Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repealand Related Matters) Bill

I move, That the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee. The Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill repeals the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act and is consistent with the New Zealand Disability Strategy and with the findings of the 2001 vocational services review, as outlined in Pathways to Inclusion: Improving Vocational Services for People with Disabilities. By repealing the Act, the bill ensures that people with disabilities have the same employment conditions, rights, and entitlements as other New Zealanders, including minimum-wage provisions and access to statutory holidays. The bill also amends the Minimum Wage Act of 1983 to make the system for considering minimum wage exemption permits—formerly known as under-rate workers permits—more clearly focused and transparent.

The New Zealand Disability Strategy aims to achieve a fully inclusive society, where people with disabilities have the same opportunities as other New Zealanders to participate in training and employment and to receive fair remuneration. The current Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act provides different employment conditions, rights, and entitlements for people with disabilities who work in sheltered workshops, regardless of their individual circumstances. The Act is not compliant with domestic and international human rights legislation. It confuses employment and other relationships that exist between the provider employer and the service-user employee, and it embodies outdated concepts about the ability, potential, and rights of disabled people.

Employment opportunities in segregated or partially segregated settings will continue under the new legislation. The bill will, however, result in wages being paid according to the work people do rather than according to the place where they work. It provides for the phasing out of exemptions for current legally approved providers over a transition period that began in 2001 and will expire on 1 July 2007. This transition period allows the sector sufficient time to sustainably move to the new employment relationships. Providers are already receiving direct assistance from the Government to move on to the new employment arrangements. They will continue to receive direct and ongoing assistance to develop their businesses to support employment, with specialist advisers and resources providing information and other professional support.

Our Government recognises the diverse needs and aspirations of disabled people and the need to encourage a range of employment options to meet those needs and aspirations. This bill is part of a new approach to employment opportunity, with organisations currently operating under the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act. The new policy approach is being implemented through both operational mechanisms, through contracting, and by legislative change through this bill.

It includes the following elements: providers may offer support for community participation for training, or a mix of all three, with employment, but must meet employment standards for any employment relationship that exists. It has a revised minimum wage exemption permit system, and it ensures that other employment legislation is complied with. The bill affects providers who have an employment relationship with individuals who are employed in sheltered workshops. Providers who offer only training, or support community participation, are not affected by this legislation.

Whether individual relationships and segregated employment exist will continue to be identified over the transition period. The bill also retains the existing eligibility criteria for invalids benefit for people who are working in sheltered workshops. This provision is needed to ensure the financial security of many of the employees who receive part of their income from wages and part from the benefit.

The benefits of repealing the Act are as follows. People with disabilities employed in sheltered workshops will be entitled to the same employment conditions, rights, and entitlements as all other New Zealanders, including minimum wages and entitlement to statutory holiday provisions. We will have legislation that is compliant with the Human Rights Act of 1993 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The repeal of existing legislation is consistent with international conventions, particularly ILO Convention 111 Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation, of 1958, which was ratified by New Zealand in 1983, and there will be significant action towards achieving objective 4 of the New Zealand Disability Strategy. Most important, there will be transparency, consistency, and fairness in the application of wage and holiday legislation for all New Zealand workers.

This bill has been the subject of many reviews over the last decade, and I am personally delighted that we have finally reached this stage of being able to introduce legislation, which I now commend to the House.

The National Party will be opposing the progress of this bill, and I intend to spend some time explaining to the House why. Whilst the Minister has laudable intentions in respect of an inclusive society and the like, the question this House must ask itself is whether this is the instrument to provide that inclusiveness, whether this is the instrument that will maintain those opportunities, and whether this is the instrument that will allow disabled persons opportunities they would otherwise not have. Having had the first reading of this bill, I and the National Party are of the view that that is not the case; that, in fact, we are dealing here with a bill that lacks conviction. It lacks conviction because in the same way that this Government introduced 4 weeks’ annual leave to this House, with a long-drawn-out period before its coming into full force, so indeed does this bill create a transition period until 2007. I say to the Minister opposite that if she has the courage of her convictions in respect of implementing such an inclusive society, she should crack on and get this legislation with a commencement date that reflects the courage of that conviction.

What we have here is legislation that is a half-hearted effort to try to appear concerned and inclusive, when in actual fact all it does is create a whole lot of unanswered questions, with a lengthy transition period thrown into the middle of it.

So with this legislation we see a raft of new compliance requirements for those organisations, providers, and Government agencies that are currently providing those with disabilities the opportunity to work. I have to say that if the Minister had the courage of her convictions, this legislation would be coming into force immediately. This is another example of this Government trying to put in place a simple stepping stone for the upcoming election—to say that it cannot do this now because it does not have the courage of its convictions; that it does not believe that Government agencies and providers will be able to cope with what it will put on them; so accordingly the Government will signal its intention to move in that direction, but will refuse to back that intention up with legislation to make it concrete.

So what we have here, under the heading “Affected providers” in the commentary, is a mixed message going out to those people who would be looking at this as firm and clear legislation to give them direction to move in the same manner as those in our society who do not suffer from those types of disabilities at which this bill is aimed. Halfway through the “Affected providers” section, it states: “The change affects only those providers who have employment relationships with individuals who are employed in sheltered workshops.” Well, actually, the Minister is either serious about this or she is not. Because the commentary goes on to say: “Providers who deliver services other than employment services … will not be affected by the enactment of this Bill.” Interestingly, the Minister says that this legislation will bring into line this particular area of the workforce that has avoided some of the employment legislation to date. But, actually, providers should already have written employment agreements with those members whom they employ. The Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act does not provide exemptions from the Employment Relations Act, because, in fact, as we all know from those long hours in the year 2000, people cannot contract out of the Employment Relations Act, and this is no exception to that.

I must say I am most concerned with the statements contained in the “Statement of net benefit”, including regulatory costs and business compliance cost statements, contained in the summary at the beginning of this bill. All this means one simple thing, and that is that those people who look to seek work, who have disabilities, and wish an occupational opportunity, will not get it if this legislation is put in place, because the compliance costs contained in the legislation have not been measured. They are unquantified. I tell the officials who worked on this legislation that that is not good enough. It is not good enough to have a compliance cost statement that says those costs are unquantifiable.

The one thing that is clear from the statements in the bill is that those costs will fall directly on the Government agencies and providers concerned. If that lessens the opportunity for those people with disabilities to start down the career path they wish to choose, that cannot be good news for the so-called inclusive society that this Minister wishes us to see. There will immediately be direct costs to those Government agencies and providers because they will have to comply with the Minimum Wage Act, they will have to comply with the Holidays Act, and they will, as is noted in the statement of regulatory costs, face substantial compliance costs.

But when we go to the compliance cost statement in this bill, it is clear that this Minister and the department concerned with this legislation have not done their homework. Instead of simply allowing the legislation to take effect, the business compliance costs are “difficult to quantify” because of the transition period, which has reflected the Government’s lack of conviction. The Government calls this transition period a mitigation strategy. All it shows is that this Government knows that the people who will miss out are those very people to whom this legislation looks to afford opportunities.

But worse still, the business compliance cost statement concludes with this sentence: “As part of this, Labour Inspectors and Ministry of Social Development officials will assist providers to minimise compliance costs.” How will that occur, and on what basis? Whilst the Minister’s intentions are pure, and whilst the Minister’s intentions are good—everybody in this House, I am sure, would like to see a more inclusive society—this bill is not the instrument, the statutory guide, or the mechanism for that to occur. What is worse, the Government does not even have the courage of its convictions to bring this bill in immediately. We have a substantial transition period extending out to 2007. The National Party is opposed to this instrument—this mechanism—and will not support the first reading of the bill towards the select committee.

I am proud to support this bill, and I would like to congratulate the Minister Ruth Dyson today on the introduction of a very significant piece of legislation that has actually been 44 years in the waiting. It is a delight to see the dreadful Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act being repealed. I would like to mention the transitional provisions very quickly. It is critical that we manage the transition of 3,000 people with disability, currently working in sheltered workshops, out into the employment sector. We have been advised to do it once, do it right, and take our time to move these people into the sector so that they can robustly remain there and contribute to productivity in this country. This is a wonderful bill. It is the right instrument. I am proud to support it.

I am actually delighted by that member’s contribution. She acknowledged that she had taken New Zealand First’s advice—do it once, do it right. I only said that about half an hour ago, and she is actually taking it on board. That has made my night!

Let me say from the onset that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. I like the way the Hon Ruth Dyson outlined it: we believe that it is better to pay people according to the work they do rather than their place of employment. I like that phrase, and I thought it summarised the situation exceedingly well.

The other day we had a debate in this House—Monday, in fact—where we were all very nice to one another, and people tuned into their television sets and their radios expecting to hear all fire, hell, and brimstone. They heard for the first time ever the best part of 120 MPs sitting in the House and all saying nice kind things, and the few who spoke gave a history lesson that did not shake any sort of politics, at all. But during the course of that debate, I reminded the House that New Zealand First are the champions. We are the champions of the vulnerable, and people mistook me afterwards for Freddy Mercury. I do not quite know why. It must be the size of my moustache—

💬 Hon Murray McCully: Because you look like you are alive.

I thank the member for that. I remind the House of something that President John F Kennedy once said. I will read it again, because I think it is appropriate in terms of this bill: “All of us do not have equal talent, but all of us should have an equal opportunity to develop our talent.” I am hoping that this bill will do that, and more, for disabled people. I cannot emphasise enough that New Zealand First is on the side of vulnerable people, and disabled people in particular. I think that Kennedy quote sums up our philosophy on this bill.

We support this bill going to a select committee, but I also say that Simon Power raised a very good point. With due respect, I do not think that Steve Chadwick addressed it very well. We are worried that it will take too long before this all falls into place. The expiry of the transitional period on 30 June 2007 seems a long, long way away.

I hope that this bill is not referred to the select committee under the same conditions as the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill, because that would put the select committee under considerable stress and strain, and there is a good chance that it will not get that right. If the same pressure is put on the select committee in relation to this bill—assuming it will go to the same committee—it will have an awful job sorting out both those bills.

I close by reminding the House what Winston Churchill once said. I used this quotation the other day, and, again, I think it is very apt. Winston Churchill said: “What is the use of living if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone.” I suggest that helping disabled people is a worthwhile cause, and New Zealand First is only too pleased to be associated with this bill to the degree that we will support its referral to a select committee.

The Green Party welcomes the first reading of this short but extremely significant bill tonight. We will be supporting it to the select committee and beyond, with the usual proviso that the possibility of improvements will be looked at along the way. There is no question that the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill marks a critical turning point in the history of how we treat people with impairments in Aotearoa New Zealand, and it is long overdue.

Sheltered employment in various forms has been a part of the fabric of New Zealand life since the 1920s. While this history is not one of unmitigated disaster, at the same time it is a record characterised by paternalistic attitudes and an underpinning charity model of upstanding citizens doing good for these poor, deserving unfortunates, in the sense that those labouring in the workshops had better be jolly grateful for the wonderful opportunity that has been given to them. This wonderful opportunity is such that even in 2004—according to the explanatory note to the bill itself—most people in sheltered workshops still receive an average pay packet of $17 a week. The bill also estimates that nearly 4,000 people are in these workshops at present. While that might not seem like a great crowd in the overall scheme of things, it is still a large group of adults, each and every one of whom deserves the same consideration and rights as the rest of us.

It is fortunate that since the end of 1999 we have had a Government—and, in particular, a Minister, Ruth Dyson—that has had a commitment to begin seriously to deal with some of the more difficult and substantive issues that continue to face people with impairments, even in a so-called modern society like ours. The disability strategy released in April 2001 was a major first step, with its commitment by Government, amongst other things, to ensure rights, provide opportunities in employment and economic development, and to support quality living in the community for disabled people.

Under the employment objective, the Government’s further specific goal is to “enable disabled people to work in the open labour market in accordance with human rights principles, and maintain an adequate income.” This goal did not fit at all well alongside the systemic oppression of the old sheltered workshop system, and I use the word “oppression” advisedly, knowing equally that for many of those who work, or worked, in the workshops that this is or was their main opportunity to participate in the life of the community.

However, despite the good intentions of those involved in setting up and running workshops, and despite the gratitude felt by many who worked and work in them, as the decades have gone by this whole system has very much reflected the negative and discriminatory attitudes of employers and wider society to people with impairments. While the rest of working New Zealand has opened up in the last 35 years to new expectations—like the right of women to enter and stay in the paid workforce, and to at least be paid the same rate of pay for the same job, if not yet the same pay for work of equal value—the dark corner of the working world that this bill deals with has been left in the shade, with few voices strong or loud enough to be heard in the wider community.

Overall, it has been an era characterised by low expectations, by a sense that this is the best that could be expected by and for those working in the sheltered environment, by an acceptance that a certain percentage of people were never going to make it on the open labour market, that disabled workers were not capable of organising—nor should they organise—themselves into trade unions or advocacy organisations, that they were not full adults and needed other people to speak and act for them, and that really these workers should be grateful for the miniscule wage that tops up their condemnation to life in the benefit system.

Thankfully, in 2001 the Labour Government began the process of unwinding the old sheltered workshop system, despite the opposition of a number of providers. Finally someone was listening to the increasingly desperate voices of advocacy groups like the Combined Beneficiaries Union in Auckland and the Disabled Persons Assembly nationally, who were calling for an end to a system that did not pay real wages, even though the work being done was real enough. It did not even attempt to meet statutory minimum employment conditions like holiday entitlements. It did not recognise, or include, its so-called clients in the management and governance structures of the organisations, and it did not offer meaningful work, or a wide enough range of work for people with a wide range of impairments.

As an aside, and as just a small example of what the system means in reality, I wonder how many people here in this House tonight with a reasonable intelligence—university degrees in some cases, and other qualifications and experience—would like to spend week in, week out performing the simplest routine tasks over and over again for a few dollars a day. This has been the fate of plenty of well-educated, intelligent people inside the sheltered workshop system in the past and maybe the present, and their psychological survival is nothing short of a miracle to me. I feel that as a society we owe enormous reparation to those who have sweated and suffered within the sheltered workshops. Even if the worst years are over now, we cannot afford to even think of continuing such a system, or of ever going back to it in the future.

This bill, thank goodness, finally repeals the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act of 1960. That 1960 Act has a lot to answer for, giving as it did a free hand to the people running sheltered workshops to do pretty much whatever they wanted with regard to how much they paid people, if anything, what employment conditions were like, and the extent to which their workforces could be commercially exploited. Workshops were seen as completely outside the normal industrial relations framework, and in recent times the punitive abatement regime between benefits and paid work has created an even stronger incentive for workers and operators to keep so-called wages incredibly low. The need for reform is immediate and intense. The new bill will mean that all people with disabilities who are employed by sheltered workshop providers will be covered by the provisions of the Minimum Wage Act, the new Holidays Act, and other legislation like the Employment Relations Act and the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act.

At the same time, the bill does acknowledge the particular situation of people with really severe impairments and allows for organisational exemptions to continue, but only until June 2007. It also allows labour inspectors to issue what is called a minimum wage exemption permit, but only under tight conditions and with minimum wages nominated and agreed to. One concern I do have with this new bill is the extent to which unions will or will not be consulted in terms of exemptions, and I will be looking at that closely during our consideration of the legislation in the select committee.

One further minor concern I also have at this stage is around the relationship between this bill and section 66A of the Social Security Act, which deals with benefits for people with what is called a severe disability. Again, I will be listening with interest to any submitters on this subject, and looking to see how best we can shore up the rights of invalid beneficiaries at the interface between protected employment and the intricacies of benefit administration.

In conclusion, I reiterate my congratulations to Labour, and to all of those who have been involved in the long development of this bill, on finally reaching this point. I look forward to its passage into law in the very near future.

It gives me pleasure to rise and speak to the first reading of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill. ACT New Zealand will not be supporting this bill, for a number of reasons.

But I would first like to touch on some things that the previous speaker, Sue Bradford, said. The workshops that she has visited, or perhaps has not visited, are very different from the numerous workshops that I visited in my previous profession as a physiotherapist. As a physiotherapist I was often responsible for visiting these workshops to treat people, and was able to see them first hand at their jobs, at their work, which they were very happy and proud to show me. For many years these workshops have presented disabled workers with a sense of purpose. These people get up in the morning and go off to work, like many other people in New Zealand. Fortunately, unlike some people, they are happy while they are at work, and they often get some educative benefit, too, from the workshops. But the thing that struck me most when I visited these workshops was the pride that these people expressed in their daily lives and in the fact that they had a job.

💬 Dianne Yates: Like they have got a disease.

I ask Ms Yates whether she would like to stand and take a call, instead of shouting across the House.

We know that in the past some of these workers have been exploited, but certainly my experience in the more recent past has been that they are not exploited. We know that some workers earn well above the minimum hourly wage, but most are paid $50 on top of their invalids benefit, for 33 to 35 hours of work a week. They are allowed to earn up to that sum without being taxed, or up to $80 before their benefit is reduced. That is part of the problem. The fact is if they earn over $80 they are penalised for working, and that, of course, provides no incentive for any sheltered workshop employer, or any other employer, to pay them more.

Disabled workers who work in sheltered workshops have been setting many New Zealanders an excellent example. They often undertake 33 to 35 hours of work a week, which is a lot more than can be said of the many New Zealanders who are on the unemployment benefit. ACT New Zealand would like to see a good deal of welfare reform, and part of that would be to ensure that anybody who is on the unemployment benefit contributes to New Zealand society in a productive way. Such people would do that by having to undertake training before they received their unemployment benefit, or to undertake on-the-job training—employment of sorts. Certainly, nobody should be left to sit at home and be dished out money by the Government for doing nothing at all. In this respect, disabled workers, many of whom are intellectually disabled, have been showing many, many New Zealanders a very fine example for a long period of time. So ACT New Zealand is very much opposed to the introduction of this bill.

It is interesting to note, and I think the National Party member said this, how many bills are being put forward at the moment that do not come into effect for quite some time. This one does not come into effect until 2007. I refer to the Holidays Act, which provides for 4 weeks’ annual leave, and other bills that have been introduced recently. This Government’s intention, it seems, is to put all these matters on the agenda but not undertake the cost of them, because, of course, it will not be in Government after the next election. The Government is introducing these bills so that it can try to win a few extra votes—votes that it badly needs at the moment. If we look at the polls, we see that Labour was down to 37 percent in the TV1 poll at the weekend. Labour is having to put these bills in place now. This bill has been rushed on to the Order Paper, ahead of many other bills that should have come before it. The reason for that is very clear.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Labour’s lost its nerve.

That is right—Labour has lost its nerve. This bill, which repeals the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act, shows a certain amount of arrogance. I refer again to the comments made by the Green Party member immediately before I spoke. She spoke of people doing repetitive and demeaning work. That has certainly not been my experience of sheltered workshops. The work may be repetitive, but it is certainly not demeaning. Work is not demeaning. Sitting at home doing nothing and being paid by the Government to do so is demeaning.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: That’s the Green Party.

That is right—and the Labour Party. The sheer arrogance of the comment that work might be demeaning is itself demeaning. Disabled workshops have contributed very productively to New Zealand society over the years. They have given those people, who may not have been able to undertake any other type of work, a real sense of purpose.

It is interesting to look back at what has happened since 1999, when the Labour Government came to power. In 1993 there were 52,700 people on invalids benefits, and 32,800 on sickness benefits. Today, the number of people receiving those benefits has hugely increased. Today, there are 41,947 people receiving the sickness benefit, and 7,904 of those people have partners, and are receiving the sickness benefit at the married rate—so that is a total of about 50,000 people. The numbers of people receiving the invalids benefit have increased hugely, from 52,000 to 71,390. If we include the partners of those on the married rate, there is another 11,990 people, which makes a total of 83,000 adults. If we add up the number of sickness beneficiaries and invalids beneficiaries, plus their partners, who are also dependent on Government money, the total is 133,000 adults who are supported by sickness and invalids benefits.

My main fear with this bill is that many of the people who work in sheltered workshops will find it very difficult to get any sort of work in the current work market. They are being assessed for redundancies as we speak, because we know that this bill will progress—

💬 Darren Hughes: Give one example of that.

I say to Mr Hughes that there are examples in Auckland, which I will come to in a minute. Redundancies will be provided, and the workers are being told that they must improve their productivity to keep their jobs. As one worker at a disabled workshop in Auckland said—Workforce Industries, I say to Mr Hughes; it is only one of a number of workshops that are experiencing this problem—“It is pretty hard to increase productivity if you only have one arm, or can’t see past the end of your nose, or maybe don’t even know what day it is.” As much as the Labour Government might want to include these people in everyday society, we have to acknowledge the fact that not everybody is the same. There are some people who are capable of being lawyers; there are some people—not many on the Government side—who are capable of being good parliamentarians; there are some people who are capable of doing all sorts of things; and there are other people less fortunate than ourselves in this world who have every right to undertake work. If those people are best suited to working in a sheltered workshop, then so be it—they should have that opportunity.

But this bill should not be called the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill. It should be called the “Let’s Close Down All Sheltered Workshops Bill”, because that is what this bill will do. For those reasons, and very good reasons they are, too, ACT New Zealand will not be supporting this bill.

I rise on behalf of United Future, which will be supporting this bill in its first reading. When dealing with the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill, we are dealing with a bill concerning probably the least-understood group in this nation. I, for one, am thankful every day when I wake up for the abilities I have. I went through a season, just a few weeks ago, when I lost the hearing in one ear. It is amazing what a difference it makes.

When we deal with the disabled, we are dealing with a wide-ranging group of people. They are often in a situation not through any choice of their own. Yet they are still human beings just like you and me, and they deserve the respect of society. They deserve to be cared for by society, and a person who has worked alongside them finds that it makes him or her a bigger person on the inside. That is so much so that each year my children have been sent to assist at disabled camps. If we are honest, those of us who have all of our abilities sometimes are uncomfortable or even awkward alongside those who are seriously disabled. Every disabled person is normally also part of a family.

So I agree that when we are dealing with sheltered workshops we cannot come to just a blanket set of rules that says “one size fits all”. As the bill goes through the select committee process, I will also be watching to ensure that those who do not have an ability to produce even a mediocre amount of goods—their productivity may even be zero—can still go to a sheltered workshop each day, to a place where they are welcomed and where they feel the support of others who also have disabilities, Even if they do not accept one cent, their going there is worthwhile not only for their own self-esteem but also for the self-preservation of those who care for them. I would be greatly concerned if we came to a blanket “one wage for all”, because the sheltered workshops also need to compete for the work they attract. If there is a system by which people are paid equally on production, I would not have a problem with that, although one person might produce 5,000 articles per day and another person might produce one article per week.

So I see challenges in this legislation. One thing I would not like to see concerns the very institutions that have been set up, and that labour long and hard with these people. If regulations are passed that require them to pay unrealistic wages, and if that means they are not able to obtain work, then the bill would become a very negative bill and would achieve exactly the contrary result to what we are wanting to achieve.

United Future is very supportive of this legislation, but we want to look at it in a clear, practical, common-sense manner, understanding the differences in disabilities, and understanding how important it is for each person on this planet to recognise that somebody cares for, loves, and is interested in him or her, rather than in what he or she can earn—as important as that is, if people are to be on a fair, level ground. We will support the bill. We have also been to the sheltered workshops and heard their concerns, and can see there are challenges to face.

I also hope that many other organisations, such as many voluntary community organisations, may be able to take on some of the disabled to do work on their premises. Those people may not necessarily achieve a large payment of money, but it would do their self-esteem an incredible amount of good.

We are pleased to support this bill in its first reading, and to support its going to the select committee. Yes, we see some of the concerns that have been raised by those parties that are in opposition to this bill, but we have a heart for the disabled. I know that many of them who have been trained and would like to go into the workforce have tremendous difficulty in their transition into the workforce. I believe that is another area, separate from this bill, but it also needs to be looked at. We support this bill in its first reading.

I rise in support of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill, and remind the House that this bill was lobbied for by people with disabilities, and that they are looking forward to the promotion of this bill. It does prevent exploitation of people with disabilities. Some of the patronising claptrap I have heard from the Opposition tonight shows that if one is a list MP and does not keep in touch with people in the electorate, one loses touch with what the people in the electorate are actually saying they want.

If we are talking about claptrap, then what we have just heard was absolute claptrap, because many people in this House, in preparation for the debate on this bill, have visited a number of workshops up and down the country to see firsthand the sorts of places these facilities are. If we look at what is really driving this bill, at the motivation behind it, then we find that ideology and political correctness are driving it. It is not patronising to want to retain opportunities for some people to participate in the community. [Interruption] It is very interesting that the perky Mr David Benson-Pope has popped his head up from his stupor to make a comment. In his electorate, he has the disabled workshop on Hillside Road, and the people there are very unhappy about this bill because they think it could put them into a position of having to close it.

In looking at this bill, I think that one of the problems the Government has is that it thinks it is about workplace legislation. It is not. For a lot of these places and facilities, it is not just about work; it is about participation. It is about people doing something with their day—meeting people, making friends, and doing some productive work. Nobody in this House would suggest that simply because people have a disability they should work in places where it is unsafe. I mean, no one here would not support the idea that a workplace should adhere to health and safety legislation and be a safe workplace. No one is suggesting that the people who work in those facilities should not have the same care, the same interests, and the same management as other employees. But these places are not just workplaces; they are also places where people go to participate in a community and do some productive work, at their different paces. They are seeking some kind of fulfilment and some kind of achievement.

The workshops I have visited seem to be places that people are very happy to attend. People I have spoken to have said that they like getting up in the morning and going to work to make a contribution, no matter what level of contribution that is. It is patronising of members on that side of the House to suggest that just because someone has a disability, he or she does not share the same feeling of fulfilment and achievement as others when they go along and take part in the activities of that kind of facility. No one is suggesting here that people work in unsafe conditions, or work with equipment that is unsafe. The same legislation will apply to these places as to anywhere else. Some of the workshops I visited do some quite detailed work, involving the use of equipment where safety is very much an issue. People need to recognise that it is more than just about work. For a lot of people, it is about participating.

We are talking here of putting in place the Pathways to Inclusion: Improving Vocational Services for People with Disabilities strategy, but for many people I think this potentially could be a “pathway to exclusion”. If some of the places we are talking about have to pay the minimum wage, then some of the people currently working in them would not make the cut and be able to go along and participate. That would be very, very sad. I suggest that members on the Government side of the House go and talk to some of the families of the people at these workplaces, and to some of those people themselves, about the opportunities that many who participate in them are currently enjoying, and about the fulfilment and achievement they feel in being able to do the small amount of work they do. We are not talking about a straight employer-employee relationship here, because some people who participate in these facilities need additional management and assistance, and they need a bit more involvement from the people who run the facilities than do those who are in a standard employer-employee relationship. We should recognise that.

I have been told that if the minimum wage is made the standard, the workshops will not be able to include some of the people who work for them any more. Paul Adams in his speech—and he made a very good contribution—said that people work at different productive levels. We only need to visit one of those places to realise that that is the case. These people have a right to be there to do something that makes them feel fulfilled and to ensure that their self-worth is being built on. If anything, I think that what we have here is a “pathway to exclusion”, because some of the people involved simply will not have the opportunity to go along to some of these places and take part in the activities there.

It is interesting to hear people say that some of the work done in the workshops is demeaning. I have seen a little of the work, and, yes, some of it is repetitive. It is putting letters in envelopes, packing bags, and, in our facility in Dunedin, making boxes. But in talking with people who do that with their day, I have found that they are just as proud as anybody I have spoken to who is involved in a profession or in any other form of work. Who the hell are we to start making judgments about whether their work is valuable? The value of work is very much in the eye of the beholder, and some of the people who carry out work in these facilities are very proud of what they do. If we move to the minimum wage, then some of them simply will not have the opportunity to participate. We need to look at the value of the work and at whether people are paid in relation to their productivity, and we need to recognise that in some cases the employer-employee relationship is not the same as in other workplaces. Then we should be able to strike a balance between common sense and the practical implementation of a philosophy of mainstreaming within the community.

We also need to look at minimum standards. If there are examples of people being exploited, let us hear them. We have not had any evidence from the Government that exploitation has taken place. If we listen to some of the speeches from the other side of the House, we get the impression that some of these workshops are sweatshops. I do not know whether Government members are still living in the 1940s, but that is not what we find to be the case when we go out to see a number of examples around the communities we all live in. We need to look at something that is not driven just by ideology, or that is the politically correct approach of this Government—a bunch of trade unionists who now want to unionise everyone. Gee, that will help! Some disabled people will be put in a position where they will just be sitting at home—not participating, not working with their friends, not feeling any sense of achievement, and not getting any payment, at all. We get the impression that these places are dark corners and something to be embarrassed about. Well, I have met some really positive people working in our facility in Dunedin, and they feel proud of what they do.

We will see some of these places shut down as a result of this legislation, and it has nothing to do with making a better place for people with disabilities. I think that the Government just wants everyone to sit at home. As opposed to being a “pathway to inclusion”, this is a recipe for having people sitting at home, staring at a wall, and doing nothing while the Government feels very pious about it.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: Just like the Minister of Customs.

Just like the Minister of Customs, my learned member has just mentioned. We will be asking some tough questions when this bill goes to the select committee. We will be ensuring that those people who are involved in the sector put forward their view, and we will be listening to that view.

That was a fantastic effort from my colleague Katherine Rich, as always. Yet again, she hit the nail on the head. The members of this minority Labour Government are just a pack of snobs—they are job snobs. They look at the people who currently work in the sheltered workshops and think that what they are doing looks like demeaning, low-grade work—following on from their Minister, Ruth Dyson’s, description of the work done by women in cleaning jobs as demeaning and low-grade. It is interesting that she is not taking a call on this particular issue. Labour Party members are snobs who think that unless someone has a university degree and a position in the union, they are not worth anything.

I agree with my colleague Katherine Rich that the people who work in these sheltered workshops are, on the whole, people who are incredibly proud of what they do. So they should be! Work—and that is something the Labour Party would not know much about—is not done just for money. It is also done because it is a good in itself. It teaches people to have self-respect, to get out of bed in the morning—something else the Labour Party would not know anything about—to get clean, to take responsibility, and to be proud of their efforts.

Not very long ago, I saw some people from a sheltered workshop, and the person running it, on television, saying that they would have to shut their doors if this legislation went through. We know this Government does not like families, motherhood, fatherhood, or anything like that. We know it wants people to sit at home all day watching Sky television, or some other sort of television. But why would it want to stop these people, who are very disabled in many cases and not able to take a full part in other sorts of employment, getting the benefit of going to work, enjoying the community spirit of the workplace, feeling part of a team, feeling that they are doing a really good job and helping society, and thinking that they are helping their workmates who might need help to do their jobs? Because that is what this bill will do. It is just more legislation that has really nice reasoning behind it, except that it will actually stop these people being employed.

One of the great things in the job of MP is constantly meeting people who overcome life’s challenges. I get to meet a number of people in my electorate who consistently view what we would call disabilities as simply challenges to overcome so that they can continue on in as normal a life as they possibly can. We know that a lot of these people are on invalids benefits, and that they are still able to work in the sheltered workshops. They do not earn very much more, but they feel they are contributing, and that is really important. Why would we want to stop that? It just seems absolute nonsense that we would want to stop these people participating and feeling that they are adding to society, rather than being a drain on it, as the Labour Party would like them to be.

How many jobs for basket-weavers is the Government trying to protect out there? How many people living in China, for instance, where there is no minimum wage, is the Government trying to protect by stopping people in the sheltered workshops from working? The Labour Party would rather see people overseas getting the work and benefiting from it than the very disabled people it says it is protecting. It is not protecting them. All it is doing is taking away their jobs and ruining the whole sheltered workshop environment by saying: “You are not wanted, because your work is demeaning and low-grade.”

Just because those members do low-grade, demeaning work as members of the Labour Party, why should they inflict that sort of provision on other people? Those people get out of the bed in the morning and go and do their work. They are good citizens; they do not cause any trouble. They are not up and down doing hīkoi all over the place. They do not stop the traffic on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. They are nice, decent people who are getting on with their jobs and trying to be good citizens. This Labour Party simply wants to stop them doing that. It demeans the people who do this work by telling them that their work is not important—that it is low-grade and demeaning. That term is used by this Government on a constant basis when referring to ordinary working people.

💬 Katherine Rich: It wants everyone to be a brain surgeon.

It wants everybody to be a brain surgeon, or at least a trade union official—and, of course, the two are at different ends of the scale. It calls those disabled people’s work low-grade and demeaning. Government members sit on the other side of the House and personally attack us every time we get up. They point out the fact that they are—we cannot say “hypocritical”, so let us say that their arguments lack conviction. [Interruption] It is all of them really, Mrs Rich. They are absolutely lacking in conviction. They sit there and abuse us—even demean themselves by abusing us personally.

💬 Katherine Rich: Ruth Dyson has many convictions.

We understand that Ruth Dyson has many convictions—as Mrs Rich rightly points out. One would think that their arguments would have more conviction. They do not care about the very people for whom they say they are putting this bill through. If it is so important to put this bill through, why will it have to wait until 2007? Labour will not be in Government in 2007. I notice that most of the legislation we have these days starts in 2007.

💬 Phil Heatley: Most of the Budget.

Mr Heatley is in the know. He has seen the leaked documents, and tells me that most of the Budget will not come in until 2007. That will be at least 2 years after Labour loses office, so those members will not be around to see the effect of this bill, will they? They will not be around to see the sheltered workshops being shut. Fortunately, we will have a National-led Government that will stop this sort of nonsense going on and allow the sheltered workshops to keep going.

We see those workshops as a benefit to the community, and, more important, a benefit to the disabled people who currently work in them. We will not stand by and let this Government put through the sort of nonsense it does, and leave us to pick up the pieces. We will have to fix this legislation as soon as the 2005 election comes around, if not beforehand.

I want to take a very short call. I am sure that if the bell had not rung and the member who has just resumed her seat had not been required to sit down, we would have heard a phrase like: “You get out there and pick that cotton and enjoy it!”. I feel it was a very patronising speech, and it is not typical of that member to give patronising speeches like that. I was surprised to hear it.

This bill is about assisting disabled persons who work in what are commonly known as sheltered workshops. I say to members opposite who have spoken that there is a lead-in time in this bill to assist those who manage sheltered workshops in the transition until this legislation is fully implemented. We want to work with the employers in this industry so that they can continue to provide the very good service they do, and continue to be good employers. I commend this bill to the House.

I support the bill.

I move, That the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee.