Page 3957 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
GUARDIANSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTY BILL 1991
Detail Stage
Clause 1
Consideration resumed from 15 October 1991.
MR STEFANIAK (4.21): In relation to clause 1, we certainly have no problem; but in relation to this Bill there are a number of amendments. They have been scheduled, as I indicated yesterday when we agreed to this Bill being passed in principle, as did everyone in the house. There was a lot of cooperation between not only the community groups but also Mr Collaery and me, the government law officers and Mr Connolly. Accordingly, I think all parties have agreed to amendments, some of which will be moved by Mr Connolly, some by me and a couple by Mr Collaery. Without further ado, there is nothing to be amended in relation to clauses 1 and 2, and perhaps we can proceed to pass them.
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 3
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (4.22): Clause 3 in the Bill as it presently stands was drafted in accordance with the advice of a respected member of the community, Robyn Creyke of the Australian National University. As it stands, it identifies the welfare and interests of the represented person as the paramount principle that will guide the tribunal in its deliberations. Community groups, however, have looked at the matter again and have acknowledged a misunderstanding within their own ranks. They have requested that the paramount principle be the person's views and wishes, so far as they can be ascertained. The existing provision was seen as being somewhat paternalistic.
This is something of a departure from the legislation in jurisdictions such as Victoria and New South Wales, but the Government is certainly prepared to accommodate community concerns. Again I thank Robyn Creyke from the ANU, who spent many hours of her time in developing the form as it stands in the amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .