Dr WOODRUFF - Minister, I want to start by recognising the improvements that have happened with the Public Trustee and the work of the board and the CEO and staff. That is really welcomed.
There have been some grave concerns raised with me about consultation processes around and following the passage of the guardianship and adminstration amemdment bill. I've had a look at the public information that is available for the supported decision-making framework and the Economic Regulator's prescribed body inquiry. It's very scant. I can't help but form the view that there is basis for the concerns that are being raised with me.
The terms of reference for the Economic Regulator's prescribed body inquiry are incredibly narrow. The supported decision making framework never had a consultation draft published that I have been able to see. The final documentation is also not published.
Minister, given that the problems that led to the Bugg review and led to the passage of that bill were about controlled top-down attitudes, it is concerning that the consultation seems to be very closed. It certainly is not open. It seems to be 'We know best what to do' without the openness and transparency which we would have expected with these important pieces of work so immediately after the bill.
Mr BARNETT - That is a significant number of questions there, all important questions. Perhaps the Chair and the CEO might want to add. A lot of work went into the supported decision-making model. I had the privilege and pleasure of being at the launch of that in October. That is being well appreciated. It was based on advice and feedback from the experts in the country. I can identify them. La Trobe University's Professor Christine Bigby and Professor Jacinta Douglas. They put on a training workshop for many of the Public Trustee team members when I was there. Then they went north around the state. I'll let the chair and the CEO outline more detail of that.
It is all based on being a people-centric model. This is the new approach. It is based on the will and preference of the individual. It is a new supported decision-making framework. I am very pleased and proud of that, certainly as Attorney-General. I'll pass to the Chair and the CEO to respond to that
It would be good to have an opportunity to respond to that second question about the financial modelling review. On this matter I will pass to the Chair and CEO.
Ms TAYLOR - A top-down approach is not what we are wanting to achieve. Early after the Bugg review, the implementation phase started. We have formed a large and comprehensive stakeholder reference group. That group has been central to the way we developed the pathways to move forward.
In terms of developing not only the supported decision-making framework and everything that goes with that, as the Attorney-General said we've worked with the best in the field to be able to do that. Everything we've done has been in consultation with that group. In fact, every policy or procedure that we're now developing across the organisation is passed by that group so that the Public Trustee doesn't seem disconnected to what clients want and need.
These organisations, and the list of organisations is easily available and Todd could give those, and all of our policies and procedures we want to connect with what is relevant and most applicable. This is a great example. We launched the framework in October. It was a soft launch because the bill does not come in to force until next September and there's been media around the long time frame.
It is a new way of doing business for all of us. We need to not only train our own staff but we are working across the stakeholder organisations so they thoroughly understand the approach as well and with the support networks of our clients so they understand the approach. There will be some tweaking around the final look of the framework. We have every intention for that framework to be published and on our website, but at the moment it's still in the process of finalisation because we have those few months for everyone to come onboard. We want the best framework we can.
So we will keep consulting. Some people have chosen not to be part of that consultation.
Dr WOODRUFF - On the stakeholder reference group, I understand there were only two clients who were part of the stakeholder reference group out of that very large group of people. It has been put to me that they had a very unpleasant experience. I am just reporting their experience. Can you please outline what steps were taken to consult with people with lived experience being on orders with the Public Trustee and what support was provided to those people? We understand there wasn't any support provided to them to be part of that group.
Ms TAYLOR - Attorney-General, it might be better if I move to the CEO because he was really managing that process -
Dr WOODRUFF - Just to clarify, it doesn't need to go through the Attorney-General. This is GBE so I can ask you as chair or the minister separately. You can decide to answer a question or to pass it to whomever you want.
Mr BARNETT - The Chair has recommended the CEO respond.
Mr KENNEDY - There are two parts to answering the question. The first meeting we had back in May 2022 I think is what the reference refers to. We had clients at that meeting with their support people. What we took away from that is that clients felt a lot more comfortable not sitting around a table like this, but instead having the opportunity to provide their feedback with their support worker independently.
That was the first meeting we had. Since then we have been meeting on a monthly basis. The experience of the two client members is very positive. To add to the consultation that's happened with the development of our supported decision-making framework there were around 11 clients that were part of the consultation since May. There were independent meetings with them. They shared their stories. They provided their feedback. That's what helped inform the framework. Their input has largely shaped it.
Dr WOODRUFF - Why wasn't the consultation document published? Why isn't the final document published? This is such an incredibly important guiding policy. Why is there no material available to Tasmanians who want to follow the process?
Mr KENNEDY - There's every intention to publish the document. We've still -
Dr WOODRUFF - Isn't that after the consultation? Where's the opportunity for people to engage in the consultation?
Mr KENNEDY - The consultation commenced in April. There has been extensive consultation with clients, stakeholders and experts in the disability sector in Tasmania. I want to acknowledge a couple of those groups in Speak Out Advocacy and North West Support Services that provided introductions to clients as well as the contribution our own clients made. After the training and soft launch, as the chair spoke about, we've then further consulted with parties that aren't part of our reference group. We've started this now, there's another 11 months or 12 months before it comes into play.
It is an internal document. There's no secrecy around it. There's every intention to make it a public document. That's been the recommendation from the group as well. The fact that it's not available today is just timing. We are continuing to get feedback this week and last week from other stakeholders, and we'll make any sort of changes.
Dr WOODRUFF - Can you put it on the website?
Mr KENNEDY - Yes, we will, definitely.
Dr WOODRUFF - Minister, I want to probe a bit deeper into the new supported decision-making framework. The second reading speech for the guardianship and administration amendment bill by your previous attorney-general indicated that a legislative framework would be considered and that was also considered as the preferred model by COTA, Advocacy Tasmania, Community Legal Centres Tasmania and others. That's not what's occurred. Instead we've got a framework that at the moment, albeit with the consultation that has happened, is still an internal Public Trustee policy.
Why was the legislated supported decision-making framework rejected by the Government and why wasn’t there any consultation or even communication with those key stakeholders and others about the decision you made?
Mr BARNETT - First of all, the legislative reform - and I want to commend the former attorney on delivering on that reform earlier this year - was based on the TLRI review of the Guardianship and the Administration Act final report. That goes back to 2018. The Damian Bugg report and its recommendations are contemporising the guardianship and administration laws. There's been a very significant shift in the way that framework is set up to a will and preference model rather than the best-interests-of-the-person model, to put the individual at the centre, focusing on personal directions, values, preferences. I might ask the CEO to outline this in more detail-
Dr WOODRUFF - I am not interested in that. I am interested in your decision-making, the Government's decision making about not proceeding as the previous attorney-general indicated would be considered with a legislated framework for supported decision making. There was no consultation about that. There was a lot of conversation from the shadow Attorney-General, from myself on behalf of the Greens during the debate on the second reading speech about this matter. There were concerns raised. The then attorney-general said in her second reading speech that it would be considered, but there have be crickets about the process for making a decision not to go down that pathway.
Mr BARNETT - Well, I cannot agree with the crickets comment.
Dr WOODRUFF - You know I am talking about the framework. I'm not talking about what has been developed. I'm talking about the legislative approach or not.
Mr BARNETT - You made a reference to crickets so I'm just responding. There has been so much consultation with the reference group-
Dr WOODRUFF - But not on that issue, which is the question.
Mr BARNETT - I am not sure that you have a correct understanding of that. I would like to defer to either the chair or the CEO on that matter.
Dr WOODRUFF - It's possible that you don't understand your portfolio area. I understand that you have not been here for long but I would have hoped you'd have a briefing about why the Government decided not to take that approach.
Mr BARNETT - I am not sure. I think you may be construing the views of the former attorney-general in a way that is not accurate.
Dr WOODRUFF - It was in a second reading speech. Don't be disingenuous.
Mr BARNETT - I'll ask the Chair to add to that.
Ms TAYLOR - From my point of view, coming in to the Chair role, the independent review had a recommendation around developing supported decision making. The organisation predated the legislation or the amendments to the act, so we have gone down that path with a whole range of consultations, as we have already cited. I believe that is probably the reason we have gone down that path because this was already -
Mr BARNETT - There are three tranches. We are talking about the second tranche, which is taking place over the next 12 months. Lots of consultation and feedback from the reference groups. There is a third tranche, which is expected next year. That is probably the legislative framework you are referring to that you're saying the former attorney-general referred to so that will be next year. That's planned for next year. That is the third trench.
Dr WOODRUFF - The concern is that if there isn't a decision-making framework that's statutory, then what would the mechanism be for somebody to be able to enforce their rights?
Mr BARNETT - I am hearing where you are coming from. It's based on TLRI reforms and recommendations. A legislative framework which you are referring to. That's going to be considered next year -
Dr WOODRUFF - It's still the intention of the Government to go down that pathway?
Mr BARNETT - It is still an intention of the Government to look at that very seriously as the legislative framework. The advice I have is that it's a legislative framework in a range of areas, including the official appointment of supporters, issues related to fines, penalties and compensation, enduring powers of attorney, supporting the recommendations of the royal commission for people with disabilities. There's quite a bit of work -
Dr WOODRUFF - You did not put supported decision-making framework on that list.
Mr BARNETT - I am not saying that it's not on the list, I am just saying I have not read it out because I am sharing with you my understanding of the third tranche of reforms expected for next year.
Dr WOODRUFF - As well as supported legislative -
CHAIR - Mr O'Byrne.
Dr WOODRUFF - Will that supported decision making framework be part -
CHAIR - Dr Woodruff, order. The call has gone to Mr O'Byrne.
Dr WOODRUFF - This is a really important question.
Mr BARNETT - I am happy, just quickly. My understanding is, yes. I will confirm that with you very shortly; but that won't be until next year under tranche three.
Dr WOODRUFF - Okay, that's fine. We just want to know yes or no.
Dr WOODRUFF - Is the Public Trustee taking any steps to assist clients or their advocates to make a submission to the economic regulator's inquiry into the pricing policies, and have people been contacted or made aware of the review?
Ms TAYLOR - The Public Trustee itself, as you know and I'm sure you would appreciate, has supplied a whole range of information and we haven't had any feedback from OTER. I'm not sure it's our role to do that, it's a public review, so the short answer is no, we haven't. The CEO has some comments to make, it seems.
Mr KENNEDY - Earlier in the week we were approached to provide some support with some third parties, which we're doing. We've only had those two requests that came in earlier in the week, so we've been helping and engaging with them as part of their submission, but as our Chair said, the roll up till now has been providing an extensive amount of data and information on fees to help the economic regulator with their review.
Dr WOODRUFF - Thanks. Minister, was anyone consulted on the terms of reference for this review or inquiry?
Mr BARNETT - That's a fair question and I would assume the Treasurer would have been consulted and have a view, but it is consistent with the Bugg report and recommendation and OTER does have that important role; that's what they do. They do these sorts of things on a regular basis, a weekly basis, so they know how to undertake those assessments. They are independent, they are objective and they do it on a consistent basis.
Dr WOODRUFF - Through the Chair, the business of the Public Trustee is to manage the financial decisions of people who are on orders and so why isn't it the role of the trustee to empower people to make a representation to a review that is under way about how fees will be determined when it is in their best interests because it is about the fees that the Public Trustee manages that they already pay?
Ms TAYLOR - From our point of view, we saw it as a public review and organisations. It was probably discussed through the stakeholder reference group. I am not sure whether it has been but the 28 recommendations of the independent review are very well known across the community and so the opportunity has been there as the CEO has already mentioned -
Dr WOODRUFF - Sorry, I am talking about the inquiry into the prescribed body.
Ms TAYLOR - Yes, that is what I am talking about as well. It is one of the recommendations out of the review. Those 28 recommendations are publicly available so it would, I do not see it as a role of the Public Trustee to sponsor stakeholder input into that review.
Dr WOODRUFF - They are not stakeholders. They are the people who - I mean this review will determine the charges that they have to pay - and they are by their nature vulnerable and probably their carers and other people are involved are highly engaged in looking after them but were they to have information that this inquiry was happening? Were they to be offered the support if they wanted to put something in? Many more people might have taken up that opportunity. It just does not seem to be looking in to the shoes of the people who are paying the money, thinking of it from their point of view. I do not get the feeling that there is that kind of change in that sense.
I am a bit concerned to hear that and I suppose for you, minister, I am very concerned to hear that such a narrow terms of reference were developed by the Treasurer and there was no public consultation. The auditor is capable of doing a review but only bounded within the scopes of the terms of reference that have been developed. As I understand it, the terms of reference seem to embed a cost-recovery framework, which is very restrictive and given the guardianship and administration orders are imposed on people, I think there is a strong argument that those people should not be paying a fee for something that is not an optional service.
Will you consider the costs for those people who are on orders that the CSO payment would be covered? It seems as though the terms of reference given to the regulator, make it impossible for them to come to that conclusion. I don’t understand why that’s being written off.
Mr BARNETT - I don't see it in the same way as you. I can see where you're coming from. I want to put in a plug for the Economic Regulator because they are very thorough. They are independent, objective and look at other jurisdictions. They will look at the pros and cons of the recommendations or the options that they will be looking at. They will make assessments around that and will take into account within the terms of reference, which is a fair point from where you are coming from.
Dr WOODRUFF - You are a lawyer, you will understand it prescribes a certain range of review.
Mr BARNETT - They will act within the terms of reference. As you note, the Treasurer's set out the terms of reference. It's very important that they take into account everything that's relevant to the fees and other jurisdictions. They will then come down with a report and recommendation which will then go to the two stakeholder ministers I referred to earlier, the Treasurer and myself to make that final determination.
Dr WOODRUFF - Will that be made public so that people can comment on that prior to a decision?
Mr BARNETT - I am not aware of any plans for public hearings or anything like that.
Dr WOODRUFF - Not hearings but the report with the recommendations from OTER prior to a decision being made.
Mr BARNETT - I have to take that on notice.
Dr WOODRUFF - I will put that on notice. How much of the Public Guardian's revenue comes from fees associated with people on administration orders.
Mr BARNETT - I am not sure. We have the chief financial officer and the CEO here with us today, so let's see if we can assist.
Mr KENNEDY - I will take that on notice but I am more than happy to get that number and provide it. I just don't have it here today.
Dr WOODRUFF - Is that okay, Chair?
CHAIR - Yes.
Dr WOODRUFF - Minister, I am concerned that despite that your statements and good will and great hope for the OTER review, they are constrained to recommend that the cost of the service is covered because that's how the terms of reference have been framed. They have been framed to have cost recovery. That is a problem when people don't have a choice about having a service. I'm asking you to consider intervening and expanding the terms of reference for the economic regulator to allow them to make any recommendation they think fit, particularly with respect to people who are on CSOs.
Mr BARNETT - Thank you very much for the question. The first thing I'd say is that it's my understanding the terms of reference are public so people can see the terms of reference and I think you might have access to it.
Dr WOODRUFF - That's why I'm asking the question because I've seen them and we consider them not to be able to provide that as a recommendation or option for the economic regulator.
Mr BARNETT - I'm glad you've seen them and they are public because that was my advice, so thank you for that. They're pretty clear in the sense that the economic regulator does look at the efficient provision of the service, and that's an understandable request for any terms of reference for any government or any public trustee, and that they look at comparable jurisdictions interstate and maybe other places. They'll have all that information, pull it all together and provide that report and recommendation back to the two stakeholder ministers when they complete it in and around February next year.
We'll certainly have a look at that very carefully. I can't give any commitments now other than the fact that we want to an efficient, sustainable, effective Public Trustee and, as I say, the last 12 months have been very productive and the reforms have been well-received from all the feedback I'm getting and I'd like that to continue well into the future.
Dr WOODRUFF - Efficiency is a capitalist market term that relates to a Commonwealth competition policy way of doing things that all governments around Australia have adopted and for many services that's entirely appropriate, but it's not necessarily fair and it's not necessarily just or reasonable, or in these circumstances, humane. Obviously, by the measure of efficiency, it will not be possible to make a recommendation such as the ones I pointed to and yet I maintain that it is manifestly unfair and just the wrong pathway for Tasmania to go down to force people who have a service, who are very vulnerable and who may have no capacity to pay for that. Will you intervene to have a conversation with the economic regulator, in writing, obviously, to make sure that's a possible consideration?
Mr BARNETT - I note again that we already have in our budget $4.3 million for the CSO. That's a significant commitment over the next four years, and we have an additional $4.3 million to implement the recommendations and all that's rolling out very positively. I can commit to ensure that we get that report and recommendation from the independent regulator. It will be considered very carefully and I look forward to backing in the Public Trustee and its reforms that we as a government have implemented. As I say, there will be more reforms expected next year, tranche 3, to deliver and the feedback is very positive and I'd want that to continue, so that's the commitment.
Dr WOODRUFF - Is the Government open to abolishing fees for people on those orders?
Mr BARNETT - I don't think there's an openness to abolishing fees. There's an openness to delivering effective support and care through the Public Trustee and the important work they do. We already have that commitment to a community service obligation which has just increased by $4.3 million over the forward Estimates. We'll have more to say subject to this report coming out in February and the Treasurer working through those issues with myself and my department and the Public Trustee by the first quarter of next year.
Dr WOODRUFF - OTER'S determination will be much longer than this Budget forward Estimates cycle. It will likely go for many years, decades or more into the future. so it is something that needs a framework which is ethical and humane as well as efficient when reasonable. I'd just urge you to reconsider.
Dr WOODRUFF - Recommendation 2.2 and 6.2 are listed in the annual report as being completed by the 30 September this year, and they were to consider the levels of service communication required for represented persons and implement them and to provide training to staff about customer service standards and appropriate expectations as a professional trustee. Have both of those recommendations now been implemented?
Mr KENNEDY - Yes they have. A key part of the new standards lay within our supported decision making framework, some of that communication I touched on before, and at the start of October when we launched it, we had two of the leading experts come down, related to supported decision making and run trainings statewide over two days. Yes, we have our updated standards and we have rolled out the training as well.
Dr WOODRUFF - In finishing, I wonder in the coming year what your ambition is? There is so much change happening and so much work that is going on. You have got a massive body of work to do but I wonder whether you have any kind of ambitions of a particular nature for the board to focus on in the coming year?
Ms TAYLOR - Thanks for that. It is true that it has been quite extraordinary and I think the attorney used that word about the amount of cultural and organisational change. The board is totally committed to ensuring that the Public Trustee does provide those services and it is a safety net for everyone in the community, especially those who need the services. A comment was made before, that I make often, that the Bugg Review is the baseline. Completing the 28 recommendations I think will put us at the start line.
The board has got a very ambitious corporate plan. It is all around putting the client at the centre of everything we do and it is reflected in our language, in our thinking, in our culture across the organisation, we have embedded a change culture expert within the organisation who has been there for over a year. For me, when we reflect on and evaluate the journey so far, I think that has been one of the success factors in terms of changing the culture -
CHAIR - The time for scrutiny has expired.
Ms TAYLOR - Can I just finish the sentence?
CHAIR - Sure.
Ms TAYLOR - For the next year, it will really be embedding where we are up to and making it business as usual. It is still new for everyone and we will spend the next few months especially before the amendments to the act come in, I know September, I understand the complaints around the time frame, but I think all the organisations that we bump up against because we only have a small role in all of that. We need a lot of information and processes and procedures put in place. Also, we need for the board's point of view, this next year as well as embedding will be around rigorous KPIs, a rigorous reporting framework, looking at the metrics, because last year we came here and it was really new and it was best endeavours.
I think you can see a year later we have made huge progress. Next year I will be very happy to be able to give you figures and numbers and reporting about our progress.
CHAIR - The time for scrutiny has expired. Thank you all for coming.
