Caregivers may have compensation revoked

Email
Print

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 5:20p.m.

Stuart Burnett and his mum Jean

Stuart Burnett and his mum Jean

By Laura Turner

The Solicitor-General has announced he will appeal a court decision forcing the Government to pay parents who are the full time carers of their disabled adult children.

But after months in court and a lifetime caring for severely disabled children on no pay, the parents say they are disgusted.

Stuart Burnett can't say it is the way most of us would, but that doesn't stop him voicing his objection to the way the Government is treating his mother.

He and Jean Burnett, his mother and carer for 43 years, were thrilled when the court ruled in their favour.

The fact the Solicitor-General has lodged an appeal is an insult says Ms Burnett.

“Yes it is a slap in the face and it's very disappointing, pretty upsetting really,” she says.

“We thought we had been doing this job long enough without any recognition.”

The Human Rights Commission won the court case on behalf of a group of care-giving parents arguing they have the right to be paid as full time carers - just as someone who isn't a relative, and who would be paid to do the same job.

Chief Human Rights commissioner Rosslyn Noonan says human rights laws are specifically there for cases such as this.  

“We have human rights law that says you can’t discriminate on the basis of family status, so does that mean anything or not?”

The Solicitor-General is appealing every point of the decision, in his statement today he made specific note of the financial impact of paying the parents.

The court ruled:

"The likely potential cost of changing the policy is at the low end of, if not well below the $17 million to $593 million range estimated by the ministry's expert witness.”

But the Solicitor-General is arguing that paying the parents would cost too much.

Health Minister Tony Ryall agrees, saying the country does not have the means to compensate the parents.

“To pay parents for the care that they're giving their disabled family members - look the country could not afford that,” he says.

He says it might also set a precedent for other areas of public policy.

Instead, Mr Ryall is now considering a National Health Committee report on how best to support the parents, without paying them.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

23 Mar 2010 02:33p.m.

Family member wrote:

If we put the Law ahead of personal opinion, the issue is simple. The law states, discrimination on the grounds of family status is illegal. These words are very clear. The Bill of Rights works in conjunction with this Law. The Bill says every person has the right to freedom from discrimination. That also is clear. The Law states that Policy must not conflict with the Law..how simple is that. Human Rights are an essential part of our social structure, without such protection we have the potential to commit genecide & lose 6 million plus souls, we have the potential to treat specific groups with contempt and disregard their place in society.Each disabled person has the same rights as all others. Many suggest that disabled people are in care because their family's can't manage, this is a misconception. In fact family's are denied the necessary resources automatically provided to any other facility who take up the role. Caring for a disabled person in fact disables the person charged with this responsibility, to the point where their sacrafice represents the love and committment only a family can give. The dynamics of placement into alternative care has a huge cost. I would challenge the government to prove by analysis that facility care is less costly than home care with family. For those who do not know, the funding packages provided for this care are wrapped around the individual with a disability, not the family. This occurs in the same manner where a facility would apply for funding if they took the role. Family of course would not have building costs, office costs, staffing costs, legal costs, accountants costs, fleet costs,training costs,sick pay, holiday pay, ACC, etc etc etc. Policing the care can be done through contract. Didn't we deinstitutionalise in favour of community care back in the 80's. If the appeal goes ahead, does this mean that the government has the power to disable our Human Rights Commission? Food for thought

23 Jan 2010 08:36p.m.

Shocked wrote:

What you did Obiwan was try to discredit what someone who is intimately involved in this argument had to say on it.

The very arguments I used are the very arguments used on both sides.

We are talking about a system where government doesnt use family status as a means to descriminate.

What you are trying to do is bring rich and poor into it, I acknowledge that both get ill and can become disabled.

You fail to acknowledge that for a rich person it is far less traumatic because of their financial resources.
They dont have to stress as much as people within the system who dont know if they can afford their meds this week or to go to the doctors because they are on a Winz benefit.

What you fail to do is destinguish the added burden on someone with no financial resources.

What you try to do is suggest that I dont acknowledge the system has come a long way... well in some cases it really has not.

However my doctors refer to the ministry of health as a third world organisation... and yes I meant that in the Plural sense.

There is still one place where descrimination exists and that is within government and the debate is.. should it? just because the politicians reasoning is because its cheaper to have it that way.

My arguments were that government wouldnt change it because they have repeatedly and continually argued that it is cheaper to treat beneficiaries and their carers as sub human in order to save money.

I never failed to acknowledge that sickness happened everywhere, but to argue that both sides know all of its consequences ie, poor v rich.

I'd think most intelligent people would realise that there are more dire consequences for those without money.... like having to face government descrimination, not being able to buy medications or pay for heating, housing etc.

Or do you profess that the consequences of illness are the same for rich and poor? because I could give you the numbers of many doctors that would disagree.

23 Jan 2010 06:56p.m.

Obiwan wrote:

Hello shocked, thank you for your constructive comments. It is a pity that you fail to see what I actually wrote.

23 Jan 2010 05:52p.m.

Shocked wrote:

As a little aside Obiwan.. I know that illness happens to rich or poor... this campaign is about equity.. people who dont have money who therefore have to rely on government support but dont get it or are penalised for having any sort of relationship with a sick person.

Your'e a businessman obiwan... you are always going on about how tough running your business is.

Rich people who get sick have money to fall back on, we are talking... as is this story about people that dont have that.

you are most certainly a rightie from all the comments I have seen you make.

My partner gives up working fulltime so that she can help me attend meetings etc and gets no recognition or recompense for her sacrifices.

You know nothing about this argument obiwan or at least your words show that you have a very warped view on it.

Chris, yes people who look after the sick should get assistance... but that is currently not the case, if your partner or parent works or has an income from savings etc the person in receipt of the invalids benefit gets their benefit cut quite dramatically because Winz deems that the person caring for you also has the responsibility of paying all your bills as well.

And no, people like my partner who look after sick people... dont currently qualify for any assistance at all.

23 Jan 2010 05:23p.m.

Shocked wrote:

Hello Obiwan.. I havent heard you waffle in awhile.

I have Dysautonomia
Bronchiectasis
Myoclonus
and the list goes on hugely.

What I was saying which you seem to have missed completely is that as an invalids beneficiary I am subjected to Family status testing.

Which means any partner or any person that supports me gets penalised by the government.

I have letters From Michael Cullen and members of the National party of well as Dunne and Anderton.

The reason that these forms of descrimination are applied is to save the government money, they have said so themselves some of these letters I will publish them when I write my book.

I know they will do nothing about this because they have told me so directly.

If they give on this issue then they will have to give to all beneficiaries as they have stated to me directly.

And thats why this campaign isnt just about carers of the sick, its about how government applies illegal forms of desrimination.
They can as they have said to me in their own words said they have to apply it to everyone

23 Jan 2010 11:41a.m.

Obiwan wrote:

I support a system where home care giving becomes an option, as I do think that caring in other places can lead to the risk of becoming an institution, quite apart from in many cases being quite a bit more expensive. I do not support the rhetoric of "Schocked" as that person does not understand that disabled people are not confined to the poor. It has no boundaries, and thus it is in the interest of every Government to find ways to improve. "schocked" also dismisses what people of all walks of life, whether rich or poor, disabled or not, have created to date. I speak from personal experience, "Schocked", before you go of your rocker again, and have found solutions you probably only dream about. As a footnote, shocked, I prefer to call myself neither left nor right, more centred on finding workable solutions.

23 Jan 2010 01:24a.m.

Chris wrote:

Hmm, interesting subject, haven't made up my mind yet.

On one hand, I agree that parents who give up their lives to care for a handicapped/disabled child are making a huge sacrifice. I can't imagine why the government would deny these people financial assistance, when one considers the amount of money it is prepared to throw at benificiaries who have chosen to make a career out of breeding.

On the other hand, don't we have paid, professional carers for this exact reason - to care for those who cannot be cared for by their family? I'm assuming a parent that stayed home to care for their child would qualify for some form of assistance (DPB?), while their child would (upon reaching the requisite age) qualify for an invalids benefit.

22 Jan 2010 11:45p.m.

Shocked wrote:

It wont matter alien.

Any move by government to compensate these people will open the way for more court cases.

If government enacts legislation to create a new benefit that has special allowances that arent universal within the benefit system.

Such as exemptions for family members incomes etc, then under New Zealand law, the government is not applying this criteria to all beneficiaries so therefore this descrimination is not evenly applied and hence not justified by law.

The reason that government has been able to use this in the past is because they have specifically argued that the descrimination is applied to all on within the benefit system.

If you believe something is in the works, then it will hail the end of this descrimination for all within the benefit system very quickly.

I dont believe that the government will do anything.

22 Jan 2010 08:33p.m.

rosemary wrote:

The Human Rights Review Tribunal deliberated for 15 months over this decision. Each of the arguments the Miserly of Health brought up (including the ludicrous cost 'estimate' of $17-593 million), was considered and dismiised. A.C.C. has been paying resident family members of its clients for years...but then again...those born with disabilities are worth many times less to our government than say a now paralysed criminal.
The government found an extra $1.2billon over four years to prop up A.C.C., so A.C.C. clients, who already enjoy vastly superior conditions to non-A.C.C. disabled, can continue to have the entitlements that the rest of us can only dream of.

Time for a hikoi.

22 Jan 2010 08:04p.m.

Alien wrote:

i actually support the government past and present on this. And I speak from the vantage point of having a friend disabled, and for whom family and friends help. I do believe parents, family members, etc should be compensated, but not under the current system. I believe a new benefit needs to be put forward from WINZ with strict guide lines on who can get it stopping what the government worries will happen. It is my understanding that such is in the works.