Power Simon: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13370] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The National Party will be opposing the progress of this bill and I intend to spend some time explaining to the House why. Whilst the Minister has laudable intentions in respect of an inclusive society and the like the question this House must ask itself is whether this is the instrument to provide that inclusiveness whether this is the instrument that will maintain those opportunities and whether this is the instrument that will allow disabled persons opportunities they would otherwise not have. Having had the first reading of this bill I and the National Party are of the view that that is not the case; that in fact we are dealing here with a bill that lacks conviction. It lacks conviction because in the same way that this Government introduced 4 weeks’ annual leave to this House with a long-drawn-out period before its coming into full force so indeed does this bill create a transition period until 2007. I say to the Minister opposite that if she has the courage of her convictions in respect of implementing such an inclusive society she should crack on and get this legislation with a commencement date that reflects the courage of that conviction. 
What we have here is legislation that is a half-hearted effort to try to appear concerned and inclusive when in actual fact all it does is create a whole lot of unanswered questions with a lengthy transition period thrown into the middle of it. 
 So with this legislation we see a raft of new compliance requirements for those organisations providers and Government agencies that are currently providing those with disabilities the opportunity to work. I have to say that if the Minister had the courage of her convictions this legislation would be coming into force immediately. This is another example of this Government trying to put in place a simple stepping stone for the upcoming election—to say that it cannot do this now because it does not have the courage of its convictions; that it does not believe that Government agencies and providers will be able to cope with what it will put on them; so accordingly the Government will signal its intention to move in that direction but will refuse to back that intention up with legislation to make it concrete. 
So what we have here under the heading “Affected providers” in the commentary is a mixed message going out to those people who would be looking at this as firm and clear legislation to give them direction to move in the same manner as those in our society who do not suffer from those types of disabilities at which this bill is aimed. Halfway through the “Affected providers” section it states: “The change affects only those providers who have employment relationships with individuals who are employed in sheltered workshops.” Well actually the Minister is either serious about this or she is not. Because the commentary goes on to say: “Providers who deliver services other than employment services … will not be affected by the enactment of this Bill.” Interestingly the Minister says that this legislation will bring into line this particular area of the workforce that has avoided some of the employment legislation to date. But actually providers should already have written employment agreements with those members whom they employ. The Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act does not provide exemptions from the Employment Relations Act because in fact as we all know from those long hours in the year 2000 people cannot contract out of the Employment Relations Act and this is no exception to that. 
I must say I am most concerned with the statements contained in the “Statement of net benefit” including regulatory costs and business compliance cost statements contained in the summary at the beginning of this bill. All this means one simple thing and that is that those people who look to seek work who have disabilities and wish an occupational opportunity will not get it if this legislation is put in place because the compliance costs contained in the legislation have not been measured. They are unquantified. I tell the officials who worked on this legislation that that is not good enough. It is not good enough to have a compliance cost statement that says those costs are unquantifiable. 
The one thing that is clear from the statements in the bill is that those costs will fall directly on the Government agencies and providers concerned. If that lessens the opportunity for those people with disabilities to start down the career path they wish to choose that cannot be good news for the so-called inclusive society that this Minister wishes us to see. There will immediately be direct costs to those Government agencies and providers because they will have to comply with the Minimum Wage Act they will have to comply with the Holidays Act and they will as is noted in the statement of regulatory costs face substantial compliance costs. 
But when we go to the compliance cost statement in this bill it is clear that this Minister and the department concerned with this legislation have not done their homework. Instead of simply allowing the legislation to take effect the business compliance costs are “difficult to quantify” because of the transition period which has reflected the Government’s lack of conviction. The Government calls this transition period a mitigation strategy. All it shows is that this Government knows that the people who will miss out are those very people to whom this legislation looks to afford opportunities. 
But worse still the business compliance cost statement concludes with this sentence: “As part of this Labour Inspectors and Ministry of Social Development officials will assist providers to minimise compliance costs.” How will that occur and on what basis? Whilst the Minister’s intentions are pure and whilst the Minister’s intentions are good—everybody in this House I am sure would like to see a more inclusive society—this bill is not the instrument the statutory guide or the mechanism for that to occur. What is worse the Government does not even have the courage of its convictions to bring this bill in immediately. We have a substantial transition period extending out to 2007. The National Party is opposed to this instrument—this mechanism—and will not support the first reading of the bill towards the select committee.