Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill, Minimum Wage Amendment Bill

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) Link to this

I move, That the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill be now read a third time. These bills ensure that disabled New Zealand workers have access to the same employment conditions, rights, and entitlements as all other New Zealanders. Repealing the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act 1960 is an important step in ensuring that the abilities, potential, contributions, and rights of all New Zealanders are recognised. For 47 years disabled people have not had the same employment rights or protections as other New Zealand citizens; the Act is out of step with New Zealand and international human rights law.

Repealing the Act reflects the Government’s approach to disability issues, as set out in the New Zealand Disability Strategy. Disabled people have told us that they want a fully inclusive society where they have the same opportunities as other New Zealanders. Those include participating in training and employment, and receiving fair remuneration for the work they do. I would have expected all members of Parliament and New Zealand society to share those expectations.

Repealing this outdated legislation is part of a package of wider changes aimed at ensuring that the voice of disabled people in New Zealand is heard and acted upon. We have undertaken extensive consultation with disabled people, with their families, and with service providers, over the wider package of reforms. Nearly 100 submissions were received on the 2000 vocational services review, alone. These bills were prepared reflecting the findings of the vocational services review, and were referred to the Social Services Committee on 26 May 2004. The committee received and considered 16 submissions on the legislation, four supplementary submissions, and 13 oral submissions.

All submissions on the legislation supported the intent of the repeal, although some submissions expressed concerns about its implementation. Some submitters were worried that the move to paying the minimum wage would force some sheltered workshops to close. The intention of the repeal is not to close sheltered workshops; that has never been its aim. But, yes, the legislation will mean change. It does not mean that sheltered workshops will close, and it certainly does not mean that people will be sent home with nothing meaningful to do. The repeal will mean that all sheltered workshops will have to pay everyone they employ at least the minimum wage—unless an individual worker has an exemption. It will also mean that all people who work in sheltered workshops will have access to holiday and sick leave entitlements—all the conditions that every other New Zealand worker enjoys. By repealing the Act, disabled New Zealanders will finally be valued for what they can do, rather than be defined by the place in which they work.

This legislation also amends the Minimum Wage Act 1983 to make the system for considering minimum wage exemption permits more focused and transparent. Minimum wage exemption permits are not new; they have existed for some time under the Minimum Wage Act as under-rate workers’ permits. We are now extending this option to sheltered workshops, and changing the name to minimum wage exemption permits. These permits are a pragmatic, straightforward option that ensures that real paid employment opportunities exist for as many people as possible.

Workers who are significantly and demonstrably limited in their work can be issued with a minimum wage exemption permit but, unlike the blanket exemptions that exist now, these permits will reflect the individual contribution of workers. Before considering whether an exemption is appropriate, the employer must have made reasonable accommodations to facilitate people carrying out the requirements of the job. Labour inspectors will give someone an exemption permit only if the worker and employer agree there is a good reason why such a permit should be granted. Throughout the process, labour inspectors will ensure that the interests of employees are protected.

This legislation is part of a package of wider changes aimed at improving employment opportunities for disabled people. Our Government has committed significant, increased funding to ensure that sheltered workshops and disabled workers are supported in making these changes, which include increasing the supports to help people to work in the open labour market, providing wider access to supported employment services, and developing further the transition from school services.

Some providers may move out of sheltered work. Should a provider wish to do that, the Ministry of Social Development will work with the provider and its clients to ensure that disabled people continue to have appropriate options—including access to open paid employment—available to them. I am pleased to say that our wider changes have resulted in over 9,000 disabled people gaining jobs, compared with an estimated 3,000 being in employment in 2001—a trebling of the number. I am also heartened by the attitude of many sheltered workshop operators who have already started making changes in anticipation of the repeal. Operators are making their organisations more commercially viable so that they can pay their employees proper wages. Some employers are already paying the minimum wage, and more.

Recently, the New Zealand Federation of Vocational and Support Services launched its document, Principles of Excellence for Employment Support. Those principles of excellence were developed with the specific intention of assisting organisations in their transition from providing sheltered work to providing employment services in line with the Pathways to Inclusion strategy. The support from vocational and support services is further evidence of the timeliness in repealing this outdated and discriminatory legislation. Many organisations no longer want to be known as sheltered workshops, recognising that this designation is now inaccurate and disparaging. Disabled people have told us that they want a range of options for participating in the labour market; a modern economy should be able to provide that for all citizens. This legislation ensures that the disabled worker is no longer underpaid for the value of his or her work.

I wish to acknowledge the efforts made by all those organisations, parents, families, and employers who made submissions to the Social Services Committee, and I acknowledge the time and thought that the members of the select committee expended in deliberating on this bill. I also acknowledge the excellent work of officials over many years in working on this repeal.

I commend these bills to members as important legislation that will finally ensure that disabled people are recognised for what they can do, not for what they cannot do. This legislation has been a long time coming. The repeal was first signalled in 2000 with the launch of the vocational services review. This repeal is necessary to reflect our Government’s approach to disability issues, as set out in the New Zealand Disability Strategy. It is time we realised that it is now 2007, not 1960, and that disabled people deserve to have the same employment rights and obligations as all other New Zealanders. I commend these bills to the House.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) Link to this

I rise to speak on the third readings of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. The National Opposition does want to see disabled people enabled so that they have a real choice in what they can do, like anyone else, according to their ability and capacity. We agree with the general philosophy behind the New Zealand Disability Strategy and Pathways to Inclusion. We agree that disabled people should not be patronised by central or local government. I was surprised when I heard the Minister say that this legislation ensures that disabled workers are no longer underpaid for their work, because unfortunately it does nothing of the sort. It is this practical reality that the Minister refuses to acknowledge.

However, I would like to acknowledge Minister Dyson because I know that she has been working on this bill for many years, right back to 2000. I acknowledge that she has been very sincere in her endeavours, but I remain deeply concerned that successive Labour Governments tend to bring in changes without carefully ensuring that the practical details are attended to. In this legislation that has very clearly happened, both to the detriment of disabled people’s aspirations as well as to the detriment of the workshops they work in.

The Minister said that the disability community would like to take that name away, but we already know that former sheltered workshops have renamed themselves, such as the Abilities Group on the North Shore and Workforce Auckland in Māngere. Both organisations carry out altruistic, inspiring, very important, and very well-organised work for disabled people. They provide the reality of choice for those people. Unfortunately, the machinery the Minister has put in place to ensure the continuity of that has been put at jeopardy because of her lack of attention to detail.

It is worthwhile having a little bit of a recap of the situation as it was seen by Carolldu Chateau, who recently reported in the New Zealand Herald. She said: “The argument has been raging since 2001, when Disabilities Minister Ruth Dyson introduced ‘Pathways to Inclusion’—an ideologically driven strategy that contends that even themost intellectually disabled should be integrated into the wider community. They should also be paid the minimum wage.” Of course they should be integrated into the wider community if that is practical and feasible. There is no question about it. Indeed, they should also be paid the minimum wage if that is a reality. But they should not be given false hopes if it is not a reality. The article continues: “The repeal of the Act means that minimum wage legislation will now include the intellectually handicapped who will only be allowed to opt out through individual exemptions issued by the Department of Labour.” As has been said by quite a few of those who run workshops, this will almost certainly double the wage bill while incrementally increasing some workers’ salaries and lowering others. Despite the protestations from the Minister, she has not done her homework in that respect. I accept that most of the workers will have minor, marginal increases in wages. Others will not.

The problem I have been concerned about all along is that the Government has not given attention to the detail of the abatement regimes as people come off their benefits and go on to a minimum wage. Nor has it given attention to the details of the support it might give to employers at sheltered workshops. This has just not happened, despite 6 to 7 years of flagging this legislation through. So, as I said before, although we are quite in harmony with the basic philosophy behind it, we are deeply concerned at the lack of ability of the Labour Government and the lack of attention it has paid to the details.

We were also told that the Labour Party supported a funded move out of workshops and into the community participation scheme. With the effort of doing that, a dramatic thing happened to the work, and the choice of work, in sheltered workshops. Although 3 years ago 4,000 people were working in sheltered workshops, there are only 1,000, or even fewer than that, now. It has decreased from 4,000 people to 1,000 people in 3 years. [Interruption] There is a slightly ominous aspect in regard to that. The Minister called out a slight expletive. I will not repeat it on the air, but it was a four-lettered one.

The reality is that she put considerable pressure on organisations like IHC New Zealand, and we have the evidence to show that in a letter from the chief executive officer of IHC to the parents of a disabled person in which the chief executive said, in response to the question of whether IHC has become too politically correct in some areas: “Yes, by being a service provider we have bought into the Government’s expectation, standards and policies. The $140 million comes with a cost.” And the cost was that IHC would close down every one of its sheltered workshops—every one of them—which meant that something like 2,000 disabled people were out of a job.

What did those people go into? They went into community participation. Although in some aspects that has been a very good thing and I applaud it, it has been a mixed bag. The problem is that although we have these grand gestures by the Labour Government of community participation, what has happened to some of those people is that they have moved from a situation where they had a job that was very meaningful to them into a situation that does not suit them at all. It is worthwhile quoting someone whom I do know, Jane Watts, who has an intellectually handicapped son, Lee. What did she have to say about community participation in her case? She was very scathing about the new strategy. She said: “The idea’s lovely but the reality’s absolute rubbish. You cannot put Lee in outside employment. He couldn’t do it. No one would pay him $500-$600 a week. We tried to take him down to the supermarket and he scratched a car …”. She went on to say, in relation to community participation replacing work: “It’s a waste of money. We do those things—take him to the library, swimming, bowling—on weekends. If the government wants to spend more money they should provide more caregivers at”—places like—“Abilities”.

It is important to point out that what the Labour Government has put in place is not all clear. The situation as we see it now is certainly not clear. The workshops have said that they consider there to be serious flaws that are unlikely to be remedied in the next 3 to 4 months. I introduced a significant amendment in the Committee stage, and unfortunately it was rejected by the Labour Government. It was a serious attempt to be practical. It allowed the Government an extension time of 2 years so that it could sort out the flaws.

LESLEY SOPER (Labour) Link to this

I rise to speak on the third readings of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill, and I am very proud to do so. For 47 years disabled people in this country have not had the same employment rights or protections as other New Zealanders. One of those workers is a family member of mine. She deserves a fair go, as do all her fellow disabled workers. Disabled people need to be heard, and they need to have what they are saying acted on. They have told the Labour-led Government that they want a fully inclusive society where they are accorded the same opportunities as other New Zealanders. That means participating in training and employment, and receiving fair remuneration for work.

It is a nonsense for the member on the other side to tell us, inaccurately, that the numbers in sheltered workshops have reduced from 4,000 to 1,000. He knows that the difference in those numbers represents the numbers who are not actual employees in those workshops. The fact of the matter is that the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act 1960—a Victorian-attitude piece of legislation to people with disabilities—does not allow for employment fairness. It treats people—workers whom we respect—unfairly, by giving sheltered workshops a blanket exemption from minimum wage and holiday provisions for their workers. In my own area there is a sheltered workshop and, yes, there have been some concerns that the move to paying the minimum wage and proper holiday entitlements will force some sheltered workshops to close. The intention of the repeal is not to close sheltered workshops; it never has been. Yes, the legislation will mean some changes for sheltered workshops and, yes, those sheltered workshop providers will need to look at the financial aspects of their operations. But the legislation does not mean that sheltered workshops will be left to close down, and it does not mean that people will be sent home with nothing meaningful to do.

The repeal simply means that there will be fairness. Sheltered workshops will have to pay everyone they employ at least the minimum wage—everyone they employ, unless individual workers have an exemption. There are strict criteria around those exemptions. The legislation will mean that all people who work in sheltered workshops will have access to the fairness that all of us, as workers, expect—to holiday and sick leave entitlements, and to a decent pay rate. Those are all the other conditions that every other New Zealand worker takes for granted. By repealing the Act, disabled New Zealanders will finally be valued for what they can do rather than be defined by the place they work in and by their disability.

The Act we are intending to repeal today, as I said, is a Victorian piece of legislation. It demonstrates Victorian attitudes to workers who have earned respect by many, many years of their work. It is out of step with New Zealand and international human rights law. There has been very extensive consultation with disabled people and their families, and with service providers, over the proposal.

The passing of this legislation will be an occasion of joy to the disabilities community. I am very proud to take part in that and, yes, it may be that some providers will ultimately decide to move out of sheltered work. It is not the intention of the repeal to cause that, but some providers may make that choice. Should a provider choose to move out of sheltered work, then the Ministry for Social Development and Employment will work with that provider, and its clients and employees, to ensure that people with disabilities continue to have fair and open options, as every other worker in this country has.

The passing of this legislation is about setting in place a better future for disabled people. It means that we can say there will be the continuation of sheltered workshop providers being able to offer both community participation activities and employment. They will have to meet all employment obligations for any individuals they employ—and that is fair and right. Those obligations include the standard employment conditions and entitlements that we all expect. This legislation is very a good thing; I am proud to be speaking as part of its passing into law. Thank you.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

I would like to commend my most excellent colleague Dr Paul Hutchison for a very good précis of the time he spent on the original bill, the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill. I recall the time that I was involved with that bill some years ago. At that time, in actual fact, the political parties opposing the bill were United Future and New Zealand First, as well as National. I am really quite surprised. I know even Sue Bradford had some misgivings earlier in the piece, and one of the comments she made was that in the end this is a political and ideological issue.

In some respects, she is actually quite right. Why was this legislation brought into being in the first place? We are told that it was because not paying these people the minimum wage in a work environment was contrary to the Human Rights Act, and that they needed to be treated in the same way as every other worker in the workforce and at least paid the minimum wage. That is fine, except that while the Government is looking at bringing in the minimum wage for all these people in sheltered workshops, it may find that they may not have jobs and they may be assessed as being exempt from the requirements of the minimum wage. I do not know of any other work environment where workers are actually given an exemption from any form of work payment, yet this is happening in this legislation. So on the one hand the Government wants to bring workshops into line with every other workplace environment, but on the other hand it is not doing that, because it is providing wage exemptions, which does not happen in any other workplace environment.

The whole issue is about how that will affect the viability of sheltered workshops. They provide a workplace opportunity for these people, when the only other option for them is community participation. Sheltered workshops—which actually wanted to be called business services—may no longer be able to afford to pay a range of people the minimum wage as well as accommodate and provide for them in their workplaces, even though they might be on an exemption. They will not be able to afford to do that in terms of the time and effort required for all of the services they provide to these people. They do not provide just a work opportunity, even though it might be for only a few hours a day, if that; they provide a whole lot more than that. They provide support in a whole range of fields—budgeting, friendship, health, and even hygiene and just general life skills—and they provide timeout for the family. There is a raft of services and supports provided by people who come under the “sheltered workshop” classification. We are talking about the Abilities Group on the North Shore, Southland Enterprises, and a whole lot of other places that provide those services.

So what were the concerns about the legislation? There was no impact study on the effects of it on those who will no longer be employed or have the opportunity to go into a workplace environment, like Abilities on the North Shore in Auckland, which we classify as a sheltered workshop. There was absolutely no calculation of the additional costs in the event of closures. So what will community participation add to these people’s experiences? Instead of being valued as workers, as they perceive it, they are going to go out of that workplace environment into what we call community participation. All they do there are activities that we would do on a weekend. That is not being valued as people who are making valid working contributions. They thought they were making valid working contributions when they could rock up to Abilities Group and feel like they were contributing and doing something. Whether they were is immaterial; it is how they felt about that. It gave them self-worth and a feeling of belonging and involvement. It gave them the mana, if you like, of being classed as workers, even though they might not have been paid for that, instead just getting an extra allowance topping up their benefits. That top-up was always handy, but they will not get that under community participation. Instead they are denied the opportunity of having that type of work environment and of feeling like they are valued workers.

They are put into community participation, and what do they do? They might go to the movies, they might do a bit of painting, they might sit in front of the television—all of those things that other workers in every other workplace do in their time off and on weekends. There was no assessment of the effects on caregivers and families if there is no other option and the individual cannot remain with his or her current provider. There was no assessment of the effects on caregivers and families. In fact families were constantly complaining about the fact that there was inadequate consultation with them and with those people of whom they were guardians.

There was an assumption that there would be no increase in the number of labour inspectors. As I read the legislation, I understand that the labour inspectors will rely upon the workplaces to do their assessments. Labour inspectors are going to come along and say: “Yes, that’s OK.” or “That’s not OK.” We now see that under a new amendment to the Act, the inspectors will have the ability to revoke exemption at will, so that is a bit of a concern, and will certainly be a concern for all parties to that situation. I wonder, after an assessment, how the result is conveyed to a person who has been assessed. I cannot imagine the situation when someone is assessed and told: “I’m sorry, you’re not eligible for the minimum wage.” How do you give that sort of message to somebody who has a limited level of understanding? Imagine rocking up to someone in the environment of this House and saying: “I’m sorry but you are just not up to snuff. We’ve given you an assessment and we have found you wanting, so we don’t want you in this environment any more.” That assessment is done by a third party; it is not done by electors.

Providers of community participation have no long-term certainty. People have no guarantee that they will always be able to go to community participation, and that it will operate 5 days a week and take up all of the time in which they were going along to somewhere like Abilities Group. There was no calculation of the additional costs if community participation further increases the demands on caregivers. That is a very real aspect of this legislation. What normally happens is that people go along to sheltered workshops like Abilities Group—I keep mentioning Abilities Group because it is the one I have the most experience with—and they love it. Abilities Group took on board the cost of extra caregivers and the cost of extra people there to provide the additional supports that were needed outside of the sort of work that they might be doing in that environment. The sheltered workshops also organised trips, etc., and time off. So the workers had a social club as well.

We are very concerned that none of those aspects were considered, that the consultation with families and the individuals who will be directly affected was inadequate, and that the calculation of the impacts of costs was also totally inadequate. National supports the aim of any disabled person who can work in supported employment in the community being able to do so. We are just concerned that those people will not have the ability to choose that for themselves, that they will not have the work environments that they have been enjoying up until now, and that community participation will take the place of what they used to think of as their jobs. To me, that is a crying shame.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this

One day we will come down to this House and deal with a bill that deals with the working life of New Zealanders at large, and the National Party will be absolutely positive about it—and I do not think we will be able to stomach it over here. I have listened to Dr Hutchison and Sandra Goudie, and I have never heard such negativism in all the time I have been here. They were totally—absolutely totally—negative. Let me tell National members over there that the sector and the industry want rid of the 1960 Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act. They want to get rid of it, but the members over there have not got the message. They are totally and utterly negative. Why could they not find something positive to say? They could still vote the legislation down but say something positive about it.

Let me say again that the industry—the sector—wants the repeal of the 1960 Act done and dusted, right now. Well, we cannot do it right now, and one criticism of the Government is that it has taken far too long. I have read Hansard, and I might also correct National members on the fact that New Zealand First supported this legislation at its first reading in quite glowing terms, as I see. I acknowledged the statement of the Minister, Ruth Dyson, when she said that it was better to pay people according to the work they did rather than the place they were employed. I complimented her when she said that. It is a belief New Zealand First shares. It is better to pay people according to the work they do rather than the place they are employed. We are 100 percent behind that. But it has taken an extremely long time to come to terms with this issue, and that has caused us some frustration.

When the legislation came back the other day we found that the sector was not happy with the time frame. The only word I can use is that we were “lobbied” by the sector. In fairness to the Minister, we made those views known to her. We made the views known that 30 June 2007 just does not give enough time to bring everything into fruition. After quite some discussion, checking, and analysis of things, the Minister came back and we reached agreement on a date of 30 November. That is 9 months hence, and we are quite confident that by 30 November, if not by 30 October, we will have all the ducks in a row so that this legislation will operate properly and fairly in the interests of everyone.

A second issue was raised by the sector, and that concerned guidelines. Again, we raised it with the Minister and, again, she looked positively on it. Apparently, some guidelines are being written by the Department of Labour. I have not seen them but the Minister gave her assurance to us—New Zealand First—that they are being worked on and will be made available to the sector in the not too distant future. So in a very practical manner that will get the system going.

Finally, the third issue is funding. I have listened to National members over the last few days and weeks when they have been debating this legislation. They have been saying that there is no funding, that all the workshops will be closed down holus bolus, and that people will be virtually kicked out on to the streets. That will not happen. It was never intended that that would happen, and it will not happen. Everybody knows that, and it was really alarmist for National members to go around the country—or wherever they went—saying those sorts of things. It not only disturbed the individuals in these workshops but really upset their families. In National members’ hearts, if they had given one iota of thought to it, they would have realised that that was not going to occur.

The biggest problem if the funding is not adequate—and I am quite convinced it will be—is that workshops will not be able to take people in at the level at which they should be taking them in, and that will be disturbing. We have a Budget coming up, and I am quite convinced that the Minister has spoken to the Minister of Finance, and that there will be adequate funding to handle all that is required for this legislation to come into fruition by 30 November at the latest.

This is a good bill for decent individuals who really need us to speak for them. I cannot think of anybody else who really needs us in Parliament to speak on their behalf. I cannot think of a greater sector of the community that needs us to represent them and say: “Hey, you’re not getting a fair deal and we’re determined to address it.” I stand here on behalf of my New Zealand First colleagues, feeling very proud that we dealt with the Minister and came to some arrangement to progress this bill in a positive manner. On that note, I say that New Zealand First is proud to address the issues of the sheltered workshops and the people they look after and care for, and to ensure that those people get a fairer deal that they are currently getting. The sooner that this legislation is passed into law, that the transition period goes through, and that it takes place, the better it will be for everybody. New Zealand First supports this bill with quite some pride.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

The Green Party supports this legislation, and has done so from the beginning. I want to say just a few words, as my colleague Sue Bradford who spoke on the first reading of this legislation and who has supported it through all its stages is unable to be here.

This legislation is a critical turning point in how our society treats and values people with impairments—people with disabilities. Sheltered workshops have certainly performed a useful role in our society and have had some function, particularly in the sense of trying to find a way to encourage and enable participation in community activities—work being one of those activities. But they have been built out of a very paternalistic view that treats people with disabilities as if they are children, and as unfortunates who need to be, or should be, grateful for a charity model of the provision of services. I know that the National Party in particular is quite keen on the charity model. John Key has talked about this quite a bit in the last few months. But the fact is that all people of all abilities should be able to access the labour market, and do so in accordance with human rights. All people of all abilities are entitled to an adequate income, and protection in the labour market.

The history of sheltered workshops suggests an acceptance that some people will never be able to participate fully or equally in value in the labour market, and that disabled workers should, at heart, simply be grateful for what others deign to give them. In fact today, in a select committee considering another piece of legislation, a submitter dealt with this issue at heart and suggested that disabled workers were simply a burden on the business community, that they undermine the efficiency of business, and that they should effectively be confined to dependence on the social security system and, presumably, whatever charity would be made available to them.

We are very pleased to see that this legislation specifically and rightly attacks the heart of that attitude. All workers are entitled to the same legal protections as other workers. There should be no discrimination between workers on that basis. The legal protections that we provide in this country for most workers should be applied to all workers, and we consider that this legislation is an important step towards that. I have visited community organisations, industries, and places that are similar to sheltered workshops where the workforce is largely made up of disabled workers and where those people are treated with respect. They are given jobs that are not rubbish jobs, but are jobs that help to build their confidence in their skills. They are amazing places where the disabilities of those workers have added to the competitive advantage of the business, and their ability, if you like, is in part what makes that business so profitable and able to maintain its business and get new business. That is a very exciting way of looking at how the different kinds of abilities of lots of different people can contribute to the economy, to particular business and industry, and to the community as a whole. People with disabilities or people with different kinds of abilities are an asset to our communities, not a burden.

This legislation makes sure that the law provides employment protection for these workers. It is a further step, in our view, towards eliminating legal discrimination from the labour market. We look forward to other legislation that, hopefully, will come back to the House this year that does something similar for young workers, because, in the end, if a person is working and doing his or her job, that person is entitled to the same legal protections as everyone else. We are very pleased to see this legislation coming through to its final stages in the House, and look forward to voting for it at its third reading. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātouitēneiahiahi. As I was doing some research to try to find a lead into this particular legislation, I came across a statement made by the president of the New Zealand Wheelchair Tennis team—a lady by the name of Marilyn Stratford—who wrote recently about her life experiences in a way that I believe informs the intent and provisions of the two bills before us this afternoon, the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. She said: “If I ask myself, did my own disability shape my life, I would have to say, yes it probably did. Not because I have a problem with it, but because other people do. It’s very much that visual thing: they see the disability before they see me.”

This legislation enables people with disabilities who are employed in sheltered workshops to be seen as employees who have the same conditions, rights, and entitlements as other people at a comparable level of productivity. They are to be seen as workers rather than as disabled people. The Māori Party believes that in matters of hauora—our health and well-being—it is all about creating the optimum conditions for our full potential to be realised. Given this wider context, we are firmly committed to a focus on the determinants of health and well-being, including poverty, housing, income discrimination, and the environment. It is a matter of rights and of well-being, and a responsibility of good government, that opportunities should be provided for disabled people to work in the labour market, and to earn and maintain an adequate income. We are therefore happy to support this legislation to repeal the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act of 1960.

During the course of this legislation we have heard from many sheltered workshops. My colleagues Hone Harawira and Tariana Turia have visited the Abilities Group, which takes as its mission the goal of enriching the lives of people with disabilities through meaningful employment. Hone Harawira has also visited Access Ability, a private sheltered workshop. We have met with People First, DPA, IHC Advocacy, and New Zealand CCS. We have heard from Te RoopuWaiora Trust, a kaupapa Māori disability support group, and from Te RoopuTaurima o Manukau, the largest residential provider for whānau with learning disabilities.

In my electorate I know of Te Whare Manaaki i te HungaHauā in Te Teko, which was the first kaupapa Māori home providing a base for our disabled people to live an ordinary life in their own community. I know of the work of Te PouWhakaaro in Whakatāne, which has over 70 percent Māori service users. A centre opened in Kawerau as well, which supports our whānau in contributing to their communities through paid work and voluntary work.

I am sure we all have within our whānau the experience of whānau members living with disability. My own sister Hine lives with us in my home town of Rotorua. She has suffered three strokes over recent years. On a daily basis we admire her as she faces the difficulties of things like memory loss and physical challenge. My sister spent some time in a residential home as she adjusted to the impact of the strokes on her health, but as a whānau we were always keen for her to be able to come home and live an ordinary life. It is a worthwhile goal, as the National Health Committee report declared, to have an ordinary life—kia whaioranganoa. It is a simple wish, but the desire for an ordinary life, it seems, is not one that everyone understands to be such a priority.

For much of the history of this country, people thought that the best way to care for people with disabilities was in institutions, separated from their communities and focused on their disabilities, with their opportunities defined and restricted by the services they could access. For disabled Māori, the marginalisation of being disabled as well as being Māori saw them surrounded by a whole host of professionals but segregated from their marae and whānau, and from their right to find real work for real pay. Yet we know the value of whakawhanaungatanga, and that the continuation of vital relationships and connections with whānau, hapū, and iwi provide the ultimate safeguard to our health and well-being.

Disability rates for Māori adults are higher than disability rates nationally. We know that one-third of Māori aged between 45 and 64 years report a disability, compared with one-quarter of the total population in that age group. So there are more of us, yet despite having higher rates, Māori access disability support services less than any other population group in New Zealand.

So what do we do with all of this? I like the momentum behind the whakatauākī, “He manako te kōura e kore ai.”—“Wishful thinking will not get you the crayfish.” We need to have the wish and the vision, but we also need to take action to make it happen. So we support the intention to remove provisions in existing legislation that have been regarded by disabled persons as improper and abusive of their human rights. We believe that disabled persons have the right to work, and that the repeal of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act is a way of expressing manaakitanga, of including disabled persons and their whānau in being able to participate in the community and to be seen as valued and contributing members, and of ensuring that the services are aligned to whānau needs rather than driven by the preferences of service providers and policy makers. Supporting the repeal of the Act is in line with our commitment to rangatiratanga—a means to ensure that disabled persons and their whānau are their own experts, who should be supported by organisations that employ, care, and develop them in ways that enhance their lives.

We know that the requirement for workshops to be commercially viable will create additional pressures that may mitigate against their capacity to be community minded. It is for this reason that we supported the amendment by Dr Paul Hutchison to see whether it was possible to extend the time frame within which the legislation was to be established. We had hoped that with more time, all parties could give due consideration to the ways and means of protecting the needs of both those providing the service and those directly affected by this legislation, namely the whānau.

The key issue for us, however, is how disabled persons and their whānau are able to take up their right to work and to benefit from their due entitlements covered by the Minimum Wage Act 1983 and the Holidays Act 2003. So when the question is put as to whether we support initiatives that can honour minimum wage and holiday provisions, we will say we remain fully in support.

We are pleased that those whose productivity is not sufficient to earn the minimum wage can apply for and be granted a minimum wage exemption permit. We also know from our talks with disabled persons that so many whānau are happy with what we might see as crumbs, based on the rationale that if there are no alternatives to the value of work for the sake of work, it may mean that individuals put up with conditions that are less than ideal. We know that most of the work obtained by sheltered workshops is of low value, with low profit margins, and that a comprehensive funding model is essential if we are to transform these workshops into social enterprises that can comply with legislative requirements. So we remind this House that under the existing Act, people with a disability are the only people in Aotearoa to whom sweatshop rates can be paid without breaching the law. The low pay has been justified purely and simply on account of their disability—“they see the disability before they see me”—and it has nothing to do with productivity.

Finally, I leave the last word to Carole Williams, who has lived with epilepsy and cerebral palsy since having an injury as a baby. She said: “Just being Māori is a good thing which I’m lucky to have … all my whānau around me, I love that. I wouldn’t want to be without them. There’s not much I’d swap. I’d swap my body—to have a body that would let me do things—but I wouldn’t ever swap who I am.” This legislation, in repealing the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act 1960, enables people like Carole to continue to enjoy being Māori, to continue to enjoy her whānau, and to continue to enjoy who she is. For those opportunities, the Māori Party would not swap anything. Kia ora tātou.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this

I rise to support the third readings of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill, acknowledging that United Future has not supported every stage of these bills. Our support now is not, as someone recently suggested to me, because the Government is short of numbers—we are very aware that there is already substantial support for the bills. Our support is because we are now convinced that our earlier concerns have been addressed, and that support is morally the right thing to do.

Our concerns were informed by two groups. Firstly, there was lobbying by parents who feared the closure of sheltered workshops, and, secondly, there was concern that there would be a reduction in the number of employers prepared to offer work and opportunities to disabled people.

I thank the staff and clients at what was the sheltered workshop in my home town of Whakatāne. They helped to shape my views so that I could make a clear representation to the United Future caucus on their behalf. I also thank officials from the Minister for Disability Issues, Ruth Dyson’s, office who have taken time on a number of occasions to answer our questions and concerns.

We did give serious consideration to an approach by the National Party to support an amendment seeking to delay the commencement of this legislation—I noted that if the starting date was all that could be found at fault with this legislation, it was probably all right. We decided not to support the amendment, having received assurances from both the Minister’s office and from some providers we talked to that they were already geared up for the changes.

Clients at the Whakatāne centre are enthusiastic about the new directions their lives are already taking. The centre has nearly doubled its client base since the move towards supported employment and participation. New clients stated very passionately to me that the sheltered workshop ethos had stripped them of dignity and gave them no credit for the difference they were well able to make. Now they are supported into mainstream work and community activities, and the centre still provides support for those currently requiring more intensive support.

In Whakatāne we had a well-known character called Kura. Kura had an intellectual disability, but he would not be part of the sheltered workshop culture. He believed he was capable of more than was on offer, so he became our town’s professional busker. He was a colourful character who knew everyone by name, and he was no respecter of person or position. Whether a small child or the local mayor, Kura was everybody’s friend. He was a talented musician who did very nicely, thank you, from the proceeds of his busking. When he died several years ago we all mourned his passing.

Kura was a forerunner for the kind of thinking that this bill enshrines. He did not wait for a change in the law—which was just as well, as he did not live long enough to benefit from it. But let me say a word to those who still fear this change. I acknowledge that the thought of having current, comfortable arrangements for family members changed is understandably daunting, and it is not helpful for those fears to be trivialised by others. The great hope that this bill offers is that future New Zealanders who have additional challenges to overcome can enjoy meaningful employment and participation. I challenge the Minister to ensure that those needing to embrace change are given all the support they need in that transition process.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) Link to this

I rise on behalf of ACT New Zealand to speak to the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. As ACT has done from the very beginning of this debate, we will oppose this legislation for a number of reasons, which I will go into.

I will start by saying, oh for a perfect world where everyone is born equal. Would it not be great if we were all born able-bodied and intelligent, and if everybody was able to fill the potential that all parents, when their child is first born, would love to see. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We do not live in a world that is totally fair, and much as we would like that to be the case, the provisions in this legislation will not address the things that those in favour of it say it will.

As a physiotherapist in a former life I was quite heavily involved with sheltered workshops. During my training I frequently visited sheltered workshops, and as a qualified physiotherapist I was responsible for sometimes going to sheltered workshops and treating people in the course of their daily life there. I visited many times, also. Since this legislation was introduced I have also visited many sheltered workshops around the country, such as Abilities Group and the workshop that I presume Ms Soper was referring to in her speech, Southland Enterprises. They are doing a great deal of very good work. When we look at them very closely and sum them up, I think the differences in this legislation, as coming from the two sides of the House, are that one group of us considers sheltered workshops to be workplaces only—somewhere where people go to conduct business and to work for their employer—but the National Party and the ACT party consider them to be not only that but also organisations that are philanthropic. They provide a service to their communities and also to the families they support. So in this imperfect world, where life certainly is not fair, I think it is important to consider just what it is that sheltered workshops have done for the disabled people in this country, the role they have fulfilled, and how, in fact, they started in the first place and have arrived at the point where they are now.

Sadly, I fear that as a result of the passing of this legislation—and it seems that the numbers are there to pass it—some, if not many, of these workshops will fold. They do have to run as businesses, so that they can continue to operate. Businesses, in order to be viable, must be able to make ends meet, and forcing the minimum wage on to sheltered workshops for their workers will, in too many cases, force them out of business.

From both my working experiences and my visiting sheltered workshops, I would like to tell the House a bit about what I see when I visit these workers. I see a workforce that is happy, that has a purpose for being, that has a sense of purpose, and that has a real sense of pride. The disabled workers I see at these workshops—which obviously are very different from some that I have just heard described to me—consider themselves to lead an ordinary life. From Monday to Friday they wake up, they get themselves out of bed—sometimes with assistance from their family members—they have breakfast, and they get dressed for work. They travel to work, and, for the most part, they are excited to be doing that every morning of the week. They look forward to their weekends off, because they go about their lives and pursue their recreational activities with their families. But they love getting up every working day, Monday to Friday, and going off to work.

The families I have met are also very happy with the current situation. They are pleased because they feel they do have support. We, like many other parties, have been lobbied hard by the families of these workers—these disabled people. We have been lobbied because they do not want to see a change in the current system. They think it is important that their family members are supported elsewhere, not just by themselves, and they are happy that they have work to go to. They feel particularly aggrieved that the consultation, as they see it, was quite clearly inadequate with regard to this legislation. They think that their concerns were listened to far too infrequently, and that when they were listened to, they were not given serious consideration.

This legislation is about money. Those on the left of this House, for want of a better term, frequently accuse other members, particularly National and ACT members, of considering only money. In this case, it is the other side of the House that is considering only money. There is all this talk about a minimum wage and about it not being right that somebody might be on a benefit and be topped up. Those people cannot actually hold down normal jobs; that is the truth of the matter. Their families know this, and in many cases the disabled people themselves know this. Productivity is not something that can be turned on and off if someone is disabled. If someone has only one arm, that person cannot do the jobs that somebody with two arms can do. These people deserve the right to work, as does every other person in a community. They do deserve that, and that is what sheltered workshops provide for them.

This legislation is being discussed in terms of money—in terms of the minimum wage—and it does not address the other things that make up work, such as the mental well-being of these disabled people, their sense of well-being, their happiness, and their sense of pride. So what we will have is community participation on this side, and work on that side. Which would each and every one of us choose, if we were forced to deal with that? For the most part we would choose work, and that is what these disabled people and their families want to be able to choose for themselves.

It is all very well assuming that every single sheltered workshop around the country exploits its workers. They do not. That assumption is, quite simply, a very sad reflection on society. To compare sheltered workshops, as I have heard in this debate and in the previous debate, to sweatshops is wrong and very, very unfair. No one forces anyone to go a sheltered workshop. It is a matter of choice, and it is a matter of choice because the people who go there like the sense of purpose that it provides them with. They like the fact that they enjoy going to work. They like the fact that they are proud of their work, and when we visit them they will very proudly show us exactly what it is they do. So ACT opposes the legislation, for these very reasons.

The sad fact is that many of these sheltered workshops will not be able to sustain what they are able to provide to society at the moment. We will see workshops going out of business and folding, because it will not be sustainable for them to stay in business. As a result, many of these disabled people will not want to be community participants in the way the Minister envisages community participation will help. They want to be workers in a world that provides them with a sense of well-being and a sense of purpose. Sadly, I feel that the passing of this legislation tonight in Parliament will achieve none of that. What we will see instead is disabled people who are relegated to a life at home, within four walls, with very little offered to them. We oppose this legislation on those grounds.

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) Link to this

I rise with the important task of representing, along with my colleagues, the views of National members in opposing the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill.

The gestation of this legislation has been long and arduous—since 2000, in fact. The philosophy of the Minister in promoting this legislation is sound and well meaning, but enactment of the bills may be far from perfect. I desperately want to hope that all the unintended consequences that we fear, will not come to pass. I want that hope, for the sake of the vulnerable disabled people who will be caught in the crossfire, should these unintended consequences come to pass.

I can understand the impatience of Peter Brown, who spoke previously, with the process. He wants to get the bill done and dusted. But that may be because he does not share our nervousness about what the implementation of the legislation will mean. I commend Heather Roy’s contribution to the debate, mainly because she has real experience to offer. In opposing the legislation, she can say that it is because of what she knows and what she has seen. She described happy people with a sense of purpose and pride. You know, I want to think that those same people will remain happy, and will have that purpose and pride, but I am concerned that, maybe, that will not be the case.

If the legislation truly intends to achieve a fully inclusive society for disabled people, what work has been done to determine conclusively that the unintended consequences will in fact not mean the very opposite—exclusion from society, because the legislation is simply unrealistic in its objectives? What work has been done to make sure that more disabled people do not find themselves at home, and out of the environment they have come to love and trust? It is telling indeed that the Social Services Committee, having examined the legislation, was unable to reach agreement or find ways to make it more acceptable through amendments. In my short time as an MP, I have not seen a report back from the select committee with so many minority views expressed.

I have read a time line of the progress of this legislation, and it is a sorry tale of stutters along the path. Concerns have been expressed all along by those affected by this legislation. And how many people are affected by the legislation? There are varying estimates, but about 3,500 individuals are currently in sheltered workshops, and there are 43 providers and people who administer them Although the productivity of many of the disabled people is impaired, they live for their work in the sheltered workshops. For these people their very self-esteem, along with their psychological and physical health, is connected to a sense of well-being and belonging. Their work is something that gives their lives meaning, and their own particular productivity is about self-worth and self-esteem.

National believes that the legislation does not give enough consideration to the real threat of closures of sheltered workshops, and that no consideration is being given to the costs of community participation. For a number of people, the inability to continue to participate in a sheltered workshop or in supported employment will be devastating. I sincerely hope that that will not be the outcome of this legislation, because sheltered workshops, as I have already said, are not just a place of work; rather, they provide a caring environment with a range of activities, social opportunities, educational and creative opportunities, and support. These are very, very important supports in these people’s lives.

Those places are not designed to pay all participating people the individual minimum wage. Last night in this debate I was distressed to hear repeated calls from the other side of the House that it is about the minimum wage—that it is about wages and conditions. No, it is not; it is about people. What are the associated costs? Well, the Government is well used to what the explanatory note describes as transition and management costs. Scores of people are being added to the New Zealand State sector’s burgeoning growth to handle such eventualities. Here we go again.

Of less importance, it seems, is the cost to the providers who, apparently, are wholeheartedly ripping off disabled people. We have heard that these same providers are supposedly undermining and demeaning disabled people. I find that very hard to believe in the majority of cases. Providers will also face some compliance costs, the explanatory note tells us. Well, MPs on this side of the House are very used to small print that reads like that. We are therefore unsure of the real risks these compliance costs represent to disabled people in the long run, and to those who provide for them.

My colleague Dr Paul Hutchison made some important points that I wish to reiterate. He said that the devil was in the detail, and so often that is the case. The length of time this legislation has taken to progress—I formerly described it as a long gestation—is a symptom of the uncertainty about its implementation. Thank goodness the Minister has, in part, recognised this difficulty by putting out the date of commencement to November this year. Dr Hutchison described to us the inspirational work at Workforce Auckland. The personnel at Workforce Auckland are right to be alarmed. There is still much uncertainty around policy guidelines and the meeting of costs associated with compliance versus implementation. Then we heard about the Abilities Group. The vision of the Abilities Group is to enrich the lives of people with disabilities through meaningful employment. I believe that the people in these groups, when they say they are concerned about the legislation, are in the right place to express that concern. The extra cost to the Abilities Group has been calculated at $140,400, but only $56,160 will go to disabled people. Why would that be? Well, wait for it: the rest is going to the Inland Revenue Department.

My colleague Dr Paul Hutchison put out a press release on 28 February, and it was interesting to see what resulted from that. He said that there was poor and impractical preparation by the Labour Government, which meant there would be difficult times ahead for disabled workers in sheltered workshops. And what happened after he put out that press release? In response Marion Miller said in a press release that parents of people with intellectual disabilities around New Zealand are already feeling the impacts of the proposed legislation. She told us that an obvious disadvantage appearing already is reduced hours of work for disabled people in sheltered employment, and more time at home. These people love their time at work, but they are spending more time at home. She said that another disadvantage, closer to home, is her son having to have two productivity assessments in the last 10 months, which is a requirement of the legislation. Her own personal belief is that that is an infringement of his rights.

The Abilities Group responded to Dr Hutchison’s press release, as well. It said it supported the intent of the legislation, but that the effect of increased wages on invalids benefits, on sickness benefits, on accommodation allowances, and on other entitlements for the disabled had not been adequately researched, nor had the necessary additional funding been provided to ensure sheltered workshops could continue to offer jobs to people with disabilities.

In conclusion, I refer to the time line from 2000 to 2007. All along the way concerns have been expressed by the very people who are right in the thick of this—the very people whose family members attend sheltered workshops. I reiterate that it is not the philosophy of not treating disabled people with respect that we are opposing here; it is the potential that the very inclusiveness intended by this legislation will result in these people being excluded from the opportunity it hopes to achieve for them.

In summary, I ask that we record our very real concerns about the unintended consequences, resulting in disabled people not gaining what they hope to gain from this legislation. I thank you for hearing me tonight.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) Link to this

I take this opportunity to take a short call in support of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. First, I want to say that the previous two speakers made it sound as though it was all doom and gloom. I think we need to inject some positivity into this debate, because it is not about doom and gloom. I recall quite clearly that leading up to the 1999 election, one of our flagship policies was to ensure we supported people with disabilities to participate in mainstream employment wherever possible. I suppose it is to that end that it is fortunate that since the end of 1999 we have had a Government—and in particular, in Ruth Dyson, a Minister—that is committed to dealing with some of the more difficult issues that people with disabilities face, particularly within today’s society.

I refer to a couple of comments that were made earlier by previous speakers. I note that one of those comments was about us not living in a perfect world. I suppose that that comment was in support of justifying the speaker’s position in opposing this legislation. Well, I agree. We do not live in a perfect world, and that is even more reason why we should make sure we make this world fair. This legislation attempts to achieve that, in two ways. Firstly, it attempts to achieve it by ensuring that disabled people are not disadvantaged in the amount of money they get paid for the work they do, which basically means that they should be paid no differently from anybody else. The current legislation denies them that right. Secondly—and I think this is the other part of the equation that is quite important—currently they are not entitled to holiday entitlements. That primarily says that if they are not entitled to holiday entitlements then they are not entitled to have a break from work. It is timely that this new legislation, in bringing about this change, is also offering them the same entitlement as everybody else.

So I agree that we do not live in a perfect world, but it is up to us. It is our responsibility to ensure that people, particularly disabled people, are able to enjoy the same, if not better, terms and conditions as we do.

The other point the member made was referring to a disabled person’s job, meaning that it was not a normal job. How do we measure whether a disabled person does the same job as a normal person? I ask the member whether she considered that her time in the army—6 weeks—should have been part of her normal job. The point I raise is that if the member is willing to give a measure to what a normal job for a disabled person is, then that member should expect some criticism in relation to whether she is doing a normal job as an MP.

It is timely that the legislation we are about to vote on is here for us to do that. It is important that we have that and that we take on the responsibility to ensure that although it is not a perfect world, in this case we are making it better for those who are disabled. Kia ora.