This week the Government moved to pass legislation that allocated $92 million over the next four years to pay carers of the disabled minimum wage. Supported by National, Act, United Future and the Maori Party, The New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) 2013 passed three readings in just one day.
A press release from Parliament positioned the Bill as another first for New Zealand, making us the third country in the world to pay carers of the disabled the minimum wage.
So why does National’s Chris Finlayson highlight that it could be seen as violating the Bill of Rights for disabled people?
Why did Labour’s Health spokesperson Annette King say that the information circulated on this amendment constituted the “blankety-blank-blank-blank Bill”?
Is this Bill for or against disabled people? Why does New Zealand First say that it is a serious assault on the human rights of the disabled?
The rush to push through the Disability Amendment Bill is not about the $92 million that was set aside for disabled carers – it is about limiting the liability of the government in terms of who is eligible. Although ACC allows family members to be carers, the Ministry of Health previously did not recognize family carers.
They argued that taking care of spouses and children even when it was full-time work was part of the social contract that family members undertake with each other. A group of families challenged this decision by arguing that as unpaid family members working seven days a week to care for their disabled relatives they were discriminated against by the government in 2001 in The Ministry of Health v Atkinson and Ors.
This case was fought by the Ministry at a cost to the taxpayer of upwards of $1.4 million since 2008, until the Ministry eventually lost the case at the Court of Appeal. This paved the way for the allocation of minimum wage to a limited number of families as announced in this budget.
However, what is disturbing about this Bill is the way that it seeks to limit the rights of a group that have historically suffered from discrimination. As Labour’s David Shearer commented, they would be looking to restrict costs as well. This highlights how discussions on disability have traditionally been phrased within utilitarian arguments on the cost to the entire population. Yet the Bill’s move to limit the Bill of Rights in terms of removing discrimination for family members goes too far. Offering carers support should not come at the expense of having rights removed, particularly for a group that have historically born the brunt of so much discrimination (think for example of the rise of the institutionalization of the disabled in the 1700s and the government arguments around eugenics in the west in the early 20th century). This is a Bill that should not have been passed as quickly as it did and would have benefited from further discussions. The claim that we are the third country in the world to provide this benefit detracts from the way that it essentially limits future claims and the future rights of our most vulnerable. It also detracts from future discussions about how other countries deal with the rights of family carers – such as the other countries that provide benefits to a wider range of carers.
Just curious how you feel the new bill seeks to limit the rights of anyone.
By removing the right to take the issue to court. Oh wait National trample over the constitution again, Gosman writes inane shit, yeap another good week to be disabled in New Zealand. Oh and Gosman it’s not feelings it’s black and white – look at the bill section 73-74. Indeed a little reading or reflective thought before you write would be civil.
Come on Gosman, you know full well what is in the legislation, and that they rule out any future claims on similar grounds, even daring to try and prohibit the courts to take action.
Clearly a total disregard for the judiciary and a breach of NZ BORA!
Try your angle on the ignorant, and that is all your game, right?
I actually didn’t, hence the question. I’m still a tad confused. Does this mean people are not able to apply through the court’s for future or past compensation?
Yep, read the last chapter in Phoebe’s blog article above, and have a look at the bill, perhaps, there are consitutionally questionable aspects to this bill:
“However, what is disturbing about this Bill is the way that it seeks to limit the rights of a group that have historically suffered from discrimination. As Labour’s David Shearer commented, they would be looking to restrict costs as well.”
A valuable explanation of the issue, Phoebe. Thank you.
It also reminds me of the recent Sleep-Over case, where support workers were finally paid for sleeping over at their clients’ homes. Up until then, they had been paid a flat $35/$40 allowance for the eight hours they over-nighted at the client’s homes.
Well put Pheobe, thank you.
I’m going to guess (because you don’t make this clear) the the bill prevents further claims for payment for past care by family members? Presumably ‘in exchange’ for being paid minimum wage for future care. Is that correct?
If so, I agree that its a pretty cynical move (and therefore very much par for the course from Nact).
That was what I was trying to find out.
Folks….had the govt. saw fit to do what was decided through the three hearings, ie; that if a disabled person has been assessed as needing x number of hours per week of funded care to meet their core needs..then that person has the right to choose a family member as their paid carer. It also said the family carer should be treated as any other carer if they are doing the same tasks.
Seems simple?
Considering there are only some 1286 over 18 high needs disabled people being cared for by unpaid family (based on Carer Support allocation) then surely some bureaucrat should have taken the initiative to sit down with us and ask us what we thought was a fair resolution…without bankrupting the country,
We (my C4/5 tetraplegic partner and myself) did present ourselves to the Minister at the Beehive this time last year…and said..talk to us, we are in this group, we are reasonable people who just want a fair deal.
Look where that got us.
No pay, and no right to ever take this issue to the HRC or the courts again. Ever.
Oh, and Frank…the ‘sleepover’ workers…some 50% have still not been paid.
Non ACC disabled, and the elderly and the people who care for them the lowest form of life in the country.
That is official.
Comments are closed.