Hutchison Paul: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8144] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to speak on Part 3 of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill which deals with the Minimum Wage Act 1983. This is one of the pivotal parts of the bill—a bill that Labour clearly does not understand. The workshop community has said very clearly that there are major flaws in terms of the implementation. 
This bill was introduced in 2004. The Government was not able to get it through because of the deep concerns that most other parties had. One would have thought that during that time it would sort out the flaws in the machinery. However the workshops say that the flaws are certainly well and truly there. This is what Workforce Auckland said: “Our support for Dr Hutchison’s amendment stems from our concern that the system proposed to replace the DPEP Act contains serious flaws.” It went on to say: “We cannot be confident that these flaws will be remedied in the remaining 4 months of the transition period given the dismal lack of progress in the nearly 3 years since they were first identified.” There was a “dismal lack of progress” made by the Labour Government in sorting it out. This is what the Labour members do; they stand back and forget about the important machinery things that have to be done in order to implement things properly. 
Simon Power 
: Sloppy. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: “Sloppy” is what my colleague Simon Power the excellent member from Rangitikei says. Unfortunately sloppy is what the Labour Government has been. The timeline relating to this bill goes back to 2001 when the review of vocational services first started. By 2004 concerns had been raised with officials who acknowledged those concerns but nothing was done. Later in that year the select committee obtained a report extension and asked officials to undertake more consultation which they said did not happen. We come to 10 March 2005 when the Hon Ruth Dyson acknowledged the lack of progress and Department of Labour officials said that Workforce Auckland’s concerns were recognised and would be addressed. Two years later and the concerns are still there. 
In fact a letter from only 3 days ago says that despite the fact that the Labour Government has extended the commencement date from 30 June to 30 November—after pressure from the National Party to try to get the machinery in place—these issues will not be resolved. The letter states: “We aren’t totally confident that these issues will be resolved over the next 9 months given the failure to resolve them over the past 3 years. A change in attitude by the Government would help greatly addressing the real issues undertaking proper consultation and stopping blaming sheltered workshop providers for spreading misinformation about being paternalistic. Attacks like the one that Russell Fairbrother made in his speech on Thursday are very counterproductive.” 
This is an indictment on the Labour Government. It does not look at the basic requirements to put legislation like this through so that disabled people may indeed have the opportunities that are due to them through the New Zealand Disability Strategy and through  
Pathways to Inclusion 
. 
I will make one more point about the changes to the Minimum Wage Act. Section 8(2) inserted by clause 13 states that an exemption permit “remains in force for the period stated in that permit”. Well the Hon Ruth Dyson has put in an amendment that means that Department of Labour inspectors can revoke an exemption permit at any time they like. That is absolutely against all the principles of good faith but it has been welcomed by the unions which have pushed Ruth Dyson into putting it in the bill. I ask all members to vote against this very very inappropriate amendment which allows an exemption permit to be revoked at will by a Department of Labour inspector. 
 One of the great concerns has been the ability of Department of Labour inspectors to come around and work with the workshops to ensure that these exemption permits are put in place. The exemption permits take a great deal of work assessment sensitivity and they should be in place for a set period of time. One of the points made by the workshops is that this bill actually engenders a quadrupling of the paper shifting—something that no one helping to organise a business to run efficiently wants. 
This Labour Government is as always increasing bureaucracy and increasing the load on people who are altruistically doing everything they can to ensure that disabled people have a choice of where they work. Government members might say that people do not want to go to sheltered workshops. What we hear from places like the Abilities Group is that disabled people line up outside before work starts because they enjoy it so much. They come back from holidays early because they enjoy it so much. The manager said to us: “Look we’ve got no locks and we’ve got no bars; indeed they come here because it is a very very valid choice.” 
So it is particularly disappointing that the unions have once again pressured the Labour Government to bring in an amendment that allows the labour inspectors to at whim revoke an exemption permit. That does not help those who have the very difficult charge of organising sheltered workshops to go about their business—who have to efficiently run these wonderful altruistic organisations. 
We have heard from Labour Government members that paternalism is implied in the National Party’s stance in terms of wanting to extend the period until the machinery is appropriately in place. I say to the Labour Government that nothing is more paternalistic than putting in a bill that just cannot in any circumstances ensure the smooth running of organisations that give choice to the disabled. I am very sorry that the member for Rotorua did not understand the fact that the amendment I put in would allow the implementation date of the bill to be extended for a maximum of 2 years but that if Government members organised things put them in place and took out the flaws the bill could commence immediately. That was the beauty of it and it seems such a shame that this Labour Government was not prepared to respond to common sense. Once again we see in Part 3 machinery problems imposed unnecessarily by the Labour Government.