GUARDIANSHIP

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (15:25): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of the Government representing the Attorney-General a question on the subject of the Guardianship and Administration Act.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The latest annual report of the Public Advocate highlights difficulties that have arisen because of the passage of the Statutes Amendment (Domestic Partners) Act 2006. This act alters the expression 'spouse, including a legal de facto spouse' to 'spouse, including domestic partner'.

In the latest annual report of the Public Advocate, certain difficulties have been highlighted in relation to that change in definition. In particular, the Public Advocate points out that, under section 59 of the Guardianship and Administration Act, certain consent to a medical or dental treatment can be made only by a person who is a guardian or a relative, and a relative is defined as a spouse or domestic partner.

The Public Advocate points out that, in considering whether a person is a domestic partner, one is required to have regard to a series of factors, including how long the persons have lived together, whether they share their home in common, whether they financially support each other, whether they own property separately, whether they are committed to a shared life and other considerations.

The Public Advocate states that one must have some sympathy for health providers when seeking a valid and effective medical consent to treatment from someone who claims to be a domestic partner of the patient, and he is highlighting that there would have to be a great deal of interrogation to determine these matters. He continues:

I can only assume that our legislators did not apply their minds to the precarious position in which this amendment places our clinicians. If the consent they obtain is from someone who does not satisfy the definition of a domestic partner…they could be guilty of assault and battery. If it is an end-of-life decision, it can amount to manslaughter or murder.

My questions are:

1. Is the Attorney-General aware of the difficulties highlighted by the Public Advocate?

2. Does he agree that the concerns are legitimate; if so, what does the government intend to do about this important issue?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:28): I thank the honourable member for his questions, and I will draw them to the Attorney's attention. The answer to the first question is: yes, he will be aware of it; even if he was not before, I will make sure that he is aware of it. It certainly seems to me that the comments made are addressed to all of us as parliamentarians. I think it was a fair while ago that we had the debate in relation to the legislation, but I will make sure that the Attorney has a look at it and bring back a reply.