SKM[2024] QCAT 391

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. [1]
   These proceedings relate to a man aged 30. For privacy reasons, he will be referred to in these reasons as SKM. His mother is referred to in the orders above as MTA, and his sister as STA.
2. [2]
   SKM has quite severe autism. His mother and sister are his QCAT-appointed administrators, guardians, and guardians for restrictive practices.
3. [3]
   In the current proceedings, the tribunal is reviewing the appointments of administrators and guardians for restrictive practices. Additionally, there is an application by the sister to withdraw as guardian (for restrictive practices), and an application by the sister for directions connected with the administration. The appointment of the guardians (for matters other than restrictive practices) is not being reviewed at present.
4. [4]
   The relevant legislation is the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) (‘Guardianship and Administration Act’) and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘Human Rights Act’). The Guardianship and Administration Act provides for the appointment of administrators and guardians for restrictive practices for a person – referred to in the Act as ‘the adult’ – in particular circumstances.

Restrictive practices

5. [5]
   Restrictive practices are dealt with in Chapter 5B of the Guardianship and Administration Act.
6. [6]
   SKM’s mother and sister have been appointed guardians for restrictive practices on many occasions, most recently on 7 August 2023. However, the sister advises that restrictive practices ceased in August 2023. This is confirmed in correspondence from SKM’s general practitioner. A recent positive behaviour support plan does not include any restrictive practices.
7. [7]
   Accordingly, there is no longer a need for the appointment of guardians for restrictive practices. The appointments are revoked.
8. [8]
   One of the applications before the tribunal is an application filed by the sister for leave to withdraw as guardian (for restrictive practices). As the appointment has now been revoked, it is unnecessary to grant leave to withdraw. The application for leave to withdraw as guardian is dismissed.

Administration

Background and findings on financial issues

9. [9]
   SKM’s mother and sister have been appointed as his administrators for all financial matters since he turned 18. At the time of the initial appointment, the sister was 19 years of age.
10. [10]
    The last review was conducted in 2019. On that occasion, the tribunal continued the appointment, and directed that the administrators provide certain financial records annually. These included copies of SKM’s bank statements, and receipts for any individual items purchased for more than $500.
11. [11]
    At the time of that review, the latest bank statements provided by the administrators showed that SKM as at October 2018 had:

    1. $1,974.96 in his everyday (Smart Access) bank account; and
    2. $99,362.37 in his Goal Saver account with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
12. [12]
    The administrators (usually the sister) emailed some bank statements and associated documents to the tribunal’s registry in subsequent years, but it was only the documents emailed in by the sister on 22 January 2024 that were examined by a tribunal assessor in preparation for the current review. The documents sent in included bank statements, but only for the everyday account, with a balance of $512.11 as at 10 January 2024, and a NetBank Saver account with a balance of $24,900 as at 30 December 2023. There was no statement for the Goal Saver account. Further, certain transactions in the everyday account statement were noted by the assessor:

    1. transfers out of the account on 13 December 2022, one for $477 and one for $447, described as ‘AHPRA Gen Reg’;
    2. a deposit of $32,000 into the account on 5 January 2023;
    3. transfers out of the account on 9 January 2023, one for $300 and one for $302.57, described as AON Insurance; and
    4. ten payments out on 9 February 2023, each of $250, to the sister and her partner, each described as ‘Personal Care Fee’ relating to a particular date (or, perhaps, week).
13. [13]
    One of the other documents emailed in by the sister was an invoice from Macpherson Kelley lawyers addressed to the sister and dated 30 November 2022. The subject matter was said to be ‘BROTHER’S AFFAIRS’. The invoice was for professional fees for the period 11 October to 30 November 2022, totalling $1,973.13. The everyday account statement showed that this amount was paid to Macpherson Kelley from SKM’s everyday account on 31 January 2023.
14. [14]
    On 29 January 2024, the assessor emailed the sister requesting statements for the Goal Saver account, and an explanation of several transactions including those noted in paragraph 12 above.
15. [15]
    The sister engaged Attwood Marshall, Lawyers. With their assistance, she provided an explanation including by way of an affidavit dated 29 May 2024. She also provided further information at the hearing, in response to questions. In summary, according to the sister’s written and oral evidence:

    1. the arrangement between the mother and the sister was that the mother handled SKM’s finances while the sister attended to personal matters such as restrictive practices and funding under the National Disability Insurance Scheme;
    2. however, generally, the sister emailed in the financial documents to QCAT because of her greater competence with computers and greater proficiency in English;
    3. at one point, when the sister asked the mother for the Goal Saver statements, the mother said she had moved those funds to another account;
    4. the mother declined to provide statements for the new account and told the sister to just send in the other material to QCAT;
    5. in July 2022, the mother moved overseas on a permanent basis, and she remains living overseas;
    6. at that point, the sister thought she should become more involved in managing SKM’s finances;
    7. when the sister pressed the mother for the missing bank records, the mother ended up telling her on 9 October 2022 that she had withdrawn the funds, and they formed part of $200,000 the mother gifted the sister on 22 November 2021 for the purchase of a block of land;
    8. the sister had used the $200,000, plus additional funds, to pay for the land at settlement of the contract in June 2022;
    9. until 9 October 2022, the sister had no idea that SKM’s funds had been used in the gift;
    10. she believed the gift came from the mother’s funds from an inheritance and/or the sale of property;
    11. she put the land on the market and intended to reimburse SKM;
    12. the block took quite a while to sell, but eventually there was a sale which settled on 24 January 2024;
    13. the sale price was the same as the purchase price;
    14. she obtained bank statements showing that all funds, totalling $99,363.21, had been withdrawn from the Goal Saver account on 15 November 2018; and
    15. on 6 February 2024 she paid $99.363.21 into the NetBank saver account she had opened for SKM, to reimburse him.
16. [16]
    Further, according to the sister:

    1. after she became aware of the mother’s actions, she went through past bank statements and identified a number of transfers out of the everyday account by the mother described as for groceries or shopping;
    2. these were each less than $500 and the sister did not believe they had been for SKM’s benefit;
    3. they totalled $32,000;
    4. she asked the mother to refund this amount to SKM; and
    5. the mother did so on 5 January 2023.
17. [17]
    Further, according to the sister:

    1. SKM lived with her and her partner from November 2022 to October 2023, when he did not have other accommodation available to him;
    2. her partner ceased work to care for SKM;
    3. she thought it reasonable to pay her partner $250 per week in care fees, as this was the minimum he would have earned if he had kept working as an uber driver;
    4. she and her partner were in financial hardship;
    5. she was due to start work as a psychologist after completing her studies;
    6. she could not afford to pay her registration fees to the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency (‘AHPRA’) or her professional indemnity insurance premium through AON;
    7. she used SKM’s funds to pay these expenses, as shown in his bank statements;
    8. these were intended as loan transactions;
    9. she repaid the loans on 6 February 2024 by payments into SKM’s NetBank Saver account of $924 and $602.57;
    10. she has not paid SKM interest on any of the reimbursed amounts, pending guidance from the tribunal about how much interest should be paid; and
    11. she has not reimbursed SKM for the care fees payments or the Macpherson Kelley payment but will do so if the tribunal requires it.
18. [18]
    In relation to the services performed by Macpherson Kelley, the sister said in her affidavit that she obtained advice and:

the solicitor prepared an initial draft affidavit on my behalf disclosing the transactions to QCAT. However, I terminated my retainer with Macpherson Kelley because I did not want to report on my mother as I did not know what the consequences of that disclosure would be. Further, [SKM] came to live with [my partner] and I shortly thereafter in mid-November 2022, and my focus shifted to ensuring and enhancing [SKM’s] wellbeing and developing our household routine.^[1]

19. [19]
    In oral evidence about why she consulted Macpherson Kelley, the sister said she had been ‘scared and shocked’ when she found out what her mother had done with the Goal Saver funds. She realised there was a ‘huge conflict of interest’. She said she did not have enough funds of her own to pay Macpherson Kelley’s invoice and she thought it was ‘okay’ to use SKM’s funds. In relation to her legal representation for the current tribunal proceedings, the sister said she does not intend to use SKM’s funds to pay the fees. Asked to explain the difference in approach to payment of the two sets of lawyers, SKM said meeting the current costs herself is her way of ‘taking accountability’.
20. [20]
    I note that when the sister emailed documents to the tribunal on 22 January 2024, she made no mention of what she had learned from her mother about the Goal Saver funds. She made no mention of any intention to restore missing funds to SKM. I also note that although the sister says the sale of the land settled on 24 January 2024, she did not immediately transfer the missing funds to SKM. She did so only on 6 February 2024, which was after she had received the email from the tribunal’s assessor on 29 January 2024. Her explanation at the hearing for not paying funds directly to SKM from the sale proceeds was that, while she had every intention of paying the funds to SKM, she wanted to first obtain ‘correct advice’ from a lawyer.
21. [21]
    The sister’s explanation for not having paid interest to SKM is that she was unsure how it should be calculated. The interest rate for the Goal Saver account was not a single rate. The base rate as at November 2018 was only 0.01% per annum. Bonus interest of an additional 1.99% was payable if bonus conditions were met such as a minimum deposit made and no withdrawals per month. The sister indicated, if I understood her brief oral evidence on the topic correctly, that the general pattern, historically, had been for the bonus conditions to be met.
22. [22]
    The sister has given her written version of events in sworn form, by affidavit. She has provided some documentary substantiation for her version of events, such as background documents and confirmation by the bank that her mother transferred the Goal Saver funds to an account in the mother’s name. She has provided bank statements showing the reimbursements she has made to SKM and the deposit of the $32,000. She has not provided an affidavit or other statement from the mother, though if the version of events given by the sister is correct, it can be assumed that the mother would not be keen to give evidence incriminating herself. The mother did not attend the hearing.
23. [23]
    The sister gave her oral evidence in an earnest manner. She appeared, understandably, to be very anxious. She was admitting to conduct which clearly fell below the standard expected of an administrator. Her demeanour was consistent with her explanation of events, though demeanour is certainly not conclusive. It is possible that the sister’s conduct was more reprehensible that she admits: that she knew, when she received it, that the gift from the mother included SKM’s Goal Saver funds.
24. [24]
    However, on balance, I accept the sister’s account of events including that she did not become aware until October 2022 that her mother’s gift included SKM’s Goal Saver funds. It is credible that the mother had taken the lead in financial matters from the outset, as the sister was only 19 when the initial appointments were made. It is also credible that the sister only took a more active role in SKM’s finances in 2022 when the mother moved overseas. The sister would have been taking a large risk, at a time when she was preparing to embark on a professional career, in knowingly accepting a substantial gift of most of SKM’s assets. She would have made herself liable to prosecution. Her action in seeking legal advice in late 2022 is consistent with her becoming aware of the source of approximately half of the $200,000 gift only at that time. It is not to her credit that she failed to notify the tribunal of the incident until she was queried, although she did provide the bank statements that triggered the queries. Her lack of candour appears to have been the result of fear, and also cultural factors and family dynamics which the sister discusses in her affidavit.
25. [25]
    It is also not to the sister’s credit that in late 2022, after obtaining the legal advice, she saw fit to use some of SKM’s funds to pay for her own professional expenses. She says this was by way of loan. When or even whether she would have repaid SKM if the transactions had not been queried by the tribunal’s assessor, I cannot be sure. It is noteworthy that the AHPRA and AON payments were split into transfers each under $500. This may have been to avoid having to provide copies of receipts. However, I note that the destinations of the payments were indicated in the bank statements, and these did attract the notice of the tribunal assessor.
26. [26]
    Ms Bratti submits that the sister should be given credit for taking steps to reimburse SKM for the lost Goal Saver funds without having any verification that they had actually formed part of the $200,000 gift she received. I accept that, though it does not carry great weight because it is not apparent why the mother might lie to the sister about this.
27. [27]
    Some credit should be given to the sister for prompting the mother to return $32,000.
28. [28]
    It is apparent from a perusal of the file that over many years the sister has been diligent in assisting SKM with his NDIS plan and services and other personal matters, and in providing detailed reports to the tribunal about restrictive practices and other personal matters for the purposes of reviews. I give some weight to this evidence of dedication to SKM’s welfare in finding in the sister’s favour on the question of whether she knowingly accepted the substantial gift.   
29. [29]
    Recent bank statements indicate that SKM had funds of approximately $130,000 as at mid-2024. The sister’s financial management plan dated 30 August 2024 indicates current funds of approximately $131,000, no other assets, and that SKM receives a disability support pension. There is a budget surplus, according to the plan. I accept that SKM’s current financial circumstances are as outlined in the plan. The sister says in the plan that if reappointed as administrator, she will move funds as required from SKM’s everyday account to his NetSaver account, and she will consider a term deposit or other account if it will yield more interest.
30. [30]
    At the hearing, I asked Ms Sims of the office of the Public Trustee for an estimate of fees if the Public Trustee were appointed administrator, assuming that SKM has funds of $130,000. She said the annual fees, after a rebate, would come to $6,450. She indicated that if legal advice was required for any actions against past administrators, that would involve additional fees.

Capacity

31. [31]
    Capacity for a matter means the person is capable of understanding the nature and effect of decisions about the matter, of freely and voluntarily making decisions about the matter, and of communicating the decisions in some way.^[2] The tribunal must presume an adult has capacity until the contrary is proven.^[3]
32. [32]
    The most recent health professional report about SKM’s decision-making capacity is by Dr Ann Masjakin, general practitioner, dated 10 December 2022. Dr Masjakin describes SKM as having autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and anxiety disorder. He uses speech although with impaired ability. Dr Masjakin’s opinion is that SKM can make decisions freely and voluntarily, but he cannot understand the nature and effect of financial decisions.
33. [33]
    SKM’s presentation at the hearing was consistent with substantial disability. I accept Dr Masjakin’s opinion, and find that SKM has impaired capacity.

Review

34. [34]
    When reviewing the appointment of an administrator, the tribunal must revoke the appointment unless satisfied it would make an appointment if there was a new application.^[4] If the tribunal decides that an administrator is still required, it may continue or change the appointment.^[5] The tribunal may remove an administrator only if it considers the administrator is no longer competent or if another person is more appropriate for appointment.^[6] Examples of a lack of competence given in the Guardianship and Administration Act include abuse of powers and failure to adequately protect an interest of the adult.^[7]

Should the appointment be revoked?

35. [35]
    An administrator can be appointed for an adult with impaired capacity only where, relevantly, there is a need for a financial decision or decisions to be made and, without the appointment, the needs of the adult would not be adequately met or the adult’s interests would not be adequately protected.^[8] Even then, the tribunal has discretion whether to appoint an administrator. It is relevant in exercising that discretion to take into account various rights and principles. These include the requirement to restrict an adult’s right to make their own decisions to the least possible extent;^[9] the recognition that the adult has the same rights as all other people;^[10] and the need to take into account any views, wishes and preferences demonstrated by the adult and the views of any member of the adult’s support network.^[11]
36. [36]
    Clearly there are financial decisions that need to be made by or for SKM, including routine budgeting and investment of savings. SKM is unable to make these decisions himself. I find that without the appointment of an administrator, SKM’s needs will not be adequately met and his interests will not be adequately protected.
37. [37]
    The ongoing appointment of an administrator limits SKM’s freedom to make his own financial decisions, but I do not consider it violates his property rights under section 24 of the Human Rights Act. That section protects against arbitrary interference with property rights. The interference here is made under a statutory process. An administrator is required to comply with various provisions of the Guardianship and Administration Act including the general principles. Similarly, while the appointment of an administrator interferes with SKM’s privacy, in that an administrator has access to personal information about SKM,^[12] there is no violation of his privacy right under section 25(1) as that protection is against arbitrary interference.
38. [38]
    I am satisfied that I would make a new appointment of an administrator for SKM if there were a new application before me. There should be an ongoing administration appointment.

Should SKM’s mother be removed as administrator?

39. [39]
    On the evidence I have accepted, it is apparent that the mother failed to protect SKM’s financial interests. She gave most of his savings to the sister in November 2021. She is not competent to act as an administrator. She should be removed as administrator.

Should SKM’s sister be removed as administrator?

40. [40]
    I have accepted that the sister received the $200,000 gift from her mother in November 2021 not knowing that approximately half of the funds were SKM’s. I find that the receipt by the sister of a gift including SKM’s Goal Saver funds did not constitute entry into a conflict transaction on her part, as she was unaware that the funds were partly sourced from SKM’s savings.
41. [41]
    I have also accepted that after her mother told her in October 2022 of the source of the funds, the sister proceeded to sell the land in which the funds were invested. She returned the funds to SKM soon after the sale settled. She was not, however, candid about the circumstances when she reported financial information to the tribunal in January 2024. She omitted to inform the tribunal of significant information in her possession.
42. [42]
    The sister admits using SKM’s funds to pay for her AHPRA registration fees of $924 and professional indemnity insurance premium to AON Insurance of $602.57. She says these were loans, rather than gifts, but concedes that they were, nonetheless, unauthorised conflict transactions.
43. [43]
    A conflict transaction is one in which, relevantly, there may be conflict between the duty of the administrator toward the adult and the interests of the administrator or a person in a close personal relationship with the adult.^[13] An administrator may not enter into a conflict transaction unless the tribunal has authorised it.^[14]
44. [44]
    Entry by the administrator into a loan transaction with the adult for whom they are appointed is one in which there may be conflict between the duty of the administrator to safeguard the financial interests of the adult and the financial interest of the administrator in receiving a loan on favourable terms. The conflict is exacerbated where the loan is undocumented.
45. [45]
    The loan transactions were unauthorised conflict transactions.
46. [46]
    I find that the payments of the care fees, totalling $2,500, to the sister’s partner were also unauthorised conflict transactions. This is so regardless of whether the partner provided services worth $2,500 or more. This transaction is one in which there may be conflict between the duty of the administrator to safeguard the financial interests of the adult and the financial interests of the partner to receive remuneration on favourable terms. Without authorisation by the tribunal, it is an arrangement susceptible to abuse: there is no independent evaluation of whether the arrangement provides value for money to the adult; is simply a contrivance to channel funds to the administrator’s partner on a pretence of service provision; or is something in between.
47. [47]
    Written submissions on behalf of the sister prepared by Mr M Crofton of counsel had been provided to the tribunal before the hearing. These included submissions that the tribunal should exercise power under section 58 of the Guardianship and Administration Act to relieve the sister of liability. That section contemplates relief from liability, on a discretionary basis, where an administrator has acted honestly and reasonably and ought fairly to be excused for a contravention. The power is given to ‘the court’, which is defined in Schedule 4 to the Guardianship and Administration Act as the Supreme Court. Mr Crofton relied on cases in which a member of the tribunal said the tribunal can exercise the power.^[15]
48. [48]
    However, I note that in Public Trustee of Queensland v BN and Ors,^[16] the then President of the tribunal observed that the power in section 58 is ‘invested, solely, in the court’.^[17] I agree with the President, and respectfully disagree with the member who decided the cases relied on by Mr Crofton.
49. [49]
    Mr Crofton was unavailable for the hearing, and Ms Bratti appeared instead. While she relied on the remainder of Mr Crofton’s submissions, she did not press the submissions relating to section 58 in view of the BN case.
50. [50]
    Section 58 is not applicable.
51. [51]
    Ms Bratti also asks the tribunal to consider retrospectively authorising conflict transactions. This can be done under section 152 of the Guardianship and Administration Act. It too is a discretionary power.
52. [52]
    Ms Bratti points to the circumstances in which the sister found herself when she engaged in the conflict transactions relating to the AHPRA, AON and care fees payments: experiencing financial hardship as a result of the dedication of herself and her partner to SKM’s welfare. They took him in when he did not have other accommodation. He needs a lot of support, which they provided. The partner gave up his other work.
53. [53]
    The sister wishes to continue as administrator, and is willing to accept continued appointment even if it comes with a requirement to reimburse the care fees and Macpherson Kelley payments to SKM.
54. [54]
    I accept that the sister and her partner have provided good support to SKM. From the little I was able to observe at the hearing, it was apparent that SKM has high needs, and that he has a good rapport with his sister and her partner. He is fortunate to have such devoted family members. The sister is SKM’s only relative in Australia.
55. [55]
    However, I am not persuaded that the discretion in section 152 should be exercised to retrospectively authorise the conflict transactions. The sister entered into them even though she had only recently become acutely aware of a larger conflict transaction entered into by her mother. The sister should have been especially astute to the importance of not engaging in similar behaviour. I do not consider that there would be any benefit to SKM in now authorising the transactions.
56. [56]
    Ms Bratti submits that the sister should remain administrator. On balance, I accept that she should, though there should be terms requiring her to remedy certain matters. The tribunal may impose terms under section 12(2) of the Guardianship and Administration Act.
57. [57]
    I consider that the sister should remain administrator notwithstanding that she could be removed because she contravened the Guardianship and Administration Act by engaging in unauthorised conflict transactions.
58. [58]
    I accept that the sister is remorseful, and I find that she is unlikely to again engage in conflict transactions. She is available and accessible to SKM. He trusts her, although that factor itself carries little weight because of his vulnerability. She is available and accessible to him. SKM has limited communication ability, and his sister is comparatively well placed to understand him and communicate with him. She is likely to apply the general principles. Overall, I consider she is appropriate having regard to the considerations set out in section 15 of the Guardianship and Administration Act.
59. [59]
    If the Public Trustee were appointed, the risk of conflict transactions would be eliminated. However, that assurance would come at considerable financial cost to SKM, over time, in view of the fees that the Public Trustee is entitled to charge. An administrator such as the sister is not entitled to charge fees. Only professional administrators, the Public Trustee, and trustee companies may charge fees.^[18]
60. [60]
    I have also considered the possibility that the appointment of the Public Trustee could benefit SKM in that the Public Trustee may pursue a claim for compensation under section 59 of the Guardianship and Administration Act against the mother and the sister. However, it is by no means clear that such action would be cost-effective in circumstances where the bulk of the funds in question have already been refunded.
61. [61]
    The appointment of the sister should be subject to terms that she pay interest and that she reimburse SKM for the care fees and the fees paid to Macpherson Kelley.
62. [62]
    The care fees should be reimbursed for two reasons. First, the tribunal cannot now reliably determine whether that expenditure was reasonable and appropriate (in preference to expenditure under SKM’s NDIS plan, for example). Secondly, even if it was reasonable, repayment should occur to reinforce that engagement in conflict transactions is unacceptable conduct for an administrator.
63. [63]
    In relation to the Macpherson Kelley fees, Ms Bratti points out that the sister consulted that firm because she became aware of misconduct by her mother. I accept that. It could then flow that the expenditure on legal fees was incurred to protect the interests of SKM, and therefore the cost was legitimately borne by him. However, I consider that the engagement was motivated more by the sister’s concern for her own potential liability. She was at risk of being implicated in the deprivation of SKM’s Goal Saver funds. Even though the sister says she consulted Macpherson Kelley with a view to providing disclosure to the tribunal, she did not carry through with this. In these circumstances, I do not consider that the sister should have used SKM’s funds to pay the Macpherson Kelley invoice. The sister should reimburse SKM for this expenditure.
64. [64]
    Ms Bratti on behalf of the sister sought retrospective authorisation of the Macpherson Kelly payment if the tribunal concluded it was a conflict transaction. I consider it was a conflict transaction, but it should not be retrospectively authorised. SKM should not pay for legal advice which was primarily for the benefit of the sister or, at least, not clearly for his benefit.
65. [65]
    The sister seeks directions on the amount of interest she should pay in respect of the conflict transactions she engaged in.
66. [66]
    Interest should be based on what SKM would have earned with bonus interest in the Goal Saver account. Had the Goal Saver account not been closed, it is likely that SKM would have derived interest income that included bonus income. From the statements available, it appears that the rate of bonus interest varies with the amount of the balance, but is uniform up to $1m. In case there was some variability in that framework over time, I will specify that the assumed balance is $100,000, for the sake of certainty.
67. [67]
    It is relevant to consider the responsibility of the mother to pay interest.
68. [68]
    The tribunal may make directions to an administrator when they are removed: section 32B of the Guardianship and Administration Act. I will direct the mother to pay interest on the amount of $99,363.21. Interest should be paid from 15 November 2018, which is the date on which the sum was withdrawn from the Goal Saver account, until 6 February 2024, the day on which the sister paid the amount into SKM’s account. There would be an argument for also making the sister severally liable to pay the interest for the bulk of that period. While she was not an active player in the removal of the sum, she did become aware that the mother was unwilling to provide bank records. The general principles require an administrator to safeguard the interests of the adult.^[19] A co-administrator actively seeking to safeguard SKM’s interests would have drawn that matter specifically to the tribunal’s attention, so that the tribunal might commence an early review of the appointment. However, it is relevant to note that the sister did in most years provide bank statements which, as it happened, were not examined by the tribunal’s assessors at the time. Had they been, it would have become apparent that substantial funds had gone missing without explanation. On balance, I am not inclined to direct the sister to pay interest in respect of the Goal Saver funds.
69. [69]
    The sister should pay interest on the AHPRA and AON amounts, the Macpherson Kelley payment, and the care fees amount, from the date of each payment until the date of repayment. I have incorporated the dates into the orders.
70. [70]
    The financial management plan dated 30 August 2024 is straightforward and reasonable. I approve it under section 20 of the Guardianship and Administration Act.
71. [71]
    The tribunal is required to review the appointment of an administrator, other than the Public Trustee or a trustee company, at least every five years.^[20] The appointment of the sister will be reviewed in five years’ time unless an occasion arises for an earlier review. Meanwhile, there will be a requirement for the sister to provide certain documents in 12 months’ time, for monitoring purposes, as well as on certain later occasions.

Conclusion

72. [72]
    Accordingly, the tribunal revokes the appointment of the guardians for restrictive practices; changes the administration appointment; imposes terms relating to the appointment of the sister; and directs the mother to pay interest.