive practices. Clear boundaries ensure proportionality and prevent overreach (Carney and Tait, 1997).

3.9 Supervision as Safeguard Supervision functions as a regulatory safeguard within a functional framework. Supervisors oversee student conduct, ensure alignment with the will and preferences, and intervene when authority is misused. Effective supervision maintains standards and reduces risk (Eraut, 1994).

3.10 Visibility and Observation Regulators cannot regulate authority without visibility. Current systems rely on documentation, reflective practice, and retrospective review. These mechanisms interpret practice but do not consistently observe how people exercise authority.

This limitation creates a gap in training environments. Interactions are usually not independently observed. Supervision quality is not externally verified. Early-stage authority remains partially invisible. Inquiry findings consistently identify this limitation in institutional care environments (Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, 2021).

3.11 Implications for System Design Recognition of authority across the workforce lifecycle produces three system design implications.

Safeguarding must be continuous and cannot begin with qualification. Regulation must be functional and attached to behaviour rather than status. Observation must occur in real time and must capture practice as it occurs.

These principles align with regulatory approaches that prioritise behaviours over classifications (Productivity Commission, 2011).

3.12 Conclusion Authority does not sit within formal roles. Authority does not depend on legal decisions alone. Authority exists in training environments. Decisions, options, and autonomy all determine the presence of authority.

A system that recognises authority only after qualification regulates it too late. A functional approach requires recognition of authority across all actors, regulation from the first point of contact, and integration of training environments into safeguarding systems.

Final Position

The issue does not concern who holds authority. The issue concerns how actors exercise authority across all stages and whether systems make that exercise visible, support it, and hold actors accountable.

12

Chapter 4: Structural Gaps in Oversight

4.1 Introduction Chapter 3 establishes that authority is distributed across systems, depends on context, and operates throughout the full workforce lifecycle, including among students and trainees. This chapter examines the structural consequences of that finding. Actors exercise authority across systems and settings. The system does not consistently observe how actors exercise authority in practice.

The Western Australian framework, centred on the Guardianship and Administration Act of 1990 (WA), provides mechanisms for authorising and reviewing authorities. The framework does not provide a mechanism to observe authority at the point of exercise continuously, so there is no real-time oversight to ensure it is exercised appropriately and in accordance with the law. This limitation creates a gap between legal structure and lived experience, which can lead to misunderstandings and mistrust among those affected by the authority’s actions. National inquiries consistently identify this gap as a source of systemic risk (Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of People with Disability, 2023).

4.2 The Oversight Model in Western Australia

The current system relies on three core mechanisms. Legislation and Tribunal processes authorise the authority. Institutional settings enable the exercise of authority. The State Administrative Tribunal conducts periodic reviews.

These mechanisms operate in sequence rather than continuously. Oversight occurs at intervals. Oversight responds to formal triggers such as complaints or scheduled reviews. Oversight does not operate at the point where actors exercise authority.

This structure creates a condition in which systems grant and review authority but do not routinely observe how actors exercise authority in practice.

4.3 The Missing Layer: Continuous Observation

The absence of continuous observation produces identifiable limitations. Decision-making environments are not independently verified. Assessment relies on documentation rather than direct observation. Institutional reporting filters lived experience.

National enquiry findings confirm that formal compliance may coexist with poor practice (Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, 2021). Systems may satisfy procedural requirements while decision-making processes fail to reflect individual will and preference, leading to outcomes that do not align with the needs and desires of those receiving care. Observation distinguishes compliance from practice.

4.4 National Context: Community Visitor Schemes

Community Visitor Schemes operate in most Australian jurisdictions as independent oversight mechanisms. These schemes conduct unannounced visits, engage directly with individuals, and produce independent reports.

13

These schemes perform a critical function. These schemes observe how actors exercise authority in real-world settings. Direct observation provides evidence that documentation cannot capture. Western Australia does not currently operate a statutory Community Visitor Scheme with a cross-sector application.

4.5 Distinction: Social Visitation and Safeguarding

A Commonwealth-funded aged care visitor programme operates nationally. The programme reduces social isolation and provides companionship. The programme does not regulate decision-making authority. The programme does not provide enforcement pathways. The programme does not function as a safeguarding mechanism.

The programme creates presence without oversight. Presence does not produce accountability. Statutory authority is required to connect observation to enforcement.

4.6 Consequences of the Oversight Gap The absence of continuous observation produces consistent system outcomes.

4.6.1 Illusion of Safeguarding Systems appear compliant through policies, documentation, and formal review processes. Compliance does not guarantee appropriate practice (Royal Commission on Violence, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of People with Disabilities, 2023).

4.6.2 Invisibility of Practice Actors exercise authority through daily routines, interpersonal interactions, and informal decision-making. Independent observation rarely covers these activities. Documentation captures outcomes but does not capture the process.

4.6.3 Fragmented Accountability

Different sectors apply different standards and different oversight mechanisms. No unified system links authority, observation, and enforcement. Fragmentation limits pattern identification across systems.

4.6.4 Replication of Systemic Risk Limited oversight allows restrictive practices to become normal. Reduced visibility permits gradual expansion of control. Delayed detection prevents early intervention (Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, 2021).

4.7 The Student Oversight Gap

Training environments amplify the oversight gap. Students interact directly with individuals, influence decisions, and participate in assessment processes. These activities constitute functional authority.

Current systems supervise student practice internally. Independent observation rarely occurs. Safeguarding systems do not consistently include student activity. This structure creates a blind spot. Students and trainees exercise pre-qualified authority without external visibility.

14

4.7.1 Limitations of Supervision Supervision varies in quality. Organisational pressures influence supervision practices. Educational objectives shape supervision focus. Supervision prioritises learning outcomes but does not consistently assess decision-making dynamics. Supervision remains essential. Supervision does not function as a safeguarding mechanism on its own (Eraut, 1994).

4.7.2 Absence of External Verification There is no consistent mechanism for observing student interactions, assessing supervision quality, or identifying early-stage risk behaviours. Systems rely on self-reporting and internal evaluation. These approaches limit accountability and delay identification of poor practice.

4.7.3 Cultural Transmission of Practice Training environments shape professional norms. Unobserved and unchallenged practices become normalised. Normalised practices become embedded in organisational culture (Bourdieu, 1990).

4.8 Structural Interaction: Authority and Visibility

Distributed authority combined with limited observation produces three core effects.

4.8.1 Misclassification System complexity and communication barriers lead to intervention in situations that do not involve incapacity.

4.8.2 Overreach Authority expands where boundaries lack clarity, and oversight remains limited.

4.8.3 Invisibility of Lived Experience Evaluation relies on records and compliance processes. Evaluation does not include direct observation of impact.

4.9 Extent of the Oversight Gap The oversight gap applies across all contexts where authority operates within structured environments and materially affects decision-making, autonomy, or access.

Three conditions define the extent of the gap.

First, the setting involves structured activity such as service delivery, institutional systems, regulated programmes, or training environments. Second, the interaction involves a power imbalance in which one actor influences decisions, controls access, or shapes understanding. Third, the exercise of authority produces a material effect on autonomy, decision-making, or access.

Where these conditions exist, the absence of observation produces risk. The oversight gap applies across professions, administrative actors, frontline staff, volunteers, students, and organisational systems. The oversight gap applies across publicly funded services, privately funded services, community settings, and structured informal environments.

15

The oversight gap does not extend to ordinary personal relationships or informal interactions without decision-making consequences. This boundary ensures proportionality and prevents overreach in private life. The trigger for the application is the exercise of authority. The trigger is not identity, funding source, or institutional label.

4.10 Core Regulatory Principle

The analysis establishes a single principle:

Oversight must attach to the functional expression of authority, not to classification, role, or setting.

This principle applies across all actors and environments where authority operates.

4.11 Community Visitor Scheme as Structural Response

The Community Visitor Scheme addresses the oversight gap through independent observation, real-time engagement, and system-level reporting.

4.11.1 Function The Community Visitor Scheme monitors decision-making processes, verifies participation and understanding, identifies instances of misuse of authority, and detects systemic risks.

4.11.2 Application to Students The Community Visitor Scheme extends to training environments. The scheme observes student interactions, assesses supervision quality, and identifies early-stage problematic practices. This approach ensures oversight from first contact rather than from qualification.

4.11.3 System Integration

The Community Visitor Scheme completes the system structure:

authorisation → exercise → observation → accountability → enforcement

Law and Tribunal processes authorise the authority. Workforce actors exercise authority. The Community Visitor Scheme provides observation. Review mechanisms provide accountability. Enforcement mechanisms apply sanctions.

4.12 Human Rights Alignment

Continuous oversight aligns with obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. These obligations require protection from abuse, recognition of legal capacity, and support for participation (United Nations, 2006).

4.13 Conclusion The current system authorises authorities, enables exercise, and conducts periodic reviews. The system does not observe authority in real time. This limitation produces invisibility, overreach, and systemic risk.

The oversight gap is most pronounced in everyday practice and in training environments. A system that fails to observe the exercise of authority cannot effectively regulate it.

16

Final Position

A system that does not see how power is used cannot regulate it.

Continuous, independent observation through a statutory Community Visitor Scheme ensures that authority is visible, practice is verifiable, and accountability operates continuously.

17

Chapter 5: Institutional Roles and System Interaction

5.1 Introduction Chapters 1–4 established a central position. The primary issue in guardianship and administration is not vulnerability as a characteristic. The primary issue is the exercise of authority over individuals. This chapter translates that position into a functional regulatory framework. The chapter defines the Vulnerable Persons Authority (VPA), explains how it operates across systems, and establishes an integrated model of accountability and enforcement.

The chapter advances four propositions. Authority distributes across systems and actors, including paid staff, volunteers, students, and trainees. Regulation must operate at the point of functional expression. Enforcement must relate to behaviour rather than role or title. Safeguarding must operate across the entire workforce lifecycle, from first contact through professional practice.

These propositions align with findings from the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation of People with Disability (2023). The findings show that harm arises from how actors exercise authority within institutional environments. These findings highlight the need for safeguarding measures at every stage of the workforce lifecycle.

5.2 Definition of Vulnerable Persons Authority (VPA) Vulnerable Persons Authority refers to an actor’s capacity to influence decisions that affect a person’s autonomy, access, or outcomes in a position of vulnerability. This authority arises through interaction rather than through formal designation. This authority operates across professional practice, service systems, organisational processes, and informal environments.

Vulnerable Persons Authority includes actions such as presenting options, framing information, interpreting preferences, and introducing constraints. These actions shape decision-making, regardless of whether a role, title, or legal status formally recognises authority.

Vulnerable Persons Authority requires visibility and accountability at the point of exercise. Regulation must focus on how actors exercise this authority in practice rather than on classification, role, or qualification.

Any formal or informal power, exercised by paid or unpaid actors, that limits, directs, influences, or substitutes decision-making, autonomy, or access.

This definition includes authority exercised through guardianship and administration orders, clinical and professional judgement, service delivery practices, institutional rules and environments, funding and eligibility constraints, and interpersonal influence by staff, volunteers, students, or informal actors.

VPA operates across multiple actors. VPA operates continuously. VPA is context dependent. VPA is often not visible within formal frameworks. This definition reflects established analysis that identifies power as diffuse and embedded in everyday practice (Foucault, 1977).

18

5.3 Actors Exercising Authority

Authority does not sit within formal roles. Guardians and administrators exercise authority.

Professionals regulated through the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency

exercise authority. Decision-makers within the National Disability Insurance Scheme exercise authority. Paid staff across service systems exercise authority; volunteers and informal supports do not. Students and trainees in placement environments exercise authority. Organisational systems and institutional settings shape how actors exercise authority.

Students form part of the framework because they interact directly with individuals, gather and interpret information, influence decisions through communication, and contribute to assessment and planning processes. Actors create authority when they shape decisions. Formal designation does not determine the presence of authority.

Students shape how people present options, frame information, and interpret preferences. Students influence how supervisors receive and assess information. These actions affect assessment outcomes, planning decisions, and access to support.

Supervision does not remove authority. Supervision mediates authority. Supervisors rely on information students collect and present, so student actions influence final decisions.

Training environments, therefore, require explicit safeguards. Systems must observe practice, verify how actors exercise authority, and provide real-time feedback. Systems must apply accountability at the point of action, not only after qualification.

5.4 Forms of Authority Authority operates across five interrelated forms.

5.4.1 Legal Authority

Legal authority arises through guardianship and administration orders under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) and through determinations of the State Administrative Tribunal. Legal authority defines the scope and provides formal legitimacy. Legal authority does not determine how actors exercise authority in practice.

5.4.2 Administrative Authority

Administrative authority arises from decisions of public bodies, including the Public Trustee WA and the Office of the Public Advocate WA. Administrative authority also arises through funding allocation and eligibility determination. Administrative authority shapes access to services and resources.

5.4.3 Operational Authority

Operational authority arises from control over routines, environmental structuring, and the implementation of care. Operational authority directly affects lived experience. Operational authority is often the least visible form of authority.

5.4.4 Relational Authority

Relational authority arises through communication, mediation, and influence over understanding. Relational authority shapes how individuals interpret options and engage with systems.

19

5.4.5 Institutional Authority

Institutional authority arises from policies, service models, and resource-allocation frameworks. Institutional authority operates without a single identifiable decision-maker and influences outcomes at the system level.

5.5 Characteristics of Unregulated Authority Where VPA is not regulated, consistent patterns emerge. Authority becomes invisible where observation does not occur. Responsibility diffuses across multiple actors. Authority persists without reassessment. Restrictive practices become normalised.

These patterns reflect systemic design rather than individual failure. National enquiries identify these patterns across disability and aged care systems (Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, 2023; Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, 2021).

5.6 Authority Gradient Model

Authority operates along a continuum.

Level Description

Level 1 Supported decision-making Level 2 Assisted decision-making Level 3 Substituted decision-making Level 4 Institutional control Banning an individual from a role often shifts them into alternative roles rather than eliminating the risk.

Systems tend to move toward higher levels of control where observation and accountability are limited. This movement reflects structural conditions rather than isolated conduct.

5.7 Core Regulatory Principle

Regulation must link to how actors exercise authority in practice. Regulation must not depend on roles, titles, or organisational classifications.

This principle ensures consistency across actors and systems. This principle aligns power with accountability. This principle recognises informal and distributed authority. This principle applies equally to professionals, organisations, students, and trainees.

5.8 Extent and Trigger of Regulation Regulation applies where authority operates within a structured or service context and materially affects decision-making, autonomy, or access.

Three conditions define an application. A structured context must exist. A power imbalance must exist. A material effect on autonomy or access must occur.

The trigger for regulation is the exercise of authority. The trigger is not identity, funding source, or institutional label.

20

Regulation applies across disability, mental health, aged care, health, supported accommodation, and child protection systems. Regulation applies across publicly funded and privately funded environments. Regulation does not apply to ordinary personal relationships without decision-making consequences. These boundaries ensure proportionality.

5.9 Limits of Role-Based Regulation Role-based regulatory frameworks rely on registration, exclusion, and deregistration. Evidence demonstrates that removal from a role does not eliminate risk. Individuals may shift into alternative roles or informal settings.

This limitation arises because authority attaches to function rather than title. System boundaries create regulatory gaps where authority continues without oversight (Productivity Commission, 2011).

5.10 Functional Sanctions Framework

Sanctions must apply to behaviour and function.

5.10.1 Cross-System Sanctions

Sanctions apply across all sectors, including AHPRA-regulated environments and NDIS settings.

5.10.2 Activity-Based Restrictions

Restrictions prohibit individuals from exercising defined forms of authority or influencing decisions within specified contexts.

5.10.3 Inclusion of All Actors Sanctions apply to paid staff, volunteers, professionals, organisational entities, and students and trainees within a defined activity scope.

5.10.4 Integration with Criminal Sanctions Serious misuse of authority triggers criminal liability.

5.11 Student and Trainee Authority

5.11.1 Pre-Qualified Authority

Students operate within a pre-qualified authority tier. This tier involves limited scope, supervised engagement, and indirect influence.

5.11.2 Regulatory Inclusion

Students operate as covered actors because they participate in decision-making environments and influence outcomes. The Vulnerable Persons Authority framework applies to students where regulated activity occurs. Oversight systems include students and ensure that supervisors guide practice, observers verify conduct, and accountability follows the exercise of authority.

5.11.3 Functional Boundaries

Students must not exercise independent decision-making, determine capacity, control financial resources, or authorise restrictive practices.

21

5.11.4 Supervision as Safeguard Supervision functions as a regulatory mechanism. Supervision ensures accountability in early-stage authority (Eraut, 1994).

5.12 Criminal Sanctions for Misuse of Authority Criminal liability applies where authority is exercised intentionally, recklessly, or with gross negligence. Harm, deprivation of liberty, or restriction of autonomy triggers liability.

Offence categories include abuse of authority, coercive control, negligent exercise of authority, systemic institutional abuse, and failure to act on observed harm.

5.13 Interaction with Oversight Mechanisms The Community Visitor Scheme is essential to enforcement. The scheme observes authority in practice, identifies misuse across all actors, and provides evidence for regulatory and criminal action.

Without observation, enforcement cannot operate effectively.

5.14 Human Rights Alignment

The framework aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The framework supports recognition of legal capacity, supportive decision making, and protection from abuse (United Nations, 2006).

5.15 System-Level Impact

A functional authority framework aligns authority with consequence, closes gaps between systems, reduces reliance on classification, and strengthens accountability across all actors.

The framework transforms the system from

role-based regulation → function-based accountability

5.16 Conclusion The concept of a vulnerable person does not regulate the authority exercised over them. A complete system must define authority, observe authority in practice, regulate all actors who exercise authority, and enforce limits through proportionate sanctions.

Authority begins at first contact. Authority does not begin with qualification.

Final Position

Authority does not disappear when roles change. Authority must be regulated wherever authority appears, across all actors and all stages.

22

Chapter 6: Response to Terms of Reference

6.1 Introduction The Terms of Reference address capability, culture, complaints, access, outcomes, oversight, and the role of the Tribunal. Each topic appears separate. Taken together, the topics reveal a single structural condition. The system makes decisions about people. The system does not consistently observe how actors exercise those decisions in practice.

Chapters 3–5 established a consistent pattern. Authority operates across legal orders, professional judgement, service delivery, organisational processes, and everyday interactions. Authority moves across actors, settings, and moments. The system does not consistently track that movement. The system does not consistently regulate that movement in real time.

Each Term of Reference describes a different part of the system. Each part reflects the same underlying issue. Actors exercise authority continuously. Systems provide visibility intermittently. Systems apply accountability unevenly.

6.2 Capability — When Structure Appears Strong but Practice Differs

Assessors often rate organisations as capable based on structural indicators. Organisations maintain policies. Staff hold qualifications. Governance frameworks operate. These elements describe structure. These elements do not demonstrate how actors actually make decisions.

Capability emerges through interaction. Capability appears when a person attempts to make a decision, seeks clarification, or challenges a proposed action. These moments appear small. These moments carry consequences. Authority operates within these moments through framing, timing, tone, and constraint.

The system assumes that organisational structures produce consistent practices. That assumption does not hold across settings. Capability varies across teams, environments, and moments. Capability concerns whether the practice meets expected standards in real time.

Documentation does not establish capability. Real-time decision-making and interaction demonstrate capability. Without observation, the system cannot distinguish between declared and demonstrated capability, nor verify whether practice meets required standards.

6.3 Culture — What Repetition Makes Normal

Organisations describe culture through value statements, leadership language, and strategic direction. These elements express intent. These elements do not define behaviour.

Culture forms through repetition. Culture develops when time pressure increases, when resources are limited, and when disagreement arises. People observe how others make decisions. People observe how others use language. People observe which actions attract attention and which go unnoticed.

23

Repetition shapes expectation. Expectation shapes behaviour. Behaviour shapes outcomes. Culture explains why patterns of practice persist over time, even where formal standards differ.

This process operates across the workforce. Senior roles, frontline practices, and organisational systems all contribute. Limited oversight stabilises behaviour without challenge. Practice becomes routine. Routine becomes accepted. Accepted practice becomes culture.

6.4 Complaints — A System That Waits for a Signal Complaint systems rely on recognition, confidence, and action. The system assumes that people will identify harm, feel safe to speak, and understand how to proceed. These assumptions do not consistently reflect lived conditions.

Many individuals depend on the same systems that require challenge. Dependence reduces willingness to report. Communication barriers reduce recognition of harm. Complex processes reduce access to complaint mechanisms. Fear of consequence reduces action.

Hierarchy reinforces this pattern—individuals with less authority report less often. Individuals embedded within systems face greater risk in speaking. Complaints indicate that an individual has identified an issue.

The system waits for a signal. In many cases, that signal never arrives. A system that relies on complaint as a primary trigger responds too late.

6.5 Access to Information — When Information Does Not Travel

Information may be present. Presence does not ensure access.

Access requires comprehension, confidence, and the ability to act. These conditions depend on interaction. Authority shapes access through framing, emphasis, and explanation. Authority determines how actors present options and how individuals understand consequences.

Barriers to access include language differences, cognitive load, emotional stress, and system complexity. These barriers interact. These barriers often remain invisible within documentation.

Communication creates access, not provision alone. Limited access to usable information shapes decision pathways and influences outcomes.

6.6 Outcomes — What Systems Record and What People Experience

Systems record outcomes through compliance, service delivery, and reporting. These measures create a record. These measures do not capture the full experience.

Outcomes develop over time. Multiple decisions contribute. Multiple actors influence those decisions. Each interaction adds weight. Outcomes reflect accumulation, not a single event.

24

Outcomes reflect the cumulative effect of decisions shaped by access, communication, and interaction. A recorded outcome may appear appropriate. The pathway to that outcome may involve constraint, confusion, or limited participation.

Without visibility of that pathway, the assessment remains incomplete. Measurement without observation produces partial understanding.

6.7 Oversight — Looking Back Instead of Looking In

Oversight mechanisms review decisions, respond to complaints, and assess compliance. These mechanisms operate after events occur.

Oversight does not consistently observe practice as it happens. This limitation delays identification of issues, obscures patterns across settings, and reduces visibility in everyday decision-making. Oversight determines how the system responds to issues, whether or not a complaint is made.

The system looks back. The system does not consistently look in. A gap exists at the point where actors exercise authority.

6.8 The Tribunal — Decisions Without Direct Visibility

The State Administrative Tribunal approves decisions and reviews orders. The Tribunal relies on evidence presented through reports, documentation, and professional interpretation. This process provides a legal structure. This process does not provide direct visibility of practice.

The Tribunal does not observe daily interaction. The Tribunal does not assess the cumulative effect of repeated decisions. Decisions rely on filtered information. Lived experience remains partially out of view.

The Tribunal operates within a system that provides limited visibility into practice. This limitation makes it difficult to assess how actors exercise authority over time.

6.9 A Single Pattern Each term of reference points in a different direction. Each direction leads to the same structural condition.

Capability depends on how actors exercise authority. Culture reflects repeated exercise of authority. Complaints arise when actors challenge authority. Access depends on how authority shapes communication. Outcomes reflect cumulative exercise of authority. Oversight depends on visibility of authority. Tribunal processes rely on how decision makers interpret authority.

This pattern is not incidental. This pattern is structural.

The system puts the exercise of authority into practice.

25

6.10 Core Problem

The system defines need, assigns authority, and reviews outcomes.

The system does not consistently observe how actors exercise authority. The system does not consistently regulate the everyday exercise of power.

This gap produces the patterns described across all Terms of Reference.

6.11 Direction for Reform Reform must begin where authority operates. Reform must include all actors who influence decision-making. Reform must establish real-time visibility. Reform must connect observation to accountability.

Visibility allows identification. Identification allows response. Response enables correction. Safeguarding must operate continuously.

Chapter 7 outlines the mechanisms required to operationalise this shift.

The Terms of Reference ask important questions about capability, culture, complaints, access, outcomes, oversight, and the role of the Tribunal.

Taken together, they point to a deeper issue.

The system makes decisions about people. The system does not consistently observe how those decisions affect individuals in real-world settings.

Chapters 3–5 showed that authority is everywhere:

• in legal orders
• in professional judgement
• in everyday service delivery
• in conversations
• in training environments, including student placements This chapter brings those ideas into the Terms of Reference and shows how the same pattern repeats:

power is exercised across the system, but it is not consistently visible or accountable in practice

6.2 Capability — When Structure Looks Strong but Practice Tells a Different Story

Organisations are often assessed as “capable” because they have:

• policies
• qualified staff
• governance frameworks On paper, the system looks solid.

26

But capability is not proven by structure. It is proven by what happens when someone:

• tries to make a decision
• asks a question
• disagrees with what is being done Capability is lived, not declared.

Where the gap appears

Authority is exercised:

• in conversations
• in assessments
• in how options are presented Independent observers rarely observe these moments.

Students, in particular, sit in this space:

• they are learning
• they are participating
• they are influencing However, they are not consistently part of the safeguarding system.

The system assumes capability at the top but does not check how actors express capability at every level.

6.3 Culture — What People Learn by Watching Organisational culture is often described through:

• values statements
• leadership messaging
• strategic plans However, culture does not depend on what people write. Culture reflects what people repeat.

It is learned through:

• how decisions are made under pressure
• how people are spoken to
• how disagreement is handled Why students matter here

Students are not passive observers. They are:

• watching
• learning
• adapting 27

They learn quickly:

• what gets rewarded
• what gets ignored
• what gets done when no one is watching If poor practice exists, people do not just tolerate it. People teach it. (Eraut, 1994)

What is modelled becomes what is normal.

6.4 Complaints — A System That Waits to Be Told Complaints systems assume that people will:

• recognise something is wrong

• feel safe to speak up

• know how to navigate the process In reality, many people:

• rely on the very systems they would need to challenge

• experience communication barriers

• do not want to risk consequences (Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, 2021)

What this means in practice

Most issues are never reported.

And for students:

• they are unlikely to complain
• they may not recognise poor practice
• they are positioned low in the hierarchy The system waits for a signal that often never comes.

6.5 Access to Information — When “Provided” Does Not Mean “Understood” Information can be:

• given
• recorded
• technically available But still not usable.

True access means:

• understanding
• confidence
• ability to act (United Nations, 2008)

28

Where authority shapes access Authority influences:

• how information is framed
• which options are emphasised
• how choices are explained This happens in everyday interactions—including those led by students.

Access is not just about information. It is about how that information is delivered and received.

6.6 Outcomes — What Gets Measured vs What Gets Lived

Systems measure outcomes through:

• compliance

• service delivery

• reporting But these do not always reflect:

• autonomy

• dignity

• participation (Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, 2023)

Why this matters

Outcomes are shaped by:

• many small decisions

• across many actors

• over time Including:

• staff

• professionals

• students in training environments What looks like a single outcome is often the result of many invisible interactions.

29

6.7 Oversight — The System Looks Back, Not Across

Oversight mechanisms are designed to:

• review decisions

• respond to complaints

• assess compliance They are not designed to:

• observe practice as it happens This means:

• issues are identified late

• patterns are missed

• everyday decision-making remains unseen What is missing

There is no consistent way to:

• see how authority is used in real time
• verify what is happening on the ground
• include student environments in oversight The system checks after the fact. The system rarely observes what occurs in the moment.

6.8 The Tribunal — Deciding Without Seeing

The State Administrative Tribunal plays a critical role.

It:

• authorises decisions

• reviews orders

• relies on evidence But that evidence is:

• written

• interpreted

• filtered through systems The limitation

The Tribunal does not:

• observe day-to-day practice
• see how decisions are experienced
• capture the cumulative effect of small interactions Actors make decisions about people without always considering the environments in which those people live.

30

6.9 What Links All These Issues

Each Term of Reference points to something slightly different.

But they all lead to the same place:

• capability
• culture
• complaints
• access
• outcomes
• oversight
• Tribunal function are all shaped by:

how authority is exercised in practice

6.10 The Core Problem

The system:

• identifies who needs support

• decides who can act

• reviews decisions at intervals It does not consistently:

• observe how those decisions are made

• regulate everyday use of power

• include all actors, including students 6.11 What Needs to Change Reform must:

• start where authority starts

• include every actor who influences decisions

• make practice visible in real time

• connect observation to accountability This includes:

• professionals

• organisations

• students from their first point of contact 6.12 Conclusion The Terms of Reference describe multiple issues. Each issue reflects a shared structural condition.

Authority is exercised continuously across the system. Visibility is inconsistent. Accountability is, therefore, uneven.

31

The Terms of Reference do not describe separate problems.

They describe different ways of seeing the same issue.

Power is exercised every day, in small ways, by many people. The system does not consistently see it.

Final Position

A system that cannot observe how actors use power cannot ensure that actors use power well.

Real reform requires:

• visibility
• continuity
• accountability across the entire system—and across the entire workforce.

A system that cannot observe how actors exercise authority cannot ensure that they do so appropriately.

Effective reform requires:

• visibility at the point of interaction
• continuity across the system
• accountability linked to behaviour These elements must work together across all settings and actors.

32

Chapter 7: Reform Framework — Regulating Authority in

Practice

7.1 Introduction Chapters 3–6 establish a consistent finding. Authority operates across systems. Actors exercise authority continuously. The system does not consistently observe how actors use that authority in practice.

Authority does not depend on title. Authority operates wherever actors shape decisions, frame options, or influence outcomes. Professionals, organisations, frontline staff, volunteers, and workforce participants all exercise authority across structured environments. The system must recognise that authority and regulate how actors use it in practice.

The issue does not arise from the existence of authority. The issue arises because the system does not consistently regulate how actors use authority once the system grants or assumes that authority.

Fragmentation intensifies this problem. Separate systems hold separate information. No single structure consistently identifies when actors misuse authority, exceed authorised functions, and breach defined standards.

This chapter sets out a reform framework that closes that gap.

The system must make authority visible, define authority through function, and enforce accountability at the point of use.

7.2 System Logic Shift

The reform replaces a fragmented, reactive system with a continuous, observable model.

Stage        Current System          Reformed System

Entry Screening and classification Screening plus functional authorisation

Practice       Largely unobserved        Continuously observed

Oversight     Complaint-driven          Real-time observation

Accountability Delayed and fragmented Immediate and integrated

Enforcement  Limited and reactive       Structured and enforceable

7.3 Guardianship Reform — From Control to Last Resort

Guardianship must operate within strict limits.

7.3.1 Last-Resort Principle

The system must use guardianship only where all practical supports have been exhausted, and decision-making cannot occur with support.

7.3.2 Time-Limited Orders

The system must assign a defined duration to every guardianship order. The system must require active renewal.

33

7.3.3 Mandatory Review Triggers

The system must trigger review when:

• circumstances change
• capacity changes
• significant decisions arise
• oversight identifies concern 7.4 Functional Regulation — Attaching Accountability to Action The system regulates what actors do, not what actors are called.

7.4.1 Authority as Function Authority refers to influence over decisions that affect autonomy. The system must regulate that function.

7.4.2 Actor Coverage

Actor Type Current Coverage Reformed Coverage

Professionals Registration-based Function + behaviour regulated

Frontline workers  Screening only    Continuous monitoring

Organisations      Limited oversight  Direct accountability

Volunteers         Inconsistent      Defined and supervised

Students / trainees Often excluded Included as covered actors

Hiring platforms   Not regulated      Explicitly regulated

7.4.3 Workforce Lifecycle Regulation

The system must regulate authority across:

entry → participation → practice → system influence

The system must detect when actors misuse authority, exceed authorised functions, and breach defined standards at all stages.

7.4.4 Restricted Functions (Risk-Based Model) The system must define and control high-risk functions.

7.5 Registration of Actors — A Functional and Tiered Model Registration creates visibility. Authorisation defines action.

7.5.1 Tiered Structure

• Tier 1 — Professionals
• Tier 2 — Workers
• Tier 3 — Associated actors
• Tier 4 — Trainees 34

7.5.2 Functional Authorisation

The system must define:

• permitted functions
• restricted functions
• supervision requirements

7.5.3 Restricted Functions Register

The system must maintain a central register of:

• authorisations
• restrictions
• prohibitions
• sanctions

7.6 Community Visitor Scheme — Continuous Observation

Observation creates visibility.

Visitors must:

• enter without notice
• engage directly
• observe decisions in real time The system must act when visitors identify that actors misuse authority, exceed authorised functions, and breach defined standards.

7.7 Continuous Safeguarding Framework

7.7.1 Monitoring Model

The system must:

• track behaviour
• identify patterns
• detect risk early

7.7.2 Enforcement Framework

Breach Type                System Response      Outcome

Minor deviation               Corrective action         Practice adjusted

Ongoing risk Restriction or prohibition Authority limited

Breach of prohibition          Criminal offence         Sanction applied

Continued breach              Daily offence             Escalating penalties

Facilitation by agency/platform Criminal offence Organisational liability

7.8 Criminal Offences and Enforcement The framework establishes criminal offences.

7.8.1 Individual Offence

A person who is subject to a prohibition must not exercise restricted or substantially similar functions.

35

7.8.2 Organisational Offence

An employer, agency, or hiring platform must not engage such a person.

7.8.3 Enforcement Principle

The system must identify, observe, and act when actors misuse authority, exceed authorised functions, and breach defined standards.

7.9 Administrative Consolidation and System Integration

The system must consolidate oversight.

Function Current System Reformed System

Data           Fragmented    Integrated

Monitoring       Limited        Continuous

Pattern detection Weak Strong

Response       Delayed       Immediate

7.10 System Transformation

Current System Reformed System

Role-based regulation Function-based regulation Entry screening Continuous safeguarding Complaint-driven oversight Real-time observation Fragmented accountability Integrated accountability

7.11 Conclusion The current system defines authority and reviews outcomes. The system does not consistently observe how actors use authority.

This framework closes that gap.

The system must detect when actors misuse authority, exceed authorised functions, and breach defined standards. The system must respond immediately and proportionately.

Final Position

Authority does not create risk. Unobserved authority creates risk.

Conclusion

Make authority visible. Regulate authority where actors use it. Hold authority to account—continuously and across the entire system.

36

Chapter 8: Conclusion

8.1 Introduction This submission began with a simple question. Why do systems designed to protect people still produce harm, exclusion, and loss of autonomy?

Across guardianship, disability, aged care, and related systems, the same pattern appears. The issue does not arise from a lack of policy. The issue does not arise from a lack of structure. Systems contain both. Systems still produce outcomes that fall short.

The issue lies in how the system uses authority. The system transfers decision-making authority through formal processes. The system does not consistently regulate how actors use that authority in practice.

That gap drives the problem.

8.2 What the System Currently Does

The current framework follows a clear sequence. The system identifies individuals as “vulnerable.” The system assigns decision-making authority. The system records decisions and relies on documentation and periodic review.

These steps create order. These steps create clarity. These steps create an appearance of safeguarding.

Appearance does not equal practice.

Documentation records outcomes. Documentation does not show how actors shape decisions, frame options, or experience those decisions. The system records what it can see. The system misses what matters.

8.3 What the System Does Not Do

The system does not consistently observe how actors make decisions in real time. The system does not consistently test whether individuals understand or agree. The system does not consistently regulate the everyday use of authority.

Authority operates through professionals, organisations, frontline staff, and system processes. Authority operates through conversation, timing, tone, and constraint. Authority operates every day.

The system does not consistently see that operation. The system cannot regulate what it does not see.

No visibility. No control.

37

8.4 The Resulting Pattern

Across all Terms of Reference, the same outcomes appear.

Misclassification occurs when complexity drives interventions that do not reflect incapacity. Overreach occurs when actors extend authority beyond necessity. Invisibility occurs when the system fails to see lived experience.

These outcomes are not isolated. These outcomes are not rare. These outcomes are structural.

The pattern repeats because the structure allows it to repeat.

8.5 The Central Insight

This submission reframes the problem.

The central issue is not vulnerability. The central issue is how actors exercise, observe, and regulate power.

This shift clarifies the system.

Capability depends on how actors use authority. Culture reflects what actors repeat. Complaints arise when the system fails to see. Access depends on how actors communicate. Outcomes reflect accumulated decisions. Oversight depends on visibility. Tribunal decisions depend on what actors present.

Each pathway returns to the same point:

unobserved and unregulated authority

8.6 What Must Change

Reform requires structural change. Incremental change will not resolve the condition. Additional policy layers will not close the gap.

The system must change how it understands authority. The system must change how it regulates authority. The system must operate where actors use authority, not only where the system assigns it.

Move from assumption to observation. Move from classification to interaction. Move from periodic review to continuous accountability.

8.7 The Reform Direction

The framework introduces four shifts. Each shift redirects the system toward practice.

From Control to Support

The system limits authority. The system applies authority proportionately. The system sets time boundaries.

Guardianship operates as a last-resort intervention. Supported decision-making operates as the starting point. Authority must be justified, not assumed.

38

From Identity to Function

The system regulates what actors do. The system regulates how actors make decisions.

The system does not rely on titles. The system does not rely on labels.

Authority exists where influence affects autonomy. Regulation must follow that influence.

From Fragmented Oversight to Continuous Visibility

The system replaces complaint-driven oversight with real-time observation.

The Community Visitor Scheme provides visibility of practice. Visibility allows early identification. Visibility enables a timely response.

From Static Safeguards to Continuous Accountability

The system treats safeguarding as an ongoing process. The system links observation, assessment, and enforcement into a single loop.

Accountability follows authority. Accountability does not wait.

8.8 Workforce Formation and System Continuity

The system regulates too late when it regulates only qualified practitioners.

Authority develops across the full workforce lifecycle. People learn how to use authority through participation. Early experience shapes behaviour. Repeated behaviour becomes standard practice.

Systems reproduce these patterns where oversight does not interrupt them.

Safeguarding must begin at the first interaction. Safeguarding must apply across all stages of participation. This approach ensures the system reinforces accountability early and sustains it over time.

8.9 What This Reform Achieves

The framework recognises authority wherever it operates. The framework observes authority in practice. The framework applies continuous accountability.

The framework aligns law, practice, oversight, and enforcement. The framework replaces fragmentation with coherence.

The system gains the ability to identify risk early, respond consistently, apply safeguards across settings, and maintain alignment with human rights principles.

The system begins to function as a system.

39

8.10 Final Reflection

The current system relies on a flawed assumption. The system assumes that the correct assignment of authority and accurate documentation lead to its appropriate use. This assumption does not hold.

Authority is safe only where actors operate within systems that provide visibility, support, and accountability.

Without visibility, the system relies solely on trust. Without accountability, misuse becomes difficult to detect.

8.11 Closing Statement

People do not experience systems through legislation. People experience systems through interaction, communication, and decision-making.

This reform ensures that those experiences reflect the person’s will and preferences. This reform ensures that the system can see those experiences. This reform ensures that the system can correct those experiences when required.

Final Position

The system does not fail because authority exists. The system fails when actors use authority without visibility.

Conclusion

Make power visible. Regulate power where actors use it. Hold power to account—continuously, proportionately, and across the entire system.

40

References

Australian Government. (2008). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. United Nations.

Government of Western Australia. (1990). Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA).

Public Trustee WA. (n.d.). Services and responsibilities. Government of Western Australia.

Office of the Public Advocate WA. (n.d.). Guardianship services. Government of Western Australia.

State Administrative Tribunal. (n.d.). Guardianship and administration jurisdiction. Government of Western Australia.

Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final Report. Australian Government.

41

Explanatory Memorandum — A Plain Explanation of the

Reform

Vulnerable Persons Authority and Safeguards Bill 2026 (WA) Guardianship and Decision-Making Bill 2026 (WA)

Community Visitor Scheme Bill 2026 (WA)

1. What This Reform Is Really About This reform begins with a simple observation.

Rules alone do not prevent harm. Actors cause harm when they use authority in ways the system does not see, test, or correct.

Western Australia has laws that allow decision-making where people require support. Those laws create structure. Those laws define who can act. Those laws establish a process.

Those laws do not consistently ensure that:

• decisions reflect what the person wants
• the person understands what is happening
• decision-making is fair, respectful, and proportionate The system manages authority. The system does not consistently manage how actors use authority.

That gap allows harm to emerge. That gap allows harm to persist.

2. What This Looks Like in Practice People do not experience systems through legislation. People experience systems through interaction.

• an explanation that does not make sense
• a choice that feels limited
• a decision that moves forward without agreement
• a moment where a person cannot challenge what happens These moments shape outcomes. These moments define whether a person feels respected or controlled.

Actors shape these moments. Professionals shape them. Staff shape them. Organisations shape them. Workforce participants, including trainees, contribute to them.

The system records outcomes. The system does not consistently record how actors reach those outcomes.

42

The system does not examine most decisions made by actors. The system relies on delayed review and often does not review those decisions at all. This delay limits visibility and weakens accountability.

Small moments accumulate. Accumulation creates patterns. Patterns produce outcomes.

3. What Changes Under This Reform This reform changes the starting point.

Instead of asking:

Who is vulnerable?

The system asks:

Who has authority here, and how do actors use that authority?

Authority does not depend on title. Authority operates wherever actors shape decisions, frame options, or influence outcomes.

These actors include:

• professionals
• organisations
• frontline staff
• volunteers
• workforce participants across structured environments The system must recognise that authority. The system must regulate how actors use that authority in practice.

The reform replaces assumption with observation.

4. How the Three Laws Work Together The reform introduces three connected laws. Each law addresses a different part of the same problem. Together, the laws create a single system.

4.1 The Law About Authority (VPA Bill)

This law defines how authority operates.

Authority does not sit only with formal roles. Authority operates wherever actors influence decisions.

The law establishes a clear rule:

If an actor can influence a decision, that actor operates within the safeguarding system.

The system shifts from checking background to observing behaviour.

The system asks:

• What do actors do in practice?
• How do actors use authority?
• Do actors act within defined limits? 43

4.2 The Law About Guardianship (Guardianship Bill)

This law sets limits.

Guardianship becomes:

• a last-resort intervention
• limited in scope
• time-bound
• subject to active review The system must justify authority at every stage.

The system must prioritise what the person wants and prefers.

Authority cannot continue without scrutiny.

4.3 The Law About Seeing Practice (Community Visitor Scheme Bill)

This law introduces visibility.

Community Visitors:

• enter services without notice
• speak directly with individuals
• observe decision-making as it occurs Visitors do not rely on reports. Visitors do not rely on summaries. Visitors observe practice.

The system sees authority at the point where actors use it.

Visibility changes behaviour. Visibility enables response.

5. Why Workforce Formation Matters Authority is learned. Authority develops through participation.

People learn how to use authority by observing behaviour and repeating it. Early experience shapes practice. Repetition reinforces practice.

Current systems focus on entry requirements and formal roles. Those systems do not consistently shape how practice develops.

This creates risk:

• poor practice becomes normal
• culture reinforces unobserved behaviour
• reform weakens before it reaches practice The system must include all stages of participation.

The system must:

• reinforce good practice early
• correct poor practice early
• apply accountability from the beginning 44

Safeguarding must begin where authority begins.

6. Why Screening Alone Does Not Work Current systems rely on entry checks:

• background screening
• registration
• compliance processes These checks ask:

Is this person safe to enter?

This question matters. This question does not resolve the problem.

Most issues arise through:

• behaviour over time
• pressure within systems
• decisions made in context This reform asks:

How do actors use authority now?

Screening controls entry. Observation regulates practice.

Without observation, the system cannot distinguish between declared capability and demonstrated capability.

7. What This Means for People This reform changes everyday experience.

A person can:

• see how decisions are made

• understand what is happening

• challenge decisions where needed This produces practical change:

• fewer decisions without explanation

• fewer situations where people feel excluded

• stronger and more consistent accountability The system becomes visible. The system becomes responsive.

45

8. What This Means for the System This reform does not add layers. This reform changes focus.

The system shifts from:

• paperwork

• compliance

• role definition to:

• practice

• behaviour

• lived experience The system moves closer to what actually happens. The system focuses on how actors make decisions, not just how actors record those decisions.

This shift changes what the system can see. Visibility improves. Gaps become clearer. Patterns emerge earlier.

The system can:

• identify risk early
• apply safeguards consistently
• coordinate response across settings The system no longer reacts only after harm occurs. The system recognises conditions that lead to harm and responds sooner.

Practice becomes the reference point. Behaviour becomes measurable. Accountability becomes continuous.

The system becomes capable of learning from practice and adjusting in real time.

9. The Core System Loop The system operates as a continuous loop:

• authority is granted
• actors exercise authority
• the system observes authority
• the system reviews authority
• the system corrects authority This loop ensures visibility. This loop ensures accountability.

Nothing critical remains unseen.

46

10. Enforcement and Accountability The framework establishes clear consequences.

The system must act when actors misuse authority, exceed authorised functions, and breach defined standards.

The system must:

• restrict functions where risk emerges
• impose prohibition where risk persists
• apply criminal sanctions where actors continue to act after prohibition The system must also act where organisations enable breach.

An employer, agency, or hiring platform must not engage an actor who is subject to a prohibition.

If an organisation enables that conduct, the organisation commits an offence.

Accountability must apply to individuals and to systems that enable them.

11. Final Explanation The current system relies on a flawed assumption:

If the system assigns authority correctly and records decisions properly, actors will use authority appropriately.

This assumption does not hold.

Authority is safe only where the system ensures:

• visibility
• support
• accountability Without visibility, the system relies on trust alone. Without accountability, misuse becomes difficult to detect.

This reform restores balance.

Closing Statement

People experience systems through interaction, not legislation.

This reform ensures that those interactions are:

• visible
• fair
• accountable

Final Position

The system does not fail because authority exists. The system fails when actors use authority without visibility.

47

Conclusion

Make authority visible. Regulate authority where actors use it. Hold authority to account—continuously, proportionately, and across the entire system.

48

Vulnerable Persons Authority and Safeguards Act 2026 (WA)

Part 1 — Preliminary

1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Vulnerable Persons Authority and Safeguards Act 2026 (WA).

2. Objects The objects of this Act are to: (a) regulate the exercise of authority affecting autonomy (b) ensure authority remains proportionate, visible, and accountable (c) replace role-based safeguarding with function-based regulation (d) apply safeguarding across all actors, including students and trainees (e) give effect to Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities

3. Guiding principles Authority must: (a) reflect the person’s will and preferences (b) be the least restrictive necessary (c) remain subject to continuous observation and review

Part 2 — Definitions

4. Key terms Authority means any formal or informal capacity to direct, influence, limit, or substitute decision making.

Regulated activity means: (a) making decisions on behalf of another person (b) influencing decisions that affect autonomy (c) controlling access, environment, or services

Covered person includes: (a) employees (b) contractors (c) volunteers (d) professionals, including those regulated by AHPRA (e) participants within NDIS systems (f) students and trainees engaged in regulated activities

Restricted functions include: (a) financial decision-making (b) capacity determination (c) authorisation of restrictive practices (d) decisions that influence Tribunal outcomes

Prohibition means a restriction that prevents a person from performing specified functions.

49

Agency includes: (a) employers (b) labour hire providers (c) recruitment services (d) digital hiring platforms

Part 3 — Application

5. Universal application This Act applies to: (a) all publicly funded or regulated services (b) any setting where an actor exercises authority that affects autonomy

6. Functional regulation Regulation attaches to the exercise of authority, not to role, title, or classification.

Part 4 — Vulnerable Persons Framework

7. Establishment The Vulnerable Persons Framework regulates authority through: (a) activity-based authorisation (b) continuous observation (c) behavioural monitoring (d) enforcement mechanisms

8. Transition from screening Existing screening systems operate during transition. Continuous monitoring replaces those systems over time.

Part 5 — Authorisation

9. Requirement A person must not engage in a regulated activity unless the person holds authorisation.

10. Nature of authorisation Authorisation: (a) applies to specific functions (b) may include conditions (c) may be revoked or varied

11. Students and trainees (1) Students and trainees are covered persons when they engage in regulated activities. (2) Students and trainees must operate under supervision and within defined limits. (3) Students and trainees must not perform restricted functions.

Part 6 — Restricted Functions

12. Eligibility 50

A person must meet prescribed qualifications, competency requirements, and authorisation conditions before performing restricted functions.

Part 7 — Monitoring and Observation

13. Behavioural monitoring The Authority must: (a) track patterns of authority use (b) identify risk behaviour (c) detect when actors misuse authority, exceed authorised functions, and breach defined standards

Part 8 — Sanctions

14. Functional sanctions The Authority may: (a) restrict functions (b) impose supervision (c) apply cross-sector prohibitions

15. Application Sanctions apply across all roles, sectors, and engagement types.

Part 9 — Offences

16. Prohibited conduct by individual A person who is subject to a prohibition must not exercise restricted or substantially similar functions, including in private practice or self-employment. If the person exercises such functions, the person commits an offence. Penalty: imprisonment for [term] or a fine of [amount], or both.

17. Prohibited engagement An agency must not employ, engage, supply, or facilitate a person to perform restricted or substantially similar functions where the person is subject to a prohibition. If an agency engages such a person, the agency commits an offence. Penalty: fine of [amount].

18. Aggravated offence An agency commits an aggravated offence if the agency knowingly engages a prohibited person. Penalty: higher fine or imprisonment.

19. Continuing offence Each day of non-compliance constitutes a separate offence.

20. Core enforcement principle The system must identify, observe, and act when actors misuse authority, exceed authorised functions, and breach defined standards. 51

Guardianship and Decision-Making Act 2026 (WA)

Part 1 — Preliminary

21. Short title This Act may be cited as the Guardianship and Decision-Making Act 2026 (WA).

22. Objects The Act aims to: (a) prioritise supported decision-making (b) limit substituted decision-making (c) ensure authority remains proportionate and time-bound

Part 2 — Core Principles

23. Presumption of capacity Capacity is decision-specific and may vary.

24. Will and preferences Decision-makers must give effect to the person’s will and preferences.

Part 3 — Orders

25. Types (a) supported decision-making (b) limited guardianship (c) administration

26. Last-resort principle The Tribunal must only make orders where no less restrictive option exists.

27. Time limits All orders must include an expiry date.

28. Review triggers The Tribunal must review orders when: (a) circumstances change (b) CVS findings indicate risk (c) significant decisions arise

Part 4 — Duties

29. Duties of guardians Guardians must: (a) promote autonomy (b) minimise restriction (c) comply with the VPA Act

52

Part 5 — Oversight

30. Tribunal role The Tribunal must: (a) consider CVS findings (b) respond to triggered reviews

Community Visitor Scheme Act 2026 (WA)

Part 1 — Preliminary

31. Short title This Act may be cited as the Community Visitor Scheme Act 2026 (WA).

32. Objects The Act aims to: (a) provide independent observation (b) ensure real-time oversight of authority

Part 2 — Establishment

33. Establishment The Act establishes an independent statutory scheme.

34. Independence The Scheme operates independently and reports to Parliament.

Part 3 — Functions

35. Functions The Scheme must: (a) observe authority in practice (b) engage with individuals (c) identify misuse of authority (d) report and refer findings

Part 4 — Powers

36. Entry Visitors may enter premises without notice.

37. Access Visitors may access records and speak privately with individuals.

38. Observation Visitors may observe decision-making environments.

Part 5 — Application

53

39. Covered settings The Scheme applies to: (a) disability services (b) aged care (c) health (d) mental health (e) training environments and placements

Part 6 — Reporting

40. Reports Visitors must report findings and identify risk.

41. Mandatory referral Findings must trigger regulatory action or Tribunal review.

Part 7 — Offences

42. Obstruction
43. Retaliation
44. Failure to comply

Final Legislative Statement

This legislative package recognises a central principle:

Vulnerability does not require control. Unregulated authority creates risk.

The system must make authority visible, regulate authority at the point of use, and enforce accountability across all actors and settings.

54