Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill

Thank you for the opportunity to again speak on Part 1 of this Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill. This bill has a very unfortunate history, when one notes that the Labour Government, which is promoting it, has just brought in an amendment that extends the transition period. This goes a little way—but does not go nearly far enough—towards sorting out the numerous flaws in this bill.

I have been in close contact with the sheltered workshops, and they are deeply concerned that the transition arrangements that the Labour Government and Minister Dyson said would be sorted out simply have not been sorted out. They will affect adversely New Zealand’s most vulnerable workers, and they will affect the sheltered workshops, which go to great extent and great effort to provide choice to disabled workers who might otherwise not have a job.

It is interesting to see that the Minister, in her latest Supplementary Order Paper, dated 13 March, wishes to extend the date in clause 4, from 30 June 2007 to 30 November 2007. Clearly, Minister Dyson is admitting that there were basic flaws in this bill’s transitional arrangements. She should know that, because I have just spoken to people from two of the sheltered workshops who say that the problems they have had with their workers, in terms of both the exemptions and the taxation abatement regimes, have just not been sorted out by this Labour Government and this Minister.

Two or 3 years ago this Minister grandly said that these things would be sorted out by 30 June, but clearly they have not been. I think what is really important is that a very sensible Supplementary Order Paper was put in by Dr Paul Hutchison as long ago as last November, which meant that the Government would be able to enact this bill from as soon as when it had sorted out the flaws that are within the bill. The real question is whether the Government can sort out the problems by 30 November 2007, and given its track record, I would say no. What does the sector say? The sector says that the Government has simply had a dismal track record over the last 3 years. In fact, one of the sheltered workshops was due to have Department of Labour inspectors in this week to sort out the exemptions, but suddenly, at the last moment, they said they could not turn up and it would be another month or so. Once again, Minister Dyson is great at putting out the ideological legislation that she is so prone to, but she is very bad at sorting out the practicalities.

The sheltered workshop told me the labour inspectors had come along for a bit of a chat and had said the exemption rules were going to change, but when asked when they would change, they said they did not know. That is the difficulty that has plagued the people who have been trying to look after disabled workers for the past 3 years. Clearly that difficulty will go on month after month, unless the Minister decides that she actually will get these things in place. Apparently, the inspectors were asked whether more money would be available. There was a reply that there might be, but they did not know when. How can that be, when we read in the foreword to the bill that these transitional requirements would be sorted out, but they failed to be?

Let us have a look at some of the things that were claimed. It states there are costs associated with repealing the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act. These fall on Government agencies and providers. Broadly, the direct costs to the Government are from transition and management costs such as the costs of administering minimum wage exemption permits. Well, I have heard from the substantial sheltered workshops that almost every worker requires a minimum wage exemption, and that in doing that, their paper-shuffling will quadruple. This is typical Labour Government bureaucracy at its worst.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Absolutely, totally.

“Absolutely”, as my colleague Sandra Goudie, the excellent member from the Coromandel—

💬 Chris Tremain: Very hard-working.

—and a very hard-working member says. She has taken a great interest in the disability sector. These are the practical things.

The document further states that the direct costs to providers are because they will have to comply with the Minimum Wage Act 1983 and the Holidays Act 2003. It states that providers will also face some compliance costs. I say we have never really worked out exactly how much those compliance costs are, and when one goes to places like the Abilities Group workshop on the North Shore or Workforce Auckland in Māngere one is very much impressed by the terrific work done by the managers of those sheltered workshops. They are clearly humming. The workforce love their jobs. In fact, as I was told by Peter Fraher of Abilities Group, under the present system some of the workers are so keen on their jobs that they come early, they stay late, after the holiday period they turn up for work the day before they are due back, because they are so keen to be there.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Don’t pay them wages!

We see the Minister across the House chipping in and harping on, yet she is the one who has failed to bring in the practical realities to make these choices work for disabled people. I am glad Minister Dyson has at least postponed the date to 30 November, but I doubt very much whether this will, indeed, allow the workshops, under her regime, to get back to the system they wish to.

One of the other points that is noted by the States Services Commission is that approximately $44 million over 4 years was committed in Budget 2002 to improve the quantity and quality of vocational services. That has obviously been great, but it has not gone towards helping the sheltered workshops who provide this extremely valuable choice for disabled workers today. I note that one of the sheltered workshops pointed out what would happen if, indeed, it paid an average of $2 per hour extra. It found out that a great deal of that money would actually go back to the Government. The workshop said: “It’s morally unacceptable for a Government to siphon these funds out of the disability sector, which is already significantly underfunded. Government has an obligation to support disadvantaged people and the organisations that employ, care and develop them, not make their lives and enjoyment more uncertain.” This is what they have been living under for the last 3 years. It is unnecessary uncertainty. The Supplementary Order Paper I have put in would at least make it sure for them that the bill would be enacted when the Government has actually ironed out the flaws. The Minister, once again, has given an unrealistic time line and that is particularly regrettable. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move, That the question be now put.

Kia ora Madam Chair, kia ora tātou. When this Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill first came before us as a caucus we got the opportunity to get a briefing from Minister Dyson on it. As a result of that briefing I was quite keen on the bill.

Then our co-leader Tariana Turia suggested I have a look at a place called the Abilities Group over on the North Shore. So I went across to the group to have a look at the operation and I spent quite a bit of time talking to the management, to some of the staff, to some of the disabled workers, and to some of their whānau. I was mightily impressed with what they were doing. In particular, I refer to some of the comments raised by Dr Paul Hutchison in respect of the keenness of a number of those disabled people to want to actually be there, and also to note the comments from a number of the whānau, that the Abilities Group did not just provide somewhere positive for their family members to go to during the day, it also provided them, as families, with a break—with an opportunity to get themselves together, get their homes together, and get things organised for later on when their family members came back.

My concern was that any threat to an organisation like the Abilities Group to continue to provide a place of employment that is very positive—and I am not just talking from a management point of view, but from the workers’ points of view as well as from the families of the workers’ points of view—I think needs to be taken into consideration. If what Dr Hutchison is suggesting gives us the opportunity to give greater consideration to the issues that are raised by positive organisations such as the Abilities Group, then I think we should take up that opportunity, because once it becomes law it then becomes a little bit too late for the poor old disabled person.

I know, too—and not just from the Abilities Group but from other areas—of situations where people have been recommended out into the workforce because the nice labour inspector said that person was ready to go out into the workforce. Unfortunately, when that person goes out into the workforce, there is nobody in that normal workplace who has any sense of the needs of the disabled person who has just come through the door. As is the case in many situations like that, they are teased, they get bullied, and very, very quickly they are back into the sheltered workshop from whence they came, except they are often a lot more hurt by the experience of going out there. Although the Labour inspector might say that this person is able to work in a normal mainstream environment, quite simply, the inspector is not there on a day-to-day basis to ensure that those needs are going to be met. Also, it is unrealistic to expect normal workplaces to provide the support systems to ensure that disabled persons’ specific needs are going to be met on a day-to-day basis.

The Māori Party will be supporting the legislation because we support any attempt to improve the lot of the disabled. We will also be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper from Dr Hutchison to see whether it is possible to extend the time frame within which the legislation will be put into place so that we can give proper consideration to ways and means of protecting the needs of those providing the service, those requiring the service, those whānau who are directly affected by this legislation, as well as the Labour inspectors who, quite frankly, from my understanding, are not really sure how best to deal with this once it hits the streets.

I move, That the question be now put.