When the interim report - WORKability I: Barriers - was published in August 2005, the Inquiry encouraged the contribution of further submissions in response to:

the general content of the report
the Interim Recommendations
the Inquiry's proposed plan of action.[1]

The deadline for further submissions was 30 September 2005, however the Inquiry accepted comments until mid November 2005. The Inquiry received 29 additional submissions.[2] These submissions are collectively referred to as 'Second Round Submissions' (see further Chapter 2 on the Inquiry's methodology).

The following sections provide a summary of:

the content of, and responses to, the main body of WORKability I: Barriers

the content of and responses to each of the 28 Interim Recommendations.

3.2 Main body of WORKability I: Barriers

3.2.1 Summary of WORKability I: Barriers

WORKability I: Barriers identified three concerns that were common to both employees with disability and employers:

Information - people with disability and employers are concerned about the absence of easily accessible and comprehensive information and advice to assist in decision making processes and respond to ongoing needs

Cost - people with disability are concerned about the costs of participation, and employers are concerned about the possible costs of employing a person with disability

Risk - people with disability are concerned about the financial and personal impact of participating in the workplace, and employers are concerned about the same things when hiring a person with disability, especially if a job does not work out.[3]

WORKability I: Barriers also discussed the varying issues facing employees with disability and employers throughout the three phases of the employment process, namely:

Job readiness - being ready and qualified to enter the open workforce[4]

Job seeking - recruitment and selection processes in the open workforce[5]

Job retention - keeping and progressing within a job in the open workforce.[6]

In discussing these issues, the Inquiry was conscious that the term 'people with disability' describes people in a wide range of circumstances.[7] Some disabilities are sensory (eg visual and hearing impairments), some relate to mobility, some are intellectual disabilities, some are mental illnesses and some are the result of an acquired brain injury. Some disabilities are present at birth, some are the result of car and sporting accidents, some are acquired in the workplace, some are the result of illness. Some disabilities are severe, some are mild and other disabilities lie somewhere in between. Some disabilities are readily recognisable, others may be invisible until disclosed. Some disabilities are permanent, some are temporary, and some are episodic. Some need physical workplace accommodations, others do not. Some need on-the-job supports, others do not. Some people with disability have strong family and independent financial supports, others do not. Some people with disability are suited to working in the primary sector, others in the manufacturing sector and others in the services sector. Some are suited to senior positions, others to more junior positions.

Thus, while the Inquiry accepted that there was no single way to address the needs and concerns of this diverse group of people, WORKability I: Barriers focussed on some of the themes that were common to those groups. The Inquiry developed 28 interim recommendations and set out a plan of action in an effort to advance the issues raised in the submissions.

The chapters of WORKability I: Barriers are as follows:

Chapter 1: Background to the Inquiry

Chapter 2: Information needs, costs and risks for employers

Chapter 3: Information needs, costs and risks for people with disability

Chapter 4: Getting ready for the open workplace

Chapter 5: Recruitment in the open workplace

Chapter 6: Job retention in the open workplace

Chapter 7: Interim recommendations

Chapter 8: Next steps for the Inquiry

Despite the passing of time, Chapters 2-6 of WORKability I: Barriers continue to be a useful resource on the barriers and possible solutions to employment of people with disability. However, in the interests of brevity, that material has not been reproduced here.

As noted in Chapter 1 of this report, the Inquiry has changed the title of the interim report from 'WORKability' to 'WORKability I: Barriers' in order to clarify the distinction between the text of the interim report and this final report.

In addition, some minor corrections have been made to the text of the interim report since its original publication. The corrected version has been placed on the Commission's website and is available from: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/disability_rights/employment_inquiry/docs/interim.doc

3.2.2 General comments about WORKability I: Barriers

Many of the Second Round Submissions commented that the interim report was a comprehensive description of the primary barriers facing people with disability and their actual or potential employers.[8]

Several submissions noted ongoing concerns about the Federal Government's proposed Welfare-to-Work package.[9] For example, People With Disability Australia note that the 'interrelationships between changes in social security, employment assistance and industrial relations laws, policies and programs' may have a seriously negative impact on people with disability.[10] The Sydney South West Area Mental Health Service also suggests that the proposed welfare reforms will act as a disincentive to participation for people with disability.[11]

The National Ethnic Disability Alliance and the Fairfield Access Committee note that the special needs of people with disability from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds requires greater focus.[12]

Several submissions also highlighted the ongoing need for comprehensive education campaigns aimed at changing the attitudes of employers, and the community more generally.[13]

Some submissions raised the issue of employment in business services (previously known as 'sheltered workshops').[14] The terms of reference for this Inquiry focus on employment in the open workplace rather than in business services. However, the Intellectual Disability Rights Service (IDRS) highlights that additional measures must be taken to ensure better transition from business services to open employment:

Business services are supposed to foster progression to open employment but this rarely occurs because the necessary training, development and opportunities are not provided.

Whilst we support a focus on access to open employment for people with disabilities, we believe that the reality for many workers with an intellectual disability is that they remain trapped in supported employment and subject to incredibly unfair wages and working conditions.[15]

3.3 Interim Recommendations and Next Steps

3.3.1 Summary of the Interim Recommendations and Next Steps

WORKability I: Barriers proposed 28 Interim Recommendations which sought to address the concerns of the different parties involved in the employment process - in particular, actual and potential employees with disability and their employers.

The Interim Recommendations were organised in the following categories:

information needs
costs facing employers and people with disability
risks facing employers and people with disability
recruitment and support needs
public and private sector leadership.[16]

WORKability I: Barriers also highlighted eight areas for the Inquiry's attention over August-November 2005 (the 'Next Steps').[17] The idea was to commence the process of developing and implementing some of the Interim Recommendations.

The eight areas of focus were:

developing a one-stop-information-shop (Interim Recommendations 1 and 2)
improving the Workplace Modifications Scheme (Interim Recommendation 11)
clarifying concerns about occupational health and safety laws, disability discrimination laws and industrial relations laws (Interim Recommendation 13)
developing a robust model for work trials (Interim Recommendation 15)
developing a model for providing ongoing support to employers and employees with disability (Interim Recommendations 17 and 18)
developing a model for a flexible workplace (Interim Recommendation 19)
researching international models for increasing participation and employment (Interim Recommendation 4)
researching international models for government procurement policies (Interim Recommendation 24).[18]

These topics were chosen on the basis that:

the submissions indicated that they were a pressing concern
there was some prospect of progress within the limited timeframe of the Inquiry.

WORKability I: Barriers emphasised that its recommendations were guided by the content of the submissions and consultations. They did not intend to, and did not, cover the field. It is in that context that the Inquiry sought further comments and suggestions as to other measures needed to increase participation and employment of people with disability.

3.3.2 General comments about the Interim Recommendations and Next Steps

Many submissions endorsed the majority of the Interim Recommendations and then made comments about specific recommendations (sec section 3.3.3 below).[19]

Several submissions noted that a holistic approach to workplace reform is vital to achieving increased participation, employment and retention of people with disability. For example, Centacare states that:

Centacare strongly supports the Interim Report's emphasis on the importance of a holistic and coordinated approach to improving employment participation and retention rates for people with a disability. Improved outcomes rely on the strength of a coordinated approach from all levels of government, business and the community. The Report has clearly given detailed consideration to the multiple stakeholder perspectives on the issue of disability and employment acknowledging that workable solutions will necessarily involve all of these groups.[20]

Centacare also suggested that while the interim report provides a good platform for further policy development, there is still much research to be done:

While the outcomes of this Inquiry represent a significant contribution to the body of knowledge about employment and disability, Centacare endorses the emphasis given to the need for further research for the purposes of developing an accurate assessment of the true nature and extent of information needs, risks, recruitment and support needs. Research in this area is critical to an informed policy response.[21]

Several submissions also endorsed the focus of the working groups and some organisations offered to assist in the progress of those issues.[22]

3.3.3 Comments about specific Interim Recommendations

The following sections reiterate the Interim Recommendations and the reasoning behind them. They then discuss the responses to those recommendations in the Second Round Submissions and indicate how this has influenced the Inquiry's final recommendations. The final recommendations can be found in Chapter 11.

(a) Interim Recommendations 1-2: One-stop-information-shop

WORKability I: Barriers recommended the creation of a comprehensive one-stop-information-shop for all parties involved in the employment of people with disability.

Interim Recommendation 1: One-stop-information-shop

The Inquiry recommends that:

(a) DEWR conduct multi-sector consultations on the ideal content, scope, format and cost of a one-stop-information-shop; and

(b) DEWR facilitate the launch of a site-in-progress, accompanied by an individualised inquiry service in early 2006.

In particular, the Inquiry noted the need for a clear map of government services available to actual and potential employees with disability and their employers.

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).

WORKability I: Barriers also noted that the Inquiry would consult with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations on the development of these initiatives. Chapter 10 discusses these consultations in greater detail.

(b) Interim Recommendation 3: Research into costs

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.

Interim Recommendation 3 was proposed with a view to developing qualitative and quantitative analysis to support - or rebut - the primarily anecdotal information currently available about the economic cost of disability.[23]

It was the Inquiry's view that such research would assist the government in determining the appropriate amount of support and funding for all parties involved in the employment equation. It might also dispel some of the myths and fears about the costs involved in the employment process.

In the Second Round Submissions, the Commonwealth Department of Human Services referred the Inquiry to a 2003 report by the Institute for Research into International Competitiveness at Curtin University Business School.[24] The report conducts a cost-benefit analysis of the government's investment into the vocational rehabilitation services provided by CRS Australia. It found an overall social benefit of more than 30 times the investment.[25]

The City of Melbourne Disability Advisory Committee suggested that:

The economic benefits of equity of employment opportunity for people with disabilities MUST balance any research undertaken that will outline probable costs.[26]

The Inquiry is of the view that the Commonwealth Productivity Commission would be best placed to conduct specific research into the economic cost of disability to people with disability, employment support services and employers. The Inquiry has amended Interim Recommendation 3 accordingly.

(c) Interim Recommendation 4: Streamlining supports and subsidies

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.

The division between support services provided by Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies, together with the multitude of supports and services 'hidden away', make it very difficult to determine what is available to people with disability and their actual or potential employers.

While a better information service might go some of the way towards addressing this problem (see Interim Recommendation 1), several of the First Round Submissions suggested developing a more holistic approach to providing assistance to actual and potential employees with disability and their employers.[27]

The Inquiry undertook to conduct some preliminary research about how other countries provide supports and subsidies to people with disability and their employers. The results of this research is set out in Chapter 8. The summary of the Second Round Submissions is also included in that chapter.

(d) Interim Recommendation 5: Case management model

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.

The First Round Submissions suggested that a case management model ensuring coordination of services and supports is essential to a successful employment experience for people with disability and employers.[28]

The Second Round Submission from the Commonwealth Department of Human Services, which included information provided by CRS Australia, states that:

CRS Australia supports the provision of coordinated long term case management support for people with severe disabilities. However, caution should be exercised and recognition given that not all people with a disability need long term support. Many people with a disability, including those with significant impairment, neither choose nor require long term case management. Rather, many people seek services which assist them to improve independence in disability management. In the employment context this includes access to expertise and support in job match, job search & job placement and assistance with access to workplace, family, community and medical supports to optimise their job retention.

Further, case management models should be developed within the context that employers' obligation to accommodate diversity in the workplace to a reasonable level, under the Disability Discrimination Act, 1992.[29]

The City of Melbourne Disability Advisory Committee notes:

It is highly recommended that a change in language and philosophy shift to respecting people with disabilities as individual who have the same rights to choice and independence in all aspects of life. Case management terminology must change to individualised service planning models were people with disabilities direct and hold primary decision making power in determining employment choice and placement.[30]

The Inquiry has made only minor changes to Interim Recommendation 5.

(e) Interim Recommendations 6-7: Cost of participation and cost of disability allowances

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.

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.

In 2000, the Commonwealth Reference Group on Welfare Reform delivered its final report Participation Support for a More Equitable Society (the McClure Report). The report recommended the introduction of one base payment for all income support recipients with additional payments for those with special disadvantages, including people with disability.[31]

The First Round Submissions urged the introduction of a 'cost of disability allowance' to cover the additional financial burden of dealing with disability in daily life. They also suggested the introduction of a 'cost of participation allowance' to offset the disproportionate costs faced by people with certain disabilities when participating in the workforce.[32]

The Deafness Forum suggested that any such system could be made fairer by ensuring that the component covering the 'additional costs of living due to disability' has several tiers, to account for differing levels of disability and associated costs.[33] For example, depending on the disability, transport, health costs and personal care costs might vary greatly.

Some of the First Round Submissions also argued that a 'cost of disability allowance' should be available as long as there is evidence of additional costs - irrespective of whether the person has a job or is receiving welfare payments.[34]

Several of the Second Round Submissions also supported the introduction of these types of allowances.[35] However, the City of Melbourne Disability Advisory Committee cautioned that 'radical changes that result in loss of benefits (health, pharmaceutical, travel) [may act] as a disincentive to participation in the paid workforce'.[36]

The Inquiry has made only minor changes to Interim Recommendations 6 and 7.

(f) Interim Recommendations 8-10: Health and transport concessions and allowances

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.

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.

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.

WORKability I: Barriers highlighted that the simultaneous loss of income support, health concessions and transport concessions can have a devastating impact on people with disability who enter the workplace. This financial impact can be a strong disincentive to people with disability to seek employment.[37]

Several of the Second Round Submissions continued to highlight the burden of transport and health costs for people with disability seeking to enter and remain in the open workplace.[38]

The Spastic Centre recommended that there be comprehensively subsidised travel and that people with disability should be able to retain their pension card for subsidies to additional services, in order to remove any disincentives to going to work.[39]

The Inquiry has amended Interim Recommendation 8 to suggest that health care concessions be extended to people with disability who enter the workforce. It has also changed Interim Recommendation 9 to recommend increasing the amount of the Mobility Allowance so that it reimburses transport costs to and from work for eligible persons.

It is the Inquiry's view that these measures can be readily implemented by the Commonwealth government and may have a substantial impact on the willingness of people with disability to participate in the open workplace.

The Inquiry has not made any substantial changes to Interim Recommendation 10 regarding transport concessions.

(g) Interim Recommendation 11: Workplace Modifications 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.

The Federal government's Workplace Modifications Scheme (WMS) is intended to offset the cost of making workplace modifications and provide an incentive to employers to hire people with disability. However, WORKability I: Barriers indicates that the WMS has little practical impact on employment decisions.[40]

The 2005-2006 Budget papers announced that DEWR would work to improve access to the WMS. WORKability I: Barriers noted that the Inquiry would consult with DEWR regarding its intentions in this area. These consultations are discussed in Chapter 10. The Second Round Submissions are also discussed in that chapter.

(h) Interim Recommendation 12: Employer tax incentives

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.

A number of the First Round Submissions to the Inquiry suggested that tax incentives for employers might encourage the employment of people with disability.[41]

Second Round Submissions suggested research into the tax incentive schemes used in Germany[42] and Scandinavia.[43] For example, in Germany:

.all employers over 100 employees in size are obligated by law to employ 5% of their work force [as people with disability]. Those employers who choose not to do this pay a tax levy in lieu of their obligation.[44]

The Department of Human Services referred the Inquiry to the International Labour Organisation's Job Retention project which analyses employer incentives to hire and retain workers with disabilities.[45]

The Department of Human Services also recommends consideration of the following issues should any research take place in this area:

Many current employees have a disability and manage work without incurring additional employer expense.

Many people have a 'hidden' disability and choose not to disclose for fear of stigma. Employer tax incentives may carry the risk of employee pressure to disclose a disability, contrary to State and Commonwealth Privacy legislation.

An unintended consequence of such a strategy may be that employees injured at work are identified for a tax incentive, in order to offset workers compensation claim costs.[46]

The Australian National Organisation of the Unemployed supports the idea of tax incentives as long as they are not abused:

Too often, when the cash benefits or tax break ends, the subsidised worker is 'no longer required'. They can be replaced by another worker on the same scheme which attracts a new round of wage subsidies. This 'revolving door' experience has been common amongst job seekers 'employed' under taxpayer funded wage subsidies paid to employers.

Any incentives to hire people with a disability must place clear and enforceable obligations on employers and Job Network members. Subsidised placements should be closely monitored by DEWR through mandatory reporting by employers and JNMs with penalties imposed for proven exploitation of the system or an individual employed under a government funded scheme.[47]

Blind Citizens Australia is concerned that tax incentives to hire people with disability sends a negative message about the worth of such employees:

Like every other worker in the community, people who are blind or vision impaired want to be employed on their merits and for what they can bring to the workplace. Accordingly, Blind Citizens Australia has strong reservations concerning the level of respect tax incentives give to the work capabilities of people with disabilities and the type of message these employer centric incentives deliver to the community. All financial incentives that encourage the employment of people with disabilities should be based on and reinforce the positive aspects of employment for both the employer and the employee and send the right message to the community.[48]

Thus it appears that there is still some uncertainty about the impact and effectiveness of tax incentives on employers and employees with disability. On this basis, the Inquiry has made no changes to Interim Recommendation 12.

(i) Interim Recommendation 13: Occupational health and safety, industrial relations and discrimination laws

Interim Recommendation 13: Occupational health and safety, industrial relations 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.

The Inquiry created a working group to commence the process of implementing this recommendation. The outcomes of the working group are discussed in Chapter 5. The Second Round Submissions commenting on this recommendation are also discussed in that chapter.

(j) Interim Recommendation 14: Safety net options

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.

Entering the workplace can be a difficult process for some people with disability and there is no guarantee of success, especially at the outset. 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.[49] UnitingCare Australia sums up the situation as follows:

[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.[50]

Changes announced in the May 2005 Budget suggested that a person who loses the Disability Support Pension (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. In addition, people who lose the DSP will retain access to the Pensioner Concession Card for 12 months and Telephone Allowance for 6 months.

Second Round Submissions made no comment about this recommendation other than that 'a secure and adequate income support safety net should always be available to people with disabilities while they engage with the labour market.'[51]

It is unclear whether additional 'safety net' provisions have been considered in the development of the Welfare-to-Work package to be introduced in July 2006.

As a result, only minor changes have been made to Interim Recommendation 14.

(k) Interim Recommendation 15: Work trials

Interim Recommendation 15: Work trials

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

The Inquiry created a working group to develop the idea of 'robust government-supported work trials'. The outcomes of the working group are discussed in Chapter 4. The Second Round Submissions commenting on this recommendation are also discussed in that chapter.

(l) Interim Recommendation 16: Transition-to-work schemes

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.

WORKability I: Barriers noted serious concerns regarding the assistance and programs available to ensure transition from education and vocational education and training institutions into the workforce.[52]

There are several government-funded apprenticeship and training schemes, for example the New Apprenticeship Access Program (NAAP) and School-based New Apprenticeships (SNAP). However, only one of them - the Disabled New Apprentice Wage Support (DNAWS) scheme - ensures provision of the appropriate supports for people with disability. Further, 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.

The First Round and Second Round Submissions contained a variety of suggestions regarding improvements to the transition-to-work process, including:

improving the training and employment supports available to assist people with disability commence and complete traineeships[53]
allocating an individual case-manager to assist a person through the transition process[54]
clearer pathways to Disability Open Employment Services (DOES) from school, TAFE, university or prevocational programs[55]
relaxing eligibility restrictions and unifying the transition-to-work models across States and Territories [56]
linking training to employment opportunities[57]
establishing a 'Disability Access and Support' program to assist New Apprenticeship Centres or Group Training Companies that lack the necessary expertise[58]
commencing transition planning to the tertiary sector, and on to employment, as early as possible so that funding, support and modifications are ready when needed[59]
reimbursing the cost of professional advice on adjustments under the Disability New Apprentice Wage Support (DNAWS) scheme by recognising the advice as a 'workplace modification'[60]
ensuring that the public sector takes a more active role by providing traineeships and work experience opportunities for students with disability[61]
ensuring students from non-government schools have the same access to transition assistance and employment programs as students from government schools[62]
ensuring availability of DNAWS and other traineeship schemes to those who have a qualification but cannot get a job using those qualifications due to their disability[63]
using business services to assist people to transition into the open workplace.[64] (The Intellectual Disability Rights Service suggests that business services are not currently a good transition service due to the problems within business services.)[65]

A First Round Submission from two academics, Waghorn and Lloyd, discussed the variety of educational, support and employment services which may be involved in the placement of a person with mental illness:

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.[66]

In 2005, the Commonwealth Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation issued a report - Working for Australia's Future: Increasing participation in the workforce - which recommended:

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.[67]

Holmesglen TAFE describes some of its vocational and transition programs as follows:

Each of the three courses has work experience components which students complete. These are structured so as to maximise the benefit to each student in addressing their vocational goals. Considerable consultation occurs with the student, teaching staff and employers. Many students do gain employment directly from the placement, or at the completion of their particular course. The length of work experience ranges from four to eight weeks per course. Some students gain entry to the workforce through traineeships or apprenticeships.[68]

Holmesglen TAFE stresses the importance of work experience as a transition mechanism and encourages employers, employer groups, unions, employment agencies and other agencies connected to employment to provide meaningful work experience opportunities for all students, including those with disability.[69]

Holmesglen TAFE acknowledges that some employers have concerns about legal liability for injury while a student is on work experience and suggests:

Suitable guidelines about workplace safety can be given to the student, after consultation with the employer, to allay such concerns.[70]

Interim Recommendation 16 has been amended to provide further guidance on how to improve transition-to-work schemes, as suggested in the submissions to the Inquiry. However it is the Inquiry's view that this issue requires close analysis and major improvements, as a matter of priority.

(m) Interim Recommendations 17-18: Ongoing supports

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.

The Inquiry created a working group to discuss how to improve the provision of ongoing supports to people with disability and their employers in the open workplace. The outcomes of the working group are discussed in Chapter 7. The Second Round Submissions commenting on these recommendations are also discussed in that chapter.

(n) Interim Recommendation 19: Flexible workplaces

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.

The Inquiry created a working group to commence the process of developing guidelines and to discuss promoting strategies regarding the creation of flexible workplaces. The outcomes of the working group are discussed in Chapter 6. The Second Round Submissions commenting on this recommendation are also discussed in that chapter.

(o) Interim Recommendation 20: Employment services

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.

As discussed in WORKability I: Barriers, the 2005 Federal 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. Some of the proposed reforms were welcomed and others were strongly criticised.[71]

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

First Round Submissions to the Inquiry commented on successful international employment service programs into which there should be further research.[72] ACROD and Waghorn and Lloyd call for specific research into appropriate employment services for people with psychiatric disabilities.[73]

WORKability I: Barriers recommended that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations 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 recommended a focus on:

the impact of maintaining a cap on Disability Open Employment Service (DOES) places for those on the Disability Support Pension (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.

Second Round Submissions endorsed the need for further research and close monitoring of the impact of these reforms.[74]

In relation to the introduction of case based funding for employment services, the Spastic Centre suggests a study of the impact on clients with long-term high support needs. The Spastic Centre also notes that the new funding system will mean increased time spent on administration.[75]

Several organisations expressed concern about diminishing accountability under the Disability Services Act 1986 (Cth).[76] Others are worried about the lack of expertise in dealing with clients with disability, and mental illness in particular.[77] The National Ethnic Disability Alliance emphasises the need to ensure capacity to assist people from a non-English speaking background (NESB) with disability.[78] The Australian National Organisation of the Unemployed suggests that one way to address the shortfall in expertise in Job Network is to create a system of disability accreditation for all staff.[79]

Australians for Disability and Diversity Employment note that employment services are not themselves hiring people with disability and therefore fail to 'practice what they preach'. Australians for Disability and Diversity Employment suggests the collection of statistics on the internal employment record of government-funded employment services.[80]

In summary, there appears to be a great deal of scepticism about the quality of employment services delivered to people with disability. In particular, there is concern that the recent reforms to the funding of Job Network and Disability Open Employment Services may make the situation worse.

Interim Recommendation 20 has been amended to take account of these concerns.

(p) Interim Recommendation 21: Mental illness

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.

An overwhelming number of First Round Submissions highlighted the prevalence of mental illness in Australian society and the special needs of people with mental illness.[81] In particular those submissions suggested that the episodic and often chronic nature of mental illness required 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 First Round Submission discussing mental illness suggests that there should be a special focus on this area, WORKability I: Barriers emphasised that adjustments made in the context of mental illness have benefits for many other groups of people. For example, a workplace that has flexible working hours will benefit people with mental illness, multiple sclerosis and HIV/AIDS. At the same time, 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 chronic mental illness, it might also benefit other employees who go through a stressful period during their lives.

Waghorn and Lloyd make detailed suggestions regarding an employment model for people with mental illness.[82] SANE Australia has also developed a 'blueprint' and guidelines regarding employment for people with mental illness.[83]

In the Second Round Submissions, the Department of Human Services referred this Inquiry to the Senate Inquiry into Mental Health for further information.[84]

The South West Sydney Mental Health Services noted that there are some employment services that focus on clients with mental illness, for example, CARE Employment in Enfield in Sydney.[85]

The Mental Health Council of Australia provided the Inquiry with its recent report to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations regarding the promotion of supportive workplaces for people with mental illness. That report made the following recommendations:

That a national scheme be developed to reward and recognise excellence among employers creating supportive workplaces for people with mental illness This may be part of a broader scheme to recognise excellence in disability employment.
That case studies demonstrating effective workplace education programs and human resource management policies and practices be disseminated through multiple channels to employers and peak business and professional groups including the Australian Institute of Management, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Australian Institute for Human Resources.
That the Australian Government through the Australian Public Service Commission develop targets, goals and programs to create greater employment opportunities for people with mental illness.
That a national mental health promotion program based on sound social marketing principles and evidence be developed and conducted over a four year period to increase literacy and understanding of mental health by employers.
That funding of $0.5m to support a national program of forums, similar to the two forums conducted as part of this project, be undertaken as a matter of urgency to support the introduction of the welfare to work reforms in July 2006.
That additional support be provided to promote existing workplace programs, such as beyondblue's depression in the workplace and the Mental Health First Aid program.
That funding of $0.5m be provided to develop additional workplace programs addressing lower prevalence disorders (e.g. bi-polar and schizophrenia) and Comorbidity (alcohol and substance abuse in particular).
That the proposed Australian JAN website be developed based on clearly defined end-user requirements.
That the JAN website be supported through a complimentary suite of services including a telephone information service and a face-to-face advisory service.
That further analysis and evaluation of the ideas generated from these forums be undertaken as a matter of urgency to ensure policy and program interventions are properly planned and targeted. The MHCA recommends the development of a mental health employment strategy with key stakeholders be undertaken in the later half of 2005. This is estimated at a total cost of $0.15m.[86]

The City of Melbourne Disability Advisory Committee recommended that:

.people with mental illness including those with acquired brain injuries are consulted on the formulation and application of the strategies and/or actions that address their identified needs and aspirations.[87]

Thus while it appears that there are a variety of initiatives currently taking place in the context of mental illness in the workplace, there does not appear to be a coordinated strategy for implementation.

The prevalence of mental illness in the workplace, makes it appropriate to have a special focus on this area. However, the Inquiry reemphasises that any strategy to address mental illness is also likely to benefit people with other disabilities.

Interim Recommendation 21 has been amended to incorporate the Mental Health Council of Australia's recommendation to develop a national strategy on mental illness and the workplace.

(q) Interim Recommendation 22: Home and work-based personal assistance

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.

WORKability I: Barriers noted that many people with disability were unable to seek employment due to limited access to attendant or personal carers at home and in the workplace.[88]

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 waiting 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, is restricted to people who have already commenced employment. The Equal Opportunity Commission of Victoria recommended that access to 'Workplace Attendant Care Schemes' should be widened.[89]

In the Second Round Submissions, Australians for Disability and Diversity Employment emphasised that home-based care and assistance should be available to people with disability who are seeking to establish or who are already conducting a home-based business.[90] Similarly, the City of Melbourne Disability Advisory Committee recommended that personal assistance be extended to include persons with disabilities who are self-employed, consultants or contractors.[91]

The Inquiry has made minor changes to Interim Recommendation 22 to take these further comments into account.

(r) Interim Recommendation 23: Public sector leadership

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.

Many of the First Round Submissions expressed concern about the fall in Commonwealth public sector employment of people with disability and called for public sector leadership.[92]

The 2005 Commonwealth Standing Committee report - Working for Australia's future: Increasing participation in the workforce - 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.[93]

Second Round Submissions reinforced these concerns and urged the Inquiry to take a more strident stand on the issue.[94] For example, Australians for Disability and Diversity Employment state:

We hope this report can recommend that measurable targets are implemented by all levels of government for PWD and other disadvantaged groups. Without measurable targets there is no commitment to the process just lip service. Two examples where this is working very successfully are

Brisbane City Council where 11% of the work force are PWD. The Brisbane Council also has targets for Indigenous people, mature age people, and people from other cultural back grounds.
The Queensland Department of Education has 9% of their work force PWD.[95]

The City of Melbourne Disability Advisory Committee specifically recommends:

... the implementation of strategies that demonstrate workplaces are welcoming of people with disabilities. For example job vacancy advertisements stating 'welcoming and flexible work environment for people with disabilities'.[96]

Australians for Disability and Diversity Employment also suggest that government be encouraged to use people with disability as consultants on disability issues and note that:

At present there seems to be little willingness by levels of government to even encourage consulting firms to employ or use PWD for this type of disability consultancy work.[97]

The Spastic Centre recommends:

... an ongoing commitment to the employment needs of people with a disability through the development of customized positions and traineeships within all Government Departments, both Federal and State. Governmental modelling of initiatives to increase employment opportunities.[98]

The mother of a boy with Asperger's Syndrome says that equality of opportunity is not enough and affirmative action is needed.[99] Similarly, the National Ethnic Disability Alliance suggests that:

The Australian Public Service should develop and monitor a quota system with appropriate support to increase the number of people from NESB with disability within government to reflect their numbers within the community.[100]

The Department of Human Services responded to the Interim Recommendation as follows:

Australian government agencies reports annually against the Disability Action Plan. A review of reasonable adjustment measures made available in the recruitment, induction, promotion and job retention aspects of Public Sector employment may be a more appropriate measure of leadership than a 'head count' of people who choose to disclose a disability in the recruitment phase.[101]

Regarding the Inquiry's recommendation to collect comprehensive statistics, the South Australian Office of Public Employment explained a variety of problems that might arise.[102] One of the primary issues is settling on a consistent definition of 'disability' across Australia. Other difficulties include:

The reliance on survey respondents' perceptions of the extent of their own disability and its impact on their work capacity;
Embarrassment or fear about disclosing disability status (eg psychiatric conditions, drug/alcohol-related conditions), or pride in managing a disability to minimise or eliminate its effects in the workplace;
A lack of awareness of the presence of a disability or long term condition (eg mild diabetes), or underestimation of its effects in the workplace;
The episodic or seasonal nature of certain conditions (eg epilepsy, asthma);
The timing of data collection (eg data collection undertaken at the commencement of a person's employment will not record progressive degeneration or improvement of a disability, or a disability acquired, during a period of employment).[103]

Nevertheless, South Australia does collect its own statistics. Further, in 1995 the South Australian government established a Strategy for the Employment of People with Disability in the South Australian Public Sector. That strategy is described as follows:

The strategy enables people with a disability to apply for public sector positions and for public sector agencies to directly seek applications for positions outside of normal public sector recruitment processes. Participants are pre-screened and placed on a Disability Employment Register, which is managed by Disability WORKS Australia (DWA) Ltd. Specifically the strategy involves Disability WORKS Australia being responsible for:

Pre-screening applicants to determine their ability to undertake vocations sought and registering them on an employment register

Liaising with Disability Employment Services to source potential applicants
The provision of advice to South Australian public sector agencies in regards to recruiting and employing people with disabilities, including strategies for interviewing people with disabilities and conducting on site visits to identify workplace modifications that may be required
The coordination of interviews and employment placements for people with disabilities within the South Australian public sector
Advocating on behalf of people with a disability who are interested in accessing South Australian public sector traineeship and graduate positions
Coordination of incentives, support services and workplace modifications for people with a disability employed within South Australian public sector agencies
Promoting the strategy, and raising awareness regarding the benefits associated with employing people with disabilities, within the SA public sector
The provision of Disability Awareness Training to promote the benefits of recruiting people with a disability
The provision of reports to this Office as required regarding the number of people with a disability placed into public sector employment through Disability WORKS Australia as well as numbers of people with a disability on the disability register

The strategy has proven to provide benefits for both the participants and the public sector. Participants gain the benefits of employment, which can often lead to permanent ongoing employment in the public sector, while the government gains a more diverse workforce to serve the South Australian community effectively.

Since the inception of the strategy, it has proven to be an outstanding success with 392 people with disabilities winning positions in the public sector agencies. The positions won range from AS01 to AS06 level, including graduates and trainees, and cover a wide range of occupations.[104]

The Disability Services Commission (Western Australia) and the ACT Commissioner for Public Administration also explained their efforts to encourage employment of people with disability in the First Round Submissions.[105]

Further, the Inquiry is aware that the Australian Public Service Commission recently introduced an 'Employment and Capability Strategy' designed to increase employment of Indigenous Peoples in the public service. While it is too early to evaluate the effectiveness of that strategy, on face value it appears to be a useful model to consider in the context of people with disability. The strategy aims to improve the following aspects of employment in the public sector regarding Indigenous Peoples:

pathways to employment
attraction and recruitment
entry to work
career progression
inclusive workplace culture
APS-wide partnerships.[106]

Interim Recommendation 23 has been amended to provide more specific guidance on public sector leadership.

(s) Interim Recommendation 24: Government procurement policy

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.

In WORKability I: Barriers the Inquiry agreed to conduct preliminary research on international approaches to government procurement policies. The results of that research are set out in Chapter 9. The Second Round Submissions are also discussed in that chapter.

(t) Interim Recommendation 25: Reporting scheme for employers

Interim Recommendation 25: Reporting scheme for employers

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

WORKability I: Barriers noted that some employers participating in the Inquiry's consultations suggested that compulsory reporting for the private sector might prove to be a powerful incentive to increase recruitment of people with disability.[107] 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 suggested adoption of a similar model for the employment of people with disability.

However, several Second Round Submissions expressed opposition to the introduction of a mandatory reporting scheme. For example the Australian Industry Group stated that:

. businesses in Australia are subject to ample reporting requirements and regulatory structures. Whilst businesses should be encouraged to hire and retain more people with disability, imposing mandatory obligations upon businesses may deter employment, drain resources and possibly foster resentment. Furthermore, there would be difficulty in identifying and reporting on various disabilities, as not all disabilities are evident and there may be privacy issues to consider in such reporting.[108]

The Department of Human Services suggested that such a scheme would not necessarily result in improved recruitment and retention rates. The Department of Human Services also warned against potential breaches of the Privacy Act.[109]

The Recruiting and Consulting Services Association went further to suggest that a mandatory scheme might be 'antagonistic to the aims and intentions of the national inquiry' and suggested an alternative approach:

RCSA does not believe the most effective way to promote a genuine and sustainable commitment to best practice in disability employment and recruitment is to impose further administrative obligations upon recruiters. In contrast the RCSA would prefer to look at ways to positively engage disabled persons in the recruitment and on-hire sector and propose the promotion of embedded "disability" officers within member firms providing employment services of any kind. This could occur pursuant to a work placement or experience program allowing individuals to actively view the other side of the employment equation. Some advantages of this direct interaction are:

Social inclusion within a workplace results in increased occupational and social acceptance and an improved understanding of some of the barriers disabled persons face when pursing employment.
An inclusive culture results in respect, acceptance and a sense of value for the work contribution and the value of diversity in all workplaces.
Facilitates improved managerial capacity to deal with a range of issues surrounding marketing of persons with disability and debunking some of the misconceptions that may arise in client discussions.
Broader acknowledgement of the progressive attitudes of some on-hired employee service providers and the ability to market themselves as an employer of choice.
The recruitment industry has the capacity to influence clients and client attitudes and values and seeks to become a conduit of information on best practice recruitment and employment.[110]

The City of Melbourne Disability Advisory Committee notes that mandatory reporting for employers may be 'challenging':

.as people with disabilities have the right to not disclose their disability if they so wish. Statistics on employment rates of people with disabilities will therefore remain under-representative for some types of disabilities.[111]

Despite the opposition to the introduction of a mandatory reporting scheme and the difficulty of collecting accurate numbers absent an obligation to disclose a disability, the Inquiry is of the view that there should be a mechanism to collect and publish private and public sector employment statistics about people with disability.

As a result, the Inquiry has retained Interim Recommendation 25 but removed the 'mandatory' component regarding reporting.

(u) Interim Recommendation 26: Award scheme for employers

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.

Several First Round Submissions noted that award schemes can be a significant incentive to private employers.[112] 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.[113]

The Department of Human Services points out that the Prime Minister's Employer of the Year Awards provides an opportunity to showcase good employers of all sizes in the private and public sector.[114] However, the Inquiry's consultations indicate that this award scheme is poorly promoted amongst the disability community and results in little sharing of expertise amongst employers.

Australians for Disability and Diversity Employment recommended the development of a benchmark scheme to better evaluate best practice:

At present awards seem to be given without any understanding what constitutes achieving best practice. Sometimes perhaps these awards are "making employers feel good without some employers really deserving them".[115]

Amendments have been made to Interim Recommendation 26 to ensure sharing of best practice and promotion of the benefits of employing people with disability amongst the business community.

(v) Interim Recommendation 27: Recruitment agencies

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.

WORKability I: Barriers noted that, ever-increasingly, the private and public sector use private recruitment agencies to hire staff.[116] 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.[117] The more recruitment agencies that have such a expertise, the greater the opportunities for people with disability.

The Inquiry's consultation with employers on 10 October 2005 revealed that at least some employers believe that recruitment agencies are the real block to hiring people with disability - in two senses. First, recruitment agencies are reluctant to place such job seekers because it takes a longer period of time to do so. Second, people with disability do not go to recruitment agencies to look for jobs - possibly because they are aware of this reluctance.[118]

The Recruiting and Consulting Services Association agreed that recruiters have the capacity to influence employers and recently held a symposium addressing participation and diversity in the workplace. The strategy discussed at that symposium included:

Promote education of clients by recruitment service providers
Establish a diversity charter for the recruitment industry
Establish a repository of available information on diversity best practice
Influence the make up of selection panels by incorporating diversity into recruitment panels.[119]

The Inquiry commends the Recruiting and Consulting Services Association for its initiatives to improve the diversity practices of private recruiting agencies and hopes that this results in improved opportunities for people with disability.

The Inquiry has amended Interim Recommendation 27 to incorporate some of the strategies mentioned by the Recruiting and Consulting Services Association.

w. Interim Recommendation 28: 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.

WORKability I: Barriers noted that strategies for increasing the employment opportunities of people with disability will require ongoing development.[120]

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

The Association of Competitive Employment endorsed this idea in its Second Round Submission.[121] The City of Melbourne Disability Advisory Committee suggested that 'this role be designated as a specific project or sub-committee of the National Disability Council'.[122]

The Inquiry notes that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations gathered an Employer Roundtable for People with Disabilities to discuss the barriers and solutions to employment of people with disability from the employer perspective.[123] The Inquiry commends the government for this initiative and recommends that this concept be extended to develop a multi-sector coalition.

The Inquiry has amended Interim Recommendation 28 by suggesting that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations coordinate the development of an ongoing multi-sector leadership coalition.

(x) Additional recommendations: Recommendations 29 and 30

In addition to refining the Interim Recommendations in WORKability I: Barriers, the Inquiry has made two additional recommendations.

The first additional recommendation was suggested during the Inquiry's employer consultation on 10 October 2005.[124] Employers participating in that group noted that the private sector is much more likely to engage in innovative projects to increase employment of people with disability if there is at least partial funding and secretariat support from the government. They discussed DEWR's Corporate Leaders for Indigenous Employment Project and suggested that a similar model might be created with respect to people with disability.[125]

The Inquiry is of the view that much more needs to be done to provide incentives and support to small, medium and large businesses to increase employment of people with disability.

While the Inquiry has been unable to ascertain the effectiveness of DEWR's Corporate Leaders for Indigenous Employment Project, on face value it appears to be a worthwhile experiment in encouraging private sector leadership in this area. On that basis the Inquiry has made the following recommendation:

Recommendation 29: Business leadership project

The Inquiry recommends that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, in cooperation with employer organisations, develop a business leadership project.

The project should incorporate the following minimum features:

(a) a flexible package of funding to provide incentives to businesses to engage in proactive recruitment and retention strategies regarding people with disability; and

(b) specialised employer support and advice to maximise the success of those strategies.

In designing the business leadership project, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations should analyse the effectiveness of its 'Corporate Leaders for Indigenous Employment Project' and make any relevant improvements.

[For information on the Corporate Leaders for Indigenous Employment Project see: http://www.workplace.gov.au/workplace/Category/SchemesInitiatives/IndigenousProgs/CorporateLeadersforIndigenousEmploymentProject.htm]

The second additional recommendation is in response to a suggestion from the Association of Competitive Employment (ACE) in its Second Round Submission:

.ACE is calling for the development of a National Disability Employment Strategy which would provide for better coordination of school to work, welfare to work, education, training and employer awareness initiatives. We believe such a strategy builds on the work done by the Commission to date and would provide a platform for future work and projects.[126]

The Inquiry has made a range of specific recommendations to try and address some of the weaknesses of the current system of income support, subsidies, incentives and service provision. However, in the Inquiry's view there is substantial merit in developing a national streamlined strategy to ensure a more coordinated approach to improving participation and employment of people with disability.

Commonwealth, State and Territory government agencies as well as employers, disability groups and employment service providers should be involved in developing this strategy.

The Inquiry has therefore made the following recommendation:

Recommendation 30: National Disability Employment Strategy

The Inquiry recommends that the Commonwealth government lead the development of a National Disability Employment Strategy, in cooperation with the multi-sector coalition (see Recommendation 28), with a view to ensuring increased participation, recruitment and retention of people with disability in Australia.

Without limiting the scope of such a strategy, the Inquiry recommends that the strategy focus on at least the following issues as a matter of priority:

(a) developing a whole-of-government approach to ensuring appropriate financial and practical support to people with disability, including a streamlined system to provide adequate:

(i) income support;

(ii) transport, equipment and health care subsidies and concessions;

(iii) workplace supports and modifications; and

(iv) personal care in the home and workplace;

(b) improving the effectiveness of government-funded employment service delivery to people with disability and employers (including recruitment assistance and access to supports on an as-needed basis);

(c) improving transition-to-work schemes for people with disability in secondary, tertiary and vocational education and training institutions;

(d) ensuring better relationships between private sector employers and government-funded information, recruitment and employment support services;

(e) increasing recruitment and retention of people with disability in the public sector (at the Commonwealth, State, Territory and local government levels); and

(f) developing a benchmarking, monitoring and reporting system to ensure accountability and ongoing improvement to the incentives, supports and services available to people with disability and employers.

Next chapter

Chapter 3: Endnotes

[1] A copy of WORKability I: Barriers can be downloaded from: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/disability_rights/employment_inquiry/docs/interim.doc

[2] See Appendix 2 at the end of this report for a list of Second Round Submissions.

[3] See WORKability I: Barriers, Chapters 2 and 3.

[4] See WORKability I: Barriers, Chapter 4.

[5] See WORKability I: Barriers, Chapter 5.

[6] See WORKability I: Barriers, Chapter 6.

[7] See WORKability I: Barriers, Chapter 2, section 2.2.

[8] See for example, Submission 139, Australian National Organisation of the Unemployed; Submission 141, Blind Citizens of Australia; Submission 146, Centacare; Submission 156, Association of Competitive Employment.

[9] See for example Submission 136, Arts Access Australia; Submission 138, The Spastic Centre; Submission 139, Australian National Organisation of the Unemployed; Submission 140, Name Withheld; Submission 146, Centacare; Submission 148, Sydney South West Area Mental Health Service; Submission 153, People With Disability Australia; Submission 158, Fairfield Access Committee and the South West Disability Network.

[10] Submission 153, People With Disability Australia.

[11] Submission 148, Sydney South West Area Mental Health Service.

[12] See Submission 152, National Ethnic Disability Alliance; Submission 158, Fairfield Access Committee and the South West Disability Network.

[13] See for example, Submission 146, Centacare; Submission 144, Australians for Disability and Diversity Employment; Submission 158, Fairfield Access Committee and the South West Disability Network; Submission 143, Australian Industry Group.

[14] Submission 159, Intellectual Disability Rights Service; Submission 138, The Spastic Centre; Submission 136, Arts Access Australia.

[15] Submission 159, Intellectual Disability Rights Service.

[16] See WORKability I: Barriers, Chapter 7, section 7.1.

[17] See WORKability I: Barriers, Chapter 8.

[18] See WORKability I: Barriers, Chapter 8.

[19] See for example, Submission 139, Australian National Organisation of the Unemployed; Submission 142, Disability Council of NSW; Submission 143, Australian Industry Group; Submission 144, Australians for Disability and Diversity Employment; Submission 146, Centacare; Submission 147, Vision Australia; Submission 155, Australian Federation of Deaf Societies; Submission 156, Association of Competitive Employment.

[20] See for example, Submission 146, Centacare. See also Submission 156, Association of Competitive Employment; Submission 153, National Ethnic Disability Alliance.

[21] Submission 146, Centacare.

[22] See for example, Submission 146, Centacare; Submission 156, Association of Competitive Employment; Submission 142, Disability Council of NSW; Submission 153, People With Disability Australia.

Site navigation

navigation Disability Rights

WORKability 2: SOLUTIONS
Final report of the National Inquiry into Employment and Disability

Responses to WORKability I: Barriers

3.1 Introduction