The issue of participation of people with disability in the open workforce
has been the subject of much public debate in recent months. This is
largely the result of the 'Welfare to Work' package announced in the
May 2005 Commonwealth Budget. However, the issue is a longstanding one,
as indicated in the submissions to the Inquiry.

Submissions and discussions held at the Inquiry's Roundtable discussions
indicate that most people with disability want to work. For example
the Disability Council of NSW (DC NSW) states:

The Disability Council strongly believes that people with disability
want to work and are able to work. We recognise that some people with
disability will need informal or formal supports to be in place to
make the most of their potential to work, participating in the economic
mainstream as do most people. We also recognise that some people with
disability may be prevented from working as a result of their physical,
sensory, intellectual or psychiatric conditions.[1]

However, the submissions also indicate several factors that may impact
on participation rates of people with disability in the open workplace,
including:

1. People with disability need to know that it is not going to cost too
much to participate in open employment.

2. People with disability need adequate and easily accessible information
about participation in open employment.

3. People with disability need to know that it is not too risky for
them to engage in open employment.

These three issues are discussed in the following sections.

3.2 What are some of the costs that people with disability face when participating
in the open workforce?

The high cost of participating in the open workplace for people with
disability is one of the most frequently raised issues in the submissions
to the Inquiry.

People with disability face significant costs in negotiating their
daily lives, which are not faced by people without disabilities. These
are often described as the non-discretionary costs of disability and
include items such as transport, equipment and personal assistance.

The costs of disability can increase significantly when a person with
disability commences employment. This may be due to a combination of
factors including:

increased use of transport and other additional needs relating to
employment;
loss or decrease in concessions and subsidies;
the impact of taper rates for those on income support; and
high effective marginal tax rates.

An academic at the University of Newcastle, Jack Frisch, describes
the costs as follows:

The four most critical factors which interact with the cost of workforce
participation are the income tax scales, the Disability Support Pension
taper rate, the rate at which subsidy is withdrawn from the provision
of equipment and the additional cost of negotiating a reliable and
continuous journey to and at work (including the additional cost of
transport and the additional cost of personal care).[2]

The 2005 Standing Committee Working for Australia Report also
suggests that financial incentives for people to go from income support
to work 'are affected by the design of the income support system, the
level and structure of wages and the interaction of these with the tax
system.'[3]

The following discussion focuses on those people moving from the Disability
Support Pension (DSP) to open employment.

However, it is important to note that many people with disability may
be on other forms of income support such as Newstart and Parenting Payment.
They face similar costs if they move to employment.

Further, while those people who are not on income support will not
suffer the impact of taper rates, they too may lose transport, equipment
and other subsidies that assist them to participation in the workforce
in the first place.

In addition, the Disability Council of NSW notes that any discussions
examining the costs associated with entering employment must take into
account the low rates of pay, certainly initially and possibly forever,
for all people with disability. With this factor in mind DC NSW emphasises
the need to retain concessions and benefits, especially at lower pay
levels.[4]

The cost of moving from income support to work has long been an issue
for people with disability. However, many submissions concentrate on
the (then proposed) impact of the Welfare to Work reforms in the 2005
Commonwealth Budget. The submissions express concern that the reforms
may increase the costs of moving from income support to work.

This section summarises the changes announced in the 2005 Welfare to
Work package as it concerns costs of participation. It then discusses
the following financial issues facing people with disability who participate
in the workplace:

Additional transport costs
Additional equipment costs
Additional personal assistance costs
Taper rates on income support
Loss of concessions
Effective marginal tax rates

3.2.1
Summary of proposed welfare reforms and general
concerns

Numerous submissions expressed concern that the cost of participation
would increase significantly as a consequence of the Welfare to Work
reforms announced in the May 2005 Commonwealth Budget. While most submissions
were finalised prior to the Budget announcements, significant elements
had been released to the media by the time the submissions were completed.

The specific detail of many of the changes are noted in the relevant
sections below. However the major initiatives and changes are summarised
here for ease of reference. Most of the details set out below come from
DEWR Fact Sheets and the DEWR Information Sessions conducted upon announcement
of the reforms.[5]

The key change in the 2005 reforms is that from 1 July 2006, the threshold
criteria for obtaining the DSP will be the capacity to work over
15 hours per week at award wages (rather than the current 30 hours).

Those with a work capacity between 15 and 29 hours per week
will be eligible for the Newstart Allowance (NSA) rather than
the DSP. The exception to this rule is that those who are assessed as
needing more than two years of support in order to sustain part
time employment will continue to be eligible for the DSP.[6]

Those on NSA will have part time work obligations. Those on
the DSP have no work obligations.

People receiving the DSP as at the Budget Announcement on 10 May 2005,
who stay on the DSP will not be affected by this change. People who
apply for the DSP between 11 May 2005 and 30 June 2006 will be assessed under the current eligibility criteria (capacity to work over 30 hours per week at award wages) but their entitlement will be reassessed according to the new criteria (capacity to work over 15 hours per week at award wages) during normal periodic reviews after

1 July 2006.

For those who receive the NSA from 1 July 2006, the taper rates
will change so that there will be a 50 cent reduction in support when
the recipient earns between $62 per fortnight and $250 a fortnight.
Income above $250 will reduce welfare payments by 60 cents in the dollar,
instead of the current 70 cents in the dollar for Newstart recipients.
The taper rates for DSP recipients remain unchanged.

For those eligible for the Mobility Allowance,[7]
from 1 July 2006 the allowance will increase from to $69.70 per fortnight
to $100 per fortnight

for people on the NSA, Youth Allowance or DSP who are working 15 hours per week at award wages or looking for such work with the assistance of an employment service provider.

People

with disability receiving the NSA and assessed as having a partial capacity to work (between 15 and 29 hours per week) will receive the Pensioner Concession Card, Pharmaceutical Allowance and Telephone Allowance. Eligibility for the Pensioner Concession Card and Telephone Allowance will continue for 12 months once a person loses the NSA through work.

After 1 July 2006, people on the NSA will be eligible for the Employment
Entry Payment of $312.[8]
This payment of $312 is currently available to job seekers on the DSP
who obtain a job. The purpose of the payment is to offset costs associated
with starting a new job. A person is only entitled to one Employment
Entry Payment in any 12 month period.

A Pre-Vocational Participation Account will be introduced to
improve access to limited short term programs to assist people with
disability to get ready for a job.[9]

From 1 July 2006, a two year 'safety net' will be introduced
so that people on the DSP can return to the DSP and its associated concessions
within two years of losing a job 'for any reason', as opposed to a disability-related
reason.[10]

Some of the concerns about applying the NSA to those people with disability
who are assessed with a working capacity of 15-29 hours include:

NSA will be paid at a lower rate than the DSP;
NSA will be taxable income, unlike DSP payments;
the income test-free area of NSA will be less than the DSP ($62
per fortnight rather than $122 per fortnight, with a withdrawal rate
of 50 cents in the dollar rather than 40 cents in the dollar).
the impact of mutual obligation and activity testing for people
with disability on NSA may be serious, especially for people with
a mental illness.[11]

The Centre of Full Employment and Equity calculates that compared with
people on the DSP, people with disability who are eligible for the NSA
will be worse off by:

(a) $38
per week, if they are single and have little or no private income
($19 per week if they have a partner) - around 10-15% of their total
income if they had received a pension.

(b) $91 per
week if they are single and working 15 hours a week (the minimum hours
of work they must seek under the new rules) at the minimum wage -
around 20% of their total income if they had received a pension.

(c) up
to $155 per week if they are studying full time (eg in TAFE) for over
6 months and are renting privately ($113 per week if they have a partner)
- around 40 to 50% of their total income if they had received a pension.[12]

The Brotherhood of St Laurence suggests that it will be much harder
for new applicants to qualify for the DSP, resulting in people with
disability being worse off financially:

If these changes are introduced it will become
much harder than it already is for new applicants to get DSP: it is
estimated that 60 per cent of new applications will be rejected as
compared to 37 per cent in 2003-04 which means around 60,000 people
with disabilities over the next three years will be put onto the lower
paying unemployment allowance (ACOSS 2005e). These people will be
worse off financially by $20-40 per week going deeper into poverty
and having less means to job search or cover the 'costs of disability'
as well as having to satisfy activity testing (if not exempted) and
being subject to possible breaching (Goggin & Newell 2004, ACOSS
2005e).[13]

Submissions also noted that 'there are very few jobs in which the average
person with a severe disability can earn a sufficient income to maintain
herself or himself above the poverty line and integrate into the community
working just 15 hours per week.'[14]

The Disability Services Commission of WA told the Inquiry that these
reforms will:

result in increased levels of poverty within the disability community.
The link between poverty and disability is well established. Changing
the work eligibility criteria will only create greater financial hardship
for this population group.[15]

The Disability and Participation Alliance highlights the difficulty
of making accurate assessments of work capacity:

Assessing a person's work capacity accurately is difficult: a person's
capacity to work can depend on the nature of the job they get, the
extent of natural supports available to them and the presence or absence
of participation barriers.[16]

3.2.2
Additional transport costs

Numerous submissions suggest that people with disability may find the
cost of the daily journey to work prohibitively expensive. An inaccessible
public transport system significantly increases this cost as people
with disability may be forced to use more expensive private transport
(for example, taxis).[17]

Transport subsidies provided to concession card holders are State-based,
and there is little consistency between each State or Territory system.[18]
For example there are different Taxi Subsidy Schemes in each State and
Territory. Several submissions noted that in Victoria there have been
considerable decreases in funds available through the taxi subsidy scheme
there.[19]

People with disability who lose their entitlement to income support
will lose their Pensioner Concession Card, and hence some travel concessions,
after a period of 12 months.

As mentioned above, there is also a Commonwealth Mobility Allowance
which is designed to assist certain people who cannot use public transport
without substantial assistance. Several submissions argue that the eligibility
criteria leave out people who need it and the amount is insufficient
to cover the costs of taxi fares to and from work.[20]

Currently, those people with disability who are eligible for Mobility
Allowance are entitled to $69.70 if they are undertaking any combination
of paid work, voluntary activities or vocational training for at least
32 hours every four weeks.

From 1 July 2006, the Mobility Allowance will be increased to $100
per fortnight to people receiving
NSA or Youth Allowance (who are assessed as able to work 15-29 hours
or more per week). DSP recipients working 15 hours or more per week,
or looking for such work with the assistance from an employment services
provider will also be eligible.

Unlike other allowances, the Mobility Allowance is not contingent on
eligibility for the DSP or other income support and is not subject to
income or assets tests. Therefore, people who are eligible for the Mobility
Allowance but move off income support will continue to retain eligibility.

It appears that the higher rate of Mobility Allowance ($100 per fortnight)
will not be available to people on the DSP who were in substantial employment
as at 1 July 2005.[21]

3.2.3
Additional equipment costs

Where an employed person with disability requires adaptive equipment,
there can be some confusion as to who should bear the cost.

Generally speaking where adaptive equipment is specifically required
so that the individual can operate in the workplace, then it is the
employer's responsibility and the employer may be eligible for a subsidy
under the Commonwealth Workplace Modification Scheme (see Chapter 2).

Where the equipment is needed by the individual to carry out day-to-day
functions it is generally the individual's responsibility and he or
she may be able to apply to a State or Territory government for a subsidy.

However, an individual's eligibility for personal equipment subsidies
may be affected by whether or not he or she has a job. And if a person
with disability cannot afford personal equipment, he or she may not
be able to apply for or carry out that job.

The cost of personal equipment was particularly raised by people with
physical disabilities, hearing impairment and vision impairment.

3.2.3 (a)
Adaptive equipment for people with physical disability

For people with physical disability, equipment subsidies may be related
to both eligibility for concession cards and income levels.

For example, in Queensland, the Medical Aids Subsidy Scheme is only
available to Commonwealth concession card holders. Thus, if a person
loses their Commonwealth concession card while they are working, they
may also lose entitlements to equipment subsidies, making the work ultimately
uneconomic.[22]

The Inquiry was also told that in NSW, people earning more than $34,000
per annum are highly unlikely to ever get support to purchase large
items of equipment such as a power wheelchair, which may cost in excess
of $15,000.[23]

3.2.3 (b)
Hearing aids and Auslan interpreters

The Inquiry received a large number of submissions regarding the costs
potentially incurred by people who are Deaf or hearing impaired. In
particular, there seem to be problems with the provision of both equipment
and interpreting services in the workplace.

For example, TTY telephones are provided by telecommunications companies
in the home for the standard rental cost, but due to technology compatibility
problems this service is not provided in the workplace unless the company
provides a dedicated line.[24]
For companies using PABX or Commander systems TTY telephones must be
purchased independently and reimbursement is only available if the employee
comes through a government funded employment service provider and is
eligible for assistance from the Workplace Modifications Scheme.[25]

Several submissions noted that interpreters are not provided through
the Workplace Modifications Scheme. This significant expense can be
a barrier to participation in employment of people with a hearing impairment.[26]

The Inquiry also heard that hearing aid support from Australian Hearing
Services ceases once a young person reaches 21 years of age. It seems
that some young adults choose to stay on the DSP in order to be eligible
for concessions for their hearing aids.[27]

3.2.3 (c)
Adaptive technology for the vision impaired

People who are blind or vision impaired may require expensive adaptive
technology in order to participate in the open workplace.[28]
Subsidies for this technology is only available through the Workplace
Modifications Scheme once a person is in employment.[29]
Consequently a person who is vision impaired may not be able to access
equipment for important stages of the employment seeking process, and
the technology may not be available for work experience.

3.2.4
Additional personal care and assistance at home
and in the workplace

The participation of some people with disability in employment may
be contingent on access to appropriate personal assistance both at home
and in the workplace.

Carers Australia highlights the variety of ways that a person with
disability might require help to participate in the workplace:

Because everyday living is much more difficult for people with disabilities,
they are often reliant on carers (unpaid family members and friends)
in various ways depending on their disability. For example, transport
has been identified as a major barrier to accessing work where the
person cannot drive and public transport is unsuitable or not available.
In these cases it is often the carer who is called upon to transport
the person to work. Where the person has a cognitive disability,
the carer often provides support in managing financial affairs and
dealing with Centrelink. The person's disability may mean they need
assistance with their personal morning routine and a carer is needed
to support the person through their routine in order to get to work.[30]

ACTCOSS suggests that equality of access to community life is important
to a person's capacity to engage in employment:

The lack of adequate support means that some people with disabilities
are unable to get out of bed at any set time, and must rely on the
availability of personal care workers. . for many people, making a
commitment to paid employment is not possible until they can be assured
that they receive a level of appropriate services that allow them
to participate in their community in a predictable fashion.[31]

The Commonwealth Government provides some support to those people who
care for people with disability, including the Carer Allowance, Carer
Payment, Rent Assistance and Study Assistance.[32]
However Carers Australia highlights that most carers are ineligible
for these payments.[33]

The Inquiry heard that where people with disability require assistance
in the workplace with feeding, personal hygiene or require other medical
interventions, the Work Based Personal Assistance scheme (Commonwealth
funded) is available to reimburse fees to cover these costs. Reimbursement
is available for a maximum of 10 hours of assistance per week. This
assistance is only available once employment has commenced. ACE National
Network argues that eligibility for this program should be expanded
and the adequacy of the funding must also be reviewed.[34]

The Equal Opportunity Commission Victoria (EOCV), noted that the responsibility
for the 'Work-based Attendants Care Scheme' is being transferred to
the Job Network system for administration. While applauding this initiative,
EOCV expressed concern 'if it becomes solely restricted to people who
are at work, rather than being also available for people with disability
who are in transition, searching for work, retraining or needing additional
hours due to degenerative disabilities'.[35]

While the Commonwealth government administers payment for care delivered
in the workplace, State and Territory governments also have personal
care programs. However, the Inquiry heard that those currently receiving
such care generally require further assistance with the additional organisational,
access and travel matters of employment.[36]

For example, the Physical Disability Council of Australia noted that,
across Australia, people with a physical disability often receive insufficient
personal care hours to assist with rising, showering and dressing for
work.[37]

ACTCOSS noted that the increase in the use of Individual Support Packages
is one way that the ACT government is attempting to tackle this problem.
However, they observed that of over 200 applications for the packages,
funding was available for just over 50 applicants. Many people with
high support needs were not able to obtain a package and had to rely
on generic services that may not meet their particular needs.[38]

The separate processes for assistance with personal care at home (administered
by State and Territory governments) and in the workplace (administered
by the Commonwealth government) creates many problems for people with
disability who wish to enter the workplace knowing that they can confidently
meet their workplace commitments. This is especially the case due to
the limited availability of State-funded Attendant Care Packages and
restricted eligibility for Commonwealth funding to those who have commenced
employment.

3.2.5
Taper rates on income support

When the salaries earned by people on income support increase, their
entitlement to that support decreases. Currently, a person on the Disability
Support Pension is permitted to earn up to $122 per fortnight ($3,172
per annum gross) without any reduction in the DSP (maximum rate per
fortnight is $476.30). However a DSP recipient must give up 40 cents
of the DSP per dollar earned in employment when earnings are greater
than $122 per fortnight. There was no change to this in the Budget reforms.

The taper rates for people currently on Newstart Allowance (NSA) or
Parenting Payments are higher than those for people receiving the DSP.
For example, a single person with no dependant children on NSA is permitted
to earn $62 per fortnight without any reduction of their NSA (maximum
rate is $399.30 per fortnight), but must give up 50 cents of the NSA
per dollar earned in employment when earnings are between $62 and $142
and 70 cents for earnings above $142 per fortnight.

With the introduction of changes announced in the May 2005 Budget,
the test-free threshold for NSA
of $62 will remain, but the taper rates will change to 50 cents for
each income dollar over $62 up to $250 per fortnight, and by 60cents
for each dollar of income over $250.

The taper rates can be offset by the Working Credit Scheme which allows
people who have been out of work for a while to keep more of their income
when they commence work or get payments and benefits back if a short-term
job ends. Working Credit allows people who are out of employment to
earn 48 credits for every fortnight they are out of work, to a 1000
credit maximum. Each credit point is worth one dollar, and for every
accumulated credit, the equivalent amount in dollars can be earned before
income support is reduced, that is, to a maximum of $1000. These credits
are automatically calculated by Centrelink. It appears that this scheme
is not well understood.[39]

3.2.6
Loss of concessions and entitlements

Submissions to the Inquiry indicate serious concerns about the impact
of the loss of various concessions and entitlements when a person on
income support moves to work.

Relevant concessions include those that come with the DSP (and from
1 July 2006, NSA), for example:

Pensioner
Concession Card
Pharmaceutical
Allowance
Telephone Allowance

Other concessions and benefits include:

travel concessions;
housing and rental assistance;
concessions on rates and other local and state payments,
for example car registration;
reduced rates for telephone and other utilities, including
energy payments;
mortgage relief; and
pensioner discounts on social participation opportunities.[40]

Submissions provided examples of the impact of losing these concessions
and benefits:

The loss of benefits such as council, water and electricity rate
subsidies, loss of a medical card and access to bulk billing for medical
visits, mobility allowance and the like mean that a person with a
disability must gain a high paid position to compensate for the increased
financial burden of working in paid employment. Realistically, people
with disabilities are in lower paid employment and do not work full
time. Therefore the true financial impost of moving to paid employment
needs to be addressed.[41]

One person told the Inquiry that pensioner concessions are worth at
least $1000 per annum to his family, the loss of which would be a serious
financial burden.[42]
Another submission noted that some DSP recipients have taken employment
opportunities with lower pay due to concerns that pension related benefits
would be cut.[43]

The Brotherhood of St Laurence suggested that the combination of income
test taper rates and potential loss of associated concessions means
that DSP recipients will be little better off financially from working.[44]

The Disability Council of NSW also suggests that:

Means test taper rates, tax, means testing on other supports such
as accommodation, cessation of concessions and entitlements all need
to be considered when assessing the financial cost to people with
disability taking up a job.[45]

There were particular concerns about the loss of health care concessions.
For example the costs of prescription medication and gap fees may cost
HIV positive people between $300 and $400 per month, compared to less
than $100 for Healthcare Concession Card holders.[46]

From 1 July 2006, people who move into work and lose entitlement to
the DSP will be able to keep their Pensioner Concession Card (PCC) for
12 months and Telephone Allowance for 6 months but lose all other benefits
and allowances that are not associated with the PCC. It is unclear as
yet what concessions and allowances will be available to people who
work and then lose entitlement to the NSA.

3.2.7
Effective marginal tax rates

DSP recipients pay tax on earned income on a regular tax schedule,
although they are exempt from paying tax on the DSP component of the
income. One individual explained his situation as follows:

Under the current system I am permitted to earn up to $216 per fortnight
[as part of a couple] and retain my full DSP. Any income above that
amount reduces the pension by 40 cents in the dollar based on gross
earnings. This produces an Effective Marginal Tax Rate of 57%, far
higher than the top PAYE tax rate.[47]

Modelling by economist Jack Frisch shows that when the taper rate,
income tax and the loss of Commonwealth subsidies such as rent assistance,
Pharmaceutical Allowance, Telephone Allowance and Mobility Allowance
are taken into account, some people on the DSP will be worse off than
a person without disability at the same income level.

For example, a person on the DSP who earns $6000 will lose any further
income at a rate of 57 cents in the dollar. A person on the DSP who
earns between $21,600 and $35,000 will lose any further income earned
at a rate of 70 cents in the dollar.[48]

The effective marginal tax rate increases even further when equipment
costs and the costs of negotiating the journey to work are taken into
account.[49]

The 2005 Standing Committee Working for Australia Report found
that 'there is further scope to fully realise tax benefits and to maximise
the incentives to participate in paid work'.[50]
The Standing Committee recommends that:

[T]he Australian Government review the tax free threshold, taper
rates, effective marginal tax rates and income test stacking to maximise
incentives to move from income support payments to increased participation
in paid work.[51]

The test-free threshold and taper rates for the DSP have not been altered
with the May 2005 Budget changes.

3.3 What information do people with disability need?

One of the recurring themes in the material presented to the Inquiry
is the lack of adequate and accessible information regarding the employment
of people with disability.

Many submissions noted that information currently available is often
ambiguous, over-simplistic, confusing and in some cases misleading.[52]
This issue is just as significant for people with disability as it is
for employers. One submission to the Inquiry noted:

I have no idea what initiatives are available as there is no one
organisation who can tell me. Like many disabled people we only find
out about things word-of-mouth the hard way. We don't know what we
don't know, so we cannot ask for services when we don't know what
is available. Who is going to tell us, teachers?, university lecturers?,
Centrelink? The expectation seems to fall on voluntary organisations
who only gather info from the public.[53]

A recent study found that confusion about welfare and support entitlements
acted as a strong barrier to DSP recipients considering entry or re-entry
to the workplace due to:

anticipated difficulty re-establishing entitlement to DSP; lack of
knowledge of DSP suspension arrangements, lack of knowledge of earnings
credits and applicable income tests; and lack of knowledge of assistance
available to obtain employment. People surveyed also reported uncertainty
about the type and amount of work their disability would enable them
to perform.'[54]

Several submissions suggested that a centralised advisory service,
a 'one-stop-shop', would be an invaluable tool for people with disability.[55]
For example the DC NSW said:

The suggestion of the establishment of a service that could be accessed
through the internet which would provide such services as technical
advice to employers and people with disability has considerable merit.[56]

Some submissions further argued that an information source should address
all aspects of a disabled person's life:

A disability help-line that covers work opportunities, advocates,
childcare, carers, respite care, home-help, education at all levels,
rehabilitation, subsidies, referrals and support networks who can
assist.[57]

However, the two main categories of information mentioned in submissions
are:

1. information about the financial impact of entering and remaining in the
workforce; and

2. information about the supports available to people with disability who
wish to enter and remain the open workplace. For example, employment
services, support services and advocacy services.

3.3.1 Financial impact of participation

As discussed above, many people with disability, especially those on
income support, have high costs and low incomes. They need clarity about
the financial impact of joining the open workforce before they can make
an informed decision to do so:

It is difficult for people with disabilities on income support
to make ends meet, let alone afford the additional and often unfunded
costs of participation (transport, equipment, medicines, support). The
same applies to many people with disabilities in jobs (low-paid fulltime,
part-time or under productivity-based 'supported wages').[58]

Several submissions noted that for some people with disability, entering
the open workplace was not a guarantee of increased income.[59]
The process for determining the financial impact of working is complex.
For example, people need to take into account the loss of concessions
and entitlements together with higher effective marginal tax rates.
The Brotherhood of St Laurence suggests that people have difficulty
understanding the Working Credit Scheme in particular.[60]

There are several specific agencies responsible for providing information
to people with disability however those agencies do not always provide
clear and consistent information. Further, there is generally poor knowledge
about what other agencies can offer.

For example, Centacare observed that the information provided by Centrelink
staff to people with disability regarding payments such as the DSP is
often unclear and inconsistent. They note that this is particularly
the case for people with intellectual disability, but that professional
people with disability have also reported information to be inconsistent
and confusing.[61]

This Inquiry has encountered large gaps in knowledge and poor coordination
between agencies when requesting information about the income support
system, the subsidies and programs available to people with disability.

3.3.2 Information about employment and recruiting services

Submissions to the Inquiry argue that people with disability may not
know about the full range of employment services available to assist
them. This was also noted in the recent DEWR Disability Support Pension
Pilot Project.[62]

Submissions also reported that the information currently available
is confusing and provides little in the way of practical assistance.
Specifically, the JobAble website is criticised for not providing appropriate
information for a person with disability. Furthermore, the Australian
JobSearch website does not contain information about essential selection
criteria which may make it difficult for a person with disability to
determine whether they can meet the requirements of the vacancy.[63]

3.3.3
Information about rights to participate in employment

The Equal Opportunity Commission Victoria suggested that more people
with disability needed to be informed about their rights to participate
in the open workplace. They suggested that this may encourage more people
to consider their options and seek information:

The Federal government should direct greater resources into funding
education campaigns regarding the rights of people with disabilities
and the assistance available to them to allow them to participate
in employment.[64]

3.3.4 Making sure that the information is accessible

In developing an information and advisory service, accessibility of
information for all people with disability is an important concern:

Access to information should be streamlined and made readily available
to people with disability and prospective employers. It needs to be
accessible in all senses of the word and it needs to be routinely
provided to all people with disability as they identify as willing
to work.[65]

For example, while information in electronic formats was often suggested
as a solution, touch screens and information provided via the internet
may not be appropriate for people with vision impairments.[66]
Access to the internet may also be a problem for other people with disability
due to a lack of computer skills or access to a personal computer:[67]

The system is heavily skewed towards electronic systems, Internet,
email, recorded messages. My Internet access is limited to one hour
two days per week. Often this is not sufficient time to navigate a
website and source the information I'm looking for. Access to the
Internet incurs costs for transport and print out of material.[68]

For people with intellectual disability, information must be clear
and consistent.[69]
The Australian Association for the Deaf further points out that information
should be presented in a manner appropriate for people with hearing
impairments, including through interpreters if necessary.[70]

3.4 What risks do people with disability face?

Risk aversion is a major disincentive to both employers and people
with disability.

The Disability Council NSW describes the problem as follows:

Employers say, it's all too hard, it might not work, there's too
much risk and they'll never fit in. People with a disability say,
it's all too hard, it might not work, there's too much risk and I'll
never fit in.[71]

Many submissions suggest the biggest risk for people with disability
is the risk of losing income security. Other risks include disclosure
of disability and the risk of failure or repeated rejection which may
have a significant impact on self-confidence and motivation.

3.4.1 Financial insecurity

People with disability and their representative organisations repeatedly
told the Inquiry that the most significant risk of participation in
the workforce was the potential of losing the DSP and associated concessions.[72]
Many submissions argued that people with disability who wanted to test
the employment market needed a 'safety net'.[73]

People with disabilities are concerned that should they find and then
lose employment that it will become increasingly difficult to access
Disability Support Pension.[74]

This concern has been discussed for many years. For example, the Disability
Services Commission of Western Australia points out that the Ronalds
Report of 1990 demonstrated that the risk of losing the DSP and
associated fringe benefits was one of the central disincentives to labour
market participation.[75]

As discussed above, from 1 July 2006, only people assessed as capable
of working 15 hours or less at award wages will be entitled to the DSP.
If a person on the DSP loses their entitlement because they get a job,
and then loses that job, he or she can return to the DSP and its associated
concessions, for any reason, within two years. [76]

While the time period of this 'safety net' has not changed, it will
be much easier to go back to the DSP after 1 July 2006 than is currently
the case. This is because currently, people on the DSP can only return
to the DSP if they loose their job for a disability-related
reason within two years of the DSP being suspended. If they loose
their job for any other reason (for example, the job ended or they were
no longer needed), they will need to be reassessed.

However, from 1 July 2006, those assessed as capable of working between
15 and 29 hours will be entitled to the Newstart Allowance
(unless they were on the DSP as at 10 May 2005). It is unclear whether
those on NSA will have the same safety net provisions.

While there will be, on the face of it, increased 'safety net' provisions
for DSP recipients, some groups suggest that the recent changes in the
Budget have made the risks even greater in the event of getting a job.[77]
The following three points were raised in a variety of submissions:

People on DSP may be less willing to try working as they will fear
losing the pension if they demonstrate they can work even close to
15 hours per week.[78]

People may be encouraged to amplify the extent of their disabilities
or lose the incentive to improve their conditions in order to qualify
for the DSP rather than NSA.[79]

Job seekers may not want to work more than 15 hours because of the
risk to their pension. Such an outcome would be counter-productive.
The experience with the 15-hour rule in New Zealand has led the New
Zealand Government to reconsider its efficacy.[80]

The risks of losing the DSP are of particular concern to people with
a mental illness, multiple sclerosis and HIV/AIDS. Due to the episodic
nature of those illnesses, DSP recipients may be afraid to seek out
employment as a means of financial security, as sometimes they can work
full time and other times they can not work at all. [81]
The Disability Action Network discussed:

the very real possibility of people going off the disability support
pension because of working in excess of 15 hours a week and then finding
that their condition worsens. They then may need to re-apply for the
DSP which is a lengthy and difficult process. People suffering from
MS find this a continual problem as their condition changes constantly.
The government needs to ensure that this doesn't become a recipe for
poverty.[82]

Similarly, episodic conditions such as HIV raise particular concerns:

Given the variable nature of the course of HIV illness and the direct
and indirect side effects of the current HIV/AIDS treatments, people
with HIV may have to move in and out of paid employment and the welfare
system as the state of their health demands. If a person living with
HIV/AIDS is to avoid periods of financial hardship or privation the
welfare system must be sufficiently flexible to enable this movement
to occur seamlessly and without unnecessary distress for the person
concerned. In order to be flexible the system must possess an understanding
of the fluctuating degrees of wellness and illness that is experienced
due to chronic health conditions, such as HIV/AIDS.[83]

The Centre of Full Employment and Training suggests that the real problem
lies in the absence of well paying jobs for those who are being asked
to leave welfare:

It could be argued that the comparison
between the maximum rates of DSP and NSA, and associated concessions
is inappropriate as the reform measures are designed to encourage
people with disability to engage in paid work to the extent that they
are able. However, proponents of this view must demonstrate why additional
places in training and rehabilitation programs, and employment services
(principally within the Job Network) - and changes to funding arrangements
- can be expected to generate improved employment outcomes for people
with psychiatric disability in an 'economy that has failed to generate
an adequate supply of jobs paying a living wage' (Borland, Gregory
and Sheehan, 2001: 20).[84]

3.4.2 Stigma and discrimination as a result of disclosure of disability

Disclosure of disability is seen as a significant risk, particularly
for people with mental illness and conditions such as multiple sclerosis
and HIV/AIDS.

Several submissions noted a reluctance to disclose due to the risk
of discrimination:

[T]he decision to disclose is difficult and the fear of hostile and
prejudicial reactions by employers and co-workers is very real. The
disclosure of disability can have 'invisible' negative consequences
as the employer may silently discriminate against an applicant based
on that disclosure. For example, by declining an application with
a generic 'rejection letter' or purposefully overlooking the person
when promotions are on offer in the workplace. Employers may regard
this disclosure as notice of an inability to complete the responsibilities
of the job and therefore, make a judgment against the person with
a disability. In the same way, non-disclosure has negative consequences
as it means the employee is reluctant to or cannot request necessary
reasonable adjustments to the workplace.[85]

Submissions specifically note the additional issues faced by people
with mental illness.[86]
For example:

The inability or unwillingness to view depression as an illness has
major repercussions in the workplace, resulting in overt and covert
discrimination. Disclosure of conditions to employers often results
in an inability to obtain further work, or if in current employment,
people being undermined, denied promotional opportunities, and in
some cases resulting in demotion or job loss.[87]

Particular concerns also face people with HIV/AIDS:

The disclosure of HIV status in the workplace presents particular
problematics and barriers . 43.3% of PLWHA currently in work had not
disclosed their HIV status to anyone at their workplace with the most
common difficulties for those who do not want to maintain confidentiality
at work being gossip and explaining absences from work, for doctor's
appointments and other treatment related matters. Some PLWHA talk
about 'the burden of secrecy' that extends to hiding the fact that
they are taking HIV medications, they avoid socialising in the workplace
.'[88]

The NSW Disability Discrimination Legal Centre indicated that that
the concerns about being bullied, harassed, vilified and discriminated
against in the employment context were very real:

People with a disability have far greater concerns than
people without a disability in terms of being bullied, harassed, vilified
and discriminated against in the employment context. The 2003-2004
Australian Public Service State of Service Report indicates that 12%
of employees with a disability believed they had been discriminated
against compared to 5% of employees without a disability. Furthermore,
24% of employees with a disability were more likely to believe they
had experienced bullying or harassment, compared to 15% of employees
without a disability. [89]

3.4.3 Other risks of participating in employment - impact on self-esteem and
mental health

Submissions to the Inquiry also note that for some people with disability
entering the open workplace could have a negative impact on self-esteem
and mental health due to:

1. the risk of continual rejection which can exacerbate existing mental health
problems; and[90]

2. the risk of inaccurate assessment of capacity to work for a person with
a mental illness.[91]

For people with mental illness the 'invisibility of many of the disabling
features of the illness' may mean that the enormity of the barriers
and challenges might not be recognised by the assessor or supervisors
and colleagues in the workplace, resulting in unrealistic expectations
and insufficient supports and accommodations:

This can result in expectations being made of this population
that are unrealistically high and lead to confusion about why it is
that unemployment for this population remains at the high level of
75%. There is a real risk of people with a significant psychiatric
disability being inaccurately assessed as being able to work more
than 15 hours a week under the proposed changes to the benefit eligibility
process (and thus being placed on Newstart with all the associated
activities of job search etc). This will have a detrimental impact
on the health, well-being and the potential employment opportunities
for this group.[92]

3.4.4 Loss of secure place in a 'Day Options' program

For many people with moderate to severe disabilities, there may be
a reluctance to make the transition to work due to the fear of loosing
a secure place in a Day Options program.

Day Options programs are for people with disability who are not involved
in employment or transition to work programs. These programs, which
are funded by State and Territory governments, are intended to provide
a range of educational, leisure and activity choices. These places may
not be easy to regain, due to long waitlists, if employment is not successful:

Better collaboration between the State and the Commonwealth to assist
people transition from day options to employment is required for people
with moderate to severe disabilities. There are issues with both
the Commonwealth employment system which places barriers such as 15
percent productivity requirement, and the State system which means
the loss of day options placement if there is a move into employment
which does not instil security in making the transition.[93]

The South Australian Department for Families and Communities is looking
at revising the Day Options system and finding ways to allay people's
fears to make the transition. However it has also identified further
problems for certain people with disability:

[T]here are people who, due to the nature of their disability, are
unsuitable for open or supported employment. Many of these people
also do not fit the criteria to receive funding for State funded day
options. This group of people simply fall through the gap between
Commonwealth funded employment and State funded day options.[94]

3.5
Conclusion

While most people with disability who can work, want to work, they
have concerns about the costs and risks of entering the open workplace
just as employers have concerns about the costs and risks in hiring
people with disability.

For people with disability considering entering or re-entering the
workforce after some time on income support there may be a number of
financial considerations to take into account including:

additional
transport costs, especially for people with physical access needs;
additional equipment costs for people needing aids
and adaptations;
additional personal care needs;
the impact of increased income on concessions and
entitlements; and
the
effective marginal tax rate on earnings.

The interaction of all these factors can be very complicated and there
is no easy place to get advice on whether a person will in fact be able
to afford to go back to work.

People with disability who leave income support to enter the workplace
also have concerns about what will happen if a job does not work out.
Because many of the costs of disability are non-discretionary, entering
the workforce without a safety net of income support may be more risk
than a person is willing to take on.

On the face of it, the welfare reforms announced in the 2005 Budget
seek to address some of these issues. However, some submissions express
concern about the detail of the changes. In particular there is criticism
of changes to the eligibility rules for the Disability Support Pension.

The submissions are very clear that, like employers, people with disability
need a single place to go where they can find out what they need to
make informed decisions. For example, people with disability need accessible
information about:

the
financial impact of entering the workforce;
the available employment and recruiting services;
support services available while in a job; and
rights
and obligations.

The following chapters address some of the specific needs and concerns
of people with disability in getting job-ready, finding a job and keeping
a job. However it is important to note at this stage that both employers
and potential employees with disability have information needs, costs
and risks that need to be better addressed before the open market place
can offer realistic opportunities for people with disability.

Back to contents page | Next chapter

Endnotes:
Chapter 3

[1]
Submission 49, Disability Council of NSW, p1.

[2]
Jack Frisch, 'The Workforce Participation of People with a Disability:
Infrastructure, Governance and the Cost of Employment', 2004 National
Conference on Unemployment, University of Newcastle, December 2004,
pp15-16.

[3]
House of Representatives Standing Committee
on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation, Working
for Australia's future: Increasing participation in the workforce,
March 2005 (Working for Australia Report), p106.

[4]
Submission 49, Disability Council of NSW, p4.

[5]
See http://www.dewr.gov.au/publications/budget/default.asp.

[6]
Submission 131, Disability and Participation Alliance, p5.

[7]
People with physical, psychiatric or intellectual disability who are
unable to use public transport without substantial assistance for an
extended period, and are studying or in voluntary or paid employment
for 32 hours over a 4 week period.

[8]
Currently people on Newstart Allowance receive an entry payment of $104.

[9]
DEWR 2005-2006 Budget Media Kit

[10]
Submission 124, DEWR, p2.

[11]
Submission 58a, Centre of Full Employment and Equity, p21.

[12]
Submission 131, Disability and Participation Alliance, p4.

[13]
Submission 100, Brotherhood of St Laurence, pp6-7. References cited:
Gerard Goggin & Christopher Newell (2004) Disability in Australia:
Exposing A Social Apartheid, UNSW Press; ACOSS (2005e) '120,000 people
to be worse off under proposed DSP changes' Media Release 19/4/05.

[14]
Submission 18, Heckendorf, p3.

[15]
Submission 21, Disability Services Commission WA, p3.

[16]
Submission 131, Disability and Participation Alliance, p3.

[17] Submission 111, Anti-Discrimination Commission, Queensland,
p4; Submission 44, Australians for Diversity Employment, p2; Submission
80, Blind Citizens Australia, p6; Submission 100, Brotherhood of St
Laurence, p5; Submission 114, ACROD, p5; Submission 108, Gateway Employment,
p2; Submission 85, NSW Disability Discrimination Legal Centre Inc, p15.

[18]
Submission 78, Physical Disability Council of Australia, p4.

[19]
Submission 68, ACE National Network, p5; Submission 100, Brotherhood
of St Laurence, p5; Submission 42, Villamanta Legal Service, p5; Submission
72, Scope Employment Services, p5; Submission 75, p3; Submission 100,
Brotherhood of St Laurence, p5.

[20]
Submission 11, Department of Families and Communities, SA, p2; Submission
114, ACROD, p5; Submission 80, Blind Citizens Australia, p6; Submission
72, Scope Employment Services, p5. The Mobility Allowance will increase
to $100 per fortnight from 1 July 2006 for people with disability who
have been assessed with a work capacity of 15-29 hours per week, or
people on DSP being assisted with job search by an employment provider.

[21]
Submission 131, Disability and Participation Alliance, p6.

[22]
Submission 84, Name withheld, p5.

[23]
Submission 71, Pearce, p2.

[24]
Submission 32, Australian Association of the Deaf, p5.

[25]
Submission 25, Victorian Deaf Society, p3.

[26]
Submission 25, Victorian Deaf Society; Submission 87, Welfare Rights
Centre Inc (Queensland); Submission 50, Deafness Forum Australia; Submission
1, Maynard; Submission 40, Australian Sign Language Interpreters Association
Inc; Submission 68, ACE National Network; Submission 32, Australian
Disability Training Advisory Council; Submission 78, Physical Disability
Council of Australia; Submission 79, Australian Federation of Deaf Societies
[outlines estimated annual costs of interpreters]; Submission 72, Scope
Employment Services.

[27]
Submission 60, TAFE NSW, p2.

[28]
Submission 80, Blind Citizens Australia, pp8-9.

[29]
Submission 77, RBS.RVIB.VAF Limited, p3.

[30]
Submission 102, Carers Australia, p1

[31]
Submission 36, ACTCOSS, p7.

[32]
See for example, Centrelink publication which provides information about
payments and services available to carers Are you caring for someone
who is frail aged, ill, or who has a disability?" available at
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/filestores/cd001_0410/$file/cd001_0410en.pdf
(accessed 10.08.2005).

[33]
Submission 102, Carers Australia, p2.

[34]
Submission 68, ACE National Network, p9.

[35]
Submission 118, EOCV, p14.

[36]
Submission 84, Name withheld, p4.

[37]
Submission 78, Physical Disability Council of Australia, p4. See also
Submission 23, Exton, p1.

[38]
Submission 36, ACTOSS, p7.

[39]
Submission 100, Brotherhood of St Laurence, p6.

[40]
Submission 91, National Association of People Living with HIV/AIDS,
p19; Submission 72, Scope Employment Services, p5.

[41]
Submission 73, RDLO, p8.

[42]
Submission 7, Name withheld, p4.

[43]
Submission 72, Scope Employment Services, p5.

[44]
Submission 100, Brotherhood of St Laurence, p6.

[45]
Submission 49, DC NSW, p7.

[46]
Submission 91, National Association of People Living with HIV/AIDS,
p10.

[47]
Submission 7, Name withheld, p3.

[48]
Jack Frisch, 'The Workforce Participation of People with a Disability:
Infrastructure, Governance and the Cost of Employment', 2004 National
Conference on Unemployment, University of Newcastle, December 2004,
p17.

[49]
Jack Frisch, 'The Workforce Participation of People with a Disability:
Infrastructure, Governance and the Cost of Employment', 2004 National
Conference on Unemployment, University of Newcastle, December 2004,
p23.

[50]
Working for Australia Report, Recommendation 4, p124.

[51]
Working for Australia Report, Recommendation 4, p114.

[52]
See for example, Submission 7, Name withheld, pp2-3; Submission 12,
The Australian National Organisation of the Unemployed, p7.

[53]
Submission 23, Name withheld, p3.

[54]
Submission 109, Waghorn and Llyod, p28, citing DEWR, Job Network Disability
Support Pension Pilot: Interim evaluation report, Canberra, 2004. See
also Submission 100, Brotherhood of St Laurence, p6.

[55]
See for example, Submission 2, Casey; Submission 7, Name withheld; Submission
12, Australian National Organisation of the Unemployed; Submission 23,
Name withheld; Submission 28, Confidential; Submission 30, Mental Illness
Fellowship of Victoria; Submission 34, Manpower Services; Submission
44, Australians for Diversity Employment; Submission 49, Disability
Council of NSW; Submission 50, Deafness Forum Australia; Submission
51, Iscel; Submission 57, Queensland Department of Employment and Training;
Submission 62, Northern Sydney Mental Health Consumer Network; Submission
68, ACE National Network; Submission 72, Scope Employment Services;
Submission 73, National regional Disability Liaison Officers and Disability
Coordination Officers Network; Submission 75, Law Institute Victoria;
Submission 76, Stepping Stone Clubhouse; Submission 85, DDLC NSW; Submission
86, Ai Group; Submission 95, Westpac; Submission 99, City of Darebin;
Submission 100, Brotherhood of St Laurence, p10; Submission 114, ACROD;
Submission 118, EOCV; Submission 124, Department of Employment and Workplace
Relations. See also J Graffam et al, 'Factors that influence employer
decisions in hiring and retaining an employee with a disability', (2002)
17 Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 175, p180.

[56]
Submission 49, Disability Council NSW, p7.

[57]
Submission 23, Name withheld, p4.

[58]
Submission 100, Brotherhood of St Laurence, p6.

[59]
See for example, Submission 7, Name withheld, pp4-5.

[60]
Submission 100, Brotherhood of St Laurence. p11. See the section above
on taper rates for an explanation of the Working Credits scheme.

[61]
Submission 46, Centacare, p6.

[62]
See for example, Submission 114, ACROD, p4; Submission 72A, Scope Employment
Services, p1, 3.

[63]
Submission 12, Name withheld, p7.

[64]
Submission 118, EOCV, p4. See also: Submission 8, Miranda, p3; Submission
37, Women With Disabilities Australia, p10.

[65]
Submission 49, Disability Council NSW, p7.

[66]
Submission 77, RBS.RVIB.VAF Limited, pp4-5; Submission 77B, RBS.RVIB.VAF
Limited, p3; Submission 80B, Blind Citizens Australia, p4. .

[67]
See also Submission 12, The Australian National Organisation of the
Unemployed, p4; Submission 76, Stepping Stone Clubhouse, p6.

[68]
Submission 7, Name withheld, p3.

[69]
Submission 46, Centacare, p6.

[70]
Submission 32, Australian Association of the Deaf, p3.

[71]
Submission 49, Disability Council NSW, p5.

[72]
Submission 19, Action on Disability within Ethnic Communities Inc, p2.

[73]
Submission 43, Job Futures, p3; Submission 105, Hanlon, p9

[74]
Submission 72, Scope Employment Services, p5.

[75]
Submission 21, Disability Services Commission WA, citing Ronalds C.
(1990) National employment initiatives for people with disabilities:
A discussion paper, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Submission 60, TAFE NSW, p2.

[76]
Submission 124, DEWR, p2.

[77]
See for example, Submission 131, Disability Participation Alliance,
pp2-3; ACOSS paper Effects of possibe changes to the Disability Support
Pension, ACOSS Info 371, April 2005.

[78]
Submission 100, Brotherhood of St Laurence, p7.

[79]
Submission 18, Heckendorf, p3.

[80]
Submission 114, ACROD, p4.

[81]
Submission 26, National Network Of Private Psychiatric Sector Consumers
and Carers, p3.

[82]
Submission 56, Disability Action Network, p1.

[83]
Submission 91, National Association of People Living with HIV/AIDS,
p16.

[84]
Submission 58a, Centre of Full Employment and Training, p21. Reference
cited: Borland J, Gregory RG and Sheehan P (2001), Work rich: Work poor
- Inequality and economic change in Australia, CSES, Victoria University,
Melbourne. See also Submission 58, Centre of Full Employment and Equity,
p4.

[85]
Submission 85, NSWDDLC, pp11-12; see also Submission 73, National Regional
Disability Liaison Officers and Disability Co-Ordination Officers Network,
pp6,10;and Submission 91, National Association of People Living with
HIV/AIDS, pp10-11.

[86]
See for example Submission 26, National Network Of Private Psychiatric
Sector Consumers and Carers, pp 1-3, Submission 27, DEAC Legal Services,
pp3-4..

[87]
Submission 70, beyondblue: the national depression initiative, p3.

[88]
Submission 91, National Association of People Living with HIV/AIDS,
p11.

[89]
Submission 85, NSWDDLC, p13.

[90]
Submission 12, The Australian National Organisation of the Unemployed,
p7; See also Submission 62, Northern Sydney Mental Health Consumer Network, p7;
Submission 64, WCIG, p1.

[91]
Submission 92, Social Firms Australia, p1.

[92]
Submission 92, Social Firms Australia, p1. See also Submission 64, WCIG,
p1.

[93]
Submission 126, South Australian Government, p16. See also, Submission
49, Disability Council of NSW, p5.

[94]
Submission 11, Department for Families and Communities, SA, p1.

Search

National Inquiry on Employment and Disability Interim Report: chapter 3

3.2.1 Summary of proposed welfare reforms and general concerns

3.2.5 Taper rates on income support

3.2.1
Summary of proposed welfare reforms and general
concerns

3.2.5
Taper rates on income support