Back to contents

7.2.2 Map of government services

From the outset of this Inquiry, it was apparent that there was a need for
clearer information on the services offered by the Commonwealth government
regarding employment of people with disability. Issues Paper 5 was the first
step towards collecting information for these purposes.[3]

The various responses to Issue Paper 5 made
suggestions regarding the type of information that should still be collected,
including:

• clearer information on the relationships between Commonwealth
  programs and agencies
• services provided by each State and Territory
• better information about the interaction of State, Territory
  and Commonwealth services and programs
• information about the outcomes of government
  programs
• presentation in an accessible, user-friendly
  and interactive format.[4]

The Inquiry is of the view that this information should be a priority
for inclusion in a one-stop-information-shop. It is therefore important
to ensure an ongoing process for data collection.

Interim Recommendation 2: Map government
services

The Inquiry recommends ongoing Commonwealth,
State and Territory interagency consultations with a view to developing
up-to-date information regarding:

(a) the programs available to employers and
people with disability;

(b) the relationships between various government
agencies and programs; and

(c)
the outcomes of those programs.

The Inquiry recommends that this information
be part of the one-stop-information-shop (see Interim Recommendation 1).

7.3 
Assess and address the costs facing employers and
people with disability

Just as employers are concerned about the possible financial impact of
employing a person with disability, so are people with disability concerned
about the possible financial impact of entering the open workplace.

In both cases part of the concern can be addressed by clear and easily
accessible information about the real, as opposed to the perceived,
costs. Similarly, clear information about the government assistance available
to offset various costs should remove at least some apprehension.

However, there are some actual costs on both sides and not all them are
covered by State, Territory or Federal governments. Further, not all of
the costs are known, and it is therefore difficult to resolve some of
the uncertainties that exist.

The question is which of those actual and perceived costs have a real
impact on the participation, employment and retention rates of people
with disability and how they are best addressed.

The following Interim Recommendations attempt to address some of the
cost-related concerns raised throughout this Report.

7.3.1 Research real costs to people with disability, employers and employment
services

There has been much anecdotal discussion about the costs of participation
for people with different disabilities and the inadequacy of income support,
concessions and subsidies to cover those costs. Similarly there is debate
about the inadequacy of funding for employment services to assist people
with various disabilities to find a job. There is also discussion of the
burden borne by employers who recruit employees with various disabilities.

However, to the Inquiry's knowledge there is little publicly available
economic analysis of what those costs really are at the job-readiness,
recruitment and retention stages of the employment relationship.

Further, there has been little analysis about the impact of the costs
of disability on small business as opposed to larger employers.

It is the Inquiry's view that further research in this area would provide
better guidance to all parties. In particular such research would assist
the government in determining the appropriate amount of support and funding
for all parties involved in the employment equation. It may also dispel
some of the myths and fears about the costs involved in the employment
process.

Interim Recommendation 3: Research
into costs

The Inquiry recommends research
into the economic cost of disability to:

(a)
people with different disabilities participating
in the open workplace;

(b) employment services assisting people with different disabilities; and

(c)
large, medium and small employers of people
with different disabilities.

7.3.2 
Streamline the system of subsidies, supports, incentives,
concessions and income support

Many submissions suggest that the Commonwealth-State-Territory division
of support services and the multitude of supports and services 'hidden
away' make it very difficult to determine what is available to people
with disability and employers.

While a better information service might go some of the way towards addressing
this problem, several submissions suggest developing a more holistic approach
to the provision of assistance to employers and employees.[5]

In particular, submissions refer to the New Zealand government's Job
Support program under which a grant of up to $NZ16,900 per year is able
to fund support services in employment, including equipment.[6]
Submissions also refer to the United Kingdom's 'Access to Work' system.[7]
The Inquiry is also aware that Canada has developed a more integrated
approach to the employment of people with disability.

ACE National Network suggests that a streamlined program could cover
a range of possible interventions. All interventions should be properly
funded and employers should directly receive funding for the intervention
needs in the individual circumstances. The interventions noted by ACE
include:

• communication support at job interviews
  or on-the-job support (e.g. interpreters, note-takers, mentors, support
  workers)
• special equipment or workplace adaptations
• assistance with travel costs
• skills or disability awareness training
• work-experience
• purchase of specific licenses or work clothing/boots
• work-based personal assistance
• Supported Wage Assessments.[8]

The 2005 Standing Committee Working for Australia Report
also recommends a whole-of-government approach to assist the long-term
unemployed (noting that it applies to all people on income support):

Recommendation 6: The Committee recommends that the Australian
Government work with local, State and Territory governments, business,
union and community organisations to invest in more holistic pilot projects
which combine personal support, paid work experience, pre-vocational
training, employment assistance, traineeships and post-placement support
for the long term unemployed.[9]

In the context of employer incentives, the Commonwealth Productivity
Commission recommended that the government:

... review the effectiveness of the various schemes it uses to subsidise
the costs to organisations of adjustments needed by people with disabilities.[10]

In January 2005, the Commonwealth government accepted this recommendation.[11]

Interim Recommendation 4: Streamline
support and subsidies

The Inquiry recommends research
into international approaches to encouraging the participation and employment
of people with disability with a view to developing:

(a) 
a more streamlined and comprehensive program
of support, assistance and incentives; and

(b) 
a whole-of-government approach.

Some submissions suggest that a case management model that ensures coordination
of services and supports across all levels of government is essential
to a successful employment experience for people with disability and employers.[12]

The submissions suggest that case management should be available from
the final year of schooling until there are no longer ongoing support
needs in a job. The purpose of this model would be to make one person
responsible for coordination of services throughout an individual's employment
experience and to provide a single contact for each person with disability
and his or her carers and employers. .

Interim Recommendation 5: Case management
model

The Inquiry recommends research into case management models for people
with disability throughout the job readiness, recruitment and retention
stages of the employment process, with a view to ensuring coordination
of all services and supports across all levels of government.

7.3.3 Introduce a 'cost of
disability' allowance

Submissions addressing the costs of participation for people with disability
consistently recommended the introduction of a 'cost of disability' allowance.

This type of allowance was also recommended in the 2000 Commonwealth
Reference Group on Welfare Reform Report (the McClure Report) in
the context of simplifying the income support structure. The McClure
Report recommends one base payment for all income support recipients
with additional payments for those with special disadvantages, including
people with disability.

The Brotherhood of St Laurence recommends following the New Zealand system
which creates a single benefit to be supplemented by a second tier disability
allowance based on the costs of ill health or disability:

this is the approach being favoured by the New Zealand government
which has accepted that such a single benefit and 'an integrated cost-based
disability payment would eliminate the incentive for people with disabilities
to distance themselves from the labour market in order to access a higher
level of benefit'.[13]

The Deafness Forum suggests that any such system could be made fairer
by ensuring that the 'additional costs of living due to disability' component
has several tiers, to account for differing levels of disability and associated
costs.[14]
Some of the associated costs that might vary depending on disability include
transport, health costs and personal care costs.

Submissions also argue that a cost of disability benefit should continue
when a person has work and that it should be separated from pension or
unemployment benefit entitlements:[15]

People should be entitled to certain benefits that are designed
to compensate for the extra cost of disability. These benefits should
not be related to the work status of people with disability and should
be paid as long as there is evidence of additional costs.[16]

Interim Recommendation 6: Cost of
disability allowance

The Inquiry recommends reconsideration
of the McClure Report's recommendation regarding simplification of welfare
payments and the introduction of a cost of disability allowance, which
takes into account the varying needs of people with different disabilities.

7.3.4 Introduce a 'cost of participation' allowance

In addition to a 'cost of disability'
allowance available to all people with disability, some submissions argue
that there should be supplementary support for the extra costs incurred
by those who seek to participate, or who are participating, in the open
workforce. [17]

This type of payment was suggested as an incentive for participation
in the McClure Report.

This type of allowance would be different to the more general lump sum
Employment Entry Payment which is currently available to all people on
income support when they commence employment to off-set start-up costs.

As with the cost of disability allowance, the extra costs on participation
will vary depending on the type and severity of disability. For example,
a person in a wheelchair may have disproportionately higher transport
costs, and a person with mental illness might have disproportionately
higher health costs when in employment.

Interim Recommendation 7: Cost of
participation allowance

The Inquiry recommends reconsideration
of the McClure Report's recommendation regarding simplification of welfare
payments and the introduction of a cost of participation allowance,
which takes into account the varying needs of people with different
disabilities.

7.3.5 
Investigate extension of health concessions

Many submissions suggest that the simultaneous loss of income support
and health concessions has a devastating impact on people with disability
who enter the workplace. This impact can affect the willingness of people
with disability to seek employment. This is especially the case for people
with certain disabilities whose health may be impacted by the pressures
involved in working.

The 2005 Budget announcements state that people who lose the Disability
Support Pension (and, from 1 July 2006 - Newstart Allowance)
due to earnings will be entitled to health concessions for a further year.
However the submissions suggest that higher health costs are an ongoing
burden for many people with disability:

Health care cards for all disabled people would be of immense
help as it costs more to be disabled than to be healthy and in many cases
it costs even more for medicine to remain at work than to remain at home
due to stress and physical challenges associated with work.[18]

For people with episodic illnesses, the one year extension of health
concessions may be of little use. Further, people who do not move from
income support to employment are not entitled to the concessions despite
the fact that they may be on low incomes and have high health care costs
due to their disability.

Some submissions suggest the introduction of a chronic illness card for
people assessed as having a chronic manageable illness.[19]
For people with hearing impairments, submissions propose permitting Medicare
rebates for those who use audiologists rather than medical practitioners.[20]
Deafness Forum Australia also recommends that eligibility for the Commonwealth
government's hearing services program be broadened to include unemployed
job seekers and employees on low income.[21]

Interim Recommendation 8: Health concessions

The Inquiry recommends further investigation
into the need for extending eligibility for health care concessions
for people with disability. The investigations should include a focus
on:

(a) the cost of health care for people with different disabilities;

(b) the additional heath costs that may be incurred because of
participation in the open workplace; and

(c) the impact of health care costs on participation in the open
workplace.

7.3.6 
Investigate increases to Mobility Allowance and extension
of transport concessions

The submissions suggest that the impact of transport costs on people
with certain disabilities can be a disincentive to participation in the
workplace.

The Inquiry welcomes the increase in the amount of the Mobility Allowance
announced in the May 2005 Budget. However, comments in submissions suggest
that $100 per fortnight for people on income support will still be insufficient
to cover the out-of-pocket expenses for people with disability who are
forced to rely on taxis when travelling to and from work (or vocational/life-skills
training).[22]

Interim
Recommendation 9: Mobility Allowance

The Inquiry recommends reconsidering
the amount of the Mobility Allowance to take into account the cost of
transport to and from the workplace for people with different disabilities.
This should include consideration of access to the Mobility Allowance
on an 'as needed' basis.

Eligibility for the Pensioner Concession Card has also been extended
under the Budget so that a person can retain the card for a year after
losing entitlement to the DSP. It is still unclear what will happen to
people who lose entitlement to the Newstart Allowance after
1 July 2006.

While this means that transport concessions will also continue for another
year, there is some concern that this is not long enough for people with
disability on low incomes.

Interim Recommendation 10: Transport
concessions

The Inquiry recommends further investigation
into the need to extend eligibility for transport concessions for people
with disability. The investigations should include a focus on:

(a) the cost of transport for people with different disabilities;

(b) the additional costs that may be incurred because of participation
in the open workplace; and

(c) the impact of transport costs on participation in the open
workplace.

7.3.7 
Improve the Workplace Modifications Scheme

Employers argue that it can be costly to make the workplace accommodations
necessary to employ people with certain disabilities. People with disability
argue that this concern operates as a serious barrier to employment.

The Federal government's Workplace Modifications Scheme (WMS) is intended
to address this concern and provide an incentive to employers to hire
people with disability. However, submissions and consultations indicate
that the WMS has little practical impact on employment decisions.

One reason for this is that many employers do not know that the scheme
exists. Therefore promotion of, and clear information about, the availability
of the scheme, the extent of assistance and the method of accessing that
assistance will go some way to improving its impact.

However, submissions also suggest that a number of other changes should
be made to the WMS to increase the incentive value of the scheme.

For example, several submissions from organisations representing people
with hearing impairments suggest expansion of the Workplace Modification
Scheme to include items such as interpreters, TTY equipment, hearing aids
and other communication access devices needed for employment. [23]

Blind Citizens Australia also recommend that the Commonwealth government
investigate ways of providing people who are blind and vision impaired
with ready, affordable access to necessary technology and equipment.[24]
Ability Technology suggest that an assistive technology policy, similar
in scope to the Assistive Technology Act in the United States is needed.[25]

In summary, the suggestions are as follows:

1. increase the amount available under the scheme

2. provide access to all employers, not just those who employ someone
through a Disability Open Employment Service

3. provide access to people with disability who are self-employed

4.broaden the range of modifications that the scheme will fund (for example
include Auslan interpreter costs)

5. permit employees with disability to take any WMS funded equipment with
them to a new job

6. simplify the administration of the scheme

7. look at international models for guidance on how to improve support for
workplace modifications.

Many of these suggestions were made in the 2003 FaCS Review of the
Employer Incentives Strategy.[26]
The Productivity Commission also recommended that there be an assessment
of 'the merits of portable access grants that could contribute to the
costs of adjustments required for participation in employment and education.'[27]

Further, the 2005 Standing Committee Working for Australia Report
made three recommendations regarding the WMS:

Recommendation 15: The Committee recommends that the Australian
Government extend the eligibility criteria of the Workplace Modification
Scheme to provide support for people with an assessed disability to
enter the paid workforce where their capacity to work would be significantly
improved by workplace modification.

Recommendation 16: The Committee recommends that the Australian
Government conduct an awareness-raising program to promote the Workplace
Modifications Scheme to employers and employment services providers.

Recommendation 18: The Committee recommends that the Australian
Government extend eligibility for the Workplace Modification Scheme
to part-time and casual positions.[28]

The Inquiry notes that the May 2005 Federal Budget announcement indicates
both increased funding for this program and a review of eligibility criteria.
The Inquiry welcomes these initiatives and recommends that DEWR consider
the issues noted above in redesigning the scheme.

Interim Recommendation 11: Improve
the Workplace Modifications Scheme (WMS)

The Inquiry recommends that any
revised WMS include the following features:

(a) 
eligibility regarding any employee with
disability, whether or not the person is referred by a government-funded
employment service or working on a full-time, part-time or casual basis;

(b) 
expansion of the types of modifications
covered by the scheme;

(c)  
portability of WMS-funded equipment;

(d) 
increased amounts available for modifications;

(e)  
simplified application process; and

(f)
promotion of the scheme.

7.3.8 Investigate the introduction of tax incentives

A number of submissions to the Inquiry suggest that tax incentives for
employers might encourage the employment of people with disability. In
particular there was a suggestion regarding tax deductibility of workplace
modifications. The 2005 Working for Australia Report also discusses
the merits of income tax incentives for employers to hire people with
disability.[29]

Models operating in the United States and the United Kingdom would be
a good starting point for any further investigation.

Interim Recommendation 12: Employer
tax incentives

The Inquiry recommends research
into the structure and effectiveness of international models for tax
incentives regarding employment of people with disability, with a view
to determining the appropriateness of introducing such incentives in
Australia.

7.4 
Assess and address the risks facing employers and
people with disability

Both employers and people with disability have concerns about what the
work environment will be like and what will happen in the event that the
employment relationship breaks down. In fact, some are of the view that
the relationship will inevitably break down due to insufficient supports.

From the employer perspective the main concern appears to be the risk
of liability under occupational health and safety laws, industrial relations
laws and discrimination laws.

From the employee perspective, the main concern appears to be the risk
of losing income supports and other concessions when moving to the open
workplace.

The following are suggestions to address these concerns.

7.4.1 
Clarify the protections and risks attached to occupational
health and safety, industrial relations and discrimination laws

Employers express concern about the risks involved with the employment
of people with disability. Some of these risks are perceived and some
are real. It is important that there be clarification between the two
types of risk.

The perceived risks can be partially alleviated by the provision of good
information. Thus information that reduces the fear of organisational
culture risks or litigation risks should be included in the one-stop-information-shop
and promoted widely.

However genuine hurdles in the context of unfair dismissal laws, workers
compensation laws, insurance, occupational health and safety regulations
and disability discrimination laws may still exist.

Currently it is difficult to determine which risks are real and which
are perceived. The Inquiry therefore recommends closer analysis of the
practical impact of all these laws in the workplace.

Interim Recommendation 13: OHS, IR
and disability laws

The Inquiry recommends gathering
clear and practical information about the financial impact of, and legal
risks created by:

(a) 
occupational health and safety laws;

(b) 
disability discrimination laws;

(c)  
industrial relations laws; and

(d) 
the interaction between those laws on employers who hire people with disability.

7.4.2 
Ensure a comprehensive safety net for
those on income support

Entering the workplace can be a difficult process for some people with
disability and there is no guarantee of success, especially at the beginning.
Many people with disability are afraid that if they lose income support
and associated concessions because they have a job, and then the job does
not work out, they may not be able to regain that income support.

[P]eople need to be empowered to do their best, to take calculated
risks to move forward; services also need to provide support to them in
their achievements. The DSP, or other reasonable income support, needs
to remain in place to provide ongoing income support and health care extras
to ensure people can participate to the best of their ability. Opportunities
to access renewed income support if a person is unable to continue work
for a time would provide security and increase the likelihood of them
returning to the workforce.[30]

This was one of the most common concerns identified for people with disability
in determining whether to enter the workforce.[31]

There needs to be some sort of 'safety net' that enables people to
attempt to disengage from the DSP and take the risk of entering open
employment, bearing in mind the episodic, chronic and sometimes swift
onset of mental illness.[32]

Changes announced in the May 2005 Budget may go some way to alleviating
this concern by providing that a person who loses the DSP because of
their earnings or hours worked, will be entitled to return if they lose
their job, for whatever reason and without reassessment, for up to two
years. Further, people with disability who lose the DSP will retain access
to the Pensioner Concession Card for 12 months and Telephone Allowance
for 6 months.

However, from 1 July 2006 people with disability assessed as capable
of working between 15 and 29 hours per week may in fact face an increase
in the financial risk of entering the workplace.

For example, a person who is entitled to the Newstart Allowance
from 1 July 2006, may not have the benefit of the longer term safety nets
for assistance with expenses related to healthcare and travel. Further,
due to fluctuations in symptoms and severity of some mental illnesses,
a person who can work more than 15 hours a week when they are well, but
who is not capable of sustaining these hours when they are unwell, may
feel the new criteria jeopardises their eligibility for income support.

Further, the Inquiry heard that the 'whole package' of financial outgoings
needs to be considered in order for people with disability to feel safe
about entering the workplace and losing their current supports and allowances.
Many people with disability, depending on the nature and severity of their
disability, have significant health, transport, equipment and personal
assistance costs that are not borne by people without disability.

Interim Recommendation 14: Safety
net options

The Inquiry recommends ongoing consultation
regarding the proposed safety net provisions in the 2005 Budget in order
to:

(a) 
determine the financial impact of participation
for people with disability over an extended period of time; and

(b) 
explore other options that might reduce
the risk of returning to the open workplace for people with disability.

7.4.3 
Support and develop work trials

Many employers are afraid of the unknowns that may arise in hiring people
with disability. Several submissions suggest that a 'risk-free' opportunity
to test an employment relationship with people with disability would be
a great incentive to employers. Similarly, people with disability have
expressed eagerness at getting 'a foot in the door.'

Work trials can take a variety of forms - long-term and short-term, paid
and unpaid, supported and unsupported. For example, the Inquiry's Employer
Consultation on 7 July 2005 suggested the creation of government-funded
long-term work trials that remove risk, provide ongoing support and demonstrate
the benefits of hiring people with disability.

Any work trial scheme would need to be carefully designed so that the
employee could prove themselves to an employer on an equal footing with
other employees. For example, there would be little point in having a
work trial scheme that did not ensure that any appropriate workplace accommodations
and supports were in place, as such an arrangement would be destined to
fail.

Further, while such a scheme might relieve the employer of the financial
liability for additional workers compensations premiums during a trial,
that should not mean that the employee is not covered in the event of
an accident.

The expansion of 'robust' government-supported work trials was recommended
in the 2003 Review of the Employer Incentives Strategy.[33]

Interim Recommendation 15: Work trials

The Inquiry recommends the development
of robust government-supported work trial schemes that benefit employers
and people with disability.

7.5 
Assess and address recruitment and support needs

7.5.1 
Improve transition to work schemes

Chapter 4 sets out some of the concerns regarding supports available
to youth and adults with disability in the secondary, tertiary and vocational
education sectors. However the main emphasis of submissions that discuss
what is needed to get people with disability 'job-ready', relates to the
assistance and programs available to ensure transition from education
and vocational training institutions into the workforce.

The Inquiry has already suggested that there be a more robust work trial
scheme above. However the submissions contain more specific suggestions
regarding transition from an educational environment to a workplace.

For example, the South Australian Government suggests linking training
to employment opportunities. It also suggests that the allocation of an
individual case-manager could help ensure a more successful transition
from school to work.[34]
Further, the South Australian Government suggests improvements to the
training and employment support available to assist people with disability
commence and complete traineeships. [35]

Parents and Professional Advocates suggest that transition planning to
the tertiary sector and on to employment should begin as early as possible
so that funding, support and modifications can be in place.[36]
They also recommend that provision for 'workplace modifications' under
the Disability New Apprentice Wage Scheme (DNAWS) include reimbursements
for professional advice about what needs to be adjusted.[37]
The availability of such support was seen as critical for employers of
apprentices with intellectual disability.

The Brotherhood of St Laurence recommended the establishment of a 'Disability
Access and Support' program to assist New Apprenticeship Centres or Group
Training Companies who lack the expertise in assisting and supporting
people with disability participating in VET through the New Apprenticeship
scheme.[38]

Blind Citizens Australia recommend that the public sector take a more
active role in providing traineeships and work experience programs, and
by increasing work experience opportunities for students with disability.[39]

The 2005 Standing Committee Working for Australia Report recommends:

That Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies improve the transition
assistance available from education to work or to further training through
more coordinated work placement support and the links between workplace
coordinators and disability employment services.[40]

One submission provides an example of the problems that arise when there
is a lack of coordination:

For instance, a person with a mental illness may receive help from
a Clubhouse, a specialised or generic open employment service, or from
CRS Australia to prepare for work, and may need access to vacancies
held by a Job Network agency when job searching. To retain employment,
ongoing help may be needed from an Open Employment service. In addition,
a TAFE College may be assisting with tailored vocational training to
improve employment prospects, or as part of a traineeship package. These
programs need coordinating.[41]

While there are several government funded apprenticeship and training
schemes (eg New Apprenticeship Access Program (NAAP), School-based New
Apprenticeships (SNAP), only one of them - the Disabled New Apprentice
Wage Support (DNAWS) Scheme - ensures provision of the appropriate supports
for people with disability. And the funds available under that scheme
have been described as 'unrealistic to support apprentices with high support
needs' or for apprentices who need extended time to complete their qualification.

Interim Recommendation 16: Transition
to work schemes

The Inquiry recommends consideration
of the following measures to improve transition to work schemes:

(a) 
ongoing consultation and cooperation between
Commonwealth, State and Territory governments to ensure more coordinated
work placement support;

(b)  improvements to the Disability New Apprentice Wage Support (DNAWS)
scheme, including increased funding;

(c)  
provision of appropriate supports for other
work experience, traineeship and apprenticeship schemes (eg New Apprenticeship
Access Program (NAAP) and School-based New Apprenticeships (SNAP));
and

(d)  public sector leadership in recruiting people with disability into
work experience, traineeships and apprenticeships.

7.5.2 
Increase access to ongoing support

As Chapter 6 discusses, access to support throughout an employment relationship
can be critical to its success.

The Inquiry found it quite difficult to determine exactly what ongoing
support services are offered, to whom, by whom, for how long and of what
quality. Given the importance of post-placement support for a successful
employment outcome, this is of great concern.

In principle, the main Commonwealth government-funded post-placement
support sources are the Disability Open Employment Services (DOES), Job
Network (JN) members and CRS Australia (CRS).

Some submissions suggest that the quality and range of services provided
by these agencies vary greatly between service providers. Submissions
also indicate that the support services are insufficient to meet the ongoing
needs of employers and employees with disability. Employment service providers
suggest that the funding is inadequate to meet the spectrum of needs.

The 2005 Budget announced funding for additional places in Job Network,
DOES and CRS Australia from 1 July 2006. However, it is still unclear
whether the funding model and the amount of additional resources will
be sufficient to ensure that those services can offer adequate support
to people with disability and their employers.

Further, several submissions have raised concerns about the restrictions
on when a person can access support from a government-funded service provider.
In particular, people with mental illness or other episodic health conditions
argue that it is extremely difficult to predict when support will be needed.
They may therefore be unable to fit within the restricted time frames.
Concerns were also raised more generally about what employers and employees
with disability would do once the time limits expire. In particular, people
with intellectual disability suggest that their needs will continue indefinitely.

There are also concerns about how people access on-the-job support when
they find their job independently of a DOES or CRS provider. Some people
may acquire a disability while in employment, some people may use a private
recruitment agency and others may just answer a job advertisement.

None of these groups of people will have access to government-funded
ongoing support through DOES or JN. It is unclear where they get the help
they need and how they pay for it.

However, any person who is at risk of losing a job due to a disability
may have access to support through the Jobs in Jeopardy Program. Several
submissions suggest improved access to this program.

Interim Recommendation 17: Government-funded
post-placement support

The Inquiry recommends a review
of the post-placement support services offered by the Commonwealth government,
including consideration of the following issues:

(a)  funding levels for DOES, JN and CRS to provide on-the-job post-placement
support;

(b)  scope of services provided by DOES, JN and CRS;

(c)  
the appropriateness of time limitations
on post-placement support; and

(d)  access to the Jobs in Jeopardy Program.

Interim Recommendation 18: Other support
services

The Inquiry recommends investigation
into the following matters regarding people who obtain a job outside
government-funded employment services, or who acquire a disability while
on the job:

(a) 
where employees with disability and their
employers currently access ongoing support services;

(b) 
who pays for those services;

(c)  
whether those services are sufficient; and

(d) 
any recommendations for improvements.

7.5.3 
Develop guidelines for creating a flexible workplace

There are many aspects of day-to-day living that require some degree
of flexibility in the working environment. In particular there is much
discussion about creating family-friendly workplaces and workplaces that
take account of the needs of the maturing workforce.[42]
People with disability are amongst the groups of the population that would
benefit from a flexible workplace. It may be therefore be helpful to develop
guidelines for employers and provide model workplace policies.

The submissions to the Inquiry suggest a range of conditions that might
be considered in developing a flexible workplace for all employees, and
people with disability in particular. In creating guidelines it will be
useful to take those suggestions together with the policies developed
in the context of providing a family-friendly workplace.

For example, DEWR has developed Fact Sheets on creating a family-friendly
workplace and a database of family-friendly agreement clauses on its website.[43]
Many of those suggestions also apply to employment of people with disability.

Further, some companies may be willing to share their policies and provide
examples of what has, and has not, worked.

Interim Recommendation 19: Flexible
workplace

The Inquiry recommends the development
of guidelines for creating a flexible workplace for employees with disability.
It may be useful to coordinate such efforts with people designing family-friendly
workplaces.

7.5.4 Conduct ongoing consultation regarding
the impact of Budget changes to the employment services model

As discussed in Chapter 5 and in section 7.5.2 above, the 2005 Budget
introduced a raft of reforms regarding government-funded employment services,
some of which commenced on 10 May 2005 (the night the Budget was delivered),
some on 1 July 2005 and some of which will commence on 1 July 2006. Predictably,
some of the proposed reforms have been welcomed and others have been strongly
criticised.

While it is too early to ascertain the true impact of the reforms, the
Inquiry is concerned that some of the features may not in fact have the
effect of providing better opportunities for people with disability to
enter and remain in the workplace.

Submissions to the Inquiry suggest that further research into models
of employment assistance would ensure that services better meet the needs
of people with disability.

NESA urges a whole-of-government approach. [44] ACROD
argues that:

• An authoritative independent analysis of the costs and benefits of
  employment programs to assist people with disabilities to find and retain
  employment would be in the interests of Government, taxpayers, service
  providers and job seekers.[45]

DEAC made similar suggestions:

• The
  Commonwealth research best practice models in providing employment assistance
  to people with a variety of disabilities and fund alternative employment
  assistance services.
• The
  Commonwealth invest substantial funds on research, demonstration projects
  and new employment assistance pilot programs with the aim of modeling
  new employment assistance services around specific disabilities i.e.
  ID, ABI, MS, psychiatric disability.[46]

A number of submissions commented on successful international programs
into which there should be further research.[47]
ACROD and Waghorn and Lloyd call for specific research into appropriate
employment services for people with psychiatric disabilities.[48]

The Inquiry strongly recommends that DEWR augment its consultation with
relevant parties in order to better understand the likely outcomes of
the various measures proposed in the Budget regarding employment services.
In particular, the Inquiry recommends a focus on:

• the
  impact of maintaining a cap on DOES places for those on the DSP
• mechanisms
  to ensure better cooperation between DOES and Job Network
• whether
  Job Network has sufficient expertise to assist people who access their
  services
• whether the Case Based Funding model is sufficiently
  funded to assist people with high support needs
• whether the recruitment and post-placement support provided
  by Job Network and DOES adequately caters to those with episodic needs
  (for example people with mental illness)
• the impact of the new employment services
  model on recruitment outcomes and long-term retention of people with
  varying disabilities.

Interim Recommendation 20: Employment
services

The Inquiry recommends ongoing consultation
and the collection and examination of data over the next 24 months regarding
the impact of changes to employment services on people with disability,
employers and employment service providers.

7.5.5 Investigate recruitment and support needs
for people with mental illness

An overwhelming number of submissions highlighted the prevalence of mental
illness in Australian society and the special needs of people with mental
illness. In particular the submissions suggest that the episodic and often
chronic nature of mental illness requires flexibility at all stages of
the employment process. For instance, an assessment of work capabilities
at a certain point in time may be an inaccurate indication of work capabilities
at another point in time.

While the number of submissions discussing mental illness suggests that
there should be a special focus on this area, the Inquiry emphasises that
adjustments made in the context of mental illness has benefits for many
other groups of people. For example, a workplace that has flexible working
hours will benefit people with mental illness, and people with multiple
sclerosis and HIV/AIDS. It will also benefit working parents who have
episodic demands on their time.

Similarly a workplace that ensures access to a mental health hotline
will not only benefit those with a chronic mental illness, it can also
benefit other employees who go through a stressful period during their
lives.

A submission by Waghorn and Lloyd makes detailed suggestions regarding
an employment model for people with mental illness. SANE Australia has
developed a 'blueprint' and guidelines regarding employment for people
with mental illness.[49]
Further, the Mental Health Council of Australia is currently conducting
consultations on this issue in order to inform DEWR on the appropriate
measures to take.

Interim Recommendation 21: Mental
illness

The Inquiry recommends further investigation
and implementation of measures that address the recruitment and support
needs of people with mental illness, noting the general application
of such measures.

7.5.6 
Increase access to attendant care packages and work
based personal assistance

The Inquiry heard that many people with disability were unable to seek
employment due to the limited access to attendant or personal carers at
home and in the workplace.

The problem of access to carers appears to be exacerbated by the separation
between State and Commonwealth funding. For example, if assistance is
required at home, the funding comes from a State or Territory government
and if the assistance is required in the workplace, the funding is Federal.

Long wait lists exist in most States and Territories and there is insufficient
funding available on a per capita basis. Further, the Work Based Personal
Assistance scheme, which is Commonwealth funded workplace assistance,
is restricted to people who have already commenced employment. The Equal
Opportunity Commission Victoria recommended that access to 'Workplace
Attendant Care Schemes' should be widened.[50]

Interim Recommendation 22: Home and
work based personal assistance

The Inquiry recommends better coordination,
increased funding and streamlined access to work and home based personal
assistance to enable people with disability in full-time, part-time
or casual employment, apprenticeships, traineeships and work experience
programs access to the help they need to meet their employment or study
obligations.

7.6 
Encourage public and private sector leadership

7.6.1 
Increase public sector employment

Many submissions to the Inquiry express concern about the fall in the
Commonwealth public sector employment of people with disability and call
for public sector leadership.

The 2005 Standing Committee Working for Australia Report also
notes the decline in employment of people with disability in the Australian
Public Service and recommends that:

[T]he Australian Government develop a consistent and standardised reporting
system to:

• report on trend data for the number of people with a disability
  being employed by the Australian Public Service; and
• implement strategies to improve the participation
  of people with disabilities in the Australian Public Service.[51]

Some submissions note various positive initiatives in State government
which could be shared and promoted amongst the public and private sector.

Interim Recommendation 23: Public
sector leadership

The Inquiry recommends a national
review of public sector employment of people with disability, including
consideration of the following:

(a)  collection of comprehensive statistics;

(b)  reasons for which employment levels have fallen; and

(c)  
strategies to increase public sector employment
of people with disability.

7.6.2 
Develop a government procurement policy

Submissions, and discussions at forums convened by the Inquiry, note
that it can be more difficult, and involve delay and expense, to make
adjustments in work premises, facilities and equipment after the event.
For example an existing employee may acquire a disability or a jobseeker
may present a request for an adjustment.

As far as possible it is preferable if premises, equipment and facilities
are designed to meet 'universal design' principles, to accommodate the
widest possible range of human needs.

One submission makes several recommendations in the context of IT accessibility
for people with vision impairments. One of those recommendations is that:

Government should be the leader and only implement IT systems which
are accessible. Government could demonstrate leadership in this regard
by introducing legislation which requires Government Departments, statutory
bodies and Government enterprises to comply with "procurement" policy
which requires all office equipment and software to be accessible.[52]

While it would be appropriate for the Commonwealth government to show
leadership in this area there is no reason why other levels of government,
and private sector organisations, should not also adopt accessible procurement
policies. The United States and the Council of Europe provide good models
for the development of a procurement policy.[53]
In Canada, the Federal government maintains an Accessible Procurement
Toolkit which is available to all.

In March 2005, the Australian Government Information Office (AGIMO) issued
a Better Practice Checklist on assistive technology. This is a welcome
development although it is restricted to information and communications
technology and is not backed by specific mandatory legislative or policy
requirements. It does not appear to have been extensively promoted within
government or more generally.

Interim Recommendation 24: Government
procurement policy

The Inquiry recommends further exploration
into the feasibility and impact of mandatory accessible procurement
policies for government agencies. To this end the Inquiry recommends
research into international procurement policies and practices.

7.6.3 
Develop a reporting scheme for employers

In addition to improving the quality of public sector employment statistics,
some employers suggested that compulsory reporting for the private sector
might prove to be a powerful incentive. Participants highlighted that
such requirements already exist regarding the employment of women under
the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 (Cth). They
suggest a similar model for the employment of people with disability.

Interim Recommendation 25: Reporting
scheme for employers

The Inquiry recommends consideration
of a mandatory reporting scheme regarding employment of people with
disability.

7.6.4 Create and promote awards for employer best practice

Employer consultations and submissions to the Inquiry suggest that award
schemes can be a significant incentive to private employers.[54]
This initiative was also recommended in the 2003 Review of the Employer
Incentives Strategy, which found that:

Recognition is important as it reinforces the employer's decision
to hire a person with a disability. It provides tangible evidence of their
achievements . Many of the larger businesses said gaining recognition
enhances their reputation both as a good corporate citizen and an employer
of choice.[55]

While such awards do already exist to some extent (for example the Prime
Minister's Employer of the Year Awards), some employers suggest that they
are not well known and therefore have little incentive value. Any new
awards scheme should therefore be broadly promoted amongst the business
and consumer communities.

An awards scheme could provide an opportunity for sharing information
about best practice strategies. Nominees and winners could be requested
to place their policies and case studies within the one-stop-information-shop.
Furthermore the prize-giver could commit to broad publicity of their good
practice and policy.

Interim Recommendation 26: Awards
scheme for employers

The Inquiry recommends consideration
of a widely promoted national scheme of awards for best practice in
furthering employment opportunities for people with disability. Any
awards scheme should require sharing of expertise with the business
community.

7.6.5 
Encourage employers to use recruitment agencies that
have an inclusive process

As discussed in Chapter 5, ever-increasingly, the private and public
sector use private recruitment agencies to hire staff. Some companies
have a policy of using 'preferred recruitment agencies' which have the
appropriate expertise and approach to ensure equality of opportunity for
people with disability.[56]
The more recruitment agencies that have such a expertise, the greater
the opportunities for people with disability.

Interim Recommendation 27: Recruitment
agencies

The Inquiry recommends that employers
ensure that they use recruitment agencies that have policies and practices
designed to encourage hiring of people with disability.

7.6.6 
Create an inter-sector leadership coalition

The work of the Inquiry thus far demonstrates that strategies for increasing
the employment opportunities of people with disability will require ongoing
development.[57]

To this end, the Inquiry recommends that there should be a readily accessible
representative group, from all sectors, which can engage in ongoing development
of strategies regarding the employment of people with disability. This
group should provide leadership to all sectors.

A useful set of principles has been articulated by National Diversity
Think Tank in the context of an employer group:

To provide leadership in establishing an employer run entity to assist
and encourage organisations to attract, retain and successfully integrate
people with a disability into their organisations.

To assist organisations to develop pragmatic, tailored strategies &
action plans to better attract, retain and integrate people with a disability
into the workplace.

To provide a mentoring service, telephone help-line and information
website, publications and guidance and support concerning issues including
understanding and interpreting current legislation, all available from
one source.

To facilitate an employer network for communication and knowledge sharing
amongst member organisations, and establishing alliances with organisations
which have successfully implemented effective practices.

To establish alliances with key partners and organisations who facilitate
real outcomes related to the employment of people with a disability.

To heighten awareness of the benefits of attracting, recruiting and
integrating people with a disability into an organisation as well as
acknowledging how particular organisations have successfully achieved
diversity.

To develop national and international benchmarks in conjunction with
similar successful entities abroad.

To demonstrate high levels of innovation and social responsibility
among Australian organisations.[58]

This provides a good starting point for creating a charter for an inter-sector
coalition.

Interim Recommendation 28: Inter-sector
coalition

The Inquiry recommends the creation
of an inter-sector leadership coalition, including representatives from
employers, disability groups, employment service providers and government
agencies.

Back to contents page | Next chapter

---