Wednesday, 13 August 2025

Bills

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Amendment (Reporting of Guardianship and Administration Proceedings) Bill 2025

Statement of compatibility

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (10:06): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Amendment (Reporting of Guardianship and Administration Proceedings) Bill 2025.

In my opinion, the Bill as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill:

The purpose of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Amendment (Reporting of Guardianship and Administration Proceedings) Bill 2025 (the Bill) is to amend the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 to:

a. make further provision in relation to the publication or broadcasting of information that may identify parties in guardianship and administration proceedings before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The amendments enable greater transparency while ensuring the protection of individuals involved in these sensitive proceedings. It also makes further provision in relation to the use of images of parties to a proceeding unless deemed in the public interest.

Human Rights Issues:

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Amendment (Reporting of Guardianship and Administration Proceedings) Bill 2025 does not limit any human right, therefore it is not necessary to consider section 7(2) of the Charter. I consider that the Bill is compatible with the Charter.

Second reading

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (10:06): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

I rise today to speak to a very important issue which has compelled me to introduce this bill. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Amendment (Reporting of Guardianship and Administration Proceedings) Bill 2025 seeks to make changes to the way guardianship laws are in place.

This work continues on from my colleagues Katherine Copsey and Gabrielle de Vietri.

The Greens agree with the Victorian government that people with disability should have autonomy, dignity and participation in decision-making that impacts their lives. However, it is disappointing to see that since the issue was brought to the attention of the house, the government has yet to progress in reforming this act.

A guardian is someone chosen under Victorian law to make personal or lifestyle decisions for a person who can’t make those decisions themselves because of a disability. This can include decisions about where they live, what medical treatment they receive, what services they use, and who they spend time with.

The private members bill I have introduced changes the existing clause 37, which currently prevents anyone publishing or broadcasting information that could identify parties involved in guardianship and administration proceedings without the permission of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

In effect, this provision prevents a represented person from speaking freely about their experience at VCAT or with their appointed guardian or administrator.

It impedes the right of people with disabilities to make their own decisions around public disclosure, goes against the principle of open courts, and prevents transparency and safety for those under guardianship and administration orders.

The law is unfair and contravenes a rights-based approach as well as our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The UN convention is not only a significant human rights treaty for people with disabilities, it also gives effect to how Australian governments set out important principles of respecting, protecting and fulfilling the human rights of all people, including people with a disability.

The Office of the Public Advocate has endorsed reform in this area. In their position statement in April 2023, they made it clear how important it is to allow people to freely share their stories and, in the process, enhance transparency and public trust in the guardianship system. They also advocate for the need to move forward from a ‘best interests’ approach to decision-making for people with a disability to a human rights-based approach.

In the same position statement, the Office of the Public Advocate called on the Victorian government to amend a legislative provision that effectively gags people with experience as represented persons or proposed represented persons under the guardianship order.

I raise this issue following concerns highlighted by disability advocates, particularly the case of Uli Cartwright, a young filmmaker and disability rights advocate and campaigner. Uli Cartwright joins us in the chamber today. Welcome, Uli!

Uli Cartwright spent five years making a documentary about his life titled Life Is a Battlefield, which aired in conjunction on the SBS channel and on the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.

This documentary, if you have not seen it, is a powerful film about Uli’s life journey of resilience, courage and persistence as he battled chronic mental and physical health challenges. It follows not only his path of determination to overcome these obstacles but his advocacy and commitment to demand fairness and equity for people with disabilities.

However, after the documentary’s release, VCAT contacted SBS channel, citing clause 37, schedule 1, of the VCAT act, and as a result, SBS removed the documentary from its website. This removal highlights the restrictive nature of the law, which prohibits individuals from publicly sharing their lived experiences and stories related to guardianship.

These actions by VCAT occurred despite Uli Cartwright no longer being under guardianship.

As a result of these restrictions, Uli Cartwright had to engage a lawyer, return to VCAT, and obtain a formal waiver just to discuss his own lived experience – essentially asking for permission to tell his own story in his own way.

This raises fundamental questions about freedom of expression, autonomy, and the principles underpinning our modern guardianship laws.

Uli has been fearless, determined and committed in his advocacy for people with disabilities.

It is essential that people with disabilities are empowered to share their own experiences of living under guardianship.

In a spotlight paper released in February this year, 2025, the Victorian Law Reform Commission identifies the need for this act to be reformed to ‘align with modern understanding of human rights’. This means removing the barriers for people with a disability to make their own choices and decisions about their lives, promoting their dignity, equality and autonomy.

The current restrictions in clause 37 are outdated and fail to uphold fundamental human rights, undermining the right to freedom of expression enshrined in the charter of human rights. Instead of empowering individuals, clause 37 reinforces paternalistic attitudes, treating people with disabilities as if they cannot make their own choices. It strips away their dignity and autonomy and leaves them silenced and disempowered.

By silencing individuals, this clause shields guardians, administrators and service providers from scrutiny – a critical flaw in how this law currently stands. Individuals who face substandard care, financial mismanagement, or other forms of abuse or neglect, are legally barred from speaking out and holding wrongdoers to account. When internal complaint mechanisms fail, what avenues are left for them? Transparency is essential to improving any system and ensuring accountability. Without reform of this clause, systemic failures will continue unchecked, and victims will suffer in silence and isolation.

The disability royal commission in 2023 also strongly advocated for reforming clause 37. It found that current confidentiality laws unjustly restrict individuals from speaking about their experiences, shielding institutions from accountability. The commission recommended reversing the current model: instead of banning disclosure by default, tribunals should only restrict disclosure when necessary, putting the agency back in the hands of the individual and prioritising their will and preferences.

This clause is also simply unclear.

Many individuals have reported they are unsure of what they can and can’t say, where they can say it, and to whom. Some speak freely, unaware of legal restrictions, while others live in fear of breaking the rules. And for those who do follow the process and seek exemptions, they face a traumatic path just to tell their story. Returning to VCAT, reliving distressing experiences, navigating a complex legal system – it’s a retraumatising, anxiety-inducing process, restricting the voices of people who need their stories told.

And because of the lack of clarity, the clause is often misapplied or applied inconsistently. Some interpret the clause to silence people even after orders end or when no order was ever made. Disability advocates and lawyers have reported how some VCAT tribunal members grant exemptions freely, while others demand excessive justification. Again, creating more barriers and opportunities for overreach and unfair outcomes.

The public also loses from this gag law. Clause 37 stifles media reporting, discouraging journalists from covering important stories or exposing injustices which the public would never know about. We’ve seen the power stories have in changing bad systems – the power of public consciousness, of having communities rally around an issue to help right wrongs.  People with disabilities deserve to have their voices heard and their issues prioritised. Reform would allow the media to responsibly report stories without fear of complex legal hurdles or unnecessary ramifications and would give transparency to all of us.

But it’s not just stories of abuse either. Reforming clause 37 allows people to share positive stories as well – stories of resilience, independence and achievement of people with disabilities, which are so often lacking from mainstream discourse. By lifting restrictions on storytelling, we can challenge stereotypes, reduce stigma, and foster a more inclusive society where people with disabilities are seen as active, thriving members of the community, not just passive subjects.

While privacy protections are important, and we recognise the valid reasons to limit disclosure of certain information, the current system simply goes too far. As noted by both the Victorian public advocate and the Queensland public advocate, the benefits of reform outweigh the risks. We already allow individuals in other sensitive areas, like inpatients at mental health facilities, to share their stories.

This is about striking the right balance between protection, dignity and choice. For all the risks of disclosure, none of them outweigh the cost of silencing people and stripping them of their power and autonomy. The real risk here lies in maintaining a system that suppresses voices, perpetuates harm, and denies accountability.

People with disabilities deserve the right to own their stories.

It’s important that people with disabilities are supported to speak about their own experiences under guardianship. Too often, decisions are made without fully listening to those directly affected. Sharing personal stories helps shine a light on what’s working and what needs to change.

That’s what the Greens stand for – dignity, inclusion, and making sure lived experience guides the way forward.

That also means listening to lived experience, respecting individual rights, and dismantling the systems and attitudes that limit full participation in society. Whether it’s in education, employment, health care, housing, or the legal system, everyone deserves to be included, supported, and empowered.

As the spokesperson for disability rights and services, Greens colleagues and I are committed to building a future where accessibility is the norm, not the exception.

I would like to conclude my speech with the wise words of Mr Uli Cartwright, which remind us all of the kind of society we want to be building. I quote:

People with a disability don’t want to be treated like they’re disabled. We want to be treated like everyone else, because we are like everyone else, just unique.

These words challenge us as legislators to ensure that choice, control and dignity are shared responsibilities.

I commend this bill to the house.

Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:19): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned for two weeks.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for two weeks.