TRANSCRIPT
FAMILY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Inquiry into social inclusion and Victorians with a disability
Melbourne — 3 March 2014
Members
Mrs A. Coote
Ms B. Halfpenny
Mr J. Madden
Mr D. O’Brien
Ms D. Ryall
Chair: Ms D. Ryall
Deputy Chair: Ms B. Halfpenny
Staff
Executive Officer: Dr J. Bush
Research Officer: Ms V. Finn
Administrative Officer: Ms N. Tyler
Witnesses
Ms G. Callister, secretary,
Ms K. Haire, deputy secretary, community and executive services group, and
Mr A. Rogers, deputy secretary, service design and implementation group, and director of housing,
Department of Human Services.
3 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
1
The CHAIR — Good morning. I very much appreciate you coming before the committee this morning. On
behalf of the committee, I would like to welcome Gill Callister, Katy Haire and Arthur Rogers from the
Department of Human Services. I remind witnesses that all evidence taken by this committee is taken under the
provisions of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, attracts parliamentary privilege and is protected from
judicial review. Any comments made outside the precincts of the hearing are not protected by parliamentary
privilege. All evidence given today is being recorded. Witnesses will be provided with proof versions of the
transcript. Please note that these proceedings are not being broadcast. I now call on Gill to give a brief
presentation of no more than 15 minutes. I will then open it up to members of the committee to ask questions.
On behalf of the committee, I thank you for and very much appreciate you being with us today.
Ms CALLISTER — Thank you, Chair. I will start with a short presentation. It will relate to the slide pack in
the folders we have just provided to you. I will take you through that slide pack. There are some other resources
that we thought may also be of use to the committee in your deliberations. There is a copy of the Victorian state
disability plan and some other information that you may wish to refer to.
I would like to start with a simple truth, which is that people with a disability have the same ambitions and
talents as any other members of our community. People with a disability also have the same rights as other
Victorians to participate in community life and to pursue their personal goals and aspirations. Beyond having
the same rights as other Victorians to be included, people with a disability have consistently told us they want to
be included in community life. They want to live, work and socialise in the same way as everyone else, and
importantly, just as everyone does, people with a disability have told us they need support and skills — from
education and training to health care and safe and reliable transport — to really access and participate in
community life.
But despite having the same rights, skills and aspirations as other Victorians, we know that people with a
disability are more likely to live in poverty. They are more likely to have fewer educational qualifications, to be
unemployed and to experience discrimination and sometimes violence and abuse in their lives. While we have
achieved much in recent years to support people with a disability to be included in the community, there is more
to do. Today I will present evidence to this inquiry on behalf of the Department of Human Services centred on
three themes. On slide 2 I list those themes.
In the first of those we will look at Victoria’s performance in relation to the social inclusion of people with a
disability, and we will look at our progress to date and highlight areas for continued focus. The second theme
looks at the way the Department of Human Services supports the social inclusion of people with a disability:
how the department works to support people directly through both service provision, funding and policy settings
as well as with the funded sector and other parts of government. In theme 3 we will look at how we intend to
make future advances, taking into account the challenges and opportunities that exist today.
Moving on, to set the scene it is important to recognise that Victoria has a long and proud history of supporting
people with a disability to access and participate in community life. In late 2012 the Victorian state disability
plan was released. Its development was led by the Department of Human Services, and it provides a
whole-of-government, whole-of-community plan for making life better for people with a disability and their
families and carers. The state plan was the subject of extensive public consultation, from which we gleaned
insight into the issues that matter for people with a disability, and we will talk more about the plan shortly.
It is also important to understand that the plan is derived from the Disability Act of 2006 which, beyond setting
the framework for the plan, also focuses on enabling people with a disability to individually plan their supports
so that they are flexible and tailored to their wishes and needs. It requires government departments and statutory
bodies to establish disability action plans which focus on reducing barriers and promoting inclusion. It
enshrined in legislation the Victorian Disability Advisory Council. It established the role of the Disability
Services Commissioner to independently deal with complaints about Victorian disability services. It protected
the rights of people with a disability, subject to restrictive interventions, through the establishment of the role of
the senior practitioner. It also precipitated the establishment of the Office for Disability, which sits within the
Department of Human Services and provides leadership and support across the Victorian government to
improve the lives of people with a disability.
The act paved the way forward, and we are now in the strong position where we have structures in place,
through the state plan, to effect mainstream change and give rise to its intent, because in the words of prominent
3 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
2
disability activist Stella Young, living with disability is nothing compared to living with exclusion. The state
government does not act alone; the commonwealth, local governments and the community sector also have
responsibilities in relation to social inclusion of people with a disability.
I turn to the first theme, of Victoria’s performance with respect to social inclusion. Slide 5 shows that about
18 per cent of the total Victorian population have a disability, with 2.5 per cent having a profound disability.
This is a steady increase from the 1998 estimates, and it is consistent with the national average. The Department
of Human Services not just focuses on people with a profound disability but also seeks to influence attitudes
within the total population. Like everyone, people with disabilities must have their basic needs met before they
can engage in social or economic activity, and specialist disability supports play a key part in this.
Victoria compares favourably with other states and territories. In 2012 Victoria provided specialist disability
supports to the highest number of clients — 63 168 people — compared with any other state or territory in
Australia. This is not just because Victoria has a large population. In 2012 we also serviced a high percentage of
the population eligible for services, matched only by South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT.
But people with a disability do not always require specialist support directly from government. Often their
needs are also being met by families and friends and other service systems, like home and community care and
mental health.
On slide 7, turning our attention to the economic participation, it is worth noting that on labour force
participation, Victoria — the dark blue column — is slightly above the Australian average. However, in 2012
the labour force participation rate for all Victorians with a disability was 53.9 per cent, significantly lower than
for Victorians without a disability, at a high 82.2 per cent. That tells us there is a high proportion of people with
a disability who want to work who are currently excluded from the job market.
Turning to social participation, it is difficult to measure; however, there has been consultation by the ABS with
disability groups and people with a disability about how to measure this. On these measures, including the ones
referenced below, Victoria is above the Australian average. In 2012 the percentage of all Victorians with a
disability who had face-to-face contact with someone from outside their family was 76.3 per cent — the blue
columns on your graph.
A similar trend is apparent in Victorians with a disability who had travelled to a social activity at least once in
the previous two weeks — which is the orange columns — at 93.8 per cent. However, while an important part
of the picture, this is not the full view of the levels of social inclusion of the people with a disability.
So what do these things tell us? While Victoria compares favourably with other states and territories in the
provision of specialist disability supports, meeting demand remains a constant challenge. This will change as we
move towards a national disability insurance scheme, which I will talk about shortly.
Victoria’s economic participation for people with a disability is slightly above the national average, but there is
a significant gap between people with and people without a disability remains. Women with Disabilities
Victoria highlight the importance of this, stating that social and economic advantages of being employed are
well recorded, such as security, self-determination, financial resources and a sense of purpose. Yet women with
disabilities encounter innumerable barriers to obtaining paid employment.
Victoria is above the national average on social participation measures. However, getting clearer measures for
social inclusion will help us focus effort in this important area across government, the community sector and the
community as a whole.
Turning to how we as a department show our commitment to social inclusion, we partner with other areas of
government and the community to work across a spectrum of activities, ranging from direct service provision to
raising awareness in the broader community. As already mentioned, one of the key ways we actively support
meaningful social inclusion is through the implementation of the Victorian state disability plan, which aims to
build a more accessible and welcoming Victorian community where people with a disability are able to fulfil
their potential in all aspects of life and have the same opportunities to participate as everybody else.
To do this, the plan sets out four interconnected goals, which you see on the slide, to realise the long-term
changes that Victoria is working towards. The plan outlines the government’s approach to reducing barriers
3 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
3
faced by people in accessing education, employment, justice, transport and public spaces within our community.
It has people with a disability at its centre, and it works across all aspects of everyday life to build a more
accessible and welcoming Victoria. Critically, it has been signed up to by all government departments.
There are 141 government actions in the plan to spread across all government departments, and these actions
have led and will lead to real change. Just one of those actions relates to the Transition to Employment program,
which supports young people with a disability who are interested in pursuing paid employment but not yet
ready to move to work or to be supported by a commonwealth disability employment service, so it is a great
way to bridge a gap toward economic participation.
We monitor the effectiveness of the plan and are also responsible for coordinating a quarterly interdepartmental
committee on disability to keep the plan on track.
Over recent years there has been much discussion about disability in the media and the community more
generally, and much of this has centred on the emerging national disability insurance scheme, or as we refer to it
the NDIS.
The NDIS aims to transform disability services into a no-waitlist, universal entitlement, federal social insurance
model and to support people with a disability to pursue education, employment and other opportunities to
actively participate in our community. Since the scheme’s inception the Victorian government has played a
leading role in the development and implementation of the NDIS.
The Productivity Commission articulated in its report that all Australians would be potential beneficiaries of the
NDIS through the first tier of services, while the second tier is targeted at all people with or affected by
disability. The third tier is targeted at people with support needs that would otherwise not be reasonably met
without funding and are not more appropriately met by other systems.
While the NDIS focuses on meeting the support needs of people with a disability, it also focuses on reducing
the lifetime costs of disability by giving people the support they need to participate and contribute both socially
and economically. This principle is reflected in the NDIS act, which enshrines in law that each participant’s
plan should advance their inclusion and participation in the community.
We are seven months into a trial of the scheme in the Barwon area, which is giving us the insight that we need
to revise and modify the NDIS before statewide implementation, and it means that we are well positioned in
Victoria to ensure that the fully formed scheme is effective alongside the implementation of the state plan.
Even before the NDIS I believe Victoria has been at the forefront of the empowerment of people with a
disability. Self-directed approaches in this state have placed people with a disability at the centre in establishing
their support. People — to the extent that they are able to — plan, design and implement the services and
supports they need to realise the life that they want. A key mechanism for enabling this flexible approach is
through individual support packages.
Approximately 1400 people will receive an individual support package in Victoria this year. We have sought to
shift control into the hands of people with a disability wherever possible. When I think of how this approach
impacts directly, I think of the example of Lisa, who, thanks to her ISP, is able to access and participate in a
whole range of community activities, including recreation, technology, cooking and a range of other subjects at
Kangan TAFE at Broadmeadows. She is a busy 42-year-old woman who has a physical disability, and through
her ISP she has directly employed her carers. As a result, Lisa has had greater choice and control over her
supports and been able to do things like take holidays interstate.
More recently we have aimed to shift to more individualised approaches to respite provision also. As the name
suggests, respite aims to provide parents and carers of people with a disability with a break, but we have moved
markedly from this simply meaning that a person goes into a facility for an evening. There are many great
examples of how innovative respite approaches promote social inclusion.
Charles is a 13-year-old boy with a disability requiring high levels of support and constant supervision. It has
caused significant strain on his mum, who also cares for two younger half-siblings under five. He was matched
with Kerrie, who is a volunteer, who is able to meet him at school each Monday and spend a couple of hours
with him exploring the local area. He likes to go to the library, go on public transport and spend time at the
3 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
4
playground at the local park. She has been able to do this with him, giving him individual time to do the
activities he enjoys, and his mother is able to spend time with his younger siblings.
Moving to slide 14, the department also takes a facilitative approach to much service delivery, working to
influence how other organisations can improve social inclusion. This is important because a significant
proportion of the department’s funding goes to external organisations. The DHS standards represent a single set
of service quality measures for funded service providers and department-managed services. The standards are
summarised as empowerment, access and engagement, wellbeing and participation.
In particular the standard of participation allows us to assess whether funded agencies are committed to social
inclusion and to support them to move in that direction. The department also supports a range of targeted
programs that work specifically with mainstream services, other areas of government, disability services and
people with a disability to facilitate a more socially inclusive Victoria. The community building program is our
key program targeted at social inclusion for a disability. It is located in local government and is implemented by
26 rural access, 31 metro access and 5 deaf access projects, a total of 62 projects across the state, with an
investment of $6.95 million this financial year.
The Victorian government is also working with the community sector to transform the human services system
to better meet the needs of all vulnerable Victorians, including those with disabilities, and Services Connect is
the centrepiece of this transformation. It is a new integrated model of service provision designed to connect
people with the right support, address the whole range of a person’s or family’s needs and help people build the
capabilities to improve their lives.
I have tried to highlight how the department is actively working at many levels within this theme. We have
formed, facilitated and leveraged many partnerships with people with a disability and their families, with
government, the sector and the community to improve social inclusion for Victorians with a disability. We can
reflect on the examples and see that these initiatives are working to provide more options and empower people
to fully participate within their communities, but there remains much more to be done.
As previously highlighted, nationally and within this state we are in the midst of extraordinary reform and
opportunity with regard to disability. I have mentioned that, in conjunction with the development and
implementation of the NDIS, we are implementing Services Connect, because while the NDIS will be the
primary service platform for Victorians with a disability, Services Connect will need to work in tandem with the
NDIS to ensure that people with a disability, who also have other needs, will receive support in a holistic and
coordinated way. We must also keep an eye on the many people with disability who do not require specialist
services but for whom the barriers within society are the primary disabling factor. As articulated and
operationalized through the state plan and the national disability strategy, we need to maintain focus on
accessible and responsive mainstream services as well. We understand that these changes that are under way are
ongoing and that there is a need to continuously improve. There will be some challenges along the way, as well
as opportunities.
In conclusion, we have come a long way from the time when people with a disability were hidden away from
their community and institutions, unable to direct their own lives and lived with stigma and exclusion. Today
we support Victorians with a disability to be part of their community by more effectively harnessing the broader
contributions, not only of government but of the not-for-profit sector and, most importantly, carers, providing
people with a disability with greater choice and control over their own lives.
The NDIS will provide the next major transformation in the way we provide these services and support. But the
single biggest opportunity before us is to maximise people’s capacity to engage in meaningful employment.
Workforce participation reinforces the key elements of disability service provision I have highlighted here
today. It builds greater connection with the community, and it strengthens individuals’ capacity for choice and
control over their own lives. Realising the potential of these opportunities will require considered thought,
multiple layers of commitment and expertise. My department remains dedicated to delivering on those
opportunities, not only for people with a disability but with those people. Thank you.
The CHAIR — Thank you Gill. We will just start some questions. I am interested in the state disability plan
from a social inclusion perspective and the measures of effectiveness, essentially. I just wonder if you can take
me through that.
3 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
5
Ms CALLISTER — I invite Arthur Rogers to answer that.
Mr ROGERS — There is the actual plan 2013–16. There is also the accompanying implementation plan.
The plan refers to a number of outcome areas. For instance, one is around better opportunities in education and
early childhood development.
There is an indicator about the proportion of people with disability aged 19 to 25 who have attained at least
year 12 equivalent. Those are the types of indicators that are in the plan. I can go through some others if you
would like, but they are set out in the plan.
There is also one around greater participation in the community. The indicator is the proportion of people with a
disability participating in common culture and recreation activities, and that particular measure is available
through the survey of disability, ageing and carers — the SDAC survey — which I think is done every three
years. The last survey has been done, and the results will be available this year. I think the next survey will be in
2015. The survey was modified some time ago, after consultations, and there are some measures in it that will
give some indications over time of changes in outcome areas. That will be done both for Victoria and also as a
comparison with other jurisdictions.
Ms HALFPENNY — Just following up on that, with those who have a disability from the culturally and
linguistically diverse community — the CALD community — as I understand it, there are no indicators in that
area even though there are a slightly higher number of people with disabilities within that group. Are you going
to look at measuring the success or otherwise of social inclusion as part of the plan in that area?
Mr ROGERS — In terms of the measurement —
Ms HALFPENNY — Or the indicators.
Mr ROGERS — we would still be relying on the survey of disability, ageing and carers. Sorry, I just do not
know the details this morning about whether or not that breaks it up around culturally and linguistically diverse
communities. We have seen some numbers at different times when we have done particular work with the
advocacy group that represents that area, but I am just not sure about whether we have the detail from the
SDAC survey and whether it tells us enough to actually break it down. Whilst we have those broad measures
for people with a disability, I just do not know whether that actually breaks it down in culturally and
linguistically diverse areas, but that is something we could check.
The CHAIR — Can we put that on notice?
Mr ROGERS — Certainly.
Ms HALFPENNY — Thank you. Just in terms of seeing whether things are moving forward, I notice you
have given some data on employment figures. How does the current employment of those with a disability
compare with the past? Just from my very small observation, there seems to be fewer people with disabilities
working in mainstream private sector employment. I am not sure if that is right or if it is just what I have seen,
but do you know? What are the figures now in comparison to the past — say, over the last 10 years or so?
Mr ROGERS — We do not have a comparison. My recollection is that they have improved over a longer
time period — like over 20 years. They certainly have improved, but we do not have the numbers here this
morning. Once again we could provide those.
The CHAIR — You will take that on notice.
Ms HALFPENNY — I am not talking about it in terms of short-term programs to provide some training but
actual ongoing employment, because, as we know, that is a very important part of social inclusion and
providing people with independence.
Ms CALLISTER — The numbers of people with a disability employed in the Victorian public service is
4 per cent, and that has remained stable for quite a number of years now. It is something the State Services
Authority reports on every year. It has not gone down. It has not significantly increased at this point, but it has
not gone down.
3 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
6
Ms HALFPENNY — Just on that then, 4 per cent — is that because that is a target? Is there a reason it has
stayed at 4 per cent, or are they the same people?
Ms CALLISTER — I do not believe it is a target, but why don’t I take it on notice and see if there is any
more information that relates to that number?
Ms HALFPENNY — Okay, thanks.
Mr ROGERS — It is probably the minimum number, but people are not forced to disclose that they have a
disability when they obtain employment. If people choose not to, we do not record that, and we would not
record it as part of our numbers. I suppose that is the minimum number because they are the people who have
chosen to record that they have a disability.
Mr MADDEN — In providing us with that information, could you give us a bit of an indicator as to what
the categories might be rather than just a broad indicator which says, ‘We have 4 per cent. They have certain
difficulties’? Would you be able to provide what those might be? Are they physical? Are they intellectual?
I take up the point you mentioned, where people may not disclose some of these issues. I am aware of workers
who have sustained an injury and have then been re-employed after that injury, and it has not been a workplace
injury but an injury that has occurred through medical procedures. I am interested in whether you have any
indicators of when something like that may happen, where people in a sense acquire a disability, whether they
continue to remain employed, they are redirected or their position is maintained. The story I have heard is a
good one, so I am interested as to whether that is accounted for in those figures or whether that just happens in a
department and it is not adjusted back into the figures.
Ms HAIRE — I believe the statistics are not broken down by the nature of the disability, but I think we can
get for you the information about people with an acquired disability and their engagement back into the
workforce.
Mr O’BRIEN — Thank you for your presentation. Following on from Ms Halfpenny’s questions, I have
been provided with a copy of a the Victorian State Disability Plan 2013–2016 — Companion Document, which
on page 13 has diversity and geographic distribution. Further to Ms Halfpenny’s points, it says:
People from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities are slightly more likely to have a disability than other
Victorians (22 per cent compared with 18 per cent in the general population).
That is sourced from the ABS 2007 data. I do not think it is the indicators; it is just the raw data. In relation to
rural and regional Victoria it goes on to say:
The proportion of all people with a disability is higher in rural and regional Victoria (22 per cent) than in the major cities (17 per
cent).
Given the data in relation to rural and regional Victoria, what is understood about the state disability plan’s
treatment of the extent of disabilities in rural and regional Victoria, and what particular programs or policies are
targeted towards that important sector?
Mr ROGERS — My understanding is that the programs through the state disability plan are generally
statewide. I cannot recall all the strategies across all the departments, so some might have a particular regional
focus, but generally the state plan was around a statewide approach to policy and settings. We would need to
take that on notice and go and see what particular issues have been raised around rural Victoria.
Mr O’BRIEN — That is right. The plan itself did not mention any breakdown for rural and regional
Victoria. I went to the companion document to go to that data, and I would appreciate that information. It may
be that by reason of the greater incidence, in a sense, you would be hoping that the plan would have a greater
focus, by reason of that raw data alone, but if there are any particular tailored policies, I would obviously be
very interested in them.
Mr MADDEN — I have two areas of interest in relation to the presentation you made, and thank you for the
presentation. Education and housing are areas that are particularly important in anybody’s life, regardless of
disability, but it is about accessing those opportunities if you do have a disability. I am interested in the case
study you gave about Lisa — I think it was on slide 13 — who is a busy 42-year-old who has a physical
3 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
7
disability, and her individual support package has directly employed her carers. I am conscious that you
mentioned the Kangan TAFE in Broadmeadows, and Kangan TAFE also provides services in the Essendon
electorate, which I represent. I am interested in the general impact the restructuring of TAFE and its fees may
have on people with any form of disability, or on inclusion or on those individuals accessing services, given that
fees have increased and given that some classes are no longer run on the basis that fee increases have put people
off attending TAFE. Are you able to qualify that in any way? I know it is within the education department, but I
would expect that agencies and departments speak to one another. Do you have an indicator or any idea of the
impact of those changes to TAFE on the clients you deal with?
Ms CALLISTER — I believe the education department are following us in their presentation, and they may
wish to answer in more detail. We do talk to them and have lots of discussions with the education department,
including the TAFE part, but I will ask Arthur whether he wants to address the question in any detail.
Mr ROGERS — I cannot add a lot more detail to that. Through our individual planning with people who
receive packages, we plan around that, and sometimes it is to assist them to get to those courses — not
financially, but assisting them with information and guidance. I am not aware of any change to the numbers
who might be doing TAFE through that process. I do not know any more detail than that. We had understood
that there were some courses that had changed and that people were making different choices, but I am not
aware of any major impact in terms of the people receiving packages.
Mr MADDEN — Are you not aware because you do not have the information or have not sought the
information, or are you not aware because the information exists but you have not made that request?
Mr ROGERS — I have not made that request specifically of the workers in our divisions and areas. My
comments were based on some discussions I had some time ago with people involved in this area, but I have not
had any discussions since.
Mr MADDEN — I have a follow-up then. I know the education department will be following you, but they
will not necessarily be talking about your clients. Do you have information that you can provide to this
committee in relation to those matters?
Mr ROGERS — I am not aware of any at the moment. We can go back and check with our planners around
that and see whether they have any specific information, but I am not aware of any today.
The CHAIR — Will you take that on notice?
Ms HAIRE — Yes. This is a good illustration of how the state disability plan works. We coordinate it
through the Office for Disability, but it is also a whole-of-government commitment. All government
departments take ownership of their particular actions. I am not sure whether you have been provided with the
implementation plan in your pack.
The CHAIR — We have.
Ms HAIRE — You can see where the lead agency responsibility is. Our responsibility is to coordinate that,
but it is also very clearly a responsibility specifically of those departments to implement those actions.
Mr MADDEN — Your responsibility is also to advocate to other departments for the needs of your cohort,
and that is what my questions are based on.
Mrs COOTE — I would like to thank Ms Callister, Mr Rogers and Ms Haire for being here and also for the
work that has been done. I know how much further along Victoria is in comparison with the other states. The
NDIS has given us an opportunity to have a look at where Victoria sits nationally, and I want to congratulate
your entire department on the work it has done to place Victoria in such a good position. I am particularly
interested in the work that is being done out of the state disability plan by the various departments. It builds on
what Mr Madden said just then, and Ms Haire’s comments certainly help to look at that. This is something very
new for government departments to be looking at, and one of the answers was about the 4 per cent before in the
public service. This is a huge psychological change both for the people with a disability and for the people in the
various departments. Could you give us some indication of how those quarterly meetings are progressing and
what some of the issues are that are arising out of those discussions across all government departments?
3 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
8
Ms HAIRE — Certainly. I chair the IDC that Gill referred to earlier. At our most recent meeting we talked
specifically about the employment of people with a disability, looking at the achievement of 4 per cent and
talking about all the strategies we can use to encourage and support more people with a disability into the public
service. We were talking about a range of factors that go to attitudes, community attitudes, accessibility and
support and training for recruiting managers so that they can support people with a disability and recruit them
and then keep them in the workforce.
At our most recent meeting, which was a 2-hour meeting last week, we spent about an hour and we also invited
the human resources managers from across the departments to share in that discussion. It is a very active
committee. Each time we try to look at a particular issue so that we can go into depth on it. The leadership role
we can take and the way we can bring together the different elements of government to try to improve the whole
picture for people with a disability is something we are very proud of.
Mrs COOTE — So it also involves the human resources people from the various departments across
government — —
Ms HAIRE — Just for that meeting.
Mrs COOTE — to change their attitude about employing people? I guess a lot of it is to do with knowledge
about what people with a disability can do rather than what they cannot do. Are they embracing that across
government? Are the human resources people also training their managers to look at the opportunities? Is that
part of this process?
Ms HAIRE — That is right, Mrs Coote. Last week, because we were specifically focusing on that element
of the plan, we invited the human resources managers to attend. There was a discussion about the range of
things they can do in their departments to provide more information for people when they are recruiting and on
using some of the material produced by the State Services Authority on greater recruitment and retention of
people with a disability. We are sharing the information that we already have with the many people who are
involved.
Mrs COOTE — Will that go through to not just the human resources people but also to educating the public
service community about how to integrate people with a disability within the public service? Is that part of the
ongoing discussions that you are having across government?
Ms HAIRE — Yes, indeed. The SSA guide might be something that I can provide to the committee. It is
really useful.
Mrs COOTE — That would be extremely helpful. Thank you all very much indeed.
Ms HALFPENNY — Just following up on that, in terms of employment within the public service — and
Justin made me think of this — is there a program to ensure that those with a work-related injury who are
already employees of the Department of Human Services are provided with work? What is the policy on that?
Ms CALLISTER — That is a different process; that is our occupational health and safety process within the
department. There is a pretty intensive program of assisting people who have a work-related injury to recover
from that and return to work. Sometimes it is in a staged way, sometimes it would be with modified duties,
sometimes it might be to a different form of work than the work — —
Ms HALFPENNY — There is an ability to dismiss people after a certain period of time if they have not
returned to their full duties. Is that used by the department?
Ms CALLISTER — To my knowledge it is not used by the department. I could not say absolutely that it
has never been used, but I am not aware of it. It is certainly not our first option. Our first option is for people to
recover and return. Our emphasis is always on helping people back into the workplace, with some changes, as I
mentioned, if there is a need for some form of change. I might add that we would very much hope that we do
not have people injured in a way that causes them an ongoing disability and that they can fully recover from any
work-related injury and return to full participation. Our entire occupational health and safety program is geared
towards people returning.
Ms HALFPENNY — Thank you.
3 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
9
Mr O’BRIEN — Just further to the general topic I raised, obviously one very significant development for
regional Victoria is the rollout of the NDIS in Barwon Heads for both the trial and as the location of the public
service headquarters. Are you able to give us a quick insight as to how it is progressing and perhaps some of the
reasons and advantages that the Barwon region offered as a site for the NDIS in Victoria?
Ms CALLISTER — The launch site is well under way now and the new national agency, having got up and
running quite quickly, has started to work effectively at providing assessments and allocation of packages for
people with a disability. We work very closely with the agency to transition clients who are existing clients of
the department or of the community sector across to the scheme. In addition to that, there are a number of
people on what we call the DSR, essentially the people waiting for services, who are now receiving services
through the NDIS in Geelong.
We are seeing both people with a disability and their families and carers very actively wanting to participate in
their plans. The formulation of the plan is one of the key components of how the financial package is then
allocated to people. People go along to the NDIA — the agency — and they have an assessment. Where they
have already had an assessment through the department or community agencies, it is taken into account and
factored into the establishment of the new plan to try to minimise the need for the reassessment of people who
already need something. We have seen people very actively wanting to participate in that plan and in the
selection of the services and supports they are then able to go out and purchase by way of allocation of the
funds.
For such a large change and big transition it is working very effectively. It is telling us a lot about what we will
need to do in order to provide the service at a statewide level in terms of how we work with the established
agencies, the families and carers and how the state transitions some of our own clients across to the scheme. It is
providing both very immediate support and relief for people on the ground as well as a great model for how to
expand it.
Mr O’BRIEN — That is my feedback.
Ms CALLISTER — Regarding Geelong as the headquarters, the presence of the Transport Accident
Commission in Geelong — a body that does very similar work — makes Geelong a very good place for the
national agency to be based. There will be a lot that the national agency and the TAC can do together and much
learning that can happen between them. That is a very positive development. It is also very positive for the
people of Geelong because it provides great employment opportunities.
The CHAIR — Thank you, Ms Callister, Ms Haire and Mr Rogers. I really appreciate you coming before
this public hearing today. I remind you that you will be sent proofs of the transcript from today. We look
forward to receiving information about those issues we placed on notice. Thank you very much.
Ms CALLISTER — Thank you, Chair. I will just make one correction. I think I said that approximately
1400 people would receive an individual support package this year. It is approximately 14 000 — I missed the
zero, so I apologise for that.
The CHAIR — Thank you.
Witnesses withdrew.
3 March 2014
Family and Community Development Committee
10