|
Skip to make comment
|
Skip to read comments | 
Send to a friend
NZCPR
Guest Forum
Marion
Miller
7
April 07
Unintended
Consequences
Printer
friendly version (PDF) 
View >>>
As
parents of an intellectually disabled son who is positively
and gainfully involved with a sheltered workshop, we are
disappointed that the Labour Government, Progressive, New
Zealand First, the Maori Party, the Greens and United Future
all colluded together to pass the Disabled Persons Employment
Promotion Repeal (and related matters) Bill.
These MP’s obviously do not know, or care; about the
discrimination and other imposed intrusions this Act has on
the basic human rights and quality of life of people with
intellectual disabilities. These are not, and never would be,
imposed on other members of society.
Our
son loves his ‘job’ at the recycling centre. He has been
there for almost eight months, during that time he has been
evaluated twice because of the requirements of this new Act.
(This has been introduced by stealth). Yesterday human
resource staff was advised by the Department of Labour
inspectors, that our son’s March 2007 evaluation would only
be valid for two months. This implies the Department of Labour
inspectors are looking at different assessments* to the very
comprehensive one that is currently used by Human Resource
staff at Southland Enterprises. Meaning yet another
assessment! Staff at his workplace know and observe his
capabilities on a daily basis. They know if his skills comply
with the requirements of the Ministry of Social Development
who implement the legislation. An inspector from a Government
Department has no knowledge or first hand experience of
assessing disabled clients.
Being
a cynic we wonder what the real agenda of government is. The
discrimination we are seeing is only one example of many
others which were brought to the attention of the Minister,
the officials, the Social Services Select Committee prior to
the passing of this legislation.
The
newly passed legislation is already affecting the quality of
life of approximately 3000 intellectually and physically
disabled people throughout New Zealand who are presently
involved with ‘sheltered workshops’. Locally 50% of those
who have been placed into employment have resigned from their
jobs because of their inability to manage the extra pressure
of being “employed” in the workforce.
Sheltered
workshops in
New Zealand
provide essential daily therapeutic activities and social
interaction to people who do not have the capacity or skills
to earn a basic wage. The alternative, offered by the ministry
officials to attending sheltered workshops, is to do voluntary
community work. As
a voluntary worker in this community, I know that there are no
spare resources available to provide supervision in the
voluntary sector. Parents
see this option as putting our family members onto the streets
and sitting around at home. Been there and done that over 20
years ago, not going back!
This
emotional premise used to drive this legislation by Unions,
the Intellectually Handicapped Children’s Society IHC,
Crippled Children’s Society CCS, and Disabled Persons
Assembly DPA, and the Minister of Disability Issues and her
officials, (who are not stakeholders in the outcomes of this
Bill), is based upon the implication that Sheltered Workshop
‘business’ are ‘sweat shops’ which exploit disabled
workers. Nothing is further from the truth; these services
provide meaningful activities, which occupy disabled people in
ways, which extend their skills in the hope that they will
find employment. Where this is not possible for attendees,
being involved in ‘work’ however small, does effectively
give meaning and purpose to their lives.
The
second reason or argument used is that the legislation that
allowed Sheltered Workshops to operate was discriminatory in
that it allowed Workshops to set wages and was not bound by
the Minimum Wages Act.
(The United Nations has stated that discriminatory
legislation that has positive outcomes is not only desirable
but essential if it improves quality of life for individuals).
Just
another fine example of our ‘nanny’ state.
Parents, families and service providers, will continue
to bring examples of “unintended consequences” from this
flawed legislation to the attention of sound sensible New
Zealander’s who will decide for themselves at the next
election.
*
An assessment is required to allow an exemption from payment
of basic wages based on capability
Printer
friendly version (PDF)
View >>>
Skip to top |
Skip to make comment |
Send to a friend
Your
Comments:
Your comments
will be published on the READERS FORUM. To view
>>>
Skip to top |
Send to a friend |
Skip to read comments
To
leave a comment:
NOTE: The forum moderator
reserves the right to edit material that may be objectionable
or offensive.
Skip to top |
Skip to make comment |
Skip to read comments
Send to
a friend:
|
