Kerre Woodham: The Supreme Court ruling on disabled carers makes sense

Two parents who care for their severely disabled adult children have been recognised as homeworkers and are now entitled to receive the minimum wage, along with other associated employment conditions, after a landmark ruling yesterday from the country's highest court. They're now deemed to be employees of disability support services. And the families who battled to be recognised for the work that they do are hopeful the Supreme Court decision paves the way for other carers who are in a similar situation. 

The case was brought by two parents, Christine Fleming and Peter Humphreys, who each care for their severely disabled adult children. Their physical and intellectual disabilities require constant supervision and around the clock care. Were it not for the care provided by their families, the two adult children would be needing 24/7 care somewhere, and some substandard accommodation, and that would be funded by the taxpayer. 

The decision to deem the parents to be employees was unanimously reached by the five judges of the Supreme Court, and it comes seven years and seven months after the case was first filed in the Employment Court, and more than two decades after family carers first went to court, complaining they had the right to be paid for the care they provided that the taxpayer would otherwise have to provide. 

From what I recall of the story over those two decades, it's complicated because there are some family members who believe it is their sacred duty to care for their children, and that by becoming employees it diminishes that bond. So not everybody thinks the same way. You know, you might share similar circumstances, but you look at it in different ways. 

But it just makes sense, doesn't it? That if you have a child, be they seven months, seven years, 17, 27, however old they are, and it has been deemed that they need 24/7 care, and you are providing that care, you should be reimbursed for it, whether you've got a sacred bond between parent and child or not. Otherwise, we, the taxpayer, would have to fund it some other way. 

It's similar to a story I covered on Fair Go a trillion years ago. A young man had been left tetraplegic in a car accident. He was legally entitled to 24/7 care, but he only received limited funding to cover that care. So unless his caregivers gave their time voluntarily, and many chose not to, and fear it, they weren't being paid, but he would be left alone and abandoned. He nearly died a couple of times because there was nobody there, despite the fact he was entitled to it, but the money didn't cover 24/7 care. 

It seems that some government departments rely on the bonds between parents and their children and the kindness of strangers to provide the care that legally, by right, should be afforded our most severely disabled New Zealanders. 

I can't imagine what it would be like as a parent of a disabled child, knowing that time is ticking by. You try to set your children up so that they will be looked after when you're gone. But it would be terrifying having to try and care for the child in the here and now, while making provision for them in the future. Quite often it falls to other siblings to provide that care. 

There's a need to try and work to afford the sort of care that the adult child is going to need now and in the future. Like the love you would get from knowing your child, fabulous. But there's also the basic needs you have to provide for. You know, you get a lot out of being with your child, no matter what age. You know, it's a relationship that you have. It is one that is special, unique, but it's also a job, and if you weren't doing it, somebody would have to. 

So I would love to hear from those families who are in that situation and what that means for you from here on in. Not all family members will want to be workers of disability support services, and I get that, but at least the pay it paves the way for there to be the option for them to be recognised as such. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.