@bankwest Curtin University
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMICS CENTRE
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA
Improving employment outcomes for people with disability
Alex Buckland, Mike Dockery, Alan Duncan, Valentina Sanchez Arenas, Panagiotis Sotirakopoulos, Chris Twomey, Lili Loan Vu
Focus on the States Series, No. 10/24 *March 2024
About the Centre
The Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre is an independent economic and social research organisation located within the Curtin Business School at Curtin University. The Centre was established in 2012 through the generous support of Bankwest, a division of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The Centre’s core mission to deliver high quality, accessible research that enhances our understanding of key economic and social issues that contribute to the wellbeing of West Australian families, businesses and communities.
The Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre is the first research organisation of its kind in WA and draws great strength and credibility from its partnership with Bankwest, Curtin University and the Western Australian government. The Centre brings a unique philosophy to research on the major economic issues facing the State.
By bringing together experts from the research, policy, and business communities at all stages of the process – from framing and conceptualising research questions, through the conduct of research, to the communication and implementation of research findings – we ensure that our research is relevant, fit for purpose, and makes a genuine difference to the lives of Australians, both in WA and nationally.
The Centre is able to capitalise on Curtin University’s reputation for excellence in economic modelling, forecasting, public policy research, trade and industrial economics and spatial sciences. Centre researchers have specific expertise in economic forecasting, quantitative modelling, micro-data analysis and economic and social policy evaluation. The Centre also derives great value from its close association with experts from the corporate, business, public and not-for-profit sectors.
BCEC REPORT SERIES
Focus on Western Australia
This series explores economic and social issues from a Western Australian perspective, including data specific to WA or benchmarking WA against other states and territories.
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
First release 2014 Building for the future Ryan Brierty, Alex Buckland, Adam Crowe, Alan Duncan and Steven Rowley Focus on Western Australia Report Series, No.17 May 2023
Focus on the States
This series examines topical economic and social issues of relevance to contemporary public policy discourse in Australia.
First release 2014
BEHIND THE LINE: Poverty and disadvantage in Australia 2022
Alan Duncan Focus on the States Series, No. 9/22 March 2022
####### Focus on Industry
This series looks at historical trends, current issues and future directions in important industry sectors within the context of the Western Australian economy.
######## First release 2016
######### TRADING UP: International trade futures and the Western Australian economy AlexDanielBuckland,Kiely, ValentinaAlan Duncan,SanchezMohammadArenas andFarhad,PanosAbebeSotirakopoulosHailemariam, Focus on Industry Report Series, No. 8 July 2023
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES 1
SERIES1
Employment and Disability in Australia:
Improving Employment Outcomes for People With Disability
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Bankwest Curtin Economic Centre | Focus On The States Series
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
5
LIST OF TABLES
7
FOREWORD BCEC
8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
9
Key findings
12
Recommendations
14
EMPLOY MY ABILITY: POLICY FRAMEWORKS AND APPROACHES
17
Introduction
18
Framing the challenge
19
Human rights, dignity and labour market inclusion
20
Improving employment outcomes in Australia
22
Employ My Ability – Please?
23
Education to employment transitions
24
The international context
25
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA: PREVALENCE AND TRENDS
27
Introduction
28
Defining and measuring disability
29
Prevalence and nature of disability in Australia
32
EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY
41
Introduction
42
Trends in labour force participation and employment for people with a disability
43
Which occupations and industries are most accessible to people with disabilities?
46
The labour market penalty for people with a disability
49
Journeys through work and time: labour market progressions for people with a
disability 55
Has the National Disability Insurance Scheme improved labour market outcomes?
58
IS THE AUSTRALIAN WORKPLACE INCLUSIVE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES?
61
Introduction
62
A precarious world: job insecurity for people with a disability
63
Job satisfaction for people with a disability
66
Matching up? Underemployment and work preferences
67
Breaking down the barriers
70
Labour market discrimination
73
DISABILITY, WELLBEING AND EMPLOYMENT
75
Effect of employment on wellbeing for people with a disability
80
CONTENTS
CONTENTS (continued)
EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR MARKET INCLUSION FOR CARERS 81 Introduction 82 Caring for a person with a disability 83 Is the Australian labour market inclusive for carers? 87 Working life for carers 89 Barriers to employment 91 Caring, wellbeing and employment 93 SHIFTING THE DIAL: RESHAPING POLICY TO BROADEN ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT 97 FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES Introduction 98 The economic contribution and cost of people with a disability 99 A work first approach 101 Public sector employers as leaders 105 Community sector providers as employers of choice 106 Education to work transitions that support life-long outcomes 107 SUMMARY AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 109 Recommendations 113 ABBREVIATIONS 115 REFERENCES 117 APPENDIX 119
4 BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 4
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 People with disability: conceptual framework 30 FIGURE 2 Disability rates by age and gender, 1998 and 2018 SDAC, persons aged 32 0-69 FIGURE 3 Prevalence of disability by extent of limitation, SDAC, working-age 34 population, 1998 to 2018 FIGURE 4 Nature of impairment for people with a disability aged 15-69: by gender, 35 2003 and 2018 FIGURE 5 Age of disability onset for people with a disability aged 15-69: by gender, 36 1998 and 2018 FIGURE 6 Proportion with a disability, and work limiting disability, population aged 37 15-69, 2001-2022 FIGURE 7 Disability prevalence by gender, age, and cohort: 2001 to 2022 39 FIGURE 8 Labour force status for people with and without a disability: 2001 to 2022 43 FIGURE 9 Employment rates for people with and without a disability: by gender, 2001 44 to 2022 FIGURE 10 Employment rates by level of disability: 2003 to 2018 45 FIGURE 11 Workforce share by occupation for people with disability and non-disabled: 46 2020 to 2022 FIGURE 12 Workforce share by industry for people with disability and non-disabled: 47 2020 to 2022 FIGURE 13 Estimated employment penalty for people with disability: 2003 to 2022 50 FIGURE 14 Employment penalty by level of limitation for people with disability: 1998 51 to 2018 FIGURE 15 Educational attainment for people with and without a disability: 2001 to 53 2022 FIGURE 16 Employment penalty by education level for people with disability: 1998 to 54 2018 FIGURE 17 Labour market trajectories for people with and without disability: 2015 to 57 2022 FIGURE 18 Precarity index by disability status and gender: 2002 to 2022 63 FIGURE 19 Precarity by occupation for people with disability: 2002 to 2022 64 FIGURE 20 Mean job satisfaction by disability status 66 FIGURE 21 Underemployment ratios by disability status: 2001 to 2022 67 FIGURE 22 Reasons for working part-time by disability status: 2001 to 2022 68 FIGURE 23 Preference for working more or fewer hours: employees with a work-limiting 69 disability FIGURE 24 Stated reasons for difficulties getting a job: jobseekers with and without 70 disability FIGURE 25 Reasons for not looking for a job: marginally attached people with and 71 without disability FIGURE 26 Mean life satisfaction by disability status 76 FIGURE 27 Overall life satisfaction rating (0-10 scale): by disability status 77
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES 5
SERIES5
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
FIGURE 28 Mean life satisfaction by level of disability: HILDA 2001 to 2022 79 FIGURE 29 Share of working age Australians providing care: 2006 to 2021 83 FIGURE 30 Age composition of primary carers and other carers: 1998 and 2018 84 FIGURE 31 Educational attainment by carer status: 1998 and 2018 85 FIGURE 32 Labour force status for carers and non-carers: ABS Census, 2006 to 2021 87 FIGURE 33 Mean job satisfaction by carer status: 2005 to 2022 89 FIGURE 34 Preference of carers for working more or fewer hours: 2005 to 2022 90 FIGURE 35 Perceived reasons for difficulties getting a job: jobseekers: by carer status, 91, 2005 to 2022 FIGURE 36 Reasons for not looking for a job: marginally attached by carer status, 2005 92, to 2022 FIGURE 37 Mean life satisfaction by carer status: persons aged 15-69 years, HILDA 93, Waves 5-22 FIGURE 38 Life satisfaction: Effects of caring roles, and main carers’ labour force 94, status: HILDA Waves 2005 to 2022
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF TABLES
-
TABLE 1 Disability rates by gender and age, SDAC 1998 to 2018 33
-
TABLE 2 Distribution of people with disability across industry sector: 2020 to 2022 48
-
TABLE 3 Labour market transitions between 2021 and 2022: by disability status 55
-
TABLE 4 Probability of employment: multivariate regression models, HILDA and 120 SDAC data
-
TABLE 5 Employment probability by level of limitation: pooled SDAC data 1998- 2018
-
TABLE 6 Employment probability by education level and disability status 121
-
TABLE 7 Estimated association between NDIS support package and labour market 122 outcomes: people with disability, 2017 to 2022
-
TABLE 8 Transition to employment among people with disability who would like a 123 job: 2017 to 2022
-
TABLE 9 Drivers of ‘happiness’ among people aged 15-69: 2001 to 2022 124
-
TABLE 10 Estimated relationship between disability status and wellbeing: by degree 125 of limitation, 2001 to 2022
-
TABLE 11 Labour force status and life satisfaction by degree of work limitation: 2001 126 to 2022
-
TABLE 12 Employment probability for carers: panel regression models, HILDA data 127 2005 to 2022
-
TABLE 13 Effect of carer status on life satisfaction: panel regression models, HILDA 127 data 2005 to 2022
-
TABLE 14 Labour force status and life satisfaction for carers: HILDA data 2005 to 128 2022
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES 7 SERIES7
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
FOREWORD
Despite growing demand for workers and skills in Australia, there remain
significant barriers to employment for many of the one in six Australians
– around 4.4 million people – with a disability. The situation is especially
acute for up to 3 million Australians living with a disability classified as
work-limiting to some degree.
Aside from this obvious underutilisation of the talents of people with
disability, the opportunity to work is fundamental to living a complete and
fulfilling life and to achieving autonomy and independence.
This new Focus on the States report contains a comprehensive assessment
of the trends, drivers and consequences of labour market disadvantage
faced by people with disability in Australia, with a view to highlighting the
potential for policy and actions to promote greater inclusion and support,
reduce barriers to employment and address the discrimination and
unconscious bias that still endures in our society.
The report casts new light on the different labour market journeys and
work progressions experienced by people with work-limiting disabilities
compared to those with conditions that do not limit their labour market
contribution, and to people without disability, as well as for carers of
people with disability.
We reflect on the extent to which the support packages available through
the National Disability Insurance Scheme have improved access to
employment for people with disability and offer some recommendations
for action to make Australian workplaces more inclusive for all. These
recommendations are founded on the guiding principle of an entitlement to
meaningful work for all that seek it.
We would like to thank the many stakeholders we’ve met with for their
invaluable insights and contributions to shaping this report, particularly
those with lived experiences of the issues examined.
We hope you find the report to be illuminating, and as always, we would
love to hear your views on our research.
Professor Alan Duncan
Director, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre
Faculty of Business and Law, Curtin University
8 BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Commencing from the early 1990’s, Australia’s policy relating to people with disability has been fundamentally reshaped into what has been described as the ‘rights based’ era. Key developments on this pathway included the Disability Services Act (1986), the Disability Discrimination Act (1992), Australia’s signing of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, two 10-year National Disability Strategies, the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the 2019 Royal Commission into the treatment of people with disability.
At the heart of these reforms is the goal for an inclusive society in which people with disability can lead lives to the fullest of their potential and as equal citizens.
Access to meaningful employment is a critical element in achieving inclusivity and leading a full life, and this report focuses on Australia’s track record in terms of labour market inclusion for people with disability and their carers.
Labour market inclusion for people with disabilities
Despite the extensive policy efforts, reforms to supports and service delivery for people with a disability and greatly increased funding, we find that things are not improving for Australians with a disability. Relative to Australians without disability, the likelihood of a person with a disability gaining employment has not increased at all over the past 20 years.
This finding applies across the spectrum of levels of limitation. Employment prospects have not improved for people with disabilities who face mild limitations, through to those with profound limitations in undertaking core activities.
This key finding is confirmed using detailed statistical modelling and conducted separately using two key national datasets.
The wellbeing of people with disability
Australia’s lack of progress in labour market inclusion appears symptomatic of a wider failure of policy reforms to alleviate the barriers people with disability experience in participating fully in society.
Australians with disability do, on average, lead happy and fulfilling lives. However, our modelling identifies reductions in life satisfaction associated with having a disability, and with disabilities of varying levels of limitation. These ‘wellbeing’ penalties have also not reduced at all over the past 20 years.
There is widespread acceptance that opportunity for meaningful employment with fair pay for people with disabilities is integral to full participation in society. Key domains in which people with disability are less satisfied with their lives relate to labour market inclusion: their employment opportunities and financial circumstances.
Accordingly, our modelling provides strong evidence that securing employment enhances wellbeing for people with disabilities.
Are workplaces inclusive?
When in employment, workers with disability typically report a high level of satisfaction with their jobs. Relative to other workers, however, they are notably less satisfied with their pay, and job security. On average they are actually more satisfied with the work that they do than workers without disabilities.
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
The jobs of workers with disability are highly precarious, particularly for workers in lower skilled occupations. Job insecurity and inferior working conditions contribute in roughly equal part to this precarity. It is in the occupation of technicians and trades workers that people with disability face the highest gap in precarity relative to their counterparts without disabilities.
Job insecurity is one element of a much higher rate of churn between labour market states for people with disability. This includes moving in and out of the labour force altogether, as well as between jobs and unemployment. For example, 90 per cent of full-time workers without a disability in one year are found to be in full-time work the following year, compared to just 75 per cent of full-time workers with a disability.
Carers Being the primary carer of a person with a disability or an elderly person is associated with a lower employment probability of 5 to 10 per cent. The demands of that role are associated with a small but significant reduction in self-assessed life satisfaction.
As with people with disabilities, there appears to have been no improvement in work outcomes and life satisfaction for carers over the past two decades of policy and funding reform.
The availability of free time, finances, employment opportunity, and health are life domains in which primary carers of working age tend to be less satisfied.
There is also a large overlap between the population of carers and people with disability. Based on the HILDA data, 46 per cent of working age people who are a main carer also have a disability.
Primary carers looking for work nominate their own ill health as their main barrier to getting a job.
Shifting the dial We fully support the rights-based approach to policy relating to people with disabilities, but existing policy settings that merely point to rights without meaningful initiatives and compliance are not generating sufficient momentum for change to improve the lives of Australians with disabilities.
More needs to be done. Evidence presented in this report makes it clear that enhancing labour market inclusion must be part of that push.
We advocate a work first approach embedded into the supports provided for people with disabilities, in which the default assumption is that people with disabilities can access meaningful work whenever they and their families believe this is appropriate.
To implement this approach, we recommend the creation of an agency to coordinate disability employment policy that ensures it is aligned with positive outcomes for people with disability. Roles would include the collection and collation of data, rigorous evaluations, and providing evidence-based advice to employers, service providers and policy-makers on what works best.
An initial priority must be to address adverse incentives embedded in the existing system. These include the greater rewards to Disability Employment Service providers to achieve repeated short-term placements rather than longer term employment outcomes, restrictions on hours worked in placements, and how support payments or NDIS eligibility can be placed at risk or withdrawn over time as a result of successful employment outcomes.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Our modelling suggests that, other things being equal, being in receipt of NDIS support reduces the likelihood a person with disability will secure a job. Currently only around one-third of NDIS support plans for working age clients include employment-related goals.
Leveraging the efforts, good will and leadership of corporate Australia is essential to the success of a work first approach. This should start with offering strong incentives, such as wage subsidies, financial and technical assistance with workplace accommodations, backed up by research and evaluation to identify and promote best practice. The agency would provide a central contact point for employers to address the uncertainties many feel around creating inclusive workplaces.
All organisations should be seen as potential Australian Disability Enterprises. Rather than differentiating by the degree of ‘openness’ versus supported employment, all organisations should be supported on the basis of their effectiveness in generating positive outcomes for people with disabilities and their families against clearly defined objectives.
Governments should be prepared to enact compliance measures, such as mandatory reporting, targets and quotas if there is no evidence of progress accelerating. Government procurement conditions and practices is a key place to start.
The government sector also needs to lead the way by improving the inclusiveness in the public sector.
Education to work pathways
There is a case for a greater focus on increasing education retention and attainment for young Australians with disabilities. While employment rates increase with educational attainment for all Australians, our modelling shows there is large, additional positive effect for people with disability.
This means there is a large social opportunity cost arising from the exclusion of people with a disability who are currently at the margins of finishing school, or of going on to complete a certificate or university qualification.
The evidence also shows that better education outcomes for people with a disability provides an additional boost to their job prospects, with a bachelor’s degree increasing their chances of being employed by an additional 34.4 per cent (an additional 16.2 per cent boost above the 18.2 per cent improvement seen for people without a disability with a degree).
Best practice models provide both meaningful jobs skills and work experience programs along with supported post-school transition that engages with employers, support and follow up with students to ensure success.
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
Key Findings
that they have been consistently 25- 30 percentage points less likely to be employed than those without a disabilityThe BCEC Employment and Disability report draws on the different strengths of three main datasets to maximise insights into trends for people living with a disability in Australia: the ABS Survey of Disability, Aging and Carers (SDAC), the ABS Census and 22 waves of the longitudinal Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey (HILDA). Each data set has different ways to identify people with disability, but all three draw on the concept of requiring assistance for everyday functioning.
There is evidence of a recent decline in that penalty from around 32 percentage points in 2018 to 27 percentage points in 2022.
Penalties in the probability of being in employment associated with each level of restriction – from a disability that poses no restrictions on core activities through to one that imposes profound limitations on core activities – have remained stable over time.
The need for inclusive education
Due to the focus on labour market inclusion, having a university degree is associated most statistics and analyses presented in this report relate to people of working age, defined as between 15 and 69 years of age. For people with disability, having a university degree is associated with an additional 16.2 per cent higher probability of being in work.
The prevalence of disability in Australia Estimates of the prevalence of disability vary across different sources of data. According to the ABS Survey of Disability,Aging and Carers, there are around 4.4 million people with disability in Australia. People with disability experience a high degree of churn between labour market states. For full-time workers with a disability, typically 25 percent will have left full-time employment one year later, compared to just 10 percent for full-time workers without a disability. The total incidence of disability amongworking age people (15-69 years) declinedfrom 18.0 percent in 1998 to 14.4 percentin 2018.
The decline in prevalence can be attributedto a fall in the prevalence of disabilityamong older working-age Australians, andparticularly in disabilities associatedwith physical restrictions.
Among unemployed people, 42 percentof people with a disability have lefthe labour force one year later, compared tojust 13.7 percent for people without adisability.
Labour Market Inclusion
Based on HILDA data, 53.1 percent ofpeople with a work-limiting disability wereina job in 2022, compared to 81.8 per centof people without a disability or long-termhealth condition, a gap of 28.6 percentagepoints. That gap has widened from 27.8percentage points in 2001.
Job quality When in employment, workers with a disability are, on average, quite contentwith their jobs and with most aspects oftheir jobs. Relative to workers without a disability, the aspects of their jobs they are least satisfied with are pay, job securityand hours worked.People with disability experience asignificant labour market ‘penalty’, such
KEY FINDINGS
Labour market segregation account of cost savings in welfare payments and the mitigation of other supports.
By industry, the health care and social assistance sector employs the largest proportion of its workforce with people with a disability (21.7 per cent). Agriculture, forestry and fishing has the highest over-representation of workers with a disability, at 6.3 percentage points above their overall share in the workforce. Mining has by far the highest under-representation (-6.4 percentage points) reduction in reported subjective wellbeing associated with having a disability is as large today as it was in 2001.
When in employment, people with disability are under-represented in higher skilled occupations. They are around twice as likely to be employed as labourers than people without a disability. For people with a disability, there is evidence that gaining employment has a positive and causal effect on their sense of wellbeing.
A work first approach
Over 630,000 people now receive support through the NDIS. Currently only one-third of NDIS clients of working age have employment goals as part of their NDIS support plans. Modelling suggests being a NDIS client reduces a person’s chance of being in employment and reduces their chance of transitioning into work by around 7 percentage points.
Accessible transport is a barrier to securing employment. Twenty-six per cent of people with disability report transport issues as a barrier to finding work, compared to 16 per cent of jobseekers without a disability. Many carers are, themselves, people with disabilities and vice versa. Among people who are the main carer of someone who is elderly or has a disability, 35 per cent have a work-limiting disability themselves, compared to 15 per cent of people without caring roles.
The economic return to inclusion of people with disability in Australia Analysis in this report suggests that increasing the number of people with disability who are employed by 10 per cent would raise national economic output by $16 billion per year. This is a conservative measure based on additional wages but does not take
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 13
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
Recommendations
- Regular national, state and territory Disability Employment Excellence Awards.
A work first approach
-
Implement a work first model based on a universal entitlement to meaningful work for all who seek it, with pay at or above award wages.
-
Trial and evaluate disability employment subsidy programs and specialist support for people with higher work limitations and support needs, as well as one-off disability placement and workplace adaptation schemes to support recruitment and transition.
Public Sector employment
-
Federal, state and territory governments commit to provide leadership in disability employment processes and outcomes.
-
Include clear and consistent public sector employment targets and reporting requirements in the national partnership agreement and the Australian Disability Strategy.
-
State and territory public sector commissions should regularly share best practice models and case studies.
Community Sector employment
-
Federal, state and territory governments provide additional funding into existing and new public service contracts to support and deliver disability employment outcomes.
-
Develop and resource specialist disability recruitment and transition support services to assist and advise community service providers and to provide ongoing support to people with a disability and employers.
Employer leadership
-
Leading employers should embrace disability employment outcomes as a means of advancing and promoting the culture and values of their businesses.
-
Set and report against clear targets for disability employment outcomes, including public sector employment, industry and enterprise level reporting, procurement targets and resources in public service contracts, and inclusion in NDIS support plans.
-
Ensure active representation of people with disabilities and carers in policy formulation and evaluation as well as the governance and oversight of the NDEA.
-
Require the NDEA to develop and implement a progressive policy framework to share best practice in promoting greater workplace inclusion for people with disability.
-
Establish a national program to fund specialist disability recruitment and support services to provide targeted support, and disseminate best practice at an industry and enterprise level.
-
Create a National Disability Employment Agency (NDEA) that coordinates and aligns activities across existing welfare and disability support agencies (including Disability Employment Services as well as access to the disability support pension and NDS).
-
Ensure regular and consistent reporting and analysis of disability employment and wellbeing outcomes, including social inclusion, self-determination and meaningful work.
RECOMMENDATIONS
-
Employers who have actively engaged with and promoted the WGEA model are well-placed to transfer their learnings from gender equity to disability inclusion outcomes.
-
Boards of Management should oversee disability recruitment and employment outcomes and look to include representation of lived experience at Board level.
-
Industry bodies should actively engage with disability inclusion initiatives, developing, supporting and promoting industry-level initiatives, share and award stories of success.
Education to work transitions
-
A national partnership agreement committing state and territory education systems to develop, deliver and report a coordinated national response.
-
A quality post-school transition process that includes: person-centred transition planning, beginning early (by year 9); work experience opportunities and the facilitation of part-time work; a focus on foundational skills; and career development planning.
-
A national clearing house to curate and coordinate information and resources, overseen by the National Disability Employment Agency.
-
National data collection on post-school outcomes.
-
A system for reporting breaches of the disability standards for education with an independent complaints mechanism.
-
Specialised career advisory and transitional support roles within schools and educational institutions.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 15151515
Employment and Disability in Australia:
Improving Employment Outcomes for People With Disability
“It Is Estimated That One In Every Six Australians Or Around 4.4 Million People Is Living With a Disability (AIHw 2022).”
16 Bankwest Curtin Economic Centre | Focus On The States Series
Employ My Ability: Policy Frameworks and Approaches
Employ MyAbility: Policy Frameworks and Approaches
Bankwest Curtin Economic Centre | Focus On The States Series 17
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
INTRODUCTION
It is estimated that one in every six We look at the impact of disability on
Australians or around 4.4 million people is wellbeing and participation in our economy
living with a disability (AIHW 2022). Many and community.
of these Australians live full, rewarding, and
happy lives, make significant contributions Our focus is primarily on labour market
to our economy and society, and enrich the inclusion for people living with a
lives of those round them. Far too many, disability and carers. We are conscious of
however, are still excluded from making a intersectionality with other groups who also
meaningful contribution to our community experience discrimination, including First
and are not living their lives to their full Nations Australians, LGBTQ+ and those
potential … for completely avoidable from non-English speaking backgrounds.
reasons.
We acknowledge there are many issues
beyond labour markets that can intersect
Exclusion from the labour market is a and interact to compound disadvantage,
major contributing factor to lower levels just as other issues facing Australians with
of life satisfaction for people living with a disability also impact on their participation
disability. Consecutive policies have set and wellbeing. Labour market inclusion
targets to improve this situation over the is by no means a magic bullet, however
last two decades but failed to shift the meaningful work, financial independence
dial in any meaningful way. This report and the respect shown by colleagues and
draws on insights provided by a range of the community can have a profound impact
stakeholders, and data from the Census, on life satisfaction, social inclusion and
Surveys of Disability, Ageing and Carers, wellbeing.
and the Household, Income and Labour
Dynamics in Australia survey (HILDA).
2 Rebecca Cassells, Michael Dockery and Alan Duncan (2014), Falling Through The Cracks: poverty and disadvantage in Australia, BCEC Focus on the States Report Series, Issue #1. October 2014.
FRAMING THE CHALLENGE
FRAMING THE CHALLENGE
People all differ in their physical and social- emotional characteristics and in their functional capacities across the gamut of human activities. Ideally, we seek a society that maximises people’s wellbeing through the attainment of their own aspirations that also maximises their social contribution to help achieve others’ wants and goals. These are not inconsistent but mutually reinforcing goals, since it is an innate human trait to derive wellbeing from a sense of relatedness and mastery (Deci and Ryan 2000).
Disability is a relative concept defined either with respect to identifiable physiological conditions, or in terms of limits to functioning, relative to some norm. In times past, Australia’s approach to people living with a disability failed to adequately promote wellbeing or to facilitate their contribution to and involvement in society. Limits to functioning were often exacerbated by discrimination and ill-informed attitudes, compounding disadvantage and exclusion.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 19
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
HUMAN RIGHTS, DIGNITY AND LABOUR MARKET INCLUSION
In Australia, people living with a disability Starting from the 1980s, the third period
are subject to policies of both the saw a reorientation of the underpinning
Commonwealth and State governments, philosophy, as questions of needs and
with the balance of responsibility shifting qualification for support were replaced with
over time. Post colonisation, Stubbs, Webster a rights-based approach, recognising the
and Williams (2020) identify three broad right of people living with a disability to
disability services act (1986), dignity and the fullest possible participation
Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the in society. Significant steps in this direction
signing of the United Nations Convention included the Disability Services Act (1986),
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the
(UN CRPD) (2007), and the establishment signing of the United Nations Convention
of the National Disability Insurance Scheme on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(2011). (UN CRPD) (2007), and the establishment
of the National Disability Insurance Scheme
An early indication of this paradigm shift (2011).
was the Disability Services Act (1986).
It provided a framework for the funding An early indication of this paradigm shift
and provision of disability services, and a was the Disability Services Act (1986).
stated objective of the legislation was to It provided a framework for the funding
‘assist people with disabilities to receive and provision of disability services, and a
services necessary to enable them to work stated objective of the legislation was to
Towards full participation as members of the ‘assist people with disabilities to receive
community.’ Next Australia introduced the services necessary to enable them to work
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) with towards full participation as members of the
the objective to eliminate ‘as far as possible’ community. Next Australia introduced the
Discrimination against people on the ground Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) with
of disability, including in the areas of work the objective to eliminate ‘as far as possible’
and education, and to ensure people with discrimination against people on the ground
disability have the same fundamental rights of disability, including in the areas of work
as the rest of the community. and education, and to ensure people with
disability have the same fundamental rights
Initially focussed on assisting people with as the rest of the community.
disabilities prospects of ‘gainful employment,’
The scope of Commonwealth rehabilitation
Services expanded in the 1970s to cover all
people with disability, and assistance was A key step in the evolution of international
provided to charitable organisations to support policy was the United Nations Convention
disabled peoples homes and ‘sheltered on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
employment’ (Kewley 1980, Stubbs et al. (UN CRPD) in 2006. It included the principles
2020). Of non-discrimination; full and effective
participation and inclusion in society; respect
In the second period expectations for the For difference and acceptance of people with
Commonwealth to provide welfare schemes disabilities as part of human diversity and
for social and economic reconstruction in humanity; and equality of opportunity.
the aftermath of World War 2 provided the Australia was one of the original signatories
to the convention in 2007 which was ratified to the Convention in 2007 which was ratified
in July 2008. In July 2008.
HUMAN RIGHTS, DIGNITY AND LABOUR MARKET INCLUSION
The first National Disability Agreement Looking back over this period of significant (NDA) was signed by all states in 2008 and change in attitude toward disability in the first National Disability Strategy 2010- Australia, we see significant evolution in 2020 developed and endorsed by COAG in national policy, programs and funding. 2011. It set out six priority areas for action: Yet, when we look at the evidence on eclusive and accessible communities; rights employment participation outcomes in the protection; economic security; personal and reports listed above and in the following community support; learning and skills; and pages of this report, one single fact stands health and wellbeing. out. Over the last two decades we have seen no meaningful improvement in disability employment rates and outcomes.
Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Commonwealth of Australia.
Section 3 of the DDA outlines the objects of the Act, which are:
-
to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of disability in the areas of:
i. work, accommodation, education, access to premises, clubs and sport; and ii. the provision of goods, facilities, services and land; and iii. existing laws; and iv. the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs; and -
to ensure, as far as practicable, that persons with disabilities have the same rights to equality before the law as the rest of the community; and
-
to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle that persons with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 21212121
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
IMPROVING EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES IN AUSTRALIA
This section brings together learnings from Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021–2031 disability employment policy and programs (the ADS) was released in December 2021 within Australia and internationally to better and is intended to be “… an aspirational road understand what influences outcomes, map pointing the way ahead and represents and to consider what strategies and the national commitment to enabling every initiatives can make a practical difference to Australian to meet their potential, to achieve, to have a fair go and to have real choices.” (page 318). The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with The strategy is supported by a range of Disability was established in April 2019 other documents, including a Roadmap, and in response to community concern about Outcomes Framework, data improvement widespread reports of violence, neglect, and engagement plans, and a series abuse and exploitation. It delivered an of targeted action plans that include interim report in October 2020 and its final employment, community attitudes, early report in September 2023. Focusing on the childhood, and safety. The ADS Outcomes lived experience and voices of people with Framework consists of 85 measures across a disability and their carers, the report the 7 outcome areas. Forty-one are systems also foregrounds issues of participation measures, 40 are population measures and and wellbeing, devoting Volume 7 of its 12 4 are community attitudes measures. The volumes to Inclusive Education, Employment reporting framework includes annual reports & Housing. delivered by AIHW as well as regular reports against the action plans. The report pointed to a number of areas of employer action, including: specialised and The ADS has a strong policy focus on targeted recruitment programs; mentorships employment. The aim of the Employment and traineeships; training for employees and Financial Security outcome area is and recruiters; the development of policies that people with disability have economic relating to reasonable adjustments; security, enabling them to plan for the membership of networks to share and future and exercise choice and control over develop resources; and enhancements to their lives. Its three policy priorities are: to increase employment of people with disability; to improve the transition of young people with disability from education to employment; and to strengthen financial independence of people with disability. Since its introduction in 2021, reporting on employment outcomes highlighted in the ADS has been comparatively limited. The first ADS Annual Report (AIHW 2023) reported that: “… there was no real change in the unemployment rate gap between people with disability and people without disability between 2012 and 2018 (4.0 and 4.7 percentage points, respectively, for people aged 15 and over).”
22 BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES
EMPLOY MY ABILITY – PLEASE?
EMPLOY MY ABILITY – PLEASE? The release of the ADS also coincided Any employer convinced to put it into practice would then need to seek additional free advice, support and tools from one or more of the sources provided.
The strategy points to six key barriers Employers are encouraged to develop a reported when looking for or staying in work: Disability Action Plan using templates and resources provided by JobAccess or the
- Discriminatory attitudes and behaviours Australian Human Rights Commission. during recruitment. This includes reconsidering recruitment
- Bullying, experiences of discrimination processes to ensure that they are and lack of support in the workplace. inclusive and satisfactorily address the issue of workplace adjustments. They
- A lack of assistance in finding, securing are also advised to reach out to similar and maintaining employment. organisations for advice. However, the list of endorsing organisations on the DSS website
- Difficulty in accessing skills training and is currently short and not very diverse. education.
- Difficulty negotiating reasonable Given the diverse needs, activities and adjustments/accommodations in the workplace environments found across workplace. different employment sectors, there is a risk that a choice of five support agencies could
- Negative attitudes in the community, result in varying and patchy approaches including that people with disability can’t to workplace advice and support. We work, or don’t want to work, and that recommend over time that there is a disability would be costly or risky. degree of specialisation by industry across disability employment support agencies, The strategy seeks to lift employer that this is promoted via industry networks engagement and capability as a means and peak bodies, and that industry- of increasing employment demand by specific resources, guides and templates providing employers with the tools and are developed and made available. This abilities needed to confidently hire, would ensure employers know where to go, support, develop and retain people with tailored resources are more quickly and disability. Employ My Ability is more easily adapted, there is greater consistency a high-level introduction to help get in their application, and it becomes easier employers started (and provide their Boards proactively measure and report implementation with a useful overview) than a practical outcomes to drive improvements in rates and implementable guide to recruitment, of employment, retention, productivity workplace adjustments, employee support and wellbeing. and retention or HR policy development.
1 Resources are provided online via JobAccess and IncludeAbility, while the Australian Disability Network (ADN), Diversity Council of Australia and Get Skilled Access provide employer education, networks and support.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 23
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
EDUCATION TO EMPLOYMENT TRANSITIONS
Employ My Ability also identifies building It concluded that were was a critical and the employment skills, experience and urgent need for education reform. Its confidence of young people with a disability key messages were the need to change as a priority action area. While surveys of attitudes and address misconceptions, young people with a disability show positive create opportunities and improve access, attitudes to future employment and the importance of planning and ongoing 90 per cent actively want to work, in resources, and streamlining coordination, in practice 18 per cent of school leavers with partnerships and accountability. a disability have not entered the workforce seven years after leaving school (compared The CYDA report recommended a quality to 5 per cent of all school leavers).2 post school transition process that includes person-centred transition planning, beginning early (by year 9), with high Work experience opportunities expectations embedded throughout the and part-time work should be facilitated process. Work experience opportunities via connections with local businesses and and part-time work should be facilitated employers, with a focus on foundational via connections with local businesses and skills and career development planning with employers, with a focus on foundational the young person, including a follow up with skills and career development planning with them post school. them post school.
The 2015 report Post School Transition: The “… many young people with disability
experiences of students with disability by have extremely poor post school
Children and Young People with Disability transition experiences. This is
Australia (CYDA) is acknowledged as an impacting negatively on life outcomes
excellent and detailed report into the where there is low participation in
challenges faced by school leavers. The employment and tertiary study
report found that … and social exclusion remains high.
While there are pockets of good post
“… many young people with disability school transition practice, generally
have extremely poor post school programs and preparation for this
transition experiences. This is transition are fragmented with
impacting negatively on life outcomes minimal coordination and guidance
where there is low participation in regarding what should occur during
employment and tertiary study this time.
and social exclusion remains high.
While there are pockets of good post
school transition practice, generally
programs and preparation for this
transition are fragmented with
minimal coordination and guidance
regarding what should occur during
this time.
2 Year 13 (2021) Disability and Career Advice Survey. The South Australian Centre for Economic Studies (2021) Disability Employment Landscape Research Report.
24 BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES
The International Context
The International Context
The last two decades since the signing of the The European Union has implemented various strategies to promote disability inclusion in the workforce: notably, the ‘Disability Employment Package’ under the 2021-2030 Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Additional measures encompass the European disability card (for mutual recognition of disability status and equal access to benefits across eight Member States), the Erasmus+ program (supporting mobility for disabled students), and the 2019 European Accessibility Act (mandating accessibility for goods, services, and assistive devices) (Lecerf, 2022).
Inclusion is the guiding principle of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which pledges to create a “just, equitable, tolerant, open and socially inclusive world in which the needs of the most vulnerable are met” (UNDESA, 2019). International discussions on sustainability and inclusion recognise the significant barriers that prevent people with disabilities from having equal chances in the workforce, including higher rates of unemployment and inadequate social protection (ILO, 2016). Globally, roughly one billion individuals (15 per cent of the world’s population), are people with disabilities, from which approximately 80 per cent are of working age (World Bank, 2022).
The World Bank (2022) identifies inaccessible physical environments and transportation, the unavailability of assistive devices and technologies, non-adapted means of communication, gaps in service delivery, and discriminatory prejudice and stigma in society as key barriers to full social and economic inclusion of people with disabilities. The policy focus and associated strategies for encouraging the employment of people with disabilities have been impacted by the shift in understanding of disability from the medical model to the social and human rights models (UNESCAP, 2021).
One of the policy tools most commonly used internationally to support employment possibilities for people with disabilities is employment quotas. Currently, the laws of slightly more than 100 nations worldwide include employment quotas (ILO, 2019). Countries such as France, Japan, and Germany have instituted a 2-6 per cent quota for businesses with 20 or more employees, leading to positive impacts on employment outcomes (ILO, 2019).
Employment and Disability in Australia:
Improving Employment Outcomes for People With Disability
“People With\nDisabilities Are\nHighly Diverse\nIn Terms Of\nThe Nature Of\nTheir Disability\nAnd Related\nExperiences.”\n\n26 Bankwest Curtin Economic Centre | Focus On The States Series
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA: PREVALENCE AND TRENDS
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
IN AUSTRALIA:
PREVALENCE AND TRENDS
| BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES |
|---|---|
| 27 | 272727 |
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
INTRODUCTION
Perhaps the most widely cited figure on the The SDAC survey is the most rigorous prevalence of disability is the Australian in the way disability is defined and the Institute of Health and Welfare’s estimate most detailed in capturing the nature of that one in every six Australians – or around disability and caring activities. It offers 4.4 million people – have a disability (AIHW regular cross-sectional snapshots based on 2022, based on SDAC 2018). However, a large sample that includes people living in disability are highly diverse cared accommodation and uses consistent in terms of the nature of their disability measures over time. The SDAC is also and related experiences. There is no one identified as the key source of population definitive measure of disability status or of data in the Australian Disability Strategy the number of Australians with disability. 2021-31 outcomes framework to evaluate outcomes across its seven priority areas. This report draws on three main sources of data on people with disability, each For these reasons this section focuses on with its own strengths and weaknesses: SDAC data to provide insights into trends the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) relating to the population of people with Census of Population and Housing, the disability in Australia by type, severity ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing, and and other key dimensions. Data from six Carers (SDAC) and the Household, Income waves of the SDAC are available for this and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey purpose: 1998, 2003, 2009, 2012, 2015 (HILDA). Within each of those datasets, a and 2018, with data from the 2022 SDAC person’s disability status is conceptualised survey scheduled for release in June 2024. with reference to restrictions or the need To assess more recent developments, this is for assistance in undertaking everyday supplemented with the HILDA data. HILDA activities. Although the measurement has a much smaller sample size than the constructs used are relatively consistent SDAC, but also contains quite detailed data across datasets and over time, estimates on limitations resulting from disability and of the prevalence of people with disability on caring activities, and data are available can vary significantly for reasons unrelated for 22 annual waves from 2001 to 2022. to underlying changes in the population disability. These include changes in rates of awareness, diagnoses, and identification, and who the respondent Due to the focus of this report on labour is that makes the assessment (for example, market inclusion, there is particular focus self-report or by parents or other family/ on people of working age, which is 15 to 69 household members). years of age.
28 BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES
DEFINING AND MEASURING DISABILITY
DEFINING AND MEASURING DISABILITY
This chapter provides an overview of how The vast majority of people classified disability and caring status are measured as having a disability do have specific in our key national data sources, then limitations or restrictions, and in turn explores some of the key trends relating to the majority of those have a core activity the population of people with disability in limitation. Australia, with a particular focus on people of working age. Classification of the extent of limitation is:
As a starting point, we itemise the definitions • mild - the person needs no help and has used for the measurement of disability, as no difficulty with any of the core activity well as the extent of limitation, in the main tasks, but uses aids or equipment for core data sources used in this report. tasks, or has one or more of the following limitations
ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing, and – cannot easily walk 200 metres
Carers (SDAC) – cannot walk up and down stairs
without a handrail
The SDAC identifies people with a disability – cannot easily bend to pick up an object
if they report they “… have a limitation, from the floor
restriction or impairment, which has lasted, – cannot use public transport
or is likely to last, for at least six months – can use public transport, but needson whether they have a specific limitation
and restricts everyday activities.” People help or supervisionor restriction, which may be a limitation
with disability are then classified based – needs no help or supervision, but has
once again on whether they have a specific limitation difficulty using public transport
or restrictions, which may be a limitation,
with one of the three core activities (self- • moderate - the person needs no help, but
care, movement, and communication) or a has difficulty with a core activity task
restriction in schooling or employment. Those • severe - the person:
having core activity limitations are further assessed as having mild, moderate, severe, or – sometimes needs help with a core
profound limitations.
activity task, and/or
Under this framework, a person may have a – has difficulty understanding or being
disabilit y but not have specific limitations understood by family or friends, or
or restrictions, such as requiring minor – can communicate more easily using
assistance or using aids for self-care or sign language or other non-spoken
household chores but not to the extent of forms of communication
core limitations or substantially curtailing • profound - the person is unable to do, or
schooling or employment. Need for always needs help with, a core activity
assistance may include older people who task.
require assistance due to their age, but
The definition excludes young children who
simply have a similar need for assistance as
other children of their age.
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
Household, Income and Labour Dynamics and cannot be corrected by medication or in Australia Survey (HILDA) medical aids. Information is further collected on the degree to which a person’s disability More recent insights into trends in the limits their capacity to work. population of Australians with a disability can be gained from the HILDA data, with the data Although not as rigorous and detailed in available for the 2022 wave of the survey. its measurement and classification of the nature, type and severity of disability as The main variables identifying people with SDAC, it is available on a continuous annual disability in HILDA are also based on whether basis from 2001 right up until 2022, and the individual has a long-term health its panel nature also allows us to track condition, disability or impairment that lasts individuals’ journeys and life transitions. 6 months or more, restricts everyday activity,
FIGURE 1
People with disability: conceptual framework
Persons aged 15-69:
`redacted` (HJO/b) `
INTRODUCTION
There is no single definitive measure of the 69. Another shift appears to be a falling gender gap in disability rates for working age Australians. More recent HILDA data indicate a general increase in prevalence since the latest SDAC survey in 2018.
These give a similar general estimate of the proportion of Australians with a disability,
especially those with work limiting
disability of around 15 per cent.
Given its rigor and consistency in identifying people with disability, the SDAC is our preferred source for looking at disability
population of
people with disabilities.
The SDAC shows a modest decline in the prevalence of disability for working age
largely due to a falling incidence for people aged between 30 and
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA
The SDAC’s detailed, consistent in the incidence of disability for people aged measurement and classification provide the between 30 and 69 years, most notably for best source of data for an in-depth analysis men. For people aged 55 to 69 years, the of the prevalence and nature of disability proportion of males with a disability fell 10 across the Australian population, and how percentage points (from 39 per cent to 29 that has been changing over time. per cent), and the proportion of females with a disability fell by eight percentage points Around 17.7 per cent of all Australians (from 35 per cent to 27 per cent). So, while were identified in the SDAC as people with a substantial age gradient is evident, with disability in 2018. This is marginally lower rates increasing rapidly from age 30-44 than the 19.3 per cent recorded in the 1998 years, that gradient has become less steep SDAC. The SDAC shows a substantial decline over time.
FIGURE 2
Disability rates by age and gender, 1998 and 2018 SDAC, persons aged 0-69
| 45% | |
| 40% | |
| 35% | |
| 30% | |
| 25% | Per cent |
| 20% | |
| 15% | |
| 10% | |
| 5% | |
| 0% | |
| Males Females Males Females | |
| 1998 2018 | |
| ■ 0-5 years ■ 6-10 years ■ 11-19 years ■ 20-29 years ■ 30-44 years ■ 45-54 years ■ 55-69 years |
Notes: Sampling weights were used when computing these descriptive statistics. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers, 1998 and 2018.
PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA
TABLE 1
Disability rates by gender and age, SDAC 1998 to 2018
| 1998 | 2003 | 2009 | 2012 | 2015 | 2018 | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Persons % | |||||||
| Age | |||||||
| 0-5 years | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| 6-10 years | 10 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 9 | -1 |
| 11-19 years | 9 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 1 |
| 20-29 years | 9 | 10 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | -1 |
| 30-44 years | 14 | 13 | 11 | 10 | 11 | 9 | -5 |
| 45-54 years | 23 | 22 | 18 | 18 | 16 | 16 | -7 |
| 55-69 years | 37 | 36 | 33 | 32 | 30 | 28 | -9 |
Males
Age
| 0-5 years | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6-10 years | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 0 |
| 11-19 years | 11 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | -1 |
| 20-29 years | 10 | 10 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 8 | -2 |
| 30-44 years | 15 | 13 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 8 | -7 |
| 45-54 years | 22 | 21 | 17 | 17 | 16 | 15 | -7 |
| 55-69 years | 39 | 36 | 33 | 32 | 31 | 29 | -10 |
Females
Age
| 0-5 years | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6-10 years | 7 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 0 |
| 11-19 years | 7 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 10 | 3 |
| 20-29 years | 9 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 8 | -1 |
| 30-44 years | 13 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 9 | -4 |
| 45-54 years | 23 | 22 | 19 | 19 | 17 | 16 | -7 |
| 55-69 years | 35 | 35 | 34 | 32 | 30 | 27 | -8 |
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on ABS Survey of Disability Ageing and Carers, 1998 to 2018.
The data in Table 1 reveal that for the little difference by gender for people aged cohorts aged 0-5 years and 6-10 years, the rate of disability had been consistently much higher for male than for female children – sometimes twice as high. In the most recent 2018 survey, that incidence remained much higher for males in those cohorts, at around 70 per cent higher.
In contrast for young people aged 11- 19, an initial substantial gender gap has diminished over time as the incidence of disability among females has increased to be on par with that of males (at 10 per cent) by 2018. The 2018 survey indicates changes for people aged 69 and under. The proportion of Australians with a disability has remained relatively constant over time across all levels of restriction (Figure 3).
For people aged 15 to 69, the total incidence of disability declined from 18.0 per cent in 1998 to 14.4 per cent in 2018. While the incidence in those older age groups declined substantially (Figure 2), they also now
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
make up a larger share of the working age over the past two decades. Figure 3 shows population. Had there been no change in the changes in the prevalence of disability by incidence of disability within age groups, the extent of restriction or limitation. Over time, there has been a reduction in the proportion of the working age population with a moderate core limitation, severe core limitation, and with a schooling or employment restriction but without a core limitation. However, the proportion of people with a mild core limitation and profound core limitation has remained constant since 1998, at around 5 per cent and 3 per cent of the working-age population, respectively.
FIGURE 3
Prevalence of disability by extent of limitation, SDAC, working-age population, 1998 to 2018
| 6% | |
|---|---|
| Per cent | |
| 4% | |
| cent 3% | |
| Per | |
| 2% | |
| 1% | |
| 0% |
Profound core Severe core Moderate core Mild core limitation Restriction but no No core limitation
limitation limitation limitation core limitation or restriction
■ 1998 ■ 2003 ■ 2009 ■ 2012 ■ 2015 ■ 2018
Notes: Sampling weights were used when computing these descriptive statistics. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers, 1998 to 2018.
PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA
We have grouped the types of disability The figures reveal a substantial drop in the prevalence of physical restrictions in the 15 years between 2003 and 2018 for both men and women (both down by around 3 percentage points). Men have also seen a fall in the prevalence of sensory and speech related impairments of around one-half of a percentage point, while this remained relatively unchanged for women. Over the same period, the incidence of limitations associated with intellectual disabilities has remained relatively unchanged for both men and women.
FIGURE 4
Nature of impairment for people with a disability aged 15-69: by gender, 2003 and 2018
12%
10%
8%
cent 6% Per
4%
2%
0%
Females Males Females Males
2003 2018
■ Sensory and speech ■ Physical restriction ■ Intellectual ■ Other
Notes: Sampling weights were used when computing these descriptive statistics. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers, 2003 and 2018.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 35
353535
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
Other important changes have been the commenced when they were aged 15-29 delay in the onset of disability (Figure years and 30-44 years has fallen sharply, 5) and the reduction in the incidence of notably for men. This appears to be due to disability attributed to accidents and work. a decrease in the rates of acquired disability Figure 5 shows that the proportion of the attributed to accidents and work, evidence population that has a disability that first of the impacts of improved safety measures occurred when they were aged 0-4 years or and OHS policies. The proportion with later 5-14 years has remained constant between onset of disability – when they were aged 1998 and 2018. However, the proportion of 45-69 years – has fallen marginally. working-age people with a disability that
FIGURE 5
Age of disability onset for people with a disability aged 15-69: by gender, 1998 and 2018
6%
5%
4%
cent 3% Per
2%
1%
0%
Females Males Females Males
1998 2018
■ 0-4 years ■ 5-14 years ■ 15-29 years ■ 30-44 years ■ 45-69 years
Notes: Sampling weights were used when computing these descriptive statistics. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers, 1998 and 2018.
PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA
Trends to 2022:
The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey
everyday activity, and cannot be corrected by medication or medical aids. This Corresponds to the broad ‘person with a’ disability’ classification in the SDAC. More recent insights into trends in the population of Australians with a disability can be gained from the HILDA data, with the data available for the 2022 wave of the survey. Although not as rigorous and detailed in its measurement and classification of the nature, type and severity of disability as SDAC, HILDA is available on a continuous annual basis from 2001 until 2022, and its panel nature also allows us to track individuals’ journeys and life transitions. The main variables identifying people with disability in HILDA are also based on whether the individual has a long-term health condition, disability or impairment that lasts 6 months or more, restricts everyday activity, and cannot be corrected by medication or medical aids. This corresponds to the broad ‘person with a disability’ classification in the SDAC. We see that on average 23.4 per cent of the working age population reported having a disability, and 15.8 per cent a work limiting disability. This aligns with the 2018 SDAC estimate of people with disability ‘with specific limitations or restrictions’ of 15.6 per cent. The proportion of working age people reporting a disability in HILDA increased by around 6 per cent over the 22 years, while those reporting a work-limiting disability rose by just 2.6 per cent. The HILDA data show a slight upturn in both measures since the SDAC was last taken in 2018.
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
A cohort analysis upon men, including industrial activity and labour market conditions associated with The HILDA data make it possible to compare post-war reconstruction. This may be due to higher rates of accident and work-related disability, which have improved over time with stronger health and safety measures.
A concerning increase in the prevalence of disability is evident for Gen Z, with markedly higher rates of disability in their teens and early twenties. The increase is most pronounced for women, with rates around 10 per cent higher than observed for Gen X at comparable ages. Moreover, this phenomenon of elevated rates of disability for younger women appears to have commenced with Gen Y. For that cohort, rates then converge to be similar to the Gen X cohort by around 30 years of age.
For the older Builder generation, for whom
we can observe disability rates in their later
years of working age, there is a noticeably
higher incidence of disability among men,
and noticeably lower incidence among
women, compared to the younger cohorts.
While it is tempting to attribute this to
World War II, note the oldest of that cohort
sample would have seen active
service. However, the social and economic
legacy of World War II may well have had
an impact that disproportionately impacted
to happen with Gen Y.
PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA
FIGURE 7
Disability prevalence by gender, age, and cohort: 2001 to 2022
(a) females (b) males
55% 55%
50% 50%
(%) 45% (%) 45% 40% 40% 35% 35% condition condition LTH 30% LTH 30% or 25% or 25% disability 20%15% disability 20%15%
5% 5% reporting 10% 10% reporting
Share 0% 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Share 0% 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 age age Builders Boomers Gen X Gen Y Gen Z Builders Boomers Gen X Gen Y Gen Z
Notes: Respondents are grouped into five age cohorts according to date of birth, ranging from Builders (born 1928-1945), Boomers (1946-1964), Gen X (1965-1980), Gen Y (1981-1996) and Gen Z (1997-2012). Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2001 to 2022.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 39
Employment and Disability in Australia:
Improving Employment Outcomes for People with Disability
“There Is a Stark Contrast In Labour Force Status Between Australians With a Disability And Those Without a Disability, and The Degree Of Exclusion Increases With The Severity Of Limitation.”
Employment Outcomes For People With A Disability
Employment Outcomes
For people with a disability
Bankwest Curtin Economic Centre | Focus On The States Series redacted
redacted
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
INTRODUCTION
There is a stark contrast in labour force
of the population of people with disabilities
status between Australians with a disability
in terms of extent of limitations, age and
and those with none, and the degree of
exclusion increases with the severity
of limitation. That should come as no
surprise. Previous reports have highlighted
than the raw gaps in outcomes between
persons with disabilities and those without
disabilities, such as in rates of labour force
participation and employment, have not
changed substantially over recent decades.
However, many factors may be shaping
relative labour market outcomes for people
with disabilities, including the composition
of other factors to determine, more
definitely, the extent of progress and
whether we could be doing better.
42 BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES
TRENDS IN LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION AND EMPLOYMENT FOR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY
TRENDS IN LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION AND EMPLOYMENT FOR PEOPLES WITH A DISABILITY
Based on people classified as having the onset of the pandemic, employment a disability under HILDA’s very broad rates increased by only 4 percentage points ndefinition of a long-term condition that for people with a work-limiting disability. restricts everyday activities, Figure 8 shows Employment rates remained at or around nthere has been at best incremental change 70 per cent over the same period among nin employment opportunity for people with people with a non-work limiting disability ndisability for most of the past two decades. but have risen 6.9 per cent for people nBetween 2001 and 2019, the year before without a disability.
FIGURE 8
Between 2001 andLabour force status for people with and without a disability: 2001 to 2022
2019, the year
before the onset
of the pandemic,
(a) employment rate (b) unemployment rate
employment rates
100 8
increased by only 4
90 7
percentage points for
80
(%) 6 people with a work- (%) 70
rate 5 limiting disability. rate 60
50 4
40 3 Employment 30 Unemployment 2
20
1
10
0 0
2001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
non-disabled non-disabled
non work-limiting disability non work-limiting disability
disability limits work or can’t work disability limits work or can’t work
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2001 to 2022.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 43
434343
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
Moreover, it is difficult to see the increase in Figure 9. The steady convergence in from 2001 to 2022 as an improving trend employment rates for men and women without disabilities over this century is apparent. Estimates for people with disability are noisier given they are based on smaller sample sizes, but a similar convergence by gender seems to have been occurring. Encouragingly, the employment rates for men and women with work- limiting disabilities reached parity in 2018, and has since fluctuated at around that mark. Employment rate parity has yet to be observed for men and women without disabilities.
FIGURE 9
Employment rates for people with and without a disability: by gender, 2001 to 2022
100 +20
90 +18
80 ........ , , +16 --- ------------------------------- --- (ppt) 70 ______ , ,- --------- +14 (%) -------------------~-- 60 +12 gap
rate 50 +10
40 +8 30 +6 employment Employment
20 +4 Gender
10 +2
0 +0
-10 -2
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
gender gap for people with disabilities (RHS scale)
female - non-disabled
female - disability limits work -
male - non-disabled
male - disability limits work
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2001 to 2022.
44 BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES
INTRODUCTION
Figure 10 reveals trends in employment between the groups over time. Critically, rates using the SDAC’s more nuanced Figure 10 shows there has been little classification of disability by degree of improvement in labour market inclusion limitation. Employment rates display for people with disabilities over the last 15 years and certainly no improvement relative to people without a disability.
FIGURE 10
Employment rates by level of disability: 2003 to 2018
90
80
70 78.278.078.079.3 76.0
(%) 60 61.9 rate 59.3 50 58.6 56.5 55.2 40 45.445.044.846.6 42.1 39.540.3 30 37.838.136.6 Employment 32.0 30.2 29.3 28.5 20 24.7 10 11.113.614.49.711.4 0 11111 No disability Restriction Mild core Moderate core Severe core Profound core II only, no core limitation limitation limitation limitation limitation
■ 2003 ■ 2009 ■ 2012 ■ 2015 ■ 2018
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers, 2003 to 2018.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 45
454545
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
WHICH OCCUPATIONS AND INDUSTRIES ARE MOST ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES?
The relative profile of employment by the relative workforce shares for people occupation shows some strong clusters with disability compared to workers without disability in certain occupations and under- disabilities across occupational classes, of over-representation of people with using HILDA data from 2020 to 2022. representation in others. Figure 11 shows
FIGURE 11
Workforce share by occupation for people with disability and non-disabled: 2020 to 2022
Specialist Managers
Hospitality, Retail and Service Managers
Farmers and Farm Managers
Chief Executives & General Managers
Business, HR and Marketing Professionals
Health Professionals
Education Professionals
Design, Engineering, Science and Transport Professionals Legal, Social and Welfare Professionals ICT Professionals Arts and Media Professionals Construction Trades Workers Engineering, ICT and Science Technicians Automotive and Engineering Trades Workers Electrotechnology and Telecoms Trades Workers Other Technicians and Trades Workers Skilled Animal and Horticultural Workers Food Trades Workers Carers and Aides Hospitality Workers Health and Welfare Support Workers Sports and Personal Service Workers Protective Service Workers Numerical Clerks Other Clerical and Administrative Workers Inquiry Clerks and Receptionists General Clerical Workers Office Managers Clerical and Office Support Workers Personal Assistants and Secretaries Sales Assistants Sales Support Workers Sales Representatives and Agents Road and Rail Drivers Machine and Stationary Plant Operators Mobile Plant Operators Storepersons Other Labourers Cleaners and Laundry Workers Food Preparation Assistants Factory Process Workers Construction and Mining Labourers Farm, Forestry and Garden Workers 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Share of workforce (%)
[J people with disability ■ non-disabled
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2020 to 2022.
WHICH OCCUPATIONS AND INDUSTRIES ARE MOST ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES?
The comparisons in Figure 11 show that among hospitality, retail and service people with disabilities are strongly over- managers (5.0 per cent). represented in most labourer categories (accounting for around 11 per cent of all Figure 12 shows the percentage of the together with their families) but under-represented workforce of people with and without in specialist manager occupations (5.2 per disability by broad industry sector cent compared to 9.4 per cent of all workers according to HILDA data from 2020 to 2022, in this category). We also find a significantly while Table 2 provides a breakdown by higher share of people with disability who industry of the employment of people with a work as carers and aides (7.8 per cent), and People with a disability are under-represented in health and welfare support services We can see in Figure 12 that the health in specialist (2.7 per cent). care and social assistance sector employs manager occupations the largest proportion of workers with (5.2 per cent Of those in employment, people with a disability (17 per cent) and without compared to a disability are under-represented education and training (10.9 per cent and 9.4 per cent of all specialist manager occupations (5.2 per 10.0 per cent) and retail trade (9 per cent non-disabled workers) cent compared to 9.4 per cent of all workers and 9 per cent). but over-represented without a disability) but over-represented among hospitality,
FIGURE 12 Workforce share by industry for people with disability and non-disabled: 2020 to 2022
| Industry Sector | Non-Disabled Workforce (%) | People With Disability (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Health Care & Social Assistance | 21.7 | 17 |
| Education & Training | 10.0 | 10.9 |
| Retail Trade | 9.0 | 9.0 |
| Professional, Scientific, Technical Svcs | 6.0 | - |
| Construction | 6.0 | - |
| Manufacturing | 16.2 | - |
| Public Admin & Safety | 5.7 | - |
| Accommodation, Food Svcs | 7.2 | - |
| Transport, Postal, Warehousing | 4.7 | - |
| Financial & Insurance Svcs | 3.0 | - |
| Other Services | 3.9 | - |
| Wholesale Trade | 3.5 | - |
| Administrative & Support Svcs | 4.0 | - |
| Mining | 0.6 | - |
| Arts & Recreation Svcs | 1.5 | - |
| Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing | 3.2 | - |
| Information Media & Telecomm. | 1.5 | - |
| Electricity, Gas, Water, Waste Svcs | 0.8 | - |
| Rental, Hiring, Real Estate Svcs | 0.7 | - |
Distribution of employed people across industry sectors (%):
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2020 to 2022.
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
Looking at the proportion of people representation outcomes are ranked in
with a disability as a share of sector Table 2, which also provides a breakdown of
workforce highlights that agriculture, the percentage change over the last three
forestry and fishing has the highest over- years, showing greatest improvements
representation rate (+6.3 per cent) followed in the representation of workers with a
disability in wholesale trade (+3.8 per
cent), and in accommodation and food
services (+3.0 per cent) – while the arts and
recreational services sector (-1.1 per cent)
and the mining sector (-0.8 per cent) went
br backwards.
TABLE 2
Distribution of people with disability across industry sector: 2020 to 2022
| non- | people with | over/under | ppt change in share | | disabled | a disability | representation - three years| | people ||||
| % | % | ppt | ppt | Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing | 84.6 | 15.4 +6.3 +0.1 I| Administrative & Support Services | 86.6 | 13.4 +4.4 +2.0| Wholesale Trade | 88.3 | 11.7 +2.7 +3.8| Health Care & Social Assistance | 88.9 | 11.1 +2.1 +0.6 I| Accommodation, Food Services | 89.1 | 10.9 +1.9 +3.0| Other Services | 90.0 | 10.0 +1.0 +1.8 –| Information Media & Telecomm. | 90.1 | 9.9 +0.9 +1.9| Education & Training | 90.5 | 9.5 +0.5 +1.6| Transport, Postal, Warehousing | 91.0 | 9.0 +0.0 ■ +0.9 | Retail Trade | 91.0 | 9.0 -0.0 —• +0.5 I| Public Admin & Safety | 91.6 | 8.4 -0.6 +0.8 I| Manufacturing | 92.2 | 7.8 -1.2 -0.1 I| Arts & Recreation Services | 92.5 | 7.5 -1.5 ■ -1.1| Construction | 93.3 | 6.7 -2.4 -0.2 I| Professional, Scientific, Technical Services | 93.5 | 6.5 -2.5 -0.2 I| Financial & Insurance Services | 93.6 | 6.4 -2.6 ■ +1.0| Rental, Hiring, Real Estate Services | 94.2 | 5.8 -3.3 +0.7 I| Electricity, Gas, Water, Waste Services | 94.2 | 5.8 -3.3 -0.5 I| Mining | 97.4 | 2.6 -6.4 ■ -0.8| All industries | 91.0 | 9.0 +0.8 I
Notes: The percentage point changes in workforce composition compare the workforce shares for people with disability in the three-year period 2020 to 2022 with the three-year interval 2017 to 2019. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2020 to 2022.
The Labour Market Penalty For People With A Disability
The Labour Market Penalty For People With A Disability
The trend in participation rates and Employment penalties by disability status employment rates documented above Statistical modelling (or regression analysis) suggest that over at least the past 20 was undertaken based on both the SDAC years Australia has made no progress in and HILDA data to isolate the association promoting labour market inclusion for between a person having a disability and people with disability. However, changes their prospects of participating in the in some of the characteristics of the labour force and of being in employment, population with a disability may be clouding relative to people without a disability. those picture, such as the age profile, severity These estimates control for a range of other of limitations, and migrant status. factors known to influence labour market outcomes, including age, gender, level of People with disability To gain an idea of the independent effect of education, migrant status, and whether experience a penalty limitations on labour markets prospects, people live in major capital cities or in more such that they are models were estimated of the probability of regional and remote areas. consistently 25-30 a person participating in the labour market percentage points less and of being in employment, conditional Regression analysis of HILDA data between likely to be employed upon their disability status. This allows 2005 and 2022 (maroon line) and SDAC than those without a determination of how labour market outcomes data between 2003 and 2018 (teal line) disability. differ for people with disability after indicates that people with disability have controlling for other factors that shape a consistently lower likelihood of being Recent data from labour market outcomes. It also allows us to employed, that is, they face a ‘penalty’ HILDA shows a assess the impact of those other factors on in terms of their employment prospects promising trend, on the job prospects of people with disability, (Figure 13). The modelling approach allows with the employment whether such factors have differential us to estimate the size of this penalty for penalty declining by effects for people with and without a each year of survey data with detailed around 5 percentage disability, and how these effects have been results reported in Table 4 of the Appendix. points to 27 per cent changing over time. between 2018 to Analysis across both data sources shows 2022. to leverage the different strengths each clearly that people with disability experience dataset has to offer, modelling is undertaken a penalty such that they are consistently using both the repeated SDAC cross-section 25-30 percentage points less likely to be data and with the HILDA panel data which employed than those without a disability. tracks the same individual over time. This is the case even when we control for We adopt a consistent methodology for differences in age, education, region and estimating the effects of disability status other factors. Both HILDA and SDAC show a and one which makes it relatively easy to consistent trend between 2008 and 2018 of interpret the findings. We then cross-check this penalty rising to plateau around 2016. the estimates of key importance using Recent data from HILDA shows a promising different methodologies to confirm the trend, with the employment penalty results. declining by around 5 percentage points to 27 per cent between 2018 to 2022. This decline coincides with a tightening labour market and the lowest unemployment rates in many decades.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
FIGURE 13
Estimated employment penalty for people with disability: 2003 to 2022
-33
-31
(ppt)
-29
disability
a -27 with people -25 for
-23 penalty
-21
Employment
-19
-17
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
HILDA SDAC
Notes: Employment penalties are estimated by regression methods using HILDA and SDAC data. Full details of each regression are presented in Table 4 of the Appendix to this report. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2003 to 2022 and ABS Survey of Disability Ageing and Carers, 1998 to 2018.
To examine the degree to which the Specifically, we compare employment rates employment penalty for people with for people with disabilities classified into six disabilities varies according to the level of levels of restriction, ranging from profound core limitation, we make use of detailed core limitations through to a disability that information collected in the ABS SDAC on imposes no core limitation or restriction on the nature and degree of core limitation. schooling or employment.
50 BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES
The Labour Market Penalty for People With a Disability
Two sets of employment penalties are employment penalties of 33.1 percentage presented in Figure 14. The first set of points even among people with a mild core limitation, relative to people without disabilities.
These differences in average employment rates could potentially be driven by differences in common characteristics between people according to their level of work limitation – perhaps differences in ages, levels of education, demographic characteristics, or work experience.
People with a profound core limitation face the largest penalties, with only 12.1 per cent engaging in some form of employment. Employment rates improve as the degree of limitation reduces, but we still see average
FIGURE 14
Employment penalty by level of limitation for people with disability: 1998 to 2018
-80
-70
(ppt) -60 -65.8
-50 penalty -54.7 disability -40 -49.0
no to -30 -40.7 -39.3 -33.1 Employment -20 -30.6 relative -25.5 -9.6 -10 -19.5 -17.0 -6.7 -4.4 -2.6 0 Profound core Severe core Moderate Mild core Restriction but No restriction LT health limitation limitation core limitation limitation no core or core condition limitation limitation
■ no controls ■ with controls
Notes: Employment penalties are based on regression analysis using SDAC data. Full details are presented in Table 5 of the Appendix to this report. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on ABS Survey of Disability Ageing and Carers, 1998 to 2018.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 51
515151
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
To assess whether compositional differences have a part to play, a second set of employment penalties are presented (in maroon) in Figure 14 that control for differences in characteristics. Relative to people without a disability, the employment penalty varies from around a 6.7 per cent reduction in the likelihood of being in work for people without any core limitation or restriction, through to a 54.7 per cent reduction for someone with a profound core limitation. The period since 2021 also coincides with the implementation of the latest more detailed Australian Disability Strategy (2021-2031), including Employ My Ability, the national disability employment strategy. It may be that the activities and initiatives under this plan are also beginning to contribute to improved outcomes. Data reported under the ADS employment targeted action plan is currently insufficient to attribute causality. going forward it is important that reporting against programs and initiatives is detailed enough for us to be able to see which policies and initiatives are making a real difference. There has been no improvement in labour market inclusion for people with disability in Australia for most of this century. The important point is that little of the observed penalty can be explained by differences in other characteristics between people with and without a disability, particularly for those with more limiting restrictions. For example, of the ‘raw’ penalty observed for people with a profound core limitation equating to a 65.8 per cent reduction in the chance of being in employment, only 11.1 per cent can be accounted for by other differences in characteristics, leaving the 54.7 percentage point adjusted penalty. Further analyses across the various years of the SDAC confirm that the magnitude of the penalty associated with each of the different levels of limitation remained stable between 1998 and 2018. The persistence of penalties associated with different levels of restriction was also confirmed using the measure in HILDA in which people with disability rated the extent to which their disability limits the amount of work they can do. The critical message from the analysis in this Focus on the States report is that there has been no improvement in labour market inclusion for people with disability for most of this century, and this finding is robust across disability types and levels of limitation. one exception to this trend is the lower employment penalty and improved employment outcomes over the period between 2019 and 2022. During this period we have experienced the lowest rates of unemployment recorded in the last 50 years, with severe skills shortages being The evolution of the profile of educational attainment for people with and without a disability over this century can be seen in more detail using the HILDA data (Figure 15). The key take-home from these comparisons is the overall growth in university level qualifications, and the growing gap in the shares who have completed a bachelor’s degree or higher qualification grew from 5.9 per cent in 2006 to 10.5 per cent in 2021. While this represents a substantive increase, the proportion among people without a disability grew much faster, from 19.3 per cent in 2006 to 31.6 per cent in 2021. Hence the relative gap grew from nearly 14 to 21 percentage points, and people without a disability are still around three times as likely to hold university level qualifications.
The Labour Market Penalty for People With a Disability
degree or higher. The shares of people having disability in Australia. This is because completed Diploma level qualifications are estimates of the association between disability status on employment outcomes control for level of education, and thereby take into account the fact that people with disability, on average, complete fewer years of education.
This may reflect a greater proportion of people with a disability who are seeking vocational or trades qualifications as an alternative route to employment or career pathway.
According to regression analysis prepared for this report, the probability of being employed is around 21 per cent higher for those who have completed a bachelor’s degree or above compared to someone who did not complete Year 12 (see Appendix Table 4).
Estimates of reduced employment may not reveal the full extent of labour market exclusion experienced by people with
If we remove the education controls from the modelling, the estimated coefficient associated with having a disability then represents the combined impact of exclusion in both educational opportunities and in the labour market. This total effect is in fact only marginally higher. Modelling reveals that once controls for educational attainment are omitted, the penalty observed for people with disability increases from a 26.5 per cent lower probability of being in a job, to 28.3 per cent.
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
One reason for this limited sensitivity to chance of being in work compared to a the inclusion or exclusion of controls for person who did not complete school. For education is that the estimates overlook people with disability, having a university the association of higher qualifications degree is associated with an additional with a higher likelihood of being in a job. 16.2 per cent higher probability of being in Our modelling reveals that people with work (that is, 34.4 per cent overall). a disability experience an employment premium for higher qualifications. For This higher qualification ‘premium’ results all people without a disability having a in a much smaller employment ‘penalty’ for university degree is associated with, on people with disability with higher levels of average, an 18.2 per cent increase in the education, as shown in Figure 16.
FIGURE 16
Employment penalty by education level for people with disability: 1998 to 2018
-35
-30
-32.0 -30.6
(ppt) -25
-20 penalty
-15 -19.0 disability -17.8 -15.9 no -10
to -5 -8.7 Employment -0.5 relative 0 3.8 - - 5
10
Year 11 Cert I/II to Year 12 Diploma Cert III/IV Bachelors and above
■ HILDA ■ SDAC
Notes: Employment penalties are based on regression analysis using HILDA and SDAC data. Full details are presented in Table 6 of the Appendix to this report. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on the HILDA survey, 2001 to 2022 and the ABS Survey of Disability Ageing and Carers, 1998 to 2018.
JOURNEYS THROUGH WORK AND TIME: LABOUR MARKET PROGRESSIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY
JOURNEYS THROUGH WORK AND TIME: LABOUR MARKET PROGRESSIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY
Exploiting the panel nature of the HILDA disability in 2021 moving into part-time
survey allows us to track the labour market work (22.8 per cent, compared to 33.6 per
transitions of individual workers over time cent without a disability).
o analyse trends and patterns. Table 3
compares transitions for workers with and The largest and most concerning change in
without disabilities by comparing their labour labour force status can be seen with the 42
market status between 2021 and 2022. We per cent of people with a disability who were
can see that 90.4 per cent of workers without unemployed in 2021 and decided to leave
a disability who were employed full-time in the labour force in 2022. This compares to
2021 remained employed full-time in 2022, only 13.7 per cent among people without a
disability in similar circumstances – a gap
of 28.7 per cent. At the same time, we see
than 86.2 per cent of people with a disability
who are not in the labour force in 2021
also stayed out of the labour force in 2022,
compared to 69 per cent for those without a
disability).
Across all labour market categories, we see
While we see similar rates of part-time that there are much higher rates of churn for
workers with and without disabilities in 2021 people with a disability, while they are more
still working part-time in 2022, we also see likely overall to be excluded and to become
lower rates of unemployed people with a discouraged.
TABLE 3 Labour market transitions between 2021 and 2022: by disability status
(a) People with disability
Share by 2022 employment status
2021 labour
market Employed Employed Unemployed Not in the Total
status full-time part-time labour force
% % % %
Employed full-time 23.9 74.6 14.1 1.5 9.9 100
2021 status UnemployedEmployed part-time 22.35.5 17.711.3 64.322.8 23.42.3 15.642.5 100100 employment Not in the labour force 48.3 2.8 7.9 3.1 86.2 100 Total 100.0 23.7 22.7 3.7 49.9 100 (b) Non-disabled people
Share by 2022 employment status
2021 labour
market Employed Employed Unemployed Not in the Total
status full-time part-time labour force
% % % %
Employed full-time 53.5 90.4 6.3 0.7 2.6 100
2021 status UnemployedEmployed part-time 24.43.3 24.435.6 65.933.6 17.01.4 13.78.2 100100 employment Not in the labour force 18.9 8.7 17.6 4.8 69.0 100 Total 100.0 57.1 23.8 2.2 16.9 100
Notes: Labour market transition calculated for people who remained HILDA survey respondents in 2021 and 2022. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2021 to 2022.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 55
555555
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
The level of labour market churn for people from full-time to part-time (40 per cent), with disability can be seen most clearly or bounce between part-time and full-time work a couple of times. In contrast people living with a disability were most likely to transition from part-time work to not in the labour force (43 per cent), or from unemployment to not in the labour force (21 per cent), with substantial groups bouncing between not in the labour force and part-time work (17 per cent) or remaining unemployed (13 per cent).
Mapping the number of labour market transitions in Figure 17 shows there is a higher number of people with a disability who did not transition over the eight years
- accounting for 79 per cent of respondents who remained in the survey over the period 2015 to 2022, of whom the largest single group are the 59 per cent who remained not in the labour force. In contrast 58.2 per cent of people without a disability also stayed put over this period, dominated by the 40 per cent remaining in full-time work.
56 BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES
JOURNEYS THROUGH WORK AND TIME: LABOUR MARKET PROGRESSIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY
FIGURE 17
Labour market trajectories for people with and without disability: 2015 to 2022
FT
NILF
PT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Share of people (%)
PT->FT
FT->PT
FT->PT->FT
FT->NILF
PT->NILF
PT->FT->PT
NILF->PT
PT->FT->PT->FT
FT->UE->FT
FT->NILF->FT
PT->NILF->PT
NILF->FT
FT->PT->NILF
FT->PT->FT->PT
UE->FT
FT->NILF->PT
NILF->PT->FT
UE
FT->PT->FT->PT->FT PT->NILF->FT NILF->PT->NILF FT->UE PT->NILF->PT->NILF NILF->PT->NILF->PT PT->UE UE->NILF PT->FT->PT->NILF r-, NILF->UE->NILF [.–---] NILF->FT->PT FT->NILF->PT->FT • NILF->UE->PT • FT->UE->PT FT->PT->NILF->FT NILF-UE NILF->PT->FT->PT NILF->FT->NILF UE->NILF->UE UE->NILF->PT NILF->PT->UE->PT
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Share of people (%)
people with a disability non-disabled •
Notes: Labour market transition calculated for HILDA survey respondents who remained in the survey between 2015 and 2022. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2015 to 2022.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 57
575757
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
HAS THE NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME IMPROVED LABOUR MARKET OUTCOMES?
The introduction of the National Disability is aged 65 and under, the representative is also asked:
Insurance Scheme (NDIS) marked a major
policy shift in terms of both the approach to
supporting Australians with a disability and “Has [name] received an agreed
the level of that support in financial terms. package of support through the
Targeted towards people with significant National Disability Insurance Scheme
and ongoing disability, the NDIS provides at any time during the last 12
individual tailored support packages within months?”
.
a self-directed funding model. One of the
stated objectives of the NDS in the NDIS This makes it possible to identify people in
Act is supporting the independence and the HILDA survey who are reported to have
social and economic participation of people received assistance through the NDIS from
with disability. Assistance with transport, 2017 onwards.4 To explore the relationship
workplace supports or education and between receipt of a NDIS support
training to help people find and remain in package and labour market inclusion, we
employment can be included in support expanded on the modelling to estimate the
packages, and NDIS providers may also association between being in receipt of NDIS
help people with disabilities to access support and participation or employment.
mainstream employment services.
To do this, we looked specifically at
people with disability by the broad HILDA
definition using data from 2017 onwards.
The modelling controls for other factors as
reported in Table 4 (see Appendix).
The initial results suggest having a NDIS package is associated with a lower probability of the individual participating in the labour market by around 10 percentage points, and of being in employment by around 9 percentage points (results for key variables of interest are reported in Table 7 see Appendix).
HAS THE NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME IMPROVED LABOUR MARKET OUTCOMES?
assessment of the extent of their limitation. The richness of the HILDA data allows us to This was based on whether the person further test these competing explanations indicated that they had a disability that for the observed effects of the NDIS. Broadly speaking, people who are not employed are classified as unemployed if they are actively seeking work, and not in the labour force if they are not actively seeking work. For people outside the labour force, HILDA further asks “Even though you are not looking for work now, would you like a job? (Assume that suitable childcare arrangements could be found.)”. Using this question, a sample of people who would potentially like to be working was identified. We then modelled the probability that they were in a job the following year, conditional upon whether or not they had a NDIS support package.
Again, the analysis is restricted to Waves 17 (2017) and onwards and to people with disability. The key results are reported in Table 8 (see Appendix). As would be anticipated within this group, active jobseekers were the most likely to have transitioned into employment the following year. Those who definitely wanted to work but were not actively seeking work in one year were less likely to be in a job the following year, and those who only ‘maybe’ wanted a job less likely still. After controlling for those characteristics, and the different specifications of the extent of work limitations, the estimated effect of having a NDIS support package is to reduce the probability of transitioning into work by 7 per cent. Hence when we take into account all possible factors that may result in NDIS recipients being less able to secure employment our analysis suggests they are still less likely to be working or in the labour force than other people living with a disability with similar levels of limitation by around 7 per cent.
To the extent that the NDIS aims to enhance
inclusion for its clients, the evidence here
suggests that it is at best ineffective and
possibly even counterproductive. It is
possible that some people with a disability
faced financial hardship and, prior to NDIS
support, needed to seek and maintain
work simply to get by. Additional support
through the NDIS may be allowing some
to be more selective in their choices.
However, the finding is also reminiscent
of consultations reported in the ‘Shut
Out’ report over a decade ago: “More than
half of the submissions received during
The consultation process (56 per cent)
said that services and programs act as
a barrier to, rather than a facilitator of,
thier participation.” (National People with
Disabilities and Carer Council 2009, p.4).
Employment and Disability in Australia:
Improving Employment Outcomes for People With Disability
“Workplace Inclusion Requires Much More Than Simply Being Classified As Employed.”
Is The Australian Workplace Inclusive For People With Disabilities?
Is The Australian
Workplace
Inclusive For People
With Disabilties?
redacted
Bankwest Curtin Economic Centre | Focus On The States Series 61
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
INTRODUCTION
Workplace inclusion requires much more For the first domain, we use data from the than simply being classified as employed. As emphasised in many of our stakeholder HILDA survey includes measures related consultations, there can be a large gap to job insecurity like workers’ own views between a person with a disability being of their future employment prospects, the on the payroll and that person enjoying chance of losing their jobs, and their overall full participation and opportunity. Physical sense of job security. To capture the degree accessibility of a workplace does not of control over working hours, we looked at guarantee full inclusion, and workplace irregular hours, working fewer or more hours culture can have a significant impact on than desired, and a loss of work-life balance. feelings of inclusion, workplace productivity And to capture the quality of an employee’s and wellbeing. In this section we look at working conditions, the index uses measures aspects of the experiences of people with related to leave entitlements including sick, disability who are employed. Inferior job attributes are often more Workers can also experience job insecurity pronounced for women than men, but how and an overall sense of lack of control or do these various dimensions of job precarity autonomy in the demands of their roles, as compare for people with disability and well as being confronted with poorer working people without disability? This is the aspect conditions. of workplace inclusion we turn to first in this chapter. In the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre’s Future of Work report (Cassells, Duncan et al, 2018)5, report, we developed a composite index of precarious employment over these three domains, using data from the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey.
5 Rebecca Cassells, Alan Duncan, Astghik Mavisakalyan, John Phillimore, Richard Seymour and Yashar Tarverdi (2018), Future of Work in Australia: Preparing for tomorrow’s world, BCEC Focus on the States Report Series, Issue #6. April 2018.
A PRECARIOUS WORLD: JOB INSECURITY FOR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY
A PRECARIOUS WORLD: JOB INSECURITY FOR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY
Precarious work refers to uncertain and precarity than either their counterparts insecure employment conditions. This can without disabilities, or those whose disability is not work limiting. The gap in rates of precarity has remained consistent over the last two decades across economic cycles. Workers without disabilities and those whose disability is not work limiting show very similar rates of precarity, with slightly greater variation attributable to smaller numbers among the latter. All three groups show a consistent pattern Those workers with a disability that limits their capacity for work experience much higher rates of work precarity than either their counterparts without disabilities, or those whose disability is not work limiting.
FIGURE 18 Precarity index by disability status and gender: 2002 to 2022
(a) by level of disability (b) by gender and disability status
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
index 0.80.6 0.80.6 0.4 index 0.4 0.2 0.2 Precarity 0.0 0.0 Precacity -0.2 -0.2 -0.4 -0.4 -0.6 -0.6 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 non-disabled male non-disabled male disabled disabled, work-limiting disabled, non work-limiting female non-disabled female disabled
Notes: Precarity is modelled as a composite index using multiple indicators to capture job insecurity, a lack of control, or inferior work conditions. See Cassells et. al. (2018). Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2001 to 2022.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 63
636363
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
FIGURE 19
Precarity by occupation for people with disability: 2002 to 2022
(a) precarity by domain
All occupations
Labourers
Machinery Operators and Drivers
Sales Workers
Clerical and Administrative Workers
Community and Personal Service Workers
Technicians and Trades Workers
Professionals
Managers
-1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
precarity index
■ lack of control ■ inferior work conditions ■ job insecurity
(a) difference in precarity
All occupations
I Managers
I Professionals ■-
Technicians and Trades Workers '
I
Community and Personal Service Workers ■
I -- Clerical and Administrative Workers
Sales Workers
Machinery Operators and Drivers
I
Labourers
'
-0.2 +0.0 +0.2 +0.4 +0.6 +0.8 +1.0 +1.2 difference- in precarity: disabled vs non-disabled
■ lack of control ■ inferior work conditions ■ job insecurity
Notes: Precarity is modelled as a composite index using multiple indicators to capture job insecurity, a lack of control, or inferior work conditions. See Cassells et. al. (2018). Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2002 to 2022.
INTRODUCTION
For workers with a disability, Figure inferior work conditions that contribute 19 (Panel a) clearly demonstrates that most to the overall gap, followed by job the level of precarity increases for less insecurity. On average, there is in fact only a skilled occupations, with mangers and marginal difference between the two groups professionals experiencing the least in terms of a sense of control over their jobs. precarity, and labourers the major occupational group with the highest value The differences are most apparent among on the index. The outlier in this relationship technicians and trades workers, with is clerical and administrative workers, who inferior work conditions and job insecurity experience lower than average precarity contributing in roughly equal parts to a when compared to other workers with very large gap for workers with disabilities disability, and significantly lower than their in this occupation. The second largest gap ’neighbouring’ occupational categories in in precarity between workers with and terms of skill level: community and personal without disability is within the occupation service workers and sales workers. of machinery operators and drivers, with lack of control also making a sizeable Panel (b) of Figure 19 breaks down the contribution to the gap for these workers. Difference in the precarity index between workers with and without disability by the In four of the major occupational categories contribution of the different components of workers with disability actually score the index. Across all occupations, workers more favourably in terms of control: with disabilities score markedly higher on professionals, managers, labourers, and the index, and this holds within each of the community and personal service workers. Eight major occupational categories. It is
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
JOB SATISFACTION FOR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY
HILDA collects data on people’s overall job with most aspects of their jobs, as are other workers.
Figure 20 shows mean satisfaction with each of these elements for people without a disability, for all those with a disability, and satisfaction with pay, job security and hours worked, and in each of these domains the gap is more marked for those with employment limitations. Satisfaction with There is a substantial for people aged 15 to 69 years and pooled over all 22 waves. In the HILDA questions on commitments is very similar for people with a work-limiting disability and those with a non-work limiting disability.
These differentials in average satisfaction by disability status have been highly persistent over the 22 Waves of HILDA for each of the domains of job satisfaction.
FIGURE 20
Mean job satisfaction by disability status
| Total pay satisfaction | Overall job satisfaction | Job security satisfaction |
|---|---|---|
| Flexibility to balance work Satisfaction with the work and non-work itself commitments | ||
| Satisfaction with hours | ||
| worked |
Non-disabled people All people with disability Work limiting disability
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2001 to 2022.
MATCHING UP? UNDEREMPLOYMENT AND WORK PREFERENCES
People with disability are much more likely cent compared to their counterparts with to report working part-time. Based on 2021 no disability (in orange) and those whose census data, for example, 52 per cent of disability is not work-limiting (in teal) - employed people aged 15 to 69 years and both of whom experience similar trends in who needed assistance with a core activity underemployment rates over time. worked part-time, compared to 32 per cent of employed people without disability. While there is greater variation in underemployment rates for those with Panel (a) of Figure 21 tracks the a work-limiting disability, there is also a underemployment ratio for workers with clear trend of this gap opening up across and without disabilities over the last two the economic cycle to peak at around 10 Workers with a work- decades, showing similar differences and percentage points in 2019, before starting limiting condition similar trends to those seen with precarity. Workers to drop back as the employment market show a clear penalty with a work-limiting condition (in maroon) tightens to 2022. of between 5 to 10 per show a clear penalty of between 5 to 10 per cent compared to their counterparts with no disability or non- FIGURE 21 limiting disability.
Underemployment ratios by disability status: 2001 to 2022
(a) by level of disability (b) by gender and disability status
24 24
22 22
20 20(%) 18 (%) 18
ratio 16 ratio 16 14 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 Underemployment 4 Underemployment 4 2 2 0 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
non-disabled disabled, work-limiting male non-disabled male disabled
disabled, non work-limiting female non-disabled female disabled
Notes: Underemployment is calculated to meet the three criteria of the ILO definition, being those who are willing and able to work more hours during the survey period and are below the 35 hour threshold for full-time work. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2001 to 2022.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 67
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
Disaggregating this result by gender in with the reasons given by people without disability: specifically, that they: prefer part-time work, they have childcare responsibilities, it is a requirement of their chosen job, they have study commitments and are unable to find full-time work. There is a clear and whom are consistently 5 to 6 percentage consistent additional points higher in their underemployment rate underemployment than men without a disability. penalty of between 3 to 6 per cent Much higher proportions of part-time for women with workers without a disability cite study disability compared commitments and caring for children as to men with their reasons for working part-time, but this (disability). is likely to reflect the older age of people with a disability. The HILDA survey collects more nuanced If we restrict the sample to people aged data on working hour preferences. This 40 and over and putting aside ‘own illness includes asking part-time workers their or disability’ the most common reasons cited by people with disability for working part-time are common to people with and without a disability. The main one is simply that people prefer to work part-time. Very few people reported choosing to work part-time because their welfare payments or pension may be affected if they worked full-time (just 1.2 per cent of part-timers with a work-limiting disability, and 0.4 per cent of those without a disability).
The main reason Not surprisingly, the main reason people people with a work- with a work-limiting disability give for disability (Figure 22). The other reasons cited by people with disability for working part-time are in relatively close alignment underemployment penalty by gender for women with a disability (maroon line) compared to men chosen job, they have study commitments with disability (orange line) of between it is a requirement of their 3 to 6 per cent. In fact, we see that underemployment rates for men with a Much higher proportions of part-time disability compare very closely with those workers without a disability cite study for women without a disability, both of commitments and caring for children as whom are consistently 5 to 6 percentage their reasons for working part-time, but this points higher in their underemployment rate is likely to reflect the older age of people than men without a disability.
MATCHING UP? UNDEREMPLOYMENT AND WORK PREFERENCES
The pattern of mismatch in hours worked is quite similar for workers with and without a disability. In the data pooled over 22 waves, roughly one quarter of workers indicate they would prefer to work fewer hours; while slightly more workers with a work-limiting disability would prefer more hours (21 per cent) compared to people without a disability (15 per cent).
FIGURE 23
Preference for working more or fewer hours: employees with a work-limiting disability
| The pattern of | mismatch in hours| wonked is quite similar| for workers with and| without a disability.|
|Roughly one quarter of| workers indicate they| would prefer to work| fewer hours; while| slightly more workers| with a work-limiting| disability would| prefers more hours (21| er cent) compared| to people without a| disability (15 per| cent).|
70
60 Roughly one quarter of
workers indicate they
would prefer to work
fewer hours; while
slightly more workers employed with a work-limiting
disability would
prefer more hours (21 per cent) compared
to people without
a disability (15 per
cent).
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Fewer hours About the same More hours
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2001 to 2022.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 69
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
BREAKING DOWN THE BARRIERS
The HILDA survey collects information about in getting a job, or the main reason they had people’s perceived barriers to employment. not been looking for a job. Prior to Wave 5 People who are unemployed – those who are not employed and have been looking for work - are asked to indicate the reasons they have had trouble getting a job. People who are marginally attached to the labour force – who are out of work and have not been looking for work, but who would potentially like to work - are asked to nominate The reasons they have not been looking for work. Commencing from Wave 5 (2005), respondents were further asked to nominate the main difficulty they have had had trouble getting a job.
To highlight the barriers facing jobseekers with a disability, perceived difficulties in finding work are reported for two groups: people with a work-limiting disability and people with no disability or long-term health condition. The most common responses are reported in Figure 24.
FIGURE 24
Stated reasons for difficulties getting a job: jobseekers with and without disability
| None of the above | 7.3 | 21.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Hours were unsuitable | 13.2 | 17.0 |
| Just no jobs at all | 17.6 | 19.0 |
| Employers thought respondent too young or to old | 11.0 | 21.0 |
| No jobs in your line of work | 18.6 | 22.9 |
| Transport problems / too far to travel | 16.1 | 25.7 |
| Too many applicants for the available jobs | 24.7 | 27.2 |
| Did not have enough work experience | 27.5 | 28.9 |
| Did not have the required education, training or skills | 21.5 | 27.8 |
| Own ill health or disability | 4.1 | 57.8 |
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Per cent
■ Persons with work-limiting disability ■ Person with no disability
Notes: Multiple responses allowed. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2005 to 2022.
BREAKING DOWN THE BARRIERS
As anticipated, a high proportion of people to 11 per cent). The latter difference will with disability (58 per cent) report their reflect that jobseekers with a disability own ill-health or disability as a reason will typically be older, given the increasing for having trouble finding work. This prevalence of disability with age. compares to just 4 per cent of people with no disability. A number of other barriers Figure 24 also shows that jobseekers are reported by a significant proportion without a disability were far more likely of people with disability, including lack of to report none of the listed difficulties as skills and experience and limited availability barriers to finding a job. When asked to of jobs. Mostly these barriers are reported nominate which of the items is the main by similar proportions of those with and source of difficulty in finding work, 42 per without disability, however, a notably higher cent of people with disability nominated proportion of people with disability report their own ill-health or disability, followed by transport issues as a barrier (26 per cent of transport problems (8.2 per cent), too many those compared to 16 per cent of jobseekers applicants for available jobs (7.7 per cent), without a disability), and a similar gap in and being seen as too young or too old the proportion who feel employers see them (7.0 per cent). as too old or young (21 per cent compared
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
For people who are marginally attached to the labour force, Figure 25 reports the main reasons given for not looking for work. Again, for people with disability, his own ill-health, injury or disability is the most commonly cited reason for not seeking work, reported by 68 per cent of respondents. It is also given as the main reason by a similar proportion (64 per cent) of those respondents. The main other reasons for not looking for work for people with disability include caring roles or family issues (10.2 per cent), study plans (9.2 per cent), and preferring to look after children (8.6 per cent). For the marginally attached without a disability the most common reasons given for not seeking work were study plans (40.2 per cent) and looking after children (20.2 per cent). In contrast to perceived barriers to finding a job, lack of transport was not seen as a major reason for not looking for work for people with a disability, cited by just 1.8 per cent.
72 BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES
LABOUR MARKET DISCRIMINATION
LABOUR MARKET DISCRIMINATION
In the 2018 and 2022 waves of the As may be expected, there is a big difference HILDA survey, respondents were asked in reports of discrimination on the grounds whether they felt they had experienced of disability, but also of discrimination discrimination in the labour market on the because of age. For people who report basis of having a long-term health condition having a work-limiting disability, 9.0 per disability. Specifically, people who cent felt they had been discriminated indicated they had applied for a job with against in a job application because of their a new employer at some time in the past long-term health condition or disability. two years were asked if they felt they were This compares to 0.3 per cent for those ever unsuccessful because the employer without a disability.6 However, a slightly had discriminated against them. People who had higher proportion – 9.3 per cent – felt they been an employee any time in the past two had been discriminated against on the years were asked if they felt they had been grounds of their age, compared to just 4.0 subjected to discrimination by their employer per cent of the population of applicants during that time. without a disability. This will be due, at least in part, to the older age profile of people While these questions had been asked in with disability, given that the prevalence earlier waves of the survey, in 2018 and of disability rises rapidly with age. There 2022 the range of response options for the is a clear pattern in which the proportion grounds of discrimination were expanded of people who feel they were discriminated to include discrimination on the basis of against in a job application due to their disability. This was in addition to the disability increases with the extent of options of gender, age, ethnicity, religion limitation associated with that disability. and parenting responsibilities presented in A similar picture arises for feelings of earlier surveys. Here we focus on the pooled discrimination among employees. Among data from those two waves (2018 and 2022) people without a disability, 7.5 per cent which separately identified perceptions of felt they had been discriminated against of discrimination on the grounds of a person’s by their employer in the past two years, disability. increasing to 15.2 per cent for all people with disability, and 19.2 per cent for Among people of working age who had people with a work-limiting disability. For applied for jobs, 18.2 per cent of people with employees with a work-limiting disability, disability felt they had missed out on a job discrimination because of their disability due to discrimination, a rate that is twice is the most common grounds cited (9.8 that for the population of applicants without per cent), followed by age discrimination a disability (9.1 per cent). The proportion is (7.0 per cent). Although the incidence is higher still for people with a work-limiting considerably lower, people with a work- health condition or disability at 21.3 per cent. Applicants with limiting disability are also around twice as da disability were more likely to report all likely to feel discriminated against because forms of discrimination, but the incidence of their gender: 5.2 per cent compared to is small, and the differences between people 2.7 per cent for employees without a with and without disabilities is very minor, disability. when it comes to reports of discrimination based on gender, race, religion or parenting responsibilities.
6 Note, someone who currently did not report having a disability at the time of the survey may have had a long-term health condition or disability at other times during the previous two years, and so may still report that as a grounds for discrimination.
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
In summary, these survey data suggest incidents.
Given that less than 40 per cent
discrimination is a significant factor in of people with a work limiting disability
the labour market exclusion felt by people were in employment in those survey years,
The fact that 20 per cent of people with
such a disability who had applied for jobs
felt they missed out due to discrimination,
including 9 per cent on the grounds of their
disability, indicates that discrimination is a
major contributor to reduced employee
opportunity for people with disabilities. The
number of applicants with a work limiting
disability who felt they missed out on a job
because of discrimination on the grounds of
their disability amounts to 5 per cent of the
stock of people with such a disability who
are in work. Moreover, repeated experiences
of discrimination will discourage people
from looking for work, such that the full
contribution of discrimination as a barrier to
labour market inclusion will extend beyond
the experiences of those who have actively
applied for work.
It is difficult to say how accurately such perceptions reflect actual incidences of discrimination: the case could be made that perceptions either under-estimate or over-estimate actual occurrences. Further, the reports relate to any experience of disability during the past two years, and do not take account of the number of such
Disability, Wellbeing and Employment
Disability, Wellbeing And Employment
Bankwest Curtin Economic Centre | Focus On The States Series 75
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
DISABILITY, WELLBEING AND EMPLOYMENT
HILDA provides a number of measures of disability, people with a long-term health people’s wellbeing and, importantly, the condition or disability, and the subset of ability to track changes in people’s reported that group who report that their condition wellbeing over time as their circumstances limits the type or amount of work they do. change. In each wave, the HILDA survey Predictably, it is in the domain of health asks people how satisfied they are with a that the biggest gap in satisfaction emerges range of aspect of their lives, and then “All for people with a disability, followed by things considered, how satisfied are you employment opportunities and financial with your life?”. Responses are recorded on situation. Working-age Australians with a da scale ranging from 0 (totally dissatisfied) disability actually report higher satisfaction to 10 (totally satisfied). Differences in the with the amount of free time they have than mean responses for three groups are shown those with no disability. in Figure 26. These are people without a
FIGURE 26
Mean life satisfaction by disability status
The home in which you live
9
How satisfied are you with your life 8 Your employment opportunities
7
6
The amount of free time you have 5 Your financial situation
4
The neighbourhood in which you How safe you feel live
Feeling part of your local Your health community
Non-disabled people All people with disability People with work-limiting disability
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2001 to 2022.
76 BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 7676
Disability, Wellbeing And Employment
When it comes to overall life satisfaction, people without a disability. As is typical of people with disability report lower subjective assessments on such a scale, satisfaction than people without a disability. responses are clustered around 8, with almost 80 per cent of the pooled responses of people without a disability in the interval of 7, 8, and 9. The profile of responses for people with disability is much flatter, with fewer selecting points on the scale at the highly satisfied end, and more opting for points in the middle and lower ‘dissatisfied’ range, as shown in Figure 27 for those with an employment restriction.
FIGURE 27
Overall life satisfaction rating (0-10 scale): by disability status
40
35
30
25
cent 20 Per 15
10
5
0
dissatisfied) 1 2 3 4dissatisfied) 6 7 8 9 satisfied) nor (Totally (Totally 100 satisfied
(Neither 5
■ Person with no disability ■ Persons with work-limiting disability
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2001 to 2022.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 77
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
A consequence of this tightly clustered married and unmarried people to be one
distribution is that relatively minor of the largest effects observed. In these
differences in the numerical averages models the marital wellbeing ‘premium’
between groups correspond to quite is around +0.30 relative to those who
substantial differences in happiness levels. have never been married. The reduction
We are able to use these data to estimate in wellbeing association with a person
so-called ‘happiness models’, which having a work limiting disability is larger in
provide statistical estimates of differences magnitude (-0.48 in Model 2). It also larger
in subjective wellbeing for people with than the estimated gap in satisfaction
disabilities of varying level of limitation between those in work and those who are
after controlling for other factors, as well unemployed, with the latter well known to
as estimates of how those other factors be associated with substantially reduced
affect people’s wellbeing. The results of such wellbeing.
models using different measures of the
extent of a person’s disability are reported It must be stressed that Australians with a
in Appendix Table 9. disability lead happy and rewarding lives:
reporting an average life satisfaction of over
For all people with disability or long-term 7 on a scale from 0 to 10 and on which 10
health condition, the estimated coefficient is the highest possible score. However, it is
suggests the condition is associated the case that Australians with a disability
with lower life satisfaction of 0.32, about experience a lower sense of wellbeing than
one-third of a unit on the 11-point scale. those without a disability. Satisfaction
There is a larger association when we with life deteriorates with the severity of
differentiate between people with a work disability, and the magnitude of that loss of
limiting disability (-0.48 points) and those wellbeing is considerable in the context of
with a disability that does not limit work the variation typically associated with other
(-0.13 points). We also test the association key life outcomes that shape wellbeing.
The important question is whether more These estimates are substantial in
could be done to promote inclusion and to magnitude. An almost universal finding
megitate factors that contribute to people from happiness models in the empirical
with disability experiencing lower subjective literature is for the differences between
welbeing. On the basis of the raw means the numerical averages
between people with no disability or long- In these models the marital wellbeing ‘premium’
term health condition and people with a is around +0.30 relative to those who
work-limiting disability, Figure 28 suggests have never been married. The reduction
this gap in wellbeing has not narrowed at all in wellbeing association with a person
over the 22 years of the HILDA data. having a work limiting disability is larger in
magnitude (-0.48 in Model 2). It also larger
than the estimated gap in satisfaction
between those in work and those who are
unemployed, with the latter well known to
be associated with substantially reduced
wellbeing.
78 BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES
Disability, Wellbeing And Employment
Figure 28
Mean Life Satisfaction By Level Of Disability: Hilda 2001 To 2022
8.2
8.0 ---
7.8
7.6
7.4 satisfaction
life 7.2
Mean 7.0~
6.8
6.6
6.4
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
People with no disability People with work-limiting disability
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
EFFECT OF EMPLOYMENT ON WELLBEING FOR PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY
The results of models of people’s associated with a person’s disability, asessment of their life satisfaction for both being in a job and being in full-time the full working-age population show that, education, as opposed to being outside the relative to people who are not participating labour force, is associated with around a in the labour market, employed people 0.25 point movement up the life satisfaction have modestly higher life satisfaction, and scale, again a relatively sizeable shift in the those who are unemployed are on average context of other factors known to impact less happy than non-participants (Table 9). upon wellbeing. The association with being People in full-time education also report in part-time employment is also positive relatively high life satisfaction. Those but smaller, while being unemployed has a effects represent the association between detrimental effect. labour force status and subjective wellbeing, after controlling for disability status and The results are suggestive that labour other factors, and averaged across the full market and education inclusion enhance working-age population including people the wellbeing of people with disability. with and without disability. For a number of reasons, caution must be exercised in interpreting these results as We are particularly interested in how proof of a casual effect. For example, there labour force status, and particularly may be other factors that influence both being in employment, shapes feelings of labour market engagement and wellbeing; happiness for people with disability. To or ‘reverse causation’ in which naturally obtain those estimates, similar modelling happier people are more likely to secure jobs was undertaken with the HILDA data using or enrol in education. To control for such only the sample of people with disability. factors more rigorously, we use estimates Specifically, we looked at those people who based only on how reported wellbeing reported they had a disability that limits the changes for people with disabilities as they amount or type of work they can do. move between labour market states (so called ‘fixed effects’ models, see Panel B of We find large and positive effects of labour Table 11). Those models lead to very similar market engagement for people with a estimates of the association between being disability, be that engagement in the form in employment or full-time study on the life of employment or full-time education satisfaction of people with a disability. This (results for key variables of interest are provides strong supporting evidence of a described in Appendix Table 11). After casual effect of labour market engagement controlling for the level of work limitation on wellbeing, but not definitive proof.
80 BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES
Employment and Labour Market Inclusion for Carers
Quote
Employment and Labour Market Inclusion for Carers
| Bankwest Curtin Economic Centre | Focus On The States Series |
|---|---|
| 81 | 818181 |
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
INTRODUCTION
The Census, SDAC and HILDA also provide 6 months; while HILDA refers to ongoing, information on Australians who care for regular care. Each relate to assistance due to limitations associated with a disability, long-term health condition or old age, and not assistance provided to children simply due to their young age.
Given the focus of this report on labour market inclusion, the analysis in this section is restricted to people of working age, which we define as 15 to 69 (although the people they care for can be of any age).
82 BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES
Caring for a Person with a Disability
The ABS Census of Population and Housing
includes the question: “In the last two weeks did the person spend time providing unpaid care, help or assistance to family members or others because of a disability, a long-term health condition or problems related to old age?”. It further specifies that anyone in receipt of Carer Allowance or Carer Payment should indicate that they do provide care.
The 2021 Census counted 2.13 million working-age Australians who reported providing such care, of whom 61 per cent were women. Excluding non-responses to the question, this equates to 12.9 per cent of the working age population - 15.4 per cent of women and 10.2 per cent of men (Figure 29).
This incidence of caring has increased from 11.3 per cent recorded in 2006. That +1.5 percentage point increase in the prevalence of carers over those 15 years equates to a quite substantial growth of 13.6 per cent. The incidence of caring as recorded in the Census has steadily risen for both men and women. While it has increased more rapidly for men, this has made only minor inroads into the disproportionate share of carer roles undertaken by working-aged women. In 2006 the gap between the proportion of women and men reporting caring activities was 5.27 percentage points; fifteen years later in 2021 it was 5.20 percentage points.
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
The SDAC provides a more detailed The SDAC data show some significant classification of carers who give ongoing, changes in the composition of people unpaid assistance or supervision to a undertaking caring roles. First, the caring person (or persons) with a disability or to population has aged substantially. In 1998, older persons. It further classifies them as a 29 per cent of primary carers were aged 55- primary carer if they provide the most help 69 years. By 2018 this had increased to 41 and supervision to the person being cared per cent. There was a similar though slightly to. smaller increase in the share of other (non-primary) carers in this age group, The share of people aged over 55 who from 25 per cent to 35 per cent. There were undertake caring roles has increased associated declines in the proportion of substantially over the past decade, both as primary carers aged 30-44 years, and for primary carers and in other caregiving roles other carers in the proportion of carers aged (Figure 30). from 15 to 44.
FIGURE 30
Age composition of primary carers and other carers: 1998 and 2018
45
40 41.0
35 35.0 34.0 30
30.0 29.0 29.0 25 28.0
cent 25.0 25.0 24.0 Per 20 23.0 22.0
15 16.0
10 12.0
5 8.0 7.0 6.0
1.0 1.0 5.0
0
Primary Other Primary Other
1998 2018
■ 15-19 years ■ 20-29 years ■ 30-44 years ■ 45-54 years ■ 55-69 years
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers, 1998 and 2018.
Caring For A Person With A Disability
The carer cohort of 2018 was also rising share of carers with university level substantially more educated than the carer qualifications. In 2018 around 25 per cent cohort of 1998 (see Figure 31). The major of both primary and other carers held a compositional change has been a falling bachelor’s degree or higher qualification, proportion of carers who have not completed and this proportion had more than doubled the equivalent of Year 12 schooling and since 1998.
FIGURE 31
Educational attainment by carer status: 1998 and 2018
7.5 per cent of
60 working-age
Australians reported
caring for someone.
50
49 Around 63 per cent
40 43 of carers are female,
and this rises to
70 per cent for cent 34 33 30 main carers. Per 29 30 28 27 25 26
20
16
14 13 10 12 11 10
0
Primary Other Primary Other
1998 2018
■ Year 11 and below ■ Certificate I/II - Year 12 ■ Advanced Diploma - Certificate III/IV ■ Bachelor Degree and above
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers, 1998 and 2018.
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey
Commencing from Wave 5, the HILDA survey asked people whether they care for someone with a long-term health condition, who is elderly or who has a disability. Caring is defined as providing assistance with self-care, mobility or communication, and does not include caring which is undertaken as part of paid employment. For carers identified in the pooled HILDA data, 41 per cent also reported having a disability, and 30 per cent a work-limiting disability. The incidence of disability among people who are a main carer is even higher: 46 per cent report having a disability and 35 per cent report having a disability that limits the work they can do. This compares to 21 per cent and 14 per cent respectively, for working-age Australians who are not carers. These figures compare to 15 per cent of non-carers who report a work-limiting disability.
Around 63 per cent of carers are female, and this rises to 70 per cent for main carers. When the carer is the main carer, they are much more likely to be caring for someone who lives in their own household (around 80 per cent of cases). For those who are not the main carer, the person they are caring for is more often someone who lives elsewhere (around 62 per cent). It is notable that a very high proportion of carers are also people with disability. For carers identified in the pooled HILDA data, Over the years the data have been collected (2005 to 2022), 7.5 per cent of working-age Australians reported caring for someone, with the majority of those (4.3 per cent of working-age adults) doing so as the main carer. Using survey population weights, this equates to an estimated 1.42 million carers of working age in Australia in 2022 and 840,000 main carers. The lower frequency of caring roles among the working-age population as measured in HILDA when compared to the Census (7.5 per cent compared to 12.9 per cent) can
IS THE AUSTRALIAN LABOUR MARKET INCLUSIVE FOR CARERS?
IS THE AUSTRALIAN LABOUR MARKET INCLUSIVE FOR CARERS?
The Census provides the most comprehensive the 2021 Census, 69.1 per cent of carers were participating in the labour force. This is up from 65.0 per cent in 2006, but lower than for people who are not carers (75.6 per cent). Carers are more likely to work part-time, but the shares of carers and non-carers in full- time work has converged since 2006, with a gap of around 8 percentage points in the 2021 Census.
FIGURE 32
Labour force status for carers and non-carers: ABS Census, 2006 to 2021
| 100% | 90% | 80% |
| 70% | 60% | 50% |
| 40% | 30% | 20% |
| 10% | 0% | |
| 2006 2011 2016 2021 2006 2011 2016 2021 | Carers Non-carers | |
| ■ Employed FT ■ Employed PT ■ Unemployed ■ NILF |
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations from ABS Census of Population and Housing, 2006 to 2021.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 87
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
The HILDA survey includes information from 2005 onwards on respondents’ roles as a main carer or secondary caregiver. This provides an important opportunity to explore the extent to which caring responsibilities affect employment outcomes, and whether such impacts have changed over time. Using statistical regression methods, we are able to compare the employment probabilities of carers and non-carers over the period from 2005 to 2022. This approach controls for other characteristics of carers that may affect their labour market outcomes to try to ascertain, as close as possible, the effect that undertaking a caring role has on employment opportunity. The results indicate that someone who is a main carer is around 8.5 percentage points less likely to be working than a similar person who is a non-carer (Appendix Table 12), but with a much smaller reduction of around 1 percentage point for other carers. When we analysed this association between caring and employment opportunity for the earlier half (2005-13) and latter half of this period (2014-2022), the results show the ‘penalty’ in employment opportunity associated with caring roles has remained very stable. A comparable analyses using the SDAC data confirm a reduced likelihood of employment for people undertaking caring roles, albeit with slightly smaller estimated penalty (5 percentage points).
88 BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES
WORKING LIFE FOR CARERS
WORKING LIFE FOR CARERS
carers who are in employment report much carers are relatively less satisfied with is the same overall job satisfaction as workers their job security (see Figure 33). Primary Carers also report lower satisfaction with their pay, but carers tend to have higher satisfaction with the actual work they do than other employed people.
FIGURE 33 Mean job satisfaction by carer status: 2005 to 2022
Carers who are in
Total pay satisfaction employment report
8.0 much the same overall
7.8 job satisfaction as
7.6 workers who are not
7.4 Overall job satisfaction Job security satisfaction undertaking caring
7.2 roles.
7.0
6.8
6.6
Flexibility to balance work and Satisfaction with the work itself non-work commitments
Satisfaction with hours worked
Non-carers Main carers Other carers
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2005 to 2022.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 89
898989
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
In terms of preferences for working fewer or carers who are content with their hours of work has trended upwards. In terms of hours mismatch, there has been a decline in the proportion who would prefer to work fewer hours, and an increase in the incidence of underemployment. Focussing on main carers, Figure 34 shows that since 2005, the proportion of working
FIGURE 34
Preference of carers for working more or fewer hours: 2005 to 2022
70
60
50 (%)
40 employed
of 30 Share 20
10
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Fewer hours About the same More hours
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2005 to 2022.
90 BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 909090
BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT
BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT
As discussed above with reference to people of non-carers. ‘Own ill health or disability’ with disability, the HILDA survey asks and ‘unsuitable hours’ were also difficulties people who are looking for work about their that carers were more likely to perceive as perceived barriers to gaining a job and, for barriers to finding work compared to non- those who are potentially interested in work carers. but not looking for work, the reasons why they have not actively sought employment. When asked to nominate what they perceive Among people who had been looking for as their main barrier to finding work (as work, those with caring roles were more opposed to indicating all difficulties that likely to nominate most of the barriers apply), the most commonly nominated listed in the survey when compared to factor for main carers was actually their jobseekers who did not care for a person own ill health or disability (14.6 per cent), with a disability or an elderly person (Figure followed by employers thinking they were 35). Main carers were much more likely to too old or too young (13.2 per cent). ‘Other nominate ‘Other family responsibilities’ family responsibilities’ ranked fourth, as a difficulty, selected by 12.8 per cent of attracting a similar share of responses main carers. At 4.3 per cent, surprisingly as unsuitable hours, and not having the few jobseekers with other (non-primary) required education, training or skills, caring roles acknowledged this item as a each with between 9 and 10 per cent of barrier, and this compared to 1.4 per cent responses.
FIGURE 35 Perceived reasons for difficulties getting a job: jobseekers: by carer status, 2005 to 2022
22.7
Did not have the required education, training or skills 29.1 28.9 29.2 Did not have enough work experience 27.5 26.3 13.4 Employers thought respondent too young or to old 15.8 24.5 15.6 Own ill health or disability 19.9 20.8 19.3 No jobs in your line of work 26.0 20.4 18.0 Just no jobs at all 20.9 19.4 25.6 Too many applicants for the available jobs 29.6 17.7 13.5 Hours were unsuitable 17.8 17.1 18.7 Transport problems / too far to travel 19.0 15.4 1.4 Other family responsibilities 4.3 12.8 18.5 None of the above 13.5 9.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Per cent (%)
Non-carers Other carers Main carers • • •
Notes: Multiple responses permitted. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2005 to 2022.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 91
919191
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
For people who would potentially like to study. This applied to just 6.3 per cent of main carers, compared to 22.4 per cent of other carers and 31.5 per cent of people who are not in caring roles.
The predominant reason given by those who are main carers was the ill health of someone else or other family reasons (Figure 36). Nominated by 54.0 per cent of main carers, this far exceeds the 16.4 per cent of people in other caring roles who gave this reason, highlighting the much greater constraints upon labour market engagement for main carers. Another indication of this is the low proportion of main carers who are not seeking work because they intend to return to work: around 2 per cent for main carers, and close to 1 per cent of respondents for other carers and for non-carers. For all three groups, fewer than 1 per cent nominated this as the main reason for not looking for work.
The predominant reason given by those who are main carers for not actively seeking work was the ill health of someone else or other family reasons.
FIGURE 36 Reasons for not looking for a job: marginally attached by carer status, 2005 to 2022
| Ill health of someone other than self/other family reasons | Own illness, injury or disability | Prefers to look after children | Studying/returning to studies | Other child care reason | Difficulties in finding child care | Does not need to work | No time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-carers | |||||||
| 26.8 | 27.6 | 16.7 | 22.4 | 2.7 | 1.7 | 5.0 | 6.3 |
| Other Carers | |||||||
| 24.5 | 15.6 | 18.1 | 6.3 | 5.9 | 3.3 | 2.6 | 1.4 |
| Main Carers | |||||||
| 54.0 | 16.4 | 31.5 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 5.7 | 4.0 | 0.0 |
Notes: Multiple responses permitted. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2005 to 2022.
CARING, WELLBEING AND EMPLOYMENT
CARING, WELLBEING AND EMPLOYMENT
In terms of overall life satisfaction, people The differences between non-carers and carers who are not main carers are generally very minor. The lower satisfaction for people who are main carers is most apparent in the realms of employment opportunity, health, finances, and with the amount of free time available.
FIGURE 37
Mean life satisfaction by carer status: persons aged 15-69 years, HILDA Waves 5-22 People who are a main carer report lower mean satisfaction The home in which you live than other carers, who 8.5 in turn report lower 8.0 How satisfied are you with your life Your employment opportunities mean life satisfaction 7.5 than people with no 7.0 ongoing caring role. 6.5 6.0 The amount of free time you have Your financial situation 5.5 5.0
The neighbourhood in which you live How safe you feel
Your health Feeling part of your local community
Non-carers Main carers Other carers
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2005 to 2022.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 93 939393
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
In raw terms, the differences in overall life is small in magnitude (a fall of just 0.075 satisfaction are small, and may be a result on the 11-point scale) relative to, say, the of other factors, such as differences in age, higher life satisfaction associated with being level of education, marital status and so married instead of single (+0.3) or, indeed, on. The blue bars in the left panel of Figure with having a disability. However, given the to 38 show the estimated change in people’s tight distribution of responses on the life reported life satisfaction associated with satisfaction scale, we can be confident in the caring status from statistical models of life findings of a negative association. The lower satisfaction reported above (See Table 13, wellbeing associated with being a carer full results not reported). After controlling who is not a main carer is smaller still and Being in work for other factors, the results are consistent only marginally significant. The association is associated with lower life satisfaction for carers who between carer status and self-assessed well-being among are the main carer of a person with a wellbeing appears to have been stable for main carers, and disability or an elderly person – the estimate main carers since 2005. this applies to
FIGURE 38 Life satisfaction: Effects of caring roles, and main carers’ labour force status: HILDA Waves 2005 to 2022
0.200
0.182***
0.173
0.150 0.162***
0.100
coefficients 0.0500.000
Estimated -0.050 -0.027*
-0.075*** -0.100 -
-0.150 -0.169*
-0.200
Main carer Other carer FT Employment PT Employment FT Student Unemployed
Carer status Main carer - labour force status
Notes: Coefficients are estimated using a linear regression model. Starred coefficients are statistically significant at either
the 1 per cent (***), 5 per cent (**)
or 10 per cent (*) level. Estimates for carer status are relative to persons without caring roles, and for labour force status relative to main carers who are not in the labour force. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ calculations based on HILDA survey, 2005 to 2022.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES
CARING, WELLBEING AND EMPLOYMENT
The effect of employment on wellbeing for evidence of positive effects is more limited
carers for carers. Being in work is associated with
greater wellbeing among main carers, and
this applies to both full-time and part-time
work. There is a similar estimated effect for
being engaged in full-time study, however,
in a statistical sense. We can see from the
relative magnitude of the effects, being able
to maintain engagement with the labour
force more than offsets the lower wellbeing
associated with a primary carer role.
The estimates of the effect of labour force Caring obligations which preclude labour
market engagement have a much larger
negative impact on people’s subjective
wellbeing. There is little evidence of positive
asociations with being in employment
or with being a full-time student for other
carers (See Table 14, effects not shown in
The figure).
The estimates of the effect of labour force status for people who are main carers are also shown in Figure 38. Results for the key variables relating to labour force status for both main carers and other caring roles are presented in Table 14. In contrast to people with disability, among whom we find labour market engagement provides a positive boost to life satisfaction, the
Employment and Disability in Australia:
Improving Employment Outcomes for People with Disability
“The last two deceades have seen significant changes across australia, in the understanding of and attitudes toward people living with a disability across our community.”
Shifting The Dial:
Reshaping Policy To Broaden Access To Employment For People With Disabilities
SHIFTING THE DIAL: RESHAPING POLICY TO BROADEN ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
Bankwest Curtin Economic Centre | Focus On The States Series 97
Employment And Disability In Australia:
Improving Employment Outcomes For People With Disability
Introduction
The last two decades have seen significant changes across Australia, in the understanding of and attitudes toward people living with a disability across our community, and in the nature and scale of public policies and programs that support them. However, as the evidence evaluated within this report clearly shows, these policies and strategies have yet to have a meaningful impact on employment outcomes for people living with a disability.
The Economic Contribution And Cost Of People With A Disability
The Economic Contribution And Cost Of People With A Disabililty
In recent years the public dialogue living with a disability when they are given a chance and, along with employers and workplaces, given the support they need to succeed, it is important to consider what is the most effective pathway to success. In doing so it is important that we thoughtfully balance both economic and social outcomes. A narrow focus on economic outcomes alone would prioritise investment in those experiencing few workplace limitations as a means of delivering the quickest and Our analysis suggests simplest return on investment. However, that an increase of doing so risks overlooking the positive 10 per cent in the impacts and long-term benefits on the number of people health, wellbeing and life satisfaction with disability who of meaningful employment and greater are employed would social inclusion on those facing greater life increase national challenges. economic output by $16 billion per year. Conversely, an approach that leverages the current structures and eligibility requirements of the NDIS to build greater workplace support into existing personal plans, would see more resources dedicated to that cohort facing the greatest barriers and work limitations, who might also expect to only be able to work limited hours, and may experience some deterioration in their health and work capacity over time or if over-stretched. What the data has shown us about workplace outcomes for NDIS participants to date suggests that this has not been happening for a number of reasons, including existing workplace barriers such as employer bias and risk aversion, but also risk aversion on the part of people with a disability who may erroneously fear losing their entitlement to lifelong support. Addressing these barriers (as discussed earlier) requires more specialised employer and workplace recruitment and transition packages that provide individualised support.
In considering the future economic contribution that can be made by people
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
The significant underemployment of people Furthermore, this is occurring at a point with a disability (particularly those with in time where skills shortages are holding comparatively little limitation or restriction back our economic potential, while changes to their ability to participate in work, where in community attitudes, technological these challenges are easily overcome or enablers and the ‘working from home revolution’ are all opening up opportunities for greater workforce participation.
We suggest there are four different domains within which to consider successful policies and initiatives:
-
National policies, targets and regulations
-
Employer initiatives, supports anddisability employment outcomes over the next decade.
-
Public-sector employment strategies and targets
-
Community sector programs and initiatives
These are discussed further on the following pages.
Our analysis within this report clearly shows that there is significant unrealised potential among people with a disability to contribute to the Australian workforce.
A WORK FIRST APPROACH
A WORK FIRST APPROACH
In light of the extent of policy reforms, Enterprises and the NDIS. Critically, it would growth in government funding, the conducive labour market conditions, and The evident dedication and good will of the many disability organisations across the sector, the lack of evidence of an improvement in labour market inclusion for Australians with disability over two decades seems almost irreconcilable. Somehow, for some reason, the current system is not working. We can and, by now, should have created a more inclusive labour market for Australians with a disability.
A critical step is to harness the good will and potential of Australian businesses, in much the same way that many workplaces are proactively addressing gender inequality and promoting Indigenous employment. Numerous other issues have been raised in the various consultation reports supporting the strategies, in the reviews of the NDIS, of the Disability Employment Strategy and in the Royal Commission, and these have been echoed in consultations undertaken for this report with key stakeholders and researchers.
To begin to address these issues, we recommend a wholesale restructuring and reorientation of the existing supports for people with disability to a proactive ‘work first’ model. Income support and other assistance provided to people with disability, their families, and carers needs to be integrated into a simplified and strengthened program with an expectation of appropriate and meaningful work, and with pay at or above applicable minimum or award wages. This could be avchieved through an overarching policy and administrative body focusing on employment for people with disabilities, similar to the Office of Disability Employment Policy in the US, that would coordinate existing elements of the system relating to employment inclusion, including Disability Support Pension, Disability Employment Services, Australian Disability Employment Places (the demand side). The agency would also have a key role in curating access to resources to assist and support inclusive recruitment, transitions, workplace adjustment and support, and hence in linking employers and prospective employees to specialist support services that reflect the needs and requirements of thier industry, circumstances and enterprise type.
Some workplaces are more amenable to employing people with a disability including through the potential for job redesign and this will apply to different forms of disability. Economies of scale are likely to be very significant because of fixed costs of physical adjustments, training of other staff and their accumulated skills by experience, potential reorganisation of workflow, appropriate technologies and so on. This means that once one person with a disability is employed in an organisation, the cost of employing additional people with disability will be lower, and particularly one with similar requirements for inclusion. It is logical that some organisations, as well as occupations and industries, will employ more people with disability and with different types of disability and indeed we have seen there is significant variation across industry sectors. This also means that the learnings for organisational policy and practice, workplace adjustments and
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
cultural change are also transferable – we
While workplaces with higher numbers of
workers with disability and with particular
types of disability are likely to emerge, this
specialisation would be very different to
segregated employment. In an outcomes-
driven model, all Australian enterprises are
potentially Australian Disability Enterprises,
without need to differentiate between open
and segregated employment other than in
respect to the enterprises’ performance.
Emerging research indicates that creating
customised and integrated employment can
have high initial or up-front costs, but those
costs diminish over time to be lower than
the costs of positions provided in segregated
employment (Taylor et al. 2021). Hence,
over time we would expect the traditional
forms of ADE to disappear simply because
they would not be competitive with other
businesses in providing better outcomes for
people with disability. The role of Australian
Disability Enterprises has been controversial
and the Royal Commission and others
have called for the end of segregated
employment. If the incentives are well
designed, ADEs would only survive in the
longer term if they are providing superior
outcomes than could be achieved elsewhere
for a substantial number of people with
disability.
Evidence suggests that key barriers to employers hiring people with disability include uncertainty about how to go about it, complexity of needing to deal with multiple agencies, concerns about costs and a tendency to over-estimate them, and limited awareness of the wide range of supports available. Proactive and strategic targeting of customised employment packages to employers would address these concerns, with larger organisations targeted first. It makes sense for support providers to specialise by industry so they can tailor advice, policies and packages to meet industry needs. While packages may be relatively generous initially to encourage leading employers to participate, research
A Work First Approach
suggests support needs will decline as We believe such a work first scheme should inclusive practices become embedded initially be promoted through positive and accepted. If the subsidies offered incentives offered to employers, including systematically exceed the actual costs to the financial value of the subsidy and expert the employer, such that they make excess support for implementation and assistance profits or returns from participating then, with accommodations. However, competition between employers there are a number of potential ‘sticks’ as well should drive the offered subsidies down as ‘carrots’ that can be used to increase Towards the true marginal costs to employment outcomes, at least for large employers – which for many employees with organisations, such as increased monitoring Disability would be zero! and reporting against targets in line with The Women’s Gender Equity Agency model, The fact that support packages would and potentially the adoption over time of potentially draw on other supports available quotas, procurement restrictions, or other To the employee, such as through the NDIS penalties for failure to commit to developing Or DES, and the earnings would impact on an inclusive disability employment plan. income support, highlights the need for such a work first approach to be delivered through It is important to note that the rights and A coordinated disability employment needs of people living with a disability are structure that integrates existing programs currently elevated in the public discourse into individualised, customised employment about inclusion. For leading employers, s Packages. It is important however, that embracing strong and innovative policies workers must be full and equal employees and targets for employing people living with of the business, not of the placement a disability can become emblematic. It can agency. The wages paid to the employee be a way of expressing their heart, boosting may result in an appropriate withdrawal the value of their brand, reinforcing their Of income support over time, but never in social licence to operate. With the National a way that leaves them financially worse Disability Strategy committing to raise off during their transition into employment the profile and change public attitudes and or should they need to leave that job. This understanding towards inclusion of people includes ensuring that if or when their with a disability over the coming decade, health or capacity to work deteriorates industry leaders can expect that the issue over time there is no barrier to accessing will be on the agenda for some time and that support and no loss of DSP entitlement. change is inevitable – hence it pays to get Ideally, this should be guaranteed by a ahead of the curve. legislated minimum living wage. From a government budget perspective, withdrawal One of the best examples of a linked policy, of income support would substantially practice and outcomes measurement offset the component of the subsidy framework for delivering improved package associated with any difference workplace outcomes is the learnings between worker productivity and wages. from gender pay equity practice over However, we believe participation in any the last decade undertaken by WGEA, such scheme by people with disability and BCEC and industry leaders. While the their family should be seen in the spirit of a focus of those efforts has been around right to meaningful work and full women’s employment, gender pay equity, participation in society, and not as a mutual leadership pathways and policies supporting obligation or work test for receipt of other representation in management and at board benefits.
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
At this level, the underlying framework remains equally relevant. The approach is to begin working with progressive businesses and agencies, put in place a framework that allows you to compare different policy and practice initiatives against meaningful and measurable outcomes, then bring key stakeholders together to discuss what makes a difference, compare notes and share learnings.
Then progressively refining and extending voluntary reporting frameworks, linking them to recognition and rewards, with a view to build in mandatory reporting and targets over time. Such a model also builds independent knowledge and expertise as you go, putting in place initiatives that offer advice and support to smaller or newer players who are keen to come onboard but lack the capacity.
This is supported by the National Disability Employment Agency or supporting services providing template policies and insightful case studies matched to industry and enterprise need that make implementation easier.
PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYERS AS LEADERS
PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYERS AS LEADERS
Successive public sector employment Victoria has the clearest, most detailed policies and commitments over the last two and advanced public sector framework decades have emphasised the potential for within the Employment TAP, which is 政府 agencies to provide leadership arguably the best practice model for others to deliver disability employment. This makes to adapt and adopt. In contrast, Western sense as agencies delivering public services Australia has a much lower public sector disability employment rate and the WA and implementing government policies Public Sector Commission (2020) People and priorities should also be well placed with Disability: Action Plan to Improve WA public sector outcomes. In practice however Public Sector Outcomes 2020-2025 is very progress has been surprisingly slow, high level, lacking detail for implementation outcomes have been patchy and there are and accountability. The plan reported an many examples where high level policies employment rate of only 1.5 per cent in and aspirations have failed to translate 2020, down from 2.4 per cent in 2014. This into practical actions and outcomes. The has risen marginally to 1.6 per cent in June national APSDS target of 7 per cent of 2023.9 It is clear that, without a concerted employees with a disability in the Australian effort including introduction of a targeted Public Sector by 2024 does not look likely to and resourced policy to which agencies be achieved under current policy settings, and Director-Generals are held directly as APS employment had risen marginally accountable, WA has no credible path to from 4.9 per cent at baseline in December reach a 5 per cent target by 2025. 2021 to 5.1 per cent in June 2023.8 State and territory outcomes and commitments Governments need to set agency-level dare even more patchy, with the Employment targets for disability employment rates and Targeted Action Plan only listing targets put in place measures that require public for Victoria (6 per cent), NSW (6.5 per cent) reporting on policy implementation and and WA (an ’aspirational’ 5 per cent). There workforce outcomes. Better outcomes will is not yet any consistent planning, policy, be achieved if knowledge and expertise is targets or reporting across jurisdictions, more effectively sourced and shared across and it is not easy to find current or recent agencies and portfolios, with centralised figures at a state or territory level. It is oversight and shared initiatives to assist, not immediately apparent what level of advise, and to support recruitment and commitment or obligation there is for employment transitions. Public sector states and territories to comply with and commissions should work closely with the implement the data improvement plan and National Disability Employment Agency, to what extent inter-jurisdictional data will and learnings and case studies from public be consistent and commensurable in the sector employment initiatives can be future. shared and adapted across the private and community sectors.
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
COMMUNITY SECTOR PROVIDERS AS EMPLOYEES OF CHOICE
One place where much higher rates of over-committed and lack the time and
disability employment could be achieved quickly and effectively is in not-for-profit community service providers delivering public service contracts. Here the challenges and support needs are different, and policies and initiatives need to reflect this difference to be effective. On the one hand, non- government social service organisations are well aligned in their mission, values and workplace culture to accept and embrace people living with a disability within their workforce. Give them the opportunity and resources and many will jump at the chance. There is also likely to be relevant knowledge and practical experience across their workforce that makes collegial support easier, more sincere and effective. However, on the other hand, not-for-profit organisations reliant on government funding are often starved of resources, as public sector funding contracts have not kept pace with award wage rises and inflation. The best way to overcome these challenges is to provide resources and targeted support upfront, outsource the recruitment and transition support to a specialist not-for-profit service, and make additional funding available within existing service contracts or via a grants program to achieve additional employment outcomes. Over time inclusion policies can be introduced into procurement arrangements and targets set for organisations securing contracts over a certain size.
EDUCATION TO WORK TRANSITIONS THAT SUPPORT LIFELONG OUTCOMES
EDUCATION TO WORK TRANSITIONS THAT SUPPORT LIFELONGLONG OUTCOMES
The transition from education to work is them into practice, more clearly needs to be done to actively support all students with a disability to ensure a successful work transition. DSS can do more to curate and provide guidance to their resources, providing direct support and system navigation services through their funded agencies to assist young people and parents to find the right resources for their interests and hook into the right agencies and job opportunities in their local area, industry of specialisation, and addressing their specific disability support needs.
There is a need for educational institutions and state and territory education departments to play a much greater role in transition support. We still need to change attitudes and address misconceptions; to create opportunities and access; recognise the importance of planning and ongoing resources; and streamline coordination, partnerships and accountability.11 Effective outcomes are unlikely to be achieved by simply loading more responsibility onto teachers and lecturers, who are unlikely to have the experience and industry linkages – or the time – to provide effective support. We clearly need specialised roles and additional resources to make this work. This needs to be backed by targets and reporting requirements, with a degree of analysis and oversight to allow us to build on what works and intervene where the outcomes are insufficient. Incorporating changes into a national partnership agreement may be the best way to drive a coordinated national response, backed by a national clearing house curating information and resources, as well as a system for reporting breaches of disability education standards and an independent complaints mechanism.
Employ My Ability, the national disability employment strategy for 2021-2031, provides links to a range of resources and advice for students, parents, teachers and career advisors. While some of these resources can be helpful to those who have the capacity to engage with them and the connections and resources to put
Employment and Disability in Australia:
Improving Employment Outcomes for People with Disability
“In This Report We Have Scrutinised Population Quote Representative Datasets Covering 25 Years To Assess Progress Towards Labour Market Inclusion For People With Disability, Commencing From 1998.”
SUMMARY AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY AND POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS
| BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES |
|---|---|
| 109 | 109109109 |
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
SUMMARY AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
In this report we have scrutinised population representative datasets covering 25 years to assess progress towards labour market inclusion for people with disability, commencing from 1998. At the start of this period, one could reasonably expect momentum to have already been building in terms of the impact of reforms and innovations on the employment prospects, working lives and broader social inclusion of Australians with disability. The sobering finding is that there is no real evidence of any overall improvement in labour market inclusion for people with disability over the one-quarter of a century since 1998. Based on the most recent wave of HILDA data, the labour force participation rate for people aged 15-69 with a disability or long-term health condition in 2022 was only 57 per cent compared to 84 per cent for people without a disability, a gap of 27.0 percentage points. The corresponding figures for the percentage in employment are 53.2 per cent and 81.8 per cent, a gap of 28.6 percentage points. The latter is more conducive to measures to increase workforce participation it is employment opportunity that drives participation for people with disability. We appreciate that many of the reforms under the social model of disability over the last two decades have broader social and community objectives for people with disability that extend beyond the labour market. Is it the case that progress towards labour market inclusion has stagnated because the focus has been on making ground in other domains? Unfortunately, for a number of reasons we do not believe so. First drawing on the existing literature and extensive discussions with stakeholders, we concur that there is strong merit in a ‘work first’ approach, one that assumes meaningful work should be the default expectation for all, with exceptions made altogether.
SUMMARY AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
only where there are clear grounds to out of work more frequently, to be under-
tthink otherwise. The UN CRPD emphasises employed, and to spend periods out of the
work environment, and this sentiment is
reiterated throughout recent Australian HILDA data shows approximately two out of
policy documents. three people with a disability will transition
between labour market categories in any
Second, we have also modelled changes given year, compared to less than one
in the subjective wellbeing for people with in three for people without a disability.
disability from 2001 to 2022. As with People living with a disability who are not
indicators of labour market outcomes, in the labour force in a given year are more
we find no evidence that their subject likely to stay out the following year (86
assessments of the quality of their lives, per cent), while those with a disability who
relative to Australians without a disability, are unemployed are most likely to become
have improved at all over this period. And, discouraged (42 per cent) and exit the
finally, the modelling of subjective wellbeing labour force.
has a substantial and positive effect on Worryingly, we also find evidence that
subjective wellbeing for people with people with disability are less likely to
people with disability. transition into employment when they are
a NDIS client, other things being equal. This
Hence, we believe the lack of improvement result controls for the person’s self-assessed
in labour market inclusion for people with level of work limitation and holds true even
disability is symptomatic of a wider failure when we focus on the sample of jobseekers
to improve social inclusion and the quality with a disability who indicate that wanted to
of life for people with disability generally, work. The findings relating to the NDIS are
and not simply a lack of progress limited based on data collected in the HILDA survey
to the one domain. Progress in achieving over a relatively short timeframe (2017 to
greater labour market inclusion would 2022) with a limited sample. For this and
enhance the lives of Australians with other technical reasons, we cannot claim
with confidence that the results imply that
For people with disability who are in being a NDIS client has a detrimental effect
employment, levels of job satisfaction on employment, but it does provide strong
have remained quite stable over the past evidence that the NDIS is not contributing
two decades, as have the small gaps in positively to improved employment
satisfaction between workers with and outcomes for its clients.
without disability. Job quality and relative Considering the personal importance
job quality for people with disability people with a disability put on achieving
to have remained quite stable. a meaningful and secure work placement
However, a critical difference in labour as a means to life satisfaction, and the
market experience of workers with disability manner in which NDIS planning is intended
is the rate at which people with disability to be person-centred and aspirational,
is the much higher level of precarity and churn. this suggests that other factors are at
They are much more likely to bounce in and play. While one clear factor is employer
out of work more frequently, to be under- bias and misunderstanding of the risks
employed, and to spend periods out of the and support needs of employing a person
labour force due to discouragement. living with a disability, another critical
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
barrier could be the risk to maintaining DSP are 34 per cent more likely to secure work entitlement. While in theory a person with a after completing a degree). This premium Disability can work for two years without associated with additional education losing their DSP entitlement, in practice the is observed for people with all levels of combination of the challenging and limitation, with the exception of those with bureaucratic process of securing an profound core limitations. entitlement plus the adversarial recent history of social security policy within The persistence of the barriers to labour Australia may well make them risk adverse. market inclusion for people with disability Anyone with a level of limitation severe also has flow on effects to their carers. enough to qualify for NDIS is also likely Around 10 per cent or working age To face some challenges or concerns in Australians have unpaid caring roles, and maintaining their level of health and activity the number has increased modestly over the time. Hence, if there is a real prospect past 20 years. There has been a significant of their work capacity deteriorating in the ageing of the carer population over this medium to long term with increasing pain time, with the proportion of carers who are or exhaustion, then the risk of losing DSP aged 55-69 years increasing by around could seem an existential threat. 10 percentage points so they now account For over one-third of working-age carers. This report has concentrated on labour We also find that there is a substantial market status for people of working age. An intersection between the population of important contributor to those outcomes is people with disability and the population of ducational attainment and training, and carers. Around one-third of carers of working there is an equally wide range of issues age are themselves people with disability, eleting to inclusion of people with disability twice the prevalence for the remaining (non- in education and how that relates to the carer) population. asition from education to work. As is well known, employment outcomes improve with Many people undertaking these unpaid individuals’ level of educational attainment, caring roles do so at the expense of their and that holds true for people with and own careers. People who are the main or without disability. However, our analyses of primary carer of people with disability are the SDAC data shows the boost to the typically around 10 per cent less likely to be probability of being in employment from in employment, other things being equal. higher levels of education is substantially This effect has been quite consistent over greater for people with disability. On time, and a much smaller penalty of around average, for example, people of working age 1 or 2 per cent is experienced by carers with a university degree are around who are not a primary carer. Challenges 18 per cent more likely to be employed than associated with caring do have a negative someone who did not complete Year 12 of effect on subjective wellbeing of primary high school. Among people with a disability, carers and this does not appear to have having a degree is associated with an been alleviated to any significant degree by additional 16 per cent increase the disability policy reforms or increased in employment propensity (that is, they funding over the past two decades.
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
A work first approach • Trial and evaluate disability employment
-
Implement a work first model based on a subsidy programs and specialist universal entitlement to meaningful work support for people with higher work for all who seek it, with pay at or above limitations and support needs, as well award wages. as one-off disability placement and workplace adaptation schemes to support
-
Create a National Disability Employment recruitment and transition. Agency (NDEA) that coordinates and aligns activities across existing welfare Public Sector employment and disability support agencies (including • Federal, state and territory governments Disability Employment Services as well as commit to provide leadership in disability access to the disability support pension employment processes and outcomes. and NDIS).
-
Include clear and consistent public sector
-
Ensure active representation of people employment targets and reporting with disabilities and carers in policy requirements in the national partnership formulation and evaluation as well as the agreement and the Australian Disability governance and oversight of the NDEA. Strategy.
-
Ensure regular and consistent reporting • State and territory public sector and analysis of disability employment commissions should regularly share best and wellbeing outcomes, including practice models and case studies. social inclusion, self-determination and Community Sector employment meaningful work.
-
Federal, state and territory governments
-
Set and report against clear targets provide additional funding into existing for disability employment outcomes, and new public service contracts to including public sector employment, support and deliver disability employment industry and enterprise level reporting, outcomes. procurement targets and resources in
-
Develop and resource specialist disability public service contracts, and inclusion in recruitment and transition support NDIS support plans. services to assist and advise community
-
The NDEA develop and implement a service providers and to provide ongoing progressive policy framework to share support to people with a disability and best practice in promoting greater employers. workplace inclusion for people with Employer leadership disability.
-
Leading employers should embrace
-
Establish a national program to fund disability employment outcomes as a specialist disability recruitment and means of advancing and promoting the support services to provide targeted culture and values of their businesses. support, and disseminate best practice at
-
Employers who have actively engaged an industry and enterprise level. with and promoted the WGEA model are
-
A broadscale national awareness well-placed to transfer their learnings campaign to change community, from gender equity to disability inclusion employer and workplace attitudes to the outcomes. participation and inclusion of people living with a disability.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 113
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
-
Boards of Management should oversee disability recruitment and employment outcomes and look to include representation of lived experience at Board level.
-
Industry bodies should actively engage with disability inclusion initiatives, developing, supporting and promoting industry-level initiatives, share and award stories of success.
Education to work transitions
-
A national partnership agreement committing state and territory education systems to develop, deliver and report a coordinated national response.
-
A quality post-school transition process that includes: person-centred transition planning, beginning early (by year 9); work experience opportunities and the facilitation of part-time work; a focus on foundational skills; and career development planning.
-
A national clearing house to curate and coordinate information and resources, overseen by the National Disability Employment Agency.
-
National data collection on post-school outcomes.
-
A system for reporting breaches of the disability standards for education with an independent complaints mechanism.
-
Specialised career advisory and transitional support roles within schools and educational institutions.
ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 115 115115115
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics ADE Australian Disability Enterprises ADS Australia’s Disability Strategy AIHW Australian Institute of Health and Welfare BCEC Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre COAG Council of Australian Governments CYDA Children and Young People with Disability Australia DDA Disability Discrimination Act DES Disability Employment Services DSS Department of Social Services (Commonwealth) GST Goods and services tax HILDA Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (survey) ILO International Labour Organisation NDA National Disability Agreement NDCA National Disability and Care Alliance NDEA National Disability Employment Agency (proposed) NDIS National Disability Insurance Scheme OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development PC Productivity Commission SDAC Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers (Australian Bureau of Statistics) UN CRPD United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities UNDESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific WGEA Workplace Gender Equality Agency
116 BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES
REFERENCE
#######
########
#########
##########
###########
############
#############
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
REFERENCES
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 1978, Syndey University Press: Sydney.
(2022), People with disability in Australia 2022,
Lecerf, M. (2022). Understanding EU policiesCatalogue number DIS 72, AIHW, Australian
for people with disabilities. In EuropeanGovernment.
Parliament. European Parliament. https://
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/
(2023) Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021– etudes/BRIE/2021/698811/EPRS_
2031 Outcomes Framework: First annual BRI(2021)698811_EN.pdf.
report, Catalogue number ADS 1, AIHW,
Mays, J. (2015), ‘Australia’s disabling incomeAustralian Government.
support system: tracing the history of the
Australian Law Reform Commission, Making disability pension from 1908 to today’,
Rights Count: Services for people with a Australian Journal of Social Issues, 50(3),
disability (Report No 79, 1996) 253-276.
Cain, P. (2014), All the way to the moon Smith, P. (2023), ‘The influence of the
and back. Ending discrimination for people National Disability Insurance Scheme on
with intellectual disability in employment. customised employment practice in Australia’,
Precedent, 125, 46-51. Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences,
2(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.33700/
jhrs.2.2.81.
Cassells, R., Dockery, M., and Duncan, A
(2014), ‘Falling through the cracks: Poverty and
Disadvantage in Australia’, Bankwest Curtin Stubbs, M., Webster, A. and Williams, J.
Economics Centre, Focus on the States, Issue (2020), People with disability and the
No.1, October 2014. Australian Constitution, Research Report,
Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse,
Cassells R, Duncan A, Mavisakalyan A, Neglect and Exploitation of People with
Phillimore J, Seymour R and Tarverdi Y (2018), disability, October.
‘Future of Work in Australia: Preparing for
tomorrow’s world’, Bankwest Curtin Economics Taylor, T., Avellone, L., Cimera, R., Brooke,
Centre, Focus on the States Series, Issue 6, April V., Lambert, A., & Iwanaga, K. (2021).
2018. Cost-benefit analyses of employment
services for individuals with intellectual and
Deci, E. and Ryan, R. (2000)., Self- developmental disabilities: A scoping review.
determination theory and the facilitation of Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 54(2),
intrinsic motivation, social development, and 193-206.
wellbeing. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
United Nations Department of Economic
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and Social Affairs (UNDESA) (2019).
(2023), Working together to deliver the Sustainable Development Goal 10 Reduced
NDIS - Independent Review into the National Inequalities: Progress and Prospects. https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/
documents/21453SDG_10_EGM_2019_
concept_note_30Jan_consolidated.pdf.
United Nations Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(UNESCAP) (2021). Disability at a glance
2021: The Shaping of Disability-Inclusive
Employment in Asia and the Pacific. In United
Nations. United Nations Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific. https://
www.unescap.org/sites/default/d8files/
knowledge-products/DAG2021-Final.pdf.
World Bank. (2022, April 14). Disability
Inclusion Overview. World Bank. https://www.
worldbank.org/en/topic/disability.
Kewley, T. (1980), Australian Social Security
today: Major developments from 1900 to
Appendix
Appendix
| BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | Focus On The States Series |
|---|---|
| 119 | 119119119 |
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
TABLE 4
Probability of employment: multivariate regression models, HILDA and SDAC data
| HILDA | SDAC | |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 to 2022 | 2003 to 2018 | |
| Year x disability | ||
| 2003 x (disability) - -0.2594 *** | ||
| 2005 x (disability) -0.3073 *** - | ||
| 2006 x (disability) -0.3065 *** - | ||
| 2007 x (disability) -0.2965 *** - | ||
| 2008 x (disability) -0.3136 *** - | ||
| 2009 x (disability) -0.2759 *** -0.2500 *** | ||
| 2010 x (disability) -0.2776 *** - | ||
| 2011 x (disability) -0.2905 *** - | ||
| 2012 x (disability) -0.2939 *** -0.2668 *** | ||
| 2013 x (disability) -0.2844 *** - | ||
| 2014 x (disability) -0.3018 *** - | ||
| 2015 x (disability) -0.3138 *** -0.2797 *** | ||
| 2016 x (disability) -0.3018 *** - | ||
| 2017 x (disability) -0.2889 *** - | ||
| 2018 x (disability) -0.3186 *** -0.2805 *** | ||
| 2019 x (disability) -0.2971 *** - | ||
| 2020 x (disability) -0.2951 *** - | ||
| 2021 x (disability) -0.2772 *** - | ||
| 2022 x (disability) -0.2725 *** - | ||
| long-term health condition -0.1307 *** -0.0242 *** | ||
| Education | ||
| year12 0.1352 *** - | ||
| certificate 0.1530 *** 0.1181 *** | ||
| diploma 0.1691 *** 0.1748 *** | ||
| university 0.2107 *** 0.2074 *** | ||
| Age band | ||
| 20-29 0.1449 *** 0.2183 *** | ||
| 30-44 0.1948 *** 0.2795 *** | ||
| 45-54 0.2107 *** 0.2860 *** | ||
| 55-69 -0.0475 *** 0.0372 *** | ||
| Australian born 0.0541 *** 0.0836 *** | ||
| married 0.0579 *** 0.0470 *** | ||
| main carer -0.1714 *** -0.0554 *** | ||
| Remoteness | ||
| inner regional -0.0091 *** 0.0053 ** | ||
| outer regional -0.0095 *** 0.0218 *** | ||
| remote or very remote 0.0008 0.0000 *** | ||
| female-identifying -0.0456 *** -0.0507 *** | ||
| Age of youngest child | ||
| youngest child 14 and under -0.0033 0.0411 *** | ||
| youngest child over 14 -0.0104 *** 0.0231 *** | ||
| female x youngest child 14 and under -0.1351 *** -0.1202 *** | ||
| female x youngest child over 14 0.0518 *** -0.1935 *** | ||
| Constant 0.5191 0.3918 | ||
| State fixed effects Yes Yes | ||
| Survey year fixed effects Yes Yes | ||
| Observations 250,480 195,653 | ||
| R-squared 0.222 0.215 |
Appendix
TABLE 5
Employment probability by level of limitation: pooled SDAC data 1998-2018
| SDAC SDAC | | no controls with controls | | Year x disability | | Baseline (no disability) 77.9 *** | | | Disability level | | Profound core limitation -65.8 *** -54.7 *** | | Severe core limitation -49.0 *** -40.7 *** | | Moderate core limitation -39.3 *** -30.6 *** | | Mild core limitation -33.1 *** -25.5 *** | | Restriction but no core limitation -19.5 *** -17.0 *** | | No restriction or core limitation -9.6 *** -6.7 *** | | LT health condition -4.4 *** -2.6 *** | | | Other controls Yes Yes | | State fixed effects Yes Yes | | Survey year fixed effects Yes Yes | | Observations 195,653 195,653 | | R-squared 0.090 0.229 |
Notes: All models are estimated using a linear probability models approach using pooled regressions for SDAC datasets. Starred coefficients are statistically significant at either the 1 per cent (), 5 per cent () or 10 per cent () level. Full regression estimates are available from the authors on request. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ estimates using the ABS Survey of Disability Ageing and Carers, 1998 to 2018.
TABLE 6
Employment probability by education level and disability status
| HILDA SDAC | | 2005 to 2022 2003 to 2018 | | Disability -0.3196 *** -0.3060 *** | | | Education level | | Cert I/II to Year 12 0.1326 *** 0.1092 *** | | Diploma Cert III/IV 0.1543 *** 0.1589 *** | | Bachelors and above 0.1946 *** 0.1821 *** | | | Disability x education level | | disability x Cert I/II Year 12 -0.0033 0.0189 ** | | disability x Diploma Cert III/IV 0.0066 0.0599 *** | | disability x Bachelors and above 0.1204 *** 0.1622 *** | | | Other controls Yes Yes | | State fixed effects Yes Yes | | Survey year fixed effects Yes Yes | | Observations 250,480 195,653 | | R-squared 0.222 0.223 |
Notes: All models are estimated using a linear probability models approach using pooled regressions for SDAC datasets. Starred coefficients are statistically significant at either the 1 per cent (), 5 per cent () or 10 per cent () level. Full regression estimates are available from the authors on request. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ estimates using HILDA survey, 2005 to 2022 and ABS Survey of Disability Ageing and Carers, 1998 to 2018.
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
TABLE 7
Estimated association between NDIS support package and labour market outcomes: people with disability, 2017 to 2022
| Participation Employment | |———————————————–|—————————––| | (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)| | A. Random effects | | Disability limits work [0,1] -0.14 *** -0.14 *** | | (0.000) (0.000)| | Disability limits work [0-11] -0.03 *** -0.03 *** | | (0.000) (0.000)| | Has NDIS support package [0,1] -0.10 *** -0.10 *** -0.08 *** -0.09 *** -0.08 *** -0.07 *** | | (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)| | Other controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes |
|R-squared 0.18 0.23 0.30 0.17 0.22 0.28| |Observations 22,259 22,196 22,169 22,259 22,196 22,169| |No. individuals 8,145 8,131 8,127 8,145 8,131 8,127| | B. Fixed effects | | Disability limits work [0,1] -0.07 *** -0.07 *** | | (0.000) (0.000)| | Disability limits work [0-11] -0.02 *** -0.02 *** | | (0.000) (0.000)| | Has NDIS support package [0,1] -0.04 *** -0.04 *** -0.04 ** -0.04 ** -0.04 ** -0.04 ** | | (0.006) (0.007) (0.012) (0.012) (0.011) (0.015)| | Other controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes |
|R-squared 0.10 0.13 0.19 0.08 0.11 0.16| |Observations 22,259 22,196 22,169 22,259 22,196 22,169| |No. individuals 8,145 8,131 8,127 8,145 8,131 8,127|
Appendix
TABLE 8
Transition to employment among people with disability who would like a job: 2017 to 2022
| Disability limits work [0,1] | -0.05 *** |
|---|---|
| (0.009) |
| Disability limits work [0-11] | -0.01 *** |
|---|---|
| (0.000) |
| Unemployed | — — — | | | Not in labour force and: Definitely want to work | -0.15 *** -0.15 *** -0.14 *** | | | (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) |
| Maybe wants to work | -0.21 *** -0.20 *** -0.19 *** | | | (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) |
| Has NDIS support package [0,1] | -0.07 *** -0.07 *** -0.06 *** | | | (0.003) (0.004) (0.007) |
Other controls (see Table 5) Yes Yes Yes R-aquared 12% 13% 14% Observations 3,224 3,210 3,203 No. individuals 1,816 1,812 1,810 Other controls Yes Yes Yes
R-squared 0.10 0.13 0.19 Observations 22,259 22,196 22,169 No. individuals 8,145 8,131 8,127
Notes: All models are estimated using a linear probability model. Starred coefficients are statistically significant at either the 1 per cent () 5 per cent () or 10 per cent () level. Full regression estimates are available from the authors on request. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ estimates using HILDA survey, 2017 to 2022.
BANKWEST CURTIN ECONOMIC CENTRE | FOCUS ON THE STATES SERIES 123 123123123
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
TABLE 9
Drivers of ‘happiness’ among people aged 15-69: 2001 to 2022
| Dep. Variable: life satisfaction (0-10) | (1) | (2) | (3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| No disability — — | |||
| Has disability/LT health condition -0.317 *** | (0.000) | ||
| Disability, no work limitation -0.133 *** | (0.000) | ||
| Disability limits work or can’t work -0.478 *** | (0.000) | ||
| Disability limits work (0-11) -0.082 *** | (0.000) | ||
| Labour force status | \ | ||
| Not in labour force — — — | |||
| Employed FT 0.06 *** 0.03 *** -0.02 * | |||
| (0.000) (0.002) (0.056) | |||
| Employed PT 0.08 *** 0.06 *** 0.02 ** | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.015) | |||
| Unemployed -0.23 *** -0.25 *** -0.29 *** | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| Student FT 0.17 *** 0.14 *** 0.11 *** | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| Age: 15-19 years — — — | |||
| 20-29 years -0.27 *** -0.27 *** -0.26 *** \ | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| 30-44 years -0.37 *** -0.36 *** -0.35 *** \ | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| 45-54 years -0.32 *** -0.30 *** -0.29 *** \ | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| 55-69 years -0.14 *** -0.12 *** -0.10 *** \ | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| Female 0.05 *** 0.05 *** 0.04 *** | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.002) | |||
| Has dependent children aged 0-4 -0.00 -0.01 -0.02 ** | |||
| (0.835) (0.297) (0.045) | |||
| Has dependent children aged 5-14 -0.08 *** -0.09 *** -0.09 *** | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| Has dependent children aged 15-24 -0.07 *** -0.07 *** -0.07 *** | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| Marital status: Married/de dacto — — — | |||
| Separated/ Divorced/ Widowed -0.51 *** -0.51 *** -0.50 *** \ | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| Never married -0.31 *** -0.31 *** -0.30 *** \ | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| Indigenous 0.13 *** 0.13 *** 0.14 *** \ | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| Born in: Australia — — — | |||
| Main English spkg country 0.02 0.02 0.02 | |||
| (0.337) (0.394) (0.468) | |||
| Non-English speaking country -0.20 *** -0.20 *** -0.19 *** \ | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| Educational attainment: Did not complete Year 12 — — — | |||
| Year12 -0.09 *** -0.09 *** -0.10 *** \ | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| Certificate -0.10 *** -0.10 *** -0.10 *** \ | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| Diploma -0.06 *** -0.06 *** -0.07 *** \ | |||
| (0.002) (0.001) (0.000) | |||
| University degreee -0.06 *** -0.06 *** -0.07 *** \ | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| SEIFA decile - relative socio-economic advantage/disadvantage 0.01 *** 0.01 *** 0.01 *** | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| Lives in: Major city — — — | |||
| Inner regional Australia 0.11 *** 0.11 *** 0.11 *** \ | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| Outer regional Australia 0.15 *** 0.15 *** 0.15 *** \ | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| Remote Australia 0.15 *** 0.15 *** 0.14 *** \ | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| Very remote Australia 0.18 *** 0.18 *** 0.18 *** \ | |||
| (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) | |||
| Constant 8.31 *** 8.31 *** 8.30 *** \ | |||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | |||
| R-squared 0.081 0.090 0.097 | |||
| Observations 283,074 283,074 282,876 | |||
| Number of individuals 31,832 31,832 31,822 |
Appendix
Table 10
Estimated relationship between disability status and wellbeing: by degree of limitation, 2001 to 2022
| Sub periods |
|---|
| All waves 2001 to 2009 to 2016 to |
| 2001 to 2022 2008 2015 2022 |
| (1) (2) (3) (3) |
Panel A
No disability — — — —
Disability -0.318 *** -0.311 *** -0.324 *** -0.330 ***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Observations 296,472 92,232 101,194 103,046
Panel B
No disability — — — —
Disability limits work or can’t work -0.478 *** -0.472 *** -0.499 *** -0.483 ***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Disability does not limit work -0.134 *** -0.126 *** -0.134 *** -0.142 ***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Observations 296,348 80,898 97,028 118,422
Panel C
Disability limits work (0-11) -0.082 *** -0.080 *** -0.082 *** -0.082 ***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Observations 296,260 80,890 96,985 118,385
Notes: All models are estimated using linear regression. Starred coefficients are statistically significant at either the 1 per cent () , 5 per cent () or 10 per cent () level. Full regression estimates are available from the authors on request.
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ estimates using HILDA survey, 2001 to 2022.
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
TABLE 11
Labour force status and life satisfaction by degree of work limitation: 2001 to 2022
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| A. Random Effects | ||
| Disability limits work (2-11) | -0.072 *** | |
| (0.000) | ||
| Labour force status: | ||
| Not in labour force | — | — |
| Employed FT | 0.368 *** | 0.237 *** |
| (0.000) | (0.000) | |
| Employed PT | 0.277 *** | 0.196 *** |
| (0.000) | (0.000) | |
| Unemployed | -0.080 * | -0.161 *** |
| (0.080) | (0.000) | |
| Student FT | 0.361 *** | 0.274 *** |
| (0.000) | (0.000) |
Observations | 47,251 | 47,163
No. Individuals | 10,880 | 10,868
R-squared | 0.06 | 0.08
B. Fixed Effects | |
Disability limits work (2-11) | -0.055*** |
| (0.000) |
Labour force status: | |
Not in labour force | — | —
Employed FT | 0.357 *** | 0.272 ***
| (0.000) | (0.000)
Employed PT | 0.248 *** | 0.196 ***
| (0.000) | (0.000)
Unemployed | 0.001 | -0.058
| (0.989) | (0.244)
Student FT | 0.294 *** | 0.238 ***
| (0.000) | (0.000)
Observations | 47,251 | 47,163
No. Individuals | 10,880 | 10,868
R-squared | 0.015 | 0.01
Notes: All models are estimated using linear regression. Starred coefficients are statistically significant at either the
1 per cent ()
| 5 per cent () or 10 per cent () level.
Full regression estimates are available from the authors on request.
Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre |
Authors’ estimates using HILDA survey,
2001 to 2022.
Appendix
TABLE 12
Employment probability for carers: panel regression models, HILDA data 2005 to 2022
| All waves | Nine-year sub periods | |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 to 2022 | 2005 to 2013 | |
| (1) | (2) | |
| Not a carer — — — | ||
| Carers: | ||
| Carer, but not main carer -0.009 ** -0.011 ** -0.014 *** | ||
| (0.030) (0.044) (0.008) | ||
| Main carer -0.085 *** -0.080 *** -0.081 *** | ||
| (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) | ||
| Observations 250,152 116,012 134,140 |
Notes: All models are estimated using a linear probability model. Starred coefficients are statistically significant at either the 1 per cent () , 5 per cent () or 10 per cent () level. Full regression estimates are available from the authors on request. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ estimates using HILDA survey, 2005 to 2022.
TABLE 13
Effect of carer status on life satisfaction: panel regression models, HILDA data 2005 to 2022
| All waves | Nine-year sub periods | |
|---|---|---|
| 2005 to 2022 | 2005 to 2013 | |
| (1) | (2) | |
| Not a carer — — — | ||
| Carers: | ||
| Carer, but not main carer -0.027 * -0.026 -0.024 | ||
| (0.072) (0.226) (0.241) | ||
| Main carer -0.075 *** -0.085 *** -0.081 *** | ||
| (0.000) (0.001) (0.000) | ||
| Observations 249,736 115,837 133,899 |
Notes: All models are estimated using linear regression. Starred coefficients are statistically significant at either the 1 per cent () , 5 per cent () or 10 per cent () level. Full regression estimates are available from the authors on request. Source: Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre | Authors’ estimates using HILDA survey, 2005 to 2022.
EMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY IN AUSTRALIA:
IMPROVING EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
TABLE 14
Labour force status and life satisfaction for carers: HILDA data 2005 to 2022
| Main Other |
| carers carers |
|
A. Random Effects
Labour force status:
Not in labour force — —
Employed FT 0.162 *** 0.136 (0.004) (0.111) Employed PT 0.182 *** 0.028 (0.000) (0.729) Unemployed -0.169 * -0.102 (0.052) (0.512) Student FT 0.173 0.045 (0.133) (0.756)
Observations 10,004 7,586
No. Individuals 3,324 4,025
R-squared 0.09 0.09
B. Fixed Effects
Labour force status:
Not in labour force — —
Employed FT 0.151 * 0.136 (0.071) (0.111) Employed PT 0.146 ** 0.028 (0.027) (0.729) Unemployed -0.062 -0.102 (0.506) (0.512) Student FT 0.227 * 0.045 (0.096) (0.756)
Observations 10,004 7,586 No. Individuals 3,324 4,025 R-squared 0.03 0.03
Disclaimer
While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this document, the uncertain nature of economic data, forecasting and analysis means that the centre, Curtin University and/or Bankwest are unable to make any warranties in relation to the information contained herein.
Any person who relies on the information contained in this document does so at their own risk. The centre, Curtin University, Bankwest, and/or their employees and agents disclaim liability for any loss or damage, which may arise as a consequence of any person relying on the information contained in this document.
Except where liability under any statute cannot be excluded, the centre, Curtin University, Bankwest and/or their advisors, employees and officers do not accept any liability (whether under contract, tort or otherwise) for any resulting loss or damage suffered by the reader or by any other person.
The views in this publication are those of the authors and do not represent the views of Curtin University and/or Bankwest or any of their affiliates. This publication is provided as general information only and does not consider anyone’s specific objectives, situation or needs.
Neither the authors nor the centre accept any duty of care or liability to anyone regarding this publication or any loss suffered in connection with the use of this publication or any of its content.
Authorised Use
© Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, March 2024
Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre Focus on the States Series #10 ISBN: 978-1-925757-29-3
This report was written by: Alex Buckland, Mike Dockery, Alan Duncan, Valentina Sanchez Arenas, Panagiotis Sotirakopoulos, Chris Twomey and Lili Loan Vu, all from the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre.
This report may be cited as: Buckland, A., Dockery, M., Duncan, A., Sanchez Arenas, V., Sotirakopoulos, P., Twomey, C., and Vu, L., (2024), Employment and disability in Australia: Improving employment outcomes for people with a disability, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre, Focus on the States, No. 10, March 2024.
This publication contains confidential and proprietary information of the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre. All of the material in this publication is for your exclusive use and may not be otherwise used or modified for, or by, any other person or sold to or otherwise provided in whole or in part to any other person or entity without the prior written consent of the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre. A standard hard copy of, or electronic subscription to, this publication entitles employees of the same organisation and same physical location as the subscriber to the use of its contents for internal reporting purposes only. Multiple user licenses are available for organisations with more than one location.
Acknowledgement: This report uses unit record data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. The HILDA project was initiated and is funded by the Australian Government Department of Social Services (DSS) and is managed by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (Melbourne Institute). The findings and views reported in this paper, however, are those of the authors and should not be attributed to either DSS or the Melbourne Institute.
Contact
Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre Tel: +61 8 9266 2873 Email: bcec@curtin.edu.au
bcec.edu.au
© Curtin University 2024 CRICOS Provider Code 00301J ADV158588