This section of the Interim Report summarises the main issues raised
in submissions which relate to the job search phase of employment.
Those issues include:
main government-funded services available to assist people with disability
to find a job;
primary concerns regarding changes to the government-funded employment
services as announced in the 2005 Commonwealth Budget;
role of private recruitment agencies;
recruitment strategies of three large employers;
problems encountered in the job selection process; and
possibilities offered by self-employment.
The Inquiry received a large number of submissions regarding access
and improvements to certain government-funded employment services. The
number of submissions reflects both the importance of these services
(from the employer, employee and government perspectives) and the concern
about changes announced in the Commonwealth 2005-06 Budget.
The following text discusses those services that were raised most often
in the submissions to the Inquiry. For a more general description of
Commonwealth government-funded services see the Inquiry's Issues Paper
Employment services can provide a vital service to many people with
disability. One employment agency, Job Futures, describes the model
within which they work as follows:
Job Futures supports an employment services
model for people with a disability that:
financial security to people who are not in work, and appropriate
opportunities and incentives for people who can work to move into
a rapid return to work where possible, and backs that expectation
with services that build capacity, place people in the right jobs,
and support both clients and employers to ensure people get a secure
foothold in the labour market;
the diversity of people's individual needs and outcomes, without assuming
that some people can't work because of the type of disability they
have or the degree of disability;
- recognises the diversity of people's lives and circumstances;
- provides tailored, flexible services to support people to return
- matches services to the client rather than clients to the services;
- leads to increased
social participation, such as work readiness activity, more social
connection or increased contribution to the community.
There are a variety of different types of employment services available
to people with disability. This section of the report briefly addresses
Referrals to appropriate employment services
Disability Open Employment Services (DOES)
Job Network employment services (JN)
Commonwealth Rehabilitation Services (CRS)
Personal Support Program (PSP)
Funding for employment services
Coordination between employment services and other support
Specific disability employment specialists.
The first stop for many people with disability who are out of work
is Centrelink, which provides the Disability Support Pension (DSP) or
other relevant welfare support. Centrelink will generally conduct an
assessment of a person's abilities and then refer that person to what
is believed to be the most appropriate agency to assist in finding employment.
Some submissions expressed concern about this referral processes. For
example, Stepping Stone Clubhouse told the Inquiry that they often receive
inappropriate referrals from Centrelink.
The Disability Council of NSW also note that significant numbers of
inappropriate referrals are made and that this contributes to substantial
delays for people with disability:
Timeliness is key to the success of supports offered to jobseekers.
The longer a person with disability is out of the workforce the lower
their chances are of successfully re-entering the workforce. The emphasis
needs to be placed on swift and effective early intervention, involving
referral to the most appropriate employment support provider with
capacity to start the service immediately, or rehabilitation.
Scope Employment questioned whether Centrelink is the best place for
people with disability to receive referrals, as people with disability
often view Centrelink in a negative light.
In the May 2005 Budget, the government allocated funding to develop
a 'high quality information technology link to provide streamlined servicing
to job seekers'. This system is intended to:
link all service providers, increasing opportunities for job seekers
to have the provider of their choice and enabling more effective monitoring
service delivery standards . [and] will allow rapid referral to, and
between, appropriate employment assistance services and work capacity
The Budget also announced the introduction of new 'Comprehensive Work
Capacity Assessments' to 'determine medical impairment, work capacity,
intervention needs and referral options.'
Further, the Budget announced that from1 July 2005, people on the Disability
Support Pension can directly approach Job Network members whether or not they have a Centrelink
Some submissions to the Inquiry respond positively to the freedom to
directly access a Job Network or Disability Open Employment Service
provider. For example the NSW Disability Discrimination Legal Centre
(DDLC) argues that the new system will assist in the streamlining and
integration of existing arrangements, reduce the administrative load
and enable more effective assessment of demand.
Others have expressed concern that Job Network agencies are insufficiently
trained to meet the needs of a job seeker with disability, and therefore
self referral to such agencies may not be in the best interests of the
For example, DEAC told the Inquiry that:
We believe that Job Network staff are ill equipped to service clients
with complex needs. In our view what is needed are highly specialised
case managers with skills and experience in servicing people with
complex need i.e. ABI, psychiatric disability, MS etc.
The ACE National Network, a peak body representing disability employment
services across the country, describes the role of DOES as follows:
Disability Employment Services provide a range of services
to jobseekers with disabilities in order to prepare them to return to
- Vocational guidance and
- Support in managing
disability-related issues before and after starting work
- On-the-job support to
assist in settling into a new job
support for those who do not disclose their disability
They also provide a range of services to employers including;
- Recruitment and selection
- On-the-job training
with new employees
- Follow-up and back-up
- Re-training of employees
should they move from one duty to another or if a new skill is required
- Advice and training
to co-workers about issues related to employing people with disabilities.
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR)
figures indicate that as at January 2005, there were 227 organisations
across Australia providing DOES services from 324 outlets. Further, DOES
agencies assist approximately 46,000 people with disability each year.
The DOES program was transferred from the Department
of Family and Community Services (FaCS) to DEWR in early 2005. From
1 July 2006, the Commonwealth Budget allows for funding for an additional
21,000 DOES places over three years (see further below).
It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of DOES
programs. FaCS reports on DOES outcomes have consistently shown that
around 50 per cent of service users are in jobs, and in 2001-02, 39
per cent of those people were working more than 30 hours a week. However, ACOSS recently
estimated that there is a less than 20 per cent chance that an average
DSP recipient would obtain ongoing fulltime employment in a mainstream
job within twelve months of participating in an employment program.
Some submissions to the Inquiry noted that these services
have considerable benefits, including specialist knowledge of disability
related issues and access to wage subsidies and workplace modifications.
Others expressed a number of concerns about the manner
in which the DOES program is funded. In particular, there was concern
(a) The cap on
Commonwealth funded places in DOES; and
(b) The transition to a Case Based Funding (CBF) model.
Several submissions suggest that the cap on the number of places available
in DOES leads to unmet needs and long waiting lists.
... service providers [are forced] to turn away some job seekers
or make them wait months for a service. Sitting on a long waiting
list - particularly for people who face other barriers to employment
- is a significant discouragement.
Various organisations and employment services argued that the cap should
For example, the Brotherhood of St Laurence recommended:
more places in disability open employment services, preferably by
removing the funding appropriation cap. This could be done administratively
or by amending the Disability Services Act 1986 to introduce an entitlement
to employment service job assistance to the current target group (those
people with permanent disabilities who need ongoing support to achieve
sustainable open employment).
Others asked for an overall increase in investment into DOES.
As noted above, the May 2005 Budget provides funding for an additional
21,000 places in DOES for three years starting from 1 July 2006.
17,000 of those places are for people with disability
who, from 1 July 2006:
assessed to have a capacity to work between 15 and 29 hours per week
at award wages; and
not need ongoing assistance for more than two years.
These people will have part-time work obligations
under the new welfare reforms (and will receive the Newstart Allowance). Although
there is an allocation for an extra 17,000 DOES places, funding will
be provided on a demand-driven (as opposed to capped) basis.
The extra funding for the remaining 4,000 places are
for people who:
not have participation requirements;
support for more than two years; or
work at award wages.
These places will be capped. Thus the cap on
the provision of DOES services remains for those capable of working
under 15 hours per week and who therefore receive the DSP. Consequently,
if a service has reached the limit of DSP clients for which it is contracted
to provide services, it either has to service that person out of its
own funds or turn the client away.
From 1 July 2005 all agencies providing DOES to new clients will be
funded by the government through a case-based funding (CBF) model rather
than 'block' funding.
This means that rather than general funding allocated on the basis
of the number of DOES places allocated to a particular agency, the funding
will vary depending on the number of persons serviced by that agency,
the assessed needs of each person and the outcomes achieved by the agency.
The idea behind the transition to case based funding for DOES is that
the funding will better reflect the individual needs of the clients.
For example, an agency servicing a person with higher needs will receive
a higher level of funding.
Several submissions to the Inquiry suggest that, in principle, a move
to a funding model that focuses on the varying needs of job seekers
should lead to improvements in the services provided. 
However, submissions also suggest that while an individualised assessment
is a good idea in principle, the restrictions within DEWR's proposed
case based funding model will mean that the needs of some groups will
not be met.
For example the NSW Council for Intellectual Disability (NSW CID) states
that while the CBF Model is a positive step toward focusing on a person's
individual requirements, the real costs of providing an appropriate
employment service for a person with an intellectual disability is likely
to be greater than the highest funding band available under the CBF
NSW CID further argues that the model has limited funding for people
whose initial placements do not work out.
ACROD suggests that there may be similar concerns for people with a
psychiatric disability and recommends that:
The structure and levels of funding for employment assistance programs
should be reviewed to ensure that they do not unintentionally create
disincentives to servicing particular disability groups.
Other submissions expressed concern about the operational impact of
case based funding for DOES. For example, the Disability Services Commission
of Western Australia suggests that the movement to case based funding
has led to a significant range of uncertainties for service providers
which impact on their capacity to deliver quality services to people
ACROD argues that the move to case based funding supports an argument
for reducing the cap on all disability open employment services,
as the system reduces financial risk to government:
... because, under that system, fees are paid to service providers
only on the basis of services delivered and employment outcomes achieved.
Unfilled places attract no payments.
Job Network is a national network of community and private organisations
contracted by the Federal Government to find jobs for unemployed people.
In the past, Job Network members provided employment services to people
with disability who did not have support needs for more than
26 weeks after getting a job and DOES provided employment services to
those who did have ongoing support needs.
Some Job Network members had staff with speciality disability training
and others did not.
Changes announced in the Commonwealth Budget mean that the boundaries
between Disability Open Employment Services and Job Network agencies
will be less clear. As discussed above, from 1 July 2005, Job Network
agencies can directly register any job seeker, including those who are
on the Disability Support Pension and who have ongoing needs. DEWR hopes
to develop a simplified process of cross referral between agencies in
the event that Job Network is not the most appropriate place for a job
Some submissions suggested that because Job Network places are funded
according to successful job placement outcomes, there is less incentive
to focus on clients with higher needs. For example,
the Australian National Organisation of the Unemployed state that:
The Star Rating performance assessment encourages Job Network members
to focus on easy to place job seekers. The more difficult clients
are either churned through a series of activities programmes which
attract lucrative government fees, or are simply consigned to the
too hard basket.
Job Futures suggested that:
There is currently no additional funding under Job Network to place
people with a disability which may result in some providers viewing
people with a disability as a 'higher cost' employment outcome.
Furthermore, the episodic nature of some disabilities is not reflected
in Job Network outcomes. Consequently, a person with disability whose
capacity to work fluctuates may be perceived as a client who is harder
to place and receive a reduced service.
The Government announced funding for an additional 31,700 places in
Job Network over three years starting 1 July 2006. These places will
be for people with disability who have been assessed with a work capacity
for 15-29 hours a week.
In October 2004, DEWR published the initial results of a trial conducted
to explore strategies to engage DSP recipients with Job Network services.
The pilot involved 12 disability specialist
Job Network providers in 37 sites across Australia. They were required
to develop marketing and communication strategies to encourage eligible
DSP recipients to approach a Job Network member for employment assistance
and to liaise, network and engage with employers.
Over 1,100 job
seekers registered their interest in participating in the pilot study.
Eight hundred of these people were eligible for the services and 671
applicants commenced the program, receiving immediate access to the
highest level of assistance available. Thirty six percent of those participants
remaining on the program were successfully placed in employment or education.
Out of all job seekers placed, 39 per cent were in casual employment,
31 per cent were in part-time positions, 22 percent were in full-time
employment, and 8 percent had entered into education.
Amongst other things, the Pilot results indicate that DSP recipients
are more likely to engage with Job Network when they are directly approached
and assisted in navigating the services.
While the Pilot indicates the potential of Job Network to service DSP
recipients, there have been some criticisms of the Pilot. In particular
there is concern that the Job Network trial participants
were not reflective of Job Network members generally because they were
specialist services. The suggestion is that while there would be a very
steep learning curve for many Job Network providers, DOES already have
the necessary skills and it therefore makes little sense to divert people
with disability to Job Network.
A number of submissions expressed concern about the adequacy of Job
Network services for people with mental illness. For example, the Network
for Carers of People with a Mental Illness suggest that:
- Case loads are too high for provision of an effective service. Consequently
contact times and ability to provide one-on-one post-placement support
- Support is focussed around a three month and six month outcome period,
making it inflexible in relation to the episodic nature of mental illness.
- There may be no formal training or recruitment requirements regarding
knowledge of mental health.
- There is no structure for family involvement in services.
UnitingCare and Scope Victoria suggest that Job Network members require
further training in order to work effectively with clients with mental
Commonwealth Rehabilitation Services Australia (CRS)
As discussed in
Chapter 6, whereas Job Network services are intended to assist those
people with disability who do not have support needs for more than 26
weeks, and DOES are intended to assist those people who do have ongoing
support needs, Commonwealth Rehabilitation Services Australia (CRS)
provides vocational, rehabilitation and employment assistance to people
disability who acquire an injury, medical condition or specific disability
and require rehabilitation assistance to get back into work. These people
may have needs both on a preliminary and ongoing basis. 
Some of the services provided by CRS include:
- assessment of the person's abilities and their vocational, physical
or psychological needs;
- disability management strategies;
- advice and counselling on employment options;
- development of a persons' work related skills and abilities;
- increasing participant motivation through professional motivational
- on-the-job assessment, workplace training and job search training
- assistance with job redesign, alternative duties or workplace modifications;
- a client supported in the workplace for up to three months
- career planning
sessions (funded by Department of Education, Science and Training
The Commonwealth government announced funding for an additional 42,000
vocational rehabilitation places over three years from 1 July 2006.
It is not clear how much of that funding will go to CRS in particular.
The Personal Support Program (PSP) is intended to bridge the gap between
crisis assistance and employment assistance programs. It provides help
to people whose non-vocational barriers (such as mental health issues,
drug or gambling problems, homelessness or social isolation) prevent
them from getting a job or benefiting from Job Network or other employment
The program is open to people of workforce age receiving income support
(including the DSP), as well as those aged 15-20 who do not receive
any payment but are registered as job seekers with Centrelink. Eligibility
for the PSP is assessed by Centrelink. The program is funded to assist
45,000 participants in 2004-05.
The Federal Government currently funds
148 organisations covering 600 sites across Australia to deliver PSP
services. Of the 600 Australian sites, 230
are non-metropolitan sites. There are approximately 60 sites
(10%) registered as having a speciality in mental health and 10 sites
registered as having a speciality in physical/intellectual disabilities.
Services provided by the PSP can include assessment (such as psychological
assessment or functional capacity assessment), counselling (general
counselling, or for specific issues such as grief counselling), referral
and advocacy (linking participants into their community and accessing
services), practical support (such as assistance to find stable housing
or with transport) and development of personal skills (for example anger
management or self-esteem training).
Several submissions suggest that this is a useful program for those
with multiple barriers to workforce participation, particularly those
with a mental illness. However its effectiveness is limited by inadequate
funding and poor links with employment programs.
The 2005 Standing Committee Working for Australia Report recommended
[T]he Australian Government initiate further cross-portfolio coordination
to increase the provision of places in holistic type projects (through
the Personal Support Program, Green Corps and traineeship programs)
which assist the long-term unemployed enter the labour force.
There are indications in the 2005 Budget papers that that funding for
the PSP will increase.
As discussed in Chapter 2, Disability
Works Australia has been contracted by the Department of Family and
Community Services to act as the national Disability Recruitment Coordinator.
They operate as a central point of contact for employers and facilitate
recruitment on a large scale. The Inquiry heard that while this may
be a successful strategy for large employers, it may not adequately
address the needs of small and medium employers. 
Some of the submissions to the Inquiry argued for increased government
funding for employment services:
Australia currently has one of the lowest funding rates as a percentage
of GDP spent on employment programs in the western world. If governments
are serious about meeting skills shortages and placing people with
disabilities into employment hey need to dramatically increase spending
on employment programs.
The Inquiry has already noted that the 2005-06 Commonwealth Budget
did announce additional funding for extra places in DOES, JN and vocational
rehabilitation services over the next three years. However, as discussed
above, several groups are of the view that the way in which the funding
is managed, and the caps on certain types of services, will not provide
the optimum outcomes.
A large number of submissions expressed
concern to the Inquiry about coordination between services available
to people with disability.  The issue is well
explained by the Disability Council of NSW:
People with disability can receive more than one service in a day
that is to meet their disability-related needs. It is essential that
these services are coordinated across jurisdictions and delivered
in a flexible and reliable manner so that they do not hinder a person
from the pursuit or retention of employment. By way of example, the
provision of in home support service for people with a physical disability.
Many of these problems arise because some services are Commonwealth
government programs and others are State and Territory programs. For
example, employment services are Commonwealth funded and rehabilitation
services are generally State-funded:
The fact that employment support services are funded federally and
rehabilitation is funded by the states compounds the lack of coordination.
State-funded programs will often focus on social and recreational
activities that although important to do not assist people to develop
the necessary skills and stamina to become more prepared for employment.
Employment support workers often find they are not able to assist
a jobseeker because they are not 'work ready' and need more support
than the pre-vocational opportunities that exist can provide. It is
not clear to the state funded services exactly what is meant by 'not
work ready' and what role their programs can play to assist people
to become more work ready. These programs are also not always funded
to provide the level of support required and community programs such
as neighbourhood houses etc. do not always have the skills and resources
to provide them either.
Some submissions called for greater integration between vocational
and clinical services. For example, the Centre of Full Employment and
Equity argues that there is:
Growing recognition that the integration of clinical and vocational
approaches is likely to be most effective in improving employment
outcomes of people with mental health conditions.
Social Firms Australia argues that there needs to be:
A commitment from Commonwealth and State governments to support more
collaboration between the clinical, rehabilitation and employment
sectors with more transfer of specialist skills between them.
Many of the submissions concerning mental illness mention the need
for better coordination between employment and mental health services.
For example, the Mental Illness Fellowship of Victoria states that :
The split between state funded health services and commonwealth funded
employment services also presents a major barrier to providing an
integrated approach. An integrated approach allows for rapid placement,
individually tailored and responsive employment support, and coordination
of vocational and treatment goals.
Waghorn and Lloyd suggest that the inter-sectoral collaboration called
for in the National Mental Health Strategy has not eventuated.
Groups representing people with mental illness, vision impairment and
Deafness or hearing impairment all highlighted the need for specialist
services in those areas.
People with mental illness may require specialised services, including
assistance with pre-vocational issues, social preparation for employment,
and flexible post-placement support.
As noted earlier, there is a general concern that there are insufficient
numbers of specialist trained staff in Job Network services.
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP)
highlighted the magnitude of the problem:
A report by the . Department of Family and Community Services shows
that people with psychiatric disabilities make up the largest proportion
of those using publicly funded disability employment services, but
achieve the lowest outcome rates.
The RANZCP argued that:
It is essential to examine the current situation regarding the current
situation of services for people with mental illness. Mental health,
employment and disability support are served by multiple agencies
across both the public and private sector social support system, and
an unemployed person recovering from a mental illness must navigate
several systems. Gaining data on the real life experiences of people
who use these systems would be beneficial in planning for service
Other submissions suggest that some of the problems in providing appropriate
specialist employment services for people with a mental illness may
be overcome by locating employment services in the same place as public
mental health services.
Waghorn and Lloyd suggest a need for more innovative approaches for
people with mental illness:
Demonstration projects specialising in cutting-edge vocational services
for people with mental illness are needed in a range of Australian
urban and rural sites to assess the feasibility of more evidence based
practices and the range of methods by which the inter-sectoral problems
can be overcome.
The Australian Association of the Deaf highlights that general employment
services and even broad-based disability employment services do not
have a good understanding of Deaf people's needs.
These specific needs include access to funding for interpreters and
accessible phones (TTYs), including an internet relay system. Staff
in employment agencies may also need to spend more time explaining the
various processes with Deaf and hearing impaired clients.
The Australian Federation of Deaf Societies and ACE National Network
describe how the absence of Auslan interpreters hinder communication
between caseworkers and their clients and make job interviews impossible
in some circumstances.
The Australian Federation of Deaf Societies provided the following example:
An employment service refused to pay for an interpreter for a job
interview for a Deaf client despite the clear requirement for an Auslan
interpreter. Being unaware of her rights, the Deaf client did not
press the issue and instead the client's mother was used as a notetaker
during the job interview.
The Deafness Forum of Australia recommended training for employment
service staff so they can better understand the wide variety of hearing
impairments and communication strategies to deal with them.
A vision impaired individual told
the Inquiry that the Australian Government Jobsearch website is not
'JAWS' friendly (JAWS is a screen reader for blind and vision impaired
people). She stated that while Centrelink and other employment service
providers have computers with advertised positions, these computers
are not fitted with any screen reading or large print software products.
Blind Citizens of Australia highlights that job classifieds in print
form are inaccessible to people who are blind or vision impaired, and
ads using the internet medium are, in most cases, not configured for
adaptive technology used by people who are blind or vision impaired.
Even when a job can be accessed electronically, the electronic application
forms are usually in an inaccessible format. Further, job details and
application forms mailed to recipients in print form are often useless
to people who are blind or vision impaired.
A number of submissions suggest that the needs of specific client groups
are not being met, and call for the establishment of a greater range
of dedicated employment services, for example services focussing on
recent school leavers,
and retrenched workers.
In particular, the National Regional Disability Liaison Officers and
Disability Co-Ordination Officers Network (RDLO) and Disability Employment
Action Centre (DEAC) highlight that there are an insufficient number
of employment services that can properly assist graduates with disability
to find a job.
DEAC suggests that the current service models are not designed to meet
the meet the needs of graduates with disability.
RDLO suggests that there is an erroneous assumption that graduates with
disability do not need special assistance on the basis that 'if they
have got this far, they will know what to do':
there appears to be a pre-conceived view from within government departments
and employment organisations that graduates with a disability do not
have issues in accessing employment because they have formal tertiary
qualifications. As a result no services or support structures are
Not all people with disability will use government-funded employment
services to help them find a job. Many job vacancies, particularly more
senior professional positions, are advertised through private recruitment
Several submissions expressed concern that the both the private and
public sector increasingly used recruitment agencies without ensuring
that they use non-discriminatory selection criteria and practices.
For example, the Australian Federation of Deaf Societies reports:
The increasing use of external recruitment agencies by public and
private sector organisations creates an additional barrier for job
seekers. Such agencies will obviously vary in their policies and attitudes
towards people with a disability and these will not necessarily reflect
the view of the client for whom they act.
Blind Citizens Australia recommends that:
Government agencies that outsource recruitment should revise their
contracts to make explicit the requirement that recruitment organisations
actively encourage expressions of interest and applications from people
with disabilities. Targets for the participation of people with disabilities
in the recruitment process should be included in the contracts.
Manpower, itself a recruitment agency, informed the Inquiry that recruitment
providers are not skilled in disability issues:
Support for the placement of [people with a disability] is negligible,
with no guidelines or standards provided, and a general lack of consideration
for this work sector.
Westpac notes that people with disability seem not to use recruitment
agencies because those agencies are not properly trained or have not
made the appropriate adjustments. Westpac has therefore tried other
approaches to targeting people with disability in their recruitment
IBM and National Australia Bank also note that they have preferred recruitment
agencies - who have the appropriate expertise and approach - in order
to encourage hiring people with disability.
Some submissions noted the inaccessibility of recruitment agencies
for people who are blind and vision impaired. For example, recruitment
agencies are generally not equipped with adaptive technology.
They argue that significant education of recruitment agencies and their
peak body may overcome some of these barriers.
From 2002 to 2004 the Equal Opportunity Commission
of Victoria (EOCV) conducted an inquiry into the recruitment industry's
awareness and understanding of Victoria's equal opportunity laws and
practice. The inquiry identified the potential role of the recruitment
industry to ensure appropriate selection practices for job seekers with
disability (amongst other disadvantaged groups).
The EOCV reported that recruiters felt that
they were sometimes hamstrung by employers who wanted to influence the
type of people referred to them. In the face of this pressure by employers,
76 per cent of respondents (people who had agreed to participate in
the survey with the EOCV) said they always made every possible effort
to comply with Victorian equal opportunity laws. Nine out of 10 agreed
that they tried to inform or educate businesses about the law. However,
in exploring the practices of recruitment agents, a further 33 per cent
agreed that they sometimes rule out candidates even though they know
they should not do so.
Submissions from three large companies outlined their strategies to
encourage recruitment of people with disability.
IBM told the Inquiry that its strategies include:
- Partner with Disability Works Australia . to tap into the national
disability candidate pool for all available roles
- Partner with
universities to put direct campaigning in place for proactive hiring
of graduates with a disability
- Engage preferred recruitment supplier [recruitment agencies] to
source professionals with a disability through education and incentives
- Choose [recruitment agencies] that support IBM's diversity initiatives
- Engage employees through IBM's Employee Referral program which encourages
employees to refer their peers with a disability to IBM
- Provide work experience placements for students with a disability
- Provide disability awareness training for IBM Recruitment Specialists
and Hiring Managers to raise awareness.
- Participate in the Willing and Able Mentoring Program, an external
national mentoring program for tertiary students with a disability
that builds the pipeline of candidates with a disability for the corporate
Westpac told the Inquiry that in order to recruit people with disability,
currently broadcasts our entry level job vacancies in to Disability
Employment Services through Disability WORKS Australia. This ensures
that jobseekers with a disability have an opportunity to apply for
vacant roles that come up in our high volume area within Westpac.
We have also held briefings for Disability Employment Service providers
so that they are familiar with our recruitment processes and can adequately
prepare their jobseekers for interview and assessment.
The National Australia Bank described the following recruitment strategy:
The National either directly or through its preferred suppliers sends
all externally advertised positions to [Disability Works Australia
- DWA] . They in turn liaise with Disability Employment Services
across Australia to source candidates for the vacancies.
DWA conducts pre-screening for candidates and provides reasonable
adjustment advice and eduction and support direct to the hiring managers
and to the preferred suppliers of candidates.
Identifying an appropriate position to apply for - with or without
the help of an employment service or recruitment agency - is only the
first step in the job seeking process. The person must then apply for
the job, and in some circumstances, participate in an interview.
Selection practices can have a significant impact on whether a person
with disability is appointed to a position.
The 2005 Standing Committee Working for Australia Report recommends
[T]he Australian Government, in consultation with the peak disability
agencies, recruitment services and business and industry organisations,
develop guidelines on appropriate criteria and protocols for the recruitment
of people with a disability.
Issues considered in this section include:
of disability in a job application or interview
appropriate selection criteria
discrimination in the selection process
of the selection process.
For people with a disability whether to disclose or not to disclose
it is a bit like being between a rock and a hard place - damned if
you do and damned if you don't. The benefits may be that the employer
can provide simple equipment or re-organise working arrangement to
improve job efficiency. The disadvantage may be that other employees
and/or managers will focus on the disability rather than a person's
skills and ability to do the job, and may discriminate against that
Submissions to the Inquiry suggest that the question of whether to
disclose a disability during the job seeking and application process
may be confronting and can have a very real impact on the chances of
finding a job.
DEAC told the Inquiry that disclosure is particularly difficult for
people with mental illness and can have an almost immediate and catastrophic
effect on their prospect for future employment and continuing employment.
beyondblue argues that:
Disclosure of conditions to employers often results in an inability
to obtain further work, or if in current employment, people being
undermined, denied promotional opportunities, and in some cases resulting
in demotion or job loss.
People with HIV/AIDS face similar issues. The National Association
of People Living with HIV/AIDS reported that:
43.3% of people living with HIV/AIDS currently in work [have] not
disclosed their HIV status to anyone at their workplace with the most
common difficulties for those who do want to maintain confidentiality
at work being gossip and explaining absences from work, for doctors
appointments and other treatment related matters . there are cases
known to NAPWA where people have lost their jobs because of their
The Disability Discrimination Legal Centre NSW suggested that:
Guidelines need to be developed and instituted on the issue
of whether and, if so, when, a person with a disability should disclose
that they have a disability and what rights and protections that person
has and what obligations and limitations bind the employer in that
The RDLO has developed a website resource regarding disclosure. The
site provides information about disclosure, clarifies legal obligations
and rights and suggests practical steps to take in relation to disclosure
for both employers and potential employees.
Vocational professionals may also be able to assist with the process
of disclosure through strategic disclosure to employers and other third
The use of explicit strategies to counter workplace stigma, and structured
counselling to optimise disclosure strategies, are also expected to
enhance outcomes in psychiatric vocational rehabilitation by improving
job commencement and job retention. Strategies are needed throughout
vocational rehabilitation to counter past and present stigma and strategically
manage disclosure of personal mental health information in the workplace.
The question of whether or not to disclose is often precipitated by
the need for people with disability to explain significant gaps in their
As discussed in Chapters 2 and 6, good job matching is an important
feature of the recruitment process.
Sometimes job advertisements list selection criteria that are not necessarily
vital for the job. The consequence may be that the selection processes
can work against people with disability in situations where they are
actually well suited to a position.
Several submissions suggest that selection criteria requiring a drivers
licence may exclude a range of people with disability despite the fact
that driving (as opposed to independent travel) may not be an essential
part of the job.
Centacare gave an example of where a lengthy selection process for
a supermarket job puts a person with an intellectual disability at a
great disadvantage, even though he or she could do the actual job as
well as any other person. Similarly, a person with dyslexia may not
pass a written selection test, but may still be a good pastry chef.
The Australian Federation of Deaf Societies noted that selection criteria
for many positions require oral and written communication skills even
when a position requires little communication that cannot be achieved
by other means (for example written notes, email, SMS (short messaging
services) and National Relay Services as well as speech and lipreading
in some circumstances).
Australians for Diversity Employment suggested that where a position
has anything to do with people with disability, the advertisement should
contain the words 'people with disabilities are encouraged to apply'.
The Australian Public Service Commission also recommended that public
sector agencies should promote their commitment to equal opportunity.
Many submissions suggest that people with disability experience discrimination
in the recruitment and selection process.
A fear of discrimination may be experienced by people who submit applications
through disability-specific employment agencies, as this tends to highlight
that the applicant has a disability.
DEAC told the Inquiry that graduates with disability do, at times,
encounter discrimination in the process of finding and applying for
employment because of their disability and that graduates whose disability
is visible can experience more difficulty in securing employment.
Several submissions suggested that staff involved in writing position
descriptions, recruitment and selection criteria should be trained to
avoid potentially discriminatory practices.
The Disability Discrimination Legal Centre told the Inquiry that:
The protection afforded by the disability discrimination laws really
only operates once a person with a disability has gained employment.
Protection is far more limited in the pre-employment recruitment phase.
The recruitment process needs to be made more transparent so that
there is more objectivity and merits-assessment in that process, rather
than subjective influences that are often based on false, discriminatory
and misguided preconceptions. People with a disability need attainable
rights and protection during the recruitment phase.
The Welfare Rights Centre recommends:
A change to discrimination legislation to forbid questions as to
mental illness on pre employment questioning. Only when the job is
obtained and one is considering accommodating the mental illness should
this questioning appear.
The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), and possible amendments
to that legislation to improve its effectiveness, is discussed in some
detail in the 2004 Productivity Commission Review of the Disability
Discrimination Act 1992.
The Government released its response to that report in January 2005,
accepting many of the Productivity Commission's recommendations for
reform in full or in part.
Draft legislation to implement that response is expected to be available
in coming months.
Some people with disability have difficulties in engaging in recruitment
processes for accessibility reasons. For example the hearing impaired
may have trouble engaging in oral information sessions or interviews
and those with physical disabilities may have trouble travelling to
the employment services and interviews.
The Australian Public Service Commission recommended that public sector
agencies ensure that the methods of accessing information about a position
and submitting a job application process are not discriminatory.
and the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme (NEIS)
Maybe the underlying philosophy of entrepreneurship is that people
who wanted to set up their own businesses had to be driven by a strong
sense of self-interest and if someone was hungry enough for success,
they would achieve it by one means or another. However, for people
with a disability, the overarching philosophy has been one of supporting
them in society. It is only in the past decade that this philosophy
has been added to by people with a disability demanding that they
play an equal part in society. While there may not be a deafening
clamor of people with a disability, especially from ethnic backgrounds,
wanting to set up their own businesses, the option should be open
to them nonetheless, as this option is also open to all other people.
Self-employment is an option for any person wanting to enter the open
work place, whether or not they have a disability.
For some people, this choice may be driven by an entrepreneurial desire.
For others is an employment opportunity that allows greater control
over day-to-day life and the future.
For some people with disability the option to work as a consultant,
start an independent business or work from home may be particularly
attractive depending on:
- the nature of disability
- difficulties in adapting to an employer-employee relationship in
the open marketplace
- difficulties in accessing assistance with personal care in the workplace
- concerns about stigma in the workplace; or
- a need for flexible working hours.
Several submissions suggest that people with disability need assistance
to start their own home business:
The Chambers of Commerce in conjunction with a government department
[should] establish an advisory service to assist mental health consumers
work through all the legal and financial requirements of establishing
a home business in the market of their choice, including affordable
education sessions/workshops/seminars on how to establish a home business,
the pitfalls, the legislative requirements and so forth. To assist
consumers to make informed decisions on whether this is a viable option.
Family Advocacy suggest that the option of self-employment is particularly
important for people with high support needs. They note a government-funded
model in the United States which has assisted many people with high
Griffin and Hammis provide a framework that has guided many people
with high support needs in the US into self employment in small businesses.
In the US grants available for the establishment of small businesses
have been available to assist in these projects and funds for the
support of individuals have been available to provide support to people
with high support needs in small businesses. 
DEAC Legal Services notes that graduates with disability are more likely
to work part-time and be self-employed..
The Commonwealth New Enterprise Incentive Scheme (NEIS) is a self-employment
program for unemployed people who wish to start their own independent
The New Enterprise Incentive
Scheme (NEIS) is an Australian Government initiative that helps eligible
unemployed people to start and run their new, viable small business.
For the first year of the business, NEIS is there to train, support
and help the participant to become self-supporting and independent.
NEIS participants undertake an accredited 3 month small business management
course. In the first year, business advice and mentor support helps
the business become successful. NEIS provides this support through
a network of private, community and government organisations known
as NEIS providers, which are local organisations such as Business
Enterprise Centres; TAFE Small Business Centres; community organisations
and private sector organisations contracted by the Department of Employment
and Workplace Relations to deliver NEIS throughout Australia.
Acceptance into the NEIS is competitive and the ability to meet all
the criteria does not guarantee entry and assistance. Applicants are
evaluated on both personal and business criteria including:
To participate in the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme (NEIS)
you must be eligible for the full range of Job Network Services and:
- be at least 18 years of age at the time of signing a NEIS Participant
- be available to participate in Training and work full time in the
- be in receipt of an allowance specified by DEWR from time to time
as NEIS eligible
- not be an undischarged bankrupt
- agree to hold and maintain a controlling interest in the business
during the terms of the NEIS Participant Agreement
have not received NEIS assistance in the previous 2
have not received NEIS assistance previously for a similar
Proposed NEIS businesses must:
- have never operated on a commercial basis
- be independent, reputable and legal
be assessed as commercially viable by a NEIS provider
and approved by DEWR
not involve the purchase of takeover of an existing
- not compete directly with existing businesses, unless it can be
demonstrated that there is an unsatisfied demand for the product or
service, or that the product or service is to be provided in a new
The 2005 budget announced funding for an additional
1000 places in NEIS under this criteria. However, the Inquiry heard that the NEIS scheme
does not generally meet the needs of people with disability.
One of the problems identified by Action on Disability within Ethnic
Communities (ADEC) is that the scheme does not specifically target people
with disability in the eligibility criteria:
In order to improve the participation rate of people with a disability
in NEIS, one of the issues that needs to be addressed is that of targeting.
Though existing agreements between NEIS providers and DEWR only mention
targeting of the program to disadvantaged groups, including people
with a disability, there are no formal guidelines on targeting and
there are no requirements on managing agents to target particular
In particular, the ability to participate full time in training and
work may be a barrier for many people with disability.
ADEC recommends the following changes to NEIS to enable people with
disability the opportunity to become self-employed:
- The development of a NEIS
program specifically targeting people with disabilities, encouraging
people from ethnic backgrounds to participate;
- Clear identification
of the barriers and issues confronting people with a disability from
of training options suitable for people with a disability who want
to establish an enterprise;
- Establishment of a supportive,
self-help network of people with a disability who are interested in
- Encouragement of people
with a disabilities to see themselves as potential business people,
rather than dependents or employees, or worse, unemployable;
- Self-employment as a
positive alternative to employment, in an environment where discrimination
on the grounds of disability is felt by many people with a disability,
especially people from ethnic backgrounds;
attitudes from continuing dependence to fostering independence.
Similarly, Family Advocacy makes the following recommendation:
That Government grants for small business are made available
for the establishment of small businesses designed specifically to facilitate
work opportunities for people with disability.
Australians for Diversity Employment suggest that Commonwealth, State
and Territory governments should demonstrate leadership and specifically
encourage people with disability to apply for consultancy projects in
In order to promote self employment opportunities by PWD, it is important
that a pro-active approach is taken to getting PWD to undertake these
consultancy services where possible. The tendering process should
stipulate 'Submissions from people with disabilities are encouraged.'
ACE National Network suggests
that the Workplace Modifications Scheme be expanded so that people with
disability who are, or seeking to be, self-employed can obtain appropriate
financial assistance to establish a workplace.
The job seeking process has several elements, including the process
of identifying an appropriate position, applying for the job and participating
in a selection process.
Most people who are on income support will use a government-funded
employment services to assist them through this process. The 2005 Budget
announced a variety of changes to the structure and funding of those
employment services. Some of those changes commenced on 1 July 2005
and some will commence on 1 July 2006. It is therefore too early to
assess the impact of those changes on the employment rates for people
Nevertheless, the Inquiry received many submissions expressing concern
about government-funded employment services. In particular the submissions
highlight the following major concerns:
- the transition to Case Based Funding for people with high needs;
- the ability of Job Network to provide the appropriate service to
people with disability;
- retaining a cap on places in DOES for people on the Disability Support
Pension from 1 July 2006;
- inadequate funding for the Personal Support Program;
- poor coordination between Commonwealth and State services available
to people with disability.
It is important to keep in mind, however, that not all people with
disability will use government-funded employment services. Private recruiting
agencies are increasingly used by both the public and private sector.
The submissions recommend that they be encouraged to take up inclusive
selection practices and that employers identify 'preferred agencies'.
Regarding the application and selection process, the submissions suggest
that there be better guidance for interviewees (for example, whether
or not to disclose a mental illness) and interviewers (for example,
how to ensure that the process is accessible and non-discriminatory).
Finally, it is important not to ignore self-employment as an option
for people with disability to participate in the open marketplace. The
development of a NEIS program that takes into account any additional
needs of people with disabilities may assist in making this a more realistic
Endnotes: Chapter 5
3] Submission 43, Job Futures, p2.
4] Submission 76, Stepping Stone Clubhouse, p18.
5] Submission 49, Disability Council of NSW, p6.
6] Submission 72, Scope Employment, p4.
7] DEWR, Fact Sheet, Welfare to Work - Increasing participation of people
with a disability at http://www.dewr.gov.au/publications/budget/2005/factSheets/factsheets.a….
8] Australian Government, Budget 2005-06, Budget Paper No.2, Employment
and Workplace Relations
9] Submission 85, DDLC, p41.
10] Submission 85, DDLC, p43.
11] Submission 41, Edge, p2; Submission 72, Scope Victoria, p9.
12] Submission 27, DEAC, p12. See also Submission 76, Stepping Stone Clubhouse,
15] Submission 100, Brotherhood of St Laurence, p3.
16] Submission 100, Brotherhood of St Laurence, p3.
17] Submission 72, Scope Employment, p12.
18] Submission 49, Disability Council of NSW, p6; Submission 68, ACE National
Network, p8. See also Submission 100, Brotherhood of St Laurence, p5;
Submission 72, Scope Victoria, p12.
19] Submission 114, ACROD, p2.
20] Submission 72, Scope Employment, p7; Submission 107, Uniting Care
Australia, p5; Submission 27, DEAC, p13.
21] Submission 100, Brotherhood of St Laurence, p7. A similar recommendation
is made in Submission 68, ACE National Network, p8.
22] Submission 68, ACE National Network, p8. See also Submission 100,
Brotherhood of St Laurence, p3.
23] See http://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/overview2/download/overview_welfare.pdf.
See also Speaker Presentation by Barry Sandison, DEWR at http://www.acrod.org.au/conferences/e-forum2005/speakers.htm
24] For more detailed information about case-based funding see http://www.jobable.gov.au/openemploymentprovider.asp#news.
See also Issues Paper 5, Mapping of Commonwealth Government Services,
25] See for example, Submission 21, Disability Services Commission WA,
p2; Submission 114, ACROD, p3; Submission 72, Scope Victoria, p16.
26] Submission 45, NSW Council for Intellectual Disability, p10-11.
27] Submission 45, NSW Council for Intellectual Disability, p10-11. See
also the presentation by Phil Tuckerman from Job Support during the
Inquiry's Sydney Roundtable on 31 March 2005 at http://www.humanrights.gov.au/disability_rights/employment_inquiry/foru….
28] Submission 114, ACROD, p4.
29] Submission 21, Disability Services Commission WA, p2.
30] Submission 114, ACROD, p3.
31] Issues Paper 5, p9.
32] Submission 43, Job Futures, p4. See also, Submission 42, Villamanta
Legal Service, p7; Submission 76, Stepping Stone Clubhouse, p10.
33] Submission 12, The Australian National Organization of the Unemployed,
p8. See also Submission 43, Job Futures, p4 See also, Submission 48,
Network for Carers of People with a Mental Illness, p6.
34] Submission 43, Job Futures, p4.
35] Submission 43, Job Futures, p4.
36] See http://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/overview2/download/overview_welfare.pdf.
See also Speaker Presentation by Barry Sandison, DEWR at http://www.acrod.org.au/conferences/e-forum2005/speakers.htm.
37] See http://www.jobable.gov.au/home/DSP_Pilot_Interim_Evaluation.asp#intro.
See also Submission 85, DDLC, p21.
 Employment Analysis and Evaluation Group, Job Network Disability
Support Pension Pilot: Interim Evaluation Report, Canberra, Department
of Employment and Workplace Relations, October 2004, at 4, available
 Employment Analysis and Evaluation Group, Job Network Disability
Support Pension Pilot: Interim Evaluation Report, Canberra, Department
of Employment and Workplace Relations, October 2004, at 5, available
40] Submission 85, DDLC, p21.
41] See for example Submission 12, ANOU, p9.
42] Submission 48, Network for Carers of People with a Mental Illness,
p6; Submission 76, Stepping Stone Clubhouse, p10.
43] Submission 107, UnitingCare, p3; Submission 72, Scope Victoria, p11.
45] Issues Paper 5, Mapping of Commonwealth Government Services, p3 at
46] See http://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/overview2/download/overview_welfare.pdf.
See also Speaker Presentation by Barry Sandison, DEWR at http://www.acrod.org.au/conferences/e-forum2005/speakers.htm
47] Submission 48, Network for Carers of People with a Mental Illness,
48] See Issues Paper 5, p10-11; See also http://www.workplace.gov.au/workplace/Category/SchemesInitiatives/PSP/A…
49] Submission 100, Brotherhood of St Laurence, p8; Submission 48, Network
of Carers for People with a Mental Illness, p7; Submission 68, ACE,
50] House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace
Relations and Workforce Participation, Working for Australia's future:
Increasing participation in the workforce, March 2005, Recommendation
51] See DEWR Fact Sheet, Welfare to Work - Increasing participation of
people with a disability at http://www.dewr.gov.au/publications/budget/2005/factSheets/factsheets.a….
52] Submission 85, Disability Discrimination Legal Centre NSW, p47.
53] Submission 73, RDLO Network, p16; Submission 114, ACROD, p2; Submission
68, ACE National Network, p8. See also Submission 100, Brotherhood of
St Laurence, p3.
54] See for example, Submission 19, Action on Disability within Ethnic
Communities, p2; Submission 11, Department of Families and Communities
SA, p3; Submission 17, Family Advocacy, p2; Submission 30, Mental Illness
Fellowship Victoria, p5; Submission 45, NSW CID, p13; Submission 52,
Ability Technology, p2; Submission 54, SANE, p2; Submission 77, RBS.RVIB.VAF
Limited p4; Submission 92, Social Firms Australia, p4; Submission 109,
Waghorn and Llyod, p27-28; Submission 119, Parents and Professional
Advocates ACT, p8; Submission 126, South Australian Government, p16.
55] Submission 49, DCNSW, p8.
56] Submission 92, Social Firms Australia, p4.
57] Submission 58, Centre of Full Employment and Equity, p6.
58] Submission 92, Social Firms Australia, p5.
59] Submission 109, Waghorn and Lloyd, p18.
60] Submission 30, Mental Illness Fellowship of Victoria, p5.
61] Submission 109, Waghorn and Lloyd, p4.
62] Submission 68, ACE National Network, p6; Submission 105, Hanlon.
63] Submission 53, RANZCP, p2.
64] Submission 53, RANZCP, p3.
65] Submission 69, Mental Illness Fellowship of Australia, p5-6; Submission
109, Waghorn and Lloyd, p21.
66] Submission 109, Waghorn and Lloyd, p31.
69] Submission 32, Australian Association of the Deaf, p6.
70] Submission 32, Australian Association of the Deaf, p6. See also Submission
79, Australian Federation of Deaf Societies, p7; Submission 40, Australian
Sign Languages Interpreters Association, p2.
71] Submission 79, Australian Federation of Deaf Societies, p7; Submission
68, ACE, p6.
72] Submission 79, Australian Federation of Deaf Societies, p7.
73] Submission 50, Deafness Forum of Australia, p10.
74] Submission 71, Pearce, p1.
75] Submission 80, Blind Citizens Australia, p7-8.
76] Submission 85, DDLC, p23-26, 62.
77] Submission 85, DDLC, p62.
78] Submission 73, RDLO, p2-5; Submission 73A, RDLO, p1-3; Submission
27, DEAC, p8-9.
79] Submission 27, DEAC Legal Services, p12.
80] Submission 73A, National Regional Disability Liaison Officers and
Disability Co-Ordination Officers Network, p3.
81] Submission 44, Australians for Diversity Employment, p2.
82] Submission 79, Australian Federation of Deaf Societies, p5.
83] Submission 80, Blind Citizens Australia, p22.
84] Submission 34, Manpower, p6.
85] Submission 95, Westpac.
86] Submission 65, IBM, p2; Submission 127, National Australia Bank, p2.
87] Submission 77, RBS.RVIB.VAF Limited, p5; Submission 80, Blind Citizens
88] Submission 77, RBS.RVIB.VAF Limited, pp5-6. See also Submission 73,
RDLO Network, p9.
89] Submission 118, EOCV, p9.
90] Submission 65, IBM, p2.
91] Submission 95, Westpac.
92] Submission 127, National Australia Bank, p2.
93] Working for Australia Report, Recommendation 20, p170.
94] Submission 27, DEAC, p3. See also, Submission 64, WCIG, p1.
95] Submission 118, EOCV, p4; Submission 10, Davies, p5; Submission 85,
96] Submission 27, DEAC, p3. See also Submission 30, Social Firms Australia,
p4; Submission 26, National Network of Private Psychiatric Sector Consumers
and Carers, p2; Submission 105, Hanlon, p9; Submission 48, Network for
Carers of People with a Mental Illness, p3; Submission 87, Welfare Rights
97] Submission 70, beyondblue, p2.
98] Submission 91, National Association of People Living with HIV/AIDS,
99] Submission 85, DDLC, p61. See also Submission 77B, RBS.RVIB.VAF Limited,
101] Submission 109, Waghorn and Lloyd, p33.
102] Submission 48, The Network for Carers of People with a Mental Illness,
p3. See also Submission 10, Davies, p7.
103] Submission 99, City of Darebin Disability Working Party, p2; Submission
44, Australians for Diversity Employment, p2; Submission 84, Name Witheld,
p6; Submission 71, Pearce, p2.
104] Submission 46, Centacare, p3.
105] Submission 79, Australian Federation of Deaf Societies, pp9-10.
106] Submission 44, Australians for Diversity Employment, p4.
107] Submission 113A, Australian Public Service Commission, p2. See also
Submission 60A, TAFE NSW, p1.
108] Submission 99, City of Darebin, p2.
109] Submission 27, DEAC, p9.
110] Submission 85, DDLC, p61.
111] Submission 87, Welfare Rights Centre, p10.
114] Submission 113A, Australian Public Service Commission, p2.
115] Submission 19, ADEC, p3.
116] See for example: Submission 7, Name withheld, p1.
117] Submission 19, ADEC, p3.
118] Submission 17, Family Advocacy, p6.
119] Submission 2, Casey, p8.
120] Cited in Submission 17, Family Advocacy, page 6: Griffin, C., &
Hammis, D., Making self employment work for people with disabilities,
Paul Brookes Publishing, Baltimore 2003.
121] Submission 17, Family Advocacy, p6.
122] Submission 27, DEAC Legal Services, p9.
accessed 5 August 2005.
(Accessed 5 August 2005).
125] See DEWR Presentation to Budget Sessions at http://www.dewr.gov.au/publications/budget/default.asp
126] Submission 19, ADEC, p2.
127] Submission 19, ADEC, p5.
128] Submission 17, Family Advocacy, p6.
129] Submission 44, Australians for Diversity Employment.
130] Submission 68, ACE National Network, p6. See further Chapter
2 on the Workplace Modifications Scheme.