At present, the average hourly pay for workers in the private arm of the sector is said to be about $13-$14. It is not unusual for such carers to work for several years at the same rate. The work is demanding, both physically and emotionally. Frail and elderly men and women, some of whom suffer illnesses or who have had strokes or other medical events and have impaired communication skills, must be fed, toileted, hoisted, bathed, changed and so on. Those workers are paid sometimes up to $5 an hour less than their counterparts in DHB facilities for the same work. It is this disparity, along with the profits earned by private rest-home and healthcare providers, that has raised controversy in recent days.
Some of the discussion has been sparked by the publication of the report "Caring Counts", compiled by the Human Rights Commission's Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Dr Judy McGregor. The commissioner went "undercover" for a week in January working as an unpaid buddy for an experienced assistant.
She emerged from the experience angry and posing some hard questions - for employers, politicians, and investors who are either involved in, or speak on behalf of, private sector rest-home care.
She contrasted an "overwhelming culture of positive caring" with the reliance of New Zealanders on the emotional umbilical cord between women working as carers at $13-$14 per hour - which she described as "a form of modern slavery". So her report, while hard-hitting, is aimed at society as a whole, which she insists, must begin an immediate and serious "national conversation" about rights and responsibilities, and the roles of the state, market, workers, and family members in aged care.
Rightly, she criticised the tendency of "self-interested groups" descending into "warrior politics", which has a divisive and polarising rather than constructive effect. That said, the issue of pay parity between private sector care workers and the public has drawn comment from across the political divide - as has the question of rest-home operator profits. Estimates suggest it would take $140 million to bridge the pay parity gap.
Prime Minister John Key suggests this money is simply not available at present, and that the discrepancy existed under the last Labour-led administrations as well. Labour insists its efforts to level the paying field were thwarted when it was taken to court for attempting to ensure taxpayer monies for supporting aged care went to the workers rather than into the profits of the companies that employed them.
Regardless, in the recent history of elder care, this country, led by governments of different political hues, has hardly covered itself in glory. Nor should it be an issue left entirely in the hands of state authorities.
How we safeguard the dignity of our frail elderly is surely a measure of society's humanity.
Many of us have elderly parents or relatives either in care or soon to be placed there. We expect them to be treated with respect and compassion, gently and with good humour. This is asking a lot of strangers, especially underpaid and overworked strangers.
For the State to ask private rest-home companies to forgo a percentage of their profits to pay their employees better wages is inimical to the business practice and principles on which such operators run. If they are not passing on funds originating in the public sector to their staff, then this needs to be addressed at a national political level. But by the same token, the conundrum has to be confronted at a personal level by all of us. How would we wish our parents and elderly relatives - and ourselves - to be looked after?
And what are we prepared to do to make that happen?
The answers are not obvious, but Dr McGregor is quite correct: unless the questions are asked, the solutions will never be known.
