Muriel Newman: Bill will do grave harm to the disabled

Muriel Newman

Thousands of disabled workers employed at the country's sheltered workshops could lose their jobs under the Government's Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill, which is being considered by Parliament's social services select committee.

The bill will require all sheltered workshops to pay workers the minimum wage. As a result only 10 workshops are expected to survive.

This means most of the 3700 disabled workers who work in the country's 35 or so workshops will lose their jobs.

The underlying philosophy of the bill - which is being promoted by the unions - is fair pay for fair work. On the surface this seems quite reasonable. If sheltered workshops were, indeed, exploiting their workers it would be difficult to argue against such a proposal.

The problem, however, is not one of exploitation but of productivity.

Most of the workers at sheltered workshops suffer from disabilities that impair their productivity. Many have tried to work in open employment but find they need the additional supports provided by sheltered workshops.

One example is Sam, a bright, young electronic equipment operator who is autistic. On a good day he is as productive as the best in the workforce. But on a bad day he needs all of the patience, understanding and support that his sheltered workshop managers can provide.

Sam is paid a full wage by the workshop, but most of the other workers, like Joe, who has Down syndrome and struggles each day to pack his plastic bags, are paid an allowance on top of their disability benefit.

These are the people the unions, the Labour Party and the Greens have in their sights.

Once the bill becomes law, workers like Joe, who has been at his sheltered workshop for 20 years, will be assessed by a labour inspector every six months and given a productivity rating. That rating will then be used to calculate an hourly wage, which his workshop will be required to pay.

The difficulty is that sheltered workshops operate in the not-for-profit sector, with work contracts that are largely subsidised from within their local communities.

This means they will be able to fund additional wage demands only if they can achieve an increase in their bottom-line profitability, either through productivity gains or additional financial support.

One such sheltered workshop has calculated that the effect of the new requirements on its workers will be devastating. It has 120 workers, with 20 on a full minimum wage. Once the new law comes into force, it will be able to pay another 20 a full wage, but will be forced to send the other 80 workers home.

Lately I surveyed workers and their families, asking whether they had been consulted on the bill. The answer was a resounding "no".

Imagine if the Government decided to pass a law banning the game of rugby without consulting players or fans. There would be such a public uproar that the plan would have to be abandoned.

The only reason the Government can get away with changing the law without properly consulting workers and their families is that it is dealing with a small and extremely vulnerable group with a weak voice.

Further, by failing to consult, the Government has ignored key objectives of the New Zealand Disability Strategy, which requires consultation with disabled people and their families and caregivers as a prerequisite to law changes.

If the bill progresses in its present form, many disabled people will no longer be employed in workshops and will be forced back home.

While some may spend a few hours a week involved in "community participation" - the Government's replacement for sheltered employment that involves activities such as art or craft - the reality is that the bill will place the burden of care back on to parents, who often find it difficult to cope as it is.

Both Canada and Australia have introduced similar changes. The result in Canada, where proper consultation did not occur, was a disaster. Most workers in sheltered employment lost their jobs.

In Australia, the Howard Government apparently recognised just in time that it had a responsibility to properly consult workers and parents over their options. As a result, it found the economic and social participation they enjoyed in their workshops was more important to them than wage issues.

An independent wage-assessment process has now been implemented. It appears to work successfully for the workers, their families, the workshops and the Government.

The Government should learn from these experiences. Rather than forcing us down the path of failure, it should swallow its pride and opt for a process of proper consultation with workers and their families. This would lead to better outcomes for all.

* Muriel Newman is an Act MP.