Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring this motion to the House. I thank the member for Gilmore for her unwavering support and for seconding this motion. I also take the opportunity to thank all of my colleagues who are participating in this debate today. Despite the continual growth of Australia’s economy and increased workforce participation in general, the employment of people with a disability has been steadily declining. This trend raises significant concerns in that 18.5 per cent of Australians suffer from a disability—nearly one fifth of the Australian population. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics reveals that since 1993 the workforce participation rate for people with a disability has steadily decreased to 53.2 per cent. The OECD currently ranks Australia 13th, out of 19 countries, on the employment rate of people with a disability.

The low level of employment for people with a disability denies them a decent standard of living and a social context to their lives. It leaves them socially isolated. In terms of the nation, denying people with a disability meaningful employment detracts from our national productivity. It is one of the issues that I consider our greatest challenges as a nation if we want to maintain a standard of living for all Australians. Further, it forces people with a disability to rely on a support pension and increases the welfare bill. I think it is a very sad reflection on our community when each year, as the federal budget is considered, industry leaders, economists, news editorials and others call for a tightening of the welfare budget. They want to target some of the most vulnerable people in our community to make budget savings. I think this is really inappropriate and it is time we begin to look at ways we can remove some of the barriers to employment for people with a disability.

Welfare for people with a disability should not be an issue if we address these barriers—except that the government continues to ignore and continues to fail to act on the many positive recommendations that have been made in the plethora of reports that have been completed to address employment disadvantage in the disability sector. While it is a fact that not every person receiving a disability support pension is able to work, many want to but are unable to find suitable employment or are insufficiently supported to do so. It should therefore be a priority for government to dismantle the identified barriers to employment for people with a disability. Those barriers have been outlined in the National Disability Strategy consultation report, Shut out: the experience of people with disabilities and their families in Australia, which was released in 2009. The same barriers were also identified in 2005 in the National Inquiry into Employment and Disability by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. That report revealed the exact same barriers that were identified in 2009. But very little has been done to dismantle those barriers, and it seems to me that there is a lack of commitment to do so.

Despite inquiry after inquiry, effective action just has not been evident. While the government spends millions of dollars encouraging the private sector to employ people with a disability—many of us each year attend a special event in Parliament House that acknowledges and awards companies in the private sector, largely, who do the right thing and employ people with a disability—we see no effort made to address the declining numbers of people with a disability employed in the Public Service, and those numbers continue to go south. Employment of people with a disability in the Australian Public Service continues its downward trend, declining from 5.5 per cent in 1996 to 3.1 per cent in 2010. Surely if we want private sector employers to provide employment opportunities for people with a disability then the public sector should be taking a leading role and setting an example. The government needs to have something to say about that. The explanation in the Public Service Commissioner’s statistical bulletin for this decline is that it may be due to ‘a reduction in the amount of lower level positions available’; yet a cursory glance at the report’s statistics reveals a relatively similar, though declining, number of people with disability across all levels of employment. The comment is also an example of the persistent perception that people with a disability are somehow less capable, a perception which can be refuted by the statistics in the very same report.

With such misconceptions continuing to persist within the public sector, how can government expect to address the concerns held by the private sector employers? Government needs to work harder to dispel the misconceptions of the cost of workplace adjustments to the employee acting as a disincentive. Data from the United States cited in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report estimates that most workplace modifications will cost less than US$500. Such a small outlay can easily pay for itself, considering that the statistics gathered by the Australian Network on Disability show that, on average, employees with a disability have few occupational health and safety incidents, have productivity rates equal to or greater than other workers and have superior attendance records.

Other major obstacles identified in the Shut out report include the inflexibility of the disability support pension and the cost of travelling to work. Indeed, the accessibility of public transport for people with a disability remains a persistent issue. The Shut out report gives an example of ‘R’, who spends $400 a week in taxi fares to get to work, as his disability prevents him from taking public transport. Because of this expense, ‘R’ would be almost in the same income position if he were simply to stay on the disability support pension. But compounding the financial disincentive to work is the loss of the pensioner concession card, through the loss of the disability support pension when an individual works for more than 15 hours a week, and the loss of the healthcare card or subsidised PBS medications, which can be financially crippling.

There was another fine work undertaken by Curtin University to demonstrate the cost-benefit of disability and injury programs to re-enter the workforce. That study, in 2002-03, showed that it cost the Australian government on average just over $3,000 for each person assisted by programs to re-enter the workforce, with a net lifetime benefit to government per individual of $128,000. These figures speak for themselves.

The inflexibility of the disability support pension does need to be addressed, as well as other identified barriers to ensure that the cost of working is not financially prohibitive. There is no evidence that there is any meaningful work being done to remove the barriers to employment for people with a disability. Further delay by the Commonwealth in setting a lead in public sector employment is inexcusable. The barriers faced by people with a disability are well documented. If government is sincere about wanting to open the door to employment opportunity, it could act immediately to help people with disabilities surmount those barriers.

I have been in touch with the previous Commissioner for Public Sector Employment and they have to do a report every year. It would not be too difficult for the government to mandate or have some kind of program to ensure that those rates of employment of people with a disability are lifted. If contracting out is a problem, which was indicated to me in some previous discussions with the public sector commissioner, we should be ensuring that those contracts provide that a certain number of people with a disability have to be employed. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. I commend this motion to the House. (Time expired)

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to commence my contribution to the debate on workforce participation for people with a disability by congratulating the member for Pearce on moving this motion. It is a very important issue and one that is very, very close to my heart because, prior to becoming a member of parliament, I worked for 12 years helping people with disability get into the workforce—that was my job. I find it quite sad that there has been report after report making recommendations over a very long period of time and yet nothing seems to change. In fact, things seem to get a little worse all the time.

I will start by discussing public sector employment. That was not where I initially intended to start, but when I worked in the area of disability there was a fantastic scheme operating, whereby people would undertake work experience in the public sector and, if a job became available in that area and they were qualified to perform it, that person would automatically get that job. It circumvented a lot of other procedures that existed at that time in the public sector. I must say, over a period of time I was very successful in assisting a number of people with disabilities into the workforce and to find work in the public sector. The member for Pearce mentioned that one of the problems was low-level jobs. Some of those people that I assisted into the public sector are now working at EL2 level—so they are obviously very, very capable people. But, on the other hand, some of the people who had more visible disabilities were moved out of the public sector. That happened in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

One public sector case in particular was of a young girl who was hearing impaired and also diabetic. She was working in Social Security at the time. It was determined that everybody in Social Security had to be able to work in every job. Because of this young girl’s hearing impairment, there were some jobs that she could not actually undertake, and she was made redundant. I hate to inform the House of this, but within three months of leaving there this young woman was dead. I am quite sure that she would not have died if she had remained in employment. I mentioned that she had diabetes; she had a ‘hypo’. She was at home. She was isolated. She was not making contact with people on a regular basis. It was a very sad thing that happened.

It is important that we recognise the abilities of people and not look at their disabilities. For a long time some very, very dedicated people have been working hard to see whether they can address this issue. There have been a number of good programs over the years. The current government has put in place the National Disability Strategy, which COAG signed off on in February. I want to see some results out of that disability strategy. I want to see more people with disabilities given the opportunity that every other person has. From the Year of the Disabled back in the eighties until now, I do not think a heck of a lot has happened. There have been spurts, where an investment has been made in an attempt to address the barriers. Government works very hard to encourage the private sector to employ people with disabilities but, as the previous member stated, each year, when the budget is brought down, there are calls to tighten up on the budget and to crack down on welfare payments.

Every so often, when you open up a newspaper there will be comment about too many people being on disability support. There is also talk about the barriers in moving people from the disability support pension to the workforce. A person with a significant disability who works 15 hours can be put in a position where they are financially disadvantaged. Having worked with people with disabilities, I know how keen and committed they are to work. To them, that is the goal out there; they want to be like everybody else. When you meet a person, one of the first things you say to them is ‘What do you do?’ A person with a disability who cannot obtain work but who may have the skills cannot go from being a person with skills to a person who is working. They say, ‘Oh, well. I’m sorry but I actually don’t have a job at the moment; I’m on a disability support pension.’ That reinforces the stereotype that exists.

I was privileged to talk to a young man who came to my office a month or so back. He was an outstanding athlete. He had an accident and is now a C56 quadriplegic. He is a very bright young man and is currently attending university, where he is doing computer technology. At the same time, he is also very interested in setting up a consultancy where he can give advice to local government and the private sector on how they can make areas more accessible to people with disabilities. He is happy to set up this consultancy for free. He wants to give that advice to people so that access is improved for people with disabilities. By improving access, he can make it easier for them to study at university. He could only attend one of the campuses at the University of Newcastle because of access issues. Better access to campuses for people with disabilities enables them to study, which in turn enables them to enter the workforce. This young man is addressing in a very tangible way the barriers that exist in relation to employment.

This is an issue that has been addressed so many times. The current ministers are totally committed to seeing that people with disabilities have the same opportunities as every other person. Both Minister Macklin and Minister Ellis are both committed to seeing that people with disabilities are not discriminated against and that they do have the opportunity to enjoy the same things in life that every other person has the opportunity to enjoy. Minister Ellis is looking at employment programs which I hope will embrace some of the issues that have been and will be raised in this debate.

It is only by the actions of this parliament, by showing leadership, that we can make the lives of people with a disability better. It cannot be endorsed that people with disability are discriminated against in relation to employment on economic grounds, because this is a wasted resource. These people have ability. They can contribute to the economic activity of our nation, and refusing to give them that opportunity, by discrimination remaining entrenched in society in the way it is and has been for so many years, means that Australia is losing a valuable resource. As a nation I do not think we can afford to do that. We are impoverishing the lives of some Australians simply because they have a disability. Let us look at their ability. Let us give them the opportunity. I thank the member for bringing this motion to the House.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to begin, firstly, by commending the member for Pearce and the member for Gilmore for moving a motion that I think has great scope in terms of what it seeks to get government to do. I know the member for Pearce and the member for Gilmore have long records as advocates for the disadvantaged and people who need assistance in our community, and I want to praise them on that record; it is something to be very proud of.

There is no doubt that society and civilisation are judged by the way they treat their weaker citizens. It is something that has been said often throughout history, and I welcome motions that call the attention of government back to core priorities of addressing the issues of our weakest citizens. I want to say at the beginning that I do think there has been government failure and systemic failure over a number of years in disability services. Whilst there has been report after report calling for change, progress and different approaches, there are some barriers. Although, it is not all bleak. I think we are better at what we do today than we have been for a long time: there is more recognition and more time given. But when you consider that the federal budget takes so much out of society—we take $117 billion off in individual income taxation and $114 billion goes back in terms of welfare payments, human services, and a lot of that is pensions, and disability support pensions are part of that—there is plenty of money in our system to do better for the people who need us the most.

I want to report a story, which I think is important to draw to the attention of this House. In New South Wales we have a government which is at perhaps the lowest moral and ethical point that we have seen in New South Wales in living history, and it was a salient reminder of the failure of government in disability services to watch the Minister for Disability Services, Graham West, a fine man with a lot of integrity who went into politics with a vision for disability services, to help people get into the workplace and to do things for them, interviewed on Stateline by Quentin Dempster, and I want to report it here today. I turned on the Friday news, and the Minister for Disability Services in New South Wales, a young man with fine motivations, sat there in front of Quentin Dempster, a seasoned ABC veteran, and said to him that he was resigning as minister because there was nothing he could achieve in government for people with disabilities in New South Wales.

Quentin Dempster stopped for about a minute. I stopped for a minute. Quentin asked him again, and he said, ‘Yes, Quentin, I don’t believe I can achieve anything through government for people with disabilities in New South Wales.’ That is a stunning indictment, a damning indictment, of all government in Australia and New South Wales today. As Quentin pointed out to the minister, if the New South Wales minister with the legislative and bureaucratic power and with the money at his disposal cannot achieve anything or make a difference, then what hope do we have? He was resigning of course to head up a third-party advocacy group for people with disabilities. But he could not achieve anything as the minister. That was something that made me pause and reflect on why we are all here and what we do in government today.

There is no doubt that in this motion there are several very important components of what we do need to do and focus on as a government. Federally the government seems to be engaged in a whole range of activities which may have desirable goals and outcomes, including telecommunications companies and pink batts, but we will be judged and measured by how we treat our weakest citizens. The member for Pearce made a great case just before about the disability support pension and the welfare mechanism and how they relate to getting people back into work, where they can have dignity and self-worth and where they can pursue social and other goals through their employment. The disability support pension has become a disincentive. There is a component and an attitude in it where people cannot achieve the work they desire, and that is of course an undesirable outcome. It is something that needs reform.

I want to quote the example of the Endeavour Foundation, which has taken over Cumberland Industries’ Pak-It-Rite and Sew-It-Rite in my electorate of Mitchell. With the member for Wentworth, I had the opportunity to tour many of the fine manufacturing and other facilities that they run. They employ some 200 people with disabilities in my electorate. It is a fantastic experience to go into those facilities, meet with the employees and listen to their individual stories of achieving dignity through their workplace. I welcome the remarks of the member for Shortland, but I want to differ from her slightly on one point. I do not see this from a collectivist point of view. Each of those individuals had an individual and different story, a unique story about how work had benefited them, their family, their household and their ability to do something positive for themselves. It is really enlightening to go there and see how that works and how it operates.

The federal government supports that. The Hon. Bill Shorten, who was the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services, visited my electorate and did a very fine job of speaking with all of the employment providers, and I want to thank him and the government for sustaining Cumberland Industries through a very difficult period, ensuring that not one job placement was lost through the company’s difficulties. That was a good thing that the government did, and every one of those employees and their families is grateful.

I also want to note the government’s $6.8 million pilot program trialling incentives to provide jobs for people with a disability, which started on 1 March last year. This kind of thing has a lot of merit. The wage subsidies of up to $3,000 for jobs which are in place for 26 weeks do make a big difference. That is the kind of scheme and innovation that we should be pursuing, and I think there is scope for us to do a lot more.

The Shut out report notes several areas of concern, and I think there is a lot of merit in it. I particularly want to jump to transport for a moment. Access to transport, participation in critical activities, employment, education and health care is difficult, if not impossible. In north-western Sydney transport is a major barrier for all of us but for people with disabilities in particular. That is why the New South Wales Liberal Party is so committed to building the north-west rail line and funding better rail infrastructure. This barrier disadvantages our most vulnerable group more than any other group in our society.

I also want to note that the New South Wales government changed bus routes across Sydney recently, in the last year. There is a most compelling argument against that, when the bus is the only form of alternative transport in north-west Sydney to the car. When that service was cancelled, a young girl who had worked for a number of years and caught the bus had no way to access her place of employment and, in spite of all our efforts, it was very difficult to keep her in employment. This is the kind of real impact that people in government do not really think about when changes come. So there is plenty of merit in the call for access to transport in this motion before us.

I think there are also many widespread misconceptions and stereotypes influencing the attitudes and behaviour of employers, recruiters and government. I think the member for Pearce made a very eloquent pitch—that government is perhaps most mystifying in its intransigence in employing people with disabilities. The government has ‘led’ the way in terms of maternity leave and other areas, we have bloated bureaucracies all across the states and territories, yet we are not best-practice employers at a governmental level in terms of people with disabilities. I think it is a challenge to every member here, it is a challenge to every level of government in this country and it is something that we ought to be very concerned about when we think about what we want our governments to do in general.

I do think this is a worthwhile motion. Calling on the government to provide leadership in improving participation rates in the workforce of people with a disability is, I think, something that we should put at the centre of our focus as a nation. This is not a political or partisan motion, but it does have many different components that need our attention. We need to really look at where the problems are and what is happening in a non-partisan way. That is why I think the former parliamentary secretary for disabilities, Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, was a good advocate in that role. When he came to my electorate and toured our Castle Hill facility, he was well received. He lifted the profile of this vital portfolio area. Those kinds of ministers, who have a proactive approach to this portfolio, are very welcome. By contrast, we witnessed with dismay the resignation of Graham West, the state minister. He could not make a difference in disability services, and that is the other side of that coin.

I do not think we should allow such a situation to emerge in our society today at any level of government, state or federal, and that means a renewed commitment from this House and from its members to seek the best for the weakest in our society, including people with disabilities, to ensure they have the dignity of work and the ability to participate in our workforce.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I thank the member for Pearce for bringing this motion before the House. I will add my comments to those of others here that it is encouraging to see the level of interest and competition to speak on the member’s motion, and it reflects the fact that there are many of us in this House who are well aware of the importance of this issue. I should also acknowledge that the member for Pearce was the minister for this area for a period in the late nineties, and I acknowledge her contribution on this important issue during that time as well.

Not surprisingly, I do not entirely agree with the member’s characterisation of this government’s approach to the area. I think it has been given an unprecedented level of significance and priority both by the current government and in our previous term from 2007. In particular, I think that it is important to recognise that there is the National Disability Strategy in place from 2010 to 2020. I just want to take a few moments to put some of the significance of that strategy on the record before I take the opportunity to talk about some important local initiatives in my area around this.

I should indicate that the National Disability Strategy is intended to establish a high-level policy framework, and the idea of that is to give coherence and guidance to government activity across both mainstream and disability-specific areas of public policy. I think some of the issues that have been raised by other members in their contributions around issues such as transport indicate why it is important that such a national strategy crosses not only the disability-specific areas of public policy but, more broadly, all areas. It is also designed to drive improved performance in those mainstream services in delivering outcomes for people with a disability.

For me, the reason I particularly welcome that is that I have dealt with a number of people who have what you would call periodic or episodic types of illnesses that create the disability—for example, schizophrenia. They are high-functioning, university-qualified professionals but, when they have an episode, hit the wall and need some time out, the system does not cope very well with those sorts of circumstances. In particular, mainstream services such as Centrelink and so forth really struggle to deal with people who do not fit what might be termed the classic interpretations of having a disability. So I think it is important that we give that focus not only to the disability-specific services but also to services across the board in the way that they interact with people with a disability.

There are strategies also designed to give visibility to the issues, and I think that is important—that we never think that the job is done and we can stop talking about this, because that is when we all know that progress slides back into stagnation. We need to constantly be talking about these issues, and that is why I think the motion before the House today is so important. In particular, the other important aspect of the National Disability Strategy is the fact that it acknowledges that not all people with a disability are alike. There are a wide variety of both forms of disability and degrees of disability, and the ‘one size fits all model’ is probably the least useful one. So this strategy looks at a social model of disability. It recognises that attitudes, practices and structures are disabling and can prevent people from enjoying economic participation, social inclusion and equality. That is not an inevitable result of the individual’s impairment; it is a result of the disability of the systems with which they come into contact. Those are really important principles to drive the National Disability Strategy.

I want to take the second half of my time to talk about two areas where I am quite optimistic that, if they are well utilised, we can have a good impact on some of the issues confronting people with a disability in entering the workforce and participating in our community. One is the National Broadband Network. I notice my colleague the member for Gilmore, who is a great sceptic, I think it would be fair to say—

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

about the National Broadband Network. She would not be surprised to hear I am exactly the opposite. I think that in 20 years time people will be sitting here reading the member for Gilmore’s speeches and saying: ‘What on earth was she thinking about? She was so out of date.’ They will look at my speeches and say, ‘What great foresight and understanding of where the future was heading.’

The reason I think the National Broadband Network and fibre to the home are so important can be encapsulated in some of the major projects that have been rolled out in the UK. I would encourage members to have a look at some of the projects that have been directed towards social housing in the UK with fibre-to-the-home services. In particular, there have been a few aimed at people in facilities for the aged and also people in economically and socially disadvantaged areas, with a couple of them particularly targeting people with a disability. The programs did not just provide the infrastructure and the technology to connect people in their homes; they also provided education and social connection services so that people were able to then utilise the technology. That is an important thing for us in this country to take out of their lessons.

What they were able to do, for example, is significantly increase the workforce participation. If you do have somebody who has a social disability, either through a mental illness or a physical disability that makes them less keen to be out there—as the former member said, spending $400 on taxi fares and so forth—the capacity for some of those people to run either home-based businesses or consulting work with good-quality technology infrastructure in the home was a really significant outcome for many of them.

I would draw to the attention of members the fact that the current inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, which I chair, into the National Broadband Network has a reference in it to social and community access and equality. I do not want the voices of people who are aged, infirm or disabled—and who could utilise this if we do it right and get the supports in place—not to be heard because there are whole lot of other very technical and specialist and high-profile advocates in the area. I do want to hear those voices. Indeed, we have already had some good evidence from aged-care providers about the capacity.

There are some great programs out there. For example, one of my aged-care providers was telling me about an exercise program. The technology is sort of like Google Street where you can walk around and look at a street. They get footage of the hometowns of NESB people. They encourage them to interact with them. You can walk your old hometown street and have a look at what is there in modern times. There are some activities and programs that really encourage people to get active and are also good for brain function. So I encourage those sorts of ideas being brought forward. I also know from many local people who have talked to me who have issues with mental health that the capacity to do more work from home is a really significant opportunity for them.

The other area is in social enterprise. I want to highlight that, through the job program that the previous minister spoke about in his own electorate, there were two programs funded in my electorate for people with disabilities to gain employment. They have been tremendously successful. One is Renewable Recyclers, which is a new business of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Australia. I went to their opening the other day. They take e-waste, which is a major problem for all of us—they take computers in particular—recycle them and onsell the products. They had a group of people working there who could not get bigger smiles on their faces. They were just so thrilled to have the opportunity to get into work and to be doing something constructive in their community. It was a great, win-win match between an environmental issue and a work access issue for people with a disability. The other one that was funded I had previously visited: the Mission Australia Soft Landing project, which is a mattress recycling program. It targets people with a disability. There was a gentleman there who is profoundly deaf and had never had the opportunity to work at all. He was really thrilled to have that opportunity. It is another great social enterprise.

I think these models are so good because they are sustainable. They do not have to keep coming back to government for money; they are real businesses. I want to acknowledge two long-term ones in my area—Greenacres and the Flagstaff Group—who have been doing this sort of work for decades with great success. I always enjoy the opportunity to visit and acknowledge the work that, as the member for Gilmore would know, they do so effectively in our community. I commend them.

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the comments of my colleague the member for Pearce and some of the comments from the member for Cunningham encouraging the need for innovations to improve the participation rate of people with a disability. Regardless of what has been delivered by successive governments in previous years, there is no denying that there remain significant obstacles to the employment of a person with disabilities. My admiration goes to all those working in the field who have to deal with the frustrations of battling mistruth, prejudice and ignorance when advocating the cause of people with disabilities. Their effort is made more difficult as they first have to negate those perceptions before they can move into meaningful negotiations for encouraging the placement of persons in the workforce.

My colleague the member for Pearce has succinctly described the circumstances under which this is occurring, the effect of which has resulted in a decrease in the uptake of people with a disability into the workforce. While there has been an increase in the participation rate of able-bodied persons of something like 80 per cent since 1993, the participation rate of those with a disability has only increased by 53 per cent. This is a glaring gap that needs to be addressed urgently, and it is the government’s role to show leadership and to give direction on the issue.

My colleague has itemised the ways this can be done. In the context of addressing the issue of increasing the rates of workforce participation, the Business Council of Australia, in its 2011-12 budget submission, argues:

Improving incentives for participation through the reduction of high effective marginal tax rates for the worst-impacted groups must also be a fundamental feature of strategies to boost participation. In addition, the ongoing growth of transfers such as the Disability Support Pension (which represents the government’s fifth largest spending program) has been widely acknowledged as unsustainable both fiscally and in terms of its impact on the incentives for workforce participation.

In the context of arguing for the establishment of an independent agency responsible for evaluating government programs with a view to better value for money, the submission suggests the disability support pension is an obvious target as a cost offset. While I am sure their intentions were misinterpreted, such imprudent comments do send out the wrong signals by stigmatising those with disabilities. But, at least in principle, the submission of the Business Council of Australia backs the thrust of this motion and the benchmarks my colleague has suggested are worthy of serious consideration.

People with a disability are doing it tough—socially, economically and emotionally. They need our support and suggesting that they are somehow unworthy of such support by cutting income and other services is oppressive and inhumane. This is not how I perceive our society to be. Certainly have a go at those who rort the system and, if it is proved, take away their benefits—but do not condemn the genuine cases on the basis of a few bad apples. The fact is that something can be done and should be done but the government must lead the way. Each individual has something to contribute and allowing them to participate on a level playing field adds to their sense of worth and wellbeing. The results in adopting a proactive regime will bring tangible benefits both to the individual and to the society within which they reside.

Clearly, this is a subject that is complex in approach but the aim of the motion is to encourage government to take the lead. We do not want to encourage a level of second class citizenship. Neither do we want to encourage welfare dependency. We want to encourage dignity and pride, with inclusion and the satisfaction of having contributed as part of the team. To this end the findings of the National Disability Strategy Consultation Report titled Shut out is illuminating. A case has been put that more needs to be done in the workplace by engendering tolerance towards those with disabilities, with specific policies to improve access. We need to view things differently to the way we have in the past and we need to approach this challenge with greater flexibility and a preparedness to entertain new concepts with an open mind.

I would also like to acknowledge the work in the Gilmore electorate of Flagstaff, Essential Personnel, Northcott, the Spastic Centre, Interchange Shoalhaven, Life without Barriers, Independence Ulladulla, CareSouth, House with No Steps, Mullala Nursery, Slice of Life, Community Options and myriad other associated entities helping the disabled.

To all those involved in disability services and especially their caring and dedicated staff, I salute you. I would just like to see their work made a little easier by a government prepared to introduce new initiatives like those outlined in the motion. I commend the motion to the House.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Pearce for introducing this motion on disability employment participation and acknowledge the other speakers who have shown their support for something I know the member for Pearce has been committed to for many years, and that is improving the lives of people with disabilities.

Perhaps one of the only times you can really make a difference in this area is in the good times. Prior to the global financial crisis we had 20 years of substantial boom, and it appears that we may be entering a boom period again, when workers will be short and growth will be high and the amount of money flowing through the economy will be quite reasonable. This is the time when you have a short window to mainstream the very ideas and the very position of people with disabilities in our society and in our workforce. If we do not do that in the good times, and if we do not work on this as a mainstream issue, we risk a situation, when things slow down again and the workforce starts to soften, that people with disabilities will be last in, first out. That would be a great tragedy.

I have employed over a number of years people with disabilities—people who had incredible difficulty getting into the workforce. I know firsthand how many changes you sometimes have to make in your workplace to make this work, but I also know absolutely that these people have been some of the best workers I have ever had. They have contributed in extraordinary ways to my office. They can change the very character of an office. I would recommend to any business that they seriously look at how they can provide opportunity for some people who are absolutely desperate to work and have the skills to work and want to contribute greatly if they have the chance.

We are doing things in government for people with disabilities; in fact, we have made quite a few changes in the last few years. There is of course the National Disability Strategy, which is the 10-year plan, beginning in 2010 and going through to 2020, which aims to put support for people with disability into the centre of the agenda for workforce participation, housing and all mainstream services. This is a very good start, and I would expect there to be genuine bipartisan support for this work over the next 10 years.

We are very much at the beginning of this. There are people who in other fields you would call low-hanging fruit, people who are absolutely ready, willing and able to work now. One would hope that when we get through this 10-year period those people will be in the mainstream, but we will still have further to go. We will always have further to go on this. It is not something that is ever going to finish; there will always be another range of people who for various reasons are excluded from mainstream participation in society.

We have also introduced the National Disability Agreement which provides more than $6 billion over 5.5 years—it has effectively doubled federal funding to states and territories for disability services—but I should say that the report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows that the number of people receiving disability services has also doubled in five years. So the money might be doubled but so has the number of people accessing the services. The compassionate reasons—that a person should live a life with dignity—should be enough. But I am going to raise some of the economic arguments for people who are not persuaded by that argument. Having said that, I know that everyone in this room today is persuaded by the compassion and dignity arguments.

The number of people with severe or profound disability is predicted to increase over the next 40 years from 1.4 million to 2.9 million Australians. The projected growth rate in the population with severe or profound disability will outstrip the general population growth rate by two to three times over the next 70 years. At the same time, the ratio of formal carers will decrease by more than half over the next 50 years. We should all recognise that wherever there is a person with a disability there is quite often a family that surrounds them who also, unless we can do much better than we are doing, will carry an overly large burden in many ways. Families and other carers play a significant role in supporting people with disability. In 2003, there were approximately 2.5 million people providing informal care to people with disability or old age. This is a phenomenal number. I commend the motion to the House.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.