Hughes Darren: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8142] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 That was an eloquent contribution from the member of Parliament for Coromandel Sandra Goudie. I say that she is a National member of Parliament just in case it was not obvious by the tone style and philosophical underbelly of her speech. I would ask her whether she supports the Government’s disability strategy called  
Pathways to Inclusion 
. Does Sandra Goudie support the strategy or not? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Absolutely. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: It is no surprise to me that Paul Hutchison would understand what we are talking about here but Sandra Goudie remained mute and quiet during that question—a luxury and a privilege she did not afford us during her speech sadly. 
The reason the disabilities strategy is called  
Pathways to Inclusion 
 is that the Government is actually serious about making sure that people with a disability live a full equal and proper life. I would have thought that in National Party philosophy the principle of equality is quite important. In fact in recent years National has gone to some extremes to denigrate some groups in society under this myth of “We believe in equality for everybody.” 
Part 2 repeals the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act of 1960—legislation that is nearly half a century old—so it is probably a good time for Parliament to come back and look at it. But there was a time when the National Party spent a lot of time targeting Maori. Anything done for Maori was considered to be bad and this was National’s way of garnering votes particularly in rural and provincial New Zealand as it went around peddling that message. But now of course National has decided to be far more inclusive because it is trying to cosy up to the Maori Party and I am confident that that party will see way beyond that kaupapa in that regard. 
When we are talking about legislation that is 47 years old I think it is fair to say that attitudes in New Zealand have moved on a little from what they were 47 years ago. National members come down to the Chamber and say as they do in respect of any piece of social change: “Shock! Horror! This has to stay the same. We cannot possibly have a change. We cannot possibly change the legislative environment from what it was 47 years ago when Walter Nash and Keith Holyoake brought the bill to the House.” 
So when Labour brings along a policy nearly 50 years later and says it wants to achieve its  
Pathways to Inclusion 
 National members say this will be terrible. They really mean that this will be a disastrous thing for the remaining number of employers who are paying below the minimum wage so they will sack all the people with disabilities who work for them. Let me tell those members something. That will not happen because people always rise to the occasion. It is time in New Zealand that people with disabilities are not paid a lesser rate of pay simply because they have a disability. That ain’t fair! That is not right! 
In my constituency of Otaki there are a lot of people with disabilities. I see them out there working and making just the same contribution with the same love of their job that others have who work alongside them. Just as this Parliament has legislated for other workers to have those minimum protections and standards I think we should do the same by repealing this 47-year-old legislation the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Tell us about the people it affects. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I tell Sandra Goudie who is parroting away what will happen. What will happen will be exactly the same as when she gave her speech in 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 and now 2007. Every single time we have moved the minimum wage for ordinary workers in New Zealand—for everybody else—we have heard the same speeches. We have heard that there will be unemployment. We have heard that businesses will close down on the back of it. National has all of these lines but none of these things ever happen. 
If we are serious about  
Pathways to Inclusion 
 we have to find ways of removing the last vestiges of discrimination against people with disabilities—and here we have one. We have one here that one would never look at. I would ask Sandra Goudie this. If this law did not exist would she introduce it? If this law was not on the statute book right now would she introduce it? 
Sandra Goudie 
: No. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: The member says she would not. The member does not actually support the bill; all she supports is the fact that it is there now. This is the ultimate conservative position: “I am against what the policy is but because it is there I do not want to shift it.” Well that is not good enough. 
In Part 2 we will get rid of a piece of legislation that singles people out on the basis of their disability. We have stopped doing that in New Zealand now and I think that that is a great thing. We have actually started to say that there will be real ways of achieving the disability strategy and making sure that people can get a decent go whether it is their working life or whether it is their residential setting. National members oppose deinstitutionalisation as well with the smarmy words they use around it. In effect they do not support that but once it is brought into place they will adopt their conservative position and keep things the way they are. 
We are very serious about making sure there is vocational change. This is a long-signalled change that the Government is making through the 2001 vocational information the Minister released. 
Dr Hutchison is asking me a question I will give him the charity of asking what it is. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Obviously we didn’t mean you to take a call literally. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh you did not want it literally? The National members on that side of the Committee do not like the hard facts do they? They like to be able to talk about people with disabilities and be able to make waffly comments about them but they do not like the truth. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 96 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 2 be agreed to.