Questions about you and/or your organisation
Are you responding to this survey as an individual or on behalf of your organisation?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Unticked
Individual
Radio button:
Ticked
Organisation
What is the name of your organisation?
Organisation
Office of the Public Guardian
Which category best describes you/your organisation?
Please select all that apply
(Required)
Checkbox:
Ticked
government
Checkbox:
Unticked
non-government organisation
Checkbox:
Unticked
frontline service provider
Checkbox:
Unticked
research and academia
Checkbox:
Unticked
legal sector
Checkbox:
Unticked
private sector
Checkbox:
Unticked
victim-survivor of elder abuse
Checkbox:
Unticked
general public
Checkbox:
Unticked
prefer not to say
Checkbox:
Unticked
other (specify below)
Please expand on your response
The Public Guardian is an independent statutory officer under the Guardianship and Administration Act, 1995
Where is your organisation mainly based?
Please select all that apply
Checkbox:
Unticked
National
Checkbox:
Unticked
ACT
Checkbox:
Unticked
NSW
Checkbox:
Unticked
NT
Checkbox:
Unticked
QLD
Checkbox:
Unticked
SA
Checkbox:
Ticked
TAS
Checkbox:
Unticked
VIC
Checkbox:
Unticked
WA
Checkbox:
Unticked
External territories
Checkbox:
Unticked
Outside Australia
Where do you live?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Unticked
ACT
Radio button:
Unticked
NSW
Radio button:
Unticked
NT
Radio button:
Unticked
QLD
Radio button:
Unticked
SA
Radio button:
Ticked
TAS
Radio button:
Unticked
VIC
Radio button:
Unticked
WA
Radio button:
Unticked
External territories
Radio button:
Unticked
Outside of Australia
Radio button:
Unticked
Other (specify below)
What is your age?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Unticked
under 18 years
Radio button:
Unticked
18–24 years
Radio button:
Unticked
25–34 years
Radio button:
Ticked
35–44 years
Radio button:
Unticked
45–54 years
Radio button:
Unticked
55–64 years
Radio button:
Unticked
65–75 years
Radio button:
Unticked
76–85 years
Radio button:
Unticked
86–95 years
Radio button:
Unticked
96 years or over
Radio button:
Unticked
Other (specify below)
Do you identify with any of the following groups?
Please select all that apply
(Required)
Checkbox:
Unticked
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
Checkbox:
Unticked
Culturally and linguistically diverse people
Checkbox:
Unticked
People with disability
Checkbox:
Unticked
LGBTQIA+ people
Checkbox:
Unticked
People living in regional areas
Checkbox:
Unticked
People living in rural areas
Checkbox:
Unticked
People living in remote areas
Checkbox:
Ticked
None of the above
Checkbox:
Unticked
Prefer not to say
Checkbox:
Unticked
Other (Specify below)
Overview Questions
Do you support Attorneys-General working towards achieving greater consistency in financial EPOA laws, as an elder abuse prevention measure?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes, strongly support
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes, somewhat support
Radio button:
Unticked
Neutral, undecided
Radio button:
Unticked
No, somewhat do not support
Radio button:
Unticked
No, strongly do not support
Do the proposals for feedback in the Consultation Paper address a suitable range of areas for achieving greater national consistency?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes, a suitable range of areas are addressed
Radio button:
Unticked
Neutral, undecided
Radio button:
Unticked
No, the range of areas currently addressed is not suitable
Moving towards achieving greater national consistency
What do you suggest governments should prioritise as the next steps in moving towards greater national consistency? For example, this might involve working towards a single national form, or jurisdictions pursuing their own reforms over time to align with an agreed set of provisions.
Enter your response below
I would strongly advocate for nationally consistent forms to be the priority.
Execution of Enduring Powers of Attorney & Witnessing Arrangements in Relation to Principals
In moving towards greater national consistency, do you endorse states and territories taking different approaches to the number of witnesses required, and the qualification requirements for witnesses?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes, I support having different approaches to the number of witnesses, and the qualifications for witnesses
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes, I support different approaches to the number of witnesses, but jurisdictions should work towards having a common set of qualification requirements
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes, I support different approaches to the qualifications for witnesses, but there should be consistency in the number of witnesses required
Radio button:
Unticked
No, I do not support having different approaches to these matters
Please share your feedback on the obligations proposed for authorised witnesses, and the model of having differing requirements for different types of authorised witnesses (such as Australian legal practitioners).
Enter your response below
I think each jurisdiction has their own discrete challenges in terms of access to professional groups. In order to avoid witnessing requirements creating barriers for people appointing an EPOA, it seems sensible that each state consider this separately based on the specific sensitivities within their population groups.
Acceptance of appointment by an attorney
Would the proposed role(s) for the authorised witness provide an appropriate degree of assurance that the attorney understands the obligations of their appointment?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Revocation of an EPOA
Do the proposed requirements for revocation of an EPOA balance the relevant considerations in relation to:
| The extent of obligation placed upon the authorised witness, regardless of the qualifications or positions they hold Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | The extent of obligation placed upon the authorised witness, regardless of the qualifications or positions they hold No Radio button: Not checked No |
| Ensuring a principal is supported to understand the effect of revoking an EPOA Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | Ensuring a principal is supported to understand the effect of revoking an EPOA No Radio button: Not checked No |
| Flexibility to accommodate circumstances where urgent revocation is required Yes Radio button: Checked Yes | Flexibility to accommodate circumstances where urgent revocation is required No Radio button: Not checked No |
Automatic revocation of an EPOA
To what extent do you agree that if the following occurred after the execution of an EPOA, it should be grounds for automatic revocation.
| An attorney is convicted of an offence involving dishonesty Strongly Agree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Agree | An attorney is convicted of an offence involving dishonesty Agree Radio button: Checked Agree | An attorney is convicted of an offence involving dishonesty Neutral Radio button: Not checked Neutral | An attorney is convicted of an offence involving dishonesty Disagree Radio button: Not checked Disagree | An attorney is convicted of an offence involving dishonesty Strongly Disagree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Disagree |
| An attorney is convicted of an offence involving violence within the principal’s family or domestic context Strongly Agree Radio button: Checked Strongly Agree | An attorney is convicted of an offence involving violence within the principal’s family or domestic context Agree Radio button: Not checked Agree | An attorney is convicted of an offence involving violence within the principal’s family or domestic context Neutral Radio button: Not checked Neutral | An attorney is convicted of an offence involving violence within the principal’s family or domestic context Disagree Radio button: Not checked Disagree | An attorney is convicted of an offence involving violence within the principal’s family or domestic context Strongly Disagree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Disagree |
| An attorney is a person against whom an interim or final family violence intervention order is made, where the order is relevant to the principal’s family or domestic context Strongly Agree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Agree | An attorney is a person against whom an interim or final family violence intervention order is made, where the order is relevant to the principal’s family or domestic context Agree Radio button: Not checked Agree | An attorney is a person against whom an interim or final family violence intervention order is made, where the order is relevant to the principal’s family or domestic context Neutral Radio button: Checked Neutral | An attorney is a person against whom an interim or final family violence intervention order is made, where the order is relevant to the principal’s family or domestic context Disagree Radio button: Not checked Disagree | An attorney is a person against whom an interim or final family violence intervention order is made, where the order is relevant to the principal’s family or domestic context Strongly Disagree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Disagree |
| An attorney becomes bankrupt or personally insolvent Strongly Agree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Agree | An attorney becomes bankrupt or personally insolvent Agree Radio button: Checked Agree | An attorney becomes bankrupt or personally insolvent Neutral Radio button: Not checked Neutral | An attorney becomes bankrupt or personally insolvent Disagree Radio button: Not checked Disagree | An attorney becomes bankrupt or personally insolvent Strongly Disagree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Disagree |
The eligibility of attorneys
How appropriate is the proposed five-year ineligibility period in the following scenarios:
| A prospective attorney has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty Highly appropriate Radio button: Not checked Highly appropriate | A prospective attorney has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty Appropriate Radio button: Checked Appropriate | A prospective attorney has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty Somewhat appropriate Radio button: Not checked Somewhat appropriate | A prospective attorney has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty Inappropriate Radio button: Not checked Inappropriate | A prospective attorney has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty Highly inappropriate Radio button: Not checked Highly inappropriate |
| A prospective attorney has been convicted of an offence involving violence occurring within the principal’s family or domestic context Highly appropriate Radio button: Not checked Highly appropriate | A prospective attorney has been convicted of an offence involving violence occurring within the principal’s family or domestic context Appropriate Radio button: Checked Appropriate | A prospective attorney has been convicted of an offence involving violence occurring within the principal’s family or domestic context Somewhat appropriate Radio button: Not checked Somewhat appropriate | A prospective attorney has been convicted of an offence involving violence occurring within the principal’s family or domestic context Inappropriate Radio button: Not checked Inappropriate | A prospective attorney has been convicted of an offence involving violence occurring within the principal’s family or domestic context Highly inappropriate Radio button: Not checked Highly inappropriate |
| A prospective attorney is a person who is bankrupt or personally insolvent Highly appropriate Radio button: Not checked Highly appropriate | A prospective attorney is a person who is bankrupt or personally insolvent Appropriate Radio button: Checked Appropriate | A prospective attorney is a person who is bankrupt or personally insolvent Somewhat appropriate Radio button: Not checked Somewhat appropriate | A prospective attorney is a person who is bankrupt or personally insolvent Inappropriate Radio button: Not checked Inappropriate | A prospective attorney is a person who is bankrupt or personally insolvent Highly inappropriate Radio button: Not checked Highly inappropriate |
| A prospective attorney is a person who has been bankrupt or personally insolvent in the last five years prior to the execution of the EPOA Highly appropriate Radio button: Not checked Highly appropriate | A prospective attorney is a person who has been bankrupt or personally insolvent in the last five years prior to the execution of the EPOA Appropriate Radio button: Checked Appropriate | A prospective attorney is a person who has been bankrupt or personally insolvent in the last five years prior to the execution of the EPOA Somewhat appropriate Radio button: Not checked Somewhat appropriate | A prospective attorney is a person who has been bankrupt or personally insolvent in the last five years prior to the execution of the EPOA Inappropriate Radio button: Not checked Inappropriate | A prospective attorney is a person who has been bankrupt or personally insolvent in the last five years prior to the execution of the EPOA Highly inappropriate Radio button: Not checked Highly inappropriate |
How appropriate is the proposed ‘disclose and approve’ provision in the following scenarios:
| A person who has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty Highly appropriate Radio button: Checked Highly appropriate | A person who has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty Appropriate Radio button: Not checked Appropriate | A person who has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty Somewhat appropriate Radio button: Not checked Somewhat appropriate | A person who has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty Inappropriate Radio button: Not checked Inappropriate | A person who has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty Highly inappropriate Radio button: Not checked Highly inappropriate |
| A person who is bankrupt or personally insolvent Highly appropriate Radio button: Not checked Highly appropriate | A person who is bankrupt or personally insolvent Appropriate Radio button: Checked Appropriate | A person who is bankrupt or personally insolvent Somewhat appropriate Radio button: Not checked Somewhat appropriate | A person who is bankrupt or personally insolvent Inappropriate Radio button: Not checked Inappropriate | A person who is bankrupt or personally insolvent Highly inappropriate Radio button: Not checked Highly inappropriate |
| A person who has been bankrupt or personally insolvent in the last five years prior to the execution of the EPOA Highly appropriate Radio button: Not checked Highly appropriate | A person who has been bankrupt or personally insolvent in the last five years prior to the execution of the EPOA Appropriate Radio button: Checked Appropriate | A person who has been bankrupt or personally insolvent in the last five years prior to the execution of the EPOA Somewhat appropriate Radio button: Not checked Somewhat appropriate | A person who has been bankrupt or personally insolvent in the last five years prior to the execution of the EPOA Inappropriate Radio button: Not checked Inappropriate | A person who has been bankrupt or personally insolvent in the last five years prior to the execution of the EPOA Highly inappropriate Radio button: Not checked Highly inappropriate |
Are there other types of offences, intervention or protection orders or criteria, which should make a person: entirely ineligible for appointment under a financial EPOA, or ineligible for a five year or another period?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Attorney duties
In what circumstances may it be appropriate for an attorney acting under a financial EPOA to give less weight to a principal’s views, wishes and preferences?
Please select all that apply
Checkbox:
Unticked
Where a principal may be subject to undue influence
Checkbox:
Unticked
Where a principal may be subject to coercion by another person (such as a family member)
Checkbox:
Unticked
The principal’s wishes appear to create a risk of significant harm to themselves or others
Checkbox:
Ticked
There are no circumstances where it should be appropriate for the views, wishes and preferences to be given less weight
Checkbox:
Unticked
Other (specify below)
Should an attorney be required, in all instances, to follow the views, wishes and preferences of the principal (even if there is a high risk of significant harm to the principal’s health or wellbeing?)
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Other (specify below)
Please expand on your response
Attorney's should adopt decision-making practices that align with the state legislation. In Tasmania, a persons views, wishes and preferences should only be over-ridden in discrete circumstances where by following the persons wishes and preferences would place them at "serious harm".
Should all types of attorneys (family members/friends, public trustees and private trustee companies) be subject to the same obligations, regardless of their relationship with and access to the principal?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Other (specify below)
Is there a particular model law, an approach implemented in a jurisdiction, or an approach recommended in a particular inquiry which, in your opinion, provides the best approach to this issue?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Other (specify below)
Please expand on your response
Supported decision-making and will and preference based substitute decision-making
Interstate recognition
Please rate your agreement with the following:
| The interstate recognition requirements for financial EPOAs, as they apply in my jurisdiction, are working effectively Strongly Agree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Agree | The interstate recognition requirements for financial EPOAs, as they apply in my jurisdiction, are working effectively Agree Radio button: Not checked Agree | The interstate recognition requirements for financial EPOAs, as they apply in my jurisdiction, are working effectively Neutral Radio button: Checked Neutral | The interstate recognition requirements for financial EPOAs, as they apply in my jurisdiction, are working effectively Disagree Radio button: Not checked Disagree | The interstate recognition requirements for financial EPOAs, as they apply in my jurisdiction, are working effectively Strongly Disagree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Disagree |
Could the design of current interstate arrangements for financial EPOAs be improved or further simplified from a legislative perspective?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Other (specify below)
Please expand on your response
A national register
Are there non-legislative steps that would help with interstate recognition of EPOAs?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Other (specify below)
Please expand on your response
Further advice and guidance on recognition across states would help to limit confusion
Access to justice issues
Please rate your agreement with the following:
| The current arrangements for managing EPOA disputes through existing court and tribunal systems in your jurisdiction are working effectively Strongly Agree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Agree | The current arrangements for managing EPOA disputes through existing court and tribunal systems in your jurisdiction are working effectively Agree Radio button: Checked Agree | The current arrangements for managing EPOA disputes through existing court and tribunal systems in your jurisdiction are working effectively Neutral Radio button: Not checked Neutral | The current arrangements for managing EPOA disputes through existing court and tribunal systems in your jurisdiction are working effectively Disagree Radio button: Not checked Disagree | The current arrangements for managing EPOA disputes through existing court and tribunal systems in your jurisdiction are working effectively Strongly Disagree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Disagree |
| The proposed approach to compensation is appropriate Strongly Agree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Agree | The proposed approach to compensation is appropriate Agree Radio button: Not checked Agree | The proposed approach to compensation is appropriate Neutral Radio button: Checked Neutral | The proposed approach to compensation is appropriate Disagree Radio button: Not checked Disagree | The proposed approach to compensation is appropriate Strongly Disagree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Disagree |
| The proposed approach to offences appropriate Strongly Agree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Agree | The proposed approach to offences appropriate Agree Radio button: Checked Agree | The proposed approach to offences appropriate Neutral Radio button: Not checked Neutral | The proposed approach to offences appropriate Disagree Radio button: Not checked Disagree | The proposed approach to offences appropriate Strongly Disagree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Disagree |
Information, resources or training for witnesses and attorneys
Please rate your agreement with the following:
| The resources, guidance and training for witnesses in your jurisdiction are suitable to enable them to undertake their role Strongly Agree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Agree | The resources, guidance and training for witnesses in your jurisdiction are suitable to enable them to undertake their role Agree Radio button: Not checked Agree | The resources, guidance and training for witnesses in your jurisdiction are suitable to enable them to undertake their role Neutral Radio button: Not checked Neutral | The resources, guidance and training for witnesses in your jurisdiction are suitable to enable them to undertake their role Disagree Radio button: Checked Disagree | The resources, guidance and training for witnesses in your jurisdiction are suitable to enable them to undertake their role Strongly Disagree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Disagree |
Please rate your agreement with the following:
| The resources, guidance and training for attorneys in your jurisdiction are suitable to enable them to undertake their role Strongly Agree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Agree | The resources, guidance and training for attorneys in your jurisdiction are suitable to enable them to undertake their role Agree Radio button: Not checked Agree | The resources, guidance and training for attorneys in your jurisdiction are suitable to enable them to undertake their role Neutral Radio button: Not checked Neutral | The resources, guidance and training for attorneys in your jurisdiction are suitable to enable them to undertake their role Disagree Radio button: Checked Disagree | The resources, guidance and training for attorneys in your jurisdiction are suitable to enable them to undertake their role Strongly Disagree Radio button: Not checked Strongly Disagree |