Skip to main content

Search

National Inquiry on Employment and Disability Interim Report: chapter 7

  • Back to contents
  • National Inquiry on Employment and Disability

    Interim Report:


    7. 
    Interim Recommendations

    7.1 Introduction

    7.2 Assess and address information
    needs

    7.2.1 Develop a one-stop-information-shop
    and inquiry service

    7.2.2 Map of government services

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

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

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

    7.3.3 Introduce a 'cost of
    disability' allowance.

    7.3.4 Introduce a 'cost of
    participation' allowance

    7.3.5 Investigate extension
    of health concessions

    7.3.6 Investigate increases
    to Mobility Allowance and extension of transport concessions

    7.3.7 Improve the Workplace
    Modifications Scheme

    7.3.8 Investigate the introduction
    of tax incentives

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

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

    7.4.2 Ensure a comprehensive
    safety net for those on income support

    7.4.3 Support and develop
    work trials

    7.5 Assess and address
    recruitment and support needs

    7.5.1 Improve transition to
    work schemes

    7.5.2 Increase access to ongoing
    support

    7.5.3 Develop guidelines for
    creating a flexible workplace

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

    7.5.5 Investigate recruitment
    and support needs for people with mental illness

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

    7.6 Encourage public and
    private sector leadership

    7.6.1 Increase public sector
    employment

    7.6.2 Develop a government
    procurement policy

    7.6.3 Develop a reporting
    scheme for employers.

    7.6.4 Create and promote awards
    for employer best practice.

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

    7.6.6 Create an inter-sector
    leadership coalition.

    7.1 
    Introduction

    The preceding chapters of this report are a summary of the main issues
    raised in the submissions and consultations already conducted by the
    Inquiry. The issues have been grouped into themes as follows:

    1. The general information needs, costs and risks faced by employers
      (Chapter 2).
    2. The general information needs, costs and risks faced by people
      with disability
      (Chapter 3).
    3. The issues facing people with disability in getting ready for
      a job
      in the open workplace (Chapter 4).
    4. The issues facing employers and people with disability regarding
      recruitment in the open workplace (Chapter 5).
    5. The issues facing employers and people with disability regarding
      job retention (Chapter 6).

    In considering the Interim Recommendations below, the Inquiry urges
    readers to keep in mind that the employment process involves a number
    of interdependent parties and elements. Improvements to any one aspect
    of the process in isolation is unlikely to result in much success. Unless
    the barriers for people with disability and employers are addressed
    in a holistic manner, there is a real chance of setting up all parties
    to fail.

    For example, getting more people with disability into the workforce
    through improved access to information and better recruitment practices
    may not ensure a positive employment outcome without adequate supports
    for employees with disability, employers and work colleagues. And a
    failed employment situation in the case of employees with disability
    can have serious knock-on effects by perpetuating stigma and negative
    perceptions.

    The Interim Recommendations in this chapter attempt to address the
    overarching elements amongst different parties throughout the employment
    process.

    The Interim Recommendations have been organised in the following groups:

    1. Assess and address information needs

    2. Assess and address the costs facing employers and people with disability

    3. Assess and address the risks facing employers and people with disability

    4. Assess and address recruitment and support needs

    5. Encourage public and private sector leadership

    The Inquiry emphasises that these recommendations are guided by the
    content of the submissions and consultations; they do not intend to,
    and do not, cover the field. Further, these recommendations are interim
    recommendations only. The Inquiry remains open to comments and suggestions
    as to other measures needed to increase participation and employment
    of people with disability.

    Chapter 8 selects some of these Interim Recommendations for further
    work by the Inquiry in its remaining months.

    7.2 
    Assess and address information needs

    There appears to be substantial confusion, misapprehension and fear
    in most parties involved with the participation and employment of people
    with disability in the workplace. Part of the problem lies in the absence
    of appropriate information. However the larger problem is that the information
    that is available is disconnected, difficult to find and often inaccessible
    to people with disability.

    7.2.1 Develop a one-stop-information-shop and inquiry service

    An overwhelmingly consistent theme of the submissions to, and consultations
    by, the Inquiry is that there needs to be a comprehensive one-stop-information-shop
    for all parties involved in the employment of people with disability.

    It is not the first time that this idea has been suggested. This initiative
    was suggested in the 2003 Review of the Employer Incentives Strategy.[1]
    The 2005 Budget Papers also suggest the establishment of an information
    site that is based on the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) funded by
    the United States Department of Labor.[2]

    However, the Budget Papers suggest that such a website should be focussed
    on the needs of employers. While the JAN website is primarily focussed
    on workplace modifications, the information collected by this Inquiry
    suggests the need for a broader approach.

    In particular, a comprehensive information source should cater to the
    needs of the following groups of people:

    • Large, medium and small employers considering the employment of
      people with disability
    • Large, medium and small employers already hiring people with disability
    • Work colleagues of people with disability
    • People with disability who are considering entry into the open workplace
    • People with disability who already participate in the open workplace
    • Employment service providers
    • Private recruitment agencies
    • Carers of people with disability
    • Government and non-government support services
    • Community groups.

    Submissions and consultations suggest that employers would be
    interested in a one-stop-information-shop that addresses at least the
    following topics:

    1. The business case for hiring people with disabilities for large, medium
    and small businesses.

    2. Potential costs incurred by a business when hiring people with different
    disability.

    3. Government assistance available to employers with employees with disability
    (for example the Workplace Modification Scheme, Wage Support Subsidy,
    Supported Wage Scheme, Disabled New Apprentice Wage Support)

    4. Lists of government-funded employment services that can help in
    the recruitment of employees.

    5. Lists of private recruitment agencies that have disability-friendly
    policies.

    6.Clear information on any legal implications of hiring people with disability.

    7.Technical assistance regarding workplace accommodations.

    8. Training assistance and sample curricula for managers and other
    staff regarding working with people with disability.

    9. Guidelines regarding accessible training for employees with specific
    disabilities.

    10. Guidelines regarding an open and inclusive recruitment and selection
    process.

    11. Guidelines regarding the creation of a flexible workplace.

    12. Guidelines on how to access or run mentoring programs for employees
    with disability.

    13.  Information about
    specific disabilities.

    14.  Information about,
    and access to, on-going support services for employees and managers
    of employees with disability.

    15.  Best practice
    workplace policies and case studies.

    16.  Information and
    promotion of employer award schemes.

    17.  Referrals to
    experts regarding support, training and retraining for people with
    specific disabilities.

    18.  Personalised
    inquiry service (with the option for confidentiality).

    Submissions and consultations suggest that people with disability
    would be interested in a one-stop-information-shop that addresses at
    least the following topics:

    1. The impact of potential wages on overall income for those receiving government
    support (for example the interaction between salary, loss of income
    support and taxation rates).

    2. Transport costs, transport concessions and available subsidies (including
    Mobility Allowance).

    3. Equipment costs and available subsidies (including the Workplace Modifications
    Scheme and other State-based subsidies).

    4. Medical costs and potential loss of medical concessions.

    5. Safety-net information in the event of an unsuccessful employment relationship.

    6. Education and training options (both prior to and during employment),
    including associated costs and government assistance.

    7. Lists of government-funded employment services, including agencies with
    specialist services in specific disabilities.

    8. Lists of private recruitment agencies with disability-friendly policies.

    9. Assistance available throughout the job-seeking and employment process.

    10.Information about, and access to, on-going support services for
    employees with disability.

    11.  Personal assistance
    and care services available at home and in the workplace.

    12.  Guidelines on
    disclosure of disability to a potential or current employer (especially
    for those people with mental illness and HIV/AIDS).

    13.  Personalised
    inquiry service (with the option of confidentiality).

    The submissions and consultations also make very clear that the information
    must be accessible - both in the sense that people with disability must
    be able to read and understand the information, and in the sense that
    it must be simple, cheap and comprehensive.

    The existence of an expert personal inquiry service is also crucial
    to the success of an information service. This service should be able
    to answer questions specific to particular circumstances and refer inquirers
    to experts where needed.

    Finally, the submissions emphasise that there is little use in an information
    service that nobody knows about. The one-stop-information-shop should
    therefore be actively promoted amongst the community sector, employment
    services, recruiting agencies and the business sector. One way to promote
    the service is to employ staff to visit workplaces with employees with
    disability and explain what information, advice and support is available
    to employers and employees.

    Thus, while the Inquiry is of the view that the American JAN service
    provides a good starting point, many things have been raised in this
    Inquiry process that are not included in JAN. The Inquiry therefore
    recommends that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations
    (DEWR) conduct further consultations and investigations regarding the
    ideal content, format of costing structure and therefore makes the following
    recommendation.

    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.

    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


    Endnotes:
    Chapter 7

    [1]
    FACS, Employer Incentives Strategy Review, 2003, Action 3 - Provide
    targeted information, advice and support to employers about employing
    people with disabilities, p44.

    [2]
    See FACS, Employer Incentives Strategy Review, 2003, Key Areas
    for Action, Action 2 and 3.

    [4]
    See for example Submission 77B, RBS.RVIB.VAF Limited; Submission 80B,
    Blind Citizens Australia; Submission 113A, Australian Public Service
    Commission; Submission 72A, Scope Victoria; Submission 86A, Ai Group.

    [5]
    See for example, Submission 131, Disability and Participation Alliance,
    p6; Submission 50, Deafness Forum Australia, p8.

    [6]
    Submission 79, Australian Federation of Deaf Societies, p15; Submission
    68, ACE National Network, p6; Submission 77, RBS.RVIB.VAF Limited, p3;
    Submission 114, ACROD, p5.

    [7]
    See for example, Submission 68, ACE National Network, p8; Submission
    79, Australian Federation of Deaf Societies, p15; Submission 100, Brotherhood
    of St Laurence, p9; Submission 25, Victorian Deaf Society, p3.

    [8]
    Submission 68, ACE National Network, p8.

    [9]
    Working for Australia Report, p130, 184. See also the submission
    from DEWR to the Standing Committee at p120.

    [10]
    Productivity Commission, Review of the Disability Discrimination
    Act 1992
    , Report No 30, 30 April 2004, Vol 1, ppLIV-LV; pp426-428.

    [11]
    For the full response of the Commonwealth Attorney-General to the Productivity
    Commission Report see http://www.ag.gov.au/PCDDA.

    [12]
    See for example, Submission 49, Disability Council of NSW, p8.

    [13]
    NZ Minister for Social Development 2005 as cited in Submission 100,
    Brotherhood of St Laurence, p11. See also Submission 114, ACROD, p5;
    Submission 68, ACE National Network, p6; Submission 17, Family Advocacy,
    p2.

    [14]
    Submission 50, Deafness Forum Australia, p8.

    [15]
    Submission 100, Brotherhood of St Laurence, p11.

    [16]
    Submission 49, pp7-8. See also Submission 27, DEAC, p7.

    [17]
    See for example, Submission 7, Name withheld, p4.

    [18]
    Submission 23, Name withheld, p4.

    [19]
    Submission 91, National Association of People Living with HIV/AIDS,
    p20; Submission 72, Scope Victoria, p8.

    [20]
    Submission 50, Deafness Forum Australia, p7.

    [21]
    Submission 50, Deafness Forum Australia, p9.

    [22]
    Submission 114, ACROD.

    [23]
    Submission 50; Submission 79; Submission 32, Australian Disability Training
    Advisory Council, p7.

    [24]
    Submission 80, Blind Citizens Australia, p10.

    [25]
    Submission 52, Ability Technology, p5.

    [26]
    FACS, Employer Incentives Strategy Review, 2003, Action 9 - Improve
    the administration of the Workplace Modifications Scheme to make it
    easier to access, p50.

    [27]
    Productivity Commission, Review of the Disability Discrimination
    Act 1992
    , Report No 30, 30 April 2004, Recommendation 15.1 pLV.
    See also Submission 68, ACE National Network, p9; Submission 32, Australian
    Disability Training Advisory Council.

    [28]
    Working for Australia Report, p165-166.

    [29]
    Working for Australia Report, p78-79.

    [30]
    Submission 107, Uniting Care Australia, p5

    [31]
    Submission 100, Brotherhood of St Laurence, p11; Submission 109, Waghorn
    and Llyod, p28, citing DEWR, Job Network Disability Support Pension
    Pilot: Interim Evaluation Report, Canberra, 2004. See also Submission
    100, Brotherhood of St Laurence, p11; Submission 53, RANZCP, p2

    [32]
    Submission 26, National Network Of Private Psychiatric Sector Consumers
    and Carers, p4.

    [33]
    FACS, Employer Incentives Strategy Review, 2003, Action 6 - Develop
    a robust platform for work trials, p47.

    [34]
    Submission 126, South Australian Government, p4-5.

    [35]
    Submission 126, South Australian Government, p4.

    [36]
    Submission 119, Parents and Professional Advocates, ACT, p2.

    [37]
    Submission 119, Parents and Professional Advocates, ACT, p11.

    [38]
    Submission 100, Brotherhood of St Laurence, p9.

    [39]
    Submission 80, Blind Citizens Australia, p12. Similar recommendations
    are made in Submission 77, RBS.RVIB.VAF Limited, p2.

    [40]
    House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace
    Relations and Workforce Participation, Working for Australia's Future:
    Increasing participation in the workforce
    , Recommendation 21, p172
    (Working for Australia Report). See also Submission 86, AiGroup,
    p5.

    [41]
    Submission 109, Waghorn and Llyod, p27-28.

    [42]
    See for example, Working for Australia Report, p66-67, 134-7,
    162.

    [43]
    For the Fact Sheets see http://www.workplace.gov.au/workplace/Category/SchemesInitiatives/WorkF….
    For the database see http://www.wagenet.gov.au/FFAC/Main/Default.aspx.
    See also the Working for Australia Report, p134-7.

    [44]
    Submission 133, NESA, p12.

    [45]
    Submission 114, ACROD, p2. See also Submission 23, Name withheld, p4;
    Submission 21, Disability Services Commission WA, p.2

    [46]
    Submission 27, DEAC, p13.

    [47]
    Submission 45, NSWCID: Sweden, Oklahoma, US. Submission 32, Australian
    Association of the Deaf: New Zealand and the US; Submission 58, Centre
    of Full Employment and Equity: US; Submission 77, RBS.RVIB.VAF Limited:
    Canada and New Zealand; Submission 100, Brotherhood of St Laurence:
    UK.

    [48]
    Submission 114, ACROD, p3; Submission 109, Waghorn and Lloyd, p21-23.

    [49]
    Submission 54, SANE, p2.

    [50]
    Submission 118, EOCV, p15-16.

    [51]
    Working for Australia Report, p172-3.

    [52]
    Submission 77, RBS.RVIB.VAF Limited, p5. See also, Submission 44, Australians
    for Diversity Employment, p4; Submission 80, Blind Citizens Australia,
    p8; Submission 114, ACROD, p8.

    [53]
    Re the USA see section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act 1973. European
    governments are now bound by a Council of Europe Directive on accessible
    procurement adopted in 2004.

    [54]
    See for example: Submission 34, Manpower Services Australia, p7; submission
    57, Queensland Department of Employment and Training, p1; Submission
    67, Department of Consumer and Employment Protection, p7.

    [55]
    FACS, Employer Incentives Strategy Review, 2003, Action 4. Identify
    mechanisms to recognise employers' performance and encourage ongoing
    improvement in employers' efforts to recruit people with disabilities,
    p45.

    [56]
    Submission 65, IBM, p2; Submission 127, National Australia Bank, p2.

    [57]
    See FACS, Employer Incentives Strategy Review, 2003, Key Area
    for Action 1.

    [58]
    Submission 15, McCall (National Diversity Think Tank), pp29-30.