1. Number of people from a
NESB with disability in NSW
The NSW community (6,326,580
people) is becoming increasingly diverse: it includes
people born in over 150 different countries, with 25% of
all people being from a NESB and over 19% (1,221,030) of
all people having a disability. We estimate that 25% or
one in every four people with a disability living in NSW
is a person from a NESB.
This means that there are over
314,300 people with a disability living in NSW who were
born in a non-English speaking country or who have at
least one parent who was born in a non-English speaking
country. In other words, 5% of the total NSW population
are either first or second generation people from a NESB
with disability.
We also estimate that over 230,700
people with disability in NSW (18.9%) speak a language
other than English at home.
Our Factsheet No. 1 (enclosed)
provides detailed information about how we derived these
estimates.
As people from a NESB with
disability comprise a significant proportion of the NSW
population our needs must be taken into account in any
review of services funded to assist people to find and
keep open employment.
2. Number of people from a NESB
with disability who use disability employment
services
The latest statistics available
indicate that people from a NESB are vastly
under-represented among consumers who use disability
services funded under the Commonwealth State Disability
Agreement, including disability open employment services.
The Australian Institute of Health
and Welfare (AIHW) report, Disability support services
2002, states that only 1.3% of consumers reported needing
an interpreter for spoken language. In other words only
831 consumers out of a total of 65,809 needed an
interpreter: 564 of these consumers were born in
Australia and 267 were born overseas, with country of
birth not specified for the remaining 18. That 1.3%
compares with MDAA's estimate of 18.9% of people from a
NESB with disability living in NSW who speak a language
other than Englsih at home.
The Australian Bureau of
Statistics' report, Commonwealth Disability Services
Census 2001, shows that 84.4% of the disability service
outlets funded by the Commonwealth are employment
services; 93% of their NSW consumers were born in
Australia or another English speaking country; and 94%
(16,621) spoke English at home. This means that only 6%
(1,236) of NSW employment services' consumers spoke other
languages at home, compared with MDAA's estimate that
18.9% (230,775) of all people with disability in NSW
speak a language other than English at home (see
Factsheet No. 1 enclosed).
Based on these statistics we
estimate that 2 out of every 3 people from a NESB with
disability miss out on receiving Commonwealth funded
services, including open employment services.
3. Current system compared with
the ones proposed
It is clear that the existing
system assists very few people from a NESB with
disability to find and retain open employment. The
existing taxpayer funded employment services do not meet
the needs of the culturally diverse communities they are
funded to serve and continue to assist mainly Anglo
Australians and other people born in English speaking
countries.
George
George speaks English as a second language, has an
intellectual disability and a mental illness. He
sought assistance from Centrelink to find a job. A
Centrelink disability officer assessed him and
referred him to a vocational rehabilitation service,
who referred him to an employment service. George says
he was referred between various employment services
for about 12 months and then back to Centrelink for
assessment for a disability support pension.
Centrelink granted a pension and suggested he look for
work himself. They gave him a choice of 3 employment
services. He contacted them all but no-one returned
his calls.
George says
Centrelink staff do not understand what he wants or
needs. He believes they are deliberately not referring
him to an appropriate employment service or that they
have blacklisted him because of his disabilities, his
history or 'for some other reason'.
Our experience with the Department
of Family and Community Services (DFACS) is that, despite
our continuing representations and submissions over a
period of 7 years, DFACS appeared to be content to
maintain funding for a racist employment service system.
We made numerous recommendations for ensuring that
services are provided equitably to the whole population
who are eligible, to no apparent avail. As the NSW member
of the National Ethnic Disability Alliance (NEDA) we know
that NEDA also made many submissions and recommendations
to DFACS to address these problems.
In our view if DEWR is interested
in achieving equitable outcomes for every potential
employment service consumer, systemic changes will be
required to ensure that the current inequity of access to
services experienced by people from non-Anglo Australian
backgrounds is addressed. Otherwise, in our view if the
proposals in DEWR's discussion paper are implemented it
will make no appreciable difference to people from a
NESB.
People from a NESB with disability
face various barriers in gaining access to services that
must be addressed to achieve equitable outcomes. These
include lack of cultural competence among staff; negative
staff attitudes; and employment services' lack of
willingness or capacity to respond appropriately to the
cultural, linguistic or religious needs of people from a
NESB with disability.
In our view, the only things likely
to make a difference for people from a NESB with
disability are:
- providing training for
employment service management and staff to become more
culturally competent;
- putting in place outcome
measures (such as targets for the number of consumers
from a NESB assisted) and monitoring the results; and
- providing sufficient resources
to support people from a NESB with disability to get
and keep a job.
Anything else is just tinkering
around the edges and people from a NESB will continue to
miss out on services and getting a job in open
employment. While MDAA usually argues for mainstream
services to improve their competence to deal with people
from all cultural backgrounds, it may be that
ethno-specific services could deliver better results than
mainstream disability employment services for people from
a NESB. This is an option DEWR may need to consider.
The following comments relate
to the headings and paragraph numbers in DEWR's 'Next
steps…' paper.
1.2 ABS statistics clearly
indicate that job seekers from a NESB with disability do
not move easily into programs that meet their needs,
despite the paper's assertions in this regard. Nor does
the Active Participation Model (APM) ensure that we are
continually supported.
On the contrary, in our experience
people from a NESB with disability fall through the
cracks in the various pathways leading to open
employment. People looking for work who do get access to
employment services shuffle between Centrelink and Job
Network members providing intensive support and open
employment services, without finding the kind of support
they need. Each step can involve classification,
assessments or re-assessment, which use tools based on
Anglo-Australian assumptions, norms and expectations. Not
only is this system unfair to people from a NESB it is
also very confusing.
Tarik
Tarik left school, found part-time work and
completed a TAFE course. He has a physical disability
and an anxiety condition that affects his ability to
work for sustained periods of time and he needs to
pace himself and take a long break after a few hours.
A former employer referred him to an employment
service and his family suggested he go to Centrelink
for assistance.
Centrelink
initially assessed him as eligible for newstart
allowance and required him to apply for 7 jobs every
fortnight. He went to the employment service who
referred him to a counselling course and assisted him
to look for jobs. They referred him back to Centrelink
after a few months and Centrelink decided he needed
more intensive support. Centrelink referred Tarik to
another employment service who sent him to a training
course and got him job interviews but no job offer
eventuated.
After 12 months
the employment service referred Tarik back to
Centrelink who referred him to their disability
officer, who assessed him again and referred him to a
disability employment service for assistance. Tarik
had to provide the same information about himself and
his disability each time he saw someone new and fill
out forms requiring the same information. He says he
did the WATs assessment 4 times in 5 years. He has
lots of work experience but is finding it harder to
get and keep jobs as he gets older. He doesn't like
being a pensioner and would rather have a job that
pays enough to support himself and his family. Tarik
says the assessment forms do not take into account his
emotional needs or the nature of his disability and
Centrelink customer services officers can be rude and
disorganised. He says it is difficult to work out how
much to disclose of his personal needs because he does
not want to be discriminated against in finding a job,
eg, he never discloses his religion because of his
fear of discrimination, even though this means he
misses out on religious holiday observance.
Tarik finds the
forms intimidating, demoralising and insulting and
would rather sit down and talk to a Centrelink officer
than have to fill in the forms himself every time. The
Centrelink disability officer sends him a list of
employment services to choose from but no information
about whether they have a waiting list or any
expertise in his type of disability.
Tarik feels like
a guinea pig whose only identity is what is in the
Centrelink computer. He feels like a mouse on a
treadwheel going round and round in the same futile
process. He says 'it makes you feel like you don't fit
in to this society.'
1.4 and 1.5 We
support the government continuing to fund open employment
services under the Disability Services Act 1986
(DSA) arrangements because the DSA exists to protect the
rights of people with disability and to ensure that all
disability service providers comply with standards
derived from the DSA.
We note that the JobAble website
questions and answers on the 'Next Steps…' paper
state that DEWR has no intention of changing this
arrangement. As there is no indication of whether the DSA
will apply to Job Network members providing services to
people with disability we assume that it will not. We
believe the DSA should apply to every employment service
receiving taxpayer funding to provide services to people
with disability.
The DSA was accompanied by a
statement of principles and objectives that apply to the
administration of services funded by the Commonwealth to
provide services to people with disability. These
principles and objectives recognise that people with
disability have the same rights as other members of
society and advocate 'the least restrictive alternative'
in assisting people with disability to realise their
individual potential. The objectives relate directly to
service delivery, focusing on the consumer and
integration of disability services with mainstream
services, where possible, or a community-based focus for
specialist services where these are necessary. Access and
equity and cultural diversity are encompassed in the
statement of principles and objectives. The objectives
are aimed at ensuring that services meet the needs of
people who are disadvantaged, including by their cultural
background.
It is likely that there will be
strong competition between Job Network members and open
employment services for consumers, particularly after 30
June 2006, when as yet unknown tendering arrangements
will apply. In our view it is unfair and unreasonable to
require one category of service providers to comply with
the DSA and not the other. If competitive tendering is
introduced from 1 July 2006 Job Network members will have
an unfair advantage if they are not required to comply
with the DSA and people with disability will not have the
same protections if they receive services from Job
Network members.
2.1 to 2.3 The
proposed arrangements may work well for people from an
English speaking background with disability but in our
experience, without additional funding, performance
targets and monitoring, they are unlikely to work any
better than the current arrangements for people from a
NESB with disability.
Peri
Peri was born in Australia, speaks English and
another language with his family at home, has an
intellectual disability and a mental illness. He has
been to Centrelink many times to get assistance to
find a job. About 15 years ago he was referred to a
vocational rehabilitation service who did not assess
him but told him to stay on the pension.
During the past
5 years Centrelink has referred Peri to various people
and places for assistance: a Centrelink disability
officer who interviewed him and filled out some forms;
another staff member who re-assessed his eligibility
for the pension; a different staff member who assessed
his eligibility for travel allowance; an employment
service who refused to accept him and referred him to
another employment service; a different employment
service not specialising in disability, who referred
him back to a disability employment service again; and
so on.
Peri has been
doing projects and courses to keep his hands and his
mind active. He is frustrated with the 'system' and
does not understand why Centrelink is not more active
in following up and getting feedback on referrals; why
no-one gives him a reason for not accepting him or not
finding him a job; and why no-one from Centrelink or
the employment services ever phones or writes to him.
Peri believes he
is either on a lot of waiting lists or that he has
been blacklisted and will never get a job. He wants
staff of these agencies to know what it is like for
people with disability so they can make it better and
give people a go. He wants staff to be knowledgeable
about disability so they can provide additional aids
if they can't find him a job.
3.1 The principles outlined
in DEWR's paper are admirable, but as the experiences of
MDAA consumers indicate the practice lags behind. Having
access to appropriate services should include access to
English language classes. In the past few years funding
has been reduced significantly for English as a second
language programs. This particularly affects people who
require assistance in a mainstream classroom. At present
it is almost impossible for a person with an intellectual
or other cognitive disability to get the appropriate
support to attend classes in English as a second
language. Yet skill in the English language is one of the
keys to success in finding and keeping a job.
Similarly, open employment services
have ignored the needs of people from a NESB by not
making links with employers from diverse cultural
backgrounds. We believe many more people from a NESB with
disability would have been assisted to find and keep a
job if employment services had made such links with
employers from particular communities.
3.2 We welcome the
additional 1500 places and, in view of the lack of
results for people from a NESB with disability to date,
we recommend that they be allocated to open employment
services who can demonstrate their capacity to work with
and get jobs for people from a NESB.
3.3 We welcome DEWR's
examination of the assessment and referral processes this
year. As indicated by the examples we have included,
people from a NESB with disability experience many
difficulties as a result of the complexity of the
existing 'system' and the ongoing assessment, referral
and re-assessment process. While each of the players may
believe they are referring the person to appropriate
services, if the person is from a NESB they may have no
idea what each service can provide or why they are being
referred there. It takes time to understand the 'system'
and how it can assist you. Staff attitudes towards people
from a NESB and training in cultural awareness are
crucial elements to aid that understanding.
Paul
Paul was referred to Centrelink by a local doctor
as a recently arrived migrant with a physical
disability. Centrelink granted him special benefit and
referred him to a vocational rehabilitation service. A
community settlement service worker (funded by the
Department of Immigration) suggested he enrol in a
TAFE course and apply for a disability support
pension. Paul went to Centrelink and asked about the
pension and assistance to find work. Centrelink gave
him some information but Paul did not understand how
to follow it up. The vocational rehabilitation service
had a 3 month waiting list but assisted Paul to fill
out the pension claim form. He then went interstate to
try to find work.
Centrelink
referred Paul to an employment service who suggested
he do a job skills course before going back to the
vocational rehabilitation service. Paul clashed with
the case manager at the employment service who, Paul
says, was lazy, did not like people from a NESB and
did not tell him he could withdraw at any time.
Nothing happened with the vocational rehabilitation
service and they told Paul they were closing his file.
An
Anglo-Australian friend went with Paul to Centrelink
where the customer service officer told Paul he would
have to speak to a disability officer, who visited
that branch every so often. Paul made an appointment
for 6 weeks time but the disability officer came 3
weeks early so Paul missed out on seeing him and is
now looking for work without any assistance.
Paul's
perceptions of the 'system' are that Centrelink staff
think that because you receive a payment they can
treat you badly; people from a NESB don't matter to
vocational rehabilitation providers; Centrelink
assessments do not take into account a person's
cultural background and it depends on the individual
staff member doing the assessment whether they have
any cultural awareness or not. Paul suggests that
Centrelink and other services train their staff in how
to deal with the public; how to manage difficult
situations and talk to people in a way they can
understand, bearing in mind that not everyone who is
entitled to live in Australia was born here and knows
how the 'system' works.
4.1 and 4.2 We
believe insufficient resources have been provided to deal
with potential additional needs arising from the cultural
and linguistic diversity of the population. If funding
levels and formulae have been determined without
reference to the needs of people from a NESB they may
need to be re-visited to ensure that people from a NESB
achieve results comparable with people from an English
speaking background. We also believe funded services
should be monitored more effectively to ensure they are
meeting the DSA objectives to provide services to the
whole target population, not just the English speaking
portion of it.
6.2 DEWR's paper emphasises
as one of the advantages of the possible alternative case
based funding (CBF) model that expectations will be
comparable and fairer between open employment services
and Job Network members. As stated above, we believe it
would be fairer and more effective for people with
disability, including people from a NESB, if Job
Network members were also required to comply with the
DSA.
In our view open employment
services, who are required to comply with the DSA, have
the expertise to get results for people with disability;
they just haven't been getting comparable results for
people from a NESB with disability. We would not want to
see the baby thrown out with the bathwater, if open
employment services are competing with Job Network
members who do not have to comply with the DSA and have
no particular expertise in dealing with people with
disability.
Nor would we wish to see this issue
resolved by changes to the funding arrangements for open
employment services from 1 July 2006, for example, by
exempting them from the requirement to comply with the
DSA.
6.5 to 6.7 We note
the increased flexibility provided by the proposed job
seeker account (JSKA) and welcome it as a way to provide
the additional support that may be required by some
people from a NESB with disability. Our main concern
about the JSKA is that it could allow employment services
to rob Peter to pay Paul, especially if Peter's needs are
recognised but Paul's are not. If Paul is a person from a
NESB, what guarantee is there that the employment service
will be able to recognise his cultural needs, including
the effects of his cultural background on his
understanding of his disability, and provide the level of
funds required to support him, compared with Peter, from
an English speaking background, whose support needs may
be more easily recognised and provided? What guarantee is
there that people from a NESB with disability will
receive the level and type of services required to get a
job when it will be easier to focus on meeting the needs
of people from an English speaking background, as happens
now? Without appropriate monitoring of expenditure from
the JSKA it will be impossible to answer these questions.
7.1 We note the possibility
that all employment services could have access to a 1800
phone number for immediate assistance and advice on
working with people with disability and that peak
organisations such as ACROD, ACE or NESA may be involved
in providing assistance. While we acknowledge that those
organisations have their own areas of expertise, none has
particular expertise or experience involving people from
diverse cultural backgrounds, including NESB.
In addition, we are concerned that
the proposed 1800 phone advice line may eventually
replace specialist open employment services. We could
only support such a move if a significant increase in the
cultural competence of mainstream employment services and
the peak bodies identified could be demonstrated. While
we believe open employment services are not yet
culturally competent we accept that they have a greater
understanding of disability than non-specialist services.
Getting open employment services to a stage where they
and their staff are competent to serve the whole
community may be faster and more effective than starting
from scratch with non-specialist services.
