Employment of people with disability in the APS

Chapter 1 Employing people with disability makes business sense

The Australian Government’s 2002 Intergenerational Report¹⁰ highlights the need for higher workforce participation to maintain Australia’s high living standards as working age population numbers decline. That report, and subsequent Productivity Commission projections,¹¹ stress Australia is on the verge of a sustained tightening of labour supply.

These trends increase competition among employers for entrants to the Australian labour force.¹² Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce acknowledged the challenge the APS is already facing in attracting and retaining staff in a tighter labour market.¹³

Candidates with disability are an increasingly valuable labour resource in that changing environment¹⁴ and the APS could usefully become an employer of choice to differentiate itself from other employers and attract talented candidates with disability.

1.1. Attracting staff in a tight labour market

Employers of choice offer, among other things, a supportive work environment and flexible work arrangements that encourage all employees to meet their full career potential and an appropriate work–life balance. These are the same flexibilities that ensure an accessible workplace for people with disability.

The benefits for employers who introduce these flexibilities are twofold. First, they encourage the employment of qualified employees with disability. Second, their employment encourages the perception of a supportive and flexible workplace that, in turn, encourages the employment of those who may not have a disability.

At the same time, the policy setting has never been more favourable for encouraging the employment of people with disability. To lift workforce participation, reduce welfare dependency and maintain a strong safety net for those who need it, the 2005–06 Budget introduced the Welfare to Work reforms, comprehensively reforming the welfare system for working age Australians. Those reforms assist people with disability on income support, who can do part-time work, to look for it.

The Australian Government’s recent workplace relations reforms (WorkChoices) also offer more choice and greater flexibility to both employers and employees (including employees with disability) to design workplace agreements that best suit the needs and aspirations of both.

To best use that favourable policy setting requires a culture that no longer accepts the old way of looking at disability, but rather acknowledges that employing people with disability makes good business sense.

1.2. Compliance with the APS Values

Of particular importance, also, in the APS context is the obligation imposed on APS employees by the APS Values¹⁵ and Code of Conduct¹⁶ to pursue appropriate employment policies and practices.

The provision of a workplace that is free from discrimination, and which recognises and utilises the diversity of the Australian community it serves, is one of the key Values underpinning the APS employment framework.¹⁷

Other Values underpinning the APS employment framework are that the APS:

is a public service in which employment decisions are based on merit¹⁸
promotes equity in employment¹⁹
provides a reasonable opportunity to all eligible members of the community to apply for APS employment.²⁰

The APS Values reflect public expectations of the relationship between public servants and the Government, the Parliament and the Australian community. They articulate the culture and operating ethos of the APS.

The Code of Conduct complements the Values by setting the standard of conduct required of APS employees. The Code requires, among other things, that APS employees behave in a way that upholds the APS Values²¹ and that agency heads and members of the SES promote them.²² The Values are not simply aspirational statements of intent; they are legal requirements. Failure to uphold them and comply with the Code may attract sanctions. ²³

Together, these Values, and the requirement that a person exercising powers under the Public Service Act must do so without patronage or favouritism, form the basis for all APS engagement and promotion decisions.

The Values are not mutually exclusive. In particular, engagement and promotion processes can and should be conducted in a way that is merit-based, but also in a way that is non-discriminatory, is representative of the diverse Australian community, promotes employment equity, and encourages all eligible members of the community (including those with disability) to apply.

The more representative the APS workforce is of the community, the more likely it is APS programmes and services will be inclusive and responsive to that community. Employing a person with disability helps create a culture of inclusion in an organisation, which in turn generates a greater awareness on the part of all employees of the needs of clients with disability or those requiring special assistance. For APS agencies, establishing a workforce that reflects all potential clients (including almost four million Australians from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds) makes good business sense.²⁴

1.3. Legal compliance

Of importance, also, to the role of the APS as an institution, is the obligation on APS employees under the Code of Conduct to comply with all applicable Australian laws.²⁵ This includes the obligation to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Workplace Relations Act 1996.

APS agencies, in common with all Australian employers, have a legal responsibility under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to ensure that, in their employment processes, they do not discriminate against people with disability.²⁶ Employers also have a legal obligation under that Act to make reasonable adjustments to the workplace to overcome any barrier the work situation poses to equal opportunity, equal participation or equal performance by someone with disability.

Between 1998–99 and 2004–05, 424 complaints against APS agencies in the area of employment were made to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) under the Disability Discrimination Act.²⁷ During this period, more than 50 complaints were made each year, peaking at 75 complaints in 2001–02. Each complaint imposed significant legal and administrative costs, as well as reputational costs, on agencies.

The Workplace Relations Act 1996 also protects workers against discrimination on the basis of, among other things, physical or mental disability.²⁸

Complying with those legal obligations, in order to avoid costly discrimination lawsuits and damage to reputations that can result from those actions, makes good business sense.²⁹

1.4. Tapping a pool of qualified applicants

Currently, a proportion of the Australian population with disability is not being fully utilised as a resource with skills and knowledge available to the workforce.³⁰

Almost four million Australians (or 20% of the total population) identified as having a disability in the ABS 2003 Disability, Ageing and Carers Survey.³¹ Of those, more than 100,000 were unemployed.
At June 2005, 707,000 people were receiving a Disability Support Pension.
At December 2005, there were around 125,000 job seekers with disability on the active Job Network caseload.
At least 4000 to 6000 people with disability nationally, are, at any one time, ready for work and are on the programmes managed by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (CRS).³²

The numbers of higher education students with disability have also increased³³ but, again, their potential has not been fully recognised. The Graduate Careers Council of Australia’s 2004 Graduate Destination Survey revealed that four months after graduation, only 37.8% of students with disability, who were available for work, were in full-time employment, compared with 53.8% of bachelor’s degree graduates without disability.³⁴ The situation is similar for students completing vocational education and training.³⁵

Benefits and costs of employing people with disability

While people with disability are available to the workforce, myths and misconceptions about the potential contribution of employees with disability and the costs associated with their employment can limit their career opportunities.

The only authoritative large-scale study of benefits and costs to employers of employing a person with disability is that conducted by Graffam et al. It involved more than 650 Australian employers who had employed a person with disability through a funded disability employment service. While that study rated employees with disability lower than average employees on productivity factors (that is, speed and accuracy), it rated them higher than average employees on reliability factors (that is, attendance and sick leave) and employee maintenance factors (that is, recruitment, occupational health and safety (OHS), compensation, and insurance costs).³⁶

The outcome for an employer employing a person with disability, according to Graffam et al, ‘is generally a reasonably productive, very reliable employee who costs marginally less to maintain in employment’.³⁷

Other studies have also shown the costs of workplace modifications, specialised equipment and training or other extra arrangements are not high and tend to be ‘one-off’ outlays.³⁸ In any event, some costs are associated with the employment of any new employee.

Moreover, the study by Graffam et al found workplace modifications and changes to staff training and supervision made for the employee with disability result in benefits to productivity, staff skills and practices, and workplace and customer relations for the entire organisation. Three possible reasons identified by the study for those benefits are:

integrating an employee into the workplace raises awareness of previously less than optimal working conditions, including training and supervisory practices, basic work practices and health and safety issues
improved co-worker and customer relations contribute to morale and improved performance within the organisation as a whole
the individual performance of an employee with disability may raise expectations and performance standards for all employees, thereby improving the entire organisation’s performance.

Whatever the reason, an employee with disability can be a catalyst for positive change and for improved organisational performance.³⁹

That is not to deny that in some cases the nature of an employee’s disability can have an adverse impact on the workplace. However, the better practice approaches for supporting staff with disability, outlined in this report, can assist agencies in limiting those impacts.

The Treasurer 2002, Budget Paper No. 5, 2002–03, Intergenerational Report 2002–03, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Productivity Commission 2005, Economic Implications of an Ageing Australia, Productivity Commission, Canberra.
See Australian Jobs 2006 <http://www.workplace.gov.au/workplace/Category/Publications/LabourMarketAnalysis/AustralianJobs.htm>; <http://jobguide.thegoodguides.com.au/skillsShortages.cfm>; <http://www.zdnet.com.au>
Management Advisory Committee 2005, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 1.
See the discussion in Chapter 1 of this report.
Section 10(1) of the Public Service Act 1999.
Section 13 of the Public Service Act 1999.
Paragraph 10(1)(c) of the Public Service Act 1999.
Paragraph 10(1)(b) of the Public Service Act 1999.
Paragraph 10(1)(l) of the Public Service Act 1999.
Paragraph 10(1)(m) of the Public Service Act 1999.
Section 13(11) of the Public Service Act 1999.
Sections 12 and 35(2)(c) of the Public Service Act 1999.
Paragraph 29(3)(g) of the Public Service Act 1999.
Stressed in interviews conducted for this review with many stakeholders (including private sector organisations such as IBM and Telstra, and many disability advocacy groups identified in Appendix 1). It is also emphasised in J. Graffam et al, ‘Employer Benefits and Costs of Employing a Person with a Disability’, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, Vol. 17, 2002, pp. 251–63; and J. Graffam et al, ‘Factors that Influence Employer Decisions in Hiring and Retaining an Employee with a Disability’, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, Vol. 17, 2002, pp. 175–81. Acknowledging and responding to the cultural and linguistic diversity of people with disability is also particularly relevant in this context. People with disability from non-English speaking backgrounds experience additional inequity due to linguistic and cultural differences (interview in December 2005, and the National Ethnic Disability Alliance’s (NEDA) Submission to HREOC’s Inquiry into Employment with Disability, October 2005).
Section 13(4) of the Public Service Act 1999.
Graffam et al, ‘Employer Benefits and Costs of Employing a Person with a Disability’ and ‘Factors that Influence Employer Decisions in Hiring and Retaining an Employee with a Disability’; J. Graffam, ‘Good News and Good Business’, Disparity, Summer, 2002, pp. 10–12.
Interviews with Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission staff for this review (March 2006).
Section 3 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.
F. Hansen, ‘Diversity’s Business Case Doesn’t Add Up’, Workforce, April 2003, pp. 28–32; and ‘Tracking the Value of Diversity Programs’, Workforce, p. 31 <http://www.workforce.com/section/11/feature/23/42/49/index.html>; Graffam, ‘Good News and Good Business’.
Figures provided by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Disability Policy Branch, 2006.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004, Disability, Ageing and Carers: Summary of Findings 2003, Tables 1 and 8, pp. 15 and 26.
CRS Australia’s strength is job matching the person with disability to the job (rather than just placing a person into a vacancy) and then supporting the person and employer for another thirteen weeks to ensure a smooth placement (interviews with CRS Australia Service Delivery Support staff, March 2006).
In 1996, 1.9% (11,656) of the 600,061 students reported a disability. In 2004, that number had increased to 3.7% (24,593) (Department of Education, Science and Training 2006, Commencing and All Domestic Students by Equity Group, 1995 to 2004 (Appendix 3.1)).
Regional Disability Liaison Officer and Disability Coordination Officer 2005, Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Employment and Disability 2005, April, pp. 3–4.
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2006, Report on Government Services 2006, Productivity Commission, Canberra, pp. 4.5, 4.29 and 4.32.
Graffam et al, ‘Employer Benefits and Costs of Employing a Person with a Disability’. Similar results were identified in a study conducted for Telstra in 1999 which concluded that people with disability worked on average 4.1 years in a call centre, compared to 3.2 years for people without disability; people with disability were absent for 11.8 days, compared to people without disability who were absent for 19.24 days over a 15-month period; and that there were no significant differences in the areas of performance, productivity and sales (see the JobAccess website <http://www.jobaccess.gov.au/JOAC/Employers/Disabilities+and+work+strategies/Benefits_to_ business.htm>)
Graffam et al, ‘Employer Benefits and Costs of Employing a Person with a Disability’, p. 256; Graffam, ‘Good News and Good Business’, p. 12.
For instance, according to Graffam et al, ‘Employer Benefits and Costs of Employing a Person with a Disability’, the European Trade Union Committee reported in 1995 that 50% of the accommodations resulting from the Americans with Disability Act cost employers less than $US500 per employee, with even lower costs being reported in surveys carried out by the Job Accommodation Network in 1994.
Graffam et al, ‘Employer Benefits and Costs of Employing a Person with a Disability’, pp. 256–7.

Downloads:

Contents

On our website:

Site help

Site menu