Page1of13

PaperpresentedatAustralianGuardianshipandAdministrationCouncil(AGAC)2016NationalConference,Sydney17to18October“ReflectingWillandPreferenceinDecisionMaking”

Supporteddecision-making,legalriskandcommercialuncertainty

Speakers:JuliaDuffy,DeputyPublicGuardian(Qld)

KellyUnsworth,SeniorPolicyOfficer,OfficeofthePublicGuardian(Qld)

IntroductionWhenIfirstheardaboutinitiativestointroducesupportedandassisteddecisionmaking,Iimmediatelyregressedtomyformerself–asablacklettercommerciallawyer–workinginvariousareasofQueenslandTreasury.

WhenIheardthatfinancialinstitutions,agedcarehomes,telecommunicationscompaniesandenergycompaniesrefusedtocontractwithapersonwhotheybelievedtohaveimpaireddecisionmakingcapacity,Ithoughtwell–ifIweretheirlawyerIwouldalsowarnthemagainstsuchtransactions,withoutsomesortofadditionalassurancesorguarantees.

AndwhenIsatinmeetingsandworkshopshearingnon-lawyerssaythatweneededtoexplainsubstituteandsupporteddecisionmakingsimply,allIcouldthinkofwasfirst:howhardandhowtotallyabstractallofthoseconceptsare–notionsoflegalpersonality,agreementtocontractandcertainty,andsecond:howdeeplythenotionof“contract”isembeddedinourdaytodaysocialtransactions.

Sotoday,wearegoingto:

• askwhatsocialandlegalassumptionsarearguablyfundamentaltooureverydaycommercialtransactions

• considerhowtheoperationofcontractlawleadstocommercialentitiesviewingtransactionswithadultswithimpaireddecisionmakingasinnatelyrisky

• discusshowtheaboveassumptionsandlegalframeworksleadtostructuraldiscriminationagainstthosewithimpaireddecisionmakingcapacity,and

• considerhoweffectivearesomeofthelegislatedmodelsforsupportedandassisteddecisionmakinginsimultaneously:mitigatingcommercialriskforthirdparties,eliminatingdiscrimination,andprotectingtheadultfromabusebytheiractual“supporters”or“assistants.”

Thelawofcontract“Themodernlawofcontractassumesfreedomofcontract,thatis,freedomtodecidewhethertocontractandtonegotiatecontractualterms.Italsoassumesaparadigmsituationofone-to-onenegotiationofallthetermsofanagreementbypartieswithequalbargainingstrengthconcernedtomaximisetheirindividualpositions.”

Carter,JWetalContractLawinAustralia

Page2of13

Inguardianshiplawwetalkabout“decisionmakingcapacity”butcontractlawtextbooksandcasestalkabout“legalcapacity”andarenotablylackinginsensitivitytohumanrightsconcepts.Theassumptionsbehindthislawarethatminorsandadultswithwhatwewouldcall“impaireddecisionmakingcapacity”havelimitedcapacitytocontract.AsIsaid,thetextbookshavenoacknowledgementofhumanrightsconcepts,lumpingtogetherastheydo“mentalillnessanddrunkenness”asconditionswhichcouldbereliedonasadefencetoanactionforbreachofcontract.

InGibbonsvWright(1954)91CLR423theHighCourtsetoutthetestthateachpartymusthave:

“…suchsoundnessofmindastobecapableofunderstandingthegeneralnatureofwhatheisdoingbyhisparticipation”and“thecapacitytounderstandthetransactionwhenitisexplained.”

Thecommonlawtakesapaternalisticapproachbutbypre-humanrightsstandards,anarguablyethicallydefensibleposition.Acontractisnotenforceable–i.e.apersoncannotbesuedonacontract–iftheydidnothavecapacitytocontractandtheotherpartyknewthisorevenshouldhaveknownthis.

Intheabovecase,thecontractisenforceableandbindingonthethirdparty.Thecontractisalsovoidable–attheelectionofthepersonwiththeallegedincapacity.Theexceptiontothisruleisifthecontractisconsideredtobeacontractfor“necessaries.”Inthecaseofacontractfor“necessaries”anadultwithimpairedcapacityisstillboundbythecontract.Heorsheisboundthoughtopaya“reasonable”price,andonlyoutofandtotheextentofhisorherownproperty.

So,relyingoncommonlawcontract,thepartiescouldbeinargumentaboutwhatare“necessaries”andwhatisa“reasonableprice”?Thecertaintyofthecontractisindoubt.

ScenarioADorothy,whohasimpaireddecisionmakingcapacity,entersintoacontractwithanagedcareproviderandmovesintotheagedcarehome.

Dorothylivesthereforsixmonths,butgetsbadfood,herroomisnotcleanedandtheproviderfailstodeliveronservices.

Astheproviderisinbreachofcontract,Dorothycanenforcethecontractandgetdamages($$)andalsoavoidthecontractforthefuture–andmoveout,withoutpenalty.

Thisisagoodandfairresult.

ScenarioBDorothylivesintheagedcarehomeforsixmonths,getsgreatfood,cleanaccommodation,andfantasticservicesasprovidedforinthecontract

Dorothyneglectstopayanyfees.

TheagedcareprovidersuesforbreachofcontractbutDorothysuccessfullyraises“incapacity”asadefence–i.e.shedidn’thavecapacitytocontractandtheagedcareprovidershouldhaveknownoftheincapacity.

Theprovidercanarguethatthecontractwasfor“necessaries”butcanthenonlyrecoupa“reasonable”price–notnecessarilythecontractprice.

Sotheagedcareprovider,perhapsinthebusinessofprovidingaccommodationtothosewithdecliningcapacity,isatgreatcommercialriskinenteringintoacontractwithDorothy,butDorothyisatnocommercialrisk.

Page3of13

Therearefurthercommercialrisksforthethirdparty.Acontractcanpotentiallybeavoidedforduress–thatis,ifthereisapresentthreatofviolencetotheadultortosomeonewithwhomtheadultisassociated.1Thelawhasalsodevelopedspecificprotectionsforthosewhoareexperiencingvulnerabilities.Acontractcanbeavoidedincasesof“undueinfluence”whereoneparty,adominantone,usestheinfluencethatheorshehasovertheotherpartytoobtainsomebenefit–thatis,anunusuallyadvantageouscontractualarrangementthatthedominantpartywouldnothavereceivedifthebargainingpowerbetweenthetwopartieshadbeenequal.For“undueinfluence”tobeusedtoavoidacontract,thetwopartieshavetobeinarelationshipoftrustorconfidence.

“Unconscionability”isanotherprotectivedoctrinewhichhasbeendevelopedbythecourts.InCommercialBankofAustraliaLtdvAmadio[1983]151CLR447,theelderlyAmadiocouplewerefoundtobeataspecialdisadvantagebecauseoftheirage,lackofbusinessbackground,limitedknowledgeofEnglishandrelianceontheirson.Thecourtfoundthatthebankknewoftheirvulnerablecircumstancesandyetacceptedathirdpartyguaranteefromthemfortheirson’sriskytransactions.Underthedoctrineofunconscionabilitythatguaranteewasunenforceable.

Someoftheseremediesdevelopedovertheyearsbythecourtshavenowfoundtheirwayintocontemporaryconsumerprotectionlegislation.ThenationalCompetitionandConsumerAct2010providesthatwhereunconscionableconductisfoundthecontractcanbeterminatedanddamagespayable.TheCompetitionandConsumerActalsoprovidesfor“unfaircontractterms”instandardformcontracts(suchasphoneorelectricitycontracts)whichessentiallyleavenobargainingroomfortheconsumer.

Inshort,thelawhasalwaystriedtorecogniseindividuals’vulnerabilitiesandcreatealevelplayingfield.Butthishasledtocontractualuncertaintyorperceiveduncertaintyandcommercialriskforfinancialinstitutions,agedcareproviders,telcosandenergyproviders.Inturnthishasledtostructuraldiscriminationandbreachesofhumanrightsforpeopleexperiencingvulnerability.Sothepaternalisticstanceofthelawhasresultedinpeoplewithimpaireddecisionmakingcapacitybeingatadisadvantageinassertingtheirautonomyincommercialandsocialtransactions.

RecentlyImetsomeonewhosedaughterhadimpaireddecisionmakingcapacity.Anenergyproviderrefusedtoenterintoacontractwiththedaughter,sothemothersupportedthedaughterintakingthemattertotheAnti-DiscriminationCommission.Thematterwasconciliatedsothatthedaughterwasapartytothecontractandthemotherwasanominee.Thedaughter’srightstolegalautonomyandcapacityunderArticle12oftheUnitedNationsConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities(theConvention)wereupheld.Buttheenergycompanydeclined(refused?)toapplythispracticeoutsideofthoseindividualcircumstances.

HumanRightsImperativesTodayweareallconcernedwiththeinterpretationofArticle12oftheConvention.

Article12–Equalrecognitionbeforethelaw1. StatesPartiesreaffirmthatpersonswithdisabilitieshavetherighttorecognition

everywhereaspersonsbeforethelaw.

2. StatesPartiesshallrecognizethatpersonswithdisabilitiesenjoylegalcapacityonanequalbasiswithothersinallaspectsoflife.

3. StatesPartiesshalltakeappropriatemeasurestoprovideaccessbypersonswithdisabilitiestothesupporttheymayrequireinexercisingtheirlegalcapacity.

1BartonvArmstrong[1973]2NSWLR598

Page4of13

4. StatesPartiesshallensurethatallmeasuresthatrelatetotheexerciseoflegalcapacityprovideforappropriateandeffectivesafeguardstopreventabuseinaccordancewithinternationalhumanrightslaw.Suchsafeguardsshallensurethatmeasuresrelatingtotheexerciseoflegalcapacityrespecttherights,willandpreferencesoftheperson,arefreeofconflictofinterestandundueinfluence,areproportionalandtailoredtotheperson’scircumstances,applyfortheshortesttimepossibleandaresubjecttoregularreviewbyacompetent,independentandimpartialauthorityorjudicialbody.Thesafeguardsshallbeproportionaltothedegreetowhichsuchmeasuresaffecttheperson’srightsandinterests.

5. Subjecttotheprovisionsofthisarticle,StatesPartiesshalltakeallappropriateandeffectivemeasurestoensuretheequalrightofpersonswithdisabilitiestoownorinheritproperty,tocontroltheirownfinancialaffairsandtohaveequalaccesstobankloans,mortgagesandotherformsoffinancialcredit,andshallensurethatpersonswithdisabilitiesarenotarbitrarilydeprivedoftheirproperty.

WeallknowthatArticle12isthelynchpinoftheprincipleofsupporteddecisionmaking.AustraliasignedtheConventionon30March2007,ratifiediton17July2008anditenteredintoforceforAustraliaon16August2008.AustraliahasalsomadeadeclarationinrespectofArticle12:

“AustraliadeclaresitsunderstandingthattheConventionallowsforfullysupportedorsubstituteddecision-makingarrangements,whichprovidefordecisionstobemadeonbehalfofaperson,onlywheresucharrangementsarenecessary,asalastresortandsubjecttosafeguards.”2

ThisdeclarationqualifiesAustralia’sratificationoftheConventionandallowsforbothsupportedandsubstituteddecisionmakingframeworks.

Despiteratification,therehasbeenlimitedadoptionofsupporteddecisionmakingframeworksinAustralianjurisdictions.Insteadmanyguardianship,administrationandpowersofattorneyregimesareprimarilysubstitutedecisionmakingframeworks,underpinnedbythe“bestinterests”principle.

ButtheAustralianGuardianshipandAdministrationCouncildoes,throughitsAustralianNationalStandardsofPublicGuardianship,acknowledge,encourageandpromotesupporteddecisionmaking.“Standard2–supportdecision-makingcapacity”providesthat:

“Staffprovidingaguardianshipservicewillensurethatallreasonableeffortsaremadetosupportrepresentedpersonstoexercisetheirowndecision-makingcapacitytotheextentpossibleundertherelevantlegislation.

StaffprovidingguardianshipservicesinjurisdictionswheretheirOfficepracticessupporteddecisionmakingasanalternativetosubstitutedecisionmakingwillensurethat:

- Anysupporteddecision-makingarrangementsassistsupportedpersonstoexpresstheirwillandpreferences,andtodeveloptheirowndecision-makingcapacity.

- Theroleofpeoplewhoprovidedecision-makingsupportisacknowledgedandrespected–includingfamilymembers,carersoranyothersignificantpeoplechosentoprovidesupport.“3

Thestandardsprovidetheminimumexpectationsofpublicguardians,publicadvocates,andtheirdelegates,whenactingaslegaldecisionmakersforpersonswithimpairedcapacity.Thestandardspromotesupporteddecisionmaking,butalsoallowforsubstitutedecisionmakingframeworks,andacknowledgethedifferencesinguardianshipandadministrationregimesinthedifferentAustralian

2ConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities:DeclarationsandReservations(Australia)33rdedition,2016

Page5of13

jurisdictions.Thestandardsalsoacknowledgetheimportantroleofaperson’ssupportnetworkinprovidinginformaldecision-makingsupport.

Theprimarypositionisthatallstaffprovidingaguardianshipservicewillensurethatallreasonableeffortsaremadetosupportpeopletoexercisetheirowndecision-makingcapacity–totheextentpossibleundereachjurisdiction’slegislation.

Legislatedmodelsforsupportedandassisteddecision-makingSupporteddecisionmakingisoftenconductedinformally,oraspartofthepracticeofaguardian.However,therehavebeenseveralattemptsto“formalise”thesearrangementswiththeobjectofpromotingcompliancewithArticle12oftheConvention.Theselegislatedregimesaredesignedtocreatecertaintyandtransparencyaroundsupporteddecisionmaking–fordecisionmakersandtheirsupportersbutespeciallyforthirdparties.Theyalsoincludeprotectionsandaccountabilitymechanismssothatsupportersdonotexploittheirpositioninawaywhichenablesorleadstofinancialabuse.Thiscomplexbalanceisdifficulttoachieve.

AdultGuardianshipandTrusteeshipAct2008(Alberta)ThelegislationinAlbertaprovidesforbothsupporteddecisionmaking4andco-decisionmaking.5Asupporteddecisionmakingappointmentisauthorisedbytheadultwhothereforehastheirautonomypreservedtotheextentthattheythemselvesappointthesupporter.Howeveraco-decisionmakercanonlybeappointedbythecourt.

Boththesupporterandtheco-decisionmakercanonlyactinrelationto“personalmatters”6–thatis,anymatter,excepta“financialmatter,”relatingtotheadultincluding:healthcare,accommodation,contactwithfriends/family,participationinsocialactivitiesandeducation,employment,andlegalproceedingsthatdon’trelateprimarilytofinancialmatters.

Sothescopeofthesupporter’sorco-decisionmaker’sroleislimitedsignificantlybytheexclusionof“financialmatters.”A“financialmatter”meansamatterrelatingtoacquisition,disposition,managementorprotectionofproperty,and“property”isdefinedwidelytoinclude“withoutlimitation”:

“(i) thingsandrightsorinterestsinthings,(ii) anythingregardedinlaworequityaspropertyoraninterestinproperty,(iii) anyrightorinterestthatmaybetransferredforvaluefromonepersontoanother,(iv) anyright,includingacontingentorfutureright,tobepaidmoneyortoreceiveany

otherkindofproperty,and(v) anycauseofactiontotheextentthatitrelatestopropertyorcouldresultina

judgementrequiringapersontopaymoney.”7

Soonthefaceofit,therearegreyareasaroundthedefinitionof“financialmatter.”Andtheexclusionof“financialmatters”seemstobewideenoughtoexcludeeverydaypurchases,allbanktransactions,theorganisationofallphoneandenergyaccounts,accommodationdecisions,andsalarynegotiations,fromtheambitofthesupportedandco-decisionmakingprovisions.Soisthescopeofthesesupportedandco-decisionmakingpowerstoonarrowtobeofanyrealuse?Financialmattershaveobviouslybeenexcludedtolowertherisksofsupportersandco-decisionmakersabusingtheirpowers.Butthisprotectivemechanismsignificantlylowersthescopeofoperation.

4Section4Supporteddecision-makingauthorisation5Sections13Co-decision-makingorder6Sections3and127Section1(cc)

Page6of13

RepresentationAgreementAct1996(BritishColumbia)ThemodelinBritishColumbiahasbeendescribedasacombinationofasupporteddecisionmakingagreementandanenduringpowerofattorney.TheRepresentationAgreementActisquiteinnovativeinthatitdispenseswiththetraditionalnotionof“capacity.”Section8providesthatanadultmaymakearepresentationagreementeveniftheadultisincapableofmakingacontract,incapableofmanaginghisorherpersonalcare,orincapableoftheroutinemanagementofhisorherfinancialaffairs.8

Arepresentationagreementforasupporteddecisionmakingarrangementprovidesforthelegalrecognitionofsupportpeople.Theadultthemselvescanappointsomeonetohelpthemmakedecisionsortomakedecisionsonbehalfoftheadult.Thetypesofdecisionsrelatetopersonalcareandroutinemanagementoffinancialaffairs,includingpaymentofbills,receiptanddepositofpensionandotherincome,foodpurchases,accommodationandotherservices,makinginvestments,andobtaininglegalservices.Specificallyexcludedfromcoverageisthesaleofrealproperty.9

Arepresentativehasthesamerighttoinformationandrecordsrelatingtotheadultasdoestheadultthemselves.10Itisinterestingthatfinancialaffairscanbewithintheambitofanagreementandarepresentativemaydelegatetoaqualifiedinvestmentspecialist,allorpartoftheirauthoritywithrespecttoinvestmentmatters.11Arepresentative’sdutiesaresetoutinsection16andincludeanobligationtokeepaccountsandotherrelevantrecords.12Toofferprotectiontotheadultfordecisionsrelatingtofinances,theremustbetwojointrepresentatives,oronerepresentativeanda“monitor.”13Theoverarchingdutyofamonitoristomakereasonableeffortstodeterminewhetherarepresentativeiscarryingouttheirdutiesunderthelegislation.Infulfillingthosedutiesthemonitormayvisitandspeakwiththeadult,andreportanybreachesofdutytothePublicGuardianandTrustee.14

Thebenefitsofthislegislativeregimeareclear.Thereisaninnovativeandlessinterventionisttestof“capability.”Thisallowstherepresentativetobeappointedbytheadult,notbyacourt,sothedecisiontohavearepresentativeandthechoiceofrepresentativeisanautonomousdecisionbytheadult.Thebreadthofauthoritytoincludefinancialaffairsiswide,andtherearesafeguardsrelatingtorecordkeepingandthecreativeideaofa“monitor.”Thereisalsoadegreeofcommercialcertaintyforthirdpartiesinthatanythingdonebytherepresentativeonbehalfofanadultisbindingontheadult.15

However,themodelalsohasitschallenges.Whiletheconventiontestof“capacity”isabandoned,willthemorefluidtestneverthelessleadtoitsownuncertaintiesandlitigationwhenthefinancialstakesarehigh?Also,anythirdpartywillneedtocarefullyreviewthetermsoftherepresentative’sauthorityundertheagreement.Inparticular,theywillneedtoascertainwhethertherepresentativehasbeenappointedasasupporterorasasubstitutedecisionmaker(thelatterbeingeffectively,anattorney).

Thetechnicalrequirementsanddocumentationwhicharenodoubtdesignedtoprotecttheadultfromabuseorexploitation,couldneverthelessbeseenasfairlyburdensomeonallinvolved.Arepresentationagreementmustbeinwritingandissubjecttoprescribedsigningandwitnessing

8Section8(2)goesontolistrelevantfactorstoconsiderwhetherapersonisincapableofmakingarepresentationagreement,includingwhethertheadultdemonstrateschoicesandpreferences.Seealsos.3presumptionofcapability.9RepresentationAgreementRegulations.210RepresentationAgreementActs.1811RepresentationAgreementActs.16(6.1)12RepresentationAgreementActs.16(8)13RepresentationAgreementActs.12“Monitors.”SeealsothatifthenamedrepresentativeisthePublicTrustee,Guardianoratrustcompanyorcreditunion,nomonitorisrequired.14RepresentationAgreementActs.2015RepresentationAgreementActs.19

Page7of13

requirements.16Therepresentationagreementwillbeinvalidunlesseachrepresentativecompletesacertificateintheprescribedform.17Amonitormustalsocompleteacertificateintheprescribedform.18Ifalloftheseformalitiesarenotcompliedwiththentheagreementisnotvalid.19Butcomplicatingthis,thereareexceptionstoinvalidityiftherepresentativecouldnotreasonablyhaveknownofthedefectintheagreement.20Toresign,amonitorhastogivewrittennoticetotheadultandeachrepresentative.21Ifthemonitorbecomes“incapable”thentheauthorityoftherepresentativeissuspended.22Inshort,therearealotofrequirementswhich,ifnotadheredto,canunderminethecertaintyofthearrangementforallinvolved.

Havingsaidthis,Iknowthatmanypeopleareenthusiasticaboutthismodel,andunderstandthatafteraneffectiveeducationprogramithashadagoodtake-upbyfinancialinstitutionsdealingwiththeiragedclients.However,giventheapparentlimitationsweneedtoconsiderastowhetherthisformalisationofaninformalmodelcanreallybethewholesolution.

AdultGuardianshipandCo-decision-makingAct2000(Saskatchewan)Thisisaninterestingmodelwhichdeservesalongerreviewthanwecangiveittoday.Inshort,apersonorentitycanapplytothecourttobeaco-decisionmakerforanadultinrelationtopersonalmattersorpropertymatters.23“Property”includesbothreal(i.e.land)andpersonalproperty.Aco-decisionmakercanbeappointedifanadult’scapacityisimpairedsothatheorsherequiresassistancetomake“reasonable”decisions.24Aco-decisionmakermayadvisetheadultonmatters,sharewiththeadulttheauthoritytomakedecisions,andmaydoallthingstogiveeffecttotheirauthority.Buttheco-decisionmakermustacquiesceinadecisionmadebytheadult“ifareasonablepersoncouldhavemadethedecision…andnoharmtotheadultislikelytoresultfromthedecision.”25

Anydocumentevidencingaco-decisionisvoidableunlesstheadultandco-decisionmakerco-signthedocument.26Anydecisionmadeingoodfaithisdeemedtohavebeenmadebytheadult.27Theco-signatureofaco-decision-makerisnotaguaranteeforaloanorotherdocument.28Everypropertyco-decisionmakermustprovideanannualaccountingtotheregistrarofthecourtoftheirdecisionsmadeandactionstaken.29TheActalsoprovidesthateverypropertyco-decisionmakershallprovideabondwiththecourtthatisinanamountequaltoorgreaterthanthevalueoftheadult’sestate.30

Again,thereareclearbenefitstothisregime.Thereisflexibilityfortheco-decisionmakertoassistwithadecisionortomakeaco-decision.Theco-decisionmakingbringsadegreeofcommercialcertaintyforthethirdparty.Therearealsoextensivesafeguards.However,theco-decisionmakingmodelisclearlylimitedintheamountofautonomyitgivestotheadult,andthereisapaternalisticelementinthattherearejudgmentstobemadeaboutwhethertheadultismaking“reasonable”

16RepresentationAgreementActs.1317RepresentationAgreementActss.5(4)and6(2);RepresentationAgreementRegulation,ScheduleForm118RepresentationAgreementActs.12(5);RepresentationAgreementRegulation,19RepresentationAgreementActss5(4),12(2)20RepresentationAgreementActs.24.Unders.30(3)(e1)thereisalsoaprocesswherebythePublicGuardianandTrusteecanapplytothecourtforanorderthatarepresentationagreementisnotinvalidsolelybecauseofdefectinexecution.21RepresentationActs.12(6)22RepresentationActs.12(8)23AdultGuardianshipandCo-decisionMakingAct(Saskatchewan)ss.6,14,1524AdultGuardianshipandCo-decisionMakingAct(Saskatchewan)s.14(a)(i)25AdultGuardianshipandCo-decisionMakingAct(Saskatchewan)s.1726AdultGuardianshipandCo-decisionMakingAct(Saskatchewan)ss.16and4127AdultGuardianshipandCo-decisionMakingAct(Saskatchewan)ss.23and4828AdultGuardianshipandCo-decisionMakingAct(Saskatchewan)ss.16(2)and41(2)29AdultGuardianshipandCo-decisionMakingAct(Saskatchewan)s.54andRegulationFormL30AdultGuardianshipandCo-decisionMakingAct(Saskatchewan)s.55–maybeofalesseramountifotherwisedirected

Page8of13

decisionsornot.Theremayalsobesomeconfusionforathirdpartybecauseaco-decisionmakersignsadocumentwithoutapparentlyhavinganyliabilityunderthedocument.Butthemostsignificantlimitationwouldappeartobetheimpositionofthebond.Whilethisprovidesinsuranceagainstabusebytheco-decisionmaker,thebondwouldbeprohibitiveinmanycasesanddiscourageordisqualifyrelativesorfriendsfromtakingontheroleofco-decisionmaker.

AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015(RepublicofIreland)Thislegislationwasenacted30December2015andoncecommenced31willreplacethesomewhatarchaic“WardsofCourt”system.IrelandsignedtheConventionin2007butmustintroducethislawreformbeforeratification.TheActprovidesforsubstitutedecisionmakingbutalsoassisteddecisionmakingandco-decisionmaking.Anadultwhoconsidersthattheircapacity“isinquestionormayshortlybeinquestion”canappointapersontoassisttheminmakingdecisionsonpersonalwelfareorpropertymatters32ortheymayappointaco-decisionmaker.33

Assisteddecisionmakersandco-decisionmakersareappointedbyagreement.Thefunctionsofadecisionmakingassistantaretoadvise,explain,ascertaintheadult’swillandpreferences,andassisttheadulttoobtainanyinformationorpersonalrecordsrelevanttoadecision.Theyarealsotoassisttheadulttomake,expressandcommunicatethedecision,andtoendeavortoensurethatdecisionsareimplemented.Adecision-makingassistantmustnotmakeadecisiononbehalfoftheadult.Adecisiontakenbytheadultwiththeassistanceofthedecision-makingassistantisdeemedtobetakenbytheadultforallpurposes.34AnyonecanmakeacomplainttotheDirectoroftheDecisionSupportService(Director)35aboutthebehaviourofanassistant.36

Aco-decisionmakingagreementmustberegistered.37TheDirectorreviewstheapplicationforregistrationandanyobjectionsreceived,andtheDirectorconductsaninitialannualreviewandafurtherrevieweverythreeyears.38Co-decisionmakingagreementshavetobedraftedincompliancewiththeregulations.39

ThebenefitsoftheIrishmodelarethatitdefinitelyofferssomepubliclegitimacytoassistantdecisionmakersandco-decisionmakersandmakesthemaccountable.Italsohasbroadapplicationtopersonalaffairsandproperty.Thedisadvantageofthemodelistheheavylayerofaccountabilityandregulation.Thiswillprotectadultsfromexploitation–especiallybecauseapersoncanbedisqualifiedfrombeinganassistantorco-decisionmaker40–butitmaymakefriendsandrelativesthinktwicebeforeagreeingtoappointment,andalsoplacesaheavyadministrationburdenongovernment.Theremayalsobeconcernsbythirdpartiesaroundthelackofcertaintyinthefluidtestofcapacity,andtheywillstillneedtoconducttheirduediligenceonagreementstomakesurethattheassistantorco-decisionmakerisactingwithinthescopeoftheagreement.41

31Atthistimethecommencementdatehasnotbeenannounced32AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015s.1033AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015s.1734AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015s.1435Seedefinitionof“Director”ins.9436AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015s.1537AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015ss.21,2238AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015s.2639AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015s.31(a)yettobedrafted40AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015ss.11(1)(h),18(1)(h)41Notes.23(1)–“Arelevantdecisionwhichismadewithinthescopeofaregisteredco-decision-makingagreementshallnotbechallengedonthegroundsthattheappointerdidnothavethecapacitytomakethedecision.”

Page9of13

PowersofAttorneyAct2014(Vic)TheVictorianPowersofAttorneyActcommencedon1September2015andhasastrongfocusonsupporteddecisionmaking.TheActpresumesthatanadulthasdecisionmakingcapacitywhichmeansthattheycan:

• understandtheinformationrelevanttothedecisionandtheeffectofthedecision• retainthatinformationtotheextentnecessarytomakethedecision• useorweighthatinformationaspartoftheprocessofmakingthedecision,and• communicatethedecisionandtheperson’sviewsandneedsastothedecisioninsome

way.42

TheActfurther:

• recognisesthatapersonmayhavecapacityforsomemattersonly,andthatcapacitycanfluctuate,and

• recognisesthatapersonmayhavedecisionmakingcapacityforamatterwithpracticableandappropriatesupport.43

Suchsupportmayincludeusinginformationorformatstailoredtotheparticularneedsoftheperson,communicatingorassistingthepersontocommunicatetheirdecision,givingthepersonadditionaltimeanddiscussingthematterwiththeperson,orusingtechnologythatalleviatestheeffectsoftheperson’sdisability.

EntitiesexercisingpowerundertheActmustensurethepersonisgivenpracticableandappropriatesupporttoenablethepersontoparticipateindecisionsaffectingtheprincipal,asmuchaspossibleinthecircumstances.Whereapersondoesnothavecapacity,thedecisionmakermustgiveeffecttotheperson’swishes,encouragetheperson’sparticipationindecisionmaking,andpromotethepersonalandsocialwellbeingoftheperson.44

Significantly,theActintroducedtheroleofthe“supportiveattorney”whocanbeappointedbyanadulttoassisttheminmakingandgivingeffecttotheadult’sdecisionsinpersonalorfinancialmatters.45Alimitationofthismodelisthatasupportiveattorneycanonlybeappointedbyapersonwhohasdecisionmakingcapacity.46

Incontrastwiththetraditionalattorneyrole,thesupportiveattorneydoesnotmakedecisionsfortheperson–thesupportiveattorneyassiststhepersontomaketheirowndecisions.Theappointmentisavailabletopeoplewhohavedecision-makingcapacitybutneedsupporttoexercisethatcapacity.Inparticular,thesupportiveattorneymayassistthepersontoreachthethresholdforlegalcapacity.Supportiveattorneysaredesignedtosupportpeoplewithdisabilitytomakeandgiveeffecttotheirdecisions.

Thepersonmayappointasupportiveattorneytoassistwithdecisionsaboutfinancialmattersandpersonalmatters–theappointmentmaybeplenaryorspecifycertainmatters.Thepersonmaygivethesupportiveattorneypowersto:

• access,collectorobtainpersonalinformation47• communicateinformationordecisionsoftheperson,48and

42PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.443PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.444PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.4(e)andtheExample45PowersofAttorneyAct2014Part7,especiallys.8546PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.8647PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.8748PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.88

Page10of13

• takereasonableactiontogiveeffecttotheperson’sdecisions.49

However,therearesomelimitationstothesupportiveattorneyrole.Supportiveattorneyscannottakeactiontogiveeffecttosignificantfinancialtransactions,includingmostinvestments,mostrealestatetransactions,landdealings,andsubstantialpersonalpropertydealings.Therearesomeexclusions–asupportiveattorneymayinvestupto$10,000ininterestbearingaccountsofauthorisedinstitutions,andenterintoaresidentialtenancyforapremiseswherethepersonlivesorintendstolive.50

Asupportiveattorneyappointmentdoesnothaveeffectforanyperiodduringwhichthepersondoesnothavedecisionmakingcapacityformatterstowhichthesupportiveattorneyappointmentapplies.51Thismeansthatasupportiveattorneyappointmentmaybeinsufficientonitsowntoprotectaperson’srightsandinterestswheretheperson’sdecisionmakingcapacityfluctuates.Consequently,apersonshouldalsoconsiderhavingotherarrangementsinplace,suchasanenduringpowerofattorney,toensurethattheyhavemaximumcontrolandinputindecisionmakinginanycircumstances.

WeareimpressedandgratefulVictoriahastakentheleadonlegislatingandimplementingasupportiveattorneymodeltopromotesupporteddecisionmaking.Whiletheremaybechallengeswiththemodel,wehopeitwillbeasolutioninmanycases.Welookforwardtothisafternoon’ssessiononthePowersofAttorneyActtolearnmoreaboutthemodelinpractice.

GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)TheQueenslandguardianshipandadministrationregimeisregulatedundertheGuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(GuardianshipAct).ThisActoperatesinconjunctionwiththePowersofAttorneyAct1998,whichestablishesaregimeforgeneralandenduringpowersofattorneyandstatutoryhealthattorneys.TheGuardianshipActprovidesforsubstitutedecisionmaking,buteventhoughitwasenactedpriortothesigningoftheConvention,neverthelessprovidesarobustlegislativeframeworkforsupporteddecisionmaking.

TheQueenslandCivilandAdministrativeTribunalmayappointaguardianoradministratorifsatisfiedthat:thepersonhasimpairedcapacityforthematter;thereisaneedforadecisionorarisktotheperson;andtheperson’sneedswillnotbeadequatelymetorinterestsadequatelyprotectedwithoutanappointment.52“Capacity”isassessedaccordingtotheActinrelationtoaparticularmatterthesubjectofadecision.Thatis,capacityisdomainspecific.Apersonhascapacityforamatterif“thepersoniscapableof:

(a) understandingthenatureandeffectofdecisionsaboutthematter,and(b) freelyandvoluntarilymakingdecisionsaboutthematter,and(c) communicatingthedecisionsinsomeway.”53

Unlessthetribunalordersotherwise,aguardianoradministratorisauthorisedtodoanythinginrelationtoaparticularmatterthatthepersoncouldhavedoneifthepersonhadcapacityforthematter.54

Andyet,itissubmittedtherearemanyprovisionsoftheGuardianshipActwhichemphasisetheimportanceofandarguablytheprimaryimportanceofsupporteddecisionmaking,sothatsubstitutedecisionmakingshouldonlybealastresort.

49PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.8950PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.8951PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.10252GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)s.1153GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)Schedule4Dictionary54GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)s.33

Page11of13

TheGuardianshipActprovidesthat:

• thereisapresumptionofcapacity55

• aslongastheadulthassomewayofcommunicatinghisorherdecision,theydoesnothavetocommunicateitorallytoshowcapacity56

• anadult’srighttomakedecisionsisfundamentaltotheadult’sinherentdignity

• thecapacityofanadulttomakedecisionsmaydifferaccordingtothesupportavailablefromthemembersoftheadult’sexistingsupportnetwork

• therightofanadultwithimpaireddecisionmakingcapacitytomakedecisionsshouldberestrictedandinterferedwithtotheleastpossibleextent

• anadultwithimpairedcapacityhasarighttoadequateandappropriatesupportfordecisionmaking,57and

• itencouragesinvolvementindecision-makingofthemembersoftheadult’sexistingsupportnetwork.58

GuardiansandadministratorsmustapplythegeneralprinciplesprescribedintheAct;also“thecommunityisencouragedtoapplyandpromotethegeneralprinciples.”59

Thesegeneralprinciplesassert:

• thatalladultsregardlessofcapacityhavethesamehumanrights• theimportanceofempoweringanadulttoexercisetheadult’sbasishumanrights• therightofanadulttorespectofhisorherhumanworthanddignity,and• theadult’srighttobeavaluedmemberofsociety.

Principle6recognisestheimportanceofencouragingandsupportingapersontoachievetheirmaximumpotentialandtobecomeasself-reliantaspossible.Principle7recognisessupporteddecisionmakingprinciplesthroughmaximumparticipation,minimallimitationsandsubstitutedjudgment.Inparticular,principle7recognises:

• anadult’srighttoparticipate,tothegreatestextentpracticable,indecisionsaffectingtheadult’slife,includingthedevelopmentofpolicies,programsandservicesforpeoplewithimpairedcapacityforamatter,mustberecognisedandtakenintoaccount

• theimportanceofpreserving,tothegreatestextentpracticable,anadult’srighttomakehisorherowndecisions

• theadultmustbegivenanynecessarysupport,andaccesstoinformation,toenablethepersontoparticipateindecisionsaffectingtheirlife

• theadult’sviewsandwishesaretobesoughtandtakenintoaccounttothegreatestextentpracticablewhenexercisingpowerforamatterfortheadult,and

• anentityinperformingafunctionorexercisingapowerundertheActmustdosointhewayleastrestrictiveoftheperson’srights.However,theymustdosoinawayconsistentwiththeadult’spropercareandprotection.Thishasbeeninterpretedandisappliedasa“best

55GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)Schedule1Part1GeneralPrinciples56GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)s.146(3)57GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)s.558GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)s.759GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)s.11andSchedule1,Part1

Page12of13

interests”principlewhichhadthepotentialtooverridetheadult’sautonomousdecisionmaking.

TheaboveprinciplesarealsoprescribedinthePowersofAttorneyAct1998fordecisionmakersauthorisedunderthatlegislation.60

Inconclusion,oursubmissionisthatthelegislationalreadyprovidesasoundframeworkforsupporteddecisionmakingwithoutactuallyformalisingsupportiveorassistivearrangements.Iflegalframeworkswerethetotalanswertoensuringthattherightsofadultswithimpairedcapacitywereupheld,thenthislegislationarguablysetsthestandard.Thechallengethoughisinimplementationandinhavingthetimeandresourcestoadvocateandsupportadultsthroughcomplexenvironments.

InQueenslandwealreadyhaveanobligationunderthelegislationtoundertakesupporteddecisionmaking–andthisisouraspirationandourstrategygoingforward.Wewouldwelcomestrengtheningofthelegislationtofurtherpromotesupporteddecisionmakinginpractice.

Wheretofromhere?Insummary,therearevariousapproachestoblacklettermodelsforsupporteddecisionmaking.Onpapermanyaspectsoftheseschemesappearcomplexandconfusingandpotentiallycostly.However,therearemanycommentatorsandpractitionerswhospeakhighlyoftheseschemes,andwearegratefulthatothershavetroddenfirstintothesedifficultwaters.

Oursubmissionisthatweshouldnotletanoveremphasisonblacklettermodelsdistractusfromfocusingonwhatcanalreadybeachievedandshouldbeachievedundercurrentlegislativeframeworkswhichalreadydemandthatweworkassupporteddecisionmakers.Legislativechangecanleadanddrivecommunitybehaviour,butlegislationinitselfisnottheanswer,andthereareinherentproblemsinformalisinginformalarrangements.ItiseasytopassanAct,thehardpartisongoingimplementationandresourcing.

ReferencesCarney,Terry.“SupportedDecision-MakingforPeoplewithCognitiveImpairments:AnAustralianPerspective?”Laws4(2015):37-59.

Carney,TerryandFleurBeaupert.“PublicandPrivateBricolage–ChallengesBalancingLaw,Services&CivilSocietyinAdvancingCRPDSupportedDecisionMaking.”UNSWLawJournal36.1(2013):175-201.

CarterJWet.al.5thed.Sydney:Lexis/NexisButterworths,2007.

Herr,StanleyS.“Self-Determination,Autonomy,andAlternativesforGuardianship.”TheHumanRightsofPersonswithIntellectualDisabilities:DifferentbutEqual.Ed.StanleySHerretal.GreatBritain:OxfordUniversityPress,2003.429-453.

IntellectualDisabilityRightsService.“GuardianshipandadministrationlawsacrossAustralia.”2012.<http://www.idrs.org.au/pdf/Guardianship_and_administration_laws_across_Australia_by_Ben_Fogarty.pdf>

Kohn,NinaA,JeremyABlumenthalandAmyTCampbell.“SupportedDecision-Making:AViableAlternativetoGuardianship?”PennStateLawReview117.4(2013):1111-1157.

60PowersofAttorneyAct1998(Qld)Schedule1,Part1

Page13of13

OfficeofthePublicAdvocateQueensland.“Autonomyanddecision-makingsupportinAustralia:Atargetedoverviewofguardianshiplegislation.”2014.<http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/249405/Decision-making-support-for-Queenslanders-with-impaired-capacity-A-targeted-overview-of-guardianship-legislation-in-Australia-March-2014.pdf>

OfficeofthePublicAdvocateQueensland.“Decision-makingsupportinQueensland’sguardianshipsystem:Asystemicadvocacyreport.”2016.<http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/470458/OPA_DMS_Systemic-Advocacy-Report_FINAL.pdf>

OfficeofthePublicAdvocateSouthAustralia.“EvaluationoftheSupportedDecisionMakingProject.”2012.<http://www.opa.sa.gov.au/files/batch1376447055_final_supported_decision_making_evaluation.pdf>

Purser,KellyandTulyRosenfeld.“Assessingtestamentaryanddecision-makingcapacity:Approachesandmodels.”JournalofLawandMedicine23.1(2015):121-136.

Then,Shih-Ning.“EvolutionandInnovationinGuardianshipLaws:AssistedDecision-Making.”SydneyLawReview35.133(2013):133-166.