TRANSCRIPT
FAMILY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Inquiry into social inclusion and Victorians with a disability
Melbourne — 20 March 2014
Members
Mrs A. Coote
Ms B. Halfpenny
Mr J. Madden
Mr D. O’Brien
Ms D. Ryall
Chair: Ms D. Ryall
Deputy Chair: Ms B. Halfpenny
Staff
Executive Officer: Dr J. Bush
Research Officer: Ms V. Finn
Administrative Officer: Ms N. Tyler
Witness
Mr C. Harrison, chief executive officer, Disability Employment Australia.
20 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
1
The DEPUTY CHAIR — As outlined in the guide provided to you by the secretariat, all evidence at this
hearing is taken by the committee under the provisions of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 and other
legislation. What you say attracts parliamentary privilege within this hearing, but anything you say outside this
hearing does not attract parliamentary privilege. We are recording the proceedings, and you will be given a copy
when the transcript is available. Thank you for coming in. You will give a short presentation for about
15 minutes, leaving us with lots of time in which we can ask you questions, if that is okay.
Mr HARRISON — We will give that a shot, thank you. Thank you very much for the opportunity for
Disability Employment Australia to present. I will start by letting you know a bit about who we are, and that
will give you a bit of context for the kind of work we are involved in. Disability Employment Australia is a
peak body; it is an industry membership-based body. We represent services that provide open employment
support to people with disabilities in the Australian community. As a peak body, we support around 70 per cent
of providers across Australia who support people with disabilities to get jobs in the open employment
community — that is, jobs paid at award wages, working alongside citizens who do not have disabilities and are
earning the same kinds of wages and working in the same kinds of conditions.
As part of our role we assist with and have a strong focus on government policy relevant to disability
employment. We focus on issues impacting upon the viability of the workforce and our industry. We focus on
removing barriers to workforce participation for people with disabilities, and we promote best practice and
innovative ways to assist people with disabilities into real jobs.
The starting proposition for us is that we see social inclusion through employment, and that paid employment in
the open community is clearly a major part of how people are attributed social value and social roles. It is not
surprising that when people go into any form of social event one of the first questions that is asked of them is,
‘What do you do?’, so paid employment is very significant. In Australia today — and no state or territory is
excused in this observation — we rank 21 out of 29 in the OECD in relation to the inclusion of people with
disabilities in employment. As a First World nation we are not doing well enough, and that is a significant issue
for all of us.
It is a significant issue from the point of social inclusion, but it is also a significant economic issue for the
nation. We really cannot afford to ignore the economic and social contributions that people with disabilities can
make. One of our contentions, and why we believe that social inclusion can and should be achieved through a
much greater focus on integrated employment, is that people need the capacity to participate. People may have
the wish to participate, but if you are living on welfare benefits, if you are in the poverty of welfare, then of
course it is much more difficult to contribute and to participate. We see employment as being a key pathway.
It is important also to reflect on the kind of work that the nation is currently doing. The Australian federal
government invests something in the order of $750 million per year into disability employment services. There
are two key components of those employment services. The disability management service, which most of us
would know by the term ‘vocational rehabilitation’, we are hitting at about 38 per cent — or nearly 39 per
cent — outcomes for people who participate in that program. For people in what is called the ‘employment
support’ service, which is a service for people who have ongoing and long-term support needs to gain and
maintain employment, we are hitting at just under 32 per cent. So the current arrangements, as well intentioned
as they are, are not necessarily delivering the kinds of returns on investment that we should be looking for.
When I talk about return on investment I do not mean the $750 million of public money that is expended in this
area. The return on investment for individuals with disability and their being given the opportunity to move into
employment is, I think, of more significance in this conversation.
We would take the view that in the effort that Australia is putting into disability employment and social
inclusion we need to have some sense that a joined-up response — a whole-of-government, whole-of-life
response — is what is required. People with disability are not some amorphous lump. People with disability
have all sorts of different characteristics, different disability types, different contexts in which they live and
different home experiences. All of those things collectively either assist someone with disability to be included
or may be barriers to their inclusion. We would contend that the opportunity afforded this nation through the
National Disability Insurance Scheme is a once-in-a-generation opportunity and that every state and territory,
and of course the commonwealth, needs to put its shoulder to the wheel in relation to supporting the National
Disability Insurance Scheme.
20 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
2
In saying that, I think it is extremely important to note that the national disability insurance scheme at this time
is somewhat silent on the matter of integrated open employment. Through the Productivity Commission report
it clearly noted the opportunities in what are called the Australian disability enterprises. They are congregate
care models. You would most likely know them as sheltered workshops. They have gone through any number
of name changes, but a rose is a rose is a rose. It is still an unemployment model that is about segregation. It is
about low wages, and it is not about changing community attitudes.
There may still be a very small part for that service model. One might hope as we move into the future that that
small part will increasingly reduce. We would contend that for all people with a disability, given the opportunity
through education, skill formation and a receptive employer community, we should presume employability. We
should not presume that people have no capacity to benefit from employment. As our members and our
organisation, Disability Employment Australia, would contend, there are a number of ways that we can support
people with disability to become productive and valued members of the community and through that be truly
socially included as active citizens in this nation.
One of those key areas is the issue of early intervention. This is a key domain for states and territories, which
have carriage of our schooling systems. Young people with disability who come into the early phases of the
compulsory schooling system need to do so with a collective view that they will go through school, they will
complete secondary school and they will go into a job. That needs to be the vision that we establish for young
people and their families from when those young people first start to connect with our social service systems. A
pathway through school focusing on employment skills, focusing on those valued roles and having that sense of
aspiration for young people and their families is a critical component of achieving a truly socially inclusive
society for people with disability.
There are some important models and some important things that have been done — some initiatives that we
might talk about. As I have already said, we focus on social inclusion through open and integrated employment
in the community. We have had a number of partnerships over recent years which have gone to assist in that
area. We have partnered with the Australian Human Resources Institute to develop the capability of our sector.
It is an interesting point to make that about 3 per cent of Australian employers use disability employment
services to recruit their staff. That is not a particularly satisfactory number for someone who heads up a peak
body around disability employment services; that is not good enough.
We do have some what I will call champions in the employer community. There are some quite significant
large corporations that get mentioned often in these kinds of forums. I am not going to go there. What I am
going to suggest is that the big change that needs to occur is leadership from government. Every state and the
commonwealth government public service should be employing people with disabilities at the same ratio that
people with disabilities are represented in the working age population. Our target should be 15 per cent, and that
should be 15 per cent of employment across the full spectrum of work within the Australian and state public
services. We are not talking just about entry-level jobs; we are talking about people with disabilities who have
high competence and who have enormous things to offer Australian business and in particular Australian
government business. Therefore we think Australia governments can be leaders in this, and obviously we would
be very keen to support the work of the Victorian government in promoting employment of people with
disability.
The other thing I would observe about the Australian employment market is that the vast majority of
employment occurs in small to medium enterprises. Whilst there may be a big focus on Westpac, ANZ and
others, it is the small to medium enterprises that need assistance and leadership to really make a difference in the
lives of people with disability. When we talk about the lives of people with disability and we talk about social
inclusion, it is very important to also talk about families of people with disability. Families and carers are often
the unsung heroes in the support of people with disability, and the more that we can assist and support the
inclusion of people with disability in integrated and open employment, then the more we can also see the
participation of families and carers improving their societies.
There is no question that one of the principles behind the Productivity Commission inquiry, which was about
the economic benefit of improving employment in disability, clearly noted the benefits not just for people with
disability but for carers and families to also be able to re-engage in the labour market. So many people have had
to reduce their careers and reduce their work hours because they quite rightly are the only people who at the
moment can care for their sons or daughters with disability. We contend and hope that the national disability
20 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
3
insurance scheme will be a key way of overcoming that. But as I say, it needs to have a strong focus on
employment pathways as a critical issue.
In looking at some innovative examples — that was one of the questions that was asked of us — what kind of
innovation has occurred that has led to increased social inclusion for people with a disability? Before I launch
into talking about that I might just remind us of the fact that we are 21 out of 29 in the OECD when it comes to
the employment of people with disability. When I talk innovation here, I am not talking about innovations that
led to massive change, and some of the innovative initiatives I will talk about are international — at least I will
note them. I note them because, to be quite blunt, I cannot positively talk a lot about the Australian experience,
given that data.
That said, we have engaged in a project called Creative Spirit, which is an employer-led industry call to employ
people with disability in the creative industries. It has been supported by the disability employment services,
and it has been led by one of our disability employment service partners, Break Thru People Solutions. That is
leading to a number of creative industries starting to see the potential and opportunity for their businesses to get
an advantage, how their businesses can improve as businesses, but also how they can act in a way that assists
people with disability to go into what are quite highly valued employment opportunities. I think that is an
important point. We do not want to just talk about entry-level jobs flipping hamburgers, and we do not want
people stuck in hamburger-flipping jobs for the rest of their lives. They need career progression; they need the
opportunity to move forward. They need access to really quite valued roles in our community, working in
industries that are highly valued.
We have also been involved in what is called the Other Film Festival, which was an initiative of Arts Access
Victoria. This was specifically around a range of short films that challenge low expectations or what might be
called commonly held stereotypes of people with disability. That is a very powerful set of films that really do
test people’s beliefs and thinking about the roles, the aspirations and the capabilities of people with disability.
I would mention an emerging group called the Able Movement. The Able Movement is a collective of really
quite progressive thinkers and some high-profile people in Australia who have taken on the task, in the context
of a national disability insurance scheme — and I might mention the National Disability Strategy — to look at
how we might change the attitudes of Australian people to people with disability, and through that change of
attitude change expectations and anticipations of the community, of governments, of employers and of course of
people with a disability and their families themselves. It ought not be forgotten that for many people with
disability and their families, their experiences have not been positive and their aspirations may well have been
constrained by the lack of those positive opportunities.
Sometimes the expectations of families and young people with disability themselves are not aspirational. The
Able Movement is an emerging social change agent that is looking at doing something about that. The Be.
Accessible movement in New Zealand is something that I think is really worth this committee having a look at.
The website for that is www.beaccessible.org.nz. That is a national effort across New Zealand, and as the title
suggests it is about an accessible community, an accessible society, a society that has a view that people with
disability have a contribution to make and can make that contribution where society gives access to those
individuals in all levels of their society, whether it is social, economic or education.
Another innovative issue that we have come across is Job Shadow Day in Ireland. That is where people with
disability spend a day with a member of Parliament, or another high-profile person, and obviously through that
not only does the person with disability gain insight and knowledge about how systems work, how our
democracies work and how major organisations work, but also it builds that sense of value for themselves in the
fact that they are associating with people of significance and real social value and role in our society. That
particular initiative has been rolled out across Europe after its success in Ireland, so it is an evidence-based,
demonstrated success story. That can be found at www.iase.ie. I think they are the main things that I would like
to mention as part of our presentation, and I am very comfortable to assist any further with questions.
The DEPUTY CHAIR — Thank you. That was very good. I would just like to clear something up. When
you were talking about 38 to 39 per cent outcomes in terms of jobs, are they ongoing and how do you measure
that? I know for example there are programs that provide subsidies for six months or whatever; what is the
definition in terms of outcomes? Are these ongoing, permanent positions?
20 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
4
Mr HARRISON — Who has an ongoing, permanent position in our society? You guys show up for change
every three or four years.
Mrs COOTE — Too many politicians think they do.
The DEPUTY CHAIR — As opposed to short-term positions.
Mr HARRISON — It is an absolutely important question. As I look at the design of the disability
employment service model in Australia today — and it has gone through a number of iterations — it rewards
outcomes. The business is about getting people into jobs and getting those jobs to stick. The rule of thumb in the
Australian labour market is that if you subsidise a job — and you might do so for six months — 80 per cent of
people who have been subsidised for six months are with that same employer in 12 months time, so it is an
80-20 rule. I am not convinced that absolutely applies across the broad disability community.
In the design of the current program that 26-week milestone target is very central. Our services are funded to get
people jobs. When they get to 13 weeks there is what is called interim milestone funding. When they get to
26 weeks there is more significant funding — it is about double the funding — so getting to 26 weeks is the
goal.
However, aligned with our funding system, which clearly from a business point of view drives lots of
behaviours, there is a performance framework that attaches to the commonwealth’s procurement strategy. Who
do they contract with? They contract with providers that achieve high performance levels, and they have a star
rating system from one star to five stars. Five stars is extremely good, and one star is clearly not so good. At
procurement points generally one and two-star providers, if they do not lose their full contracts, lose
components of their business. There are two drivers to push the services forward: one is fiscal and one is
performance, which relates to the survival of the entity. It focuses the mind on achieving outcomes.
In more recent iterations of the program, in March 2013 there was the introduction of a 52-week performance
indicator, so now services are rewarded for those jobs continuing for 52 weeks. It would be a reasonable
proposition to suggest that if we have a system focused on rewarding providers by getting jobs to be durable and
we have a performance system that acknowledges 52 weeks as a significant milestone, then we are probably
suggesting that this program is designed or is intended to deliver sustainable long-term jobs.
The DEPUTY CHAIR — At this point in time do we have figures to show how long people continue in
work once they are in a place?
Mr HARRISON — We do have those figures. I do not have them with me. I can talk from direct
experience.
The DEPUTY CHAIR — Can you give us those figures at a later time?
Mr HARRISON — Yes, we can provide those figures.
The DEPUTY CHAIR — They would be interesting to see. That is one thing in terms of incentives, but the
other area is legislation — the Victorian Disability Act and equal opportunity legislation. Has there been a
change in better employment outcomes as a result of that sort of legislation?
Mr HARRISON — I think legislation that encourages people to behave in a civil way always helps. The
business of the employment and labour market is a multifaceted issue, particularly when it comes to disability,
and I would be hesitant to suggest that legislation by itself is the driver. I think attitude and education, and that
includes empowerment of people with disability and a better understanding of the capacities and willingness of
people with disability to be employed, are equally important.
On that last point, it would be remiss of me not to note that in the current public conversation around welfare
reform there is a lot of conversation about cost and a lot of conversation about the suspicion that there are many
people with disability who are shirking work. It is important to go on the record and say that in our
experience — and I have over 20 years experience as a direct deliverer of these services and in influencing and
supporting government policy — that is plain wrong.
20 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
5
The vast majority of people with disability want to work. They want to be contributors to their community; they
just have not had the opportunity to do so. Many years ago we did some research through the Australian
National Training Authority where we segmented the Australian population’s attitude to vocational education
and training. One embarrassing statistic was that middle-aged men are the strongest supporters of vocational
education and training — for others. The group of citizens in Australia who most wanted access to vocational
education and training but could not get it were people with disability. That was independent research, not
driven by the disability sector. It was market research in relation to the overall vocational education effort in
Australia. It tells us something, when you have evidence like that.
As I say, through direct experience we have supported people who have significant disability and who have
done more than anyone else I have ever met to get and keep a job. They have been people who would travel
large distances on public transport with multiple changes to get to and from their workplaces. I contend that the
vast majority of people with disability want to work and the vast majority of people with disability need to be
given the opportunity through education and other pathways to do so.
The DEPUTY CHAIR — Just one quick question on the vocational training. Do people with disability get
into places in vocational training mainly in the TAFE system or do they do go through private registered
organisations?
Mr HARRISON — Again, to generalise disability is difficult, given the broad range of disabling conditions,
but I have run a registered training organisation as part of the disability space, and we set it up because we could
not get our clients into the private RTOs and we were not necessarily satisfied with the responsiveness of the
TAFE system. That experience was in South Australia, but because I sat on the Australian National Training
Authority’s Disability Forum, which was an advisory body to the board of ANTA, I had a pretty good
understanding of the national perspective. I think the public provider has significantly improved over the years
and that pathways through vocational training are improving.
I might just note as a matter of some interest that the South Australian Skills for All program is a very good
example of how they have partnered with disability employment specialists to bring together the knowledge of
individual disability type with the VET professional so that we could build a partnership that would support a
person with significant disability successfully access, successfully complete and successfully gain employment
as a result of that pathway. It kind of makes some sense, if we think about the challenge of our VET
professionals to stay content current. A lot of their PD needs to be spent in understanding the latest information
in their particular industry area if they are going to be useful to Australian businesses. So to ask them to also
have expert knowledge in the whole range of disability would seem to be somewhat questionable. That
partnering model is I think a really significant opportunity to improve access to and outcomes from vocational
training for people with disabilities.
The additional component of that was that it partnered with the Disability Employment Services, which then of
course were taking that whole effort of the state investment in vocational training through to its natural
outcome, which is a driver to include that person in a job — get them a job in the industry for which they have
now been trained. We do not see a lot of that as a general proposition. People finish their VET courses and out
they go and hunt for a job. If you have a significant disability, you need support to do so.
Mrs COOTE — Craig, thank you very much indeed. That was extremely helpful and there was a lot of
information in there, which is terrific. I am interested in a couple of things. One is the receptive employers,
which I think is important. On your comment about Victorian government departments, I think it is 3 per cent,
which is seriously unacceptable, I think the state disability plan, which I had something to do with, is addressing
that. We have a task force looking at that at the very highest levels and making some amends, which is a
challenge for them, I suggest. However, it is a cross-government approach, which I think is important.
One of the things you did not touch upon is looking at the people who do not want or intend to file for disability
and how we monitor and support them within this area. More importantly, the question I have for you is about
how you see the NDIA being able to encourage work opportunity as part of the package. Do you think at this
stage there is enough emphasis in the training of the people who are planners working in the launch sites to have
work and employment as part of the options?
20 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
6
Mr HARRISON — No, I do not. I could expand on that. One of the areas that has concerned us in the
disability employment sector space has been this issue of what I will call low expectation. There are silos here at
the moment. There is some stuff around what is universal and what is going to be the NDIA’s responsibility.
Everyone is dancing around that a little bit.
I will give you an example of why I think low expectation is a key problem in the planning space. I will use the
example of the launch or trial site in Tasmania. They are trialling the interface between the state education
system and the NDIA. This is an absolutely current example. It happened very early this year or at the end of
last year. A disability employment service provider was self-funding a transition-to-work program for young
people with significant intellectual disabilities. A young man aged 16 with an IQ of about 57, who would be
considered to have a moderate intellectual disability — I am not a great believer in IQ scores, but that is the
reality we confront — was given the opportunity of a two-week work experience, or work trial, with a local
employer. It was a great success. Co-workers, employer and the young person themselves all wanted this to go
forward. The disability and employment service provider then accompanied the young man to a Department of
Human Services office, where they were to receive an assessment about their capacity to work. The assessment
ruled them as having a 0 to 7-hour capacity, which rules them out of the Commonwealth Disability
Employment Services. You have to be assessed as having 8 hours per week capacity or more. The support
worker who accompanied this young man said, ‘Hang on, he’s just done a two-week trial. It has all worked out
well, what you mean?’. ‘Okay, I’ll give him 8 hours’. Apart from the advocacy of that individual — and the
young man would not have been able to advocate for himself — he would have been 0 to 7. Unfortunately the
story did not stop there. A senior team leader in the office then overruled by coming in and saying, ‘Hey, you’re
going to set this lad up to fail. He can’t work in open employment. In fact he can’t work at all, and so the
assessment is 0 to 7 for both ADE and DES’. The problem was fixed eventually, and the young man started
work and it is all going very well.
I use that example to suggest that there are a couple of key problems here. One clearly is: who is training our
assessors and what kind of aspirational approach do our assessors have? We have been doing this for over
27 years in this country. We have been placing people with moderate intellectual disabilities in award-based
jobs and they have been successful there. The particular agency that I worked for in South Australia for some
years has this lovely story of one of our support workers who started with us in 1986, just after the Disability
Services Act, placing a young man with a moderate intellectual disability in a local South Australian business.
In 2014 the two of them are both in the 27th year, one as a support worker and the other as a valued worker in
this South Australian business. Where the match is right we look at long-term employment and long-term
sustainability.
There is a real issue in the assessment of people’s capacity. I take a very simple view. As I said earlier, we
presume employability. The assessment should be quite simple: ‘Would you like a job? If the answer is yes,
we’ll work with you to make sure you get one’; not this cumbersome process of capacity to work and all this
nonsense.
The other part that you touch on is the issue of the planners. Again at the moment the planners are doing their
best. But again, I do not think that pathways to open employment have necessarily been central in their thinking.
I think that is something we need to shine some sunlight on because it is a really important part.
Mrs COOTE — Otherwise it will be something starting right at the beginning that is not going to be easy to
turn back.
Mr HARRISON — I think that is the concern. We kind of moved a bunch of people from one system into
another system, and they took a bunch of baggage with them. How you unpack that is, I think, quite
challenging. I think all administrations across Australia need to be alert to that risk. We cannot afford to have
people with disability sitting on the outside. We cannot afford it for their sake, we cannot afford for their
families’ sake and we cannot afford from the point of view of nation building. This country cannot afford to
have 800 000 people on pensions and X number of other people underemployed when they could be doing
much better. That is not to say that there is not a significant cohort of Australian citizens who, for reasons of
their disability and maybe for some other reasons, we ought not be coercing into employment. This is not about
a pointy stick and driving them in at risk of their welfare benefits. That is not a sophisticated approach. What
this nation should be doing is creating decent pathways from early childhood right through our school systems
and into receptive open employment opportunities.
20 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
7
Mrs COOTE — Thank you very much.
Mr MADDEN — That is very good. Thank you. I think those last few comments were very pertinent, Craig.
From our point of view, if you were us and you wanted to make three recommendations and you had a
bucketload of money, what would those three priorities be?
Mrs COOTE — We have not got the bucket full of money.
Mr MADDEN — No, we do not. But imagine if we were able to convince somebody who did have it what
you could do. A lot of what you have described involves a degree of complexity, so those things should be
addressed because they need to be addressed. If we had to prioritise three things, what should they be?
Mr HARRISON — I will give that shot. I will probably end up with 20, but I will try 3.
Mr MADDEN — That is all right.
Mr HARRISON — We will go for three. I think there needs to be a significant social marketing campaign
in this nation. I think we need a message in front of every Australian citizen every day for the next three years
that provides positive imagery of people with disability participating and contributing so that we as a nation
move away from this idea of care to an idea of inclusion and respect. That would be one big change.
I think we need to invest from early childhood right through our school systems in that aspirational approach. I
think we need to engage our teacher training institutions, our early childhood intervention systems and our
secondary school systems right through to our tertiary education systems. Our education systems from early
childhood, through schooling, through TAFEs and through higher education need to be engaged such that they
are creating enabling environments for people with disability to access and to learn. That, I think, is a really
critical part of what we need to do.
Of course the third key part is that we need to build an approach that encourages our employer community to
see the value proposition in employing people with disability. That value proposition, given that we are talking
about business, needs to be a business case, but it needs to be a business case that also encourages our employer
community to understand that it is not just about running a business, it is about contributing to a better and more
civil society. That would be three. I could probably come up with a couple of others.
Mr MADDEN — Give us one more as a supplementary.
Mr HARRISON — As a supplementary, I think the national disability insurance scheme and the agency
needs to put employment absolutely front and centre. To put it quite bluntly, if, like any insurance system, we
do not look at the tail of that insurance system, I think we are going to have a problem some time in the future
where the cost is going to be seen to be disproportionate to the return. I think that is a huge risk, but it is one that
should and can be managed if we take a presumption of employability and if our effort is aligned to support
people to be gainfully employed.
Mr MADDEN — They are great. I want to compliment you, too, because a lot of people who have
presented have spoken about the needs of individuals — which is entirely appropriate in the sense of the greater
good — but what you have mentioned today, which we need to factor in, and part of what you are convincing
us of is that there is an economic benefit, both a broad one and a more specific one, that we need to factor into
our recommendations. If you have a community which is open and inclusive, then economically that is better
for everybody at the end of the day, too. That is a very powerful message that we need to be very mindful of
when we make our recommendations, so thank you for that.
Mrs COOTE — Thank you, Craig, that was really interesting.
The DEPUTY CHAIR — Thank you very much.
Mr HARRISON — Thank you.
Witness withdrew.
20 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
8