In the ensuing months I wrote to the Attorney
General, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe and the Shadow
Attorney General, the Hon. John P. Hannaford begging
for assistance. All informed me that the Hon. Ron
Dyer M.L.C. was the person I should be contacting as
the procedures of the Guardianship Board was his
responsibility.
On 25th July 1997 I sent the Hon. Ron Dyer a 30 page
letter dealing in detail with the inconsistencies,
lies, and ‘so called’ evidence presented at
the hearing. I requested that once the business
affairs were settled I wanted the Order reviewed,
revoked, whatever it took to remove financial control
from the Protective Commissioner
On 18th August 1997 Mr Dyer afforded me a reply, part
of which states
“I therefore suggest that
this hearing ( coming up on 3 October 1997 ) is the
appropriate venue to raise your concerns and to
present any evidence relevant to the application
before the Board.”
He also advised that it was neither possible
nor appropriate for him to comment or seek to
influence decisions made by the Board in carrying out
it’s judicial functions. If I
was not happy with the way the financial affairs of
my husband were being handled by the Protective
Commissioner then the Attorney General, Mr Jeff Shaw
was the person I should be contacting and that he had
passed my letter on to him.
Before I continue with the mismanagement of funds by
the OPC I wish to advise the events of the second and
final hearing of the Guardianship Tribunal.
Prior to this hearing the OPC insisted that a
representative from the Queensland Public Trustee
Office visit with us to assess my husband and present
a report for this second hearing. Ms Alana Paxton
arrived with an officer from the Maryborough branch
of the Public Trustee.
Ms Paxton never moved from her seat the entire time
she visited. I was under the assumption that she was
to assess my husband’s capabilities without
assistance from me. She spent about an hour with us
and seemed friendly.
The Report she sent to the OPC was astonishing! I
could not believe a person could twist events,
information provided and observances to such a
degree. She never once took notes. She didn’t
check my husband’s bedroom or bathroom. She
assumed my husband slept in the dining room! She
crucified me! It was almost as though she had been
prepped by the OPC as to what she should report.
I wrote to the Qld. Public Trustee and told him that
Ms Paxton should not be allowed on interviews without
a tape recorder. I also went through her report
paragraph by paragraph stating the facts as they
were, not as Ms Paxton had reported. Her report was
presented to this second hearing along with a report
from Graham Brindell, Estate Manager, OPC.
Mr Brindell’s report was far from factual. It
stated that a company called Jirsch Sutherland HAD
BEEN appointed as liquidators for my
husband’s company. I contacted Jirsch Sutherland
on 3rd October 1997, prior to the hearing and they still had not
even been approached by anyone to act
as liquidators for my husband’s company.
Mr Brindell also inferred in his report that my
husband had only lived here in Hervey Bay with me
since April 1997 (he couldn’t even get that
right, he meant March 1997) when I
“transported’ him to my residence here in
Qld whilst my husband was on day leave from Rozelle
Hospital. Our home in Hervey Bay has been my
husband’s home since we moved here in 1983.
I also asked Mr Brindell to make sure the accountant
Peter McGivern attended the hearing. I wanted to
question him on his slanderous statements made at the
previous hearing 6 months earlier. I had been advised
by the Hon. Ron Dyer, in writing, that this
would be my opportunity to have
my say. Mr Brindell took it upon himself to tell Mr
McGivern he wouldn’t be needed! Mr Brindell did
remark, outside the hearing, that the report from Ms
Paxton seemed ‘a bit far fetched”,
though he said nothing about it during the hearing.
I did appear in person at this
hearing, with my mother as support. The Presiding
Member was a Mr Julian Millar. From the onset of the
Hearing Mr Millar was smug, arrogant and
condescending. I told him that I had been notified by
the Hon Ron Dyer that I would be permitted to
question the discrepancies which occurred at the
first hearing. This request was scorned by Mr Millar
and I was informed by him that he did not intend
discussing that which had occurred at the previous
hearing, HIS ONLY INTEREST was the hearing at hand!
So, once more I was denied natural
justice.
It was obvious that decisions had been made prior to
the hearing and that anything I had to say would be
of no consequence. Without even conferring with the
other members of the Tribunal he advised that the
Guardianship issue was dismissed as they ( the
Guardianship Board) had no jurisdiction over
my husband.
The discussion about the tying up of my
husband’s business affairs was held between Mr
Millar and Mr Brindell as though I were not even
present. Mr Brindell insisted that at that time I had
an over $200,000 debt. When I tried to contradict
this and tell the true figure I was ignored.
Then Mr Brindell advised that a company had already
been appointed to liquidate my husband’s
company. When I advised that I had spoken to on of
the management of that company that morning prior to
the hearing and that I had been told they still
had not been approached to liquidate my
husband’s company, I was ignored. ( It was not
until the 28th November 1997 that Jirsch Sutherland
were finally appointed as liquidators, 8 WEEKS
LATER!)
Mr Brindell advised that the business affairs were
within a “couple” of weeks from
completion. (This was a lie! It took
8 more months. ) At this point Mr
Millar asked what I wished to do. He treated me as
though I were a criminal, repeating and repeating the
same questions. Time after time I told him that if it
were true that the closure of my
husband’s company was so close to completion
then, it would be remiss of me to interfere now,
since there was my husband’s partner to
consider. She had been waiting for months for her
share of the sale of the property. She was not well
and I couldn’t demand that we start all over
again with someone else, it would not be fair to her.
I said, that if it were the case, that
the finalisation of the closure was close to
completion, then once it was finalised I wished the
control of our finances be passed to myself for
administration.
I also requested that we discuss the report provided
by Alana Paxton from the Queensland Public Trustee
office which had been presented to the hearing. Mr
Millar told me he hadn’t even
read the report and was therefore not about to
discuss it! Yet on the REASONS FOR
DECISION ( for this hearing) dated 3rd October 1997
it states that this report was
taken into consideration as evidence at the
hearing along with the previous Order and Reasons for
Decision of the Board in April 1997.
Mr Millar and Mr Brindell had a discussion between
themselves, as though I didn’t exist, regarding
my current situation and the debt which needed to be
paid. They remarked that ‘if
I divorced my husband I would be entitled to half at
least, anyway’ so, perhaps once everything is
finalised maybe they should ‘just pay me
’.
This of course never happened! Offers I had from the
OPC had been ‘BANKRUPTCY and DIVORCE’. At
no time during this hearing was there ever mention of
a MORTGAGE.
The Reasons for Decision also stated that:
“When the liquidation is
completed, Mrs Furner wishes to become manager of her
husband’s affairs in NSW. She may then make
application for that purpose to the Board.
Alternatively, if she wishes to manage her
husband’s affairs in Queensland she may obtain
legal advice as to her rights to make any appropriate
application in that state.”