Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill

Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity to speak on Part 3 of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill, which deals with the Minimum Wage Act 1983. This is one of the pivotal parts of the bill—a bill that Labour clearly does not understand. The workshop community has said very clearly that there are major flaws in terms of the implementation.

This bill was introduced in 2004. The Government was not able to get it through because of the deep concerns that most other parties had. One would have thought that during that time it would sort out the flaws in the machinery. However, the workshops say that the flaws are certainly well and truly there. This is what Workforce Auckland said: “Our support for Dr Hutchison’s amendment stems from our concern that the system proposed to replace the DPEP Act contains serious flaws.” It went on to say: “We cannot be confident that these flaws will be remedied in the remaining 4 months of the transition period, given the dismal lack of progress in the nearly 3 years since they were first identified.” There was a “dismal lack of progress” made by the Labour Government in sorting it out. This is what the Labour members do; they stand back and forget about the important machinery things that have to be done in order to implement things properly.

💬 Simon Power: Sloppy.

“Sloppy” is what my colleague Simon Power, the excellent member from Rangitikei, says. Unfortunately, sloppy is what the Labour Government has been. The timeline relating to this bill goes back to 2001, when the review of vocational services first started. By 2004 concerns had been raised with officials, who acknowledged those concerns, but nothing was done. Later in that year the select committee obtained a report extension and asked officials to undertake more consultation, which they said did not happen. We come to 10 March 2005, when the Hon Ruth Dyson acknowledged the lack of progress, and Department of Labour officials said that Workforce Auckland’s concerns were recognised and would be addressed. Two years later and the concerns are still there.

In fact, a letter from only 3 days ago says that despite the fact that the Labour Government has extended the commencement date from 30 June to 30 November—after pressure from the National Party to try to get the machinery in place—these issues will not be resolved. The letter states: “We aren’t totally confident that these issues will be resolved over the next 9 months, given the failure to resolve them over the past 3 years. A change in attitude by the Government would help greatly, addressing the real issues, undertaking proper consultation, and stopping blaming sheltered workshop providers for spreading misinformation about being paternalistic. Attacks like the one that Russell Fairbrother made in his speech on Thursday are very counterproductive.”

This is an indictment on the Labour Government. It does not look at the basic requirements to put legislation like this through so that disabled people may indeed have the opportunities that are due to them through the New Zealand Disability Strategy and through Pathways to Inclusion.

I will make one more point about the changes to the Minimum Wage Act. Section 8(2), inserted by clause 13, states that an exemption permit “remains in force for the period stated in that permit”. Well, the Hon Ruth Dyson has put in an amendment that means that Department of Labour inspectors can revoke an exemption permit at any time they like. That is absolutely against all the principles of good faith, but it has been welcomed by the unions, which have pushed Ruth Dyson into putting it in the bill. I ask all members to vote against this very, very inappropriate amendment, which allows an exemption permit to be revoked at will by a Department of Labour inspector.

One of the great concerns has been the ability of Department of Labour inspectors to come around and work with the workshops to ensure that these exemption permits are put in place. The exemption permits take a great deal of work assessment sensitivity, and they should be in place for a set period of time. One of the points made by the workshops is that this bill actually engenders a quadrupling of the paper shifting—something that no one helping to organise a business to run efficiently wants.

This Labour Government is, as always, increasing bureaucracy and increasing the load on people who are altruistically doing everything they can to ensure that disabled people have a choice of where they work. Government members might say that people do not want to go to sheltered workshops. What we hear from places like the Abilities Group is that disabled people line up outside before work starts because they enjoy it so much. They come back from holidays early because they enjoy it so much. The manager said to us: “Look, we’ve got no locks, and we’ve got no bars; indeed, they come here because it is a very, very valid choice.”

So it is particularly disappointing that the unions have once again pressured the Labour Government to bring in an amendment that allows the labour inspectors to, at whim, revoke an exemption permit. That does not help those who have the very difficult charge of organising sheltered workshops to go about their business—who have to efficiently run these wonderful, altruistic organisations.

We have heard from Labour Government members that paternalism is implied in the National Party’s stance in terms of wanting to extend the period until the machinery is appropriately in place. I say to the Labour Government that nothing is more paternalistic than putting in a bill that just cannot, in any circumstances, ensure the smooth running of organisations that give choice to the disabled. I am very sorry that the member for Rotorua did not understand the fact that the amendment I put in would allow the implementation date of the bill to be extended for a maximum of 2 years, but that if Government members organised things, put them in place, and took out the flaws, the bill could commence immediately. That was the beauty of it, and it seems such a shame that this Labour Government was not prepared to respond to common sense. Once again, we see in Part 3 machinery problems imposed unnecessarily by the Labour Government.

I want to take a short call here. I think the debate in the Committee tonight is really rather sad. The Opposition has already said that it supported the policy of this Government when it came in, in 1999, of a focus on people with disabilities, and having a Minister responsible for the portfolio. Opposition members said “Well done!”. In 2004 when this measure was first proposed, which is now 3 years ago, the Opposition began its fearmongering throughout the sector about change. Of course this is big change. It is big change because it is a commitment from this Government that everybody in society enjoys the fruits of his or her labour. Dr Hutchison says I got the amendment wrong, but I believe that is all just a sideline activity. This Government has from 2004 been prepared to go that little bit further in relation to transitional management to get this measure properly in place for people with a disability.

I cannot understand the lenses through which Opposition members view the world. They want to keep protectionism and to wrap a safety envelope around people with a disability. I listen to the Disabled Persons Assembly and other sector groups that represent the voices of people with a disability, and that is not what they are asking for. Those disabled persons who turn up to sheltered workshops and love the work—and I have seen it, too—would also turn up early at a supermarket, love the work, do it well, do it loyally, work hard, and enjoy being part of a workforce.

This is about change. The Opposition cannot stand it that we are seeing through the strategy that we focused on in 1999. We went to the public on the Disability Strategy and the public mandated it. We are now putting the nuts and bolts around it, which we began in 2004. Yet Opposition members are still flagging that they want implementation dates to be blown out to 2009. Well, that is absolutely gutless. There is an election next year—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. The member will withdraw. It was a personal reflection.

I withdraw and apologise. It is absolutely spineless, because with an election next year we are sticking to our principles—

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I know what the member is going to say.

I will withdraw and apologise for “spineless”, but people with a disability know what we are talking about.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, the member will be seated, please. The member cannot add anything at all to an apology. She must stand, withdraw and apologise, and continue her speech.

I withdraw and apologise. We are all aware that there is an election next year. This sector knows that this is a Government that puts its money where its mouth is and does not filibuster. We have said that transitional arrangements have to be there.

I will finish by talking about exemptions. I see that the Department of Labour has also been impugned by Opposition members, who have said that officials will revoke an exemption at whim. That just shows that Opposition members do not understand employment relations. How is it in the interests of officials from the Department of Labour to revoke an exemption at whim? That is rubbish. Exemptions for those in real need will remain.

It is vexatious for the Opposition to say it will be up to officials, who will get it wrong and be high-handed with people with a disability. That is rubbish. It is about training those officials in the interests of the sector they will be working with. The exemption process is relatively straightforward. I have seen it; it is just a flow chart that has to be worked through, and it will be put in place for those with high need. It is wrong to say that it will be revoked at whim. It is absolutely vexatious.

This is a wonderful bill. Part 3 repeals the right for sheltered workshops to have protection against any increases in the minimum wage. The minimum wage is a basic human right. As a decent and fair country, it is something that we are signatory to. I believe that it is great that the people who work in this environment will also receive the benefit of increases to the minimum wage, as they ought to do. They are valued employees. Members should go and ask those who have taken the step—because they know this bill is coming—of employing people with a disability what they think about their employee who clears the trolleys in the supermarket. The employee loves it, the employer loves it, and this Government does.

It is great to take a call. I have had people in my office who have been particularly concerned about Part 3, “Minimum Wage Act 1983”. My office is located in Levin, and listeners will know that we have had the closure of the Kimberley Centre. Some of its residents are now out in the community and are doing a very good job working in certain sectors of our community.

Recently I visited Jimmy, a young fellow working in a horse stable. He was doing a very, very good job, cleaning out the stables and feeding the horses. I must say that he was getting a small amount of pay—about $4 an hour—but in respect of the work he was doing, his employers said that his productivity levels were not as great as those of other people. Yet he turns up every morning bright and early, he enjoys his work, and his employers love the work he does for them. He is very much part of their business and he has high self-esteem. Although it would take Jimmy a lot longer to do the job than others would take, he feels very much rewarded by the work he does.

The concern out there in the community of Horowhenua, in moving through this Part 3, is that some employers will actually not employ these people. That is a real concern. It is a concern that a lot of people who have been through my office have about this bill. Although this is Labour’s ideology—it is all about its ideology, is it not—the reality is that people are really concerned, particularly about Part 3. This bill has taken 3 years to be put through, because Labour has not been able to get consensus around the House. That is how long it has taken for the bill to go through and for Labour to get the bill into the Chamber tonight to be debated in the Committee stage.

It is interesting that the Labour Party has caved in to the union movement. The real concern I have is that labour inspectors can turn up at whim and revoke the exemption permits. I do not think that that is on, and the parents who have been to see me do not think that that is on. We have some real concerns in our community about that. There will be a lot more paperwork involved for employers, and although I accept that it is great to have these people out working in our community, I think the biggest concern is that their productivity levels may not be as high as those of other people. There are jobs out there, but the concern for these people in our community is all around the Minimum Wage Act and whether there will be opportunities for them if they have to be paid $11.25 an hour. That is the real concern we have about Part 3.

We have just had a member of Parliament from the National Party get up and tell us that if we do not want someone to be paid $4 an hour in New Zealand in 2007, that means we have caved in. That is an extraordinary thing to say. He said that if we do not want to pay any more than $4 an hour for someone with a disability to work for us, we have caved in to the union movement. He says that it is dogmatic, that it is Labour Party ideology gone mad. That is the approach we are hearing tonight from the National Party. I just ask Nathan Guy, who claims to have had somebody come to see him about it, how many have come.

💬 Nathan Guy: Several.

How many is that—seven, eight? I will tell the member how many people have been to see me about it—two. I have had two people; two parents have been to see me about it. I ask the member how many have seen him. Oh, the member will not answer the question; the member who got up and said he was very concerned about the community he lives in, and all that sort of thing, will not tell us how many people actually have been to see him. I suspect that it has been one; I think it has been one.

You see, what has happened is that the member is saying we are caving in by getting rid of the Minimum Wage Act 1983 exemption in the principal Act for people with disabilities. But I am just saying, as the member of Parliament for that area, for that constituency, that I do not want people in my constituency working for four bucks an hour simply because they have a disability. I do draw a line in the sand at that and say that it is not good enough for somebody to be paid $4 an hour. We can say, well, they are a bit slower and their productivity is not very good. But there are people who turn up for work after a hard night out whose productivity is not very good—some of them are members of Parliament—yet we still pay them exactly the same rate of money. We do not draw a line in the sand there.

This part of the bill gets rid of those Minimum Wage Act provisions and makes it very clear that people have to be paid $11.25—as the minimum wage will shortly become in New Zealand. Of course, when Labour became the Government in this country, the minimum wage was $7 an hour; today it is $11.25. Next year, working with United Future and New Zealand First, we hope to get that to $12 an hour. If we can do that it will mean that workers on the minimum wage in New Zealand will be, on average, 200 bucks a week better off because of the changes made to the minimum wage. [Interruption] Does Sandra Goudie think that it is a good idea or bad idea that people will be 200 bucks a week better off, if they are full-time workers, after the Minimum Wage Act changes that Labour has made?

💬 Sandra Goudie: They won’t have a job.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: What if they don’t have a job at all?

Well, there is a lot of noise from Sandra Goudie, and a lot of noise from Maurice Williamson—the sort of dream team of the National Party. But they will not tell us whether they are actually in support now of the minimum wage changes that they have opposed every single year. We are now saying, in relation to the small number of people with disabilities who are working below the standards in our country, that we are going to bring them in and make them part of the tent. I support that; I think that it is absolutely fantastic that we are doing that.

Another point I make is in reference to residents of the Kimberley Centre. Those final few residents of the Kimberley Centre are not covered under this legislation for getting out and working in the community. We are talking about people who are already working out there in the community right now, not people who have come out of a residential setting. We are making sure that these people will have the minimum rights and protections that our minimum wage legislation allows for in New Zealand. I think it is fantastic; I think it is a great thing for New Zealand. I think it is good that we are saying that people cannot work for $4 an hour any more. I am amazed that today, in 2007, we have National list MPs getting up and saying that $4 an hour is a great pay rate if someone has a disability, because that person might be a bit slower than some other workers. That is a very hard position to accept—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: This member should be on $1 an hour.

Maurice Williamson thinks that $1 an hour is a good rate for people to be paid. I think it is even worse. Of course, the National Party’s problems when Don Brash was leader were all fixed by returning Maurice Williamson to the front bench. Well, if Maurice Williamson is the answer to National’s problem, it must be a pretty bad question, when he is held up as the strategic genius and returned to National’s front bench.

But all I want to say is that Part 3 is a very, very good part.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: That was so vicious!

What was more vicious, I tell Mr Williamson, was when the member was first put on the front bench by Mrs Shipley, then sacked, then put back to the third row, then kicked out by Mr English, then brought back, then rehabilitated after a pinch when the good Dr Brash left. That was the cruel attack—it was not from me. What I said was absolutely kind compared with what the member’s own colleagues did to him. That left him with quite a big disability in terms of Part 3 of this bill—that is what happened when he became a disabled person for the purposes of the National Party caucus.

But I want to say that the minimum wage ought to extend to every single worker in our country. There is no reason, in this day and age, for people not to get it simply for having a disability.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Get real!

Sandra Goudie, who is a kind of advertisement for the other side of the argument—I accept that—says we should be able to pay people less. She supports the Nathan Guy approach of $4 an hour if people have a disability. I will never support that. I will demand that people in my electorate are paid a decent rate of pay, even if they have a disability, because I do not discriminate against people. I believe in Pathways to Inclusion. I think that this is a great part of the bill, and I support it.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 96 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 3 be agreed to.