State Government controlled Public Guardianship System of Queensland

A CRITICAL OVERVIEW REPORT¹

PREFACE

This report dated 3 April 2025 constitutes a Critical Overview of the Queensland State Government controlled and operated public guardianship system (herein referred to as “Qld Guardianship”)².  

The laws constituting and governing Qld Guardianship have been deliberately written to lay the foundation for a system of legalised human rights abuse, elder abuse and the squandering of the money of the vulnerable impaired men and women under Qld Guardianship.  

Qld Guardianship is a national disgrace.

It is strongly recommended that this report be considered and studied in its entirety.  

Any summary of this report is not likely to be effective in explaining the overall extent of the detriment and damage caused to the vulnerable and impaired by Qld Guardianship.  

This report essentially concludes that there is one fundamental recommendation that must be implemented i.e.: 

 – the cancellation or removal of Qld Guardianship with all its laws in its entirety; and

 – the replacement of Qld Guardianship with a just, fair and equitable Federal Guardianship System that will appropriately and effectively reflect all those concepts and principles outlined in Chapter 10.   

Admittedly, this report does not constitute easy reading because:

 – it is factually detailed; and

 – it is confronting.  

Australians need to uncover the hidden abuse and let the light shine on the heinous abuse caused by Qld Guardianship. 

¹The authors of this Critical Overview dated 3 April 2025 are Ross Plowman and Jacobus Spamer.  They have observed the operations of Qld Guardianship over the last decade and have taken into account the experiences of numerous victims of Qld Guardianship.
²A definition section about the meaning of the terms herein used appears below in Chapter 13 Definitions & Interpretation”.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter	Heading
1	INTRODUCTION & OUTLINE OF STRUCTURE WITH CONCLUSIONS
2	PROSPECTS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF QUEENSLAND GUARDIANSHIP IN 2025
3	MAJOR STRUCTURAL DEFECTS OF QLD GUARDIANSHIP
4	UNFAIR, UNJUST AND OPPRESSIVE GUARDIANSHIP DECISIONS BY QCAT
5	LEGAL REPRESENTATION NOT ALLOWED IN ALL GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS
6	FABRICATED FAMILY CONFLICT – AN EXCUSE FOR APPOINTING THE OPG AND PTQ
7	ABUSIVE INTERROGATION PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES
8	WRONGDOING BY THE APPOINTED OFFICE OF PUBLIC GUARDIAN (“OPG”)
9	WRONGDOING BY THE APPOINTED PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF QLD (“PTQ”) & ITS OFFICIAL SOLICITOR
10	CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES FOR A JUST, FAIR AND EQUITABLE REPLACEMENT FEDERAL GUARDIANSHIP SYSTEM
11	CLOSING REMARKS
12	DEFINITIONS & INTERPRETATION

1. INTRODUCTION & OUTLINE OF STRUCTURE WITH CONCLUSIONS

Qld Guardianship operates through the Queensland Civil & Administrative Tribunal (“QCAT”), Qld Health, Qld Police Service, the Office of the Public Guardian of Qld (“OPG”) and the Public Trustee of Qld (“PTQ”).   

1.1 Qld Guardianship is essentially constituted by, and administered under, the following laws passed by the Qld Parliament:

1.1.1 The Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (“Guardianship Act”) that allows QCAT to issue declarations of “impaired decision-making capacity” in relation to vulnerable men and women.

Such QCAT declarations remove or nullify the personal decision-making autonomy and the fundamental human rights of the vulnerable to live the way they want to. 

Such QCAT declarations empower the OPG and the PTQ to exercise coercive control³ over vulnerable men and women and to make oppressive substituted-decisions for them not in accordance with their will, wishes or lawful personal objectives.

The gag rules in the Guardianship Act prevent the open and effective publication of the elder abuse. 

 ³“Coercive control” represents patterns of abusive behaviours by wrongdoers such as the OPG and PTQ whereby they deliberately create fear and deny their victims (who are vulnerable men and women) personal and financial liberty and autonomy.  Through coercive control, the wrongdoers take control over aspects of the everyday life of their victims and (for example) regulate where the victims can go, who they can see or visit, where they can live, what their day-to-day living expense budget must be, the nature of the medical and personal services they can or must have and who must provide the services to them.

1.1.2 The Public Guardian Act 2014 (“OPG Act”) creates the OPG-entity with its draconian tyrannical powers and functions over the personal matters and affairs of vulnerable men and women⁴. 

The OPG identifies the vulnerable through the OPG informants who act co-operatively with the OPG in a covert or secret manner.  

The OPG is not accountable and it is not liable to disclose its records, reports and source documentation to anyone, not even QCAT. 

The OPG can investigate the personal affairs of vulnerable men and women without their prior consent.  

This “consent-exemption” assists in allowing the OPG to report to QCAT in a misleading and deceptive way about alleged or even fabricated impaired decision-making capacity and the OPG’s use of such reports to commence QCAT proceedings against vulnerable men and women for the removal of their personal decision-making autonomy to their personal detriment.

The OPG operates as a gateway for the procurement of as many QCAT declarations of “impaired decision-making capacity” as possible in order to maximise the number of OPG guardianship appointments and PTQ administration appointments.  

The OPG works in lockstep with the PTQ and the PTQ provides the OPG with most of the funds needed by the OPG to operate⁵.

The OPG powers and functions are exercised covertly and with coercive control.

The OPG powers and functions are not subject to any effective judicial supervision or effective judicial review.  This means that the actions of wrongdoing by the OPG cannot be effectively prohibited.  

The negative consequences of such OPG actions or the damage caused by it cannot be rectified.  

1.1.3 The Public Trustee Act 1978 (“PTQ Act”) creates the Public Trustee of Qld (“PTQ”) and its draconian and tyrannical powers and functions over the financial affairs of vulnerable men and women (“PTQ-clients”)⁶. 

The PTQ powers and functions are exercised by the PTQ to the severe financial detriment of the PTQ-clients.

⁴A detailed summary of the draconian tyrannical powers of the OPG appear in Chapter 8.
⁵It is explained in Chapter 9 that the PTQ-Act authorises the PTQ to fund the OPG operations and that the PTQ is responsible to provide funding to the OPG. 
⁶A detailed summary of the draconian tyrannical powers of the PTQ appear in Chapter 9 below.

PTQ-clients do not have the protection afforded by the common law duties of care and fiduciary duties that burden third-party administrators in the interests of vulnerable men and women.

The PTQ powers and functions exclude the PTQ from having to discharge any common law based fiduciary duties or duties of care in relation to the financial affairs and interests of PTQ-clients.

1.1.4 The Human Rights Act 2019 (“HR-Act”) provides for persons to have human rights and it also allows for the reasonable limitation of human rights. 

The HR-Act expressly states that public entities and officers who offend human rights do not commit any offence.

The HR-Act allows for the “reasonable limitation” of a man or woman’s human rights using principles that are formulated in vague and ambiguous language.

The overall effect of HR-Act is that the coercive control by the OPG and the PTQ over persons subject to declarations of impaired decision-making capacity is a reasonable limitation of their human rights.

The HR-Act affords no appropriate or effective judicial protection to vulnerable men and women against breaches of their human rights by those operating under Qld Guardianship except for possible injunction or mandamus proceedings to stop further or future breaches of human rights.  

Injunction and mandamus proceedings are however by nature complicated and expensive and they do not provide for any remedies in favour of victims such as financial compensation or the undoing of offending steps already taken⁷.

1.1.5 Decisions of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“QCAT”) remove the personal decision-making autonomy of vulnerable men and women⁸. 

QCAT decisions can or may (without just cause) order the revocation of the enduring powers of attorney (“EPOA’s”) created by vulnerable men and women.  

QCAT decisions usually order the appointment of the OPG and the PTQ respectively as guardian and administrator for vulnerable men and women.  This is the case particularly when there are allegations of family conflict (regardless of whether or not such alleged family conflict is real or material to the protection of the interests of the vulnerable).

⁷A litigation guardian would need to be appointed for impaired victims prior to the commencement of injunction or mandamus proceedings.  The OPG and PTQ (as self-serving and self-righteous entities) would oppose the appointment of a litigation guardian to commence legal proceedings to stop the OPG or PTQ from offending the human rights of the impaired victim.
⁸A detailed summary of the guardianship related decisions of QCAT appear in Chapter 4 below.

For example, an adult child who is a mean spirited money hungry kind of predator of a vulnerable mother may falsely assert that the mother’s husband has or will continue to victimise or endanger the mother and that the OPG and PTQ should be appointed for the mother despite the fact that the mother’s husband has and will continue to genuinely love and care for the mother who (in any event) does not want the OPG or the PTQ appointed for her. 

The OPG will do nothing to expose the lies and deceit of such mean-spirited adult child.  Instead, the OPG would proceed as if the alleged family conflict is real and justified and use it to lobby QCAT to appoint the OPG as guardian and the PTQ as administrator for the mother (despite the fact that the mother is adequately looked after by her husband and other family members who have the real or true interests of the mother at heart).

Neither the OPG nor the PTQ will acknowledge evidence in support of the position of the mother’s husband or other family members who truly or genuinely support the mother.  

The overall effect is that QCAT decisions forcibly subject vulnerable men and women to the draconian Qld Guardianship system which places the OPG and the PTQ in control of the personal and financial affairs of such vulnerable men and women. 

1.1.6 The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (“QCAT Act”) creates QCAT as a Tribunal. 

The QCAT Act empowers and regulates the operations of QCAT.

The QCAT Act allows QCAT Members to reach conclusions and make decisions without being accountable for any deliberate or negligent actions by the Members to the detriment of vulnerable men and women or against their interests and rights. 

1.2 Conclusion – This critical overview concludes that Qld Guardianship: 

 – is clearly draconian;

 – that Qld Guardianship unjustly and unfairly interferes with the personal lives of vulnerable men and women;

  – that Qld Guardianship causes deep personal trauma and pain and significant financial loss or damage to vulnerable men and women; and 

 – that Qld Guardianship should be replaced with a fair, just and equitable Federal Guardianship System built upon the common law principles of fairness and justice as outlined in Chapter 10 below.  

The observations and assertions made herein about Qld Guardianship correctly reflect what actually happened in numerous guardianship proceedings and associated matters over a number of years such as for example the:

 – RFB-case in around 2006;

 – Maher-case finalised in about 2011;

 – DLC-case starting in about 2013; 

 – MBL-case starting in 2015; and the

 – PR-case starting in about 2017.

1.3 Qld Guardianship has the following key powers, functions and objectives:

1.3.1 Qld Guardianship applies the concept of “impaired capacity” as justification for the removal of the decision-making ability and autonomy of vulnerable men and women.  

The definition for “impaired capacity” as set out in the Guardianship Act can be so widely applied that normal men and women who use financial advisers to advise them about the investment of money could be considered as having “impaired decision-making capacity” as they do not comprehend complex financial situations and matters. 

The Guardianship Act accordingly affords Qld Guardianship the ability to entrap vulnerable men and women by having QCAT declarations of impaired decision-making capacity made affecting them.  Such decisions remove all of their personal decision-making ability under circumstances where they may for example still have a high level of decision-making capacity supported by expert medical evidence.  

1.3.2 Qld Guardianship determines when men and women have impaired decision-making capacity.  Once the determinations are made, such affected men and women are unable to make their own financial and personal decisions.

Qld Guardianship makes substituted decisions for them commonly in disregard of their lawful personal preferences, wishes, will, objectives and aspirations.

1.3.3 Qld Guardianship determines when the privately appointed enduring attorneys of men and women can no longer act as their enduring attorneys.

Such revocations can be made without any corroborated evidence of past wrongdoing or dereliction of duty on the part of the privately appointed enduring attorneys⁹.

⁹The DLC-case is an example of an unjust revocation by QCAT of the entire enduring power of attorney granted by a husband appointing his wife as his first-tier enduring attorney and his solicitor as second-tier enduring attorney. 

1.3.4 Qld Guardianship appoints the OPG and PTQ respectively as the guardian and financial administrator for men and women who are affected by a declaration of impaired decision-making capacity.

1.3.5 Upon making a determination of impaired decision-making capacity, Qld Guardianship strips away the personal autonomy of the men and women affected by such determinations, leaving them with no personal decision-making power or authority.  

This means that those affected by a declaration of impaired decision-making capacity have no say in relation to matters even if they were actually able to appropriately manage some matters on their own or able to do so whilst assisted by their private support network.  

The critical point to note is that even if a level of capacity-based ability is present and such fact is supported by expert medical evidence:

1.3.5.1 Qld Guardianship effectively ignores the abilities of the vulnerable impaired;

1.3.5.2 Qld Guardianship does not allow those affected by a declaration of impaired decision-making capacity to use or give effect to their abilities or allow them to achieve their personal objectives, particularly if fabricated or immaterial family conflict plays a role; and

1.3.5.3 Qld Guardianship makes substituted decisions that are in conflict with the lawful and reasonable personal objectives of the vulnerable impaired.

Qld Guardianship is not required to have respect or tolerance for the private support networks of the vulnerable impaired and it does not demonstrate such respect or tolerance.  

A key objective of Qld Guardianship is to disrupt, nullify or destroy the assistance of the private support networks of the vulnerable impaired.  

By doing so, Qld Guardianship manipulates the situation so that the OPG and the PTQ are appointed to take control and achieve outcomes that neither the vulnerable impaired nor members of their genuine support networks want or need.

Qld Guardianship and the staff operating within it have no guilt or remorse for: 

– acting against the wishes, will and preferences of the vulnerable impaired; and 

– causing the vulnerable impaired personal trauma, torment, mental torture and anguish. 

1.3.6 Qld Guardianship effectively authorises and permits the mal-administration, elder abuse and human rights abuse of vulnerable men and women (refer further information provided below) when the OPG is appointed as their guardian and when the PTQ is appointed as their financial administrator.

There is no sanction or penalty that can be imposed upon Qld Guardianship for its mal-administration, elder abuse and human rights abuse of vulnerable impaired men and women.  

There should be effective and strong civil and criminal sanctions and penalties against Qld Guardianship for any such breaches and maladministration and, to this end, the legislative framework must be changed¹⁰.  

1.3.7 Qld Guardianship does not ensure that those affected by a declaration of impaired decision-making capacity will have appropriate assistance or aids in order to maximise their personal autonomy.  

Qld Guardianship rather avoids or even prevents appropriate assistance or aids being afforded to the vulnerable impaired in order to make them appear even more vulnerable and impaired and to mentally traumatise them.  

For example, in order to alleviate problems caused by poor memory or anxiety when communicating verbally, vulnerable men and women may need or require to be communicated with in writing (and to communicate back through their own letters and emails) in order to best process and understand the information conveyed to them and for them to have a record of it so that they can use such records to refresh their memory.

Qld Guardianship deliberately fails to engage in written communication and fails to respond to written communication received from vulnerable impaired men and women¹¹.  

A key reason for this is that Qld Guardianship is against the creation of written evidence about the way or manner in which it administers the personal affairs of the vulnerable men and women under its administration.  

Paper trails are avoided by Qld Guardianship and it is interesting to note that the OPG (under the OPG-Act) is not required to make available any access to or provide copies of its written records of evidence or its source documents. 

1.3.8 Qld Guardianship effectively authorises the OPG to:

1.3.8.1 Act like an information gateway in identifying and locating the vulnerable;

 ¹⁰In Chapter 10, principles for a much-needed replacement legislative framework are set out and discussed. 
¹¹This deliberate failure on the part of Qld Guardianship to assist the vulnerable impaired through written communications occurred in the PR-case.

1.3.8.2 Force the vulnerable to be subjected to unfair QCAT proceedings;

1.3.8.3 Procure QCAT declarations of impaired decision-making capacity affecting the vulnerable;

1.3.8.4 Appoint the OPG as guardian for the vulnerable to make inappropriate or unwanted substituted decisions for the vulnerable, including in relation to matters that the vulnerable have the ability and capacity to make their own lawful decision;

1.3.8.5 Allow the OPG to work in lockstep with the PTQ so that the PTQ is appointed as their abusive financial administrator; and

1.3.8.6 Unilaterally make unwanted or adverse decisions for the vulnerable about where they live, the services they receive, their health care, their family contact and other family matters or affairs.

1.3.9 The OPG does not ensure that the views or lawful wishes, objectives and the real interests of the vulnerable under its control will be obtained or ascertained and given effect to by the OPG in terms of (for example): 

– living arrangements, 

– support services needed, 

– selection of support service providers, 

– family contact arrangements, etc.

1.3.10 Qld Guardianship authorises the PTQ to mal-administer the financial affairs of the vulnerable under its control (“PTQ-clients”) 

– by making unwanted decisions for the PTQ-clients about their financial matters or affairs,

– by providing them with a return on their investments which can be as low as one-tenth of the then current rate of return achieved on the open market.

Qld Guardianship permits the PTQ to pay itself substantial administration fees by simply debiting the accounts of its PTQ-clients.  

Despite the collection of the administration fees, the PTQ never ensures that a return on the investments of PTQ-clients is on par with what is generally achieved through competent investment advisers operating in the open market.  

The PTQ has the legislative authority to exempt itself from those common law fiduciary duties and tort-based duties of care that apply to other financial administrators and advisers.  

The PTQ always achieves a return on the investments of the PTQ-clients which is significantly below that achieved by competent investment advisers.

For example, over a number of years ending in about 2021, the PTQ produced a return of about 0.5% when the open market produced a return of 4.5% to 6%.  

In other words, the PTQ performed about 10 times worse than those operating in the open market.

1.3.11 The PTQ does not ensure that the lawful wishes, objectives and interests of men and women affected by a declaration of impaired decision-making capacity will be obtained or ascertained and given effect to as part of the PTQ decision-making for them about (for example) 

 – the use of their money for day-to-day living, and 

 – the appropriate investment of their financial resources.  

1.4 Conclusion – The common law-based fiduciary duties and duties of care do not apply to or do not burden Qld Guardianship and cannot hold Qld Guardianship to account.  

Under its current legislative framework, Qld Guardianship is not liable or obligated to discharge the common law-based duties of care and fiduciary duties that generally protect vulnerable men and women.  

This is certainly not in the public interest of Qld generally.

Under the common law, caring, truthful, fair-minded, reasonable and God worshipping men and women (“good honest people”) do know what it takes to appropriately and fully discharge duties of care and fiduciary duties in the interests of vulnerable people.  

Good honest people apply and give effect to their knowledge and beliefs and instinctively show a desire and commitment to effectively discharge the common law duties of care and fiduciary duties to the vulnerable impaired.  

Good honest people instinctively know how to honour, give effect to and not offend the human rights of vulnerable impaired men and women.  Good honest people have the resolve and determination to actually do the just and fair thing by the vulnerable impaired.  

Good honest people instinctively know how to prudently and consistently apply the General Principles of the Guardianship Act in the interests of vulnerable impaired men and women and they have the resolve and determination to so act.

Conclusion:  Qld Guardianship does not act or operate like good honest people would. 

1.5 Good honest people consider the outcomes produced by Qld Guardianship to be immoral¹², unfair¹³, harsh¹⁴, cruel¹⁵, excessive¹⁶, unjust¹⁷, oppressive¹⁸, authoritarian¹⁹, controlling in a coercive way and also tyrannical²⁰ in terms of the manner, nature and extent of the systematic, systemic, corrupt and organised control of the personal and financial affairs of vulnerable people.

1.6 Good honest people consider the outcomes produced by Qld Guardianship to be personally, mentally and financially detrimental to the vulnerable impaired men and women.

Qld Guardianship breaches or offends the common law rights, human rights and fiduciary duty-based rights of vulnerable men and women commonly and systematically in an organised and corrupt manner.

1.7 Good honest people consider the outcomes produced by Qld Guardianship to be part of a “national disgrace” in terms of the painful, drawn-out and relentless victimisation of vulnerable men and women which systematically and systemically occur in all Australian States and Territories. 

1.8 The following further Conclusions are drawn:

1.8.1 Qld Guardianship brings out the worst in mankind in terms of the damaging treatment of vulnerable men and women because it is structured and designed to be damaging to the vulnerable.  

Qld Guardianship can and does destroy the freedom, liberty and individual prosperity of the vulnerable. 

1.8.2 Qld Guardianship is akin to the Qld Government, as “top dog”, eating the “vulnerable impaired or disabled dog”, the latter who is quite often also the victim of engineered, concocted, encouraged or promoted family conflict and disputation²¹.

1.8.3 Qld Guardianship is managed and controlled by those who are vicious and mentally sick.  They embrace corruption, lies, deceit, perjury and malfeasance in public office to pervert justice and financially profit from it or as a result of it.    

¹²“Immoral” as in not conforming or complying with accepted biblical principles of right and wrong.
¹³“Unfair” as in behaviour that is not right, fair, sensible or suitable under the common law.
¹⁴“Harsh” as in actions that are blatantly unkind and show no empathy or sympathy.
¹⁵“Cruel” as in deliberately causing mental and physical pain, torment and distress.
¹⁶“Excessive” as in for example control that is more than is necessary or reasonable.
 ¹⁷“Unjust” as in not based on or behaving according to what is morally right or fair or reasonable under the common law.
 ¹⁸“Oppressive” as in feeling cruelly and unfairly enslaved by an oppressor.
¹⁹“Authoritarian” as in deciding outcomes, making substituted decisions and enforcing such decisions against the lawful wishes, objectives and needs of those affected by such substituted decisions.
 ²⁰“Tyrannical” as in the severe, unjust or unfair control of men and women subjected to authority over them by oppressive tyrants.
²¹The issue of family conflict is discussed in Chapter 6.

1.8.4 Qld Guardianship has no conscience, guilt or remorse in terms of its wrongdoing affecting vulnerable men and women.  

Qld Guardianship instinctively promotes wrongdoing as part of its mission to destroy what is good, fair and just. 

1.8.5 Good honest people readily could (and most certainly should) draw the inference that Qld Guardianship deliberately hurts, torments and enslaves vulnerable men and women in a systematic and systemic way or manner for malevolent purposes.  

The body of laws underpinning the operations of Qld Guardianship simply allows and empowers Qld Guardianship to achieve such malevolent outcomes.   

The said inference must remain unless and until those in control of Qld Guardianship are able to expertly and truthfully prove on a balance of probabilities in a Supreme Court of Law that the said inference is displaced by sufficient and clear forensic evidence to the contrary i.e. that Qld Guardianship does not deliberately produce any of the malevolent outcomes.

The onus is (or should be) on Qld Guardianship to prove on a balance of probabilities that Qld Guardianship is not producing any of the malevolent outcomes for vulnerable men and women despite the fact that its underpinning body of laws permits it to produce such malevolent outcomes.   

In other words, for the said inference to be displaced, the evidentiary proof required from Qld Guardianship must incorporate the discharge of the judicial onus and standard of proof as required by the common law of Qld in civil cases i.e. that no such deliberate hurt, torment and enslavement is created by Qld Guardianship despite its body of laws that empowers it to hurt torment and enslave.

Considering its track record over several decades, it would be impossible for Qld Guardianship to meet the said judicial standard of proof and it would be impossible for Qld Guardianship to discharge the said judicial onus of proof on a balance of probabilities.  

1.8.6 In view of the track record as to what has actually happened over several decades under Qld Guardianship, there is a strong argument that (instead of having to prove malfeasance) judicial notice ought to be taken (by Tribunal Members, Magistrates and Judges) that Qld Guardianship commonly engages in malfeasance as part of its normal day-to-day modus operandi. 

1.8.7 In order to appropriately, effectively and efficiently achieve a just, fair and equitable Qld Guardianship system, the existing Qld Guardianship system needs to be dismantled or discarded in its entirety and replaced with a totally new national guardianship system under a Commonwealth State & Territory Agreement.

The reasons as to why Qld Guardianship should be replaced are clearly set out and explained in this critical overview.  

The new guardianship system should be a Federal Guardianship System that is applicable Australia-wide and underpinned by one nationally agreed Commonwealth Guardianship and Administration Act.  

Such new Federal Guardianship System should be one that is based upon the common law concepts and principles of justice, fairness and equity and it should be reflective of the recommendations as set out in Chapter 10 below.

2. PROSPECTS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF QUEENSLAND GUARDIANSHIP IN 2025

In the year 2025, there is an obvious need to make Qld Guardianship just, fair and equitable for vulnerable men and women in Qld.

If that could be achieved, such benefits will flow on to other Australian jurisdictions in the public interest of all Australians.

The key objective should be to replace the current disgraceful national guardianship system with one that is just, fair and equitable for vulnerable men and women all over Australia.

Qld Guardianship was intentionally created to produce unjust, unfair and inequitable results for vulnerable men and women in Qld.  

The essential reason for this is that Qld Guardianship has always been intended to be a “Machiavellian system” that allows or creates elder abuse at the cost of the victims and so that thousands of people (i.e. those with vested interests) could superficially, ineffectively, inappropriately and inefficiently work on the elder abuse related problems over the long term.  

All those with vested interests in Qld Guardianship pretend to assist the abused men and women meaningfully and, in the end, they get nothing of real substance done over the long term that would or could reduce or alleviate elder abuse.   

In fact, the aim of Qld Guardianship is not to reduce the incidence of or potential for elder abuse over the long term.  

In other words, the Qld Guardianship business model relies on the need for the elder abuse related problems to continue neverendingly as that benefits those with longer term vested interests.

The prospects in 2025 for a much-needed and long-overdue replacement of the Qld Guardianship system are perceived to be zero or nil according to good honest people who know and can see Qld Guardianship for what it really is.

The main reason for this lack of potential to overhaul or replace the Qld Guardianship system in its current form is that those with vested interests in Qld Guardianship will simply not allow the major political parties to replace the current Qld Guardianship system with one that is truly just, fair and equitable for vulnerable men and women.  

There could or would be prospects for replacing the current Qld Guardianship system with one that is just, fair and equitable when the major political parties have lost their power over and control of the Qld Government and have been replaced by brave and principled independent politicians who refuse to serve those with vested interests currently and instead deliver to all Queenslanders common law-based justice, fairness and freedom through a reborn Qld Government and Qld Guardianship system. 

Many members of the legal profession, members of political parties, elected members of parliament and a large percentage of the members of the public have a poor perception of the actual damage being done to vulnerable men and women by the Qld Guardian system.

This poor perception needs to be changed and, to that end, this critical overview is intended to: 

 – open more eyes and thereby creating a groundswell of sensible and truthful opinion to initiate legislative and administrative change; and

 – make recommendations about key principles that should be adopted in order to remove the current Qld Guardianship system and replace it with a new system that is just, fair and equitable for vulnerable men and women.

As it is clearly obvious that the public guardianship systems in all Australian jurisdictions constitute a national disgrace, there is no need for a Royal Commission into guardianship Australia-wide.  It is clearly obvious that a replacement guardianship system is needed in order to treat vulnerable men and women fairly and equitably and to ensure that they have access to proper justice²².

In any event, the time and money spent on a Royal Commission into guardianship Australia-wide will amount to a waste of human and financial resources.  Royal Commission terms of reference as determined by federal politicians could unduly limit the scope of enquiry into guardianship.  By limiting the terms of reference, the evidence and information obtained will be limited and the potential maximum level of benefits from such a Royal Commission will be compromised.  

Further, it cannot be guaranteed that Governments will adopt all good and useful Royal Commission recommendations and give effect to them all in the public interest.  Governments have never adopted all good and useful Royal Commission recommendations as governments have been playing a covert political game which is not in the overall public interest. 

²²The essential concepts and principles for a just, fair and equitable replacement guardianship system that should apply throughout Australia are described in Chapter 10 below.

The key element required for positive change is that Australians generally must demand such change and insist on a new guardianship system being created that is truly just, fair and equitable to all vulnerable men and women.  

To this end, Australians would need to vote for independent political candidates who can be trusted to ensure that a fair and just Australia-wide replacement guardianship system is created and implemented.  

3. MAJOR STRUCTURAL DEFECTS OF QLD GUARDIANSHIP

There are at least 6 major areas of structural defects within the Qld Guardianship system.  They are briefly listed in the following paragraphs 3.1 to 3.6 and discussed in more detail in Chapters 4 to 9 below.

3.1 QCAT makes unfair, unjust, oppressive, prejudicial, biased and inhumane guardianship decisions contrary to the interests of vulnerable men and women and members of their support group.  

These QCAT decisions are made even though there is substantiated evidence before QCAT that it should not make the said decisions.  

In essence, the conclusion is that QCAT’s operations (in terms of enquiring into guardianship matters and making guardianship decisions) are structurally flawed and defective, hence the nature of its above-mentioned decisions.  

QCAT should not have any jurisdiction to hear and decide guardianship matters.  Such jurisdiction must be solely with the Supreme Court of Qld or a Federal Court of Australia²³. 

3.2 Parties with an interest in guardianship matters (i.e. the vulnerable impaired and those who truly and genuinely support them in the manner contemplated under the common law) do not have the right to be legally represented at QCAT guardianship proceedings without QCAT granting them leave to be legally represented.    

QCAT often refuses to grant leave for interested parties to be represented.  

When refusing to grant leave to be represented, QCAT often fails to provide a proper or reasonable judicial basis for its refusal.

All parties with an interest in guardianship matters (including vulnerable men and women) should or must have the right to be legally represented without having to first obtain leave from the Magistrate or Judge hearing the matter²⁴.

²³The essential concepts and principles for a just, fair and equitable replacement guardianship system that should apply throughout Australia are described in Chapter 10 below.
²⁴The right to legal representation is acknowledged in Chapter 10 below and it must also be considered a key human right.

3.3 Qld Guardianship uses fabricated conflict amongst the family members of men and women with impaired decision-making capacity in order to justify the appointment of the PTQ and the OPG instead of appointing members of the genuine support network of such vulnerable men and women as their guardians and/or administrators.  

Qld Guardianship far too often disregards the evidence that shows the existence of a genuine and capable support group for the vulnerable with sufficient ability and integrity to (unlike the OPG and the PTQ) adequately support the vulnerable impaired.

By way of example (which in fact commonly occurs), this is essentially how Qld Guardianship works or operates within the context of alleged family conflict:

3.3.1 There is a vulnerable parent with a genuine and capable support group for the vulnerable parent (e.g. a spouse, family members and professionals) with sufficient ability and integrity to continue to adequately support the vulnerable parent who is happy with the situation and wants it to continue.

3.3.2 This support group “stands in the way” of the OPG and the PTQ being appointed for the vulnerable parent i.e. the support group is the reason as to why the OPG and PTQ should not be appointed.

3.3.3 Then there are the usual misguided, deluded, lying, elder abusing and simply evil predatory family members (“wrongdoers”) who engineer and fabricate family conflict to satisfy their lust for power, control and financial gain over their targeted vulnerable parent.

3.3.4 Qld Guardianship does not reveal to QCAT the lies and deceit of the wrongdoers and QCAT does not hold them responsible for their wrongdoing or take action against them.  

Qld Guardianship in fact accepts the position that there is family conflict that needs to be managed by the OPG and the PTQ and that the interests of the wrongdoers are protected.  

Examples of such wrongdoer interests are:

– the ability to visit their vulnerable parent as they wish;

– opportunities to dictate to the OPG and PTQ the lifestyle that their vulnerable parent should have; and

– having input as to how their parents’ money should be spent, etc.  

3.3.5 Accordingly, Qld Guardianship effectively uses the above-explained fabricated family conflict to justify its replacement of the genuine and capable support groups with the OPG and the PTQ to the detriment of the vulnerable parents.  

3.4 Tribunal Members, separate representatives appointed by QCAT, medical practitioners, abusive family members and others engage in the elder abuse of men and women with impaired decision-making capacity by subjecting them to abusive practices and procedures used during interrogation sessions for example.  

Those who use such abusive practices and procedures are usually in support of the appointment of the OPG and the PTQ and against the appointment of members of the genuine support group of the vulnerable impaired.

Put simply, Qld Guardianship allows abusive interrogation sessions to demean and belittle the vulnerable men and women and to demonstrate that they have a high level of impairment and that a declaration of impaired decision-making capacity must be made for them covering all areas of their personal decision-making.  

Put differently, abusive interrogation sessions are used in order to maximise the removal of the personal decision-making autonomy of vulnerable men and women.  

3.5 The OPG deliberately inflicts institutionalised wrongdoing, elder abuse and human rights abuse upon men and women who are under its guardianship.  

The OPG also deliberately fails to protect men and women under its guardianship against the financial exploitation, elder abuse and human rights abuse inflicted by others on those vulnerable men and women.  

Such OPG engineered elder abuse and human rights abuse cause financial loss and serious harm to the victims by way of emotional stress, anxiety, mental trauma and emotional torture.

3.6 The PTQ and its Official Solicitor deliberately inflict institutionalised wrongdoing upon vulnerable men and women as a result of the financial mal-administration of their financial affairs.

The mal-administration causes the vulnerable men and women significant financial loss as well as emotional stress, anxiety, mental trauma and emotional torture. 

4. UNFAIR, UNJUST AND OPPRESSIVE GUARDIANSHIP DECISIONS BY QCAT

4.1 QCAT is an administrative tribunal and not a Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland.  

As an administrative tribunal which is not bound by laws and rules applicable to Qld Courts, QCAT commonly produces unjust, unfair and oppressive outcomes and decisions in Qld Guardianship matters.  

In the following paragraphs, the reasons for the said negative outcomes and decisions of QCAT in Qld Guardianship matters are explained in more detail.

4.1.1 QCAT is exempt from having to apply the formal rules of evidence in guardianship proceedings.  

This means that QCAT does not require that the formal Laws of Evidence be strictly applied to the interested parties, their witnesses and their evidence given during guardianship proceedings.   

The legal effect of this evidence-based exemption is that parties to guardianship proceedings do not have the protection and safeguards afforded to Court litigants who must comply with the formal rules of evidence as per the Laws of Evidence.  

Compliance with the formal rules of evidence and the Laws of Evidence are needed to discover the true and correct facts material to the case and to make just decisions based upon the true and correct facts.  

The said evidenced-based exemption clearly shows that there is a major structural judicial defect underlying to QCAT guardianship proceedings.  

The presence of this major structural judicial defect is simply “a disgraceful state of affairs” considering that guardianship matters are about the personal and financial freedom and autonomy of allegedly vulnerable men and women, their elder abuse, their human rights abuse and the breach of common law fiduciary duties and duties of care owed to them.  

4.1.2 The usual civil law-based onus and the standard of proof need not be discharged judicially in QCAT guardianship proceedings either.

Accordingly, parties to guardianship proceedings are not required to prove their allegations and assertions judicially before QCAT Members.  

QCAT is at liberty to accept the lies and the misleading and deceptive statements of witnesses such as OPG staff, PTQ staff and malevolent family members.

QCAT is also at liberty to mistake the facts of a matter and make findings and decisions based upon unproven and mistaken or wrong factual findings.

The overall effect of the matters raised in paragraphs 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 is that:

– QCAT can or may make findings without a proper judicial basis for such findings; and 

– QCAT can or may make unjust or biased decisions.  

QCAT has consistently and regularly made such findings and decisions.²⁵

Findings without a proper judicial basis and unjust or biased decisions:

– are most certainly detrimental to those parties negatively affected by them; and 

– such findings are also against the Qld and Australian public interest²⁶. 

If unproven or mistaken findings and the associated decisions were to be appealed before QCAT, the appellant will fail.  The injustice caused by the wrong findings and decisions will accordingly remain in place.

As QCAT Members are empowered to make findings non-judicially, the exercise of their very wide discretion cannot be limited or overturned on appeal without great difficulty. 

Following unlikely successful appeals, the matters are usually referred back to QCAT to re-consider and re-decide.  It ends up being a legal “merry-go-round” with QCAT as the never-ending deciding body that no-one seems to be able to get away from.

4.1.3 In guardianship matters, QCAT does not have to take evidence on oath or by way of affirmation.  

QCAT generally does not insist on sworn or affirmed evidence.

Consequently, witnesses are not always required to provide sworn or affirmed statements of evidence in QCAT guardianship proceeding.

When sworn or affirmed evidence is not required, the way is paved to let in corrupt evidence and unreliable or wrong information.  

For example, the OPG commonly provides unsworn reports with misleading and deceptive information that the OPG obtains from vexatious family members for example.  

The OPG deliberately includes the misleading and deceptive information in its reports to QCAT in order to get the QCAT findings and decisions that the OPG wants.  

²⁵In Maher v OPG & PTQ [2011] Qld Court of Appeal 225 the Supreme Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant (i.e. wife of an impaired husband) had leave to appeal against an earlier QCAT Appeal Division decision on the ground of apprehended bias pertaining to a Senior QCAT Member.
²⁶In the RFB-case, QCAT unjustly and unfairly refused to order the release of some of the funds held by Perpetual Trustees as administrator for Mrs RFB (i.e. a married woman who was subject to a declaration of impaired decision-making capacity) so that legal action could be taken by her against Perpetual Trustees for their loss-causing negligent mal-administration of her financial affairs (through for example the Supreme Court approved management plan for Mrs RFB not being followed).  Mrs RFB then obtained a declaration of capacity and successfully sued Perpetual Trustees for financial compensation.

Such misleading and deceptive OPG reports generally do not have any corroborating documentary evidence to support the OPG assertions in it.  Despite this, QCAT accepts the OPG reports as true and correct and makes decisions accordingly.   

Unless the OPG’s wrongdoing in terms of misleading and deceptive reports to QCAT is exposed by interested parties who provide sworn evidence of such wrongdoing that is true and correct, the OPG will always assert that it should be the appointed guardian²⁷.

4.1.4 The rules of civil procedure pertaining to pleadings, particulars, discovery of documents, evidence, corroboration of allegations, etc need not be complied with in QCAT guardianship proceedings. 

Accordingly, the so-called pleadings in QCAT guardianship matters are not particularised, uncertain, ambiguous, deficient, misleading, etc.  

This state of affairs creates a nightmare of uncertainty and confusion and consequently adds another layer of injustice to QCAT guardianship proceedings.  

4.1.5 The QCAT Act provides for a mission statement i.e. that the adjudication and resolution of contested matters by QCAT be done economically, informally and quickly.  

The QCAT Act stipulates that QCAT must encourage the early and economical resolution of disputes by conducting proceedings in an informal way that minimises the costs of parties.  

Informants such as the OPG could for example communicate with QCAT directly and provide it with information confidentially without the need for QCAT to disclose it to any of the other interested parties and allow them to test its veracity.

In practice, QCAT guardianship matters are not quickly adjudicated and they usually run over a number of years as issues cannot be properly resolved at the outset in a just and equitable way or manner.  

In practice, QCAT guardianship matters are certainly not dealt with economically considering the human resources and the associated financial resources involved in the QCAT proceedings and considering the opportunity-cost to the interested parties who could have spent their time doing constructive and enjoyable things as opposed to be victimised and traumatised by Qld Guardianship.  

The irony is that countless guardianship matters finally come to an end in an uneconomical way or manner after many years of disputation with numerous unjust and unfair outcomes over the course of each matter and with interested parties being victimised and traumatised. 

²⁷In the PR-case, the OPG (after having served as guardian for about 4 years) sought and obtained leave from QCAT to withdraw as guardian after strong sworn evidence of OPG malfeasance was provided to QCAT by the members of the support network for the vulnerable impaired involved.

4.1.6 QCAT Members presiding over guardianship cases want to draw their own conclusions about the level of capacity related impairment of vulnerable men and women.  

QCAT Members do not want a situation where they have to solely rely on expert medical evidence about the level of capacity of vulnerable men and women.  

QCAT Members want to conduct their own direct questioning of the vulnerable impaired and take into account the evidence of lay witnesses who are not medical capacity experts.  

The following sub-paragraphs explain the elder abuse and human rights abuse that commonly occur when Qld Guardianship investigates and assesses the level of impaired capacity of vulnerable men and women:

4.1.6.1 The vulnerable commonly needs aids and supports in order to communicate at the highest level of his or her ability.

4.1.6.2 Aids and supports include

– a private location that is comfortable, 

– to know and trust the support provider who asks the questions and makes the assessment, 

– to have a consultant who is a private practice medical expert in capacity matters, 

– to have the benefits of memory prompts, scaffolded questioning techniques and 

– to have present at interviews a trusted member of the support group.

4.1.6.3 If the aids and supports are not provided, the vulnerable will panic, be anxious, stressed, confused and unable to communicate meaningfully and clearly.  

Reports from private practice medical experts in capacity matters often contain strong advice that the vulnerable should not be questioned in the QCAT hearing environment for the above-mentioned reasons. 

QCAT does not have to follow such advice and usually prefers not to.  For example, a QCAT Member hearing the MBL-case initially did not follow the advice and questioned the vulnerable impaired without any assistance or support. 

4.1.6.4 QCAT Members are not capacity-expert medical practitioners and they are not qualified or skilled to effectively and appropriately communicate with vulnerable men and women about their level of capacity and ability.    

4.1.6.5 The fundamental mission of Qld Guardianship is to have the OPG and PTQ appointed for as many vulnerable men and women as possible no matter the circumstances.  

As a result of this mission, there is no incentive for QCAT Members to provide the aids and supports and to follow the advice and interview protocols of private practice medical experts in capacity matters about how the vulnerable should be treated.  

4.1.6.6 During QCAT proceedings, the Members do not ensure that the required aids and supports are provided and the vulnerable are interrogated (including by QCAT Members) in ways that amount to elder abuse and human rights abuse.

4.1.6.7 As a result, QCAT guardianship proceedings lead to negative outcomes for the vulnerable i.e. their level of impairment is exaggerated or overstated and their real or true personal wishes, preferences and objectives are not ascertained.  

These outcomes amount to elder abuse and human rights abuse. 

The said negative outcomes will be avoided if the interrogations and assessments are given to private practice medical experts in capacity matters who produce expert reports for QCAT to adopt and for QCAT to make its decisions in accordance with the findings in the expert reports.      

4.1.7 The higher the perceived level of impairment, the easier it is for QCAT to justify the appointment of the OPG and the PTQ for all matters and leaving the affected men and women with no personal autonomy.

4.1.8 QCAT does not require the appropriate corroboration of key assertions and allegations of witnesses before giving judicial weight to such assertions and allegations.  

QCAT does not take the steps that Courts do to ensure that the evidence of witnesses in guardianship matters is truthful.  

4.1.8 Compared with the civil procedures in Courts, there is a much greater risk of QCAT making errors of fact and issue decisions based upon such errors of fact. 

4.2 Errors of fact that are commonly made in guardianship matters lead to: 

4.2.1 EPOA’s being cancelled unjustly or unfairly and enduring attorneys being stripped of their authority to act as enduring attorneys because of the acceptance of false accusations made by malicious family members as a basis for the cancellation of the EPOA.²⁸

²⁸The DLC-case is an example of an unjust revocation of the enduring power granted by a husband to his wife as his enduring attorney.

4.2.2 Decisions of impaired capacity being made and all autonomy being stripped away when the men and women affected by such decisions: 

4.2.2.1 do in fact have a significant or even high level of capacity and ability; and/or 

4.2.2.2 do operate very effectively and efficiently through the assistance of the members of their support network; and/or

4.2.2.3 there is no demonstrated risk of financial or personal harm to them.

4.2.3 The OPG is commonly appointed when there are spouses and other family members who could and should be appointed instead of the OPG.  

Considering that the OPG has a reputation for engaging in serious wrongdoing by not acting in the interests of the vulnerable, such OPG appointments by QCAT are simply wrong.

4.2.4 The PTQ is commonly appointed when there are spouses and other family members who could and should be appointed instead.  Considering that the PTQ has a reputation for engaging in wrongdoing, the maladministration of the financial interests resulting in financial loss to men and women under its administration, such PTQ appointments by QCAT are simply wrong.

4.2.5 QCAT needs to make proper judicial enquiries about financial loss or damage caused to the vulnerable.

QCAT needs to make decisions for the payment of compensation on account of money unlawfully taken or personal property retained by for example children who previously acted as enduring attorneys for the vulnerable parent for example.

4.2.6 QCAT needs to make decisions to compel the PTQ to compensate persons with impaired capacity for financial loss suffered by them on account of the PTQ’s maladministration of their financial interests.

4.2.7 QCAT needs to make decisions to protect the human rights of persons with impaired capacity by making the appointees accountable.

4.2.8 QCAT needs to make decisions to ensure that the general principles under the Guardianship Act are applied for the benefit of persons with impaired capacity. 

4.3 QCAT commonly engages in the inappropriate administration of its guardianship matters as follows: 

4.3.1 QCAT can (and often does) issue very short notices of hearing to interested parties, leaving them with insufficient time to prepare for the hearings.  

The practice of short notice of hearings to interested parties amounts to an abuse of process to the detriment of those interested parties as they do not have sufficient time to prepare for such hearings.

4.3.2 QCAT can and does hold bedside-hearings (on very short or even no notice to interested parties) in hospitals and care facilities where the vulnerable impaired may be located at the time.  

When not attended to by all interested parties who are prepared for such hearings, the practice of bedside-hearings amounts to an abuse of process and leads to unfair or unjust outcomes.

4.3.3 QCAT can and will make urgent interim decisions to subject men and women to declarations of impaired capacity when there is insufficient or even no expert medical evidence of impaired capacity and no evidence of the affected person being actually in danger.  

Urgent interim decisions are usually made when there is insufficient evidence to make final decisions and there is undue pressure from lying vexatious family members that the lives and personal autonomy of the vulnerable be suspended²⁹.

As a matter of policy, QCAT will not readily overturn interim urgent decisions made on insufficient or questionable evidence.  

To do so would be tantamount to QCAT admitting that it acted improperly or non-judicially when the interim urgent decisions were made.    

Accordingly, QCAT would rather continue on the path that it started out with and uphold the interim urgent decisions of impaired capacity made by it even though there was insufficient or questionable evidence at the time on which to base such decisions.  

Once the course is set to remove personal autonomy, that course is maintained even upon evidence of decision-making capacity becoming available later-on.

4.3.4 QCAT allows the editing of the transcripts for guardianship matters to the extent that they do not always correctly or completely reflect what occurred at or during the hearings.

4.3.5 QCAT does not publish all its guardianship cases.  Many reports about significant guardianship cases are simply not accessible to members of the public. 

4.3.6 As QCAT can inform itself in any which way, it allows informants to communicate directly with it on a confidential basis without all interested parties being informed.  

²⁹The PR-case involved questionable urgent interim decisions by QCAT. 

Examples of such informal communications are secret and confidential communications with persons representing the OPG, PTQ, QPS, Qld Health, social workers and others.  

This practice is not allowed in Courts where such communication is effectively prohibited by rules of civil procedures.

4.3.7 In relation to each guardianship matter, QCAT has two sets of files.  One set of files is confidential and private to QCAT and interested parties are not given access to them.  

The other set of files (usually much less in content) is the public record and can be accessed by interested parties³⁰.   

4.3.8 QCAT readily appoints medical practitioners to capacity-assess vulnerable persons recommended by Qld Guardianship for appointment and use and rely on their evidence to base its decisions on.  

Such medical-appointees tend to easily or readily make findings of impaired capacity and they tend to favour the appointment of the OPG and the PTQ for the vulnerable.

All capacity assessments should only be done by private practice medical experts in capacity matters who are nominated for appointment by the true or real support group for the vulnerable impaired.  

4.3.9 As already discussed above, QCAT does not always follow the advice of private expert medical evidence as to how the vulnerable must be treated in order to communicate with them in the most effective, fair and human rights compliant way or manner.

4.3.10 QCAT has shown itself to be careless by not ensuring that its decisions in guardianship matters do not breach the human rights of the vulnerable affected by the decisions.

4.3.11 QCAT can make adult evidence orders for its Tribunal Members to interrogate vulnerable persons without support or in a way which is contrary to the advice of private medical experts.  

For example, QCAT does not follow advice that no such interrogation be conducted by non-experts in a non-expert way or manner in order to avoid unjust results and human rights abuses. 

Adult evidence orders should simply be abolished as they cause elder abuse and human rights abuse.³¹

³⁰The existence of the QCAT system of two sets of files was confirmed, demonstrated and reported about by a Senior QCAT Member to the applicant in the MBL-case.
³¹Paragraphs 4.1.6.1 to 4.1.6.7 above explain the reasons as to why adult evidence orders would be offensive to the vulnerable. 

4.3.12 QCAT has not demonstrated that its staff and Members are adequately educated, skilled and experienced to interrogate vulnerable persons in accordance with the recommendations of private medical capacity experts.

4.3.13 QCAT is not sufficiently transparent in relation to its dealings with all interested parties.  

At times, QCAT (in relation parties interested in guardianship matters):

– does not record all material information;

– does not take all material information and evidence into account;

– records incorrect information; 

– records no information; or

– makes information “disappear”.

As a result of this, users of the QCAT system are often left with an inability to find judgements, reasons for judgements, correct transcripts of proceedings or filed materials.

5. LEGAL REPRESENTATION NOT ALLOWED IN ALL GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS

Legal representation in QCAT guardianship matters raise a number or issues for the vulnerable and members of their support group.

5.1 There is no right to legal representation for anyone involved in guardianship matters before QCAT.  If an interested party wants to be represented, that party needs to make an application to QCAT requesting leave.  

5.2 QCAT has the power to dismiss applications by interested parties to be legally represented.

QCAT commonly dismisses such applications in guardianship matters without just cause or without any proper judicial basis for it.  

QCAT may decide that unrepresented interested parties will be “inconvenienced” if the application should be allowed³².  

“Inconvenience” per se cannot constitute a proper judicial ground for dismissing an application to be legally represented, yet QCAT has used it.    

³²In the PR-case, QCAT used “inconvenience” to the other interested parties as its reason when it refused to allow the husband of the vulnerable wife legal representation.

5.3 In QCAT guardianship matters, there is always a need for legal representation to assist members of the support network of the vulnerable as well as the vulnerable themselves.

Guardianship matters are factually and legally complex because the Qld Guardianship system has been designed to be overly or unnecessarily complex to navigate.  

By being complex, it is easier for Qld Guardianship to remain in control of its guardianship system and to achieve its policy outcomes such as to effectively obtain and exercise control over the vulnerable and members of their support groups.  

In the interests of the vulnerable, it is essential that cross-examination and the testing of evidence be used or applied professionally in guardianship matters.

Cross-examination and the testing of evidence are essential in order to weed out the usual or commonly produced lies, deceit and misleading and deceptive conduct produced by ill-willed or immoral witnesses who give unsworn or un-affirmed evidence at QCAT hearings.  

The following are essential specialist tasks that can only be meaningfully and effectively performed by advocate-lawyers experienced in guardianship matters:

5.3.1 The cross-examination of witnesses;

5.3.2 The testing of documentary evidence; 

5.3.3 The drawing of factual conclusions;

5.3.4 The application of the laws; and 

5.3.5 The creation of helpful submissions in support of the vulnerable.

5.4 Those already affected by a declaration of impaired decision-making capacity do not have a right to legal representation when they have on-going guardianship matters before QCAT.

Examples of such on-going guardianship matters concerning the vulnerable after a declaration of impaired capacity are:

5.4.1 The need to use more of their own money in satisfaction of their lawful wishes and objectives when vexatious family members disagree and want the use of extra money prevented; and

5.4.2 The re-appointment of the OPG as guardian and/or the PTQ as financial administrator when the vulnerable and the true members of their support network do not want any such re-appointment.  

The following two main hurdles prevent those affected by a declaration of impaired capacity from obtaining legal representation:

5.4.3 They need evidence to show that they have the capacity to instruct a lawyer; and

5.4.4 Their financial administrator needs to be agreeable to enter into a solicitor client agreement on their behalf and have legal costs incorporated into their expense budget.

When the PTQ is their financial administrator and the vulnerable need or want legal representation, a QCAT decision would first have to be obtained directing the PTQ to engage a lawyer in accordance with a solicitor client agreement and to pay the legal costs reasonably incurred.  

Neither the OPG nor the PTQ would make any QCAT application for legal representation for the vulnerable.  

QCAT applications for legal representation for the vulnerable would have to be made by a member of the support network for the vulnerable.  

QCAT will dismiss such applications on the basis that the vulnerable have no legal capacity to engage lawyers or to give instructions to lawyers.   

5.5 The PTQ has an inhouse law firm at its disposal called the Official Solicitor who employs numerous lawyers and staff to do legal work for the PTQ, the OPG and possibly others.   

Where the PTQ appears in guardianship proceedings, it uses the Official Solicitor to represent it at the cost of the vulnerable affected by declarations of impaired capacity (“PTQ-clients”).  

The Official Solicitor acts on the instructions of the PTQ and looks after the interests of the PTQ, not the PTQ-clients.  

Any guardianship system that compels the vulnerable victims to pay for the legal costs of their oppressor administrator and guardian is absurd and disgraceful.

5.6 The interests of the PTQ and the PTQ-clients are not aligned i.e. there is a conflict of interests.  

This conflict of interests is in fact institutionalised by Qld Guardianship because of the existence of the relevant laws, rules and regulations that create and support it.

This means that the PTQ can or is authorised to administer the financial affairs of PTQ-clients in ways that other fiduciaries such as enduring attorneys cannot or may not do.    

5.7 Too often one finds that guardianship proceedings are initiated by one or more abusive vexatious adult children of vulnerable parents.  Such children support Qld Guardianship in having tyrannical control over their vulnerable parents. 

A common reason for this is that abusive vexatious adult children want their parents restricted from living with and being supported and loved by for example a spouse who is not subject to a declaration of impaired capacity.  

Such children would rather (against the wishes and instructions of their parents) have their parents institutionalised in an aged care facility with the support of Qld Guardianship in order to undermine the parent-spouse relationships.  

Abusive vexatious adult children would oppose any application for legal representation for the benefit of their parents or their parents’ spouses.  

Any such legal representation would put such children at risk of having their false and baseless assertions exposed by acting lawyers and having their objectives threatened.  

QCAT is at liberty to use the baseless arguments by abusive vexatious adult children against applications for legal representation in order to have such applications dismissed.  

Dismissal outcomes are a common occurrence and QCAT is known to have a reputation for dismissing applications for legal representation without just, fair and reasonable grounds being shown by opposing parties.

5.8 Once the PTQ is appointed, it will not pay for separate legal representation in favour of persons affected by a declaration of impaired capacity.  

The PTQ will argue that the persons affected by a decision of impaired capacity cannot instruct lawyers due to their lack of capacity to do so.  

The PTQ’s position is that those without capacity do not need legal representation as the PTQ and the Official Solicitor are appointed to look after their affairs in compliance with the objectives of Qld Guardianship.  

To this end, the reality of an institutionalised conflict of interests is conveniently overlooked in support of the PTQ position. 

5.9 Where a lawyer is prepared to act without being remunerated, such lawyer could become part of the support group of the vulnerable person and give evidence, ask questions and make submissions in the interests of the vulnerable persons.

5.10 Lawyers appointed by QCAT as separate representatives for vulnerable persons could act and appear.  Their function is to visit and enquire as to what the needs, wishes, preferences and objectives of the vulnerable impaired are and report to QCAT about it.

Separate representatives support the objectives of Qld Guardianship and not necessarily the wishes and objectives of the vulnerable.

There is a list of QCAT operatives who get appointed as separate representatives from time to time and they work against the members of the support network for the vulnerable impaired.

Any guardianship system that provides for the appointment of lawyers as separate representatives for the vulnerable impaired instead of private practice medical experts in capacity matters is absurd and disgraceful³³.

6. FABRICATED FAMILY CONFLICT – AN EXCUSE FOR APPOINTING THE OPG AND PTQ

6.1 QCAT guardianship matters commonly arise out of family conflict and the consequential victimisation of vulnerable persons (i.e. generally vulnerable parents).  

Family conflict is a breeding ground for elder abuse, human rights abuse and the non-compliance with the general principles of the Guardianship Act. 

Ubiquitous family conflict is a symptom of the traditional family-centred society breaking down and failing.  

6.2 Some of the mis-conduct related reasons for family conflict are:

6.2.1 Lack of respect for the vulnerable; 

6.2.2 Lack of honesty in relation to the affairs of the vulnerable; 

6.2.3 Breaches of common law obligations to the vulnerable (“elder & human rights abuses”); 

6.2.4 Adult children considering their vulnerable parents’ money as their inheritance; 

6.2.5 Adult children wanting to control, preserve and, restrict the use of, their vulnerable parents’ money to maximise their future inheritance;

6.2.6 Adult children being under a misconception that their future inheritance will be protected by the PTQ under its administration whereas the PTQ has its own agenda i.e. to profit from that money to the financial detriment of the entire family. ³⁴

³³Paragraphs 4.1.6.1 to 4.1.6.7 above explain the reasons as to why private practice medical experts in capacity matters need to be appointed to appropriately and adequately ascertain the needs, wishes, preferences and objectives of the vulnerable impaired.
³⁴Chapter 9 explains why and how the PTQ exploits the PTQ-client money under its administration.

Children do not understand that the PTQ itself is a statutory authorised financial predator and that their future inheritance will be significantly reduced by the PTQ as administrator for their parents.

Accordingly, when adult children maliciously succeed in having the OPG and the PTQ appointed for their vulnerable parents to spite, frustrate, traumatise and financially restrict their parents and members of their parents’ genuine or true support group, they also succeed in allowing their future inheritance to be depleted and plundered by the PTQ.  ³⁵    

6.3 Predator adult children engage in the elder & human rights abuse of their vulnerable parents and that becomes the reason for the commencement of QCAT guardianship proceedings.  The path to QCAT proceedings can be visualised as follows:

6.3.1 Parents with impaired capacity become a target when their adult children unfairly impose their views, wishes and objectives on their vulnerable parents for unjust, unfair and improper personal and financial reasons and when the children take adverse steps against the wishes and instructions of their vulnerable parents.  

The vulnerable parents and members of the parents’ support group reconfirm their disagreement with the position of the adult children and take steps to stop or reverse the steps taken by the children. 

The children then respond by making fabricated accusations or assertions about their vulnerable parents and members of the parents’ support group in order to attack them.  All of this constitutes “fabricated family conflict” because it is created through the wrongdoing of the adult children who use fabricated assertions to justify their position. 

6.3.2 Controlling, self-righteous and mean-spirited family members want to ensure that the vulnerable with impaired capacity lose all their personal autonomy and be placed under the tyrannical control of the QCAT appointed OPG and PTQ.  To that end, the mean-spirited use fabricated family conflict as a justification for the start QCAT guardianship proceedings about the vulnerable impaired.

6.3.3 Put differently, fabricated family conflict is commonly passed off as genuine family conflict by vexatious and disgruntled mean-spirited family members who want to stop members of the real or genuine private support network of the vulnerable impaired from allowing the vulnerable parents to lawfully live a life of their choice and for members of the support network to be appointed as guardians and administrators instead of the OPG and PTQ.

Mean-spirited family members insist that QCAT appoint the OPG and PTQ to protect the so-called interests of the mean-spirited family members and the vulnerable impaired.  

³⁵The DLC-case is a good example of the severe financial damage done to an estate under administration over a period of about 10 years.

In reality however, no protection is needed or required as there is no actual family conflict, just fabricated immaterial family conflict. 

The reality also is that there is no need for the appointment of the OPG and PTQ to solve the alleged problems put forward by the mean-spirited family members as such problems either do not exist or could be easily solved if the mean-spirited family members were to act morally appropriately and respectfully. 

The problem of fabricated family conflict is exacerbated by the OPG accepting the false assertions of the mean-spirited family members and report about it to QCAT (without corroboration) as if those assertions were true, correct, fair and reasonable. 

The OPG reports are generally misleading and deceptive because they contain corrupted information deliberately used to support the mean-spirited family members and the OPG’s position as appointed guardian.

6.4 As already indicated, fabricated family conflict commonly occurs when children of vulnerable impaired parents impose themselves and act as enduring attorneys and (without the consent or approval of their parents) do things contrary to the interests of their parents.  

The conduct of such adult children amounts to serious wrongdoing for the reasons explained in the following paragraphs.  

6.4.1 The children commit elder abuse when they do things for or affecting their parents that their parents clearly do not want and that their parents consider to be negative or damaging. 

6.4.2 The children pretend that the level of vulnerability or impairment of their vulnerable parents is so high that the parents cannot legally comprehend the nature and consequences of what the children are doing for the parents.  The children make such assertions about lack of capacity on the part of their parents without any real or true expert medical evidence in support of their assertions.

6.4.3 While acting as enduring attorneys for their vulnerable parents, children breach their fiduciary duties by not acting in the interests of their parents or by not giving effect to the wishes or objectives of their parents.  

6.4.4 Children baselessly assert that the spouses or partners of their vulnerable parents constitute a financial risk to their parents or that the spouses or partners are not looking after their parent properly and that the parents should no longer have access to, or control of, their own financial resources in order to prevent the spouses or partners from having potential access to or control of such financial resources through the parents.

6.4.5 Children baselessly assert that the spouses or partners of their parents are controlling their parents in a negative way or manner and that the parent-spouse access or contact with each other should be limited and controlled.  

Examples of negative control over parents by children are: 

6.4.5.1 the spouses and partners do not properly or adequately assist the parents with their medication-taking; 

6.4.5.2 the spouses and partners restrict contact by and visits from family members; 

6.4.5.3 the spouses and partners prompt or encourage parents to make complaints of elder abuse against the children; 

6.4.5.4 the spouses and partners exert pressure on parents in terms of their standard of living;

6.4.5.5 the spouses and partners prevent parents from being admitted to an aged care facility.  

6.5 Adult children of the vulnerable impaired have the following malevolent motives for their lies and misleading and deceptive conduct within the context of fabricated family conflict (“wrongdoing”):

6.5.1 Children engage in wrongdoing to demonstrate that their actions and steps taken as enduring attorneys for their parents were justified even though their parents disagreed and did not want those steps taken.  

6.5.2 Children engage in wrongdoing to demonstrate that their parents have had a high level of impairment (including during the time the children acted for their parents as enduring attorneys) and that their parents have been in need of financial administration as well as guardianship in relation to all personal and health matters of their parents.

6.5.3 Children engage in wrongdoing to demonstrate that their parents are at risk of elder abuse and human rights abuse and (as a consequence) their parents should not have any personal autonomy whatsoever.

6.5.4 Children engage in wrongdoing to demonstrate that the spouses or partners of their parents are the cause of family conflict and should not have any power to make decisions for their parent as enduring attorney or should not have the power to support their parent.

6.5.5 Children engage in wrongdoing to demonstrate that the appointment of the OPG and PTQ as guardian and administrator for their parents are preferred, needed or required following the cancellation or revocation of the earlier appointment of the children as the enduring attorneys for their parents.   

To this end, children baselessly assert (without corroborating expert medical evidence) that their parents’ level of impairment is significantly higher or greater than what it actually is and that a declaration of impaired capacity should be urgently made for their parents for financial, personal and health matters.  

6.5.6 Children engage in wrongdoing to demonstrate that family members of their parent will not be able to contact or visit their parent if the OPG is not appointed as guardian of their parents.

6.5.7 Children engage in wrongdoing to minimise the use of their parents’ capital for day-to-day living and capital expenses so that they can inherit as much capital as possible in the future.

6.6 The OPG as public guardian is charged with the responsibility and statutory duty to protect the interests of all vulnerable men and women in Qld including against the wrongdoing and actions of predator adult children and other mean-spirited family members of the vulnerable.  

The OPG however does not expose the lies and misleading and deceptive conduct of mean-spirited family members and does nothing to stop them from causing personal harm to their vulnerable parents and members of their support network.  

6.7 Neither the OPG nor QCAT exposes or calls out the obvious lies and misleading and deceptive conduct of such children and the other mean-spirited vexatious family members.  The wrongdoers are the ones who make applications for the removal of appointed enduring attorneys (with the support of the OPG as per the OPG reports) and call for the appointment of the OPG and the PTQ as guardian and administrator for the vulnerable.  

6.8 QCAT does not insist on predatory adult children and the other mean-spirited vexatious family members having their assertions sworn, affirmed or corroborated.  

As a result, the evidence in most guardianship matters end up being tarnished with lies, deceit and misleading and deceptive conduct that can deeply offend, traumatise and mentally torture the vulnerable and the members of their support networks.    

The evidential mess so created via the said wrongdoers and their interaction with the OPG and QCAT then becomes an incentive for QCAT to simply make declarations of impaired capacity covering a range of personal matters and appoint the OPG and PTQ.

6.9 One will find that the OPG and the PTQ will not take any meaningful steps to solve or remove or repair the problems and issues associated with, or the damage caused by, wrongdoers who engage in fabricated family conflict.

6.10 The only logical and even obvious conclusion one could and should come to is that the OPG and the PTQ use the negative and destructive effects of fabricated family conflict as a basis for their tyrannical control of the vulnerable impaired and the members of their genuine support network. ³⁶ 

Through their destructive modus operandi, the wrongdoers, the OPG and the PTQ in conjunction with the QCAT determinations and decisions: 

6.10.1 Attack and destroy the spirit of autonomy and self-determination of the vulnerable men and women and the members of their genuine or true support network (“those targeted”);

6.10.2 Deliberately spoil or even altogether destroy the personal choices, preferences, objectives and enjoyment of life of those targeted;

6.10.3 Do not have the damage caused by the wrongdoing repaired or rectified; ³⁷

6.10.4 Inflict elder abuse and human rights abuse on those targeted;³⁸ and

6.10.5 Cause those targeted to suffer utter frustration, anxiety, mental anguish and mental torture which constitute elder abuse and human rights abuse.

7. ABUSIVE INTERROGATION PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES

7.1 Men and women become vulnerable for various reasons, including (but not limited to) the following conditions or circumstances which do not necessarily render them altogether without any meaningful or effective mental or legal capacity:

7.1.1 Poor or failing memory, on-set dementia;

7.1.2 Aphasia (i.e. speech and reading difficulties);

7.1.3 Anxiety, delirium, depression;

7.1.4 Need for medication to treat bipolar disorder for example; and

7.1.5 Minor brain damage, impaired movements, etc.  

These vulnerable men and women need appropriate support in order to render the disability insignificant in terms of their decision-making.  

In other words, they need the support in order to deal with their conditions effectively so that their mental capacity potential is maximised and their impairment levels minimised or rendered insignificant in terms of their decision-making.  

³⁶Chapters 8 and 9 describe the nature and extent of the tyrannical control of the OPG and the PTQ.
³⁷Chapters 8 and 9 contain details of the wrongdoing.
 ³⁸Chapters 8 and 9 contain details of the abuse.

7.2 Appropriate support for the vulnerable could be by way of: 

7.2.1 Facilitating document and record-keeping for their benefit so that they can refresh their memory.

7.2.2 Providing them with written communication services as opposed to verbal communication services.  They find verbal communications overwhelming, unsettling

and unreliable as verbal statements made to them could be later denied, etc.

7.2.3 Providing them with sufficient time to assess and respond to questions and by not putting pressure on them to respond quickly.

7.2.4 Being capacity-assessed privately by private medical capacity experts who use appropriate techniques for effective communication (e.g. the scaffolding of questions) in order to discover their true potential in terms of mental capacity.  Scaffolding is a way to build on knowledge i.e. by asking questions meant to connect and build on or layer to previous knowledge.  The purpose of scaffolding is to systematically and logically prepare the vulnerable for the successful answer of a question and to allow them to express the answer as their own.

7.2.5 Ensuring that they have the use of suitable prescription medication in order to treat their debilitating conditions appropriately and effectively.

When appropriate support is not provided while dealing with them, the vulnerable will appear to have a much higher level of impairment than what is actually the case when they are appropriately and adequately supported.

7.3 Inappropriate or insufficient support commonly occurs in guardianship matters as follows:

7.3.1 In the lead up to decisions of impaired capacity by QCAT, vulnerable men and women are commonly ordered onto the QCAT-evidence stage and pressed to answer a barrage of questions quickly without them being given the appropriated support needed (refer examples of support usually needed or required).   

Being on the public stage creates mental and emotional pressure particularly when there is a lack of appropriate support.  

Such situations commonly lead to confusing, incomplete, irrelevant, babbling responses that would make the vulnerable impaired feel degraded, insulted and humiliated.  The likely main reason as to why the vulnerable impaired would feel degraded, insulted and humiliated is that they know full well that they are not performing well when “examined” on the public stage.

Such examination on the public stage constitutes elder abuse and human rights abuse.

QCAT and the OPG knowingly and with intent avoid the use of scaffolding to achieve their corrupt objective which is to demonstrate as high a level of impairment as possible.

This constitutes elder abuse and human rights abuse.

7.3.2 Without appropriate support services, the vulnerable impaired are usually not able to properly express or convey their true or real understanding of matters, their wishes or demonstrate their true or real personal needs and objectives.

Consequently, their true or real personal needs and objectives are not established, recorded and given effect to.  

When a lack of support affects the elderly, it constitutes elder abuse and human rights abuse.  

Elder abuse and human rights abuse caused by a lack of support commonly occurs within the context of Qld Guardianship.

7.3.3 QCAT can and does use adult evidence orders for Tribunal Members to interrogate the vulnerable impaired privately and without supervision and without appropriate support (refer paragraphs 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 above). 

Tribunal Members are neither trained nor educated nor skilled to appropriately and effectively communicate with vulnerable men and women in a professional way such as the way in which private expert medical witnesses would do it.  Such experts are also equipped to advise others as to how to do it appropriately and effectively.

Tribunal Members are not obligated to comply with special interrogation rules for the protection of vulnerable persons.

The outcome of adult evidence orders is usually detrimental to the vulnerable involved (refer negative outcomes in paragraphs 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 above).

The above-mentioned negative consequences produced during the interrogation of the vulnerable impaired constitute elder abuse and human rights abuse. 

7.4 When considering the evidence about the mental and legal capacity of the vulnerable impaired, QCAT distinguishes between simple financial matters and/or complex financial matters as well as simple personal health matters and/or complex personal health matters. 

Such distinction by QCAT is superficial and contrived as there is neither a QCAT nor Guardianship Act based definition for simple versus complex financial or personal health decisions.

In any event, even men and women with a high level of mental and legal capacity require advice from for example expert financial advisers as finance and investment are very complex fields for even men and women with full legal and mental capacity.  

An inability regarding complex financial decisions should accordingly not be used to make a declaration of impaired capacity affecting anyone because such approach is flawed.  When applied to vulnerable men and women, it will amount to elder abuse and human rights abuse.

A similar argument applies to personal health matters i.e. even men and women with a high level of mental and legal capacity require advice from for example medical experts and specialists as personal health is a very complex field for everyone.  

Healthcare has been horribly corrupted and complicated by false, misleading and deceptive information propagated and spread by big pharma corporations, their sponsored government departments and some medicos (e.g. drug pushing psychiatrists).

Any inability in relation to complex personal health decisions should accordingly not be used as a primary or sole basis upon which to make a declaration of impaired capacity affecting anyone.

7.5 Only independent private capacity expert medical witnesses should be used to interview and communicate with vulnerable men and women about their capacity and only medical expert views should be considered in relation to the level of capacity or impairment of the vulnerable.

QCAT however takes into account the observations, views and conclusions of family members, non-expert medical witnesses and Tribunal Members.  

QCAT’s position is that such evidence is material to the issue of capacity.  

Non-expert evidence should never have any bearing on findings or determinations of impaired capacity.  

QCAT’s position that non-expert evidence can be taken into account is wrong because unjust and unfair decisions about impaired capacity could be easily made as a result of it.  

Wrong decisions about capacity amounts to elder and human rights abuses.

7.6 The issue of impaired capacity goes to the heart or core of personal autonomy and human rights.  

The associated onus and standard of proof for impaired capacity should be appropriately and sufficiently high in order to avoid elder and human rights abuses.  

In layman’s terms, the personal power and autonomy to operate independently due to one’s legal and mental capacity is a core right that should not be “messed with” or “weakened” unless there is strong expert medical evidence of impaired capacity and the need for decision-making assistance.

7.7 The use of adult evidence orders should be abolished because they are misused to the detriment of the vulnerable involved and (when misused) forms a basis for elder and human rights abuses.

8. WRONGDOING BY THE APPOINTED OFFICE OF PUBLIC GUARDIAN (“OPG”)

8.1 The OPG is a statutory guardian-entity created pursuant to the Public Guardian Act 2014 of Qld (“OPG Act”) which grants the OPG a specific statutory guardianship role with powers and functions to act as such when (for example) appointed by QCAT as guardian for persons affected by a declaration of impaired capacity.  

The public guardian system started in 1998 as the Office of the Adult Guardian Qld (“OAG”) and it is currently facilitated by the OPG.

One of the key objectives of the OPG is to “source” vulnerable impaired adults, obtain QCAT decisions for its appointment as their guardian (“OPG-clients”) and deliver guardianship services to those OPG-clients.

8.2 The OPG has published a large volume of materials about its best practice and structured decision-making framework that it allegedly operates under.  

As the ill-treatment of OPG-clients is vicious and omnipresent (refer case study details below and the RP Story), the OPG materials about its best practice and structured decision-making framework amounts to self-serving propaganda in support of the OPG.

8.3 From the OPG Annual Report for 2022/2023, it appears that about 80% of the OPG annual budget of $37M is spent on OPG salaries, wages, employee entitlements and superannuation.

It is questionable as to whether or not it is appropriate, efficient and cost effective in terms of benefits for Queensland as a whole to spend the best part of $37M (i.e. about 80%) annually to facilitate institutionalised elder and human rights abuses vis-à-vis OPG-clients. 

When considering the hundreds of millions of dollars of income that the PTQ annually generates for the Qld Government out of the financial resources of the PTQ-clients under its administration, the cost of OPG funding is comparatively minor and justified from the perspective of Qld Guardianship.  

Without the OPG channelling clients to the PTQ through the OPG’s investigation services, the money-making system underpinning Qld Guardianship would not be as cost effective.  The need to spend Qld taxpayers’ money on OPG investigation services as part of the overall Qld Guardianship system is accordingly understandable.

8.4 In terms of its main powers and functions, the OPG:

8.4.1 Provides substituted decision-making services about the personal matters of OPG-clients;

8.4.2 Investigates allegations of neglect, exploitation, abuse and inappropriate or inadequate decision-making arrangements that allegedly affect those with impaired decision-making; and

8.4.3 monitors visitable sites where those with impaired decision-making stay.  

8.5 With reference to paragraph 8.4.2 above, the OPG acts as a gateway for information-gathering about adults who may have impaired decision-making capacity but who are not yet subject to any QCAT decision of impaired decision-making capacity (“targeted victims”).

8.6 The OPG information gathering system operates as follows:

8.6.1 The OPG has a revolving door open to vexatious mean-spirited family members, medical staff, social workers, banking personnel, police officers and others to assist the OPG in terms of information-gathering affecting targeted victims.

8.6.2 The OPG also does its own investigation work (with the assistance of persons engaged by the OPG), about targeted victims by for example obtaining all of their medical records without the consent or without the knowledge of the targeted victims. 

8.6.3 The information gathering procedures of the OPG about targeted victims is systematic and systemic.  

It happens when reports of concern are lodged with the OPG.  The reports of concern usually precede the filing of applications for a declaration about capacity with QCAT.  The OPG can or may make such applications. 

8.6.4 The OPG investigations happen behind closed doors and it is essentially about evidence-gathering for the intended QCAT proceedings which will be about obtaining declarations of impaired decision-making capacity whereby the targeted victims will lose all personal autonomy to the OPG and have their financial affairs administered by the PTQ.  

8.6.5 As part of its investigations, the OPG has unlimited and unqualified statutory powers to demand and collect information about targeted victims from anyone.  

Such OPG information gathering powers are not subject to judicial review as the OPG has no duty or obligation under the OPG-Act to release such information to anyone.  

No-one would be prepared to make a Supreme Court application for a judicial review as the associated legal cost would be prohibitive.

8.6.6 This explains why the OPG is under no obligation to provide QCAT with the information and associated documents the OPG obtained as a result of the investigations. 

QCAT does not require the OPG to corroborate its assertions as per its reports to QCAT and interested parties.

8.6.7 The overall effect of the OPG powers and functions is that Qld Guardianship through its OPG has within it an engineered capacity or capability to facilitate corruption.

The reason as to why the OPG has the capability to facilitate corruption is that the OPG can lie, mislead and deceive without the OPG being found out or being held accountable for its wrongdoing. 

8.6.8 A strong inference could and ought to be drawn that the OPG interviews family members and friends (including vexatious mean-spirited family members) of targeted victims with the ulterior motive of getting information about impaired decision-making capacity and so-called family conflict pertaining to the targeted victims.

8.6.9 Once the OPG investigations are complete, the OPG must create a report about its investigations.  

The OPG is only required to report in a way that the OPG considers appropriate.

8.6.10 The OPG: 

 –  does not have to report in full;

 – does not have to report correctly;

 – does not have to show any source documents to corroborate its findings, recommendations or conclusions.  

8.6.11 The OPG is not obligated to let anyone have access to or obtain copies of the information and associated documents that the OPG has obtained.  

As a result, the OPG cannot be appropriately, effectively and efficiently exposed when it lies or engages in misleading and deceptive conduct.

8.6.12 Without a Court order, the OPG cannot be compelled to provide copies of its information.  

Seeking and obtaining Court orders for the discovery or disclosure of OPG information-documents would be problematic in terms of finding a legal basis upon which disclosure could be compelled.  It would also be problematic in terms of the personal effort required and the legal costs that would need to be incurred in order to obtain a satisfactory Court order for discovery.  

The effect of this is that if information is sought from the OPG (and if the OPG should refuse to provide it, which would usually be the case), those who want the information will never be able to obtain it.     

8.6.13 The OPG can report to QCAT confidentially about guardianship matters without having to serve a copy of the OPG report on all interested parties.   

Accordingly, QCAT hearings could be concluded without all interested parties knowing the information in such confidential OPG reports.  Without the information, the interested parties will be unable to test or challenge the information in the OPG reports. 

8.7 The OPG can suspend the powers of an enduring attorney unfairly or unjustly.

8.8 The OPG can consent to the forensic examination of targeted victims without providing them with the support that they need in order to demonstrate their maximum level of capacity and ability.

8.9 The OPG is commonly appointed to make substituted decisions for those with impaired decision-making capacity in relation to their accommodation, contact with others, health and dental care and service-provision.

8.10 The OPG can make decisions unilaterally for those subject to a declaration of impaired decision-making capacity about their personal matters as covered by the terms of the OPG’s appointment.  

In making such decisions, the OPG does not have to take into account their true or real preferences, needs and objectives and the OPG does not have to make its decisions in a way which is reflective of such preferences, needs and objectives.

8.11 The OPG decision-making for the vulnerable impaired is done through a large number of employees and contractors (“OPG-staff”) who assess the relevant circumstances and make decisions that have the following effect: 

8.11.1 The OPG with the assistance of the OPG-staff can be authoritarian and unreasonably and unjustly impose their will on the vulnerable impaired in a tyrannical unlawful way or manner.  

8.11.2 The OPG has the capacity and opportunity to engage in institutionalised elder and human rights abuse.

The reasons for this essentially are:

 – The legal framework under which the OPG operates does not prohibit or punish such abuse; and 

 – The legal framework under which the OPG operates does not place the OPG under any obligation to compensate its victims via for example civil penalties for the non-financial damage caused by such abuse.

8.11.3 If it were never intended for the guardianship system to have the capacity to inflict elder and human rights abuse without being accountable, 

Qld Guardianship would have been created as a guardianship system that effectively discouraged, prevented and penalised such abuse.  

The horrifying reality is that Qld Guardianship does not effectively discourage, prevent and penalise such abuse.   

8.11.4 There is in fact a long history of elder and human rights abuses inflicted by OPG-staff on the targeted victims.

8.11.5 The OPG promotes the idea of family conflict rather than effectively resolving or dismantling fabricated family conflict.

The main reason for this is that the OPG wants to remain appointed so that it can play its exploitation and control role in lockstep with the PTQ.

Accordingly, where family members (for example) baselessly assert that they are being prevented from having contact with and access to the vulnerable impaired, 

the OPG as guardian for the vulnerable impaired will never encourage those family members to make their own private contact arrangements in an appropriate and reasonable way or manner.  

The reason for this is that the OPG knows that the assertions are part of fabricated family conflicts which need to stay in place in order for the OPG and the PTQ to have a springboard from which to achieve their own objectives under Qld Guardianship.

8.11.6 Under the OPG guardianship, there commonly is a risk of the vulnerable impaired being placed in an aged care facility against their wishes and under circumstances where family members are already caring for them privately and where such care is appropriate and adequate.

8.11.7 The OPG can act on engineered or manufactured evidence from service providers such as corrupt ACAT assessments to the detriment of the vulnerable impaired.  

8.11.8 Existing home arrangements for the vulnerable impaired could be attacked by the OPG on the false or fabricated basis that they do not constitute suitable accommodation when they in fact do.

8.11.9 The OPG’s appointment is readily extended by QCAT for further terms even when there is ample evidence that the OPG is not needed or that its appointment is in fact harmful to those affected by it.  

The OPG’s appointment would not be needed if there are support networks for the vulnerable impaired such as spouses and others who do in fact adequately and appropriately assist the vulnerable impaired privately.

The OPG’s appointment would neither be needed if the vulnerable impaired should in fact have a substantial level of capacity.

8.12 The OPG is not accountable and has no liability for its wrongdoing for the following reasons:

8.12.1 Injunctions are the only available legal remedy against human rights abuses by the OPG.  The legal requirements for injunctions are technical and injunction proceedings are expensive.

8.12.2 No legal remedies are available under the Guardianship Act to compel the OPG to apply the general principles. 

8.12.3 No common law remedies such as breaches of fiduciary duties are available against OPG decisions which are not in the personal interest of OPG-clients.

8.12.4 Damages or financial compensation is not an available remedy for mental trauma, mental anguish, mental torture, belittlement and humiliation inflicted by the OPG on OPG-clients.  

8.13 The substituted decision-making services about the personal matters of OPG-clients have the following negative consequences that are not in the public interest:

8.13.1 Substituted decision-making effectively creates tyrannical control over the personal lives of the OPG-clients as they get what they do not want (including trauma and mental torture).

8.13.2 Substituted decision-making does not seek to find the true or real personal wishes and objectives of the OPG-clients and decisions are made for them that destroy their lawful wishes and objectives and damage them financially.

8.13.3 Substituted decision-making allows the use of OPG-client money on poor services provided by predator service providers and thereby cause the OPG-clients personal misery.

8.13.4 Substituted decision-making demoralises the OPG-clients and their support networks, damage or break their spirit, make them feel defeated and undermine their future opportunities to achieve personal freedom.

8.13.5 Substituted decision-making lowers the life expectancy of the vulnerable impaired as it allows them to be institutionalised when there is no real need for it.  

Institutionalised OPG-clients generally have a much lower life-expectancy than those who live privately with family and friends.   Institutionalised OPG-clients could accordingly be moved on to their final resting place sooner.

8.13.6 Substituted decisions are made for those with impaired decision-making capacity regardless or notwithstanding their lawful wishes and objectives.  

Such decisions generally do not reasonably reflect their lawful wishes and objectives. 

8.13.7 The level of impairment of those affected is irrelevant as the objective of Qld Guardianship is to strip away all personal autonomy even in relation to those matters that the vulnerable impaired does have decision-making capacity.

Accordingly, the OPG can apply its substituted decision-making powers even in relation to the areas not affected by any impaired decision-making.

8.13.8 The OPG does not have any duty to truthfully or correctly determine the matters in relation to which the vulnerable impaired could or should have personal autonomy and make their own decisions in relation to those matters. 

8.14 Case-study examples of OPG wrongdoing include (but are not limited to) the following:

8.14.1 OPG’s destruction of planned overseas honeymoon through its deliberate failure to retrieve the passport of the vulnerable impaired retired mother 

In mid-July 2018, the OPG supported the position of two adult children and had the OPG and the PTQ appointed for their married mother by way of an urgent interim QCAT application and hearing.  

The QCAT decision concluded that the mother had impaired decision-making capacity without any medical expert evidence in support of the QCAT conclusion.

The following events occurred prior to the appointment of the OPG and PTQ:

The mother was in a long-term de facto relationship with a man.  Their relationship started in 2012.  They were happy together and spent most of their time with each other as retirees.   They regularly went on holidays together, including overseas holidays. 

The mother had the said children (i.e. the older daughter and a younger son) previously appointed as her enduring attorneys in about 2013.

In about 2016, the mother became a victim of medical negligence, was prescribed the wrong drugs and her memory started to fail.  With the assistance of her partner and professional service providers such as medical professionals, the mother continued to make her own decisions lawfully and lived a normal, fit and active life.  

The older daughter wanted to take control of her mother’s life and started to falsely assert that her mother was not coping well at home, was in danger of injuring herself, was not taking her prescribed medicine regularly, needed home care, no longer had legal and mental capacity, etc.  

The younger son lived overseas.  He did not know first-hand as to what was really going on in the life of his mother.  He believed the older daughter’s false assertions about the mother and he supported the older daughter’s management plan for the mother (refer details below).  

The mother did not agree with the management plan.  The mother was however vulnerable and felt pressured to go along with the steps taken by the older daughter.  

The partner opposed the management plan because he knew that the assertions of the older daughter were false, that the mother did not agree with the arrangements of the daughter and that the mother would be disadvantaged by the arrangements.  The partner knew that the arrangements clearly were not in the best interests of the mother.  

As their mother’s enduring attorneys, the two children then forcibly took control of their mother’s affairs against the will and wishes of the mother, sold her home, placed her in an aged care facility to live there in a self-contained unit and had an ACAT assessment done to get a services-package for the mother that the mother did not need or want either. 

The mother spent most of her time with her partner, including at his home because she was fully supported and loved there by her partner.  The mother did not want to live in the aged care facility.  She only spent a minimum number of nights per week there.  

As enduring attorney of the mother, the older daughter then took steps to financially compel the mother to spent every night at the aged care facility.  This was done on the basis of a corrupt ACAT assessment that falsely concluded that the mother was in great personal need and may need a range of High Care services at the aged care facility.   The mother neither wanted nor required such services.  Regardless of this, the older daughter had the service agreement with the aged care facility amended so that the mother would be provided High Care at the aged care facility and compelled to spend all of her nights at the facility bar 52 nights per year and that the mother would be charged $100.00 for every night over the 52 nights per year spent away from the facility.  

The mother felt severely oppressed, stressed and mentally tormented and, with the assistance of her partner, obtained legal advice to get married to her de facto husband so that the enduring power of attorney (“EPOA”) in favour of the children could be revoked by marriage and the cycle of oppression via the enduring power of attorney stopped.  

About 6 months later (which was early-July 2018), the mother and her partner married.  The marriage revoked the EPOA.  The mother then permanently left the aged care facility and moved in with her husband on a full-time basis.  The husband owned the house they were living in at the time.   

The mother’s personal needs continued to be fully satisfied as per her preferences and objectives and with the kind and loving assistance and support of her husband and other family members.

The children then immediately made the urgent interim application with QCAT for a declaration of impaired decision-making capacity in relation to their mother.  The children’s case amounted to fabricated family conflict and false allegations about the mother being in personal jeopardy.  

In mid-July 2018, QCAT (amongst other things) appointed the OPG as the mother’s guardian even though the appointment was certainly not warranted considering the applicable circumstances.  The mother was being fully looked after, there was no expert medical evidence of impaired decision-making capacity on the part of the mother and the children engaged in lies and misleading and deceptive conduct about the mother’s circumstances and needs.   

During this awful time of personal turmoil, the mother needed her passport in order to travel with her husband to the UK in August 2018 for their honeymoon (i.e. a trip that had already been planned by the mother and her husband).  Despite various requests addressed to the OPG and the older daughter for the return of the passport, it remained unlawfully confiscated by the malfeasant older daughter who was not entitled to have possession of the passport as her appointment as enduring attorney of the mother had been revoked by the mother’s marriage.  

The OPG was entitled and at liberty to collect the passport from the older daughter and deliver it to the mother.  The OPG was also responsible and obligated to do the right thing by the mother and have the passport returned.  Any failure on the part of the OPG would amount to the deliberate elder abuse and human rights abuse of the mother by the OPG and of course the older daughter.

The older daughter continued to exercise tyrannical control over her mother and her relationship with her husband by holding on to various items of her mother’s personal property, including her passport.  

The OPG had full knowledge of this passport offence as well as strong and corroborated allegations of an assault of the mother by the older daughter and the husband of the older daughter.  

The mother and her husband verbally communicated with the OPG and also wrote to the OPG more than once and asked the OPG to promptly retrieve the passport from the malfeasant daughter in order to meet the planned timelines associated with the planned UK honeymoon trip.  

Under the circumstances, the mother was entitled to travel to the UK.  The mother’s GP had given medical advice that there was no foreseeable risk associated with the mother travelling to the UK accompanied by her very capable, experienced and caring husband (as they had done on numerous occasions prior to that). 

The OPG deliberately failed to assist and the travel plans were frustrated and had to be cancelled (i.e. nothing could come of it).  The mother simply could not travel to the UK with her newly-wed husband in August 2018 for their honeymoon without her passport which the OPG failed to retrieve for her when it was required and needed.

The OPG consequently engaged in the elder abuse and human rights abuse of the mother.

In its subsequent report to QCAT, the OPG (in a misleading, deceptive and corrupt way or manner) asserted that discussions and negotiations about the proposed honeymoon trip were ongoing whereas it was (in fact) an actual planned trip for August 2018 that had to be cancelled due to the wrongful inaction on the part of the OPG to retrieve the passport in time for the already planned UK honeymoon trip.  

This actual story about the failed UK honeymoon trip clearly demonstrates the deliberate intentional tyrannical control and psychological abuse that the OPG can and did in fact exercise heinously over its OPG-client (i.e. the mother), causing further blatant elder and human rights abuse in relation to the mother as well as her husband.  

There were many other and more damaging real-life incidents of the OPG and the said children engaging in elder and human rights abuses of the mother.  However, the story about the failed UK honeymoon trip is herein reported to show that the OPG will even revert to the destruction of a vulnerable impaired person’s planned and booked holiday as part of its mission of tyrannical control.  

The process of abuse essentially works as follows:  

There is fabricated family conflict created and fuelled by adult children harming their mother.  

The OPG does nothing to right the wrongs created by the children’s malfeasance and in fact uses it as a basis for its appointment as guardian.  

The OPG then proceeds to use the malfeasance of the children as a basis from which it launches or creates its own malfeasance against the mother and her husband i.e. the exercise of its tyrannical control over them in an attempt to break their spirit and tarnish the husband-and-wife relationship.  

In the end, the OPG succeeds in destroying the lawful plans and objectives of its OPG-client and her husband, taking away their personal autonomy to travel overseas and imposing psychological abuse and utter frustration on its OPG-client and her husband.

8.14.2 PTQ’s repudiation of its agreement to buy an ordered Mini with personalised plates for the husband

In 2013, the OPG was appointed as the guardian and the PTQ as the financial administrator for a husband who was subject to a QCAT declaration of impaired decision-making capacity.  The husband was already married to his third wife.  They were living together in their jointly owned home and supported each other in a loving way or manner.  She had full legal and mental capacity and properly looked after him on a full-time basis.

Prior to their marriage, they lived together in a de facto relationship for about 10 years.

The said QCAT decisions were motivated by the biological adult daughters of the husband from his first marriage.  On the basis of their misleading evidence, the daughters managed to convince the OPG, the PTQ and QCAT that the third wife posed a danger to their father, was after his money, that their father’s marriage was invalid, that the third wife prevented them from visiting their father and that the appointment of the OPG and the PTQ was essential to protect their relationship with their father and their father’s wealth totalling about $14M.  

The daughters wanted their father placed in a nursing home to break up the union with his third wife.  For many years, the daughters had neglected their father by having occasional contact with him and their assertions about not being able to visit him were a complete fabrication.  

The reality was that the daughters were preying on their father financially in that they wanted their inheritance from him as soon as possible.  The daughters deeply resented their father’s third marriage and wanted to destroy it.  They also resented the fact that their father had stopped being an alcoholic, that he was eating good plant-based foods only, that he exercised regularly and had a potentially longer life-expectancy as a result of all the positive changes in his life.  These positive changes were essentially the result of the constructive influence of the father’s third wife (“wife”).  

In 2014, the husband and his wife wanted to buy a new Mini motorcar for their shared use.  The wife contacted the PTQ, sought its approval and obtained it.  The PTQ agreed to pay a $1,000.00 deposit once the car was ordered and to also pay the amount required for the personalised plates. When the Mini was ordered, the PTQ paid both the deposit and amount for the plates.

When the car was ready to be collected and a dealer-contract had to be co-signed by the PTQ, the wife asked the PTQ to proceed on behalf of the husband and also pay the balance of the purchase price.  

The PTQ then repudiated its earlier agreement and refused to co-sign and proceed with the purchase of the Mini on behalf of the husband.  The PTQ informed the husband and wife that the OPG did not think it was in the husband’s interest to buy the Mini, that the two daughters were against the purchase of the Mini and that the PTQ was now also of the view that it was not in the best interests of the husband (who was a multi-millionaire with no liabilities).

As a result of the PTQ’s repudiation of its agreement with the husband and wife, the wife was then forced to use her own limited funds to buy the Mini.  This meant that the husband and wife were both subjected to psychological abuse and mental anguish inflicted upon them by the PTQ and the OPG who used the unconscionable, selfish and irrelevant objections of the daughters to suddenly argue that the purchase of the Mini was no longer in the interests of the husband.

The position of both the OPG and PTQ should have been that the daughters had no right to dictate to their father that he should not buy a Mini for him and his wife to enjoy together.  

This case also demonstrates the level of malfeasance and abuse that is being created by Qld Guardianship via the OPG and PTQ who (on the basis of fabricated family conflict) engineered further personal and psychological damage to be inflicted on the wife and her husband in order to break their spirit through the destruction of their personal autonomy, enjoyment of life and lawful choices.

8.14.3 OPG/PTQ’s repudiation of their agreement to have bathrooms, toilet and laundry renovation work done to the matrimonial home of the PTQ-client        

This incident affected the same husband and wife described in example 8.14.2 above.

In 2015, it became evident to the husband and his wife that they really or genuinely needed to have their very modest and failing bathrooms, toilets and laundry renovated including for improved amenity, to make it safer for the husband and to better utilise the available space.

As before, the wife contacted the PTQ and sought its approval for the works.   The PTQ advised that it required two quotes from builders for the works and the PTQ also agreed to pay a $1,000.00 deposit for tiles that had to be ordered before the commencement of the works. The PTQ then paid $1,000.00 to the wife who then ordered the tiles and on-paid the $1,000.00 deposit to the tile supplier.

When it was time for the PTQ to sign a building contract for the work as quoted, the PTQ refused once again using the same arguments i.e. the daughters disagreed as they believed the renovation works were not necessary or reasonable or in the best interest of their father and, that until their father was either prepared or forced to meet with them, they would not agree to the works.  

The OPG and PTQ agreed with the daughters and the PTQ also falsely asserted that it could not agree to the works without it obtaining a QCAT order authorising the works.  This was in 2015.

In 2017, the PTQ filed an application with QCAT for directions about the proposed bathroom and laundry renovations.  The application was finally heard in February 2018 and QCAT delivered its decision on 17 December 2018 that the PTQ must pay $75,000.00 for the renovation works.  

The PTQ was represented at the QCAT proceedings by its Official Solicitor who also engaged a senior Barrister to assist during the hearing.  

QCAT insisted that a separate representative (i.e. a lawyer and QCAT member) be appointed for the husband.  This representative did nothing meaningful for the husband who was in fact told by the husband over the phone to “piss off”.

The legal fees charged to the estate of the husband by the PTQ and the separate representative in April 2018 amounted to about $80,000.00.  

It took the PTQ over 3 years for the $75,000.00 bathroom issue to be resolved by way of a QCAT decision in favour of a multi-millionaire and his wife which could and should have been resolved co-operatively in a matter of weeks.  This 3-year-long bathroom renovation journey ended up being most ineffective, inefficient and costly in terms of legal fees and QCAT proceedings.  The works could finally start in early 2019, which meant the whole process took about 3 years and 6 months.  

The reason for this unjust outcome essentially is the misuse of immaterial fabricated family conflict by Qld Guardianship to delay, traumatise, demoralise a vulnerable impaired rich man and his wife.

Justice delayed is no justice at all.  Qld Guardianship is not about justice as illustrated by the above-mentioned real-life bathroom, toilet and laundry renovation saga.  This example helps to explain why many Australians would label Qld Guardianship as part of a national disgrace in terms of the public guardianship applicable to vulnerable impaired adults.

8.14.4 OPG-inspired ACAT assessments that are misleading and deceptive

Members of the Aged Care Assessment Team (“ACAT”) can assess the vulnerable impaired about the creation of care management plans and care packages for them.

The OPG is at liberty to provide an information-brief to ACAT about the vulnerable impaired.

The OPG information brief could be used to steer ACAT into the direction that the OPG wants ACAT to go into in terms of conclusions about the level of impairment, vulnerabilities, risks, needs and objectives associated with the vulnerable impaired.

The ACAT assessments could accordingly be created to achieve outcomes that the OPG wants such as a finding that the vulnerable impaired has such a high level of impairment and should not live at home and be cared for at home by members of the private support group, but should be placed in an aged care facility to receive high care and that the current home of vulnerable impaired should be sold, etc.  

As the OPG operates in lockstep with the PTQ and aged care providers, the sale of the home will benefit the PTQ.  

The OPG appointed aged care provider will benefit financially by having a customer or client added to its client base.  

The malfeasant engineered-plan will break the relationship and care related link between the vulnerable impaired and members of the private support group, thereby increasing the tyrannical control of Qld Guardianship over the vulnerable impaired.

Where the vulnerable impaired targeted by the ACAT assessment actually has a lower level of impairment compared with what is reported and if the vulnerable impaired should want and need to continue to live at home with a higher level of autonomy and be cared for there by members of the private support group, the OPG will achieve the further objective i.e. to inflict psychological trauma, mental anguish and torture upon the vulnerable impaired and members of the private support group.

8.14.5 OPG entering private homes unannounced and against the wishes of the residents

OPG-staff (unannounced and without the approval of the residents) commonly enter the homes of the vulnerable impaired who live there with their spouse or other family members. 

The privacy and security afforded by private homes are of fundamental importance to vulnerable men and woman, particularly the elderly.

Any unannounced sudden appearance of OPG-staff at or in the private homes of the vulnerable (and without their prior consent) constitutes deliberate elder abuse.

The OPG-staff show no respect for the privacy of those residents.  Such visits occur for ulterior reasons i.e. to gain information that could be used to achieve outcomes that the residents do not want and which may harm or damage them personally and/or financially.

8.15 The following closing remarks about the OPG are warranted:

8.15.1 Reports by the OPG to QCAT about its services pertaining to guardianship matters before QCAT usually amount to uncorroborated misleading and deceptive assertions.

8.15.2 The OPG reports to QCAT in guardianship proceedings generally do not include supporting documents or professional reports.

8.15.3 The OPG never discloses the contents of its files to anyone.  

The OPG business activities are protected by being inaccessible to persons affected by a declaration of impaired capacity and the members of their support network.

8.15.4 The OPG is not interested in solving problems in good faith. 

8.15.5 The OPG is a tool used by the PTQ and QCAT to inflict psychological and financial warfare and disrupt the good work done privately in good faith for the vulnerable impaired by family members who genuinely care for them.

8.15.6 The typical modus operandi of the whole Qld Guardianship system is that it aligns itself with the vexations family members who use this system as a modern way to protect what the vexations family members deem to be their future inheritance. 

Vexatious family members do not want steps taken in the true or real or genuine interests of the impaired men and women because they want the impaired unreasonably controlled and manipulated and subjected to a life of institutionalised care instead of being cared for at home in a loving family environment. 

People who are institutionalised have a much shorter life expectancy compared with those who can live the way they want to such as in a private home with people around them who genuinely care for them and do the right thing by them. 

The vexations family members intentionally engineer a life of misery for the vulnerable impaired by getting the OPG to take control and make inappropriate detrimental decisions for the vulnerable impaired. 

The vexatious family members are not in favour of the money of the vulnerable impaired being used on a reasonable lifestyle for the vulnerable impaired.   They support the idea of a small or reduced budget being created and followed to ensure that as much money is left behind by the vulnerable impaired as an inheritance for their selfish purposes (“family money manipulation”).

The OPG embraces and exploits the family money manipulation by vexatious family members by creating an opportunity for the PTQ to take financial advantage of the situation at the financial cost of the vulnerable impaired.  In addition, the OPG is in the business of undermining and weakening genuine family unity and family support.

9. WRONGDOING BY THE APPOINTED PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF QLD (“PTQ”) & ITS OFFICIAL SOLICITOR

9.1 For the purposes of Qld Guardianship, the PTQ is appointed by QCAT as financial and property administrator for the vulnerable impaired who are affected by a QCAT declaration of impaired decision-making capacity (“PTQ-clients”).

9.2 The Public Trustee Act 1978 of Qld (“PTQ Act”) creates the Public Trustee of Qld (“PTQ”, i.e. a “corporation sole”) and the Public Trust Office, the latter which consists of the public trustee (i.e. a man or woman appointed by the Governor in Council) and the office staff for the public trustee.

The PTQ is accordingly a body corporate with perpetual succession, has a seal, may sue and be sued in its corporate name, represents the State, has all the State’s privileges and immunities and the PTQ is excluded from the jurisdiction and not bound by the laws created by the Corporations Act 2001.

The Governor in Council can essentially hire men and women to take the office of public trustee, remove them from that office and replace them with others.

The Public Trustee is subject to the Minister, but not to anyone else in the department. It does not say which Minister and one could reasonably conclude that it is the Minister appointed by the State Government and tasked with PTQ matters.  

9.3 The overall legal effect of this PTQ structure is that: 

9.3.1 The PTQ is a separate entity from the State of Qld.  

9.3.2 The State of Qld cannot be held liable for any PTQ wrongdoing.

9.3.3 The PTQ is “subject” to the Minister which presumably means the Minister can keep an eye on the PTQ about its activities as a corporation sole operating under the PTQ Act.

9.3.4 The PTQ constitutes a single office which has no board of directors and no constitutional by-laws.⁴¹

9.3.5 The PTQ is not bound by the Corporations Act 2001 in any way shape or form.  The PTQ-clients will accordingly never have the comprehensive regulatory and consumer protection afforded by the Corporations Act 2001.

9.3.6 The PTQ has no rules of corporate governance like those applicable to corporations generally.  Accordingly, the PTQ need not comply with any corporate governance.

9.3.7 The PTQ is governed by the powers, duties and functions conveyed to it by the PTQ Act.

9.3.8 The nature, extent and level of accountability, responsibility and liability of the PTQ are presumably formulated and determined by the PTQ Act and any possible remnants of the common law of Queensland.

9.4 The PTQ can use a superficial 20km-rule to justify its appointment of a person with no auctioneer’s licence to in fact auction off (on behalf of the PTQ) the real property and personal property of others that the PTQ is holding and controlling in its capacity as administrator and trustee.

9.5 Section 15 of the PTQ Act provides the PTQ with the following power that has the potential for subversion and tyrannical control:  

“Every member of staff of the Public Trust Office, every agent of the public trustee and every member of the Public Trust Office Investment Board constituted pursuant to section 21 shall be bound to secrecy by declaration in the form approved by the public trustee.”  

Section 15 could be readily used by the PTQ to hide:

 – PTQ transactions and dealings;

 – evidence of any wrongdoing or any breach of fiduciary duties by the PTQ 

 ⁴¹Refer to section 12 of the PTQ Act.

and to make it particularly difficult (if not impossible) to hold the PTQ accountable and responsible for any associated loss or damage.  

By virtue of section 15, the PTQ becomes a fake fiduciary who does not have to disclose and show that it is discharging its fiduciary duties to its PTQ-clients.  

In other words, section 15 gives the PTQ the statutory right to keep secret evidence of:

 – any breaches of its fiduciary duties such as for example its sale of real estate and personal property without compliance with the duties and obligations of licenced auctioneers;

 – the true cost of expenses incurred by the PTQ on behalf of the PTQ-clients compared with the associated reimbursement amounts the PTQ charged its PTQ-clients; and

 – how the PTQ has calculated its legal expenses incurred on behalf of its PTQ-clients, etc.    

Even the PTQ’s in-house lawyers appointed to work in the PTQ’s Office of the Official Solicitor could be sworn to secrecy and that may even compel such lawyers to act contrary to their paramount duty to the Court and the administration of justice and contrary to their other fundamental ethical and professional duties.⁴²

9.6 Section 16 of the PTQ Act provides the power and authority for the PTQ to employ lawyers, financial institutions, accountants, brokers and other persons to do work for the PTQ, that PTQ can pay them and that the PTQ “shall be entitled to be allowed and paid all charges and expenses so incurred”.  

This means that the PTQ could for example secretly incur an expense of say $100.00 and then dishonestly charge the relevant PTQ-client $125.00 on account of alleged “charges and expenses incurred” by the PTQ on behalf of that PTQ-client.  

Does this amount to a situation where the PTQ has a licence to safely cheat or defraud in secret?  

The PTQ also enjoys the right to be indemnified out of a PTQ-client’s estate under its administration for the default caused by PTQ-engaged service providers.

9.7 The PTQ can appoint a barrister or solicitor of the Supreme Court as an official solicitor to the PTQ who can act without the PTQ having to reveal the name of the official solicitor.  

For the purposes of legal proceedings that the PTQ is involved in, the PTQ shall be entitled to the same costs and expenses and in the manner as if the name of the official solicitor did appear on record of the proceedings.

 ⁴²Refer to section 16 of the PTQ Act.

9.8 The PTQ may fix fees and charges for services the PTQ performs or provides for PTQ-clients.  The PTQ can pay itself for its services out of the trust property (using capital and income) it holds for the relevant PTQ-clients.  

The PTQ has a solicitor’s lien and security interests in the relevant trust property to secure what is owed to the PTQ.

9.9 Section 17B of the PTQ Act does not say that the PTQ is exempt from complying with the Legal Profession Act in terms of retainer agreements, prior costs disclosure, itemised bill of costs and the taxation of the Official Solicitor’s legal costs imposed upon PTQ-clients by the PTQ.   

Despite this obvious conclusion, the PTQ’s position that it is exempt from compliance with the Legal Profession Act in terms of retainer agreements, prior costs disclosure, the provision of itemised bills of cost to PTQ-client and the taxation of its itemised bills of costs.⁴³

All lawyers practising under the Legal Profession Act must comply with it in all respects, including the aforementioned areas.  This would include lawyers engaged by the PTQ.  

The PTQ Act does not provide for an exemption and there is no other legislation that does.  Accordingly, the PTQ’s position that it is exempt from compliance with the Legal Profession Act is baseless and wrong and it should comply despite the protection afforded under Section 15 of the PTQ Act.  

Section 15 does not expressly stipulate that the PTQ itself can keep secret its legal costs related information governed by the Legal Profession Act.

Where the PTQ is represented by its Official Solicitor pertaining to PTQ-client matters, the Official Solicitor’s bills of costs are never itemised.  The PTQ never provides its PTQ-clients with prior legal costs estimates either.   

The PTQ essentially considers itself above the law when it comes to its engagement of the Official Solicitor to represent and defend its position as administrator for PTQ-clients.  

9.10 Section 19(1) of the PTQ Act allows the PTQ to create and use common funds through which it receives and invests PTQ-client money and to which income from such investments is credited.  

Regardless of the income actually generated through the investment of common fund money, the interest that PTQ-clients receive from the common funds is calculated by using prescribed interest rates (refer section 19(1)(e) which clearly states “investments made from the common fund by virtue of this subsection shall not be made on account of or belong to any particular estate under administration”).

⁴³In the MBL-case, the PTQ clearly stated its position i.e. that the Official Solicitor was exempt from the compliance with the Legal Profession Act in terms of retainer agreements, prior costs disclosure, the provision of itemised bills of cost to PTQ-client and the taxation of its itemised bills of costs.  The PTQ simply refused to provide itemised invoices in relation to about $37,391.09 in legal costs it charged the PTQ-client.

The PTQ can by Regulation fix the interest rate the PTQ-clients can receive from the common fund.

The 2012 Regulation stipulates that the interest payable by the PTQ on common fund and term deposit money to the PTQ-clients ranged from 0.2% to 0.4% (the latter rate applied to term deposits), depending upon what the class of the amount in the common fund is applicable.  

By way of comparison, the RBA cash rate in 2012 was 3.5%.

The 2023 Regulation stipulates that the interest payable by the PTQ on common fund and term deposit money to the PTQ-clients ranged from 0.21% to 1.68% (the latter rate applied to term deposits), depending upon what the class of the amount in the common fund is applicable.  

By way of comparison, the RBA cash rate in 2023 was 3.85%.

This effectively means that the PTQ had the potential and ability over the last 12 years or so to generate significant income on its common fund and term deposit money and pay its PTQ-clients about one third to one tenth of that income in interest.  

In other words, the PTQ was at liberty to keep for itself the lion’s share of the income generated using the capital provided by the PTQ-clients.  

The commercial and legal effect of this is that the PTQ is legally authorised and can breach common law based fiduciary duties and duties of care that other private fund managers cannot or may not or must not breach.  If private fund managers should breach such duties, they will be liable for the associated financial loss to their clients.

This means that the PTQ was created with the statutory power, authority and ability to unfairly and unjustly allow Qld Guardianship to take financial advantage of the vulnerable impaired.  

The PTQ has in fact been taking unfair and unjust advantage of such power and authority. 

9.11 Section 19(2) and 19(3) of the PTQ Act provides for the direct investment of PTQ-client funds in other types of investments (“direct investments”) and not via any of the common funds.  

Such investments do not form part of the common funds and the income generated by such investments belong to the PTQ-clients who own the relevant investments.

The PTQ may use its discretion as to how it will invest the money of its PTQ-clients i.e. whether it will be via the common funds or by way of direct investments.

When making direct investments, the PTQ makes the decisions and agrees the terms and conditions associated with direct investments without being bound by fiduciary duties or duties of care to its PTQ-clients.

Accordingly, the PTQ can for example invest $6M belonging to a PTQ-client with the Queensland Treasury Corporation and agrees to receive very close to 0.5% interest on that money whereas a bank at the time would have paid no less than 4% interest on that money as a term deposit.  

This scenario in fact represents a real-life case where the PTQ-client was effectively denied about $0.8M in pre-tax income over a period of about 4 years.⁴⁴

9.12 Section 19A of the PTQ Act provides for the PTQ to receive fees, charges and interest under section 19 (“income”) and pay from such income interest to the PTQ-clients and apply the balance remaining towards operating and capital expenses of the PTQ office.

9.13 Section 21 of the PTQ Act provides for the control and management of common fund investments by the Public Trust Office Investment Board consisting of 3 persons namely the public trustee and 2 appointed by the Governor in Council (presumably all political appointments).  

Funds invested by the PTQ in Crown debentures, interest bearing deposits with financial institutions, RBA authorised dealers in the short-term money markets do not need to be controlled and managed by the Public Trust Office Investment Board.

9.14 The Minister and officers of the department shall have access to the books, accounts and documents of the PTQ at all times.

The Auditor-General Act 2009 shall apply to the PTQ.  

In other words, those Qld politicians who have created and who maintain the unfair and unjust PTQ financial administration structure, also review its management and then audits the books and accounts in the interests of Qld Guardianship, not in the interests of the PTQ-clients.

9.15 Section 63A of the PTQ Act provides for the PTQ’s funding and provision of professional and administrative services to the OPG.  

Section 63A accordingly confirms that the PTQ and the OPG work co-operatively and share resources.

9.16 Section 80 of the PTQ Act makes it clear that the PTQ holds the property of PTQ-clients as trustee and can enforce their property rights.

 ⁴⁴This happened in the DLC-case.

Section 87 of the PTQ Act provides for the exemption of the PTQ from any liability for injury or damage or loss caused by the PTQ acting in pursuance of any provision pertaining to the administration of the estates of PTQ-clients.

In other words, the usual fair and equitable common law rules holding trustees accountable to the beneficiaries do not apply to the PTQ as trustee by virtue of the exemptions afforded to it under the PTQ Act.

9.17 An obvious conclusion that should be drawn is that the PTQ Act permits corruption where “corruption” is defined as “the potential to act secretly in a dishonest and morally depraved way or manner and be unreliable in terms of creating, holding and providing to the PTQ-clients and their support groups correct data that is reflective of the truth and reality”.

9.18 Vexatious family members quite often believe that the Queensland government via the administration of the PTQ will protect the assets of the vulnerable impaired when in actual fact the PTQ squanderers those assets (for the reasons explained above) on in-house service provider payments, official solicitor fees, high administration fees and deliberate low returns on money invested and with the lion’s share of the income generated being instead retained by the PTQ for its beneficial use.  

Accordingly, vexatious family members have in fact been fooled by the suggestion that the PTQ will protect their family inheritance.

9.19 There are many examples of situations where the PTQ deliberately caused PTQ-clients substantial capital losses.

9.20 The PTQ’s financial reporting is extremely poor.⁴⁵

The PTQ never provides any source documents to substantiate its financial reports for PTQ-clients.  The reason for this is that the PTQ simply makes up its information about income and expenditure as it is empowered to do so.

9.21 The PTQ engages in elder abuse through economic and financial intimidation and maladministration.  Examples include (but is not limited to) the following: 

9.21.1 With the support of the OPG who (on the basis of fabricated evidence) makes out a case that the vulnerable impaired be moved from the family home to an aged care facility, the PTQ will have the family home vacated and sell it against the wishes and interests of the vulnerable impaired and supporting family members.

9.21.2 The PTQ will deliberately use fabricated family conflict to restrict the family household budgets of the vulnerable impaired in order to appease the vexatious and mean-spirited family members and to justify its tyrannical behaviour towards the vulnerable impaired and supporting family members.  

9.21.3 Only an entity with the mentality of the PTQ will come up with a credit card payment system for the household of the vulnerable impaired whereby financial dependent members of the household would first have to spend money on what they need, using credit cards and be reimbursed by the PTQ once paid and provided the PTQ has “approved” the spending.  

⁴⁵This was the official result of the Peter Costello review of the PTQ accounting and record-keeping in about 2012. 

No person in their right mind would want to operate in such PTQ way i.e. the payment of household expenses first and then reimbursement by the PTQ.  

Right minded persons would have an income budget, receive the income and then pay for what they need.  It should be payment first by the PTQ, then the outlay of money on household items.

The PTQ has introduced its credit card payments system in order to facilitate financial tyranny over those operating within the household budget for the vulnerable impaired.

It essentially demonstrates the extent of the PTQ’s lust for the financial intimidation of the vulnerable impaired and their supporting family members who are dear to them.  

9.21.4 The PTQ makes deductions for expensive services provided to PTQ-clients when it could be done for much less.  Examples are money spent on accounting services, building and pest reports, drive-by valuations of homes and investment properties and home services.  

9.21.5 The PTQ engages the Official Solicitor to defend the PTQ when questioned or attacked or opposed by for example a dependent spouse of the vulnerable impaired who has a legitimate complaint about maladministration by the PTQ.  

The cost of the Official Solicitor is paid for by the relevant PTQ-clients even though the PTQ is in the wrong by having engaged in maladministration.  At the same time, the PTQ would oppose the dependent spouse having legal representation at the cost of the PTQ-client in matters against the PTQ.

9.22 The PTQ engages in a conflict of interests by using Morgans.  

Morgans is used as a smokescreen because the PTQ instructs Morgans as to what Morgans should report in its statement of advice for PTQ-clients.  

Morgans is never engaged to report about the PTQ performance as administrator for vulnerable persons.

9.23 The PTQ controls the compensation money paid to injury-victims under the PTQ administration.

To this end, the PTQ works in lock-step with OPG who does not ensure that victims are properly cared for.  

The objective of Qld Guardianship is to essentially allow the PTQ as much capital as possible to plunder and to that end, the victims need to live on the smell of an oily rag.

9.24 The PTQ’s common pattern of behaviour in relation to its PTQ-clients is 

 – to breach the general principles in the Guardianship Act, 

 – to breach their human rights, 

 – not to protect them with common law fiduciary duties, 

 – to subject them to elder abuse and to damage them financially.

The PTQ chooses this pattern of behaviour because it can do so under its governing rules and laws such as the PTQ Act.

Those in ultimate control of the PTQ forces it to continue with its pattern of behaviour.  The broader reasons for this are set out above.

9.25 In the RFB-case, the PTQ was appointed as replacement administrator for Mrs RFB after Perpetual Trustees (as first appointed administrator for Mrs RFB) had been removed as her administrator due to its mal-administration and by it not following the Supreme Court approved financial management plan for Mrs RFB and for causing Mrs RFB financial loss and damage as a result of all of this.   

After Perpetual Trustees had been removed as administrator, it continued to charge Mrs RFB administration fees of about $15,000.00 for a subsequent period of time during which the PTQ also charged Mrs RFB about $15,000.00 in administration fees.  This meant that Mrs RFB was charged about $30,000.00 (i.e. twice or double) for the administration of her estate during the relevant period of time.  

Despite demanding a refund of about $15,000.00 for being overcharged, neither the PTQ nor Perpetual Trustees were willing to refund any money to Mrs RFB.

Mrs RFB subsequently obtained a declaration of capacity and commenced legal proceedings in her own name, but she was unable to obtain a Court order for an administration fee-refund even though she succeeded in obtaining a Court order for compensation for the financial loss that she suffered at the hands of Perpetual Trustees due to its mal-administration as referred to above.

10. CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES FOR A JUST, FAIR AND EQUITABLE REPLACEMENT FEDERAL GUARDIANSHIP SYSTEM (“FGS”)

10.1 A just fair and equitable guardianship system could and should be appropriately designed and constructed on key concepts and principles outlined in this Chapter 10.

Appointment of Enduring Attorneys and Enduring Guardians

10.2 The EPOA and AEG documents of each jurisdiction in Australia should be expressly declared to be valid and effective in all other jurisdictions.  To this end, the legislation and common law rules underpinning EPOA’s and AEG’s should be exactly the same upon the creation of a just, fair and equitable replacement guardianship system that is uniform throughout Australia.  

10.3 When acting for the vulnerable, enduring attorneys and enduring guardians must comply with their obligations under the new Federal Guardianship System (“FGS”), give effect to their Court-imposed obligations and file sworn financial and personal management status reports in the Federal Court covering the Court-stipulated periods of time.

A new FGS for all Australians   

10.4 Instead of having various State and Territory guardianship systems, it would be most appropriate, effective and efficient to have a uniform FGS that is compliant, fair and just as per the principles outlined herein.  

An FGS could be created pursuant to a National Guardianship & Administration Law Agreement between the Commonwealth, State & Territory Governments for the referral of the required powers to the Commonwealth Government in accordance with the Commonwealth constitution.

10.5 Only the Federal Courts and the Supreme Courts should have jurisdiction in relation to guardianship and administration matters.  Justice that is truly in the public interest simply cannot be achieved through any of the Civil Tribunals as the latter are not Courts and do not apply the strict rules of civil procedure and evidence.

10.6 The Court based strict rules of civil procedure and evidence should apply in relation to all pleadings, assertions and allegations made, particularly in relation to expert medical evidence required to establish the nature and extent of alleged impaired capacity, the needs, wishes and objectives of affected men and women.

Evidence in relation to legal and/or mental capacity need to be only via expert medical witnesses who are Court appointed from a publicly available list of private practitioners who specialise in capacity matters and are of the highest repute in their field.

Legal and mental capacity

10.7 The Qld Guardianship Act definition for “capacity” is deficient.  It should be replaced with a definition acceptable to medical and legal practitioners that are experts in the areas of legal and mental capacity within the context of assisted decision-making.  

Supported decision-making instead of substituted decision-making

10.8 The current system of substituted decision-making for the vulnerable impaired should be replaced with an effective and fair system of supported decision-making whereby the vulnerable impaired are rather supported and guided with professional care and assistance as opposed to be over-ruled in terms of decisions.  

To this end: 

10.8.1 the actual level of capacity of the vulnerable impaired should be professionally determined by one or more capacity expert medical practitioners who are publicly acknowledged and listed as being qualified to assess legal and mental capacity;

10.8.2 the capacity assessment should be done on the basis that all true and material information pertaining to the personal, medical and financial position of the vulnerable impaired be provided to the capacity experts by any relevant existing service providers to the vulnerable such as treating medical practitioners, occupational therapists, lawyers, accountants, tax agents, investment advisers, other key service providers and those family members and friends who form part of the true or genuine support group for the vulnerable;

10.8.3 in addition to the capacity assessment, the capacity experts should also (with the assistance of the other persons contemplated in paragraph 10.8.2) create a sworn prospective personal and financial management plan for the vulnerable (“P&FMPlan”) in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the FGS;

10.8.4 the P&FMPlan should contain a true and accurate record of the lawful wishes, objectives, aspirations and day-to-day and financial needs of the vulnerable (“P&FMPlan matters”), the abilities of the vulnerable in terms of decision-making about P&FMPlan matters, the nature and level of assistance the vulnerable needs in terms of decision-making about P&FMPlan matters and how, by whom and when assisting decisions can or must be made in the interests of the vulnerable; 

10.8.5 the filing of the P&FMPlan with the Court for its approval and endorsement as a plan if the Court agrees and, if not, having the matter heard with all interested parties attending and with the Court having jurisdiction to amend or replace the P&FMPlan.  The Court should ultimately be responsible to ensure that the plan is appropriate, effective and fair in the interests of the vulnerable; and

10.8.6 any one or more of the interested parties must have the right to apply to the Court for a hearing of the matter and for a Court ordered P&FMPlan if the interested parties should be unable to create one as contemplated in paragraph 10.8.3;

10.8.7 the periodic filing with the Court of status reports by the decision-makers for the vulnerable about the execution of the P&FMPlan as and when reasonably required and in any event at least annually. 

10.9 The new FGS must have all the internal systems, resources, checks and balances in order to be free from elder abuse and human rights abuse altogether.

Personal & financial fiduciary duties and protection against elder and human rights abuses

10.10 Rules about appropriate fiduciary duties in relation to personal and health matters should be developed and added to those fiduciary duties applicable to financial and property matters.  The nature and extent of specific key personal fiduciary duties owed to the vulnerable must be set out in the P&FMPlan.    

10.11 All interested parties (including the vulnerable impaired) are to have a right to appear and to be legally represented without having to first seek leave for it.  

10.12 Evidence must be truthful and must be strong enough (and corroborated where needed) to correctly establish the true factual situation on all levels.  All evidence must be given under oath or judicially affirmed.

10.13 Those who deliberately lie must be charged on account of perjury and, if found guilty, must be punished with gaol-time and/or fines that are adequate and effective.  

This perjury-rule should apply to the evidence of all persons who are involved in or connected with the guardianship proceedings about men and women with impaired capacity i.e. family, friends, government officials, public servants and engaged professionals. 

10.14 Elder abuse, human rights breaches, breaches of personal fiduciary duties and breaches of financial fiduciary duties should all be adequately and appropriately defined as criminal offences.  Criminal and civil penalties that are effective in terms of being a deterrent and being compensatory in favour of the victims must apply in relation to the said offences.

The said offences should be in addition to civil rights to compensation for financial loss and damage. 

10.15 Deliberate or intentional financial mal-administration, breaches of fiduciary duties, breaches of human rights, undue influence and duress and fabricated family conflict pertaining to the vulnerable should constitute elder abuse, be unlawful and the perpetrators should be criminally and civilly liable for any of it.

10.16 The vulnerable impaired must have the right to be fully compensated in relation to the misappropriation of their personal or financial assets by anyone causing the vulnerable impaired financial loss or the loss of an opportunity to use any personal property and the vulnerable impaired should have the right to all civil penalty payments imposed upon the wrongdoers. 

Litigation guardians

10.17 A system for the appropriate, effective and efficient appointment of litigation guardians for the vulnerable impaired should be created.  The appointment and engagement of litigation guardians should be subject to conditions imposed by the Court and the litigation guardians should be required to provide status reports to the Courts and to the legal personal representatives of the vulnerable impaired. 

Any litigation lawyer who has a bona fide connection with the vulnerable impaired via a genuine or legitimate support network arrangement should be eligible to apply to the Court for appointment as litigation guardian.  

The payment of legal fees from the estate of the vulnerable impaired to the litigation guardian should be Court and Costs Assessor authorised prior to any payment being made.  Any proceeds of civil penalties awarded in favour of the vulnerable impaired would be available to help cover such reasonable legal fees.

Fidelity fund

10.18 The money raised from fines for associated criminal offences should be paid into a special fidelity trust fund administered by one or more law societies free of charge.  The money so held could be used for the proper or legitimate management and administration of the new litigation guardianship system. 

Professional NGO guardianship and administration service providers 

10.19 Structured private guardianship and administration service providers that are compliant must be allowed to compete with State, Territory or Commonwealth government service providers such as the current PTQ.

10.20 The rules, regulations, duties, powers, authorities, responsibilities and liabilities must be common to both private and government guardianship and administration service providers.  

It accordingly should be a level playing field that demands excellence in the private and public interest.  

To this end, State and Territory legislation such as the PTQ Act and the OPG Act should be repealed and replaced with legislation that does not have the negative characteristics and the potentially abusive powers and functions that the PTQ Act and the OPG Act currently have.  

10.21 A new FGS should genuinely support the principle that it is an honour and privilege to look after the vulnerable impaired fairly and equitably.  Guardianship and administration should never be mis-used as a tyrannical money-making opportunity to the detriment of the vulnerable impaired.  

11. CLOSING REMARKS

11.1 There is an abundance of evidence that the guardianship and administration of vulnerable impaired men and women in Australia amounts to a national disgrace.

11.2 A society is judged by the way it treats its vulnerable and impaired.

11.3 It is the responsibility of all Australians to ensure that Australia has a just, fair and equitable guardianship and administration system.

Thank you for reading this Critical Overview Report.

Should you wish to contribute or require further information about guardianship and administration, you could send an email to qldguardianship@protonmail.com

12. DEFINITIONS & INTERPRETATION

The terms and abbreviations herein used have the respective meaning as follows:

“AEG” means Appointment of Enduring Guardian such as for example in NSW.

“Guardianship Act” means the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 of Qld.

“EPOA” means enduring power of attorney which is available in all States and Territories and it also relevantly refers to the person appointed as enduring attorney (refer to the PR Story below).

“FGS” means the proposed new Federal Guardianship System referred to in Chapter 10.

“HR Act” means the Human Rights 2019 of Qld.

“DoJ” means the Qld Department of Justice & Attorney General.

“OPG” means the Office of Public Guardian created pursuant to the OPG Act.

“OPG Act” means the Public Guardian Act 2014 of Qld.

“P&FMPlan” means a Personal and Financial Management Plan approved under the FGS.

“PTQ” means the Public Trustee of Qld created pursuant to the PTQ Act.

“PTQ Act” means the Public Trustee Act 1978 of Qld.

“PTQ-clients” means men and women who are subject to a QCAT declaration of impaired decision-making capacity and whose affairs are being administered by the PTQ as their QCAT appointed administrator.

“QCAT” means the Qld Civil and Administrative Tribunal constituted by the QCAT Act.

“QCAT Act” means the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 of Qld.

“Qld Guardianship” means the public guardianship system in operation in Qld through the relevant Qld Government entities.

“Qld Health” means the Department of Qld Health.

“Qld Police Service” means the Qld Government Police Service.

“RBA” means the Reserve Bank of Australia.