In a groundbreaking and emotionally charged ruling, the Supreme Court has declared that disabled family carers are officially recognized as homeworkers, entitled to the minimum wage. This decision could revolutionize the lives of thousands of caregivers, but here’s where it gets controversial: does this mean the government now views family care as a job rather than an act of love? Let’s dive in.
Today, the nation’s highest court ruled in favor of parents who provide full-time care for their severely disabled adult children, acknowledging their role as employees under the Ministry of Social Development’s Disability Support Services (DSS). This landmark decision stems from a case brought by Christine Fleming and Peter Humphreys, whose children, Justin and Sian, require constant supervision and 24/7 care due to their physical and intellectual disabilities.
Christine Fleming expressed her elation, stating, ‘We’re thrilled the judges understood the complex, often contradictory nature of the disability support system and recognized that our work easily exceeds 40 hours a week.’ Independent advocate Jane Carrigan, who initiated the case in the Employment Court, celebrated the ruling’s potential to impact thousands of carers nationwide.
At the heart of the argument was the claim that Fleming and Humphreys were ‘homeworkers’—a legal term defined as someone employed to perform work in their home. They contended that as providers of government-mandated disability support services, they should be covered by employment law. But here’s the part most people miss: Fleming had previously rejected the Ministry’s Funded Family Care (FFC) program in 2018, opting instead for a benefit she deemed more financially viable. Despite knowing Justin’s needs, the Ministry initially offered to pay her for just 15 hours a week—a mere two hours a day—later increasing to 22 hours, both offers non-negotiable.
This ruling comes after a seven-year legal battle and over two decades of family carers advocating for their right to fair compensation. The Employment Court initially sided with Fleming and Humphreys, classifying them as homeworkers. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this in 2023, arguing Fleming wasn’t an employee because she’d declined FFC. Humphreys, meanwhile, was deemed a homeworker only during the six years he received FFC, allegedly losing this status in 2020 when he transitioned to Individualised Funding.
But the Supreme Court disagreed, finding the Ministry’s offers ‘unreasonable, if not unlawful,’ given the 24/7 care required. The court broadly interpreted the term ‘engagement’ as a homeworker, ruling that Fleming’s rights under the Employment Relations Act were not excluded by FFC. Additionally, it determined that Humphreys’ transition to Individualised Funding did not alter his homeworker status, as the Ministry’s own documentation supported the continuity of his role.
The court also addressed the definition of ‘work,’ asserting that Fleming should be compensated for supervision and sleepovers. However, it deferred the decision on the exact number of payable hours to the Employment Court.
This raises a thought-provoking question: If family care is now legally recognized as work, does this devalue the emotional and familial bond at its core? Or does it simply ensure caregivers receive the respect and compensation they deserve? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
