Goodhew Jo: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Goodhew Jo: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:638;Page:8220] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 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 3500 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 $140400 but only $56160 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.