purpose of [this amendment act] is to affirm the principle that, in the “The … context of the funding of support services, families generally have primary responsibility for the well-being of their family members.” The policy related to the Health and Disability Amendment Act has also referred to family carers as The implication here is that family members ‘natural supports’. should provide unpaid support because they are family. There are limits to the of families. It is not the norm that families ‘natural support’ live with a disabled family member who has high or very high needs. The Government has an obligation to provide services and supports to disabled people based on their individual levels of need. As such, government services assess disabled people for an allocated amount of support person hours. The number of hours of support needed, and the disabled of need, person’s level does not diminish because the person providing those services is a family member. Natural support from families occurs over and above the allocated support service hours, and should not be seen to reduce the disabled of need. person’s level Put another way, a disabled support needs do not change depending on person’s who is providing those support services. Māori disabled people disabled people have raised this discrimination as a cultural issue. Māori Te Puni Kokiri expressed concern that the Health and Disability Amendment Act 2013 does not fully comply with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. As it restricts payment to some family members it may disproportionately affect Māori people. care is an expectation within relationships. Whānau whānau disabled people have said they want to be able to have their as their Māori whānau paid carers, and have raised this as a Treaty right and a right to autonomy. Similar issues are likely to arise for other cultural and language groups, including Pasifika disabled people and Asian disabled people who may find employing a family member as their support person is the culturally appropriate thing to do. Challenging the Government’s concerns Concerns about costs One of the key arguments of the Government in developing the Health and Disability Amendment Act 2013 was ensuring the costs of paying family members as support people was sustainable and managing fiscal and litigation risks arising from this policy change.
“The purpose of [this amendment act] is … to affirm the principle that, in the context of the funding of support services, families generally have primary responsibility for the well-being of their family members.” The policy related to the Health and Disability Amendment Act has also referred to family carers as ‘natural supports’. The implication here is that family members should provide unpaid support because they are family. There are limits to the ‘natural support’ of families. It is not the norm that families live with a disabled family member who has high or very high needs. The Government has an obligation to provide services and supports to disabled people based on their individual levels of need. As such, government services assess disabled people for an allocated amount of support person hours. The number of hours of support needed, and the disabled person’s level of need, does not diminish because the person providing those services is a family member. Natural support from families occurs over and above the allocated support service hours, and should not be seen to reduce the disabled person’s level of need. Put another way, a disabled person’s support needs do not change depending on who is providing those support services. Māori disabled people Māori disabled people have raised this discrimination as a cultural issue. Te Puni Kokiri expressed concern that the Health and Disability Amendment Act 2013 does not fully comply with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. As it restricts payment to some family members it may disproportionately affect Māori people. Whānau care is an expectation within whānau relationships. Māori disabled people have said they want to be able to have their whānau as their paid carers, and have raised this as a Treaty right and a right to autonomy. Similar issues are likely to arise for other cultural and language groups, including Pasifika disabled people and Asian disabled people who may find employing a family member as their support person is the culturally appropriate thing to do. Challenging the Government’s concerns Concerns about costs One of the key arguments of the Government in developing the Health and Disability Amendment Act 2013 was ensuring the costs of paying family members as support people was sustainable and managing fiscal and litigation risks arising from this policy change.