Human Rights Division
The Human Rights Division (HuRD) led by David Bancroft case manages applications under the following lists:
- anti-discrimination
- children
- education
- guardianship.
Our cases
The large majority of applications managed by HuRD fall within the guardianship list. Since the inception of QCAT there has been a significant increase in the overall number of guardianship cases compared with previous years. This trend is reflective of the ageing population and the community’s increasing awareness of formal arrangements to protect their loved one’s rights.
To meet the increase in case numbers, streamlined case management processes have been developed for each list within the division. The biggest improvement has been the introduction of the use of pre-hearing processes such as directions hearings and compulsory conferences to bring disputing parties face to face as soon as possible.
Our clients
HuRD provides registry services to many of society’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged people. These include children, adults with impaired capacity and people alleging discrimination, harassment, vilification and victimisation.
Families, carers and support people from a person’s community of care are often actively involved in the matters handled by the division. There are also a number of government and non-government organisations which participate in tribunal hearings. The HuRD team has made a concerted effort to meet the needs of all of these client groups with regular meetings and attendance at forums.
Our people
HuRD’s aim is to ensure our staff can meet the important requirements of our clients whose cases are often complex, emotive and involve a large number of parties.
The majority of the staff within HuRD have come from the former Guardianship and Administration Tribunal. We have also integrated the expertise of team members from the Anti-discrimination Tribunal and Children Services Tribunal. The staff within the division are supported by both formal and informal qualifications and have many years of experience in human rights cases and in preparing cases for successful hearings.
Year in review
A number of process improvements have been implemented by HuRD staff including:
- participating in a program of community education talks
- holding regular meetings with stakeholders to identify and respond to client needs
- developing procedures to enhance media access to Human Rights Division files
- increasing regional sittings across all lists
- developing relevant and useful frequently asked questions for lists in the divisions
- reviewing QCAT forms relating to the division to improve efficiencies and completion rates
- developing consistent practices across all lists to facilitate early resolution of disputes by referral to compulsory conferences, mediation and directions hearings
- implementing a new case management system with ongoing enhancements to meet our client’s growing needs
- improving efficiency by working with the tribunal to increase the categories of cases that can be finalised by on the paper hearings through the development of an administrative practice
- developing and refining of processes to respond to the significant increase in guardianship list and anti-discrimination list cases.
Type and number of limitation orders made 1 December 2009 - 30 June 2010
|
Limitation order type |
Number made |
|---|---|
|
Number of adults |
3253 |
|
Adult evidence order |
2 |
|
Closure order |
0 |
|
Non-publication order |
1 |
|
Confidentiality order |
3 |
|
Total applications received |
23 |
Guardians for restrictive practices finalised applications 1 December 2009 - 30 June 2010
|
|
order made |
order renewed and varied |
Dismissed |
Deceased |
Administrative closure |
Withdrawn at hearing |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
for restrictive practice |
149 |
0 |
25 |
0 |
1 |
21 |
196 |
|
Review of guardianship for restrictive practice |
52 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
52 |
Containment, seclusion and other restrictive practices approvals made 1 December 2009 - 30 June 2010
|
|
Approved |
Dismissed |
Deceased |
Withdrawn / administrative closure |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Containment |
9 |
3 |
0 |
6 |
18 |
|
Review of containment |
6 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
|
Seclusion |
13 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
17 |
|
Review of seclusion |
9 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
10 |
|
Application for another restrictive practice |
14 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
19 |
|
Review of application for another restrictive practice |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
Positive behaviour support plan compliance checks made 1 December 2009 - 30 June 2010
|
Plans checked |
Compliant |
Not compliant |
|---|---|---|
|
32 |
31 |
1 |
Case study
In September 2009, a retired banker aged 90 appointed his wife and son as his attorneys under an Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA). In December 2009, the man was hospitalised and underwent surgery, following which he remained confused and testing revealed significant cognitive impairment. He did not regain his former level of cognitive functioning and he was assessed as requiring high level residential care.
His granddaughter applied to QCAT for the appointment of a guardian and administrator. The tribunal had to consider whether the original EPA was valid. Evidence from the man’s doctor supported the finding that he had been mentally agile at the time the EPA was made and he had capacity before his illness hospitalised him. The certifying witness to the EPA had known the man for many years and gave evidence that the he had read through the EPA carefully. In addition, he had discussed aspects of the document including when the Power took effect and he specifically wanted the attorneys to have the power to make decisions about his personal matters.
The adult’s granddaughter contended that her grandfather had impaired capacity prior to September 2009 referring to the adult’s inability to maintain his taxation and property records during the past few years. The tribunal determined that the EPA was valid and noted that a lack of attention to his taxation and property affairs was not of itself satisfactory evidence of impaired capacity. Also there was specific evidence from the certifying witness and the man’s doctor that the adult had had capacity for the matter in September 2009.
The applications for appointment of a guardian and administrator were dismissed as the attorneys were willing to continue to act as decision makers for the adult.
