PaperpresentedatAustralianGuardianshipandAdministrationCouncil(AGAC)
2016NationalConference,Sydney17to18October
“ReflectingWillandPreferenceinDecisionMaking”
Supporteddecision-making,
legalriskandcommercialuncertainty
Speakers:
JuliaDuffy,DeputyPublicGuardian(Qld)
KellyUnsworth,SeniorPolicyOfficer,OfficeofthePublicGuardian(Qld)
Introduction
WhenIfirstheardaboutinitiativestointroducesupportedandassisteddecisionmaking,
Iimmediatelyregressedtomyformerself–asablacklettercommerciallawyer–workinginvarious
areasofQueenslandTreasury.
WhenIheardthatfinancialinstitutions,agedcarehomes,telecommunicationscompaniesand
energycompaniesrefusedtocontractwithapersonwhotheybelievedtohaveimpaireddecision
makingcapacity,Ithoughtwell–ifIweretheirlawyerIwouldalsowarnthemagainstsuch
transactions,withoutsomesortofadditionalassurancesorguarantees.
AndwhenIsatinmeetingsandworkshopshearingnon-lawyerssaythatweneededtoexplain
substituteandsupporteddecisionmakingsimply,allIcouldthinkofwasfirst:howhardandhow
totallyabstractallofthoseconceptsare–notionsoflegalpersonality,agreementtocontractand
certainty,andsecond:howdeeplythenotionof“contract”isembeddedinourdaytodaysocial
transactions.
Sotoday,wearegoingto:
•
askwhatsocialandlegalassumptionsarearguablyfundamentaltooureverydaycommercial
transactions
•
considerhowtheoperationofcontractlawleadstocommercialentitiesviewing
transactionswithadultswithimpaireddecisionmakingasinnatelyrisky
•
discusshowtheaboveassumptionsandlegalframeworksleadtostructuraldiscrimination
againstthosewithimpaireddecisionmakingcapacity,and
•
considerhoweffectivearesomeofthelegislatedmodelsforsupportedandassisted
decisionmakinginsimultaneously:mitigatingcommercialriskforthirdparties,eliminating
discrimination,andprotectingtheadultfromabusebytheiractual“supporters”or
“assistants.”
Thelawofcontract
“Themodernlawofcontractassumesfreedomofcontract,thatis,freedomtodecide
whethertocontractandtonegotiatecontractualterms.Italsoassumesaparadigm
situationofone-to-onenegotiationofallthetermsofanagreementbypartieswithequal
bargainingstrengthconcernedtomaximisetheirindividualpositions.”
Carter,JWetalContractLawinAustralia
Page1of13
Inguardianshiplawwetalkabout“decisionmakingcapacity”butcontractlawtextbooksandcases
talkabout“legalcapacity”andarenotablylackinginsensitivitytohumanrightsconcepts.The
assumptionsbehindthislawarethatminorsandadultswithwhatwewouldcall“impaireddecision
makingcapacity”havelimitedcapacitytocontract.AsIsaid,thetextbookshaveno
acknowledgementofhumanrightsconcepts,lumpingtogetherastheydo“mentalillnessand
drunkenness”asconditionswhichcouldbereliedonasadefencetoanactionforbreachof
contract.
InGibbonsvWright(1954)91CLR423theHighCourtsetoutthetestthateachpartymusthave:
“…suchsoundnessofmindastobecapableofunderstandingthegeneralnatureofwhathe
isdoingbyhisparticipation”and“thecapacitytounderstandthetransactionwhenitis
explained.”
Thecommonlawtakesapaternalisticapproachbutbypre-humanrightsstandards,anarguably
ethicallydefensibleposition.Acontractisnotenforceable–i.e.apersoncannotbesuedona
contract–iftheydidnothavecapacitytocontractandtheotherpartyknewthisorevenshould
haveknownthis.
Intheabovecase,thecontractisenforceableandbindingonthethirdparty.Thecontractisalso
voidable–attheelectionofthepersonwiththeallegedincapacity.Theexceptiontothisruleisif
thecontractisconsideredtobeacontractfor“necessaries.”Inthecaseofacontractfor
“necessaries”anadultwithimpairedcapacityisstillboundbythecontract.Heorsheisbound
thoughtopaya“reasonable”price,andonlyoutofandtotheextentofhisorherownproperty.
So,relyingoncommonlawcontract,thepartiescouldbeinargumentaboutwhatare“necessaries”
andwhatisa“reasonableprice”?Thecertaintyofthecontractisindoubt.
ScenarioA
Dorothy,whohasimpaireddecisionmakingcapacity,entersintoacontractwithanaged
careproviderandmovesintotheagedcarehome.
Dorothylivesthereforsixmonths,butgetsbadfood,herroomisnotcleanedandthe
providerfailstodeliveronservices.
Astheproviderisinbreachofcontract,Dorothycanenforcethecontractandgetdamages
($$)andalsoavoidthecontractforthefuture–andmoveout,withoutpenalty.
Thisisagoodandfairresult.
ScenarioB
Dorothylivesintheagedcarehomeforsixmonths,getsgreatfood,cleanaccommodation,
andfantasticservicesasprovidedforinthecontract
Dorothyneglectstopayanyfees.
TheagedcareprovidersuesforbreachofcontractbutDorothysuccessfullyraises
“incapacity”asadefence–i.e.shedidn’thavecapacitytocontractandtheagedcare
providershouldhaveknownoftheincapacity.
Theprovidercanarguethatthecontractwasfor“necessaries”butcanthenonlyrecoupa
“reasonable”price–notnecessarilythecontractprice.
Sotheagedcareprovider,perhapsinthebusinessofprovidingaccommodationtothosewith
decliningcapacity,isatgreatcommercialriskinenteringintoacontractwithDorothy,butDorothyis
atnocommercialrisk.
Page2of13
Therearefurthercommercialrisksforthethirdparty.Acontractcanpotentiallybeavoidedfor
duress–thatis,ifthereisapresentthreatofviolencetotheadultortosomeonewithwhomthe
adultisassociated.1Thelawhasalsodevelopedspecificprotectionsforthosewhoareexperiencing
vulnerabilities.Acontractcanbeavoidedincasesof“undueinfluence”whereoneparty,adominant
one,usestheinfluencethatheorshehasovertheotherpartytoobtainsomebenefit–thatis,an
unusuallyadvantageouscontractualarrangementthatthedominantpartywouldnothavereceived
ifthebargainingpowerbetweenthetwopartieshadbeenequal.For“undueinfluence”tobeused
toavoidacontract,thetwopartieshavetobeinarelationshipoftrustorconfidence.
“Unconscionability”isanotherprotectivedoctrinewhichhasbeendevelopedbythecourts.In
CommercialBankofAustraliaLtdvAmadio[1983]151CLR447,theelderlyAmadiocouplewere
foundtobeataspecialdisadvantagebecauseoftheirage,lackofbusinessbackground,limited
knowledgeofEnglishandrelianceontheirson.Thecourtfoundthatthebankknewoftheir
vulnerablecircumstancesandyetacceptedathirdpartyguaranteefromthemfortheirson’srisky
transactions.Underthedoctrineofunconscionabilitythatguaranteewasunenforceable.
Someoftheseremediesdevelopedovertheyearsbythecourtshavenowfoundtheirwayinto
contemporaryconsumerprotectionlegislation.ThenationalCompetitionandConsumerAct2010
providesthatwhereunconscionableconductisfoundthecontractcanbeterminatedanddamages
payable.TheCompetitionandConsumerActalsoprovidesfor“unfaircontractterms”instandard
formcontracts(suchasphoneorelectricitycontracts)whichessentiallyleavenobargainingroom
fortheconsumer.
Inshort,thelawhasalwaystriedtorecogniseindividuals’vulnerabilitiesandcreatealevelplaying
field.Butthishasledtocontractualuncertaintyorperceiveduncertaintyandcommercialriskfor
financialinstitutions,agedcareproviders,telcosandenergyproviders.Inturnthishasledto
structuraldiscriminationandbreachesofhumanrightsforpeopleexperiencingvulnerability.Sothe
paternalisticstanceofthelawhasresultedinpeoplewithimpaireddecisionmakingcapacitybeing
atadisadvantageinassertingtheirautonomyincommercialandsocialtransactions.
RecentlyImetsomeonewhosedaughterhadimpaireddecisionmakingcapacity.Anenergyprovider
refusedtoenterintoacontractwiththedaughter,sothemothersupportedthedaughterintaking
themattertotheAnti-DiscriminationCommission.Thematterwasconciliatedsothatthedaughter
wasapartytothecontractandthemotherwasanominee.Thedaughter’srightstolegalautonomy
andcapacityunderArticle12oftheUnitedNationsConventionontheRightsofPersonswith
Disabilities(theConvention)wereupheld.Buttheenergycompanydeclined(refused?)toapplythis
practiceoutsideofthoseindividualcircumstances.
HumanRightsImperatives
TodayweareallconcernedwiththeinterpretationofArticle12oftheConvention.
Article12–Equalrecognitionbeforethelaw
1. StatesPartiesreaffirmthatpersonswithdisabilitieshavetherighttorecognition
everywhereaspersonsbeforethelaw.
2. StatesPartiesshallrecognizethatpersonswithdisabilitiesenjoylegalcapacityonanequal
basiswithothersinallaspectsoflife.
3. StatesPartiesshalltakeappropriatemeasurestoprovideaccessbypersonswithdisabilities
tothesupporttheymayrequireinexercisingtheirlegalcapacity.
1
BartonvArmstrong[1973]2NSWLR598
Page3of13
4. StatesPartiesshallensurethatallmeasuresthatrelatetotheexerciseoflegalcapacity
provideforappropriateandeffectivesafeguardstopreventabuseinaccordancewith
internationalhumanrightslaw.Suchsafeguardsshallensurethatmeasuresrelatingtothe
exerciseoflegalcapacityrespecttherights,willandpreferencesoftheperson,arefreeof
conflictofinterestandundueinfluence,areproportionalandtailoredtotheperson’s
circumstances,applyfortheshortesttimepossibleandaresubjecttoregularreviewbya
competent,independentandimpartialauthorityorjudicialbody.Thesafeguardsshallbe
proportionaltothedegreetowhichsuchmeasuresaffecttheperson’srightsandinterests.
5. Subjecttotheprovisionsofthisarticle,StatesPartiesshalltakeallappropriateandeffective
measurestoensuretheequalrightofpersonswithdisabilitiestoownorinheritproperty,to
controltheirownfinancialaffairsandtohaveequalaccesstobankloans,mortgagesand
otherformsoffinancialcredit,andshallensurethatpersonswithdisabilitiesarenot
arbitrarilydeprivedoftheirproperty.
WeallknowthatArticle12isthelynchpinoftheprincipleofsupporteddecisionmaking.Australia
signedtheConventionon30March2007,ratifiediton17July2008anditenteredintoforcefor
Australiaon16August2008.AustraliahasalsomadeadeclarationinrespectofArticle12:
“AustraliadeclaresitsunderstandingthattheConventionallowsforfullysupportedor
substituteddecision-makingarrangements,whichprovidefordecisionstobemadeonbehalf
ofaperson,onlywheresucharrangementsarenecessary,asalastresortandsubjectto
safeguards.”2
ThisdeclarationqualifiesAustralia’sratificationoftheConventionandallowsforbothsupported
andsubstituteddecisionmakingframeworks.
Despiteratification,therehasbeenlimitedadoptionofsupporteddecisionmakingframeworksin
Australianjurisdictions.Insteadmanyguardianship,administrationandpowersofattorneyregimes
areprimarilysubstitutedecisionmakingframeworks,underpinnedbythe“bestinterests”principle.
ButtheAustralianGuardianshipandAdministrationCouncildoes,throughitsAustralianNational
StandardsofPublicGuardianship,acknowledge,encourageandpromotesupporteddecisionmaking.
“Standard2–supportdecision-makingcapacity”providesthat:
“Staffprovidingaguardianshipservicewillensurethatallreasonableeffortsaremadeto
supportrepresentedpersonstoexercisetheirowndecision-makingcapacitytotheextent
possibleundertherelevantlegislation.
StaffprovidingguardianshipservicesinjurisdictionswheretheirOfficepracticessupported
decisionmakingasanalternativetosubstitutedecisionmakingwillensurethat:
-
Anysupporteddecision-makingarrangementsassistsupportedpersonstoexpress
theirwillandpreferences,andtodeveloptheirowndecision-makingcapacity.
-
Theroleofpeoplewhoprovidedecision-makingsupportisacknowledgedand
respected–includingfamilymembers,carersoranyothersignificantpeoplechosen
toprovidesupport.“3
Thestandardsprovidetheminimumexpectationsofpublicguardians,publicadvocates,andtheir
delegates,whenactingaslegaldecisionmakersforpersonswithimpairedcapacity.Thestandards
promotesupporteddecisionmaking,butalsoallowforsubstitutedecisionmakingframeworks,and
acknowledgethedifferencesinguardianshipandadministrationregimesinthedifferentAustralian
2
ConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities:DeclarationsandReservations(Australia)
rd
3 edition,2016
3
Page4of13
jurisdictions.Thestandardsalsoacknowledgetheimportantroleofaperson’ssupportnetworkin
providinginformaldecision-makingsupport.
Theprimarypositionisthatallstaffprovidingaguardianshipservicewillensurethatallreasonable
effortsaremadetosupportpeopletoexercisetheirowndecision-makingcapacity–totheextent
possibleundereachjurisdiction’slegislation.
Legislatedmodelsforsupportedandassisteddecision-making
Supporteddecisionmakingisoftenconductedinformally,oraspartofthepracticeofaguardian.
However,therehavebeenseveralattemptsto“formalise”thesearrangementswiththeobjectof
promotingcompliancewithArticle12oftheConvention.Theselegislatedregimesaredesignedto
createcertaintyandtransparencyaroundsupporteddecisionmaking–fordecisionmakersandtheir
supportersbutespeciallyforthirdparties.Theyalsoincludeprotectionsandaccountability
mechanismssothatsupportersdonotexploittheirpositioninawaywhichenablesorleadsto
financialabuse.Thiscomplexbalanceisdifficulttoachieve.
AdultGuardianshipandTrusteeshipAct2008(Alberta)
ThelegislationinAlbertaprovidesforbothsupporteddecisionmaking4andco-decisionmaking.5A
supporteddecisionmakingappointmentisauthorisedbytheadultwhothereforehastheir
autonomypreservedtotheextentthattheythemselvesappointthesupporter.Howeveracodecisionmakercanonlybeappointedbythecourt.
Boththesupporterandtheco-decisionmakercanonlyactinrelationto“personalmatters”6–that
is,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“without
limitation”:
“(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
thingsandrightsorinterestsinthings,
anythingregardedinlaworequityaspropertyoraninterestinproperty,
anyrightorinterestthatmaybetransferredforvaluefromonepersontoanother,
anyright,includingacontingentorfutureright,tobepaidmoneyortoreceiveany
otherkindofproperty,and
anycauseofactiontotheextentthatitrelatestopropertyorcouldresultina
judgementrequiringapersontopaymoney.”7
Soonthefaceofit,therearegreyareasaroundthedefinitionof“financialmatter.”Andthe
exclusionof“financialmatters”seemstobewideenoughtoexcludeeverydaypurchases,allbank
transactions,theorganisationofallphoneandenergyaccounts,accommodationdecisions,and
salarynegotiations,fromtheambitofthesupportedandco-decisionmakingprovisions.Soisthe
scopeofthesesupportedandco-decisionmakingpowerstoonarrowtobeofanyrealuse?Financial
mattershaveobviouslybeenexcludedtolowertherisksofsupportersandco-decisionmakers
abusingtheirpowers.Butthisprotectivemechanismsignificantlylowersthescopeofoperation.
4
Section4Supporteddecision-makingauthorisation
Sections13Co-decision-makingorder
6
Sections3and12
7
Section1(cc)
5
Page5of13
RepresentationAgreementAct1996(BritishColumbia)
ThemodelinBritishColumbiahasbeendescribedasacombinationofasupporteddecisionmaking
agreementandanenduringpowerofattorney.TheRepresentationAgreementActisquite
innovativeinthatitdispenseswiththetraditionalnotionof“capacity.”Section8providesthatan
adultmaymakearepresentationagreementeveniftheadultisincapableofmakingacontract,
incapableofmanaginghisorherpersonalcare,orincapableoftheroutinemanagementofhisor
herfinancialaffairs.8
Arepresentationagreementforasupporteddecisionmakingarrangementprovidesforthelegal
recognitionofsupportpeople.Theadultthemselvescanappointsomeonetohelpthemmake
decisionsortomakedecisionsonbehalfoftheadult.Thetypesofdecisionsrelatetopersonalcare
androutinemanagementoffinancialaffairs,includingpaymentofbills,receiptanddepositof
pensionandotherincome,foodpurchases,accommodationandotherservices,makinginvestments,
andobtaininglegalservices.Specificallyexcludedfromcoverageisthesaleofrealproperty.9
Arepresentativehasthesamerighttoinformationandrecordsrelatingtotheadultasdoesthe
adultthemselves.10Itisinterestingthatfinancialaffairscanbewithintheambitofanagreementand
arepresentativemaydelegatetoaqualifiedinvestmentspecialist,allorpartoftheirauthoritywith
respecttoinvestmentmatters.11Arepresentative’sdutiesaresetoutinsection16andincludean
obligationtokeepaccountsandotherrelevantrecords.12Toofferprotectiontotheadultfor
decisionsrelatingtofinances,theremustbetwojointrepresentatives,oronerepresentativeanda
“monitor.”13Theoverarchingdutyofamonitoristomakereasonableeffortstodeterminewhether
arepresentativeiscarryingouttheirdutiesunderthelegislation.Infulfillingthosedutiesthe
monitormayvisitandspeakwiththeadult,andreportanybreachesofdutytothePublicGuardian
andTrustee.14
Thebenefitsofthislegislativeregimeareclear.Thereisaninnovativeandlessinterventionisttestof
“capability.”Thisallowstherepresentativetobeappointedbytheadult,notbyacourt,sothe
decisiontohavearepresentativeandthechoiceofrepresentativeisanautonomousdecisionbythe
adult.Thebreadthofauthoritytoincludefinancialaffairsiswide,andtherearesafeguardsrelating
torecordkeepingandthecreativeideaofa“monitor.”Thereisalsoadegreeofcommercial
certaintyforthirdpartiesinthatanythingdonebytherepresentativeonbehalfofanadultisbinding
ontheadult.15
However,themodelalsohasitschallenges.Whiletheconventiontestof“capacity”isabandoned,
willthemorefluidtestneverthelessleadtoitsownuncertaintiesandlitigationwhenthefinancial
stakesarehigh?Also,anythirdpartywillneedtocarefullyreviewthetermsoftherepresentative’s
authorityundertheagreement.Inparticular,theywillneedtoascertainwhethertherepresentative
hasbeenappointedasasupporterorasasubstitutedecisionmaker(thelatterbeingeffectively,an
attorney).
Thetechnicalrequirementsanddocumentationwhicharenodoubtdesignedtoprotecttheadult
fromabuseorexploitation,couldneverthelessbeseenasfairlyburdensomeonallinvolved.A
representationagreementmustbeinwritingandissubjecttoprescribedsigningandwitnessing
8
Section8(2)goesontolistrelevantfactorstoconsiderwhetherapersonisincapableofmakingarepresentation
agreement,includingwhethertheadultdemonstrateschoicesandpreferences.Seealsos.3presumptionofcapability.
9
RepresentationAgreementRegulations.2
10
RepresentationAgreementActs.18
11
RepresentationAgreementActs.16(6.1)
12
RepresentationAgreementActs.16(8)
13
RepresentationAgreementActs.12“Monitors.”SeealsothatifthenamedrepresentativeisthePublicTrustee,Guardian
oratrustcompanyorcreditunion,nomonitorisrequired.
14
RepresentationAgreementActs.20
15
RepresentationAgreementActs.19
Page6of13
requirements.16Therepresentationagreementwillbeinvalidunlesseachrepresentativecompletes
acertificateintheprescribedform.17Amonitormustalsocompleteacertificateintheprescribed
form.18Ifalloftheseformalitiesarenotcompliedwiththentheagreementisnotvalid.19But
complicatingthis,thereareexceptionstoinvalidityiftherepresentativecouldnotreasonablyhave
knownofthedefectintheagreement.20Toresign,amonitorhastogivewrittennoticetotheadult
andeachrepresentative.21Ifthemonitorbecomes“incapable”thentheauthorityofthe
representativeissuspended.22Inshort,therearealotofrequirementswhich,ifnotadheredto,can
underminethecertaintyofthearrangementforallinvolved.
Havingsaidthis,Iknowthatmanypeopleareenthusiasticaboutthismodel,andunderstandthat
afteraneffectiveeducationprogramithashadagoodtake-upbyfinancialinstitutionsdealingwith
theiragedclients.However,giventheapparentlimitationsweneedtoconsiderastowhetherthis
formalisationofaninformalmodelcanreallybethewholesolution.
AdultGuardianshipandCo-decision-makingAct2000(Saskatchewan)
Thisisaninterestingmodelwhichdeservesalongerreviewthanwecangiveittoday.Inshort,a
personorentitycanapplytothecourttobeaco-decisionmakerforanadultinrelationtopersonal
mattersorpropertymatters.23“Property”includesbothreal(i.e.land)andpersonalproperty.Acodecisionmakercanbeappointedifanadult’scapacityisimpairedsothatheorsherequires
assistancetomake“reasonable”decisions.24Aco-decisionmakermayadvisetheadultonmatters,
sharewiththeadulttheauthoritytomakedecisions,andmaydoallthingstogiveeffecttotheir
authority.Buttheco-decisionmakermustacquiesceinadecisionmadebytheadult“ifareasonable
personcouldhavemadethedecision…andnoharmtotheadultislikelytoresultfromthe
decision.”25
Anydocumentevidencingaco-decisionisvoidableunlesstheadultandco-decisionmakerco-sign
thedocument.26Anydecisionmadeingoodfaithisdeemedtohavebeenmadebytheadult.27The
co-signatureofaco-decision-makerisnotaguaranteeforaloanorotherdocument.28Every
propertyco-decisionmakermustprovideanannualaccountingtotheregistrarofthecourtoftheir
decisionsmadeandactionstaken.29TheActalsoprovidesthateverypropertyco-decisionmaker
shallprovideabondwiththecourtthatisinanamountequaltoorgreaterthanthevalueofthe
adult’sestate.30
Again,thereareclearbenefitstothisregime.Thereisflexibilityfortheco-decisionmakertoassist
withadecisionortomakeaco-decision.Theco-decisionmakingbringsadegreeofcommercial
certaintyforthethirdparty.Therearealsoextensivesafeguards.However,theco-decisionmaking
modelisclearlylimitedintheamountofautonomyitgivestotheadult,andthereisapaternalistic
elementinthattherearejudgmentstobemadeaboutwhethertheadultismaking“reasonable”
16
RepresentationAgreementActs.13
RepresentationAgreementActss.5(4)and6(2);RepresentationAgreementRegulation,ScheduleForm1
18
RepresentationAgreementActs.12(5);RepresentationAgreementRegulation,
19
RepresentationAgreementActss5(4),12(2)
20
RepresentationAgreementActs.24.Unders.30(3)(e1)thereisalsoaprocesswherebythePublicGuardianandTrustee
canapplytothecourtforanorderthatarepresentationagreementisnotinvalidsolelybecauseofdefectinexecution.
21
RepresentationActs.12(6)
22
RepresentationActs.12(8)
23
AdultGuardianshipandCo-decisionMakingAct(Saskatchewan)ss.6,14,15
24
AdultGuardianshipandCo-decisionMakingAct(Saskatchewan)s.14(a)(i)
25
AdultGuardianshipandCo-decisionMakingAct(Saskatchewan)s.17
26
AdultGuardianshipandCo-decisionMakingAct(Saskatchewan)ss.16and41
27
AdultGuardianshipandCo-decisionMakingAct(Saskatchewan)ss.23and48
28
AdultGuardianshipandCo-decisionMakingAct(Saskatchewan)ss.16(2)and41(2)
29
AdultGuardianshipandCo-decisionMakingAct(Saskatchewan)s.54andRegulationFormL
30
AdultGuardianshipandCo-decisionMakingAct(Saskatchewan)s.55–maybeofalesseramountifotherwisedirected
17
Page7of13
decisionsornot.Theremayalsobesomeconfusionforathirdpartybecauseaco-decisionmaker
signsadocumentwithoutapparentlyhavinganyliabilityunderthedocument.Butthemost
significantlimitationwouldappeartobetheimpositionofthebond.Whilethisprovidesinsurance
againstabusebytheco-decisionmaker,thebondwouldbeprohibitiveinmanycasesand
discourageordisqualifyrelativesorfriendsfromtakingontheroleofco-decisionmaker.
AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015(RepublicofIreland)
Thislegislationwasenacted30December2015andoncecommenced31willreplacethesomewhat
archaic“WardsofCourt”system.IrelandsignedtheConventionin2007butmustintroducethislaw
reformbeforeratification.TheActprovidesforsubstitutedecisionmakingbutalsoassisteddecision
makingandco-decisionmaking.Anadultwhoconsidersthattheircapacity“isinquestionormay
shortlybeinquestion”canappointapersontoassisttheminmakingdecisionsonpersonalwelfare
orpropertymatters32ortheymayappointaco-decisionmaker.33
Assisteddecisionmakersandco-decisionmakersareappointedbyagreement.Thefunctionsofa
decisionmakingassistantaretoadvise,explain,ascertaintheadult’swillandpreferences,andassist
theadulttoobtainanyinformationorpersonalrecordsrelevanttoadecision.Theyarealsotoassist
theadulttomake,expressandcommunicatethedecision,andtoendeavortoensurethatdecisions
areimplemented.Adecision-makingassistantmustnotmakeadecisiononbehalfoftheadult.A
decisiontakenbytheadultwiththeassistanceofthedecision-makingassistantisdeemedtobe
takenbytheadultforallpurposes.34AnyonecanmakeacomplainttotheDirectoroftheDecision
SupportService(Director)35aboutthebehaviourofanassistant.36
Aco-decisionmakingagreementmustberegistered.37TheDirectorreviewstheapplicationfor
registrationandanyobjectionsreceived,andtheDirectorconductsaninitialannualreviewanda
furtherrevieweverythreeyears.38Co-decisionmakingagreementshavetobedraftedincompliance
withtheregulations.39
ThebenefitsoftheIrishmodelarethatitdefinitelyofferssomepubliclegitimacytoassistant
decisionmakersandco-decisionmakersandmakesthemaccountable.Italsohasbroadapplication
topersonalaffairsandproperty.Thedisadvantageofthemodelistheheavylayerofaccountability
andregulation.Thiswillprotectadultsfromexploitation–especiallybecauseapersoncanbe
disqualifiedfrombeinganassistantorco-decisionmaker40–butitmaymakefriendsandrelatives
thinktwicebeforeagreeingtoappointment,andalsoplacesaheavyadministrationburdenon
government.Theremayalsobeconcernsbythirdpartiesaroundthelackofcertaintyinthefluid
testofcapacity,andtheywillstillneedtoconducttheirduediligenceonagreementstomakesure
thattheassistantorco-decisionmakerisactingwithinthescopeoftheagreement.41
31
Atthistimethecommencementdatehasnotbeenannounced
AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015s.10
33
AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015s.17
34
AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015s.14
35
Seedefinitionof“Director”ins.94
36
AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015s.15
37
AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015ss.21,22
38
AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015s.26
39
AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015s.31(a)yettobedrafted
40
AssistedDecision-Making(Capacity)Act2015ss.11(1)(h),18(1)(h)
41
Notes.23(1)–“Arelevantdecisionwhichismadewithinthescopeofaregisteredco-decision-makingagreementshall
notbechallengedonthegroundsthattheappointerdidnothavethecapacitytomakethedecision.”
32
Page8of13
PowersofAttorneyAct2014(Vic)
TheVictorianPowersofAttorneyActcommencedon1September2015andhasastrongfocuson
supporteddecisionmaking.TheActpresumesthatanadulthasdecisionmakingcapacitywhich
meansthattheycan:
•
•
•
•
understandtheinformationrelevanttothedecisionandtheeffectofthedecision
retainthatinformationtotheextentnecessarytomakethedecision
useorweighthatinformationaspartoftheprocessofmakingthedecision,and
communicatethedecisionandtheperson’sviewsandneedsastothedecisioninsome
way.42
TheActfurther:
•
recognisesthatapersonmayhavecapacityforsomemattersonly,andthatcapacitycan
fluctuate,and
•
recognisesthatapersonmayhavedecisionmakingcapacityforamatterwithpracticable
andappropriatesupport.43
Suchsupportmayincludeusinginformationorformatstailoredtotheparticularneedsofthe
person,communicatingorassistingthepersontocommunicatetheirdecision,givingtheperson
additionaltimeanddiscussingthematterwiththeperson,orusingtechnologythatalleviatesthe
effectsoftheperson’sdisability.
EntitiesexercisingpowerundertheActmustensurethepersonisgivenpracticableandappropriate
supporttoenablethepersontoparticipateindecisionsaffectingtheprincipal,asmuchaspossible
inthecircumstances.Whereapersondoesnothavecapacity,thedecisionmakermustgiveeffectto
theperson’swishes,encouragetheperson’sparticipationindecisionmaking,andpromotethe
personalandsocialwellbeingoftheperson.44
Significantly,theActintroducedtheroleofthe“supportiveattorney”whocanbeappointedbyan
adulttoassisttheminmakingandgivingeffecttotheadult’sdecisionsinpersonalorfinancial
matters.45Alimitationofthismodelisthatasupportiveattorneycanonlybeappointedbyaperson
whohasdecisionmakingcapacity.46
Incontrastwiththetraditionalattorneyrole,thesupportiveattorneydoesnotmakedecisionsfor
theperson–thesupportiveattorneyassiststhepersontomaketheirowndecisions.The
appointmentisavailabletopeoplewhohavedecision-makingcapacitybutneedsupporttoexercise
thatcapacity.Inparticular,thesupportiveattorneymayassistthepersontoreachthethresholdfor
legalcapacity.Supportiveattorneysaredesignedtosupportpeoplewithdisabilitytomakeandgive
effecttotheirdecisions.
Thepersonmayappointasupportiveattorneytoassistwithdecisionsaboutfinancialmattersand
personalmatters–theappointmentmaybeplenaryorspecifycertainmatters.Thepersonmaygive
thesupportiveattorneypowersto:
•
•
access,collectorobtainpersonalinformation47
communicateinformationordecisionsoftheperson,48and
42
PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.4
PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.4
44
PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.4(e)andtheExample
45
PowersofAttorneyAct2014Part7,especiallys.85
46
PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.86
47
PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.87
48
PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.88
43
Page9of13
•
takereasonableactiontogiveeffecttotheperson’sdecisions.49
However,therearesomelimitationstothesupportiveattorneyrole.Supportiveattorneyscannot
takeactiontogiveeffecttosignificantfinancialtransactions,includingmostinvestments,mostreal
estatetransactions,landdealings,andsubstantialpersonalpropertydealings.Therearesome
exclusions–asupportiveattorneymayinvestupto$10,000ininterestbearingaccountsof
authorisedinstitutions,andenterintoaresidentialtenancyforapremiseswherethepersonlivesor
intendstolive.50
Asupportiveattorneyappointmentdoesnothaveeffectforanyperiodduringwhichtheperson
doesnothavedecisionmakingcapacityformatterstowhichthesupportiveattorneyappointment
applies.51Thismeansthatasupportiveattorneyappointmentmaybeinsufficientonitsownto
protectaperson’srightsandinterestswheretheperson’sdecisionmakingcapacityfluctuates.
Consequently,apersonshouldalsoconsiderhavingotherarrangementsinplace,suchasan
enduringpowerofattorney,toensurethattheyhavemaximumcontrolandinputindecision
makinginanycircumstances.
WeareimpressedandgratefulVictoriahastakentheleadonlegislatingandimplementinga
supportiveattorneymodeltopromotesupporteddecisionmaking.Whiletheremaybechallenges
withthemodel,wehopeitwillbeasolutioninmanycases.Welookforwardtothisafternoon’s
sessiononthePowersofAttorneyActtolearnmoreaboutthemodelinpractice.
GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)
TheQueenslandguardianshipandadministrationregimeisregulatedundertheGuardianshipand
AdministrationAct2000(GuardianshipAct).ThisActoperatesinconjunctionwiththePowersof
AttorneyAct1998,whichestablishesaregimeforgeneralandenduringpowersofattorneyand
statutoryhealthattorneys.TheGuardianshipActprovidesforsubstitutedecisionmaking,buteven
thoughitwasenactedpriortothesigningoftheConvention,neverthelessprovidesarobust
legislativeframeworkforsupporteddecisionmaking.
TheQueenslandCivilandAdministrativeTribunalmayappointaguardianoradministratorif
satisfiedthat:thepersonhasimpairedcapacityforthematter;thereisaneedforadecisionorarisk
totheperson;andtheperson’sneedswillnotbeadequatelymetorinterestsadequatelyprotected
withoutanappointment.52“Capacity”isassessedaccordingtotheActinrelationtoaparticular
matterthesubjectofadecision.Thatis,capacityisdomainspecific.Apersonhascapacityfora
matterif“thepersoniscapableof:
(a) understandingthenatureandeffectofdecisionsaboutthematter,and
(b) freelyandvoluntarilymakingdecisionsaboutthematter,and
(c) communicatingthedecisionsinsomeway.”53
Unlessthetribunalordersotherwise,aguardianoradministratorisauthorisedtodoanythingin
relationtoaparticularmatterthatthepersoncouldhavedoneifthepersonhadcapacityforthe
matter.54
Andyet,itissubmittedtherearemanyprovisionsoftheGuardianshipActwhichemphasisethe
importanceofandarguablytheprimaryimportanceofsupporteddecisionmaking,sothatsubstitute
decisionmakingshouldonlybealastresort.
49
PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.89
PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.89
51
PowersofAttorneyAct2014s.102
52
GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)s.11
53
GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)Schedule4Dictionary
54
GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)s.33
50
Page10of13
TheGuardianshipActprovidesthat:
•
thereisapresumptionofcapacity55
•
aslongastheadulthassomewayofcommunicatinghisorherdecision,theydoesnothave
tocommunicateitorallytoshowcapacity56
•
anadult’srighttomakedecisionsisfundamentaltotheadult’sinherentdignity
•
thecapacityofanadulttomakedecisionsmaydifferaccordingtothesupportavailablefrom
themembersoftheadult’sexistingsupportnetwork
•
therightofanadultwithimpaireddecisionmakingcapacitytomakedecisionsshouldbe
restrictedandinterferedwithtotheleastpossibleextent
•
anadultwithimpairedcapacityhasarighttoadequateandappropriatesupportfordecision
making,57and
•
itencouragesinvolvementindecision-makingofthemembersoftheadult’sexistingsupport
network.58
GuardiansandadministratorsmustapplythegeneralprinciplesprescribedintheAct;also“the
communityisencouragedtoapplyandpromotethegeneralprinciples.”59
Thesegeneralprinciplesassert:
•
•
•
•
thatalladultsregardlessofcapacityhavethesamehumanrights
theimportanceofempoweringanadulttoexercisetheadult’sbasishumanrights
therightofanadulttorespectofhisorherhumanworthanddignity,and
theadult’srighttobeavaluedmemberofsociety.
Principle6recognisestheimportanceofencouragingandsupportingapersontoachievetheir
maximumpotentialandtobecomeasself-reliantaspossible.Principle7recognisessupported
decisionmakingprinciplesthroughmaximumparticipation,minimallimitationsandsubstituted
judgment.Inparticular,principle7recognises:
•
anadult’srighttoparticipate,tothegreatestextentpracticable,indecisionsaffectingthe
adult’slife,includingthedevelopmentofpolicies,programsandservicesforpeoplewith
impairedcapacityforamatter,mustberecognisedandtakenintoaccount
•
theimportanceofpreserving,tothegreatestextentpracticable,anadult’srighttomakehis
orherowndecisions
•
theadultmustbegivenanynecessarysupport,andaccesstoinformation,toenablethe
persontoparticipateindecisionsaffectingtheirlife
•
theadult’sviewsandwishesaretobesoughtandtakenintoaccounttothegreatestextent
practicablewhenexercisingpowerforamatterfortheadult,and
•
anentityinperformingafunctionorexercisingapowerundertheActmustdosointheway
leastrestrictiveoftheperson’srights.However,theymustdosoinawayconsistentwith
theadult’spropercareandprotection.Thishasbeeninterpretedandisappliedasa“best
55
GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)Schedule1Part1GeneralPrinciples
GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)s.146(3)
57
GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)s.5
58
GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)s.7
59
GuardianshipandAdministrationAct2000(Qld)s.11andSchedule1,Part1
56
Page11of13
interests”principlewhichhadthepotentialtooverridetheadult’sautonomousdecision
making.
TheaboveprinciplesarealsoprescribedinthePowersofAttorneyAct1998fordecisionmakers
authorisedunderthatlegislation.60
Inconclusion,oursubmissionisthatthelegislationalreadyprovidesasoundframeworkfor
supporteddecisionmakingwithoutactuallyformalisingsupportiveorassistivearrangements.Iflegal
frameworkswerethetotalanswertoensuringthattherightsofadultswithimpairedcapacitywere
upheld,thenthislegislationarguablysetsthestandard.Thechallengethoughisinimplementation
andinhavingthetimeandresourcestoadvocateandsupportadultsthroughcomplex
environments.
InQueenslandwealreadyhaveanobligationunderthelegislationtoundertakesupporteddecision
making–andthisisouraspirationandourstrategygoingforward.Wewouldwelcome
strengtheningofthelegislationtofurtherpromotesupporteddecisionmakinginpractice.
Wheretofromhere?
Insummary,therearevariousapproachestoblacklettermodelsforsupporteddecisionmaking.On
papermanyaspectsoftheseschemesappearcomplexandconfusingandpotentiallycostly.
However,therearemanycommentatorsandpractitionerswhospeakhighlyoftheseschemes,and
wearegratefulthatothershavetroddenfirstintothesedifficultwaters.
Oursubmissionisthatweshouldnotletanoveremphasisonblacklettermodelsdistractusfrom
focusingonwhatcanalreadybeachievedandshouldbeachievedundercurrentlegislative
frameworkswhichalreadydemandthatweworkassupporteddecisionmakers.Legislativechange
canleadanddrivecommunitybehaviour,butlegislationinitselfisnottheanswer,andthereare
inherentproblemsinformalisinginformalarrangements.ItiseasytopassanAct,thehardpartis
ongoingimplementationandresourcing.
References
Carney,Terry.“SupportedDecision-MakingforPeoplewithCognitiveImpairments:AnAustralian
Perspective?”Laws4(2015):37-59.
Carney,TerryandFleurBeaupert.“PublicandPrivateBricolage–ChallengesBalancingLaw,Services
&CivilSocietyinAdvancingCRPDSupportedDecisionMaking.”UNSWLawJournal36.1(2013):175201.
CarterJWet.al.5thed.Sydney:Lexis/NexisButterworths,2007.
Herr,StanleyS.“Self-Determination,Autonomy,andAlternativesforGuardianship.”TheHuman
RightsofPersonswithIntellectualDisabilities:DifferentbutEqual.Ed.StanleySHerretal.Great
Britain:OxfordUniversityPress,2003.429-453.
IntellectualDisabilityRightsService.“GuardianshipandadministrationlawsacrossAustralia.”2012.
<http://www.idrs.org.au/pdf/Guardianship_and_administration_laws_across_Australia_by_Ben_Fog
arty.pdf>
Kohn,NinaA,JeremyABlumenthalandAmyTCampbell.“SupportedDecision-Making:AViable
AlternativetoGuardianship?”PennStateLawReview117.4(2013):1111-1157.
60
PowersofAttorneyAct1998(Qld)Schedule1,Part1
Page12of13
OfficeofthePublicAdvocateQueensland.“Autonomyanddecision-makingsupportinAustralia:A
targetedoverviewofguardianshiplegislation.”2014.
<http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/249405/Decision-making-support-forQueenslanders-with-impaired-capacity-A-targeted-overview-of-guardianship-legislation-in-AustraliaMarch-2014.pdf>
OfficeofthePublicAdvocateQueensland.“Decision-makingsupportinQueensland’sguardianship
system:Asystemicadvocacyreport.”2016.
<http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/470458/OPA_DMS_SystemicAdvocacy-Report_FINAL.pdf>
OfficeofthePublicAdvocateSouthAustralia.“EvaluationoftheSupportedDecisionMaking
Project.”2012.
<http://www.opa.sa.gov.au/files/batch1376447055_final_supported_decision_making_evaluation.p
df>
Purser,KellyandTulyRosenfeld.“Assessingtestamentaryanddecision-makingcapacity:Approaches
andmodels.”JournalofLawandMedicine23.1(2015):121-136.
Then,Shih-Ning.“EvolutionandInnovationinGuardianshipLaws:AssistedDecision-Making.”Sydney
LawReview35.133(2013):133-166.
Page13of13