Do we exploit family carers by expecting too much? The New Zealand funded family care system

It's always fascinating to see how they do it in other countries, and I was intrigued by a set of New Zealand documents setting up a system for the state to pay family members of disabled people to care for them (including presumably older disabled people, since many disabled people are so because of increasing frailty in old age). It arose from a court action in 2001 by Susan Atkinson (and other in a similar position) against a policy not to use state funds to pay members of a family who lived with them to provide care for them, on the assumption that such care is a natural part of family life, so the state would not pay for it. The action used New Zealand human rights legislation to argue that this policy discriminated against family carers; the government's position was that their policy allowed family carers to appoint substitute paid carers, respite care and information and support to assist the unpaid care that they provided. Ms Atkinson and her co-complainants won.

The government reconsidered, and eventually made provision for family carers to be paid for in certain circumstances. Simply allowing for all family carers to be paid would have been very expensive and, it was thought, might undermine family relationships (apparently, it is ok for people - usually women - in families to be exploited by being required to provide care for all its members). Eventually though, the total number of hours to be paid for was capped at 40 hours a week, and the eligibility was limited to situations where there providing care in other ways was difficult (for example because the disabled person lived in an isolated rural location) or where the care was best provided by a family member resident with the disabled person because of the complexity of the needs.

You can see the rules and also the process by which the appeal led to the change in policy through a sequence of Cabinet minutes and public consultations, by downloading documents from the government website.

Link to the NZ government website on funded family care.

The point of principle that we all need to think about is how far and in what ways should the state support family care? How far is it exploitation for family members to save the state money by providing care for their loved ones? You might take the view that the primary responsibility should be with the family and not the state; in reality most states could not afford to provide total care for everyone. But in expecting too much, do we destroy family relationships and support? What do you think of the NZ compromise?