Carers recognition in Western Australia 

This article states the law of Western Australia. The Carers Recognition Act 2004 (WA) defines a carer by borrowing its grounds from other statutes, and imposes an obligation on public sector bodies that goes beyond the awareness duties found elsewhere¹. The prior question is whether the person cared for falls within one of the cross-referenced definitions, because this Act does not supply them.

The definition borrows from elsewhere

Section 5(1) provides that a person is a carer if they are an individual who provides ongoing care or assistance to:

• a person with a disability *as defined in the Disability Services Act 1993 (WA) s 3*;
• a person who has a chronic illness, *including a mental illness as defined in the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA) s 4*;
• a person who, because of frailty, requires assistance with carrying out everyday tasks; or
• a person of a prescribed class.

Two of the four grounds are defined by other Acts. A student cannot establish carer status from this Act alone where disability or mental illness is the ground relied on; the cross-referenced definition must be cited. That is a different drafting approach from the ACT, Victoria and Queensland, whose carers Acts state their grounds internally.

The frailty limb is also framed functionally — frailty that produces a need for assistance with everyday tasks — rather than by age, so an older person who is not frail is not within it and a younger frail person may be.

Two exclusions, and one clarification

Section 5(2) excludes two situations. Care provided under a contract for services or a contract of service is excluded — but with a carve-out for an agreement entered into under s 25 of the Disability Services Act 1993 (WA), so a person engaged under that provision is not thereby disqualified. Care provided while doing community work as defined in the Volunteers and Food and Other Donors (Protection from Liability) Act 2002 (WA) is also excluded.

Section 5(3) is a clarification rather than an exclusion. A person is not a carer only because they are a spouse, de facto partner, parent or guardian of the person cared for, or because they provide care to a child under an arrangement with the relevant chief executive officer.

The distinction matters, and it recurs across the series. Section 5(2) removes a category of care from the Act; s 5(3) removes an inference that would otherwise be drawn from a relationship. New South Wales draws the same line at s 5(2) and s 5(3) of its Act, and the ACT at s 6(3) and s 6(4).

Note that Western Australia's clarification names parent or guardian where the ACT's names relative and co-resident. The lists are not identical, so the provision must be read rather than recalled.

The Charter obligation

Section 6(1) requires an applicable organisation, subject to any other written law, to "take all practicable measures to ensure that the organisation and its officers, employees or agents comply with the Carers Charter in providing a service of that organisation".

The obligation is framed as compliance with the Charter, not merely awareness of it. Compare New South Wales, where s 7(1) requires an agency to take reasonable steps to ensure staff have an awareness and understanding of the Charter, and Victoria, where s 6(1) requires practicable measures directed at awareness and understanding. Western Australia asks for compliance.

The Charter is in the Act. Section 4 defines the Carers Charter to mean "the Western Australian Carers Charter set out in Schedule 1", and Schedule 1 sets out four clauses: carers must be treated with respect and dignity; the role of carers must be recognised by including them in the assessment, planning, delivery and review of services that impact on them; their views and needs must be taken into account alongside those of the person receiving care when decisions are made that impact on carers; and complaints by carers about such services must be given due attention and consideration. So an argument about what compliance requires is sourced from Schedule 1, not from anything external — and because a schedule is part of the Act, it carries the same force as s 6(1) itself.

Public sector bodies must involve carers

Section 6(2) adds a distinct duty for an applicable organisation that is a public sector body: it must involve carers, or persons or bodies that represent carers, in any policy or program development, or strategic or operational planning, that might affect carers and the role of carers.

This is the strongest carer participation duty in the series. Victoria's s 7(2) equivalent requires consultation when developing policies that impact on carers; New South Wales requires consultation on policies that impact on carers. Western Australia requires involvement, and extends it expressly to strategic and operational planning as well as policy and program development.

The threshold — anything that might affect carers and the role of carers — is also low, which widens the range of decisions the duty attaches to.

Section 7 then requires reporting to the Carers Advisory Council, with a deadline tied to each 1 July and not later than 30 September, and ss 8 to 12 establish the Council and its functions.

Applying this in a problem question

1. Identify the ground of care, and cite the cross-referenced definition where disability or mental illness is relied on.
2. Apply the frailty limb functionally, by reference to need for assistance with everyday tasks.
3. Apply s 5(2) to the basis on which care is given, and check the s 25 agreement carve-out.
4. Apply s 5(3) separately, as a clarification that relationship alone does not establish carer status.
5. For an organisation's obligations, note that s 6(1) requires compliance with the Charter, not awareness.
6. Where the body is a public sector body, apply s 6(2) and the low "might affect" threshold to any policy or planning decision.

Self-check

• Have I cited the cross-referenced definition rather than this Act alone?
• Have I kept s 5(2) and s 5(3) distinct?
• Have I stated the s 6(1) duty as compliance rather than awareness?
• Have I applied the involvement duty to planning as well as policy?