Introduction
I was employed by the Government as a teacher before having a spinal injury in the mid 70s. Following
rehabilitation I returned to work, where I remained as a teacher and a school principal for nearly 35 years.
In that time I was a strong advocate for employees with a disability. This role was enhanced through my
own experience, from being on the Department’s Diversity Council, from being a school principal with
over 80 staff, and more recently being on a State Disability Council.
As a result of my experience, my response to the discussion paper will primarily be in the context of
government departments both State and Federal.
I am now retired from the role of Principal.
DISUSSION POINT 1.1
In general I found a number of inhibitors to my employment and the employments of others, specifically
within the Government. These are as follows:
1. Ignorance on behalf of the decision makers
a. In a large bureaucracy, there are many levels of decision making. With a clear lack of commitment to
consistency in the implementation of legislation, policy and procedures, I found discrimination was
endemic throughout the organisation. While most individuals were well meaning, ignorance was the most
common response to acts of discrimination. Even when issues of discrimination based on disability were
raised, they were repeatedly and consciously ignored. The Department I was employed by (The
Department), allocated a very small workforce to the issues associated with disability. Even when they
were allocated, they had the complications of other responsibilities which limited their effectiveness.
Many times their responsibilities were redirected to the more ‘hot’ issues. For example, The Department
had 0.5 allocation of a mid to low level position to manage disability, Indigenous issues, the gender
agenda, and the issues surrounding those from non-English speaking background. This is in an
organization which has over 75 000 employees. More recently the workforce managing the diversity
agenda has increased to approximately 3 FTEs. However with the increase came many instances of
redirection of this workforce to issues outside the disability agenda.
b. SOLUTION
i. That each state and federal government department commit to ensuring highly skilled public servants
are allocated to this agenda, and that these public servants have direct report capability to senior
department officials.
2. The silo mentality that exists within large bureaucracies
a. The Department has many sections within it responsibilities. Even within HR there were/are multiple
direct reports with multiple leaders. Even though there was an overt commitment to the disability agenda,
many of the silos did not have the understanding or the commitment to include the disability agenda into
the daily thinking. Along with this was the quality of the senior bureaucrat who had as their responsibility,
the diversity agenda. Many times these leaders did not have the knowledge or the leadership to influence
positively the disability agenda.
b. The silo mentality that pervaded the Department contributed to behaviours that were openly
discriminatory. Repeatedly I was unable to access professional development for principals due to lack of
wheelchair access.
c. SOLUTION – The Director General of each government department or their equivalent, be held
accountable for the achievement of the KPIs set of in the state’s DSP or the federal equivalent.
3. A lack of commitment by CEOs to the disability agenda
a. A review of the Disability Service Plans (Qld) and Disability Action Plans (NSW) clearly shows lack of
personal commitment to these plans. Tacit approval of what is published is clear, but there is generally no
person commitment on behalf of the DGs to this agenda. There are exceptions to this statement, but on
the whole, these commitment by the Director General ( DG) is obviously one of compliance.
b. SOLUTION
i. An external review (2009?) of Queensland’s Disability Service Plans (DSPs) has a number of
recommendations including the following:
1. To ensure strong management, departmental support and sresourcing of the DSPs, Director Generals’
have included in the Key Performance Indicators the effective implementation of the DSPs. (p5 Report
Summary)
4. The dominance of the gender agenda
a. The strength of the gender agenda has had a negative impact upon the development of the Disability
Agenda. The Diversity Council of the Department was dominated by the gender agenda. Even when the
council was established by the then Minster of education, Anna Bligh, the focus was well defined for the
gender agenda, but was extremely general in its commitment to the disability agenda.
b. Staff allocated to these positions tended to be more inclined to support the gender agenda. Tokenism
was prevalent in the allocation of staff, which meant that staff members from Non-English speaking
backgrounds or those with a disability were placed in these positions irrespective of their ability to do the
job.
c. The Diversity Council has(d) members of various interest groups including teachers Unions. As an a
specific example of how these significant bodies think when they are considering both the gender agenda
and the disability agenda, The representative from one State teachers Union tabled at a Diversity Council
meeting that the union supported having pregnancy defined as a temporary disability (published in The
Department’s Diversity Council Minutes). This move was designed so that women could access the limited
funds allocated within The Department’s budget for Reasonable Adjustment. Fortunately, the proposal
was denied. But the fact that a significant body representing thousands of teachers would even think of
moving such a motion is evidence of how the disability agenda is viewed by this significant organization.
d. SOLUTION
i. That each state and federal government department allocate specific staff to support the employment
and promotion of those with a disability, and that these personnel are not given tasks outside this
portfolio. The allocation to be supported by the relevant Director General by establishing a direct
reporting process. In departments where the number of employees is significant, the number and level
staff allocated to the roles of supporting employee with a disability should also equate to this
responsibility. This allocation is supported in the Evaluative Review of the Queensland Disability Service
plans.
1. Given the Changing nature of the role of DSPs, it is prudent to consider the resourcing required at a
departmental level to drive DSPs. Findings from the evaluation suggest that staff who undertake the role
of co-ordinating departmental DSPs do son on a voluntary basis and perform these duties on top of
existing work tasks. While considerable goodwill exists from staff across departments, these staff members
often don’t have the capacity to prioritise work under the DSPs and ensure activity is pursued and
completed. (p5)
5. A lack of accountability from the CEOs of departments (ie ( Directors General)
a. A review of the disability service plan statements made by the relevant Directors General showed a
clear lack of commitment to the outcomes of the DSP. This was generally the case with a few exceptions
where the relevant Director General clearly wrote the introduction to the DSP and committed to its
outcomes.
b. Another indication of the lack of commitment on behalf of Directors General is the manner in which the
different target group days are celebrated. International Women’s day would see the Director General,
minister or at least senior bureaucrats involved in the celebration of the day. When it came to celebrating
International Disability Day, the involvement of high level personnel (or lack thereof) was an
embarrassment. A review of the activities put on by The Department through their website clearly shows
this lack of commitment.
c. SOLUTION - Ensure the that KPIs listed in any plan that has a focus on employees with a disability,
especially those elements which have a focus on employment and promotion are essentially linked to the
performance of the Director General.
6. A lack of a collective voice for those with a disability
a. One of the barriers to the employment and promotion of people with a disability is the lack of a
collective voice. Compared with the success and speed of achievement in the gender agenda, the disability
agenda has gained no traction in the public service. All levels of government should be the lead agencies
when it comes to employing people with a disability.
b. Even the ‘departmental voice’ which primarily is the senior officer allocated to the diversity agenda has
had a limiting influence on the employment and promotion of employees with a disability within The
Department. Consistently this person did not support the establishment of employment targets/goals,
ignored the issues associated with defining disability, and was critical of those who were champions within
the Department.
c. SOLUTION - One of the recommendations from the aforementioned review of the DSPs in Queensland
states clearly that “Formal recruitment targets be established in each department and the results included
in departmental reports”.
7. Social Ignorance
a. Barriers fall from ignorance within society generally. Within the cohort who included my peers
(principals), I repeatedly had to address statements which had as their base, the belief that the only
reason I received a promotion was because of my disability. When it came to getting a school that was
vaguely suited to my wheelchair needs, another principal suggested I take another school which was
significantly less accessible so he could have the school which was more accessible ( a better clientele
base!) .
b. When I needed adjustments to the workplace, the person responsible for making the decision required
of me to disclose personal information before my adjustments would be considered. Even then when all
the facts were known, this person refused to fund the reasonable adjustment which in one case was
costed at approximately $45.00.
c. In another instance, when I requested an adjustment to the physical access in a school of which I was
principal, a parent wrote to the Ombudsman complaining about the use of government funds to make the
adjustments.
d. When posted to a small school, it became clear the community did not want a principal in a wheelchair;
because it was believed I would not be able to lead the school.
e. SOLUTION – That all levels of government have a consistent, openly stated, commitment to employing
and promoting those with a disability, and that this commitment be given bipartisan support and made
public.
8. A lack of courage by CEOs to commit to the agenda.
a. Generally the commitment given by CEOs of departments is ‘considered’ support for the outcomes of
DSPs or their equivalents. This lack of commitment shows a lack of courage on behalf of many CEOs
leading government departments. It also demonstrates that the disability agenda was/is a very low
priority.
b. SOLUTION – The only way to encourage a higher more meaningful level of commitment on behalf of
Directors General, is to link their performance to the DSPs or their equivalent ( as in other states)
9. The rise of the political bureaucrat compared with the career bureaucrat
a. Part of the demise of government departments is linked to the rise of the political bureaucrat. The
political nature of the appointment ensures a greater level of compliance to the political leaders. It also
meant that the terms of Director Generals were linked to the time the appointing party was in power.
Compare this with the career bureaucrat who committed to the department and its purpose and who
tended to stay for the long haul. This resulted in consistence in leadership and a consequent
accountability.
b. SOLUTION – There is none
10. Political snobbery
a. In Queensland, the previous government managed a high level consultation process in order to design a
strategic plan covering the next 10 years. With the change of government came a lessening of the impact
of this consultation process. Both major political parties have been playing this game.
b. SOLUTION – Disability must not to be used a political football. Bipartisan support for this agenda must
be achieved through a meaningful commitment to those with a disability.
11. Limited options for Promotion
a. Because The Department was unable to identify which schools where deemed accessible, I had to apply
for promotional positions in schools which I knew would never be able to have physical access. So in fact I
was the only principal in the state who had to apply for positions to which I could not go.
b. SOLUTION – Each level of government (State Federal), design as part of its DSP or equivalent a policy on
Promotion for Employees with a Disability for classified positions.
12. Language used in the Government Documents.
a. The language of the departmental and whole of government plans for those with a disability is woefully
inadequate. The genre of effective KPIs has been ignored, so that a government department can do
nothing and yet still report positively on this agenda.
b. SOLUTION – That both federal and state government commit to writing DSPs and their equivalent in
other states, in a way that the KPIs have an impact ( I am happy to provide more detail on this solution).
13. Fear of disclosure.
a. When being seconded into The Department to write policy on promotion for employees with a
disability, (which was subsequently dropped because it included a commitment to allowing an employee
with a disability to transfer his/her promotion a similarly banded school if the school for which he/she was
applying did not have suitable access and was not able to be adjusted), I became a confidential contact for
many employees with a disability within The Department. Repeatedly, I received calls from those with a
disability who were too scared to disclose their disability for fear of retribution. In these instances the
employee needed some adjustment to the workplace.
b. This situation I believe would still exist within The Department. I make this statement based not a
statistical data, but on the premise that the Department is still plagued with the silo mentality, and there
is no commitment to Disability Awareness training.
c. While an employee of The Department, I advocated strongly for all applicants for promotion within The
Department to have completed the online training on disability Awareness and Discrimination. This
requirement was to be limited to those positions which were classified.
d. SOLUTION – That all employees within all levels of Government must undertake Disability Awareness
training and Discrimination Training before they can apply for any promotional, classified position.
14. Lack of a simple, low stress complaints process.
a. While I was principal (now retired) I had need to take The Department to the Anti-Discrimination
Commission three times. Even this did not bring about change to the disability agenda within The
Department.
b. This process was highly stressful, and ultimately meant that The Government would use all its resources
from Crown Law to fight any allegation. Extremely daunting.
c. The Department had its own internal processes, but these had risks associated with them including:
ignorance, lack of influence if the Director General did not take an interest, lack of interest, the person
making the complaint being seen as a trouble maker ( which was the unofficial stated definition of a
Disability Advocate within the diversity sector).
d. SOLUTION – Each level of government adjust the processes for taking the government to anybody that
deals with discrimination. That this adjustment makes the process more accessible and less demanding
than the current reality.
15. Definition of Disability
a. I think I have a disability therefore I have one. This is part of the issue. There needs to be a common
definition of disability, and this definition needs to differentiate between those disabilities which may
require adjustments to the work place and those that do not.
b. The focus needs to be on employment of those with a disability where the disability makes a difference.
In other words where the employing agency needs to interact with the issues associated with a disability.
DISCUSSION POINT 2.1
1. When looking at the issue of employment, the issue of promotion must also be addressed. Practical and
workable approaches to achieve employment (in the context of government) include:
a. The setting of targets – These to be included in DSPs or their equivalent in other states.
b. The results to be published in the department’s Annual Report.
c. The targets be essentially linked to the DGs KPIs.
d. The commitment and the definition of these targets, to differentiate between those where the
disability makes a difference ( i.e. the workplace needing adjustment)’, and those where the disability
does not require any adjustment.
2. Currently the data collection process used by HR does not result in clarity around the number of
employees who have a disability. There appears to be a strong hesitation in disclosing the disability on
behalf some employees where the disability is not obvious, and may be perceived as inhibiting
performance by the manager. Fear, as mentioned above, is also a deterrent to disclosure.
3. The issue of changing managers, which is some departments (both state and federal) is a frequent
occurrence. This brings to the fore the issue of effective training in both disability and discrimination if the
trust which was established between the employee with a disability and the then manager, is to continue.
4. SOLUTION – Before people with a disability will readily disclose they have a disability there has to be
trust and awareness. This is an idealistic view of the working environment which is plagued with
inadequate leadership.
DISCUSSION POINT 2.2
1. Of itself, the answer to this question is ‘no’. In fact the question is a gross oversimplification of a
complex problem. Having an obvious disability (ie which needed no disclosure), did not stop repeated
systemic discrimination or individual discrimination. In large government organisations, the disclosure is
so far removed from the immediacy of the workplace that it has little or no impact. Employment process
and those processes associated with promotion opportunities are generally removed from the employee’s
workplace. In other words the selection processes are carried out by panels, who have little or nothing to
do with the immediate work environment. So the chance of there being a quantifiable benefit from
disclosure in this context is negligible.
2. If there are no tangible benefits, then the question about whether they should be voluntary of
mandatory is null and void.
3. Some responsibility around disclosure needs to rest with the person with a disability. This responsibility
lies in the realm of common sense. It would be unreasonable for me to apply for a job that requires full
mobility.
DISCUSSION POINT 2.4
1. Best practice around the issue of disclosure would need to be based on and in the relationship between
the employee with a disability and his/her immediate senior.
DISCUSSION POINT 2.5
2. Because of the unpredictability of leadership both in the private and the public sector, issues around
privacy and disclosure are best addressed in an environment of significant consequences for breaking of
this trust. No one can plan for stupidity in leadership, and stupidity falls at times from ignorance which can
exist from the immediate line manager to the CEO (Director General).
DISCUSSION POINT 2.7
3. Government departments would need to report in their Annual Report, and this report must be
detailed and linked to the KPIs published in the DSP or equivalent.
DISCUSSION POINT 2.8
4. No definition of disability of itself will encourage employees to hire more people with a disability.
5. Marketing has the best chance of changing attitudes in the head and heart of employers.
6. Government departments need to take lead role in the employment of people with a disability.
7. There is an obligation on those with a disability to ensure the best possible match between their
capacity and the position for which they are applying. Common sense is not always common and can lead
to obvious miscarriages of what is appropriate.
DISCUSSION POINT 2.9
1. Other information which must be sought from government employers:
a. The number of classified staff who have under taken training in both disability awareness and
discrimination’
b. Number of programmes that have been offered to support the career paths of current employees with
a disability.
c. Number of staff (FTEs), and their employment levels, allocated to implement the monitoring,
assessment and analysis of the DSPs or equivalent.
d. Number of employees with a disability where the disability has required adjustment(s) to the
workplace.
e. Number of programmes offered to all employees in the department on disability awareness and
discrimination
f. The percentage uptake of the programmes by employees in that department