When a loved one loses capacity or is born with a disability (referred to here as a "vulnerable person"), many Australians assume that family members or trusted supporters can legally make decisions on their behalf. In reality, this is often not the case.

We contend that vulnerable Australians face significant risks of losing control over their personal, medical and financial decisions through guardianship and administration systems. Although these systems are presented as measures of last resort to protect people, we argue they have evolved into a multi-billion-dollar industry that can benefit governments, institutions and third parties at the expense of vulnerable individuals.

According to evidence gathered by our organisation, decision-making authority is frequently transferred through tribunals, bedside hearings or new Enduring Powers of Attorney executed in vulnerable circumstances. We believe broad discretionary laws, inconsistent capacity assessments, legislative loopholes and extensive tribunal powers enable decisions that do not always reflect the person's best interests.

Our organisation argues that this is not simply a protective system but one that can facilitate exploitation. Vulnerable people often face a significant power imbalance when dealing with hospitals, government agencies and publicly funded organisations. Many lack legal knowledge, are intimidated by tribunal processes or face language barriers, making it difficult to challenge decisions affecting their lives.

Under guardianship, a person's residence, healthcare, finances, relationships and other personal decisions may be controlled by appointed decision-makers. We have documented cases alleging financial exploitation, unnecessary institutionalisation, isolation from family and disregard for individuals' expressed wishes. We believe these practices raise serious human rights concerns and are inconsistent with the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Australia's guardianship framework relies primarily on Civil and Administrative Tribunals, Public Guardians and Public Trustees. We contend these bodies operate with insufficient oversight and accountability, while close relationships between government-funded organisations may contribute to vulnerable people being drawn into the system.

Concerns about guardianship are not new. The former Citizens of Protected Persons Association (COPPA), established by Paddy Costa, documented alleged abuses from the 1980s onwards. Numerous inquiries have since received substantial evidence of similar concerns, yet our organisation believes meaningful reform has been limited.

Our organisation was established to educate the public about the risks of guardianship and administration and to explain what we believe is a five-stage process that can result in vulnerable people losing control of their own decision-making..

Stage 1: Triggers Leading to the Entrapment of a Vulnerable Person

The process typically begins with a triggering event that places a vulnerable person in contact with institutions. Common triggers include hospital admission, sudden illness, age-related decline, allegations of abuse, disputes with service providers, admission to aged care, or the signing of legal documents such as Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPOAs) or Wills. Individuals receiving compensation payments, NDIS funding or other significant assets may also become vulnerable.

Our organisation contends that vulnerable people are often identified at these critical moments and drawn into systems that can ultimately remove their decision-making rights. We allege that hospitals, aged care providers, social workers and other professionals may initiate processes that isolate individuals from trusted family members and supporters, restrict access to information, and undertake capacity assessments while the person is distressed, medicated or otherwise impaired.

We have documented cases where vulnerable people were told they would not return home, subjected to screening tests without independent assessments, signed new legal documents in vulnerable circumstances, or became the subject of bedside hearings without meaningful participation by themselves or their families. Families have reported being denied access, excluded from medical decisions, and, in some cases, threatened with legal action after raising concerns.

Even where a vulnerable person leaves the immediate setting, disputes frequently progress to a Tribunal, where families often encounter a significant imbalance of power. Our organisation has reviewed numerous cases involving disputed professional reports, untested allegations and evidence that families say was accepted without proper scrutiny. For many, this marks the beginning of a lengthy and distressing legal process.

Stage 2: Taking Control of the Vulnerable Person

Once a vulnerable person enters the guardianship system, our organisation contends that control over their personal and financial affairs can be transferred through tribunal processes that lack the procedural safeguards expected in traditional courts.

We have received reports alleging that new EPOAs and Advance Care Directives were executed while individuals were vulnerable, bedside guardianship hearings occurred without adequate notice, and allegations of elder abuse, undue influence or family conflict were relied upon to remove trusted carers.

Our organisation argues that State and Territory Tribunals possess broad discretionary powers, including the ability to appoint Public Guardians and Public Trustees, revoke existing decision-making arrangements and replace them with government-appointed decision-makers. We believe these powers operate with limited oversight and accountability and may create conflicts of interest where government agencies ultimately assume control.

Concerns raised by our organisation include hearings conducted in private, reliance on untested evidence, limited opportunities to challenge allegations, and insufficient investigation of serious claims such as elder abuse or fraud. We also contend that professionals familiar with the system may exploit these procedural weaknesses to achieve guardianship outcomes.

Capacity assessment is another area of significant concern. We argue that assessments are sometimes conducted by practitioners without specialist expertise, rely on brief screening tools rather than comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation, and may occur while a person is affected by illness, medication or temporary cognitive impairment. Cultural and language differences are also not always adequately considered. In our view, these practices risk inappropriate findings of incapacity and unnecessary guardianship orders.

Our organisation further contends that temporary or limited impairments can result in long-term loss of decision-making rights, including for adults with disabilities whose families seek to continue providing support. We believe these practices are inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, particularly the principle of supported decision-making.

Stage 3: Isolate, Medicate, Liquidate – The Person and Their Estate

By this stage, the vulnerable person's personal and financial decision-making has typically been removed, often from both the individual and their family or trusted supporters.

Our organisation contends that Public Guardians and Public Trustees are frequently appointed as the primary decision-makers, sidelining families and assuming control over nearly every aspect of the person's life, including accommodation, medical treatment, social contact, personal care and end-of-life decisions. We argue that this often results in unnecessary institutionalisation, placement in unsuitable aged care facilities and restrictions on family access, even where the vulnerable person wishes to maintain those relationships.

We have documented cases in which visitation has been limited through trespass laws, behavioural assessments or assertions that the person no longer wishes to see their family. Conversely, when vulnerable people seek support from trusted relatives, allegations of undue influence or concerns about capacity are, we allege, used to justify continued separation. We refer to these practices as the "Rights Card" and the "Protective Card."

Families frequently report witnessing restrictive practices and feeling powerless to challenge decisions affecting their loved ones. Complaints, they say, are often dismissed, while those responsible face little accountability.

Public Trustees and Administrators also assume control of a person's finances, including income, pensions, compensation, property, superannuation, investments and other assets. Our organisation alleges that estates are sometimes mismanaged through unnecessary asset sales, neglected properties, unpaid liabilities, excessive legal costs or investment decisions that do not reflect the person's age, circumstances or expressed wishes.

We further contend that financial decisions may prioritise institutional or government interests over the welfare of the vulnerable person. Families commonly report difficulty obtaining detailed financial records, invoices or explanations of expenditure, limiting meaningful oversight and accountability.

Attempts to remove a Public Guardian or Public Trustee are often strongly opposed. In some cases, the vulnerable person's own funds are used to defend the administration against challenges brought by family members. Our organisation argues that this creates a significant imbalance of power and accelerates the depletion of estates through legal and administrative costs.

We also contend that serious allegations, including fraud, financial abuse and other criminal conduct, are frequently treated as civil matters rather than investigated as potential crimes. In our view, existing criminal laws should be applied equally where evidence supports prosecution, regardless of whether the alleged offender is an individual, institution or government body.

Our organisation believes the combination of extensive decision-making powers, limited oversight, restricted transparency and significant barriers to review creates a system from which it is extremely difficult for vulnerable people and their families to regain control. By this stage, the process of entrapment is, in many cases, complete.

Stage 4: No Recourse, No Justice – Silencing Those Who Challenge the System

Our organisation contends that once guardianship or administration orders are made, meaningful avenues for review or accountability are limited. Appeals are generally restricted to questions of law rather than the merits of a case, are subject to strict time limits and can be prohibitively expensive. We have also documented cases where vulnerable people were denied access to their own funds or legal representation to pursue an appeal.

Families report that delays can have devastating consequences, particularly in urgent matters involving medical treatment or end-of-life decisions. Complaints made to professional regulators or oversight bodies are, in our view, frequently resolved through internal review processes that lack independence and transparency.

Many families are unable to challenge decisions because of the financial, emotional and psychological burden involved. Some who publicly raise concerns report facing legal threats, restrictions on contact with loved ones or other forms of retaliation. Others relocate, abandon legal action or experience severe mental health impacts. Our organisation believes these barriers leave many vulnerable people without an effective remedy or access to justice.

Stage 5: Death of the Vulnerable Person

Our organisation contends that disputes do not always end with the death of the vulnerable person. Where a Public Trustee has been appointed executor, or assumes control through guardianship or estate administration, prolonged estate administration and legal disputes can further diminish the value of the estate.

We have documented cases in which valid wills were challenged, estates remained unresolved for many years and legal costs significantly reduced inheritances. In our view, prolonged litigation and estate administration can financially and emotionally exhaust beneficiaries while increasing administrative costs charged to the estate.

Conclusion

Our organisation believes Australia's guardianship and administration framework lacks sufficient transparency, accountability and independent oversight, creating opportunities for abuse of power, conflicts of interest and systemic failures.

Because guardianship orders can remove a person's fundamental rights to make decisions about their own life, we believe these matters should be determined through processes that provide robust procedural safeguards, rigorous evidentiary standards and meaningful judicial oversight.

We contend that existing tribunal processes provide insufficient checks and balances for decisions that profoundly affect a person's liberty, autonomy, finances and family relationships. Stronger safeguards, independent oversight and greater accountability are necessary to ensure that guardianship genuinely remains a measure of last resort and that the rights of vulnerable Australians are protected.

Our organisation further argues that governments and publicly funded institutions have financial and administrative incentives that may discourage meaningful reform. We believe these structural issues require independent investigation and comprehensive legislative review.

Ultimately, AASGAA rejects the proposition that Australia's current guardianship system consistently operates as a protective framework. Based on the evidence gathered by our organisation, we believe significant systemic reform is required to ensure vulnerable Australians are protected, their rights respected and decision-makers held accountable.