Rich Katherine: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Rich Katherine: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13377] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 If we are talking about claptrap then what we have just heard was absolute claptrap because many people in this House in preparation for the debate on this bill have visited a number of workshops up and down the country to see firsthand the sorts of places these facilities are. If we look at what is really driving this bill at the motivation behind it then we find that ideology and political correctness are driving it. It is not patronising to want to retain opportunities for some people to participate in the community. [ 
Interruption 
] It is very interesting that the perky Mr David Benson-Pope has popped his head up from his stupor to make a comment. In his electorate he has the disabled workshop on Hillside Road and the people there are very unhappy about this bill because they think it could put them into a position of having to close it. 
In looking at this bill I think that one of the problems the Government has is that it thinks it is about workplace legislation. It is not. For a lot of these places and facilities it is not just about work; it is about participation. It is about people doing something with their day—meeting people making friends and doing some productive work. Nobody in this House would suggest that simply because people have a disability they should work in places where it is unsafe. I mean no one here would not support the idea that a workplace should adhere to health and safety legislation and be a safe workplace. No one is suggesting that the people who work in those facilities should not have the same care the same interests and the same management as other employees. But these places are not just workplaces; they are also places where people go to participate in a community and do some productive work at their different paces. They are seeking some kind of fulfilment and some kind of achievement. 
The workshops I have visited seem to be places that people are very happy to attend. People I have spoken to have said that they like getting up in the morning and going to work to make a contribution no matter what level of contribution that is. It is patronising of members on that side of the House to suggest that just because someone has a disability he or she does not share the same feeling of fulfilment and achievement as others when they go along and take part in the activities of that kind of facility. No one is suggesting here that people work in unsafe conditions or work with equipment that is unsafe. The same legislation will apply to these places as to anywhere else. Some of the workshops I visited do some quite detailed work involving the use of equipment where safety is very much an issue. People need to recognise that it is more than just about work. For a lot of people it is about participating. 
We are talking here of putting in place the  
Pathways to Inclusion: Improving Vocational Services for People with Disabilities 
 strategy but for many people I think this potentially could be a “pathway to exclusion”. If some of the places we are talking about have to pay the minimum wage then some of the people currently working in them would not make the cut and be able to go along and participate. That would be very very sad. I suggest that members on the Government side of the House go and talk to some of the families of the people at these workplaces and to some of those people themselves about the opportunities that many who participate in them are currently enjoying and about the fulfilment and achievement they feel in being able to do the small amount of work they do. We are not talking about a straight employer-employee relationship here because some people who participate in these facilities need additional management and assistance and they need a bit more involvement from the people who run the facilities than do those who are in a standard employer-employee relationship. We should recognise that. 
I have been told that if the minimum wage is made the standard the workshops will not be able to include some of the people who work for them any more. Paul Adams in his speech—and he made a very good contribution—said that people work at different productive levels. We only need to visit one of those places to realise that that is the case. These people have a right to be there to do something that makes them feel fulfilled and to ensure that their self-worth is being built on. If anything I think that what we have here is a “pathway to exclusion” because some of the people involved simply will not have the opportunity to go along to some of these places and take part in the activities there. 
It is interesting to hear people say that some of the work done in the workshops is demeaning. I have seen a little of the work and yes some of it is repetitive. It is putting letters in envelopes packing bags and in our facility in Dunedin making boxes. But in talking with people who do that with their day I have found that they are just as proud as anybody I have spoken to who is involved in a profession or in any other form of work. Who the hell are we to start making judgments about whether their work is valuable? The value of work is very much in the eye of the beholder and some of the people who carry out work in these facilities are very proud of what they do. If we move to the minimum wage then some of them simply will not have the opportunity to participate. We need to look at the value of the work and at whether people are paid in relation to their productivity and we need to recognise that in some cases the employer-employee relationship is not the same as in other workplaces. Then we should be able to strike a balance between common sense and the practical implementation of a philosophy of mainstreaming within the community. 
We also need to look at minimum standards. If there are examples of people being exploited let us hear them. We have not had any evidence from the Government that exploitation has taken place. If we listen to some of the speeches from the other side of the House we get the impression that some of these workshops are sweatshops. I do not know whether Government members are still living in the 1940s but that is not what we find to be the case when we go out to see a number of examples around the communities we all live in. We need to look at something that is not driven just by ideology or that is the politically correct approach of this Government—a bunch of trade unionists who now want to unionise everyone. Gee that will help! Some disabled people will be put in a position where they will just be sitting at home—not participating not working with their friends not feeling any sense of achievement and not getting any payment at all. We get the impression that these places are dark corners and something to be embarrassed about. Well I have met some really positive people working in our facility in Dunedin and they feel proud of what they do. 
We will see some of these places shut down as a result of this legislation and it has nothing to do with making a better place for people with disabilities. I think that the Government just wants everyone to sit at home. As opposed to being a “pathway to inclusion” this is a recipe for having people sitting at home staring at a wall and doing nothing while the Government feels very pious about it. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Just like the Minister of Customs. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Just like the Minister of Customs my learned member has just mentioned. We will be asking some tough questions when this bill goes to the select committee. We will be ensuring that those people who are involved in the sector put forward their view and we will be listening to that view.