Paul Dale KC: lawyer on the Supreme Court's decision impacting parents who care for disabled family members

A landmark Supreme Court ruling means those providing full-time care for severely disabled family members are entitled to pay and other benefits.

It was brought by two parents, Christine Fleming and Peter Humphreys, who care for severely disabled adult children. 

Lawyer Paul Dale KC says parents in this position are now entitled to the legal benefits that come under the Employment Relations Act.

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The government is taking advice tonight on a landmark Supreme
Court ruling. This decided two parents who care for their
disabled adult children full time are employees of the government.
Paul daukas Case has been acting for the two cares
in this case and joins them now, Paul good evening,
what exactly does a ruling mean for your two clients? Now?

Speaker 2 (00:22):
It means that their STU says employees has been recognized.
They are now entitled to leave a benefits available to
an employee under the Employment RELATIONSHIPCT. It will be a
further hearing in that court where the Theirence government will
be determined and they will they will recover recordingly. Then
there will be others that are in the same boat.

Speaker 1 (00:43):
Yes, and that the ten thousand or so other family
careers that are thought to be out there. It doesn't
nothing applies to them. How do they get the same entitlement?

Speaker 2 (00:55):
Well, in most cases, I imagine that the Ministry would
have known they were providing POMAN services to the disabled
trial adult disabled person because of regular masks and posits
and analysis, so they would understand that the employment relationship existed.
I expect that for many, or if not most, of
them if they make a claim under the Employment Relations

(01:17):
Act in the same way, they'll succeed.

Speaker 1 (01:20):
Any idea what the cost of this could be to
the state.

Speaker 2 (01:25):
No, But a couple of observations. One is that in
the course of this litigation over the years we've been
doing it, and one since we found that the Crown
hadn't even spent its allocated budget on providing care for
high needs disabled So what is that it was a
shortage of funding. Also, is worth remembering that this is

(01:46):
the cheapest option. The ways that care can be provided
for a high heights disabled person are either you hire
external from cares, bring them into the home and payment,
or you have a residential care facility, which is not
an attract ideas for many people, and you're ounting up
roach anyway. Well, sadly you paid appearance, so the appearance
paying appearance is the cheapest option.

Speaker 1 (02:08):
Paul, appreciate that update for us. Thanks very much for
being with me this evening. That's Paul Dukawas's case. He
was acting for the two curs in the Supreme Court case.
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive listen live to
news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio