11. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) Link to this
to the Minister for Disability Issues
Is she prepared to extend the transition period for the repeal of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act 1960, given that New Zealand’s largest sheltered workshop says her proposed replacement contains “serious flaws”; if not, why not?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) Link to this
If the member had had the opportunity to read my Supplementary Order Paper to the bill, which has been tabled and circulated to all members of the House, he would realise that, in fact, I am proposing that the bill’s commencement date be amended from 30 June 2007 to 30 November 2007. This suggestion was made by Peter Brown, who has actually made a constructive contribution towards this legislation—unlike the member asking the question, who, as usual, has not.
Dr Paul Hutchison Link to this
Why is the Minister cutting the incomes of New Zealand’s most vulnerable workers?
As has been explained carefully to the member on a number of occasions, I am not. I am happy to—again—table the figures showing that the proposal he consistently makes is factually inaccurate.
Peter BrownWill the Minister repeat her answer, because I am not sure the member over there, Paul Hutchison, really got it; can she confirm that it was New Zealand First that pressed for the extension of the transition period from 30 June to 30 November as a means of addressing the concerns the member has raised; and will she also confirm that this is yet another example of the success of a party that does, as opposed to one that merely says?
The amendment of the commencement date to 30 November 2007 was not made after one brief discussion with the member who asked that supplementary question, Peter Brown, but after a long series of very detailed information points, on which I was able to confidently assure the member of a smooth transition period between now and that time.
Dave HereoraWhat other reports has the Minister received on the repeal of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act?
Aside from the very selectively quoted press statement mentioned in the primary question, I have received the same report from that workshop, which goes on to say that it actually supported the repeal, but wanted more time—exactly what we are giving. I have also received a report from the Disabled Persons Assembly, which states: “National spokesman on disability issues, Dr Paul Hutchison, appears to be out of touch in his support of this continued injustice.” After receiving Paul Hutchison’s question today, I have to admit I am wholeheartedly in agreement with the Disabled Persons Assembly; that member is certainly out of touch.
Dr Paul Hutchison Link to this
Does she not understand that she is cutting the incomes of vulnerable workers, given the description of her flawed tax benefit arrangements by a leading sheltered workshop chief executive officer, who says: “It is morally unacceptable for a Government to siphon these funds out of the disability sector.”?
Dr Paul Hutchison Link to this
Given her partial backdown, why does she not for once be sensible and accept the excellent practical amendment proposed by Dr Paul Hutchison, which allows the bill to be enacted as soon as the serious flaws are removed, given that the sector does not trust her to meet her extended deadline because of her—to quote—“dismal record over the last 3 years”?
Should the extraordinarily modest member ever make a sensible suggestion, I guarantee I will give it adequate consideration.
Dr Paul Hutchison Link to this
Why did she tell the Weekend Herald“If I wanted the sheltered workshops closed I would’ve closed them. But I don’t.”, when she told a meeting of the Disabled Persons Assembly that she wanted all sheltered workshops closed, and the sooner the better?
That is not true, and the member knows it. I have never said that, and if I had wanted them closed, that would have been the proposal I would have put to Cabinet, and it would have been the proposal in the legislation before the House. The member should withdraw that, because it is a lie about me and a slur on my integrity.
Madam SPEAKER
Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is very hard to see how the Minister can be taking an offence from a stated comment made by Dr Hutchison. There is nothing offensive in it. If there is a mistake in it, then I think that should be corrected by the Minister. I do not think she can get out of it just by saying someone is lying.
I withdraw and apologise for calling the member a liar. The statement is incorrect, and I take offence at it.
Dr Paul Hutchison Link to this
Can she guarantee that no disabled employees or sheltered workshops will be worse off after 30 November as a result of her bill; if not, why not?
No, because I do not administer every single sheltered workshop, and there may be instances of incompetence or fraud under which circumstances—or a range of others—a sheltered workshop may close. Therefore, disabled people may be worse off. But the member knows that despite no additional funding throughout the entire 9 years of his party’s Government and an additional $44 million from our Government over 5 years, the sector has been considerably strengthened. He knows that to be the truth.
Dr Paul Hutchison Link to this
What will she do about the major practical flaws in her legislation, given that one highly respected sheltered workshop chief executive said that as a result of her bill, paper shuffling will quadruple and disabled workers will be little better off?
The aim of the repeal of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill is to ensure that individuals who are employed in sheltered workshops are assessed for their entitlement to the minimum wage on the basis of their capacity to do the job they are employed to do, rather than on where they are employed to do that job.
I seek leave to table again, for the member’s benefit, a graph showing the increase in total income for people receiving an invalids benefit, and a range of wage payments that shows they actually increase their income rather than decrease it.
Dr Paul Hutchison Link to this
I seek leave to table two reports. The first is a release from Auckland Workforce Industries, which states: “We cannot be confident that the flaws in the Minister’s bill, given the dismal lack of progress in the last 3 years”—
Dr Paul Hutchison Link to this
The second report is from the ability group to a member of one of the Minister’s coalition partners, which states that it is morally unacceptable for a Government to siphon these funds out of the disability sector.