The main purpose of the Committee to Expose the Public Trustee is exactly that – to expose the Public Trustee. We want to shed some light on the reality of people caught up in the guardianship system. To that end we have decided to publish some personal stories.
Some of our members have been willing to share their stories. Others do not want to compromise their privacy. Others are fearful of retribution that would be suffered by their loved ones if they spoke out. Amongst our committee there are many more nightmare stories than are presented here and we know there are many, many more in Queensland.
If you would like to help us expose the Public Trustee and share your experience of Queensland’s adult guardianship system you are very welcome to do so. Please post your story in the comment section below. Comments here are moderated and will not appear immediately.
If you do tell your story, please do not include any information that identifies yourself, your loved one or any officer of the guardianship system. We will check your stories for this before publishing, other than that you can say what you like.
Click on links to read stories –
They left only his hat
(This is just a small part of this person’s story. His supporters have previously published the whole story and been order by QCAT to remove it)
The Public Trustee, the Adult (Public) Guardian and their Aboriginal client.
HMR’s personal needs and accommodation
Also – Rob Messenger video10 thoughts on “Personal stories of contact with the Queensland adult guardianship system”
Source : https://exposethepublictrustee.wordpress.com/personal-stories-of-contact-with-the-queensland-adult-guardianship-system/
COMMON STORY WITH TRUSTEES
State Trustees lose clients’ life savings
Date February 1, 2015
The late Christa Simmons, who had dementia and whose funds were almost all lost by Victorian State Trustees.
The life savings of disabled and mentally impaired Victorians have been lost by the state-owned company that administers their estates after it invested their money in high-risk funds.
A Sunday Age investigation has found that State Trustees ignored its legal obligation to act in the best interests of clients, allowing its financial planning division to speculate in high-risk investments that led to substantial losses. This included putting savings and money from government pensions with LM Investment Management, a Gold Coast-based scheme that lost $800 million when it collapsed in 2013 amid allegations of misconduct.
State Trustees controls more than $1 billion belonging to 9500 vulnerable people who have been deemed unfit to manage their own financial affairs and now depend on the investments made in their names to meet their living expenses.
State Trustees would not reveal how many of its clients lost money in the schemes, citing privacy laws and the need to protect “community confidence” in the system. “State Trustees seeks to take a conservative approach with its clients’ money,” a spokeswoman said.
Among the victims was Christa Simmons, a 75-year-old woman with dementia who was under the administration of State Trustees for 15 years before her death.
Due to privacy laws, the family of Ms Simmons has been kept in the dark about her finances since the Guardianship& Administration Board (now VCAT) appointed State Trustees her financial and legal administrator in 1997.
“It’s State Trustees – it’s practically the government. You assume they have the highest level of integrity and there’s checks and balances in place. We never had any reason to suspect otherwise,” her daughter Darlene told The Sunday Age.
But documents show a State Trustees financial planner invested a significant portion of her entire savings – more than 40 per cent at one point – in a “pension account” that fed into three investments with high- to very high risk ratings.
In 2010, State Trustees reviewed Ms Simmons’ investment position and noted her risk profile should be “moderate”. The report recommended that the pension account balance of $37,894 be transferred to a marginally safer financial product that charged lower fees and commissions. The recommendation was not implemented and two years later the account had lost nearly all its value.
The major problem was a significant investment made on her behalf in a mortgage fund run by entrepreneur Peter Drake, founder of now-defunct LM Investment Management. When the fund ran into trouble in 2009 all investments were frozen, leaving investors to watch as its value dropped but their money could not be withdrawn. LM eventually collapsed with losses estimated at $800 million.
At the time of her death in 2012, Ms Simmons had just $3700 left in her pension account in potentially accessible funds. Another $15,100 remained trapped with LM and is now considered essentially lost.
In the last year of her life, Ms Simmons had paid $778 in fees and commissions to State Trustees and other financial managers to administer her rapidly diminishing pension account.
Records show that the rest of Ms Simmons life savings at the time of her death – about $63,000 – was being held in a number of other, if better performing, high-risk products, as well as some safer investments and cash. State Trustees had based its investment strategy on the expectation they would need to provide for her financial needs to age 88.
The family of Ms Simmons was completely unaware of the troubled state of her finances until she died, when they began to question State Trustees about her will. But the group, acting as her legally appointed administrator and executor, refused to disclose detailed information.
After a protracted dispute, her daughter took over as executor and obtained some of her mother’s records. “It’s unfathomable how a government body awarded guardianship over frail, sick and vulnerable people appear to have a licence to gamble with their savings with impunity for the loses,” Darlene said.
She is now considering taking legal action.
It is not known how many other of the State Trustees’ 9500 clients may have lost money in risky investments such as LM. Documents show the three financial products Ms Simmons’ money was invested in required State Trustees to make a minimum buy-in investment of $20,000, $25,000 and $100,000 for each, suggesting many other clients have been assigned stakes as well to meet this target.
State Trustees has ignored repeated requests to provide figures about its investment activities or losses.
“While a pension fund may reduce over time due to normal withdrawals, an overall financial position for a client whose finances are managed by State Trustees could be stable or even experiencing moderate growth even during a period when most investments were being heavily affected by the global financial crisis,” a representative said.
With State Trustees claiming it cannot disclose information about losses due to privacy rules, it is likely any potential victims may never know they are victims.
The collapse of LM is now the subject of a pending class action lawsuit by law firm Slater & Gordon, which is seeking compensation for investors tipped into the fund on the advice of their financial planners. “The timeline for making a claim runs out soon. Anyone who has invested in LM should get legal advice right away,” said the firm’s commercial litigation lawyer, Mark Walter.
Financial planner-turned-whistleblower Jeff Morris, who exposed wide-ranging malfeasance inside the CBA’s financial planning arm in 2013, said the problems at State Trustees would likely go beyond just one rogue planner.
“The lack of accountability to clients and secrecy in this case makes that a racing certainty. No competent adviser would put clients into these dodgy mortgage funds but it is important to remember that the incompetence is systemic because it is the dealer group that decides the menu of products that planners can recommend,” he said.
The losses are the latest in a series of scandals to plague State Trustees, which was the subject of a damning report from the Auditor-General in 2012 that found it could not demonstrate it acted in the best interests of its clients.
“Flawed implementation, ineffective oversight, and a failure to regularly and systematically test how effective controls are in practice, limit the assurance it can provide … about organisational compliance and performance,” the report said.
In 2009, State Trustees agreed to pay $13.5 million in compensation to investors that were burned in the collapse of Perth-based property scheme Westpoint.
It was also blasted by the Victorian Ombudsman over the quality of care provided to vulnerable people following an investigation in 2003.
If the role of the public trustee is for administratin of finances…why do they employ health professionals(?)? Anyone employed and paid by the trustee cannot give an independant report. Their employment means they will be biased. So can any report be relied on?
Mr. Peter Carne,
Office of the Public Trustee
G.P.O.Box 1449 Brisbane. 4001
Re: Carl Ross Taylor
I refer to correspondence from Tony Steinmetz dated 2nd June, 2016.
I am well aware of the supreme court proceedings, the decision and the reasons for the decisions made aa a result.
I would however like to draw your attention to:
1. Brian Laver assumed power of attorney for Mr. Taylor in 2003. He arranged the finances.
2. Will Marcus never had ownership of any part of the building in Horan Street, West End, known as Ahimsa house.
3. The loan negotiated through Barry Sims with Challenger was based on false figures supplied by Brian Laver, purporting to be power of attorney.
4. Correspondence from Will Marcus dated 16th July, 2008 admitted to receiving funds of $168.032 which he was not entitled to receive. Action could have been taken to recover these monies.
5. Work claimed to have been done by Marcus was never done, therefore there were no monies owing to him.
6. The public trustee became administrator for Mr. Taylor in 2009.
7. The debts shown in the public trustees figures are monies owing to Mr. Taylor NOT owed by him.
8. Leases on the property at West End could have been put in place were not.
9. An offer to buy the building to avoid negative action b y Challenger was never considered.
10. A report by James O’Regan commissioned by the trustee, in relation to the property at 433 Mains Road, Sunnybank. This report appears to not presented in court.
11. The public trustee sought leave from the court to not expend monies to recover monies owing to Mr. Taylor
12. Mr. Taylor was not represented in these proceedings. Solicitors were/are acting for their client, the public trustee, NOT Mr. Taylor. Refer Youtube video”Ross and friends meet the public trustee”
13. The decision made by Judge Martin in 2012 would indicate that action could be taken but on evidence submitted by the public trustee officers, it should not be taken.
14. The file was then sealed to cover up the actions of the trustee.
Furthermore, as evidenced in the court document, Mr. Taylor wished to reside in the matrimonial home at 433 Mains Road, MacGregor. He also wished to establish a community centre at West End. Both of these wishes have been denied by the public trustee because of false and mis-leading information to the courts and QCAT. Mr. Taylor is now contained in a high care dementia facility due to the injustices as stated above and false reports again commissioned by the trustee and the guardians.
Why Peter, did the public trustee indicate to the general public that you “resigned” in 2014, a day after submissions to the Crime and Corruption commission? Why Peter, was no one appointed to the position of public trustee? Why was Mark Crofton only ever “ ACTING” as public trustee. How is it that you are again public trustee?
How is it then, that the public trustee was able to get action through the corruption commission for an ex staff member for only $42.000 when the trustee has not acted for Mr. Taylor’s best interest for millions of dollars.
Mr. Taylor is only one of thousands of clients of the public trustee.
Peter, this is just one instance of the above of power at the office of the public trustee.
God bless you
Name: Paul Brown
Comment: Oh my god I have waited for you…
quick run down,
1997- suffered an extra-dural haematoma, whilst being “escorted” from a local hotel.
later 1997 – criminal proceedings against the “defedent” BOTCHED by the Police prosecutions.
Almost three years later and a growing pile of solicitors, “McKays” solicitors in Brisbane, after holding my files for three or more months accepted my case..
I had spent 9 months in therapy at $600 an hour to be given “speech pathology” and play scrabble.!
At the time I was 27 yrs old and was on my own two feet.
After the “injury” my parents had moved me home, which was both a loving environment and a hostile one, due to my relationship with my alcoholic father..
So much more to this story, but I’ll try and make it quick..!
Roughly 12 months or so years after the injury, my father helped another plumber out as a cashie.. But instead settled for three bottles of rum in lieu.
My father never had the money to get that drunk, but did this time.. And hit my mother.
My mother informed me. I then arranged for a place for my mother to go and be safe..
I spoke to my father and offered one last chance to be in MY mothers and I’s family…
To which he tearfully, (seemingly) regretfully accepted. On terms of course…
Next day mum and dad go to AA (Alcoholics Anonymous).
Day after… Mum informs me of a bottle of vodka under his seat..
And that was the end of that… (till later).
Mum and I started with nothing but the walls and ceiling of the unit I had moved us to, a security estate with fences and guards, of whome I was good friends with from previously living there.
In 2000 My mum was ok, independent and comfortable.
I in turn had not come to grips with much, as 5 years alone was the recovery time for my brain after the injury sustained.
So I head to the U.K with 25 quid and travelled for six months before I returned for a visit, as I was yet to see Europe etc.
Within the year of 2012 my mum was diagnosed with Cancer..
And from that day I was with her until she past in 2011.
I believe from memory, 2008 AFTER constantly make queries as to why my case was not yet set for trial, we went to court.
HERE’S WHERE IT GETS GOOD.
My solicitors spent over 8 hours the afternoon and evening the night before the trial INSISTING ON ME settling out of court.
I wasn’t just hoping to be compensated, which clearly the evidence does provide ( within the probabilities) I was going to win. I wanted for the liars at the “criminal” court to get just dessert.
So i left and returned to court the next day… with my mum and a smile!
Seated in court, mum in the public gallery. The defendent and team beside me…. until 9:15!!! Now when is a judge not on time, Plus my solicitor and barrister were No-where to be seen.
Finally my barrister “Douglas Turnbull” comes in and ushers myself and my mother to a small room and again, STRONGLY SUGGESTS, I settle on there offer of $580,000. PLUS $80,000 TO BE AWARDED FOR “MANAGING MY TRUST ACCOUNT”.
As far as I was aware there should be ten years of interest upon that figure… So the impression I was led to believe was I was looking at $1000,000.
MORE THAN ENOUGH TO FINALLY GIVE MY MUM THE “HOME” SHE HAD ALWAYS WANTED.
and I’m not pulling ya heart strings or playing the victim. If you want to be sceptical or believe otherwise.. go fuck yourself.
After looking at my mum, I decided to let my own “vengeance” go… I realised then sometimes although you try, the ego can come back to harm the treasures you keep in your heart and protect with your life.
So I settled…..
to the absolute “GLEE” of my “representatives”.
Strangely enough, it never occurred to me at the time, the only “witness”, seated outside of court was a lady Psychiatrist I had been sent to years prior by my “LAWYERS”. I only saw one other person there who was one of the ambulance drivers, to which I thanked from the bottom of my heart.
Although, not long after, Jeremy Seeto my lawyer said to me, “if he had of read his summons, he would of known he was not summoned today”. >>>>>???? Strange then, but blatantly clear now.. I WAS BEING STITCHED UP.
The Psychiatrist was giving evidence as to WHY I CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE WITH MY COMPENSATION….
Clearly as I had INSTRUCTED THE NIGHT BEFORE, WE WERE GOING TO COURT..
WHERE WERE THE WITNESSES?
ONUS WAS ON MY “TEAM”…
Strange, I had thought at the time, but as Mum and I had relaxed for just that moment… After 10 years of struggling, we ventured back into the court room where Mr Turnbull and Jeremy Seeto (Partner of McKays Solicitors) my lawyer, had already begun “wrapping up proceedings”.
But as we walked through the door, the barrister looked over mid sentence, hung his head down, sighed and continued to say….. ” although Paul has a mother, she is gravely ill with cancer….”
Obviously I didn’t want my own mother to worry anymore.
So we left … went and blew a hundered at the casino waiting for my “REPRESENTATIVES”.
SO.. again we meet in there office.
THEN I WAS INFORMED UNDER THE “GUARDIAN AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACT OF 2000” MY “COMPENSATION” WAS TO BE PLACED INTO A “TRUST” ACCOUNT.
AND ON A QUICK PASSING COMMENT BY THE BARRISTER WHO “REPRESENTED ME AND MY BEST INTEREST”…..”it’s just so no-body can take your money off of you…”
ONE MORE VISIT AS MENTIONED ABOVE TO PRESENT THE “CASE STUDY” THAT WAS THE EXACT REPLICA TO THE TREATMENT OF ME VIA THE SAME “COURT APPOINTED/ILLEGALLY APPOINTED TRUSTEE” TO REQUEST AN INQUIRY BASED ON ALLEGATIONS OF MISMANAGEMENT/CORRUPTION/HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AND GENERAL TOTAL “NON AUSTRALIAN” MANAGEMENT OF…. SOMEONE “DEEMED INCAPACITATED, OR “DISABLED””.
Now Capacity is defined as :
“Capacity” (also known as decision making ability, mental capacity or sound mind).
This is the term used to describe if a person has the capacity to understand the nature and effect of decisions about a matter, can freely and voluntarily make decisions about a matter and communicate their decisions in some way.
end of definition.
Now, I am on my key board typing everything all by myself..
SO…. within the two weeks I was informed, my Trustee representative would make a personal visit and meet with me at my home!!
Sure enough he did, (ALTHOUGH HIS OFFICE WAS IN TOWNSVILLE…. THE SAME TOWN MY BARRISTER HAD COME FROM)..
I had taken this meeting serious, I had dreamed for ten years of this day and all my plans where ready to share. Alphabetically, Subject, Author or any order you would desire…
I IMMEDIATELY STRESSED HOW MY INSTRUCTION WAS TO BE PREPARED FOR ALL RELEVANT TASKS TO BE PREPARED FOR THE PURCHASE OF A HOME.
I HAD INFORMED THAT ALTHOUGH WE WERE EXCITED, WE HAD DREAMED OF THIS, LIKE A FANTASY LIVED IT A MILLION TIMES BEFORE NOW…
To which the reply from my “trust” officer was, “yer good, thats what my wife and I are down here for now… too look for “divorced” couples homes, see if a couple potentially could lose $20,000 on a sale of a house, they WILL say no. However, a “divorcing couple may only lose $10,000.. each. They do not see the bigger loss any more..JUST ITCHING TO CLOSE THE CHAPTER…”
Then he gave me a brochure on “trust accounts”, and left.
NOW as the “GAA 2000” states, the tribunal is to decide, after considering all “FAMILY”, “SUPPORT NETWORK” ETC before deciding at “LAST RESORT” to appoint a “trustee”..
ALSO… The “trustee” must be “EASILY ACCESSIBLE”… Strange how the Brisbane office of “trust co.” was not instructed to handle my case.
BEFORE YOU KNOW IT, the reality of our dreams were shattered,
However, the “TRUST CO.” REPRESENTATIVE INFORMED ME …. THAT I “CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY A HOUSE”.
I argued immediately and found myself with my mother, in front of the then “GAAT”. Made my case and was denied.
TILL ONE TIME Via “telephone conference”, (why bother getting dressed up and going to town to be denied) I was and the tribunal, informed of the “balance” of my account.
IT HAD DROPPED $100,000 WITHIN UNDER SIX WEEKS….!
THIS WOULD EXPLAIN WHY I WAS ONLY SENT THE MONTHLY STATEMENTS FOR POSSIBLY 5 MONTHS.. (ANOTHER BREACH OF THE ACT)
Calmly explained by the SYDNEY REPRESENTATIVE WHO NOW HANDLED MY CASE DUE TO THE FACT THE TOWNSVILLE REPRESENTATIVE WAS DENYING MY HUMAN RIGHTS…( INTRODUCING MR PAUL O’NEIL OF THE TRUST CO….)
THAT …. “share markets often fluctuate…they’ll come back”.
to which the whole of the tribunal members seemingly “chinked” there cups o tea and agreed…
“PRUDENT PERSON RULE” ???? FFS
AFTER CONSTANT VISITS TO THE Guardian and administrative Tribunal to be approved simple items like a new couch, or bed, tools for business or even a small boat.
My “COMPENSATION” had almost completely been squandered on the “global pokies” (share market) to $100,000 within a couple years.
I was at the time partnered ( better half ) to a miss Carla McNaught. Daughter of Cheryl McNaught.. Who in turn, is THE partner in business to NOEL WHITTAKER. The Financial GURU.
“Whittaker and McNaught”.
Again another visit to the tribunal to be denied MY HUMAN RIGHT to transfer my “remaining” funds to AN ORGANISATION of my choice to manage.
And CLEARLY THERE WAS A DEFINITE REASON AS TO WHY THEY WOULD.. It was guaranteed ..
And still after all the applications and visits to the tribunal, My mother was by my side, although she had cancer, she was still of sound mind.. IN fact stronger than anyone who graced the face of the earth as far as I am still aware.
So.. Again by this time, I have become homicidal, frustrated and if there were a word for the fury growing inside of me, I would share it…
Not much longer after this .. My CONSTANT research/law of chances happened me across a “CASE STUDY” i WOULD LOVE TO SHARE..
THE EXACT SAME “TRUST CO.” MISMANAGED THIS MILLION DOLLAR “CLIENT” AND WAS INSTRUCTED TO RE-PAY THE ENTIRE LOSS.
IF ONLY WE COULD FIND OUT WHO WAS THE REPRESENTATIVE….
I am unsure at present as to when I was finally “approved” by the GAAT to have “trust co. Ltd” removed as my “appointed trustee”.
WHICH ONLY MEANT THE VERY SAME TREATMENT BY THE NOW “PUBLIC TRUSTEES OFFICE OF QUEENSLAND”.
HOWEVER, in true form and total DISREGARD OF THE LEGISLATION “GUARDIAN AND ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 2000”, “PRUDENT PERSON” RULE AGAIN DISREGARDED, BECAUSE “TRUST CO.” WERE STILL MANAGING MY FUNDS, BUT I HAD TO APPROACH THE PUBLIC TRUST CO. FOR ANY CONCERNS, QUESTIONS QUERIES ETC. Obviously wait for the public trust to correspond with the “trust co” and get back to me… TWICE THE EXPENSE.. !
I had in turn presented this same case study to the NOW QCAAT.
set for : 19 July 2011
259 QUEEN STREET
BRISBANE QLD 4000
Matters to be heard:
GAA3913-11 Periodic Review of the Appointment of an Administrator
GAA4813-11 Application for directions
To which the very same same tribunal member “Les Clarkson” and only one present, refused to open an investigation, or even entertain the fact that “Trust Co. Ltd” had breached numerous trustee responsibilities and procedural rules…VIOLATED MY HUMAN RIGHTS, BREACHED EVERY PRINCIPLE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND NOT ONLY DISREGARDED THE JUDGES INSTRUCTIONS BUT SHAT UPON THE VERY SAME LEGISLATION THAT PROTECTS OUR MOST VULNERABLE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY…
AND WITH A HURRIED “THATS ALL WE HAVE TIME FOR” AS I HOLD AT ARMS LENGTH THE VERY SAME CASE STUDY APPLICABLE TO ME, “LES CLARKSON” ALREADY OUT OF HIS CHAIR, ASKS “FLOYD OF THE PUBLIC TRUST OFFICE, “HOW MUCH DOES PAUL HAVE LEFT IN THE TRUST”..
TO WHICH FLOYD ANSWERS “$175.76 CENTS”
LES CLARKSON…. “WELL FINALISE THE TRUST AND PAY HIM “…..
AND LEFT ME STANDING THERE…
(i am fortunate.. I am mobile, able to communicate, and fight this till the end for the ones who aren’t so fortunate)
Ie: THE GENERAL PRINCIPALS OF “THE GUARDIAN AND ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 2000”
Schedule 1 Principles
Part 1 General principles
1 Presumption of capacity
An adult is presumed to have capacity for a matter.
2 Same human rights
(1) The right of all adults to the same basic human rights
regardless of a particular adult’s capacity must be recognised
and taken into account.
(2) The importance of empowering an adult to exercise the adult’s
basic human rights must also be recognised and taken into
3 Individual value
An adult’s right to respect for his or her human worth and
dignity as an individual must be recognised and taken into
4 Valued role as member of society
(1) An adult’s right to be a valued member of society must be
recognised and taken into account.
(2) Accordingly, the importance of encouraging and supporting
an adult to perform social roles valued in society must be
taken into account.
Guardianship and Administration Act 2000
Current as at 1 April 2016 Page 167
Authorised by the Parliamentary Counsel
5 Participation in community life
The importance of encouraging and supporting an adult to live
a life in the general community, and to take part in activities
enjoyed by the general community, must be taken into
6 Encouragement of self-reliance
The importance of encouraging and supporting an adult to
achieve the adult’s maximum physical, social, emotional and
intellectual potential, and to become as self-reliant as
practicable, must be taken into account.
7 Maximum participation, minimal limitations and
(1) An adult’s right to participate, to the greatest extent
practicable, in decisions affecting the adult’s life, including
the development of policies, programs and services for people
with impaired capacity for a matter, must be recognised and
taken into account.
(2) Also, the importance of preserving, to the greatest extent
practicable, an adult’s right to make his or her own decisions
must be taken into account.
(3) So, for example—
(a) the adult must be given any necessary support, and
access to information, to enable the adult to participate
in decisions affecting the adult’s life; and
(b) to the greatest extent practicable, for exercising power
for a matter for the adult, the adult’s views and wishes
are to be sought and taken into account; and
(c) a person or other entity in performing a function or
exercising a power under this Act must do so in the way
least restrictive of the adult’s rights.
(4) Also, the principle of substituted judgment must be used so
that if, from the adult’s previous actions, it is reasonably
practicable to work out what the adult’s views and wishes
Guardianship and Administration Act 2000
Page 168 Current as at 1 April 2016
Authorised by the Parliamentary Counsel
would be, a person or other entity in performing a function or
exercising a power under this Act must take into account what
the person or other entity considers would be the adult’s views
(5) However, a person or other entity in performing a function or
exercising a power under this Act must do so in a way
consistent with the adult’s proper care and protection.
(6) Views and wishes may be expressed orally, in writing or in
another way, including, for example, by conduct.
8 Maintenance of existing supportive relationships
The importance of maintaining an adult’s existing supportive
relationships must be taken into account.
9 Maintenance of environment and values
(1) The importance of maintaining an adult’s cultural and
linguistic environment, and set of values (including any
religious beliefs), must be taken into account.
(2) For an adult who is a member of an Aboriginal community or
a Torres Strait Islander, this means the importance of
maintaining the adult’s Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
cultural and linguistic environment, and set of values
(including Aboriginal tradition or Island custom), must be
taken into account.
1 Aboriginal tradition has the meaning given by the Acts
Interpretation Act 1954, schedule 1.
2 Island custom has the meaning given by the Acts Interpretation
Act 1954, schedule 1.
10 Appropriate to circumstances
Power for a matter should be exercised by a guardian or
administrator for an adult in a way that is appropriate to the
adult’s characteristics and needs.
Guardianship and Administration Act 2000
Current as at 1 April 2016 Page 169
Authorised by the Parliamentary Counsel
An adult’s right to confidentiality of information about the
adult must be recognised and taken into account.
I STILL HAVE EVERY PIECE OF COMMUNICATION WITH THE TRUST CO. TRIBUNAL AND EVENTUALLY THE PUBLIC TRUST OF QUEENSLAND..
NOW THE TWIST…
Before 2006 I was told by mum that my father was at “REGIS” nursing home…
It took a lot of soul searching, forgiveness and …. well, thats it. But one night I told my mum to inform the home at Greenbank I was on the way to see my dad.
I picked up my 130 kg 9 year karate instructing mate, took my dog and nothing was gonna stop me..
I saw my father briefly that night, as it was late, in between waking and sleeping (as I was Poking him)he asked if I could come by some more…
At that moment, if for only a second, I saw my father from the eyes of a six year old…
And of course complied to his wishes..
I think it were more so my wishes…
After and in between work in W.A I would often take my father out for the day. I never asked, was never told of his ailment… In Hindsight I would suggest alzheimers ? or the correct spelling of such.
But unlike my dad in 1985, who, at christmas time, received a call from England..
His father and my Grandfather had passed away.
I was 12..
I will never, could never forget the level of honesty I heard and seen .. The regrets.
I knew from then I would never allow myself to harness a single regret..
2011 My mother passes away at home with me by her side.
The very same trust officer “Floyd” is distributing my mothers “estate”…
I move on, travel to W.A and back..
At this stage, fell in love and returned to Queensland..
Unfortunately my relationship ended, I became practically homeless.
Struggling for suddenly, I now realise, two years and I have failed to even check on my dad….
Until late last year..
he also has passed….
I WAS INFORMED BY THE NURSING HOME…
9TH OF JANUARY 2015
TODAY.. AS i TYPE THIS..
I DEMAND TO KNOW WHY I WAS NOT TOLD..
“WE HAVE NO RECORD OF YOU”..
YET I SIGNED A BOOK EVERY TIME I HAD TAKEN MY FATHER OUT, SPOKEN TO THERE HEAD OFFICE BECAUSE I COULD NOT GET AN ANSWER AT GREENBANK. AND ASKED IF THE NUMBER I HAD PHONED THEM ON WAS IN FACT MINE, FOR THE RECORDS….. YES IT IS . I REPLIED..
THEY INFORM ME THAT THE PUBLIC TRUST IS “LOOKING AFTER HIS ESTATE”..
I MAKE ENQUIRIES AT THE PUBLIC TRUST, SPEAK TO KATHY AT THE IPSWICH OFFICE, WHO IN TURN INFORMS ME SHE IS ONLY NEW… I DEMAND ANSWERS AS TO WHY I WAS NOT INFORMED… AS AGAIN STATED WITHIN THERE VERY OWN “INTESTACY” BROCHURE ON THE COUNTER… ITS A RESPONSIBILITY OF ANY ONE WHO IS ADMINISTRATOR AND FINALISING AFFAIRS AND DISTRIBUTING THE “ESTATE”.
AGAIN SHE IS SEEMINGLY VERY HELPFUL, EVEN SUPPLIES VIA E-MAIL, AN ADDRESS (E-MAIL) FOR ANY COMPLAINTS… THE “COMPLAINTS” DEPT.
ANYHOO, SHE WILL NOT OFFER ANY INFORMATION UNTIL I PROVE WHO I AM…
ALREADY I HAVE STATED THE OBVIOUS, YOU HAVE MY DETAILS FROM MANAGING MY TRUST…
AND ALSO ADMINISTERING MY MOTHERS “ESTATE”, BOTH OF MY PARENTS IDENTITY ARE DIRECTLY LINKED BY BLOOD, BIRTH AND NOW DEATH CERTIFICATES… “HOW ABOUT YOU CALL ME BACK”??
SO KATHY WHO HAD HELPED ME BY SENDING OUT A FORM, REQUEST FOR A JP TO VISUALISE AND CONFIRM IDENTITY, ETC. I GRAB THAT WITH PHOTOS OF MY DAD, BIRTH CERTFICATES, PREVIOUS DIVORCE PAPERS FOR BOTH MUM AND DAD AND ANYTHING ELSE I THOUGHT OF… AND HEAD TO TOWN 10 OR SO DAYS AGO.
3 DIFFERENT PEOPLE FAILED TO COME DOWN TO SEE ME. FINALLY A LITTLE OLD LADY HAS THE BALLS TO TAKE ME INTO A CUBICLE AND COLLECT MY INFORMATION. FROM THE “INTESTACY” UNIT, CONTINUES TO INFORM ME THE FILE HAS ONLY JUST GOT TO HER TABLE…
KATHY AT IPSWICH IS IN FACT THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF MY FATHERS “ESTATE”
This is a story from the public trust web site..
Finding a beneficiary
Simon emigrated from England to Australia in the 1940s. He never married or had children and he passed away without a will. Simon lived a private life and his only friend knew little about him, except that he had a sister in England.
When staff from the Public Trustee of Queensland were securing Simon’s belongings, they found his birth certificate and 2 photographs. One was of workmen in front of a truck with a company name and logo painted on it, and the other was a photo of his father in an English police uniform.
The Public Trustee contacted the village in England on Simon’s birth certificate—the local police, parish priest and the trucking company.
A few weeks later, 3 letters were received: 1 from the village police, 1 from the trucking company (which still existed and was where Simon had worked when he was young) and 1 from the village priest. The priest provided the married name and address of Simon’s sister, Jane, who had moved to the next village.
Jane had lost touch with her brother, Simon, many years earlier and did not know he had passed away until she was told by the local police and priest.
Fortunately Simon was from a small village where everyone knew everyone else. Would your family be easy to locate if you passed away without a will?
I AM IN LOGAN
my name is paul brown
IM 4 KMS FROM WHERE I WAS BORN !!
this is an e-mail before, I realised Kathy was the “case” manager..
Thanks Again Kathy…
I truly appreciate your understanding, compassion and efforts…
now excuse me while I get mad..
To the case manger,
Now, I trust this matter will be dealt with expeditiously. Almost two years until I find out…
Two years the PTO made no efforts to contact his family.. Even though they are aware of who they are, ignoring legislation put in place that outlines your responsibility.
But like simple socially accepted behaviour you as a whole turn your back on it and disgard simple humane decency.
1/ I request a full financial report of the last two years PTO has “managed” my fathers estate, Public Trust have a duty of disclosure of which I am all to familiar.
2/ As I do with the “Regis” nursing home, a full financial report.
3/ Reasons or excuses as to WHY NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO CONTACT ME REGARDING MY FATHERS DEATH.
* Public Trust have “managed” a trust account of mine and know all details of my family.
* Public Trust had also managed my mothers deceased estate. AND AGAIN HAD ALL DETAILS OF MY FAMILY DETAILS.
4/ A comprehensive list of charges made to my fathers estate since the time of his death.
Explain as to why legislation was not adhered to, who it was that chose to simply NOT make a single effort to contact me..
Whoever was the superior to oversee the management of said “estate”.
Also make a day available for a meeting in Brisbane, with all involved.
I will be seeking representation because your department makes me ill.
You, as a whole continue to treat your “service” as a joke while your affecting people in the worst possible way..
I have already actively been involved as the ONLY “incapacitated” person to represent “clients”, of and for changes to the “Guardian and Administration Act of 2000”.
I am personally invited to every “Australian Human Rights Commission Awards Night”.
I still have from at the time..
Queensland Law Reform Commission
personal phone number…
Hold onto your hats..
heads are gonna roll.
Book that appointment for, but no later than two weeks…
Wear somethin nice, might be on t.v
SO AFTER MAKING THE COMPLAINT ABOUT “WHY I WAS NOT INFORMED”
THE COMPLAINTS OFFICER SENDS MY COMPLAINT TO, not kathy who is managing the estate..
But to the manager OF Kathy who i had questioned also regarding the, at the time, missing link/soon to be sacked for incompetence ex employee!
Then from the “complaints dept of the public trustee….
Dear Mr Brown
We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 3 January 2017 regarding the administration of the estate of your late father, Mr John Brown.
I have referred your complaint to the Regional Manager of the Ipswich Office who will arrange for a response to be provided to you within 7 business days.
To which I am informed from the very same lady I had complained to and about, THAT MY FATHERS ESTATE CAN NOT BE DISTRIBUTED BECAUSE SHE NOW HAS MY COMPLAINT ON HER DESK THAT WILL CONSUME THE MAJORITY OF HER TIME!!!
I TRIED TO MAKE THIS A SHORT STORY..
I HAVE NOT TOUCHED ON HOW I WAS THE ONLY “INCAPACITATED PERSON TO APPEAR AT THE “LAW REFORM COMMISSIONS REVIEW”, OR HOW I WAS “HUSHED” BY CARERS FOR GOING THROUGH PAPER WORK….
I HAD AT THE TIME CONTACTED THE U.N REGARDING “THE CHARTER FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE DISABLED…” ONLY TO BE BRUSHED OFF WITH ” THAT IS ONLY ON A FEDERAL LEVEL, IT DOES NOT APPLY TO STATE. ”
EAGER TO FIGHT THIS CAUSE..
0426 292 848..
HI .. I am Paul Brown …
i have been waiting for you!
[…] If you have a story of your experience with the Queensland adult guardianship system that you would like to share, there are details how to do that on the personal stories page. […]
I question use of the term ‘health professionals’ as the only halfway relevant persons I’m aware of is director of disability services Clinton Miles whose only known qualification is a sub-senior high school attainment, and a supposed occupational therapist Karen Opitz. The latter has at best questionable qualifications and has certainly not practiced in living memory. That however doesn’t prevent her from making negative assertions regarding vastly more educated medical and allied health professionals. Needless to say, the utterly incestuous relationship between the PTQ and the kangaroo tribunal means that the word of Opitz is accepted as the oracle of wisdom whilst probative medical and allied health professional evidence is dismissed as ‘rubblsh’. Interestingly, one of the most arrogant of the tribunal’s tribe of complete ignoramuses James Allen has stated that the opinion of several professors is irrelevant since they are not practicing, although this same certifiable lunatic considers the input of non practicing since the dawn of time Karen Opitz worth more than gold. It is also noteworthy that certain PTQ staff are treated like royalty whenever they are present in the kangaroo tribunal. An associate who has had conducted considerable research into comparable situations involving apparent undue influence has uncovered very interesting evidence of ‘inducements’. In addition to the staff of the PTQ, the ‘spotters’ in major hospitals are likely to be given financial reasons to provide victims for embezzlement. Whilst it has not at this point been proven that the same applies to the PTQ and the kangaroo tribunal, In my opinion, the welcome by certain kangaroo tribunal members akin to the return of the lost son afforded to certain PTQ staff constitutes good reason for suspicion. These issues support my allegation of a less than above board relationship between the kangaroo tribunal and the PTQ.
The following includes a few thoughts generated after years of dealing with the most despicable scum on planet earth.
Firstly, the legal / judicial / political / media racket has a LOT to answer for. These entities have since the dawn of time promoted the myth of equal access to justice. Blind Freddie has always been aware that justice is as much a commodity as cornflakes and electricity in that the amount of justice we get depends on how much we can afford to purchase. Quite obviously Gina Reinhart can afford to purchase considerably more justice than you or I, so does that fit with ‘equal access’ ?? remember also that an entry level lawyer bills at least $250 per hour, and at the other end of the scale, a QC averages a thousand or more dollars per hour. Dunno about you, but I’ve never earned, or wanted to earn, a thousand bucks per hour. I don’t seem to recall any elected politician represent my interests in this area by agitating for true equal access to justice. Certainly I’ve heard the odd whisper about legal aid, but that doesn’t even begin to get to the bottom of the problem which is simply that the legal profession is avaricious (I’ve always contended the very word ‘avarice’ was invented purely for the legal profession). How do we fix this ?? A good start would be legislation severely limiting the fees that can be charged to an absolute maximum (for a QC) to twice the median hourly wage and for a lawyer to one and a half times the median hourly wage. Clearly this would arouse more than a bit of consternation in parliament where most of the DIS-honorable members are failed lawyers who could well be forced to return to the profession after the next election.
Secondly, the sheeple have long been deluded by the establishment (in which I include media interests) to accept male bovine dropping like ‘separation of powers. This unmitigated twaddle suggests that each of the three arms of government (legislature, executive and judiciary’ are independent. This is provably and demonstrably NOT the case and in all probability never was. One of the most elementary instances of deliberate deception concerns parliamentary ministers. These turkeys are politicians, ergo part of the legislature, however they are also heads of one or more departments which are part of the executive.
Are we seriously expected to believe the deathadder takes no interest in the running of entities like the kangaroo tribunal (quasi-judiciary) and OPG / PTQ (executive), not to mention all the watchdogs which legislation provides that she administers ??
Thirdly, the plot thickens considerably when we look at kangaroo tribunal, OPG and PTQ skullduggery. If indeed there was such a thing as genuine separation of powers, would the legislators have produced legislation like the GAA Act which joins the OPG and PTQ (executive) to every kangaroo tribunal guardianship racket matter ?? Or did the clowns at the bottom of George Street fail to recognize that doing so constituted a blatant breach of separation of powers doctrine ?? In any case, there is stuff-all evidence that neither the red, blue nor green teams have ever considered rectifying that situation. One only needs to attempt to bring one arm
of government to account to discover concerted opposition from both other arms. I suggest that fair dinkum separation of powers would necessitate the two arms not being asked to account for its actions keeping strictly out of the fray, at least that is what we are told is the intent of separation of powers.
Fourthly, legislation provides that kangaroo tribunal quasi-judges enjoy the same immunity from prosecution as supreme court judges. Given that ALL members of the judiciary (real and quasi variety) are reasonably expected to possess an in-depth knowledge of legislation, one wonders why they need any immunity. These
clowns are wont to tell members of the public ad nauseum that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but then the clowns spend most of their life arguing over law that they expect the sheeple to know intimately. Seems a bit one-sided to me. A consequence commonly encountered in the kangaroo tribunal is that if a
quasi-judge is questioned regarding his or her non-compliance with legislation, they typically burst into hysterical laughter exclaiming ‘it doesn’t matter what we do because we are immune’. Now isn’t it reasonable to expect the supposedly independent legislature to ensure this regular, deliberate and flagrant ignorance of legislation does not continue ??
Fifthly, by default, the legal / judicial racket observes an unwritten convention that no legislation binds the crown unless it specifically states that it does. Not that it matters, because I have yet to see any legislation which states that it binds the crown, which provides that an official MUST do this or that, and which
provides any remedy when said official fails to observe the requirement. The GAA Act is jam-packed to the rafters with relevant examples, likewise the Public Service Act (would someone please correct this if its the wrong legislation) provides that all departments, quangos and whatever have an internal complaints
review facility. Interestingly there is no mention whatever of a recourse system or penalties for non-compliance. Again, true separation of powers would demand that the legislators cover all bases and not pander to the interests of an ostensibly ‘independent’ executive or judiciary. Neither the OPG, PTQ nor
kangaroo tribunal have a workable complaint review system. In the case of the kangaroo tribunal, registrar Julie Hay advised that it is pointless sending complaints as ‘we don’t take any notice of them’. Furthermore, the job description for the kangaroo tribunal president states that he is responsible to monitor and police the actions of his minions, although there is no known instance where any kangaroo tribunal president actually did so.
Sixthly, deeper into the mire of the guardianship racket, we had a couple of events occur in April and May this year which absolutely horrified the kangaroo tribunal and its incestuous cohort in crime the PTQ, both of which assumed they had seen the last victim escape their clutches. Not one but two victims of the guardianship racket with hitherto not completely plundered assets managed (albeit after herculean effort) actually succeeded in wrenching open the exit door jammed shut after /Maher/, in witch Clare Endicott copped the bashing of her miserable life from the Court of Appeal. There is no doubt that all effort
was expended to protect Endicott from any further embarrassment and this involved quasi-judges creating evidence held to be a matter of fact (non-appealable), thereby blocking most avenues of appeal. The previously used appeal-blocker, scheduling appeals to be be heard by non-judicial members continued as normal. It didn’t take long for the skullduggery committee comprising high level representatives of the legislature, executive and judiciary to be convened to figure a way to permanently weld shut the exit door
from the guardianship racket. More concerning for victims of the guardianship racket currently planning their exit strategy, the GAA Amendment Bill 2017 attempts to totally negate international law, attempts to distort and misconstrue precedents created in /Bucknall/ and in /Bergmann/ regarding assumption of capacity at each review, attempts to ensure that once a victim has been declared incompetent, there is no possibility of escape before death or PTQ -initiated insolvency, and legitimizes manufacture of evidence by completely
unqualified quasi-judges. Some may be aware that current legislation requires the kangaroo tribunal to retain ‘specialized’ expertise however the current crop includes only a very occasional appearance by a claimed speech pathologist of dubious ability, a long retired and non-practicing psychologist who has only ever been brought in when the International Criminal Court intervened, and one who ‘claims’ to be a doctor (she has a PhD in english literature). Legislation also provides that the kangaroo tribunal must be a supreme court judge and the deputy president a district court judge. For the majority of the kangaroo tribunals existence, these provisions have been breached and in fact that situation exists at this point in time. Does that mean we can prosecute the deathadder ?? Finally I’ll point out that there is actually a qualified supreme court judge Tim Carmody in the kangaroo tribunal who is quite capable of filling the position of president. Why doesn’t the deathadder appoint Carmody and thus ensure compliance with legislation ? Or could it be that the deathadder would rather deliberately ignore legislation than allow Carmody to destroy the guardianship racket. In any case, the decision was made by the PTQ which pulls the deathadder’s strings.
Anyone who knows an Australian movie producer capable of making a local version of this film is encouraged to get in touch ASAP https://vimeo.com/251674990
The Queensland Government is currently attempting to hoodwink the people into believing their rights matter. In reality, the Human Rights Bill 2018 is nothing more than a farcical deception which will do absolutely nothing to protect us from the goons in parliament, in the bureaucracies or the judiciary. Submissions can be made to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee for another week, and those submissions MUST be included in Hansard, consequently the politicians / bureaucrats cannot hide them as they do with everything else they don’t like. I strongly suggest that anyone critical of the guardianship racket and / or government shenanigans submit their own version (or simply cut and paste the following, its not copyright)
The Human Rights Bill 2018 is a carefully crafted con. Superficially it purports to conform with the legal principle that Australian legislation does not conflict with international law, and with Australia’s responsibility as a member state of the United Nations to fully observe and implement international law, but in fact the Human Rights Bill 2018 deliberately and intentionally avoids compliance with both of the above.
What I see as the main problem with the Human Rights Bill 2018 is the deliberately conceived total lack of recourse for breaches.
It is blatantly obvious from several Acts including the Public Service Act 2008, Local Government Act 2009, QCAT Act 2009, Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, and Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, that legislation ostensibly created to regulate the actions of each of the three arms of government intentionally omits any provision for recourse. Exactly the same criticism applies to the Human Rights Bill 2018.
A major percentage of human rights abuse in Queensland is attributed to the guardianship racket. The guardianship racket involves collusion between the non-constitutionally legitimate QCAT kangaroo tribunal, the Office of the Public Guardian and the Office of the Public Trustee. Note also that the doctrine of separation of powers has also been deliberately ignored by the Queensland government in the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 provision joining the OPG & PTQ (bureaucratic entities) to QCAT (quasi-judicial entity) in all guardianship matters. The inherent brutality of QCAT, OPG and PTQ operatives toward their victims results in destruction of families and support networks, denial of all rights due to the victim, plundering of the victims estates and infliction of severe psychological injury on both victims and their supporters.
Neither QCAT, the OPG nor the PTQ are accountable to any power in Queensland or indeed any power within Australia. All these entities are laws unto themselves and they are all demonstrably immune from observance of any existing legislation. Their internal complaints review facilities (required by the Public Service Act) are totally shambolic, and both the Ombudsman and the crime Cover-up Commission are completely farcical, being more about covering up official malpractice than addressing it. I challenge the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee to identify even one instance where either the Ombudsman or the Crime Cover-up Commission has addressed official malpractice by a member of the legislature, bureaucracy or judiciary. The Legal Services Commission refuses to accept complaints against the PTQ and the oxygen-bandit Commonwealth Human Rights Commission isn’t interested in any complaint concerning QCAT, the OPG, PTQ or for that matter any state government politician, bureaucrat, judicial or quasi-judicial officer, department or quango.
The fact that QCAT members have been endowed with the same immunity as supreme court judges means that they can and do thumb their noses at all non-criminal legislation. Given that there is no facility for breaches of human rights legislation to be a criminal action, it follows that breaches of the Human Rights Act would also have no consequence for QCAT members. Furthermore, since the OPG and PTQ are legislatively joined to QCAT in all guardianship matters, this incestuous relationship extends the protection enjoyed by QCAT members to OPG and PTQ staff.
The Human Rights Bill 2018 involves renaming the Anti-Discrimination Commission to the Human Rights Commission. Historically the Anti-Discrimination has proven to be a complete farce. Among other issues, I am unaware of any occasion when it has addressed discrimination complaints involving any legislator, bureaucrat or member of the judiciary. In particular, I have attempted to file complaints regarding deliberate discrimination by QCAT members / OPG / PTQ staff and have been advised that the Anti-Discrimination Commission does not accept complaints against QCAT members / OPG / PTQ staff. There is no reason to believe this policy will change with the renaming.
It is a matter of fact that Australia has an absolutely shocking record of human rights abuse. This has been acknowledged by the United Nations Human Rights Council on multiple occasions, and also by numerous Australian and international human rights organizations. All watchdogs including the Commonwealth Human Rights Commission are farcical. What is even more concerning is that rather than address this issue, Australian governments resort to ever more deceptive and duplicitous measures to avoid honouring their responsibility to citizens. Whilst legislation occasionally mentions international instruments, no legislation to date has made any attempt to comply with human rights principles. With this in mind, it is not surprising that a UN Special Rapporteur told a group of advocates in September 2016 ‘Australia is the most corrupt country in the world’.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that all members of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee, all members of parliament, and all bureaucrats involved in creation of the Human Rights Bill 2018 should hang their heads in shame for their participation in this sham which will do absolutely nothing to compel bureaucracies like the OPG and PTQ, the quasi-judicial QCAT kangaroo tribunal, or the judiciary generally to observe any semblance of human rights principles.
well said Dougy Be Kind
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 12:24, the committee to expose the public trustee of Queensland wrote:
> Elizabeth Kelly commented: “The Queensland Government is currently > attempting to hoodwink the people into believing their rights matter. In > reality, the Human Rights Bill 2018 is nothing more than a farcical > deception which will do absolutely nothing to protect us from the goons in ” >