Another example of the ABC descending toward a preference for click-baiting and quicker, poorly considered content. Stylised to talk up drama more than to inform.
Confidentiality
The article starts off by drawing an allusion to Britney Spears’ conservatorship issues - a situation that is not really analogous to anything else discussed in the article.
There are multiple very good reasons for restricting the identification of people whose finances are managed by the PTs. None of which are mentioned in the article, which pleads like someone fallen upon a fainting couch that if only “human faces can be put to these stories, it could mean these self-funded agencies … will face much greater scrutiny”.
I get that their stories would be more attention-drawing in the modern media age if photos and videos of the individuals involved were available. But that’s not necessary for scrutiny to be had. Just different choices by editors and executives in the media. It wouldn’t actually tell us anything more about their stories that can’t be achieved by other means (e.g. pseudonyms, re-enactments). It’s more about the heightened emotional appeal value. Which I don’t dismiss the utility or importance of. What might be gained from that is something to be weighed up against the disadvantages of allowing it.
And I’m sure there’s some room for good reforms no matter what.
But we have to bear in mind that:
These are private, personal concerns that presumably shouldn’t be made subject to public scrutiny without good cause or properly informed consent.
We are by and large talking about people who lack the capacity to make decisions about what is in their best interests when it comes to their own affairs. It will often be the case that they will also have some level of impaired capacity when it comes to them being able to assess whether it is in their own best interest to be publicly identified.
Public identification makes it easier for scammers to scam vulnerable people.
Identifying people who allege abuse or mistreatment can open them up to retaliation and open up other cans of worms in relation to rights of reply, defamation, etc.
Public attention can be bad. It can backfire. People can regret it. Or they may not want it in the first place but find it difficult to say no to tabloids who are interested in their story. It can amplify the severity of an already stressful situation. And it can draw supportive family members and friends into the public drama and make everything more difficult for them.
Funding
The public trustees don’t run businesses for profit. They provide services and try to recoup some of the cost. In this context, we’re talking about the service of looking after the financial affairs of people who can’t look after them themselves, where no one suitable has been appointed to do it.
Should the cost burden of that task fall be borne by all taxpayers out of general revenue? That the individual who is meant to benefit from the service should receive that benefit at no extra cost to them? Even if the person is a multi-millionaire? And while others who make their own arrangements would have to pay for it? That’s not been a very popular idea so far. It makes sense that the cost should wholly or largely be borne by the individual in a similar manner to if they were paying a private trustee company.
That the public trustees do charge for their work also provides a useful motivation for people to go ahead and organise their own affairs and in better ways.
Do the PTs’ charges subsidise other activities? Effectively yes, but because the PTs like many other large government bodies tend to be underfunded and because the PTs are responsible for handling many small estates where the amount charged or recoverable would be much less than what the true cost would be.
Another example of the ABC descending toward a preference for click-baiting and quicker, poorly considered content. Stylised to talk up drama more than to inform.
Confidentiality
The article starts off by drawing an allusion to Britney Spears’ conservatorship issues - a situation that is not really analogous to anything else discussed in the article.
There are multiple very good reasons for restricting the identification of people whose finances are managed by the PTs. None of which are mentioned in the article, which pleads like someone fallen upon a fainting couch that if only “human faces can be put to these stories, it could mean these self-funded agencies … will face much greater scrutiny”.
I get that their stories would be more attention-drawing in the modern media age if photos and videos of the individuals involved were available. But that’s not necessary for scrutiny to be had. Just different choices by editors and executives in the media. It wouldn’t actually tell us anything more about their stories that can’t be achieved by other means (e.g. pseudonyms, re-enactments). It’s more about the heightened emotional appeal value. Which I don’t dismiss the utility or importance of. What might be gained from that is something to be weighed up against the disadvantages of allowing it.
And I’m sure there’s some room for good reforms no matter what.
But we have to bear in mind that:
Funding
The public trustees don’t run businesses for profit. They provide services and try to recoup some of the cost. In this context, we’re talking about the service of looking after the financial affairs of people who can’t look after them themselves, where no one suitable has been appointed to do it.
Should the cost burden of that task fall be borne by all taxpayers out of general revenue? That the individual who is meant to benefit from the service should receive that benefit at no extra cost to them? Even if the person is a multi-millionaire? And while others who make their own arrangements would have to pay for it? That’s not been a very popular idea so far. It makes sense that the cost should wholly or largely be borne by the individual in a similar manner to if they were paying a private trustee company.
That the public trustees do charge for their work also provides a useful motivation for people to go ahead and organise their own affairs and in better ways.
Do the PTs’ charges subsidise other activities? Effectively yes, but because the PTs like many other large government bodies tend to be underfunded and because the PTs are responsible for handling many small estates where the amount charged or recoverable would be much less than what the true cost would be.