GUEST AUTHOR

Personal reflections on the pandemic, what women need for a fair recovery and the benefits of gender lens budgeting, by Natalie Kon-yu

On that Saturday, the 21st of August, I was keeping an eye on the news while playing with my kids. My husband was in the lab – he’s a biomedical scientist working on Covid-19 so he’d been going into the lab more often.

His time, and consequently ours too, had become dictated by the readiness of tiny cells.

In Melbourne, as in the rest of Victoria, all our lives had been dictated by tiny cells. The case numbers of COVID-19 had been rising, and that Saturday the news that many of us expected finally came in. Things that had been opened in the last two weeks would be closed. For us, and many other parents, this meant that childcare centres would be shut.

I felt a sigh of relief, followed by a moment of panic. In our house, both adults work and we have a seven-year-old and a three-year-old. I’d been uneasily dropping my three-year-old to childcare for the last two weeks. At home, I’d been able to focus on my daughter’s schooling, and given how many days of school she’s missed since last year, this seemed important.

But with the case numbers rising I was glad that childcare centres were closing and that the daily choice I’d had to make for the last fortnight was taken from me. It seemed callous to make early childhood educators work, while primary, secondary and tertiary educators got to work from home, especially given the way the most mundane illnesses can rip through a childcare centre. We would keep our son at home for the duration. And, also, we would have to scramble.

I’m aware that I’m very lucky my husband and I are both employed. Lucky because work, for both of us, gives us a sense of meaning and fulfillment. And lucky because we would really struggle without both our incomes.

More than a century ago in the Harvester Judgement, an arbitration court judge decreed that the minimum wage should allow a man to support a family of five. Times have really changed since then. Not only have wage rises failed to match the cost of living in Australia, but more and more working Australians have been forced into casualised labour, which doesn’t incorporate things like sick leave, carers leave and long-service leave.

Having two full-time workers in the home has become a necessity for most Australian families. In 2016, the Australian Institute of Family Studies showed that 66 per cent of all Australian families had two parents in the workforce.

During the COVID outbreaks, there were no national or state strategies detailing how parents should approach the issue of leave if they had work and caring responsibilities.

Even in the earlier stages of the pandemic when government support for workers was more ready and reliable, people with full-time caring responsibilities were left out of the picture. JobKeeper, with all its problems, was an incredibly welcome initiative for many Australian workers – no one should be made vulnerable to job loss in a pandemic – but it should have been only a first step. No similar funding was ever made available to employers to give their staff extra leave, or supplement half days of work with leave, if they were caring for a family. This was a burden that each of us had to take on ourselves.

And it’s on the record that the majority of care work in Australian families falls to women.

In the report ‘Worsening of Australian Women’s Experiences under COVID-19: A Crisis for Victoria’s Future’, a team of researchers found that ‘Australian women’s larger care burdens – to children, spouses, and relatives – have resulted in increasing demands for their labour under lockdown, yet much of this work is unrecognised and unpaid.’ Not only this, but a crisis emerged in women’s paid work, too. The report found that during the second lockdown of 2020, Victorian women reported the highest rates of job loss, outstripping both Victorian men and women around the rest of the country. Women have also experienced higher rates of mental ill-health during the pandemic.

It’s on the record that the majority of care work in Australian families falls to women.

In some ways this crisis has just exacerbated and highlighted systemic issues that were around long before the pandemic. Australia has a famously poor parental leave scheme, just below the OECD average and leagues behind other nations – famously the Nordic countries, but also places like Japan, Korea, Estonia and the Slovak Republic.

We also have prohibitively high childcare costs.

Of course, many of these issues are dictated by the Federal Government, and we need to see changes on the federal level including to the parental leave scheme. The Grattan Institute, for instance, recently recommended an expansion of the scheme, adding up to six weeks to the current 20 weeks of paid parental leave allowance, and also a ‘use it or lose it’ clause to encourage Australian fathers to do more childcare. The modelling finds that this federal encouragement of women back into the workforce would see a net boost to the GDP of 300 million dollars, and a boost to women’s earning and their superannuation, and that it would also make men happier by increasing their life satisfaction and improving their relationships.

There are also things the Victorian Government could do, in the pandemic context and beyond, to help level the heavily gendered playing field. The state went some way towards recognising the weight of care responsibilities during lockdowns by allowing single parents (the vast majority of whom are women) to access childcare whether or not they are essential workers. For the bulk of the lockdowns single parents with paid employment were essentially doing two jobs by themselves; to think otherwise is to fail to recognise the labour involved in looking after children.

There should also be extra investment in women’s recovery from the disproportionate effects of the pandemic, including health services that address gender-based illness and family violence services that focus on primary prevention.

Gender lens budgeting would allow for policies, programs and resource-allocation to be informed by the best information about combatting inequality and supporting women.

And the Victorian Government should fully and adequately fund public schools so parents don’t face hidden educational costs and so schools, which have been under more pressure than ever, can support all their students through the pandemic and recovery.

Governments in Australia always claim to be strong on family values, and we’ve heard a lot in recent times about the need for gender equality in our society. Now is the time to step up and offer more than rhetoric. Australian working parents – code: working mothers – need tangible help. Without it many will fall through the cracks.

The Federal Government has introduced new regulations that could have a major chilling effect across Australia’s diverse charities sector.

The government’s aim was clear: the regulations are intended to target “activist organisations”, and specifically crack down on “unlawful behaviour”.

Despite this rhetoric, there is no evidence unlawful behaviour by charities is a problem of any significance. By clamping down on charities in this way, the government is not only curtailing their ability to organise peaceful protests, it is imposing more unnecessary red tape on an already highly-regulated sector.

What would the regulations do?

The regulations would give the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) new powers to take action against a charity if it commits, or fails to adequately ensure its resources aren’t used to commit, certain types of “summary offences”.

These are generally a less serious type of criminal offence, and can include acts such as trespassing, unlawful entry, malicious damage or vandalism.

If the ACNC commissioner believes a charity is not complying with the regulations, they would be able to take enforcement action, which may include deregistering the charity. This would lead to the charity losing tax concessions — one of the incentives for people to donate to them.

In effect, the regulations mean that if a charity organised a protest in front of a government department and initially refused to leave, this could be considered trespassing. And this could then be grounds to have the charity deregistered.

Are these regulations necessary?

There is little, if any, evidence of a need for the regulations.

First, a comprehensive review of the ACNC legislation commissioned by the government in 2018 did not identify any issues with unlawful behaviour by charities.

In fact, the review recommended removing the ACNC’s existing power to take action against charities that commit serious breaches of the law. It pointed out that charities must already comply with all laws that they are subject to, and it is not the ACNC’s responsibility to monitor compliance or impose sanctions for breaches.

Despite this, the new regulations would extend the reach of the ACNC and expand its existing powers even further.

And importantly, there is no evidence charities — or their staffs or volunteers — are engaging in widespread unlawful activity. When questioned at a recent Senate Estimates hearing, ACNC Commissioner Gary Johns said the commission’s data did not indicate this was a problem.

Even the government’s own regulatory impact assessment asserts only a “small number” of charities have engaged in unlawful behaviour. However, even this claim is not backed up by solid evidence, with the assessment saying it is based on

media coverage in recent years in relation to protests on forestry, mining and farming lands.

Charities are already highly regulated

Charities in Australia are already highly regulated and subject to a broad range of obligations. They must also abide by any number of laws, for example, occupational health and safety and criminal laws.

And the ACNC already has extensive investigation and compliance powers. If charities breach any of the laws they are subject to, they can be sanctioned just like other organisations — and the same applies to their staff.

In addition, charities are already required to take steps to ensure their directors comply with duties, such as acting with reasonable care and diligence. This includes monitoring and managing risks arising from a charity’s activities.

Drafted in a vague way

Perhaps most concerningly, the proposed regulations are worded in a very vague manner, and although improvements were made in response to public consultation on a draft version, major problems remain.

First, they require a charity to “maintain reasonable internal control procedures” to prevent its resources from being used to promote unlawful activities.

According to the regulations, this could cover things such as who can access or use a charity’s funds, premises or social media accounts, and what kind of training charity directors and employees must undertake.

What is “reasonable” in this context involves making very subjective judgements. While the ACNC will provide guidance to charities on this, many organisations will still face considerable uncertainty.

Further, the regulations would not require a conviction, the laying of charges, or even a formal allegation of an offence being committed before the ACNC can take action. The wording only refers to “acts or omissions that may be dealt with” as a summary offence.

This is very open-ended language, but the crux of it is that a charity could be deregistered because it did something the ACNC commissioner thinks is a summary offence. The action itself, however, may not actually meet the criteria for a summary offence because that’s something only a court can determine.

The ACNC commissioner is the ultimate decision maker on these matters. The regulations do not include any factors or criteria that need to be considered when making a decision, other than saying the ACNC “may” (there’s that word again) consult with law enforcement or other relevant authorities.

The chilling effect of the regulations

Even if a charity is deregistered but then successfully appeals a decision, it may no longer have access to tax concessions, it may lose its donors and other supporters, and it may have its reputation tarnished within the community.

The ACNC seeks to implement the law as it understands it. Its focus is on providing guidance to charities rather than using strong enforcement powers straight away. But the vagueness and breadth of the regulations may lead to misunderstandings or regulatory overreach, and create a more uncertain environment for charities.

They will also impose yet another requirement that charity boards and management must consider. Given charities are already well-regulated, if anything, they need unnecessary red tape removed rather than having more of it imposed on them.

And the regulations will likely have a chilling effect. Charities will be more cautious when it comes to organising public advocacy activities such as peaceful protests — or steer clear of them altogether — in order to avoid falling afoul of the regulations. Such activities are an important part of Australia’s democracy.

Can the regulations be stopped?

Although the regulations have been made, they cannot come into force until they have been tabled in both chambers of parliament, and the disallowance period has passed.

If a disallowance motion is successful in the House or Senate, then the regulations will be invalid and will not take effect. Given the government does not have a majority in the Senate, this is a possibility.

Much is riding on the crossbenchers — not just the impact the regulations would have on individual charities, but also the kind of society we want Australia to be.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

• A new Victoria Skills Authority
  $17.7m in 2021-22 ($85.9m/5 yrs)
  Bringing together industry, providers and other stakeholders, the new Victoria Skills Authority will produce insights on priority training areas and inform an annual Victorian Skills Plan to better guide training delivery where it’s needed most.

• Getting Victorians back to work: our plan to minimise the risk and costs of greater inequality
  $7.6m in 2021-22 ($21.7m/4 yrs)
  Funding is provided to support community revitalisation and microenterprise development programs, support Victoria’s social enterprise sector and ongoing resourcing to monitor the Social Procurement Framework. This initiative also supports employment pathways for people with an intellectual disability through Impact 21 and establishing the Local Transition Response Service to support workers facing retrenchment.

• Tackling the digital skills divide to get Victorians into jobs
  $3.1m in 2021-22 ($6.2m/2 yrs)
  Funding is provided to increase places in pre-accredited digital literacy and employability skills training courses delivered by Learn Local providers to enhance the employment prospects of educationally disadvantaged Victorians.

• Recovery together: jobs and stimulus initiatives for Victoria’s multicultural communities
  $4.4m in 2021-22 ($4.5m/2 yrs)
  Funding is provided to develop a cross-government bicultural worker strategy aimed at recruiting and supporting bicultural workers to assist CALD communities to navigate government services.

• More training places for the TAFE and training system
  $84.5m in 2021-22 ($88.8m/4 yrs)
  Funding is provided to continue support for eligible students to enhance their skills and employment opportunities by providing subsidised vocational education and training.

• Increasing the funding of high-quality and accessible training
  $14.1m in 2021-22 ($99m/4 yrs)
  This will boost funding rates for TAFEs and other registered training providers in 2022, including subsidy rates, maximum concession contribution rates and non-Free TAFE fee waiver rates.

• TAFE reform
  $11m in 2021-22 ($15m/2 yrs)
  Funding will establish a new Office of TAFE Coordination and Delivery to enhance collaboration across the TAFE network and continue coordination of practical placements for TAFE students, including in priority industries such as allied health, individual support and community services, and early childhood and education and training sectors.

Analysis

Since the pandemic, employment in Victoria has rebounded with more than 200,000 jobs being created. Many of these jobs have been taken up by women and young people – two groups of workers who were among the hardest hit by job losses last year, during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Even so, some jobseekers will require targeted support to participate in the state’s economic recovery. VCOSS welcomes funding in this Budget for community organisations to deliver economic security programs to support migrant and refugee women into employment, and investment in community-led initiatives that will provide increased education and employment opportunities for young people from African and Pasifika backgrounds.  

VCOSS has long advocated for place-based responses to job creation. We’re pleased to see the Government making investments that will help bring to life initiatives such as the Portland Economic Diversification Plan and the Hilldene Employment Precinct in Seymour, and activate the Food Manufacturing Precinct in Morwell as part of the Latrobe Valley’s transition and transformation.

We know that a sustained focus on building the community services workforce will be needed over the next decade to deliver on the Government’s significant investment across the sector.

Key investments in mental health, early childhood and teaching will also support thousands of new jobs across the community services sector. VCOSS welcomes the trial of Frontline Victoria, which will create a fast-tracked path for degree-qualified people to change careers and move into a role within child and family services. 

A fair indexation formula incorporating wage rises, the anticipated superannuation guarantee increase, portable long service leave levy and the different costs of delivering services in rural and remote areas is needed to ensure community service organisations can provide secure jobs, and maintain a high quality workforce.

VCOSS particularly welcomes funding to support the development of a bicultural worker strategy to support CALD communities’ engagement with government services. We know that during the public housing estate lockdowns, government relied heavily on volunteers as bicultural connectors; however, the type and volume of work performed and the expertise it required should have been professionally recognised and valued.

Student placements can play an important role in building the community services workforce Victoria needs. However, supporting student placements through investing in extra staff and supervision training takes time and costs money, and many community service organisations have limited capacity due to finite resources, high demand for services and short-term or inadequate funding. While this Budget provides brokerage funding for TAFEs to connect students with services to complete their placements, it doesn’t remove the burden from community service organisations. These organisations, which are heavily relied on for placements, are over-stretched and facing staff shortages. Government should build on the initiatives provided in the Budget by funding community organisations to host student placements to support a pipeline of workers for the future.

This Budget invests in key recommendations from the Macklin Review (Skills for Victoria’s Growing Economy), including the New Skills Authority, due to be launched in July 2021. The New Skills Authority is a welcome announcement and will support an integrated approach to planning for Victoria’s future training needs, including quality of teaching and training.

It is positive to see a funding boost for government-subsidised courses delivered by TAFE and other registered training providers; however, the devil will be in the detail about which courses will see a much-needed increase. For example, courses that disproportionately support disadvantaged learners, such as Foundation Skills and Certificate I and II courses, have subsidy rates so low that they make it hard for providers like Learn Local Organisations to give the intensive support some learners need.

Even with access to Free TAFE, the cost of vocational education and training can still be prohibitive for many students. We need to better support vulnerable learners at TAFE through providing bursaries and scholarships and ensuring that TAFEs can deliver more mentoring, pathways, literacy and numeracy support, assessment adjustments, counselling, and employer partnership development to facilitate workplace training.

Despite improvements in the youth unemployment rate, it still remains stubbornly high in Victoria. The state desperately needs a youth employment strategy that helps support young people into secure work. Designed in partnership with young people, this strategy should focus on increasing participation in education, training and employment, with a view to keeping young people in good jobs.

“This pandemic has exposed so many cracks and frailties in our social fabric. But the work that you do, in many respects through this pandemic has been the only thing holding that whole fabric together.”

2020 could be politely described as a challenging year for community service organsations (CSOs), what with holding the fabric of society together.

And as we move into a recovery phase that’s presenting whole new challenges to some of the most vulnerable cohorts of Victorians, workers in this vital, connective sector need all the support they can get – all the support you can get.

But in an industry often defined by short-term contracts and a necessarily mobile workforce, sometimes the challenge is being counted – literally, quantitatively – to know where and how much and what kind of support is needed.

In the rush of providing necessary frontline services there hasn’t been much surplus capacity for data gathering in the last hectic year. What does the sector currently look like, how big is it and where is it expanding, where are its pressure points?

Data provided by Victorian charities to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission gives a snapshot of how the sector grew between 2015 and 2018, and we can use those trends to infer community sector needs on the other side of the traumatic year that was 2020.

The first and most obvious headline from the data is that the sector was growing by a rate of knots: approximately 27 per cent growth between 2015 and 2018, with a total income of around $19 billion, up from 14.

Of the organisations that self-reported in 2018, the majority (53 per cent) were small – defined as those with an annual income of less than $250,000 – or extra-small – less than $50,000.

Nearly a third of organisations had revenue of less than $50,000, and these smaller organisations received more of their income from fundraising and donations.

Over 40 per cent of them reported a budget deficit in 2018.

The sector employed more than 185,000 people in 2018, representing around 5 per cent of the state’s workforce, and was projected to be one of the fastest growing Australian industries, significantly outstripping fields like construction, manufacturing and financial services.

The community sector was heavily reliant on part-time workers – around 44 per cent – and on casual employment with around 23 per cent of roles.

Number of paid workers in community service organisations 2018

Pie graph showing 61853 full-time workers, 77601 part-time workers and 46000 casual workers.

And, not surprisingly, the data shows how much the sector relied on volunteers: about 430,000 of them in 2018, across organisations large and small.

Already from this snapshot some likely sector pressure points in the post-COVID world are pretty clear.

The majority of volunteering activities dried up during the pandemic – because of lockdowns, and because many volunteers are in high-risk categories for the virus.

Women – who make up the bulk of casual and part-time workers – have been hit particularly hard by the recession, and by increased caring responsibilities associated with remote learning.

Many organisations’ income sources will have dried up, with lockdowns limiting opportunities for fundraising and community financial strain reducing people’s ability to donate.

This is particularly worrying for smaller organisations, which were more reliant on fundraising and donations, and were also more likely to report a budget deficit. But even organisations receiving more government grants are likely to be feeling the pinch, since funding was not keeping up with the true costs of delivering services even before the pandemic hit, and community demand and complexity of need has only increased.

Data is the new deity in our information-rich world. The data available here is useful: it can illuminate big-picture trends and vulnerabilities, help us prioritise our efforts.

But data is also just a congregate of individual stories, and looking around in 2021, hearing the stories emerging from our sector, the data is really a confirmation of what we already know.

We know that CSOs have been vital in helping to hold their communities together, sometimes running on the smell of an oily rag.

We know that staff, particularly in fire-affected areas in the aftermath of the 2019-20 bushfires, have worked through personal trauma and risked burnout.

The data tells us that the community sector is a vital and expanding part of the Victorian economy, but that we should be worried about the sustainability and the very survival of some organisations, particularly small and very small ones.

Individual stories tell us how necessary these organisations are, how much their loss would compound community suffering.

Both the data and everything we’ve seen before and during the pandemic tell us that CSOs need stable, reliable, ongoing funding, indexed to cover the true costs of doing business and to keep up with community needs.

Because thanks are not enough to hold the fabric together.

In particular, COVID-19 has brought into sharp relief a problem that had been identified pre-pandemic: that is, our industrial relations framework has not kept pace with changes to the labour market, and neither has government policy.

For example, paid sick leave is an entitlement that not only protects individual workers, but keeps workplaces and communities safe. During COVID-19, we have seen the devastating health and economic consequences of casual workers not having access to this entitlement.  During the first months of the pandemic, before financial support packages were announced[1], many casual or gig workers had to make hard decisions between putting food on the table by going to work while potentially unwell or staying home, forgoing income and going without.

This Inquiry’s recommendations identify necessary and timely changes for systemic reform of an outdated industrial relations framework, and underline the importance and benefits of safe workplaces and high-quality services for workers, consumers and the community.

COVID-19 has magnified the urgency of addressing key policy and industrial issues associated with the gig economy. For example:

• For many young workers, hospitality and retail are common pathways into work. These industries have been amongst the hardest hit by the pandemic.  With the loss of these pathways, many young workers will attempt to piece together an income via multiple jobs. It is likely that platform work will assume even greater prominence as an entry-level pathway for young people.
• The pandemic has had a gendered impact. The burden of unpaid care has fallen disproportionately on women. Women have been more likely to take on additional caring responsibilities such as supporting their children through remote and flexible learning. Women, more than men, have been unable to engage in employment due to restricted access to early childhood education and care services. Even as restrictions ease, there will continue to be significant care needs in the community, that will continue to be shouldered by women, and women are likely to face other barriers to labour market participation in the context of the recession. The gender pay gap and increased financial insecurity experienced by women could be compounded by the potential increased uptake of platform work in a constrained economic environment. As more families face financial vulnerability as a result of income loss, women may increasingly engage in platform work to find employment opportunities while juggling caring responsibilities.
• The community services industry – an industry which is essential to individual and community wellbeing and the healthy functioning of society – has been hamstrung for many years by low indexation, insecure funding, and the cost of reform implementation. As a consequence, the industry has been characterised by short-term contracts, insecure work and casualisation, and workforce shortages. An increase in market-driven systems driven by the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and Home Care Packages has contributed to a rise in employees having to work across multiple platforms or employers, and sometimes across multiple sectors, to make ends meet. These issues – a major problem pre-pandemic – have become a central concern during COVID-19, particularly in relation to aged care and disability support. This sector is the focus of our submission.

The Federal Government should take a leadership role to implement these changes, however, in the absence of timely action from the Commonwealth, the Victorian Government must ensure appropriate steps are taken to implement the Inquiry’s recommendations where possible.

The care sector

Recommendations

• Evaluate the impacts and lessons of care workforce and service provider interventions, including worker mobility schemes, to inform future policy responses and pricing and improve service quality and consistency.
• Explore opportunities to leverage the Victorian Disability Worker Regulation Scheme to strengthen, support and coordinate the disability workforce.
• Support ongoing investment in attracting, retaining and up-skilling the care workforce, through the continuation of free TAFE and other training opportunities.
• Boost supports for students to increase retention in accredited training
• Engage in and encourage national collaboration to clarify worker and provider obligations, enhance service quality and safety, and establish consistent and comprehensive safeguarding mechanisms in the aged and disability sector.

The prevalence of independent contractors and the use of digital platforms in the care sector (namely healthcare and social assistance workers) has risen in recent years and is aligned to the transition to consumer-choice, market-driven systems such as the NDIS and Home Care Packages.

The Inquiry’s report acknowledges that the flexibility and choice of platforms can support people with disability and older people to choose workers who meet their needs and share their interests. VCOSS strongly supports consumer choice, control and agency, and values the potential of market-driven systems to offer personalised support options. Platforms may help fill service gaps, stimulate innovation, and encourage new workers to join the sector. The use of platforms can also reduce the responsibilities of NDIS participants who self-manage their package, as platforms manage administration and payments.

However, there are unique challenges that should be addressed to boost service quality and provide appropriate safeguards for workers and service users.

Broader changes to industrial relations laws, as recommended in the Inquiry’s report, will address some of the challenges faced by workers in this sector. However, this will not – on its own – be a panacea.

A safe workforce is a healthy workforce. COVID-19 has highlighted the heightened financial vulnerability of workers in the care sector, a lack of coordination and consistency in training, entitlements and protections, and the fragility of support systems in maintaining consistent, quality care.

Workers engaged in the gig economy, who work across multiple platforms or a mixture of platform and more traditional employment types, have no access, or limited access to sick leave and other entitlements. Wages vary across platforms, and time and travel costs between shifts are not compensated. Health, safety and workers compensation arrangements depend on a worker’s employment status. Self-managing NDIS participants who directly employ their own workers are responsible for tax, super, public liability insurance, work health and safety including workers compensation insurance, safety screenings, and negotiating pay and conditions (which does not have to align to industry awards).[2]

The dispersed nature of the care workforce makes it difficult to identify, train and mobilise workers in usual times and in times of crisis.[3] Training, supervision and mentoring cannot be consistently provided and adequately monitored, which is particularly concerning for new or inexperienced workers. Governments and funders, who have little oversight of and connection to the workforce, are less able to coordinate and implement surge workforce capacity.

In response to the pandemic, interventions were introduced to limit the movement of disability and aged care workers across multiple sites, with payments made available to offset lost wages.[4] However, these interventions were introduced months after the WHO declaration of the pandemic, and in the interim, workers and service providers had to manage these challenges without access to vital additional support. Third parties were engaged to provide surge workforce capacity with mixed outcomes.

An evaluation of these interventions should be undertaken to explore lessons learnt and identify the flow-on benefits of minimising worker movement for workers and consumers alike. The limitations of NDIS pricing may have limited the capacity of providers to reduce worker mobility prior to the pandemic.

The NDIA should examine and boost NDIS pricing to reflect the true costs of service delivery and promote access to consistent, best-practice, evidence-based support.

People receiving support and care in residential services, their own home or the community have had services cancelled, reduced or delivered remotely. People with support booked through a platform may have less protection and fewer back-up options if shifts are cancelled. Where services have continued face-to-face, fears of infection have been high.

Inquiries into the harrowing neglect of South Australian woman Anne-Marie Smith, who was supported by one carer with minimal oversight and supervision, along with the work of the disability and aged care Royal Commissions, have highlighted a range of risks, workforce issues and safeguarding gaps.

The pandemic has proved, now more than ever, the need for a safe, skilled and sustainable care workforce. Care workers should be supported to build and maintain their skills and expertise and be provided appropriate and adequate entitlements to ensure they do not place themselves or other community members at inadvertent risk to earn a livable wage.

The introduction of the Victorian Disability Worker Commission (VDWC), and its worker registration function from July 2021, provides an opportunity to strengthen, support and coordinate the disability workforce. While the details of the registration function continue to be developed, the Victorian Government should consider how this initiative could be leveraged to connect with, support and upskill on-demand disability workers.

COVID-19 has also highlighted the gaps and inconsistencies in care workers’ access to appropriate training and professional development for their substantive role and in specific skills such as infection prevention and control.

As demand for aged care and disability workers continues to increase in the coming years, governments should invest in initiatives to attract, upskill and engage the care workforce. Through deep and broad consultation with workers, service users, advocates and representative organisations, service providers, training institutions and peak bodies, workforce capability frameworks and a pathway to transition towards minimum qualifications should be established. While these initiatives will require collaboration and agreement across federal, state and territory governments, particularly in relation to planning and funding, the Victorian Government can continue to lead the way in this space through the work of the VDWC, by maintaining free access to TAFE for priority courses, and by advocating through intergovernmental councils and committees. Any progression towards minimum qualifications should ensure workers do not bear the financial impact and are not deterred from working in the sector.

Through regulatory mechanisms, including the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission and state-based bodies, on-boarding requirements for workers should be strengthened and insurance, superannuation, and health and safety responsibilities should be clarified. Safety screening processes should be consistent and robust across providers, platforms and self-managed arrangements. Workers should also complete regular, mandatory training about their responsibilities and obligations under codes of conduct, rights charters and standards, and be well informed about avenues to raise issues and complaints in relation to violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation.

This submission was prepared by Rhiannon Wapling and Talisha Ohanessian and authorised by VCOSS CEO Emma King. For enquiries please contact Deborah Fewster at deborah.fewster@vcoss.org.au.

A fully accessible version is available online at vcoss.org.au/policy/

[1] The Hon Daniel Andrews, Media release: Supporting Victorian workers to get tested and stay home, 23 July 2020;  Services Australia, Pandemic leave payment if you live in Victoria, 5 August 2020.

[2] NDIA, Directly engaging your own staff, 16 April 2019

[3] H Dickinson, G Carey and A Kavanagh, Personalisation and pandemic: an unforeseen collision course?, Disability & Society, 35:6, 1012-1017, June 2020.

[4] The Hon Greg Hunt MP, Media release: Support for aged care residents and aged care workers across Victoria, 20 July 2020; The Hon Daniel Andrews MP, Media release: Working together to protect Victorians with disabilities, 21 August 2020.

The Community Traineeship Pilot Program links young people with jobs in the growing community services sector and supports community service organisations to build their workforce needs. Trainees undertake a 12-month traineeship during which the young person is employed by the CSO whilst completing their formal qualification.

Interested in taking on a trainee?

VCOSS and our Local Partner Organisations (Taskforce Community Agency – City of Greater Dandenong and Youth Projects – City of Hume) are currently recruiting for Community Services Organisations who are willing and able to employ a trainee for 12 months, on a part time or full-time basis. We are looking for the following:

1. Community service organisations who can take on a trainee by the end of November 2020
2. Community service organisations who can commit to take on a trainee by April 2021

Trainees will commence the formal training component of their traineeship in October this year, undertaking the Certificate IV Community Services through Chisholm TAFE.

Since the program commenced in May 2019:

• 49 young people have commenced traineeships with Community Services Organisations
• The first group of trainees have completed their Certificate IV in Community Services
• We’ve hit an 80% completion rate, ( the national average is around 50%) despite COVID-19 restrictions
• Over half of the trainees have secured further employment with their host organisation (employer) post the completion of their traineeship.

One of the key differences with the Community Traineeship pilot program is that the both the trainee and their host organisation supervisor are supported throughout the length of the traineeship. VCOSS has engaged Local Partner Organisation’s (LPO’s) in each LGA the program is running in (Dandenong and Hume), with each LPO employing a dedicated youth worker to work alongside the trainee and their host organisation.

Youth workers provide a range of supports to the trainee to ensure they remain engaged in the program, as well as the provision of wraparound supports such as payment of myki cards, referrals for housing and accommodation and mental health support. Additionally, the host organisation receives:

• An upfront payment of $3425 from VCOSS when employing a trainee. This is in addition to any Commonwealth incentives that employers may be eligible for when employing a trainee.
• ongoing support from the LPO and youth worker
• regular visits from the training provider teaching staff
• clear requirements and expectations relating to the aligning work with the requirements of the formal training component of the traineeship
• collaboration with the LPO in relation to accessing flexible wraparound support needs the trainee may benefit from to address barriers or hurdles impacting their traineeship

Want to know more?

Register your interest by contacting our Project Co-ordinator, Lyndsey Bateman.

KEY RECOMMENDATION

• Develop and release a clear plan and phased implementation timeline that addresses critical design issues and promotes confidence in the intent and value of the DWRS

VCOSS welcomes opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed regulations and standards for Victoria’s disability workforce to be delivered by the Victorian Disability Worker Regulation Scheme (DWRS).

VCOSS advocates for systemic change to improve the lives of people with disability. We are deeply engaged in this issue through our wide range of members including disability advocacy organisations, people with disability, carer organisations and organisations which provide disability, mental health and health services. As part of our sector leadership, VCOSS supports Victorian disability advocacy organisations to undertake collaborative systemic advocacy under the banner of the ‘Empowered Lives’ campaign[1].

As identified by a range of state and federal inquiries and reports[2], clear and consistent complaints processes and oversight, as well as workforce strategies, practices and standards, all have a role to play in the delivery of safe, quality support for people with disability. People with disability, their carers and families must have trust and confidence in these systems – that their rights will be upheld, that complaints and disclosures will be taken seriously, and that there will be an appropriate response. We still hear too many unacceptable examples of people’s reports and experiences being downplayed, questioned, or ignored because of their disability[3].

Through the DWRS, the Victorian Government proposes to introduce a consistent Code of Conduct for all disability workers in Victoria, align worker safety screenings, and establish a voluntary register of disability support workers. While there are benefits to harmonising both a Code of Conduct and worker screening, VCOSS is concerned about the rushed timelines for implementation of the worker registration scheme.

The proposed voluntary registration scheme for workers requires more rigorous development prior to implementation. It will not be powerful, effective or meaningful until the value and benefits for people with disability, carers, organisations and the broader community are well defined and understood.

VCOSS members have shared their concerns that:

• the proposal to focus on just two standards in the first registration period from July 2020, without a clear timeline or direction for future standards, is not likely to drive early engagement with the DWRS
• the proposed criminal history registration standard may duplicate existing organisational and regulatory safety checks
• the proposed language skills registration standard is likely to have unintended negative impacts on developing and retaining a culturally-diverse disability workforce, and limiting choice and control for participants from culturally-diverse backgrounds
• if registrations commence with just two standards, and further standards are subsequently added, it is not clear what the consequences would be for early entrants who do not meet the newly-added standards
• the fees to register, which are yet to be defined, may further deter workers from registering with the scheme.

During a time of growing demand for disability support workers, it is important that the introduction of the DWRS plays a positive role in addressing the workforce quality, support and size issues experienced in the sector. The concurrent challenges of the transition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), attracting and retaining staff, delivering training and skill development opportunities, wage and pricing constraints, the increasing casualisation of the workforce, and related state and federally funded workforce initiatives[4] must all be considered through the implementation of the DWRS.

There is huge potential for a well-designed worker registration scheme to create a range of win-win opportunities for people with disability and the workforce alike, from boosting safeguards and promoting human rights and respect, to growing and supporting a valued, skilled and sustainable disability workforce. The register will also collect vital sector data and insights which can be leveraged to inform future planning and investment.

VCOSS recognises that the DWRS:

• is being introduced in a complex environment alongside a range of other regulatory and complaints bodies[5], laws, strategies and frameworks
• precedes a national approach to disability worker registration and the anticipated introduction of Victoria’s NDIS Worker Screening Unit (NDIS WSU) from July 2020[6]
• is likely to evolve over time, as the complex policy landscape continues to shift across disability and intersecting services and systems, including ongoing inquiries and royal commissions
• must be flexible and responsive to the changing environment, and maintain deep connections to a range of stakeholders.

However, VCOSS is concerned the lack of clarity and detail about the implementation of the DWRS in the critical establishment phase will undermine its authority and effectiveness. For the register to achieve its full potential of strengthening safeguards, closing gaps and driving consistency, it must deliver value and drive quality for people with disability, the disability workforce and the broader community. If the value, role and intent of the DWRS is not clearly defined and communicated from the outset, there is a risk it will be perceived as simply another bureaucratic band-aid that attempts to patch the holes created and perpetuated across governments and service systems. If there are too few incentives or benefits that encourage workers to register, and if engagement is low, the DWRS will not deliver greater protections for people with disability as it intends.

Ideally, the introduction of the voluntary worker register would be delayed until critical design issues are thoroughly considered and addressed.  VCOSS recognises that there is limited scope to institute such a delay. Consequently, with the introduction of the scheme just months away, VCOSS urges the DWRS to release a clear plan and phased implementation timeline to mitigate the issues canvassed in this submission.

Summary of recommendations

Scheme design and implementation

• Develop and release a clear plan and phased implementation timeline, or delay the introduction of the voluntary worker register until critical design issues are thoroughly considered and addressed

Code of Conduct for workers

• Adopt the NDIS Code of Conduct as the common code for all disability workers in Victoria
• Boost funding for independent disability advocacy and self-advocacy organisations to assist more people to understand their rights and make a complaint so the Code of Conduct is meaningful
• Ensure complaints are directed to the right place easily and effectively, including referrals to police for alleged criminal acts, through a ‘no wrong door’ approach
• Mandate and monitor comprehensive training on the Code of Conduct for all disability workers in Victoria, including how to refer or make complaints
• Develop and implement a communications and engagement strategy to promote the value of the DWRS, and broad knowledge and understanding of the Code of Conduct
• Monitor, evaluate and publicly report on the nature and frequency of complaints, and use this information to identify and act on systemic trends and issues
• Continue work towards a nationally consistent Code of Conduct, as part of broader national quality, safeguarding and workforce strategies

Prescribed offences

• Align the list of prescribed offences for criminal history screening to the NDIS Worker Screening Check

Proposed registration standards

Introducing the registration scheme

• Ensure the introduction of the worker register is supported by the public release of a detailed implementation plan before July 2020, including a clear and compelling value proposition, the scope and timeline for each registration standard, definitions of divisions, and a fair fee structure
• Mandate or prioritise the registration of workers who provide personal care, behaviour support, therapy and other specialist services, and leadership roles, across all settings, while enabling reasonable choice and control
• Establish information sharing protocols with other relevant safety checks and registers
• Continue to advocate for the development of a national disability worker registration scheme

Registration standards

• Adopt a consistent list of prescribed offences, aligned to the NDIS Worker Screening Check, for worker safety screenings
• Review the scope and intent of the language standard to ensure it is fit for purpose and does not deter or discriminate against workers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds or limit choice and control for participants
• Lead further consultation with the sector to develop the continuing professional development standard with consideration to scope, cost and time implications for the workforce and organisations
• In consultation with the sector, develop a comprehensive workforce framework to underpin a scope of practice standard and provide clear career pathways for the disability workforce
• Continue in-depth engagement and consultation with the sector, training providers and government to progress work towards minimum qualifications for the disability workforce
• Review or remove the proposed standard for mental and physical health to ensure people with lived experience are not deterred from pursuing a career in disability services
• Collect information about professional indemnity insurance as part of the registration process to assess coverage across the disability sector

Code of Conduct for workers

RECOMMENDATION

• Adopt the NDIS Code of Conduct as the common code for all disability workers in Victoria

VCOSS welcomes the introduction of a consistent Code of Conduct for all disability workers in Victoria through the broader adoption of the NDIS Code of Conduct. As identified in the Discussion Paper, an important principle of the use of the NDIS Code is ensuring there are no reductions in obligations and protections for Victorians currently available under the Code of conduct for disability service workers: zero tolerance of abuse of people with a disability (Zero Tolerance Code). The adoption of a common Code of Conduct for registered and unregistered disability support workers has the potential to:

• support safe, high quality service delivery
• drive positive behaviours and organisational cultures
• promote consistency
• reduce regulatory duplication
• minimise disruption and administrative burden.

However, a Code of Conduct is only an effective safeguarding tool if it is well known, widely understood, and actively regulated and enforced. VCOSS members have continually highlighted the inadequacy of existing safety and complaints mechanisms, including:

• limited knowledge and awareness among people with disability and their support networks
• low or varied staff and community understanding
• confusing and inaccessible processes
• insufficient powers to direct action
• conflicts of interest
• lack of analysis to identify systemic issues
• inadequate resources to properly monitor staff and services.

To ensure the statewide adoption of a consistent Code provides effective protections, its implementation must be supported by thorough worker training, investment in independent advocacy, a robust communications strategy, a ‘no wrong door’ approach and a focus on continuous improvement.

The critical role of independent disability advocacy and self-advocacy

RECOMMENDATION

• Boost funding for independent disability advocacy and self-advocacy organisations to assist more people to understand their rights and make a complaint so the Code of Conduct is meaningful

Independent disability advocacy protects and advances the rights and interests of people with disability, and promotes these rights to the wider community. It empowers people with disability and their support network to understand their human and legal rights, communicate their needs and have their needs met[7]. It is an important safeguard to help prevent and report abuse[8].

Disability advocacy and self-advocacy organisations work with people with disability and their support network to learn about and understand:

• their rights and what it means to feel safe
• what types of behaviours are acceptable and unacceptable
• what to do if they receive poor quality services or feel unsafe
• what constitutes violence, abuse and neglect
• how to raise a concern, assert their rights or make a complaint.

The statewide, comprehensive adoption of the Code of Conduct would be stronger and more achievable if supported by additional and ongoing funding for independent disability advocacy and self-advocacy programs. As noted by the Victorian Ombudsman’s reports in 2015, the role of advocacy is particularly important in supporting people who are afraid or face difficulties in raising issues or making complaints[9].

Further investment in a strong and diverse disability advocacy sector would enable advocacy organisations to help raise awareness of the Code and build people’s capacity and confidence to identify issues and report breaches of the Code. Advocates can also play a crucial role in identifying and reporting systemic issues to improve sector practice and help prevent future cases of violence, abuse or neglect.

Disability advocacy organisations are currently swamped with requests for assistance, with many maintaining long waiting lists or closing their books[10]. The Victorian Office for Disability provided a welcome short-term 25 per cent increase in core funding for state-funded disability advocacy organisations for 2018/19 and 2019/20, however, organisations are still unable to meet all requests for assistance.

While we welcome federal[11] and state government funding commitments to extend disability advocacy funding until 2020[12], and to support related sector projects[13], a longer term strategy and funding commitment is required. Significant challenges that have emerged through the roll out of the NDIS, coupled with ongoing and growing requests for assistance, highlight the vital role of disability advocacy in protecting and promoting the rights of people with disability.

We recommend the Victorian Government complements the implementation of the DWRS with funding increases to advocacy organisations to:

• build understanding of and engagement with the DWRS by people with disability, carers and families
• support people to access individual advocacy and self-advocacy programs
• expand advocacy service coverage in regional areas
• ensure tailored, culturally safe services are available for people who may face additional barriers in making a complaint, by investing in support for First Nations people, people from culturally diverse communities, LGBTIQ+ people, women with disability, children and young people.

As the DWRS is being introduced to sit alongside a range of existing feedback and complaints mechanisms in Victoria, it is vital that people with disability are supported to understand its purpose and powers, and we believe disability advocacy organisations are best-placed to deliver this support.

A ‘no wrong door’ approach

RECOMMENDATION

• Ensure complaints are directed to the right place easily and effectively, including referrals to police for alleged criminal acts, through a ‘no wrong door’ approach

We are supportive of the DWRS’s intention to take a ‘no wrong door’ approach to handling complaints[14] to ensure any issues are managed by the most appropriate regulator. It can be confusing for people with disability, families and carers to know who to talk to and where to lodge complaints, and the process itself should not act as a barrier to raising concerns or reporting issues.

We are also pleased to see that the DWRS will receive concerns and complaints raised by people with disability, family members, friends, providers, workers, colleagues and advocates[15]. Enabling everyone to engage with the DWRS will provide broader and stronger protections for people with disability.

Where a complaint relates to an alleged criminal act, it is crucial that the Commissioner facilitates swift and sensitive referrals to the police for further investigation. As identified in the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission’s ‘Beyond Doubt’ report, “the level of crime experienced by people with disabilities both in Victoria and across Australia is substantial. This is in spite of – and sometimes the result of – systems that are designed to provide support and protection”[16]. The DWRS and Victoria Police must work together to ensure people with disability can confidently make complaints and report crimes.

Mandating and monitoring comprehensive training

RECOMMENDATION

• Mandate and monitor comprehensive training on the Code of Conduct for all disability workers in Victoria, including how to refer or make complaints

For the Code of Conduct to be meaningful and help drive safe, quality service provision, all workers need a thorough understanding of their obligations and responsibilities under the Code and the rights of people with disability.

Registered NDIS providers are required to include a training module on the NDIS Code of Conduct in induction for new workers, and encourage existing workers to complete the module as part of their ongoing learning and development[17]. Completing the online orientation module is optional for unregistered providers and their workers, and there is no formal mechanism for informing unregistered providers about their obligations under the Code[18]. These same workforce education challenges are likely to occur through the expansion of the Code to all disability workers in Victoria.

A cursory read of the seven NDIS Code of Conduct standards is not sufficient or substantial enough to ensure disability workers have a thorough and meaningful understanding of the principles in practice, particularly in relation to disability rights and restrictive practice.

To support the effective, broad implementation of a common Code of Conduct, the DWRS in consultation with the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission should develop a mechanism to mandate and monitor disability worker training on the Code. Workers need to feel confident in understanding how the Code informs their practice, and also how they can support people to make complaints or raise concerns themselves. Training initiatives could leverage existing NDIS Code of Conduct materials. Through a joined-up approach, the DWRS and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission could work together to promote participation extensively across the workforce, measure participation rates and connect mandatory completion to the disability worker registration process.

Communications and engagement

RECOMMENDATION

• Develop and implement a communications and engagement strategy to promote the value of the DWRS, and broad knowledge and understanding of the Code of Conduct

The Code of Conduct must go beyond well-meaning ‘feel good’ platitudes to achieve greater impact in practice. Key to the successful implementation of a common Code is educating and empowering people with disability, disability support workers, providers and the broader community about the intent and significance of the Code.

People with disability and their carers need to know the Code exists, understand what it means and feel empowered and safe to make a complaint. The wider community also have an important role to play in the successful implementation of the Code. Cultural change needs to occur across the Australian community that recognises the rights and contributions of people with disability.

In addition to investments in disability advocacy, we recommend the DWRS designs and implements an extensive communications and engagement strategy – co-designed with people with disability and carers – to promote broad knowledge and understanding of the Code, including people’s rights and responsibilities, how to report breaches and how to make complaints.

Information about the Code must be proactively promoted to people with disability, carers and hard to reach communities in a range of accessible formats and tactics. Relying on online communications alone is not sufficient, particularly as people with disability are more likely to experience a lower level of digital inclusion, linked to affordability, accessibility and literacy[19]. Extensive awareness of the Code will be critical to its success as a safeguarding measure.

Monitoring, reporting and systemic trends

RECOMMENDATION

• Monitor, evaluate and publicly report on the nature and frequency of complaints, and use this information to identify and act on systemic trends and issues

Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of compliance with the Code will help to determine its effectiveness, identify trends and systemic issues that require sector-wide preventative action, and drive continuous improvement. Through this approach, the DWRS will be better placed to evolve and adapt to deliver better and more comprehensive protections and initiatives, which may include future amendments to the Code, further worker and community education, expanding the role and powers of the DWRS, or introducing other initiatives.

Annual public reporting on the nature and frequency of complaints and outcomes, breaches of the Code and corrective action undertaken, will increase transparency and confidence in the DWRS and the Code of Conduct. It may also increase compliance with the Code among workers and providers, by increasing awareness of the types of breaches and disciplinary actions undertaken.

National consistency

RECOMMENDATION

• Continue work towards a nationally consistent Code of Conduct, as part of broader national quality, safeguarding and workforce strategies

While we welcome the introduction of greater measures to protect Victorians with disability through the adoption of a common Code of Conduct, inconsistencies across jurisdictions and funding arrangements remain and may limit the effectiveness of the DWRS.

Establishing and promoting rights-based, values-driven cultural change across the disability workforce requires a national approach to standards, practices and behaviours. The National Disability Services Zero Tolerance Framework[20] is an example of how the disability services sector has sought to drive organisational cultural change and improve practices, however further national approaches and consistency are needed.

Alongside the introduction of the DWRS, through its role on the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Disability Reform Council, the Victorian Government should advocate for further national work to extend protections for people with disability. This could include a national Code of Conduct for the disability workforce and a national worker registration scheme.

Prescribed offences

RECOMMENDATION

• Align the list of prescribed offences for criminal history screening to the NDIS Worker Screening Check

VCOSS supports the DWRS’s proposed use of a consistent list of prescribed offences, aligned to the NDIS Worker Screening Check, for both registered and unregistered disability support workers.

The ‘Intergovernmental Agreement on Nationally Consistent Worker Screening for the National Disability Insurance Scheme’ provides a framework for consistent screening of offences for workers who deliver NDIS supports. As per the adoption of the NDIS Code of Conduct, harmonising the list of prescribed offences will reduce duplication, confusion and administrative burden.

Applying the same safety screening list for all workers is welcomed; however, we are concerned that gaps remain in the effective and proactive screening of unregistered disability support workers. Under the proposed regulations, the Commissioner’s powers to investigate and prohibit unregistered workers who have committed prescribed offences is reliant on receiving a complaint or a notification. This approach is too reactive and may present greater safety risks for people who are fearful of raising issues or face barriers in making complaints.

As outlined in the next section of our submission, we suggest the DWRS’s staged implementation includes approaches to mandate or prioritise the registration of workers who provide certain types of support, while enabling people with disability to exercise choice and control in the staff they employ for low-risk supports. In relation to risk, again it is important that people with disability and carers have the opportunity to be part of the conversation about what constitutes low, moderate and high risk.

Proposed registration standards

Introducing the registration scheme

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Ensure the introduction of the worker register is supported by the public release of a detailed implementation plan before July 2020, including a clear and compelling value proposition, the scope and timeline for each registration standard, definitions of divisions, and a fair fee structure
• Mandate or prioritise the registration of workers who provide personal care, behaviour support, therapy and other specialist services, and leadership roles, across all settings, while enabling reasonable choice and control
• Establish information sharing protocols with other relevant safety checks and registers
• Continue to advocate for the development of a national disability worker registration scheme

The DWRS’s introduction of a registration scheme for disability support workers, underpinned by registration standards, presents an opportunity to strengthen safeguards for people with disability, build people’s trust and confidence in choosing support workers, and nurture a strong, skilled and growing disability workforce.

Robust and well-considered registration standards have great potential to improve the quality, safety and professionalism of the disability workforce, and ultimately protect and promote the rights of people with disability. It is important that the value of engaging registered workers is clearly communicated to people with disability, carers and families; and conversely, that disability workers benefit from being registered.

The level of scrutiny and additional opportunities afforded through the implementation of the registration scheme come at a crucial time of rapid growth in the disability workforce, driven by the injection of government funding and the shift to a market-based approach.

As identified in the Consultation Paper, the disability workforce is heavily casualised, ageing and generally lower paid than other care services[21]. Initial projections suggested a workforce of 34,400 to 42,000 full time staff would be needed to deliver the NDIS in Victoria[22]. The disability support workforce has grown 11.1 per cent per year, compared to just 1.6 per cent growth of the overall Australian workforce over the same time period[23]. This significant growth was largely driven by the increasing recruitment of casual workers.

To ensure the disability workforce continues to grow in size, skills and competence, and given the voluntary nature of the Scheme, it is imperative that the proposed registration standards do not deter workers from pursuing a career in disability work or present barriers to registration.

As outlined earlier in this submission, we are concerned that at this stage:

• there is no clear and compelling value proposition for workers to join the register
• there is limited information about the proposed standards and no schedule for their staged implementation
• it is not clear how the introduction of future standards would impact early entrants
• there are no definitions for worker divisions and protected titles
• fee structures have not been determined.

VCOSS members also fear some elements of the proposed standards may inadvertently deter people from some communities and cultures, and people with lived experience, from pursuing a career in disability support. These standards may also contribute to discriminatory practices.

The implementation of the proposed registration standards and related costs must be fully considered and appropriately funded by governments to enable the DWRS to achieve its ultimate intention of delivering safe, quality support for people with disability. The Victorian Government has a responsibility to resource and assist the sector to successfully transition to the DWRS. This includes providing free training and access to recognition of prior learning (RPL) for existing disability workers, ensuring the registration process is not onerous or costly for workers, and advocating for changes to NDIS pricing to support professional development and supervision.

Further consideration should be given to how the DWRS balances safety and risk with choice and control. As recommended in our previous submission regarding the design and operation of the registration scheme[24], we believe there are benefits to mandating or prioritising registration for certain workers or roles, including workers who provide personal care, positive behaviour support, therapeutic support or other specialist knowledge and skills, and disability supervisors, managers and executives. This should be complemented by measures that enable reasonable choice and control for people who self-manage their NDIS funding or privately self-employ support workers.

Across the breadth of the disability workforce, the registration scheme will interact and overlap with a range of other safety checks and professional practice registers, including the Victorian Working With Children Check, the Disability Worker Exclusion Register, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and the Victorian Institute of Teaching. It is important that information sharing protocols are in place between all relevant entities to ensure notifications or complaints relating to violence, abuse, neglect or malpractice are shared appropriately and promptly.

Work must also continue across governments to progress a national disability worker registration scheme. Inquiries by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee[25] and the Victorian Parliament Family and Community Development Committee[26] identified the need for a national disability worker registration scheme. We encourage the Victorian Government to continue advocating in its role on the Disability Reform Council for the development of a national disability worker registration scheme.

We welcome the opportunity to comment on the scope and nature of the proposed registration standards outlined in the Discussion Paper and provide some recommendations for consideration.

Registration standards

Criminal history standard

RECOMMENDATION

• Adopt a consistent list of prescribed offences, aligned to the NDIS Worker Screening Check, for worker safety screenings

As outlined earlier in this submission, VCOSS is supportive of the use of a consistent list of prescribed offences for worker safety screenings. We remain concerned, however, that there are insufficient mechanisms for ensuring all workers are appropriately screened.

We reiterate our recommendation that the DWRS considers priority registration of workers who provide personal care, positive behaviour support, therapeutic support or other specialist knowledge and skills across disability and mainstream settings.

Registering disability workers who deliver these types of supports will ensure a basic level of screening to prevent people who have committed violence, abuse or neglect from continuing to provide disability services.

It is also important that the introduction of the worker register and this standard does not act or appear to absolve providers from their responsibility to thoroughly assess staff, identify and mitigate risks, match workers well to clients or cohorts and deliver safe, quality services.

Language skills standard

RECOMMENDATION

• Review the scope and intent of the language skills standard to ensure it is fit for purpose and does not deter or discriminate against workers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds or limit choice and control for participants

Communication plays a vital role in the delivery of quality, rights-based disability support – from ensuring the goals, needs and interests of people with disability are understood and met, to building rapport and trust, through to essential tasks like administering medication and writing or reading reports.

For disability support workers, good communication extends beyond written and verbal language skills to include observation, active listening, and using assisted or alternative communication. This is especially important for the 1.2 million Australians who have a communication disability that affects how they communicate, interact, engage or understand information[27].

People with disability, like the broader community, are culturally and linguistically diverse; however, evidence shows they are less likely to receive formal supports and services[28]. While 28.4 per cent of Victorians were born overseas and 26 per cent speak a language other than English at home[29], just 10.7 per cent of Victorian NDIS participants are from a culturally or linguistically diverse background[30]. Recent research from Ethnic Communities’ Council Victoria shows language and cultural barriers present as the top issue for many people in accessing disability services[31]. The impact of social expectations and family roles, coupled with the limited availability of culturally appropriate services, means caring responsibilities often fall to women, who may also be juggling multiple caring roles[32].

The DWRS intends to introduce a language standard in the first registration period to collect self-declared information about an applicant’s competency in speaking or communicating in English and other languages. The scope of the self-declaration, and what’s considered to be an adequate level of communication and understanding, is not yet defined, including how this may differ for each registration division. While there is merit in introducing a language standard, given its relevance to medical and reporting tasks, we are concerned about the potential impact of this standard on supporting and growing a culturally diverse workforce.

People from culturally diverse backgrounds and newly arrived communities often experience discrimination and additional barriers through the job seeking process[33]. Close to one in three of workers experienced harassment or discrimination at work in the past year[34].

Data about the diversity of the disability workforce in particular is limited; however, research into the aged care workforce indicates that one in four workers speak a language other than English[35]. Analysis of the 2011 Census also shows 34 per cent of ‘aged and disabled care workers’ and 44 per cent of ‘personal care assistants’ were born outside Australia[36].

Any measures that limit the diversity of the disability workforce are likely to also have detrimental impacts for people with disability from culturally diverse backgrounds, by reducing the market for culturally responsive services and limiting consumer choice. Sharing the same language, observing customs and traditions, understanding preferences regarding the role of family members, and being aware of cultural stigma around disability, entrenched beliefs and power imbalances are all important factors for culturally diverse communities in accessing support services[37].

Research across health and community care sectors highlights the significant value of bi-lingual and bi-cultural workers[38]. Language opens doors to better access to services for people from culturally diverse backgrounds, reduces isolation, and enables stronger social and community connections and participation[39].

There is an opportunity for this standard to take a strengths-based approach by capturing further information about the full range of communication skills and experiences of workers to better support participant choice and control, value the strengths of a diverse workforce, identify gaps and plan for the future. Knowledge of languages other than English, Auslan, and other forms of communication including augmentative and alternative communication strategies and tools, are all skills that would be of interest to both people with disability and employers. Bi-lingual and bi-cultural workers play a crucial role in supporting people with disability and their capabilities and skills should be recognised and rewarded.

Continuing professional development standard

RECOMMENDATION

• Lead further consultation with the sector to develop the continuing professional development standard with consideration to scope, cost and time implications for the workforce and organisations

Ongoing training and professional development is an essential component of maintaining and building the skills, competence and professionalism of the disability workforce. Vocational and workplace training, in both skills and disability rights, have been identified in previous inquiries as playing an important role in supporting workers to recognise and respond to neglect and abuse, and reducing levels of violence, abuse and neglect[40].

Continuing professional development (CPD) builds knowledge and expertise, and paves the way for people to pursue engaging, meaningful careers. CPD can span a range of activities from formal face-to-face training, conferences and seminars, to online modules and on-the-job skill development. CPD standards are common in other service and professional sectors, including health care, nursing, therapy, medical specialists and social work. The standards for each field vary in terms of minimum hours, how the hours align to the role performed, and the mix of activities that constitute CPD.

The Discussion Paper notes that a standard for CPD will not be set in the first registration period, however a 10 hour CPD requirement may be introduced in further iterations. VCOSS supports the introduction of 10 hours of CPD as a starting point, however the scope of this standard needs to be more clearly defined. We recommend that essential safety training, like first aid and CPR, is excluded from the 10 hour minimum which could too easily be absorbed by a single day of training. The number of CPD hours should also scale up in relation to the role or division of a worker.

Given the highly casualised nature of disability support work and the low wage rates[41], the cost and time implications of a CPD standard must be carefully considered to reduce the financial burden for workers seeking to enter the workforce or progress their career. The growth of the gig economy, including online platforms to directly hire workers, opens up flexibility and choice for people with disability and the workforce. However, in the context of a CPD standard, it is not clear who would be responsible for funding, delivering and monitoring training and development for these workers.

Workforce development is the primary concern of disability services providers[42]. While most CPD activities are delivered or coordinated by providers, many report challenges in providing sufficient and effective professional development in the current funding environment. More than three-quarters of NDIS providers fear they will not be able to deliver services within current pricing structures, which do not adequately reflect the cost of quality service delivery or consider administrative and professional development costs[43]. There are fears that the disconnect between NDIS pricing and the reality of delivering services threatens the sustainability of services[44], which may have the flow-on effect of limiting the choices available to people with disability.

Many organisations continue to deliver training programs in isolation and, as a result, duplication and inconsistencies can occur across the sector. The costs for organisations to provide professional development and mentoring, in addition to the need to backfill staff while they learn, needs to be considered and adequately resourced. There is an opportunity for governments and providers to work together to coordinate and fund disability workforce training and professional development. Projects and pilots funded by state and federal governments should be evaluated and, where successful, expanded to reduce duplication, build on best practice, and create consistency.

As identified by the Victorian Parliament’s report, ongoing professional development is “a critical component of the statewide prevention and risk management disability workforce strategy. The sector requires leadership and collaboration to develop a coherent, practical and tailored suite of training packages and modules to ensure a high standard of professional development”[45]. The Senate’s report echoed similar sentiments in its recommendations for national consistency in disability worker training[46].

Experience and scope of practice standards

RECOMMENDATIONS

• In consultation with the sector, develop a comprehensive workforce framework to underpin a scope of practice standard and provide clear career pathways for the disability workforce
• Continue in-depth engagement and consultation with the sector, training providers and government to progress work towards minimum qualifications for the disability workforce

While a standard for experience or scope of practice will not be introduced in the first registration period, the DWRS will collect information about worker experience, training, qualifications and scope of practice. Based on this information, the DWRS will register workers under one of two different categories, called divisions, which relate to their professional competency[47].

Currently anyone can call themselves a disability support worker, and a person with disability, carer or member of the public has no easy way to determine whether a particular worker has the right skills or knowledge to provide certain supports. While the DWRS proposes to introduce two divisions – ‘disability support worker’ and ‘disability practitioner’ – and protected titles, there is insufficient detail about their definition at this point in time including what the suitable qualifications or training for these roles would be and progression pathways. Research from the Department of Social Services shows around 71 per cent of newly created jobs in disability support are expected to be support worker roles, 12 per cent allied health service roles, 11 per cent case worker roles and 6 per cent managerial roles[48].

The current lack of career paths in the sector may contribute to a loss of workers to the public sector and other industries, which the sector simply cannot afford if it is to grow to meet demand. While some frontline workers may be promoted to leadership positions, there are often limited opportunities for promotion and development.

Further in-depth engagement with the sector is required to develop a comprehensive workforce framework to underpin the DWRS standards and provide clear career pathways for the disability workforce. This work should be integrated with national approaches, including the NDIS Capability Framework currently in development, which will set out behaviours, core capabilities, complementary capabilities for specialist roles, and develop a range of tools and resources[49].

Survey data from National Disability Services shows Victoria has the highest level of qualified workers across the country, with 30 per cent of new workers having formal qualifications[50]. VCOSS members have a diverse range of views on minimum qualifications and value the choice and control of people with disability to select the workers who best match their needs. The quality of disability qualifications also varies substantially. However, we believe that a gradual transition to minimum qualifications, coupled with improvements to the accessibility and quality of courses, would work to lift service standards and safety across the sector and boost the value and respect of the disability workforce.

Part of the transition to minimum qualifications could include a stronger focus on funded and consistent minimum training. For example, the Course in Introduction to the NDIS (22469VIC) is a 40-hour course that was developed in consultation with the sector to provide an introduction to working in the field and a pathway into further studies[51]. Providers of this course use the same fully developed content and assessment resources, which works to drive consistency, reduce duplication and remove the costs of course development. There are currently other courses under development for the disability sector through a similar approach. The skills gained through these courses and the workers experience, coupled with consistent guidelines recognition of prior learning (RPL), could support the transition to minimum qualifications. The costs to participate in each course must be carefully considered and funded by governments to boost participation, in the same way the Victorian Government continues to invest in free TAFE for priority courses.

Funding constraints on service providers and the low pay of workers are important considerations in relation to the introduction of an experience or scope of practice standard that includes minimum qualifications. It is important that any training or development measures assist to boost the workforce and attract people to the sector, and that they do not unintentionally stifle workforce growth by driving people to enter similar sectors that do not have such requirements.

As part of a sector-wide approach, the Victorian Government and the DWRS should work closely with training providers, service providers and service users to deeply understand the opportunities and the challenges in introducing minimum qualifications, including course content, provisions for RPL, work placement requirements and availability, the financial impact on the workforce, and developments in similar sectors, including aged care.

In its role on the Disability Reform Council, we also encourage the Victorian Government to advocate for NDIS pricing that delivers fair pay for workers aligned to their skills and experiences, and reflects organisational costs to provide ongoing training and professional development that boosts the quality and skills of the workforce.

Some state-based work is already underway through the Victorian Government’s ‘Keeping our sector strong’ workforce plan and nationally through the Australian Government’s ‘Growing the NDIS Market and Workforce’ strategy. Through a range of ongoing inquiries and royal commissions into disability, aged care and mental health, there may also be related recommendations regarding training and qualifications for health and community care.

We encourage the DWRS to actively contribute to conversations across the sector and government in relation to training, qualifications and scope of practice as part of a collaborative approach to lifting service quality across the sector, and providing greater protection for both people with disability and disability workers. The information collected through the register about the current levels of experience, training and qualifications will be an invaluable asset in planning for the disability workforce of the future.

Physical and mental health

RECOMMENDATION

• Review or remove proposed standard for mental and physical health to ensure people with lived experience are not deterred from pursuing a career in disability services

While a standard for physical and mental health will not be introduced in the first registration period of the DWRS, we are concerned about the perception and potential impact of this standard on the workforce, particularly the peer workforce of people with lived experience of disability or psychosocial disability.

The Discussion Paper notes that applicants will be asked to declare “any impairment they have that may detrimentally impact on their ability to safely deliver disability services”[52]. The impact of an impairment in delivering safe support is largely role and context-specific, and we do not believe it is appropriate for determination through worker registration.

One in five Australian workers are currently experiencing a mental health condition[53], and 45 per cent of Australians will experience a mental health condition in their lifetime[54]. Mental health can influence employment experiences in many ways, from discrimination through recruitment processes and on the job[55], to the personal and financial impacts of work-related stress[56] and occupational violence.

Significant and sustained work continues across community and government to raise awareness of mental health and reduce stigma, from high profile public campaigns like RUOK? Day to workplace focused initiatives like Heads Up[57]. There is growing evidence and support for consumer-led and driven services, particularly in the mental health space, which is explored in the interim report for the Royal Commission into Victoria’s mental health system.

“Recurrent themes in both the literature and the evaluations are that these services improve consumer experiences and outcomes by instilling feelings of hope, self-determination, responsibility for self and personal empowerment. Feeling welcomed, understood and connected to people who have been on a similar journey are also commonly cited.”[58]

People with disability and mental health conditions should be encouraged to share the value of their lived experiences through meaningful careers in disability services. We are concerned the introduction of this standard may have unintended consequences in perpetuating the disadvantage experienced by people with disability and mental health conditions in finding and maintaining employment, and we urge the DWRS to reconsider the scope and purpose of this standard.

While collecting data about the physical and mental health of workers could be beneficial for workforce planning and support, this information could also be gathered through other de-identified means such as a sector-wide census.

Professional indemnity insurance

RECOMMENDATION

• Collect information about professional indemnity insurance as part of the registration process to assess coverage across the disability sector

In the disability workforce, professional indemnity insurance is often covered by service providers. Under the NDIS Terms of Business, registered providers and registered sole traders are required to maintain an adequate level of professional indemnity and public liability insurance[59]. NDIS participants who self-manage their funding and directly employ staff also must have insurance in place[60].

Allied health professionals are required to have professional indemnity insurance as part of their registration[61]. Some unions spanning health and community services[62] and allied health[63] also include professional indemnity insurance as part of their membership.

In the first registration period, the collection of information about insurance would provide a clearer picture of coverage, complexities and costs – all of which could inform the future development of a registration standard.

[1] http://empoweredlives.vcoss.org.au/

[2] Victorian Ombudsman, Reporting and investigation of allegations of abuse in the disability sector: Phase 1 – the effectiveness of statutory oversight, June 2015; Australian Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee, Violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings…, Final report, November 2015; Victorian Ombudsman, Reporting and investigation of allegations of abuse in the disability sector: Phase 2 – incident reporting, December 2015; Parliament of Victoria Family and Community Development Committee, Inquiry into abuse in disability services, Final report, May 2016.

[3] Australian Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee, Violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings…, Final report, 2015, p.155; VEOHRC, Beyond doubt: The experiences of people with disabilities reporting crime – Research findings, 2014, p.43.

[4] Department of Social Services Jobs and Market Fund 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, Innovative Workforce Fund 2017-2018, Boosting the Local Care Workforce Program including NDIS Transition Assistance Funding; National Disability Insurance Agency Information Linkages and Capacity Building Grants; Victorian Government Transition Support Package, Victorian Regional Readiness Fund.

[5] Victorian Ombudsman, Disability services complaints, www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/Complaints/What-We-Can-and-Cannot-Investigate/Disability-service-complaints, accessed 16 January 2020.

[6] NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, Worker Screening Requirements (Employees of Registered NDIS Providers), www.ndiscommission.gov.au/workers/worker-screening-workers#02, accessed 12 February 2020.

[7] Disability Advocacy Resource Unit, What is disability advocacy?, www.daru.org.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/What-is-disability-advocacy_final-June-2016.pdf, accessed 12 February 2020.

[8] VCOSS, Submission to the Victorian Parliament’s Inquiry into Abuse in Disability Services: Stage 2, November 2015.

[9] Victorian Ombudsman, Reporting and investigation of allegations of abuse in the disability sector: Phase 1 – the effectiveness of statutory oversight, June 2015, p. 86; Victorian Ombudsman, Reporting and investigation of allegations of abuse in the disability sector: Phase 2 – incident reporting, December 2015, p.18.

[10] Strengthening Disability Advocacy Conference 2019, Advocacy under pressure, 2 September 2019, www.daru.org.au/conference-session/opening-address-3, accessed 12 February 2020.

[11] Hon Christian Porter, Media release: Turnbull Government investing $60 million in disability advocacy, 9 August 2017.

[12] Hon Martin Foley, Media release: Expanding Disability Advocacy Across Victoria, 5 September 2018.

[13] Hon Luke Donellan, Media release: Speaking Up For Victorians With Disability, 16 January 2019; Media release: New Funding To Strengthen Disability Rights, 16 July 2019.

[14] Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, Disability Worker Regulation Scheme proposed regulations –

Consultation paper, December 2019, p.10.

[15] Ibid, p.9.

[16] VEOHRC, Beyond doubt: The experiences of people with disabilities reporting crime – Research findings, 2014.

[17] NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, Worker orientation module ‘Quality, Safety and You’, www.ndiscommission.gov.au/workers/training-course, accessed 14 January 2020.

[18] Department of Social Services, NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework, 9 December 2016, p.58.

[19] Centre for Social Impact, Measuring Australia’s Digital Divide: Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2019, p. 6; G Goggin, S Hollier & W Hawkins, Internet accessibility and disability policy: lessons for digital inclusion and equality from Australia, Internet Policy Review, 6(1), 2017.

[20] National Disability Services, Zero Tolerance Framework, www.nds.org.au/resources/zero-tolerance, accessed 16 January 2020.

[21] Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, Disability Worker Regulation Scheme proposed regulations –

Consultation paper, December 2019.

[22] NDIS, Market Position Statement, April 2016.

[23] National Disability Services, Australian Disability Workforce Report, February 2018.

[24] VCOSS, A high quality disability workforce: VCOSS submission to registration and accreditation consultation paper, October 2017.

[25] Australian Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee, Violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings…, Final report, November 2015, Recommendation 2 and 4.

[26] Parliament of Victoria Family and Community Development Committee, Inquiry into abuse in disability services, Final report, May 2016, p.111-125.

[27] Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4430.0 – Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings, 2015

[28] Settlement Services International, Still outside the tent: Cultural diversity and disability in a time of reform – a rapid review of evidence, October 2018.

[29] Victorian Government, Discover Victoria’s diverse population, www.vic.gov.au/discover-victorias-diverse-population, accessed 11 February 2020.

[30] NDIA, Victoria Quarterly Performance Dashboard, December 2019.

[31] Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria, ‘It’s Everybody’s Business’ – Multicultural Community Perspectives on Disability and the NDIS, June 2019.

[32] R Aryal, Dealing with it myself: Supporting Immigrant and Refugee Carers in Australia, Multicultural Centre for Women’s Health, 2017.

[33] FECCA, Multicultural Access and Equity: Building a cohesive society through responsive services, 2015; FECCA, Fact sheet: Employment issues facing CALD communities; A Kosny, I Santos & A Reid, Employment in a “Land of Opportunity?” Immigrants’ Experiences of Racism and Discrimination in the Australian Workplace, Journal of International Migration and Integration, Vol. 18(2), May 2017, p.483-497.

[34] Diversity Council of Australia, Inclusion at Work Index 2019, www.dca.org.au/inclusion-at-work-index, accessed 11 February 2020.

[35] D King, K Mavromaras, B He et. al., The Aged Care Workforce 2012: Final report, 2013.

[36] E Adamson, N Cortis, D Brenna, S Charlesworth, Social Care and migration policy in Australia: Emerging intersections?, Australian Journal of Social Issues, Volume 52, Issue 1, March 2017.

[37] KJ Heneker, G Zizzo, M Awata, I Goodwin-Smith, Engaging Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Australian Centre for Community Services Research, Flinders University, Adelaide, 2017, p.59-71; S Feldman and H Radermacher, Emerging Ageing Project – Literature Review, Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria, August 2017, p.18-20.

[38] FECCA, Australia’s bilingual and bicultural workforce, 2017.

[39] Feldman and H Radermacher, Emerging Ageing Project – Literature Review, Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria, August 2017, p.15-16.

[40] Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee, Violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings…, November 2015.

[41] Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, Disability Worker Regulation Scheme proposed regulations – Consultation paper, December 2019, p.7.

[42] G Carey, M Weier, E Malbon, G Duff & H Dickinson, How is the Disability sector faring? A report from National Disability Services’ Annual Market Survey, February 2020, p.28.

[43] National Disability Services, State of the Disability Sector Report, November 2019.

[44] G Carey, M Weier, E Malbon, G Duff & H Dickinson, How is the Disability sector faring? A report from National Disability Services’ Annual Market Survey, February 2020, p.22-24.

[45] Parliament of Victoria Family and Community Development Committee, Inquiry into abuse in disability services, Final report, May 2016, p.138.

[46] Australian Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee, Violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings…, Final report, November 2015, Recommendation 3.

[47] Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, Disability Worker Regulation Scheme proposed registration standards

Consultation paper, December 2019, p.2.

[48] Department of Social Services, Growing the NDIS Market and Workforce, 2019, p.15.

[49] Department of Social Services, Growing the NDIS Market and Workforce, 2019, p.16.

[50] National Disability Services, Australian Disability Workforce Report 3^rd Edition, July 2018, p.20.

[51] RMIT, Course in Introduction to the National Disability Insurance Scheme – 222469VIC, www.rmit.edu.au/study-with-us/levels-of-study/vocational-study/certificates/course-in-introduction-to-the-national-disability-insurance-scheme-c0047, accessed 12 February 2020.

[52] Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, Disability Worker Regulation Scheme proposed registration standards

Consultation paper, December 2019, p.6.

[53] TNS and Beyond Blue, State of Workplace Mental Health in Australia, 2014.

[54] ABS, 4326.0 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Summary of Results, 2017.

[55] Reavley N, People with a mental illness discriminated against when looking for work and when employed, The Conversation, 4 February 2016, www.theconversation.com/people-with-a-mental-illness-discriminated-against-when-looking-for-work-and-when-employed-52864, accessed on 11 February 2020.

[56] TNS and Beyond Blue, State of Workplace Mental Health in Australia, 2014; National Mental Health Commission, Creating a mentally healthy workplace: return on investment analysis, March 2014.

[57] Beyond Blue and Mentally Healthy Workplace Alliance, Heads Up, www.headsup.org.au, accessed on 11 February 2020.

[58] State of Victoria, Royal Commission into Victoria’s mental health system: Interim report, November 2019, p.498.

[59] NDIA, Terms of Business for Registered Providers, March 2017, p.3.

[60] NDIA, Self-Management Guide, p.10.

[61] AHPRA and National Boards, Professional indemnity insurance arrangements, www.ahpra.gov.au/Registration/Registration-Standards/PII.aspx, accessed 12 February 2020.

[62] Health and Community Services Union, Member benefits, www.hacsu.asn.au/Member-Benefits~26, accessed 12 February 2020.

[63] Victorian Allied Health Professionals Association, Professional indemnity insurance, www.vahpa.asn.au/member-benefits/insurance, accessed 12 February 2020.

Download

This submission has been produced by the Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS) in partnership with the:

• Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS)
• Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service (ACTCOSS)
• New South Wales Council of Social Service (NCOSS)
• Northern Territory Council of Social Service (NTCOSS)
• Queensland Council of Social Service (QCOSS)
• South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS)
• Tasmanian Council of Social Service (TasCOSS)
• Western Australian Council of Social Service (WACOSS)

The nine Councils of Social Service are the respective National, State and Territory peak bodies of the community services sector and a voice for the needs of people affected by poverty and inequality.

These findings turn on its head any perception that the community sector is a cost to society. Rather it is a key asset.

The sector is made up of a vast range of organisations, both in terms of their size, and the services they provide. They also generate income from a wide range of sources. These organisations face a myriad of reporting requirements, which in many cases are becoming ever more complex, time-consuming and costly.

This report details the economic contribution of Victoria’s community sector charities, analysing the data these organisations have provided to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission (ACNC) in 2014 Annual Information Statements. It also details the reporting burden being borne by organisations. In the future many of these reporting obligation issues could be addressed through state and Commonwealth governments working together with the community sector to streamline reporting and accountability mechanisms.

Key findings

• Victoria’s community sector charities form an $11 billion industry.
• Victoria’s community sector charities draw on a diverse range of funding sources, with just over half their income (54%) derived from sources other than government funding, including donations, bequests and other revenue generation activities.
• Just over half (52%) of Victoria’s community sector charities receive income from government grants and the vast majority (86%) generate income from other revenue sources (including service fees and charges).
• Employee expenses make up the majority (54%) of community sector charities’ expenses.
• The majority of community sector charities operate balanced budgets (68%). A further 21% operate surplus budgets.
• Victoria’s community sector charities employ 134,958 workers across the state.
• Almost a quarter (22%) of community sector workers are employed casually, and therefore face an insecure employment situation.
• Victoria’s community sector charities make a strong economic contribution in regional areas, and provide significant employment in these areas.
• ACNC and case study data show Victorian community sector charities face a range of reporting and compliance challenges including:
  • Spending on average 291 paid staff hours and 47 unpaid hours a year reporting to either Commonwealth or state government agencies.
  • Large organisations on average spending 523 paid staff hours and 80 unpaid hours on reporting obligations.
  • Social services and other health service delivery subsectors spending the most time and bearing the greatest cost meeting reporting obligations, spending far more time and money meeting reporting obligations than, for example, the aged care subsector, despite having far lower annual incomes than the aged care subsector.
  • Spending an estimated $23 million across the sector to fulfil reporting obligations.
  • Multiple and duplicated reporting and auditing requirements.
  • Inconsistent auditing requirements of the same standards from different funding bodies.
  • Being required to provide information to funding bodies that is irrelevant to service quality improvement and delivery.
  • Financial reporting requirements that do not equate to the level of funding or the risk associated.
  • Inconsistency in funding acquittals and reporting formats.
  • Inconsistency in definitions between funding streams.
  • Frequent changes in reporting requirements.