Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill

I am very pleased to be able to speak to this part, because one of the things it covers is exempt organisations. In looking at that, I am reminded of a comment that was made in the Southland Times, a glib explanation from the Minister for Disability Issues, Ruth Dyson, in regard to the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill—by gee, that is a mouthful. The Minister’s explanation implied that assessors will go into sheltered workshops to evaluate the percentage of productivity of each individual, then will inform those individuals whether they qualify to earn a percentage of the minimum wage. Where else in the workforce environment of New Zealand do we see people being assessed on whether they are actually capable of working? Someone will actually be assessing these people individually.

In the first instance, I am concerned to hear that labour inspectors are looking at changing the parameters of that assessment now, before the legislation is even passed. They are saying the assessment parameter will be looked at down the track and there will be some changes made to it; I am concerned about that. Secondly, I think it is a concern anyway that we have labour inspectors going in and making those judgments. They are standing there and talking to someone about his or her level of ability to work.

Poor little Sammy is going into the sheltered workshop every day, and he thinks he is really fantastic. He is rocking up, saying “Hi, guys.”, and being looked after by those who run the sheltered workshop. He has friends there and he has work there—or what he calls work. It may not be all that much, but it is a big thing to Sam. Then some people come along, say they do not think he is very capable of doing any work at all, and give Sam an assessment. The assessment says that Sam will be exempt from earning the minimum wage because those people do not think he deserves it.

That is pretty much what will happen as a result of these assessments. Do members think that is fair? How do we convey to an individual that message about his or her ability in a way that person can understand, and not have that person suddenly feel totally valueless as a result? Where is the respect for people who work in sheltered workshops as individuals in the process of this bill? I do not think it is there, at all.

The assessment for exemption totally devalues these people and their capabilities as individuals, and it totally devalues their self-esteem and dignity. Ruth Dyson has not mentioned or acknowledged the most important daily therapeutic needs of people who go to what we call a sheltered workshop—needs of socialising, learning, and sharing. Those individuals go to these environments and they feel valued. They feel they have contacts and friends. They feel they are making a worthwhile contribution, no matter how small that contribution is.

We should be talking about how those people feel; we should not be talking about what we think and feel. Why should we, the able-bodied, be dictating to people who do not have the same degree of cognisance, understanding, or ability as ourselves, but, none the less, do have cognisance and ability of their own?

To say that these people were consulted is an absolute farce—they were not. These workers—we will call them workers—and their families were not consulted properly. The Government says there was consultation undertaken by People First, but it was peer reviewed and found to be an absolute disgrace. So to even assume that these people have been consulted in any way, shape, or form—certainly, in any meaningful way—is very, very far from the truth. They certainly have not been consulted. These people are being denied the very basic human right to choose—that is, to choose what they will do each and every day.

There is the suggestion that repealing the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act will make everybody equal, but that is not right. That will not happen. Repealing the Act will mean that suddenly a group of people in this country will now be assessed and told either that they are capable of earning the minimum wage or that they are not. Those who are going for exemptions because they cannot work all that much will be told they are no good and not up to snuff. How do we tell them that? I ask whether there is any nice way to say that we are giving them an exemption.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I listened intently to the member who has just resumed her seat. She seemed to be talking about clauses in Part 3. I am under the impression we are debating Part 2 at this moment.

💬 Sandra Goudie: That’s all right; you can think that.

She is glad I noticed. At least someone was listening to her.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member. It certainly looks as if she could have been referring to some of the clauses in Part 3. I just remind members that we are talking on clauses 6 to 11.

It is a pleasure to take the opportunity to speak on Part 2 of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill. It is very interesting to see that we are debating something rather noble here, but that is not the major point of concern. Nobody would dispute that enabling everybody to reach their potential is a noble gesture to aspire to, and that is no doubt the core motivation behind this bill. However, I was very disturbed to find, at the report back to Parliament after the hearings of the Social Services Committee, that there were major, and practically unanimous, concerns from the other parties—namely, the National Party, New Zealand First, the ACT party, and United Future—over the actual practicalities and methods that have been designed to implement this policy.

I must say that I am convinced by the arguments of the very good members on this side of the Chamber—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Name them.

Dr Paul Hutchison.

💬 Dr Richard Worth: An excellent member.

He is an excellent member. Sandra Goudie, the member for Coromandel, has wonderful argumentation. I also acknowledge the member of the Māori Party, Hone Harawira, who said he saw a lot of wisdom in this matter being progressively implemented.

I have huge concerns that when we look at the grand plan around Part 2 we see that it is very complicated. The fact that Minister Dyson has capitulated in the last hour and extended things out to 30 November 2007 is a sign that she was losing her nerve when speaking earlier about the noble expectations of the New Zealand strategy moving forward. We are dealing with some very vulnerable situations here. We are dealing with people who are vulnerable. We learnt about the expectations of those people from Sandra Goudie, the outstanding member for Coromandel. She encapsulated the satisfaction that is achieved by people as they reach their thresholds and are then nurtured through to do greater and better things. That is one of the vulnerable aspects in this whole thing.

One of the other vulnerable aspects I see as I look at Part 2 is the organisational structure and goodwill that is there at present. I see that goodwill going out the window, to some degree, because of the climate we are expecting these organisations to compete in. An enormous amount of community goodwill goes with these organisations. When I was given the responsibility to get to my feet and speak on this bill—I had not been on the select committee—I immediately rang home to Blenheim to check out just how things were going. I was saddened to see that a lot of the people there did not know what was going on, and I was directed over to Nelson. On that basis, I was not able to get too many answers. I had to ring somebody at home to get a bit of an idea—one of those people who come on board and support the community. That person supported those people and was very committed to a number of families.

We are talking not only about a fundamental move forward on a noble aspiration of a minimum wage but also about maintaining the infrastructure and value that presently exists inside these organisations. There are a lot of unmeasurables. We do not know the consequences of implementing what could be described as a noble gesture. It involves measurement of the value and worthiness of a person to receive the minimum wage, or a percentage thereof, and of the obligations that that puts on the whole system of things—the smooth running of the operations, and the requirement for calling in extra support when there are difficulties inside these establishments. I am hugely concerned about the exemption of organisations. The system will be wide open to abuse. We have to think carefully about this.

For those who might be listening to this debate, we are debating the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill—and specifically debating Part 2, “Repeal of Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act 1960”.

Without exception, everybody I have spoken to in the industry—that is, administrators and management—has said that the 1960 Act has to go and that it has to go as quickly as possible. My goodness me! Many of them really put the pressure on to say that the sooner we get rid of it and replace it with proper legislation the better.

New Zealand First supported this bill at its first reading. But after what we were told at the select committee and after we saw what came back from the select committee, we had reservations and decided to oppose the bill. We liked the look of Dr Hutchison’s 2-year transitional period. But it is too long. We have to get rid of the current 1960 Act soon and replace it with a new Act. This bill will do the job. We needed to be convinced that it could come into place on 30 June, and we were not convinced of that. We spoke to the Minister Ruth Dyson, we laid our cards on the table, she gave us a very good hearing, and an alternative date was put up that was not acceptable. Finally, we agreed on a date that is 5 months later—30 November—and that is some 8 or 9 months from now. We think this legislation can be put in place by that time.

There are two remaining issues. The first issue concerns the guidelines. I understand that the department is working on guidelines now. We have asked the Minister to use the influence she has to prevail on the department to get the guidelines completed, albeit in draft form, and out to the sector in rapid order. I am hopeful that the sector will get those guidelines in the not too distant future—as in a few weeks away.

The third—and probably the most important—issue is funding. There has to be adequate funding. I am not privy to the Budget, but I have spoken with the Minister on this subject. I believe her when she assures me that there will be funding for this area. So New Zealand First, in discussions with the Government, has achieved three things: the guidelines will come out, the funding will be there, and there will be ample time to address the concerns that have been raised during the select committee process and, indeed, in this Chamber.

I repeat that the current legislation has to go. Everybody I have spoken to in the sector in a management or administrative role tells me that. Those people have also told me that some of the statements made by some National members indicate that people will be kicked out of sheltered workshops. Those sorts of statements are alarmist, they are causing concern in the community and in families, and they are doing no good at all for the people who are depending on the workshops. I prevail on National members to keep their comments more credible and more fair. When we last debated this legislation, I heard a National member make really sweeping statements about closing workshops and kicking people out on to the street.

That is not going to happen. I give members the assurance that the Government, whatever National members think of it, knows far better than to do that. It is not unaware of the problems that this sector is facing, and I know for a fact that it will not let that occur. I have absolute confidence that the Government is well aware of the problems that this sector is facing, and will ensure that people are not kicked out on the street.

A more pressing problem is whether these workshops will let people come in at the right level of intake. I am hopeful that this bill, if we can get it in place by 30 November—or earlier, if possible—will address those problems and there will be no restrictions placed on those who need to come into these workshops coming in at the right time and at the right level.

I do not want to say much more, because New Zealand First has looked into this bill pretty thoroughly. We have had some very positive dialogue with the Minister. The fate of this bill is in the Government’s hands, and we will be supporting it.

It was interesting to hear Peter Brown from New Zealand First talk about Part 2. He is absolutely correct that nobody is against the basic thrust of ensuring that all disabled people are given every opportunity possible. In the National Party we do support the New Zealand Disability Strategy and we do support Pathways to Inclusion. One of the things that Peter Brown did not understand about the excellent amendment I have suggested is that it would incentivise the Government to iron out the flaws in this bill. Then, as soon as it had done that, the bill could be enacted—2 years was the outer limit. The difficulty with what Peter Brown and New Zealand First have negotiated with the Government is that we have a finite date of 30 November, and people just do not trust this Labour Government to have sorted out the practical flaws—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Pull the other one!

We see the Hon Clayton Cosgrove over there. I ask that member what the chairman of Workforce Auckland says. He says: “Our support for Dr Hutchison’s amendment stems from our concern that the system proposed to replace the DPEP Act contains serious flaws.” He goes on to say: “We cannot be confident that these flaws will be remedied … given the dismal lack of progress in the nearly 3 years since they were first identified.” That is the record of the Labour Government—a dismal lack of progress. That record goes right back to 2001.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What’s your record? Cutting all the benefits. Cutting all the disability allowances.

Here we have Clayton Cosgrove questioning our record. I see in the chair the Minister of Corrections, Damien O’Connor. Has he come here because of the pathetic muck-up he has caused in respect of the Department of Corrections? Will he do the same thing to the disability portfolio? Well, I hope not.

The reality of this bill is that it must be taken seriously, and the machinery around the exempting of disabled people is not easy to apply. As has been pointed out by Peter Fraher from Abilities Group, this is a very exacting task. There is difficulty in terms of the assessments. The people who are required to do these assessments appropriately require a lot of time and a lot of skill. In the case of abilities, every single disabled worker will require an exemption. What is extraordinary about the Government’s amendments is that the Government has said that a labour inspector may revoke a permit at any time if the inspector considers it no longer reasonable and appropriate for the permit to remain in force. So here we have the sheltered workshop management carefully going through and assessing, as sensitively and appropriately as it can, every disabled worker. But the Labour Government is saying: “Don’t worry about that. One of our inspectors can come in and revoke the permit on a whim.” That clearly is not practical.

I think Clayton Cosgrove should be aware of the fact that this is driven, as always, by the trade unions, which just do not like the idea of exemptions. They will do everything possible to make it difficult for the sheltered workshops to be able to plan—and that is very much personified in the extra amendment the Government has put in.

But National is concerned about the fact that the Labour Government, given its dismal track record, will not be able to put in this transitional machinery by 30 November. That is why it is so concerning for the people trying to run these workshops, who have said to me that they need as long as it takes before the bill should be enacted. That is why it is such a tragedy that Minister Ruth Dyson has come in and admitted that it cannot be done by 30 June and has given only a finite time. That is the unfortunate part of that understanding of New Zealand First.

In speaking to this part of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill, I simply ask the question of what is wrong with people being paid according to the work they do, rather than according to the place at which they work. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with people being paid for the work they do, rather than according to the place at which they work? There is no answer to that from the Opposition. The members of the Opposition do not meet that challenge. In that case, why are they stalling on this bill? This is legislation that is fundamental to human rights in this country. It is fundamental to the way in which we regard our fellow citizens. It is fundamental to lifting the cloak of paternalistic behaviour, which was redolent in the preceding speeches of those from the other side of the committee.

It is fundamental to every citizen of this county that he or she has the right to be paid according to the work he or she does, rather than according to the place at which he or she works. Dr Paul Hutchison has gone on and on about the disadvantage to the work centres that would be caused by the passing of this bill, yet time and time again in his speeches in this House he refers to just one workshop—he speaks of just one of 47 providers in the country.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: No, two major providers.

Two? Oh, well, two then. If there are two that indicates the lack of substance to Dr Hutchison’s argument. Forty-five out of 47 cannot be too bad, in terms of those providers who support this bill.

So I get back to the basic question we must ask ourselves: how do we regard our fellow citizens in this country? Do we regard them solely as an economic work unit to be exploited by organisations who are receiving better work than that for which they pay? Or do we regard them as equal citizens who should be paid fairly for the work that they do—not assessed on any inherent disability, but judged on the work that they can do and their output, and paid accordingly?

It is time we stopped branding fellow New Zealanders. It is time we stopped putting people into little boxes and then shoving them to one side. The time for passing this bill has come, and the time for delay is long past. So that is why clause 8 of the bill, which deals with the exemption for approved organisations, has a time frame that can be quite tight. But one can hardly say that it has not been without notice; this bill has been on the cards since 2001. The pathway strategy has been clearly defined, and consultation has been extensive. At the end of the day, National members can use all the words they like, but they will not answer the challenge as to why someone should not be paid for the work he or she does, rather than for the place at which he or she works.

So I am pleased to be part of a Government that is bringing in a repeal of a 47-year-old statute that was passed in the days in which the National Party is still firmly rooted—the days of believing that one can determine people’s worth by the way their employers regard them. That is an elevation of thought—an approach to life that says that those who pay the piper will call the tune. Well, there are some people in this country who need the protection of a Government that understands the different abilities of individuals, and the richness of life and the colour that people of all stripes bring to our society. The day we put to one side the branding iron that brands some people as being inferior and less worthy than others—saying that those who work in such and such a place get branded as inferior—is the day we emerge as a much stronger, more decent, and more humane society.

This is a bill whose time has come. This is a bill where the delaying tactics of Opposition members reflect only on them and no one else. This is a bill that says that all humans in this country, no matter their range of abilities, are entitled to respect, to an opportunity to work, to remuneration, and to the recognition of their ability to organise their own lives—not because of some institutionalised bias and not because of some patronising attitude that two out of 47 employers will find this difficult to apply. I say that those two out of the 47 employers had better take a long, hard look at the operation they run. They should take a long, hard look from the client base up, and say: “We employ human beings, and we shall regard these human beings as people worthy of an appropriate and decent wage.”

The time for delay is long past. The time to pay people of all stripes and abilities is here. This is the opportunity the National Party should be embracing. National members opposite should relieve themselves of some of their inhibitions and guilt and step forward up to the plate.

It is interesting to read an extract from the New Zealand Herald of 10 February, where Mr Ralph Jones, the Chief Executive Officer of IHC New Zealand obviously believes he is selling his soul on this issue. When he was held to account by a Mrs Armstrong of Nelson, the mother of a disabled person—she was worried about the situation in respect of someone in her family—his response was: “Has the IHC become too PC in some areas? Yes, by being a service provider we have bought into the government expectation, standards and policies. The $140 million”—which is what IHC receives from the Government—“comes with a cost.” The cost is obviously too hard to swallow for Mr Jones.

The problem we have here is that the Labour Government feels it needs to stick to a philosophy—a philosophy that all people must earn a minimum wage, even at a time when that minimum wage may give them less, or at least nothing more, than what they are getting at the moment. So the disabled people who are working in the workshops in my electorate, and in workshops right around the country, have to be assessed as to how much they are worth in terms of a full unit; that is a pretty degrading way of going about assessing somebody’s work, especially somebody who is unable, probably, in most cases, to make an argument to the contrary or to seek some sort of appeal or review of what that is. So we have a situation where the people who are working with these disabled people, who care for them, and who have become their friends over long periods of time need to make what is quite a cold-hearted sort of assessment of people they care about. That assessment should actually be done by the inspectors; the trouble is that there are not enough inspectors to do the job, but no one seems to care too much about that. We can look at the case of a person who commented recently in the media. He had 86 members to assess, and no help from the department in doing that. He had to sit down and work with them, and they had to have a family member present. Then later the assessment had to be ticked off by an inspector, who would assess the job that that man had done—a job an inspector should have done. That man had spent hours and hours working on those assessments, and he had done only six; he had another 80 to go.

What has become completely apparent too is that for a lot of these workshops the cost of the attendance fee will be a lot more than what they currently pay, but it will give virtually nothing more—if anything—to those who are attending. Minister Dyson’s response to this was that she could see their problem, but she did not think it would continue to be a problem.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.