TasCOSS Newsletter August 2014

TasCOS S

from page 5

cont: page 6

Tasmanian Council of Social Service

Newsletter

August 2014

Tim Tabart TasCOSS Sector Development Unit

McClure Welfare Review Reading between the lines, p 7 Disability rights in Australia, p 4 Transport solutions for Tasmania, p 11

Engaging with client-directed care, p 15

TasCOSS News August 2014

Vale Cecily Gilson

Contents 3

T

asCOSS Life Member Cecily Gilson died on 24 July, aged 89. Cecily became involved with TasCOSS when, in 1973, TasCOSS supported her to set up a Citizens Advice Bureau in Clarence.

From the CEO

4 Disability in Australia: 2014 Dorothy Pearce Address

7

She went on to be a member of the TasCOSS executive for many years, as well as being involved in mothers’ clubs, parents and friends, Neighbourhood Watch and various environmental and overseas aid organisations in a full life of work (as a draftsperson), marriage, motherhood and community service.

The McClure Welfare Review

11

TasCOSS transport project findings

14

Full retail electricity competition

15

Engaging with client-directed care

17

In the TasCOSS 50th anniversary newsletter, in 2011, Cecily recalled:

Recognition for Hobart Women’s Shelter

“In its early days when I first ‘met’ TASCOSS, the organisation had no permanent office, no money, no paid staff, and board meetings were held wherever they could be. As for accommodation, it consisted

18 DHHS outcomes reporting progress

Advertising and insert rates 2014

of vacant space in unused buildings we were allowed to use rent free, some needed much cleaning before the move in.”

“It makes me very happy to see TasCOSS now, its professionalism, dedication, optimism, co-operation and knowledge.”

Cecily was named Tasmanian Senior of the Year in 2001.

TasCOSS Conference early bird

Advertising (exc GST) Members

Non Members

Full

$70

$110

Half

$40

$70

Quarter $25

$40

Inserts (exc GST) Members

Non Members

$85

$130

Editor: Gabrielle Rish gabrielle@tascoss.org.au Phone: (03) 6231 0755

2

T

he 2014 TasCOSS Conference will be held on 13-14 November at the C3 Convention Centre, South Hobart.

We have chosen the theme “Navigating a changing environment” for the conference.

One of the chief architects of the changed environment for community services organisations and their clients is Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews,

who will speak at the conference.

The conference program will offer workshops on good practice and advocacy, networking opportunities, information, inspiration and even a bit of relaxation.

Early bird registration is available until 26 September. See the TasCOSS website for details.

From the CEO

The State Budget indicators are that the community sector will have to do more with less in a changing service delivery environment

T

he Hodgman Government’s first State Budget was handed down on 28 August, just one day before this newsletter went to press.

Our first impressions are that Premier Will Hodgman has largely delivered on his election promises to the community sector, and the vulnerable and low-income people it supports.

TasCOSS has had an ongoing conversation with the Liberals, both when they were in opposition and now in government, about the state’s level of disadvantage and poor social indicators in areas such as health and education.

We are pleased that the Government has recognised the importance of supporting those Tasmanians who are struggling by largely quarantining this area from spending cuts this year.

The State Budget has some good spending initiatives in the areas of health, education – including the $134 million of extra school funding for the Gonski reforms over six years, disability, mental health, housing and employment.

The State Budget is also making up the $9 million-a-year shortfall caused by the Federal Government axing its partnership on concessions for pensioners and Seniors Card holders.

The support of people living with disadvantage in Tasmania is all the more crucial given the Federal Government’s spending cuts and moves to reduce income support payments.

However, TasCOSS is concerned that the State Budget flags the requirement for significant savings across community services over the full four years of forward projections.

Tony Reidy TasCOSS Chief Executive

And while Department of Health and Human Services funding for frontline work has been maintained in 2014-15, the Budget papers say there will be a review this year of all non-direct services within and funded by DHHS. This puts a question mark over the fate of work focused on capacity building in the community services sector, policy development, advocacy and community development.

In terms of DHHS grants to community service organisations, the

... Premier Will Hodgman has largely delivered on his election promises to the community sector, and the vulnerable and low-income people it supports.

State Budget allocates an additional and very welcome $9 million over four years to help make up for the reduction in grant indexation since 2011, with indexation to remain at 2.25 per cent per annum.

Unfortunately, as Human Services Minister Jacquie Petrusma told the TasCOSS Budget Day briefing for the community sector, the extra grants funding won’t assist organisations funded by the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

Ms Petrusma told the briefing, which more than 80 people attended, that the $9 million a year would be distributed pro rata, based on current grants, and that there would be no further supplements to indexation once it had been expended.

The community sector is already struggling to meet demand and we know that demand for services will climb even higher if the Federal Budget welfare cuts pass the Senate.

TasCOSS will continue to work with the State Government for recognition of the need to fund community service organisations at levels that recognise the true cost of providing services, including overheads and the cost of innovation to adapt successfully to a changing service delivery environment.

The TasCOSS 2014 Conference, to be held on 13-14 November in Hobart, has the theme of “Navigating a Changing Environment” as the sector faces major service delivery and funding changes.

These changes include the growth of consumer-directed care and funding attached to individuals, rather than programs, the planned advent of “joined-up” human services in Tasmania and the philosophical change in approach to community services and charity at the federal level.

Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews, who is overseeing that philosophical change, will be a speaker on the first morning of the TasCOSS Conference.

3

Disability rights: a journey

The NDIS has the potential to take Australia from keeping people with disability hidden away to true inclusion

F

or centuries people with disabilities were viewed as poor helpless cripples, blind beggars, dumb idiots.

For centuries they were outcasts, denied recognition as human beings. People with disabilities were cast out from families, or hidden behind closed doors and curtains for fear that they would bring shame and cause the family to be ostracised.

In the mid-20th century, in part in response to the worldwide polio epidemic, a solution was put in place to get the crippled beggars off the streets and into a safe, secure environment.

This solution was the development of charity/welfare institutions where children went early in life – to live, to go to school, to work and to die.

These institutions were often parent-driven with the best of intentions: parents wanted to keep their children safe from harm; they wanted their children to be looked after.

But because institutions in the 1950s provided a birth-to-death service, they became places that kept people with disabilities out of sight and out of mind, separate from the mainstream communities.

NDIS facts and figures At end third quarter 2013-14: 6500 people deemed eligible 5400 tailored plans approved Average package costs $32,000 (lower than recommended $35,000) Trials in every state of Australia, except Queensland, which will start in 2016

4

Rhonda Galbally National Disability Insurance Agency Board member and NDIS advisory group deputy chair

These institutions looked after children right through to adult life and adults with a disability were seen as vulnerable, weak, unable to make decisions or take responsibility for themselves.

In the late 1960s the disability rights movement started in the USA, generated by the Vietnam veterans coming back from an unpopular war, many with multiple and profound disabilities, both physical and mental.

The vets refused to be put away into the American equivalent of our institutions.

These were grown men who had tasted life before the war. They were very different from those who were institutionalised from a young age.

Independent living

The Vietnam vets brought disability out of the closet and into the streets. They began to demand rights that had never been thought about for disabled people before, much less acted on.

The context for the Vietnam vets and their struggle for disability rights in the USA also included western liberation movements such as women’s liberation, sexual revolution, gay liberation and youth liberation.

By the mid-1970s, Australia had connected to the US independent living movement and our own disability rights movement took off, led by a small group of people with disabilities, supported by a contingent of social workers.

Social work by then had moved from a charitable individualised approach to community de-

velopment, advocacy and a sophisticated understanding of the impact of external structures and systems and their need to include people.

I inadvertently joined the disability rights movement when I began working at a council of social service, VCOSS, in 1979.

Nothing about us without us

I was sitting at my desk preparing a policy paper on housing for disadvantaged groups when the phone rang.

There was a slurred, angry voice on the phone. Sounding drunk, Hal Fitzpatrick presumed to challenge me.

“What do you think you’re doing, designing a housing policy for disabled people?” he demanded.

“What do you mean?” I snapped back. “This is my job, I’ve researched everything.”

Hal took a long breath: “Who do you think you are, deciding for us what we want for our housing policy?”

“Who is this ‘us’?” I asked. “What are you talking about?”

I soon found out that ‘Us’ was a group of disability rights activists who wheeled, swayed, or felt their way into my office with white sticks, wheelchairs and guide dogs. They were a feisty lot, but most of all they were all disabled, like me.

The work of the Australian disability rights movement in the early ‘80s was first and foremost to fight for deinstitutionalisation.

By providing everything people with disabilities needed in a

The self-help movement challenged the assumption of professionals knowing best.

So when people with disabilities were occasionally seen outside the institutional walls, they were seen as odd, strange, not quite human.

Anti-discrimination legislation was enacted, the Human Rights Commission was established and there were landmark cases about transport and the built environment.

Institutions also meant that external handicaps such as inaccessible buildings, streets and transport could be ignored because the whole of life was part of a specialised closed set of services.

Institutions were medically dominated, meaning the body came first – medical needs first, education second. Work and life came third.

The disability was seen as within the person, so that the goal became to attempt to change the body as much as possible, rather than putting effort into changing the external environment so that different bodies and minds could be part of society.

Lack of participation in the mainstream, such as in education, meant that future employers and fellow workers had no experience of anyone disabled, so automatically discriminated.

The medical model also carried with it an attempt at protection.

Institutions kept people with disabilities with their own kind to protect them from life’s struggles and challenges.

Risk-free institutions led to the major risk of not being able to live a life.

The disability rights movement constructed a social model of disability, where participating in society was more important than medical approaches.

And there were many wins in the early 1980s, such as a successful challenge to the Miss Australia quest and telethons featuring crippled children.

Disability leaders went on service boards and the Hawke Federal Government adopted a policy of deinstitutionalisation.

TasCOSS News August 2014

closed community, the outside world did not have to think about disability.

Going backwards

But then came a decline of the disability rights movement in the 1990s.

We allowed successive governments and ministers to ignore disability.

We allowed what had been thought of as exciting new housing models such as group homes to become mini institutions – too many beds, locked fridges, locked doors, no choice as to who you lived with.

We allowed ghettos of cluster housing.

We allowed growth in some states of special schools despite research into mainstream being best for educational outcomes.

We allowed a discourse of antileadership, formulated as “Oh, they can speak out because they’re not severely disabled”.

And, most of all, we allowed a completely inaccessible mainstream environment to continue – housing, schools transport etc.

A carers’ rights movement grew, separate from the disability rights movement, with a negative discourse of burden and parents’ lives ruined by the need to look after their disabled children.

NDIS promise

In 2008 the National Disability and Carers Council was formed, representing every part of the sector, plus business, and produced the Shut Out report (2009). The report, based on as an Australia-wide consultation, found that every part of the disability service and mainstream systems was failing people with disabilities and their families.

For example, there was a failure to get enough early intervention at the right time.

Disability advocate Rhonda Galbally delivering the 2014 Dorothy Pearce Address on 17 July.

In education, the mainstream schools were rejecting children with disabilities.

I met adults with disabilities who wept with frustration and shame because they could not read or write. They had the ability to learn to read but school had not taught them because of low expectations.

There was a lack of support for transition from education to work and discrimination by employers, resulting in the current high unemployment rate for people with disabilities.

There were lifetime waiting lists for support services, or inadequate support that kept people on a drip feed of a lifetime of misery.

cont: page 6

5

TasCOSS News August 2014

Projections showed that over the next 70 years the growth in the group of people with a severe disability would be between two and three times population growth as a whole.

At the same time the number of unpaid carers was declining markedly.

Then, in 2007, came the idea for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

For the first time in this country, Carers Australia, the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations and National Disability Services formed an alliance to campaign for such a scheme.

A Productivity Commission report in 2010-2011 recommended a national disability insurance scheme.

The NDIS concept generated enormous public support and so managed to mobilise the community’s support for one of the most disadvantaged groups in Australia.

Implementation

Now the focus is on implementation. Critical to this will be a new culture of learning within a sustainable insurance framework.

There will be lessons to be learnt at every step of the process, as

data is collected and analysed.

The NDIS puts people with disability and families at the centre.

It allows individuals to exercise choice and control in pursuing goals, planning and delivery of supports.

Individuals, not service providers, receive funding.

Each person can determine how much control they want over the management of their funding, supports and providers.

The NDIS Act’s principles are independence and community inclusion.

Critical to choice and control becoming a reality are issues of supply and demand.

Developing supply options that support independence and genuine community inclusion requires a supply of new models of: Housing • Where people can choose who they live with and how to live.

• With reasonable risk, commensurate with an expectation of adult life.

Supply of work • Where people no longer work in closed sheltered employment systems.

• All Australian Disability Enterprises to transition to new models.

• Integrated workforce.

• Transition to open employment.

Supply of recreation • In community settings.

• In the arts.

• In sports.

Unless supply can be transformed people will continue to live, work and take recreation in closed system services.

This will mean that mainstream systems continue to exclude people with disabilities from buildings, transport systems, schools, sports and arts, jobs, health and housing.

On the demand side, people with disabilities need to be supported, mentored and inspired to demand options that optimise independence, self-management and integration with the mainstream community.

If this demand isn’t supported, the NDIS will not have the transformational effects reflected in the Act. People’s potential will remain unfulfilled.

Specialist services will expand, allowing the mainstream to continue to exclude people with disabilities.

For choice and control to become a reality we must see support for people with disabilities to choose mainstream services.

And there must be support for people with disabilities and families to try new options, to take reasonable risks and choose to live lives that encourage more independence in the community.

This article is based on the speech notes for the 2014 Dorothy Pearce Address, Disability rights in Australia: Where have we been, where are we now and where are we going?, delivered in Hobart on 17 July 2014.

6

Welfare under interrogation The McClure Review of Australia’s Welfare System evokes concepts of bludgers and the deserving poor

T

his year has seen the Federal Government establish a Commission of Audit and deliver a Budget with a firm focus on cutting funding from welfare and introducing harsher conditions associated with income support.

Following, rather than preceding and informing these moves, has been a review of the welfare system, commissioned by Minister for Social Services Kevin Andrews and led by Patrick McClure.

The McClure review is examining all payments and services available to people of working age, the purpose being to propose reforms to the social support system designed to maximise employment outcomes.

An interim report was released in late June 2014 followed by a brief period of consultation.

This isn’t the first and probably won’t be the last time that there has been a review of the welfare system, or elements of that system. Handily, McClure himself was commissioned by a previous Coalition federal government in 2000 to review the same topic, resulting in the report Participation Support for a More Equitable Society.

The Henry Tax Review canvassed a number of areas relating to the welfare system, the Harmer Review of pensions in 2009/10 and numerous Senate reviews and Productivity Commission reports have also contributed recommendations and policy solutions to the challenges of maintaining a robust social safety net within budgetary constraints.

A strength of the McClure Interim Report is that it draws on these previous endeavours and references their work.

Meg Webb TasCOSS Deputy Chief Executive

However, questions remain on the extent to which this review is another element of an ideologically driven cost-cutting agenda.

Conducted in the context of the Federal Budget ‘lifters and leaners’ rhetoric, this review makes use of language to both shape perceptions and confirm prejudices.

“The current system has not kept pace with changing social values and expectations” – McClure Interim Report

Consider the statement that appears more than once in the interim report that “the current system has not kept pace with changing social values and expectations”.

Apparently now, more than in the past, we have an expectation that all people who have the capacity to work should do so. By implication, presumably they aren’t doing so because the current welfare system is overly generous and allows bludging.

Ambiguous language is also deployed in the report.

Consider numerous references to “providing incentives” or “encouraging” people to work.

These phrases could refer to punitive measures to push people in particular directions or, alternatively, they could refer to the

removal of barriers and ensuring opportunities for financial benefit.

Without detail or greater explanation no one would disagree with this kind of language; all political ideologies can nod their heads in agreement while overlaying their own vision of what ‘encouragement’ might entail.

Why review?

It is important to note that compared to other OECD nations, Australia’s welfare system is economical and closely targeted in its support. We invest a smaller proportion of our national budget in the provision of welfare.

That being said, the welfare system does represent a significant aspect of our tax and

McClure Review guiding principles Patrick McClure and the Reference Group was asked to advise on how Australia’s welfare system could: Provide incentives to work for those who are able to work.

Adequately support those who are genuinely not able to work.

Support social and economic participation through measures that build individual and family capability.

Be affordable and sustainable both now and in the future across economic cycles.

Be easy to access and understand, and able to be delivered efficiently and effectively.

7

many different income support payments in our current welfare system. People with similar basic living costs receive different levels of financial support, with different expectations of work.

This can lead to individuals who might qualify for more than one payment having to decide which one to claim.

While the report has a focus on simplifying the current complicated payment system, it doesn’t go as far as McClure’s previous report in 2000.

At that time McClure proposed a single payment benchmarked to basic cost-of-living standards, with supplements to meet additional costs. This is the preferred model for many in the welfare sector as it is regarded as the fairest and is able to be appropriately benchmarked to genuine cost of living.

Members of the panel at a 30 July community forum on the proposed welfare reforms in Hobart.

transfer system, is a large area of responsibility for the Federal Government and is a key arena in which political ideologies find expression.

In short, the welfare system warrants review and reform because it affects many Australians, it represents a sizeable investment of our taxes, it is very complex and that complexity generally only increases when things are tinkered with around the edges.

However, just because it is warranted, doesn’t mean all will agree with the process or on the outcomes of a review.

Indeed, one great pity of the McClure review has been the lost opportunity to genuinely tackle a sweeping reform process in an open and inclusive way; a reform that would garner the maximum support through the broadest possible engagement with all stakeholders.

8

The greatest shame has been the absence of genuine consultation with those Australians who

are recipients and participants in our welfare system.

The Interim Report of the McClure Review presents material to make the case for reform, proposes a detailed four-pillared model for the reform and poses consultation questions throughout.

The four pillars of reform in the Interim Report are: 1.

Simpler and sustainable income support system 2. Strengthening individual and family capacity 3. Engaging with employers 4. Building community capacity The report frequently utilises case studies as illustration of ideas and refers to past and current programs and policies as examples.

Some key messages to note from the review:

Simplification of system

The report points out that there is confusion and inequities in the

This time around, McClure proposes a four-tiered system which still seems to risk an unnecessary level of complexity and potential for unfairness.

Like the current system, people would still be moved from higher to lower payments as part of the ‘welfare to work’ approach.

The Interim Report proposes the following four tiers of income support payments: 1. A disability support pension for people with a permanent impairment and no capacity to work.

2.

A tiered working age payment for people with some capacity to work now or in the future, including independent young people.

3.

A child payment for dependent children and young people.

4.

An age pension for people above the age at which they are generally expected to work.

The report also suggests reducing the number of supplements so that they are provided for more clearly defined purposes and for specific additional costs.

The Interim Report acknowledges that there has been a growing gap between pension and allowance rates and that action must be taken to address the inadequate single rate of Newstart. The current gap between Newstart and the Pension is unfair and counterproductive as it provides perverse incentives for people to claim one form of payment over another.

Unemployment payments are currently $166 a week less than the already modest pensions for people with disabilities or carers, and student payments (including for adults) are $48 a week less again than unemployment payments. These gaps have grown since pensions became indexed to wage movements and allowances indexed to the CPI. In 1997, the Newstart Allowance was 91% of the pension rate and student payments were 75%. In 2013, those proportions were 62% and 50%.

The report concludes that income support has to be sufficient to deliver a basic acceptable standard of living for those who rely on it and have no other means of support. It also acknowledges that payments must be at a level that effectively supports people to seek work and meet their participation obligations.

Levels of indexation on payments and the issues of different levels of indexation for different payments is mentioned in the report but rather than go so far as to suggest that indexation must reflect rises in the cost of living, it is simply acknowledged that the Federal Government has decided to phase in CPI indexation for all payments – dooming all payments, including pensions, to fall further and further behind the actual cost of living.

ACOSS asserts that instead of paying people according to what we think their job prospects might be in future, we should pay according to their financial needs here and now.

TasCOSS News August 2014

Newstart inadequacy

Income support in Australia 2012/13 5 million Australians receive income support 3 million children benefit from Family Tax Benefit $110 billion in cash transfer payments to Australians $100 billion is the responsibility of the Department of Social Services Transfer payments include: • income support payments: ­ ensions (generally paid to people with no requirement to p work) ­allowances (generally have an expectation of work) • other payments and supplements to help meet specific costs (eg family payments to assist with costs associated with children) Pensions and allowances = $75 billion a year $36 billion of this is on the Age Pension $25 billion assists with direct costs of children and other supplementary payments Expenditure on employment services = $2.2 billion Estimated cost of administering payments = $3 billion The income support system includes 20 income support payments and 55 supplementary payments.

This would require increases in income support for those on the lowest payments, including unemployed people and students, and higher rent assistance for those with the greatest housing costs.

The inadequacy of rent assistance is also discussed in the report, particularly in reference to the high housing costs for lowincome renters.

Mutual obligation and income management

Some concerning ideas are explored in the report regarding the application of mutual obligation requirements to payments and the broadening of income management.

In order to recognise the diversity of people receiving income support, the report suggests that tailored employment obligations – “individually tailored requirements” rather than the current categories – may be a more effective approach.

Such individually tailored requirements would be backed up with “appropriate and timely” sanctions.

This raises the question of where responsibility would lie to determine these individually tailored requirements, not to mention the appropriate and timely sanctions.

The possibility of broadening mutual obligation to include building life skills, promoting parental responsibility and improving outcomes for children, and broadening income management is also mooted in the report.

It is stated that as well as providing a financial safety net, the income support system is a mechanism to pursue broader policy goals. Examples of such goals include the strengthening of individual and family capability and encouraging greater social and economic participation.

cont: page 10

9

TasCOSS News August 2014

It is noted that already there are requirements such as immunisations and health checks to be met before receiving particular payments relating to children, school attendance goals for some indigenous families and communities, and income management programs in place in some communities.

However, claims that mutual obligations “promote norms and behaviours that benefit individuals, families and communities”, and that such obligations increase “knowledge about the importance of particular behaviours or activities” appear to be unsupported by evidence.

What some of these measures do, in reality, is unnecessarily stigmatise and discriminate against people simply because they receive a particular income sup-

port payment. They are based on the assumption that receipt of a payment is evidence of bad behaviour.

Additionally, income management policies and other similar measure are incredibly expensive and doubtful in their effectiveness.

Importance of engagement with employment creation and support

Noting that the Federal Government has committed to creating one million new jobs within five years and two million new jobs over the next decade, the Interim Report includes engagement with employers as a key element in the way forward.

The cooperation of employers is identified as central, with the

Key statistics on working age payments In Australia, reliance on income support by people of working age has been below the OECD average for some time.

The proportion of people of working age on income support decreased from 25% in 1997 to 17% in 2013.

Disability Support Pension recipients as a proportion of the working age population remained relatively stable over the past decade.

Newstart recipients as a proportion of the working age population decreased from 4.2% to 3.6% in the past decade.

Expenditure on income support for people of working age (Newstart, DSP, Youth Allowance, Carer Payment) is less than 40% of all spending on cash social security payments, most of which goes to Age Pension and Family Tax Benefits.

TasCOSS welcomes new members

T

asCOSS recently welcomed three new organisational members. They are Support, Help & Empowerment (SHE), Common Ground and Migrant Resource Centre Northern Tasmania.

TasCOSS members, both organisational and individual, share and support our vision of a fair, just and inclusive Tasmania.

10

Membership starts from $50 a year for organisations (depending on operating income) and is $57 a year for waged individuals ($15 concession or unwaged).

Members receive:

• Discounts on all TasCOSS training and events, including TasCOSS state conferences.

• Eligibility to attend and vote at TasCOSS meetings.

• Eligibility to vote in elections for the TasCOSS Board.

• Eligibility to stand for election to the TasCOSS Board.

• Eligibility for appointment to TasCOSS regional councils.

To find out more about TasCOSS membership visit www.tascoss. org.au or call (03) 6231 0755.

assertion that businesses must have a social responsibility to play a role in improving the economic participation of disadvantaged job-seekers.

The Report suggests that more should be done to assist businesses that are currently not providing employment opportunities to disadvantaged groups.

This might include measures such as business-led covenants and diversity programs (especially important in small to medium businesses, and in the public sector), and social enterprises.

Other measures the Interim Report recommends to facilitate employment creation include: • Increasing labour mobility through financial support for people to relocate for employment.

• Wage subsidies for employers; job commitment bonuses to job-seekers.

• Reducing the administrative burdens on employers and job service providers.

• Making the job service system easier to navigate for everyone.

Promisingly, reform of the employment services system in order to be more responsive to the needs of job-seekers and employers is suggested as an important action, including the expansion of approaches such as Individual Placement and Support.

Foundational to benefiting from employment opportunities is success in the education and training domains.

The report notes the challenges of literacy and numeracy levels and lack of foundational skills.

It also identifies the need to improve transitions from education to work, and the fact that vocational education and training should be better linked to available jobs.

ACOSS has made a submission on the Interim Report on behalf of the COSS network. The ACOSS Submission to Welfare Review is available on www.acoss.org.au

Addressing our transport blues

Participants in a TasCOSS facilitation project have some innovative solutions to Tasmania’s transport problems

T

he ability to get where you need to go consistently emerges in TasCOSS consultations as a key issue for transport-disadvantaged Tasmanians – people who cannot own or operate a vehicle due to age, disability, ill health or financial constraints.

As of 2010, 25.9% of Tasmanians in the lowest quintile of income struggled to get to the places they needed to go.

For adults describing themselves as unemployed, this figure rose to 33.5%.

For people with self-described health status of ‘poor,’ the figure was 39.6%.

For Housing Tasmania renters, the figure was a staggering 41.6%, with 46.2% lacking access to a vehicle.1 Despite the many improvements initiated in recent years by the State Government and by private transport operators, the challenges facing transportdisadvantaged Tasmanians are clear.

At the moment, transport services in the state are largely characterised by limited hours and frequency of operations, limited geographic scope; limited integration between the different forms of transport, including routes, timetables and ticketing; limited affordability; and limited eligibility for transport concessions and use of not-for-profit transport options.

Tasmanians most vulnerable to transport disadvantage are younger people who are not yet eligible to drive or can’t afford a car, who don’t live near scheduled route services and can’t afford taxi fares.

For example, one of the stories that TasCOSS has heard in its

Wynne Russell TasCOSS Social Policy and Research Unit

transport consultations came from a young girl living in a rural community who wanted to attend an academic enrichment program on Saturdays at the regional LINC. She was unable to attend, however, because there was no bus service and her parents had prioritised driving her brother to sporting events.

No one service can be expected to solve these problems.

However, better coordination and integration between existing services, as well as innovation in service types and funding, has the potential to begin to address these problems at relatively low cost.

Transport project

TasCOSS received Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources funding in mid-2013 for a facilitation project, Transport in the Community: Integration and Innovation for Social Inclusion.

The project involved TasCOSS running four regional meetings and three sectoral meetings involving Tasmanian transport providers and key user stakeholders to consider the possibilities.

Most participants felt that opportunities existed for better integration of existing service modes and services, as well as for new types of services.

Key barriers identified in consultations were lack of public information on transport options; lack of coordination between funders and between trip generators and transport providers; funding levels; and a need for better information on real, as opposed to perceived transport

needs in the community.

The lack of a whole-of-government approach to transport issues was considered a major barrier to communities developing transport plans.

The single greatest barrier to forprofit services (Metro, private bus companies, taxi services) working together in creative ways appears to be simple financial risk. In the absence of extra funding, many services do not feel that they are operating at a sufficient profit to be able to absorb losses if innovative arrangements do not deliver immediate results.

The greatest barrier to creative collaboration between for-profit and not-for-profit services appears to be the Commonwealth-State funding mix around HACC-funded transport, and the eligibility requirements that these funding arrangements impose.

The implications of new restrictions on the use of Commonwealth-funded vehicles for HACC-eligible groups who come under State funding (disabled under 65) also requires clarification, particularly as the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) comes on line.

Encouraging signs

The TasCOSS consultations revealed some interesting examples of existing and emerging collaboration and coordination between transport providers, both within the same sector and between sectors.

For example, several regional not-for-profit operators said that they referred callers on to other

cont: page 12

11

not-for-profits if they lacked capacity to meet a specific request.

Meanwhile, on the East Coast, Tassielink and Community Transport Services Tasmania (CTST) have put in place an innovative concept, putting CTST clients on Tassielink buses on the East Coast run from Swansea to Hobart in place of a CTST car making the drive.

While Tassielink’s percentage is usually less than the normal fare, the arrangement gives Tassielink extra business that would otherwise have gone to CTST. And CTST volunteers are spared long and tiring drives and a wait in Hobart, making it possible for

them to volunteer for shorter periods of time in the day and thereby keeping CTST’s volunteer base sustainable.

There also appear to be many opportunities, and few legislative or regulatory barriers, for taxi operators to enter into contracts with bus companies to act as feeder services, or with service providers to act as a pick-up service.

TasCOSS used the key barriers and opportunities identified in meetings as the basis for a workshop on 23 May 2014, bringing together key Tasmanian stakeholders and leading innovators in the transport field.

The following insights arose from

New TasCOSS website TasCOSS has a new website, launched in July, at www.tascoss.org.au As well as looking smart, the new website offers quick links to popular TasCOSS services and events, and an effective search engine to help you find what you’re looking for.

12

You can download publications, check our policy positions, find out what’s happening on the sector development front, find the right staff member to contact, subscribe to our e-news and connect with us via social media.

Your feedback on the new website is most welcome; please email to gabrielle@tascoss.org.au

the three presentations, by Professor Corinne Mulley, Chair in Public Transport at the University of Sydney; Jen Newman of Regional Development Australia Tasmania and Patrick Bruce, Digital Marketing Advisor for Passenger Transport Victoria; and John Pauley, a project manager with Phoenix Coaches.

Flexible transport

Given the almost infinite diversity of potential flexible transport models, it seems highly likely that some form of open-access flexible transport model could be developed for Tasmanian applications using existing transport providers.

Of particular note, rural taxi services are frequently underused, in part due to the conflict between higher-than-average per-trip costs, due to greater distance, and the often lowerthan-average incomes of potential users.

Contracting taxi services to provide flexible transport options would increase the viability of existing services and potentially lead to an expansion of services, not only benefiting those in need of transport but also potentially leading to greater rural employment.

TasCOSS transport recommendations Longer-term

Immediate

13 Develop transport infrastructure and hubs.

For the State Government 1 Finalise the creation of a centralised passenger transport website.

14 Create a statutory authority for managing and coordinating passenger transport.

2 Fund and implement an integrated transport pilot project.

For transport operators 15 Develop user advisory councils.

3 Advocate with the Commonwealth for a notfor-profit transport system accessible to all.

16 Improve Metro’s communication and consultation.

4 Create a state-wide Mobility Manager.

Medium-term

9 Increase funding for passenger transport in the 2014-17 Budgets by 10% per annum.

5 Develop transport access plans.

6 Adopt a whole-of-government, evidence-based Transport Access Strategy.

7 Create incentives to increase passenger transport uptake.

For local governments 8 Improve access for mobilitylimited and disabled passengers.

In areas where taxi services do not exist or where existing operators do not wish to take up flexible service contracts, the potential exists for the introduction of new operators, including social enterprises or even ride-sharing apps such as Uber or Lyft.

Flexible services have a potential immediate urban applicability, given Metro’s recent decision to prune back services in Hobart’s northern suburbs to focus more on high-frequency trunk routes.

At the same time, an investment in the development of flexible transport systems in peri-urban and rural areas would provide a degree of equity in the public funding of passenger transport in the state.

10 Change bus funding/ contracting models and conditions.

11 Support the development of technical mechanisms for better integration and coordination.

12 Help the taxi sector face the app-driven future.

17 Support the development of a centralised transport website.

18 Develop better communication between bus companies and between bus and taxis.

19 Promote collaboration among not-for-profit transport operators.

Above: Corinne Mulley, Chair in Public Transport at the University of Sydney, talks at the Transport Innovations workshop.

Currently, government funding for urban area bus services and general access services and for transport concessions, including concessional bus fares and taxi concessions, disproportionately benefit urban residents.

Wheels for Work and Training

Website

The project, with its broad-ranging, inclusive vision for transport services, is precisely the kind of initiative that is needed in transport-disadvantaged regions of the state.

Tasmania is the only Australian state to lack a website providing transport information for residents and tourists alike. A centralised passenger transport information website should be easily achievable, given the plethora of existing examples— with Public Transport Victoria’s website a clear standout for its ease of use, level of detail, and inclusion of multiple modes of transport, including walking and cycling.

1ABS (2010), General Social Survey: Tasmania, 4159.0.55.003; Australian Bureau of Statistics (2007) General Social Survey, Tasmania, 2006 (cat. No. 4159.6.55.001).

Phoenix Coaches’ Wheels for Work and Training project under way on the North West Coast will be a perfect opportunity to test out the potential for innovations such as flexible transport options.

The Transport in the Community project report is available on the TasCOSS website, www.tascoss. org.au

13

Negotiating power

Consumers have protections but should read the fine print once competitors enter Tasmania’s residential electricity market

F

rom 1 July 2014 the Tasmanian retail electricity market was opened to full competition. This means that other electricity retailers, in addition to Aurora Energy, may now enter the market and make contract offers to Tasmanian residential / household and business customers.

Currently, Aurora remains the sole operator selling to residential customers in Tasmania and the choice of contract remains between a standard retail contract (‘standard offer’ at regulated prices) or a pre-payment market contract, Aurora Pay As You Go. However, there is the opportunity for other retailers to enter the market, as well as for Aurora to offer additional market retail contracts.

If you work in a community or-

Tips for shopping around for electricity contracts • Always read the fine print and know what the full conditions of the contract are including any additional fees and charges such as late payment or debit default fees or exit fees if you leave your contract early.

• Check the special offers such as discounts or other incentives for paying on time or useful extras such as energy audits.

• Check your current bill to see how the new offer compares to what you are currently paying.

14

• Use the Australian Energy Regulator’s Energy Made Easy website (www. energymadeeasy.gov.au) to compare electricity offers in Tasmania and to learn about energy usage, energy efficiency, understanding your energy bill and information about consumer rights and responsibilities.

Kath McLean TasCOSS Social Policy and Research Unit

ganisation, you may be asked for information or advice about how to choose an appropriate electricity contract or, in the future you may receive complaints about electricity marketing practices (such as door-to-door selling or telemarketing).

Consumer protections in national framework

Electricity consumers in Tasmania have protections under the National Energy Customer Framework, which recognises that energy is an essential service.

This is in addition to general consumer protections offered under the Australian Consumer Law. Some of the consumer rights and protections in the National Energy Customer Framework include: • All contracts must offer certain basic terms and conditions.

• Bills must be clear and show how much energy has been used and how much money is owed.

• Consumers must be offered access to hardship programs including flexible payment options.

• Consumers must receive notice before their electricity is disconnected for non-payment, and disconnection is only allowed to occur within specified times.

• Consumers must be notified if the price of energy under their contract changes.

Full retail market competition opens the possibility of consumers eventually being offered contracts from retailers other than Aurora. In that situation, consumers who currently receive concessions will continue to receive

them regardless of the retailer they choose.

The National Energy Customer Framework includes some marketing protections for consumers and consumers may also: • Sign up to the Do Not Call Register by phoning 1300 792 958 or by registering online at www. donotcall.gov.au • Ask to be put on electricity retailers’ ‘do not call’ lists.

• Put a Do Not Knock sticker on your front door – when this is displayed a salesperson must not knock.

Why would people want to change their electricity contract?

Under retail competition, retailers may offer contracts that suit a household’s needs better than the ‘standard retail contract’. In some cases, households may be able to find a contract that saves them money.

It’s important to remember, however, that only the ‘standard retail contract’ (also sometimes called ‘standing offer contract’) will have prices that are regulated by the Tasmanian Economic Regulator.

Where can I find more information about full retail competition?

The Tasmanian Economic Regulator’s Power to Choose website has a series of fact sheets about the changes. See www.power. tas.gov.au

Further information

Australian Energy Regulator www.aer.gov.au or ring the AER Infoline: 1300 585 165 www.energymadeeasy.gov.au

Delighting the customer

Client-directed care has huge potential for mutual reward for both consumers and providers

Consumer

or client-directed care is one of the most significant changes to health and community service delivery, with up to 50 per cent of Tasmanian community sector and health services funding changing over to the CDC model.

Client-directed care is an approach to service delivery in which the consumer, including involved carers, can take direct control over service plans and subsequent service arrangements, including over their allocated funds.

Key in CDC program roll-out is that consumers will have control over their funds together with a high degree of service choice and, ultimately, which provider to choose.

CDC will open opportunities for providers to look outside the existing spectrum of service or provider options and to really innovate.

In Home and Community Care (HACC) in Tasmania, there used to be a belief that ‘service delivery is about what is needed, not wanted’.

Now pro-active, CDC-embracing providers talk about ‘delighting the customer’.

They have had success in marketing, exploring new ways of communication and of innovatively displaying service delivery programs.

Two relationships determine long-term successful service provider operation: funding bodies and consumers.

What is also highlighted with CDC is the partnership relationship and overall care experience for consumers.

15

Overseas

experiences

show

Klaus Baur TasCOSS HACC Consumer Engagement Program

that clients who embrace CDC enjoy a new level of autonomy, choice, innovation and control over planning and arranging their services.

Pilot program reviews have found that an issue for a small amount of consumers, particularly in aged care, is that not everyone wants to be in charge of their care decisions and their allocated funds.

In early Australian findings, a 2012 KPMG evaluation was done of 500 aged care packages involving consumers and 200 focusing on carer support and respite.

The evaluation found that providers operated two models of CDC: • Where participants / consumers where offered enhanced choices of supports, with the provider maintaining responsibility for coordination and management of the packages.

• Where consumers predominantly and to varying levels had control and self-managed their packages.

The evaluation showed younger consumers or carers with prior community care experience had clear ideas what they wanted, coupled with a degree of dissatisfaction with service delivery to date.

Other participants used their new-found control to innovatively fund supports and utilised providers who were open, interested and prepare to offer services beyond and outside the service ‘usual menu’.

The increased satisfaction of

consumers during these pilots was surpassed by the satisfaction of carers in the carers respite program. Carers felt recognised and valued, often for the first time, in the CDC program, in addition to having enhanced choice and control, leading to more appropriate services.

Cultural change

Making the transition to CDC requires a degree of change management and pro-activity to avoid pitfalls in the roll-out of service delivery and also the greater pitfalls that may come with reactive responses.

It is helpful to warm to CDC, what it represents and what it offers.

There is a need to be flexible, innovative and to be aware of the new force of “experience”. This aligns community sector and health services in some ways with commercial customer-focused businesses.

“If you do not innovate you don’t only stagnate: in a constantly moving environment you go backwards,” one provider told the June 2014 Consumer-Directed Aged Care Conference in Sydney.

For providers who have worked with CDC, ‘delighting the consumer’ is not solely a phrase but a vision and indicator for a new culture of working with consumers in partnership.

These providers have asked new questions: • What will our own staff say at a family or neighbourhood gettogether about the provider’s service?

cont: page 16

15

TasCOSS News August 2014

An informal training session for participants in Tasmania’s first Graduate Certificate in Consumer Engagement.

er engagement program has worked over the past five years to increase consumer input into planning, service delivery and evaluation.

• What will consumers say about us?

• Who is the Gateway’s preferred provider?

• Can family members or carers access all information about what our service does in a transparent and highly userfriendly way online, prior to making a phone call to us?

“It is critical that consumers, family members can access all information on the web,” one Australian provider said. “Is our website, all IT and call-in processes reflective of positive engagement, choice, and a new focus on consumer delight?”

Person-centred care can support transitioning to CDC. Person-centred care approaches recognise and focus on understanding and respecting consumers' values, preferences and their expressed needs.

Essential to person-centred care is the recognition of the client as an individual, with the capacity for and interest in self-actualisation and self-reliance.

The role of person-centred care was recognised in the KPMG evaluation. Providers who had experience with this were able to accommodate CDC changes and were more responsive to new or innovative requests.

16

A Victorian provider who presented at the CDC Aged Care Conference illustrated how cultural change was supported by

the delivery of PCC training to support workers and case coordinators.

Case management

The role of direct care or support workers is significantly important to working in an empowering, enabling way with consumers in CDC. Case co-ordinators in progressive organisations are given new titles reflective of a change in culture and service approach: they are called ‘facilitators’.

The practice of case management is being replaced, along the lines of consumer engagement goals, with partnership plans.

Providers’ understanding and practice of consumer engagement can play a significant part in assisting management and staff teams to gradually shift towards equal partnerships.

The TasCOSS HACC Consum-

This year the program facilitated the delivery of nationally accredited consumer engagement training for the first time in Tasmania.

One innovative aspect of the program has been the utilisation of an enhanced narrative inquiry approach: the careful facilitation of all participants’ experiences and stories in the form of short video clips.

In both change management and service/program delivery narrative inquiry has been shown to be an effective support, evaluation and communication tool.

Good consumer engagement also acknowledges that it is ultimately not what you do but the quality of relationships you create with consumers and the experience you deliver that delights both consumers and staff involved.

More involved, happier customers and staff also often experience new levels of social interactivity and social health benefits.

Everyone wins.

Resources KPMG Evaluation of the Consumer Directed Care Initiative final report (2012), Department of Health and Ageing Increasing consumer choice in aged care services: a position paper (February 2009), Carmel Laragy and Gerry Naughtin, Brotherhood of St Laurence TasCOSS Consumer Engagement Literature Review: Good Practice Approaches and Pilot Projects in HACC in Tasmania (2012), Tasmanian Council of Social Service TasCOSS 2014 HACC Consumer Engagement Report: Program Participant Experiences and Stories (2014), Tasmanian Council of Social Service

Extending shelter The Hobart Women’s Shelter has been named Australian community sector organisation of the year for its holistic and innovative approach

In June this year came the great

news that the Hobart Women’s Shelter had won the 2014 HESTA Community Sector organisation of the year award.

The shelter was recognised for its holistic and innovative approach as it moved from a largely crisis model of service delivery to one that aimed to enable women and children to lead independent, fulfilling lives after escaping domestic violence.

HWS supported 340 women and children in 377 support periods in 2012/13. Of these, 89 per cent did not need to return after their initial support period ended.

HWS first opened its doors in 1974 with a single property. It now operates 10 safe houses and a community centre in Hobart’s northern suburbs.

Sabine Wagner, HWS executive officer from July 2010 to July 2014, told the 2012 TasCOSS conference that service provision at HWS and other shelters had previously focused on the two bottom levels of Abraham Maslow’s famous hierarchy of human needs – the basic physical needs of food and shelter and the need for safety.

In August 2010, HWS held staff planning days and brainstormed what their dream service would look like. “We came up with all these ideas regarding education, emotional support, creating a community of all women that support each other, have happy children running around the Centre,” Sabine said.

In October 2010 HWS organised a client focus day where current and past residents reviewed the service and shared their dreams and hopes for the future. These were some of the things they wanted to achieve:

• To have paid work and financial independence • Vocational education • Drivers licence • A good future for their children • Permanent housing • Being centred, feet on the ground Both these discussions fed into major changes at HWS, towards a service delivery model that provided a holistic range of programs, incorporating all levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

In 2011 the shelter secured a Tasmania Community Fund Grant to run FLAVERS, a three-year program that aimed to support women to rebuild their lives after experiencing homelessness and/ or domestic violence.

The program objective was to find opportunities for women to re-engage with the community, education and employment, to develop new skills for learning and to plan pathways into further study or employment.

“The program provided information and support to women on several levels – through pathway planning, brief one-on-one literacy support, through embedding literacy outcomes in general activities and through providing information about educational opportunities with the LINC, TasTAFE etc,” program coordinator Iona Johnson said.

“I also set up several accredited training courses with RTOs to deliver foundation skills training for women.”

An external evaluation of FLAVERS found that more than half the women who had undertaken the program had gone on to further study, while others had found jobs or become volunteers.

Peter Stone of ME Bank and Joanne Fenton of HESTA (far right) presents the winner’s cheque to Hobart Women’s Shelter Board chair Mary Anne Ryan and acting Executive Officer Kristie Trambas.

Also launched by the shelter in 2011 were a new women’s choir, the KYSS (Keeping Yourself Safe and Sane) group and the creative leadership project, all aimed at creating communities of women and peer support relationships, and overcoming isolation.

FLAVERS ended in February 2014, when funding ran out. But HWS continues to provide services beyond the shelter model.

A Mentors in Violence Prevention Train the Trainer Program was delivered recently to a range of organisations with the aim of establishing the MVP bystander program in Tasmania.

And HWS continues to run creative community activities.

“Planning is under way to develop further early intervention and community development programs and we are seeking ongoing funding opportunities to deliver these,” Iona said.

The $10,000 development grant HWS received for winning the HESTA award will help in these aspirations.

17

Progress on outcomes reporting DHHS is already working with some service providers to develop Commissioning for Outcomes Statements

The Department of Health and

Human Services provided more than $235 million in funding in 2013-14 to approximately 250 community sector organisations, delivering over 660 services to Tasmanians in need.

DHHS has systems in place to monitor the financial management and quality and safety of the services it funds but, until now, the Department has not had a structured way to describe and monitor the outcomes that those services are aiming to achieve for clients.

Recognising this gap, the Department has worked with the community sector to develop the DHHS Outcomes Purchasing Framework.

The Outcomes Purchasing Framework describes how the Department will work with the community sector to agree what outcomes they want to achieve for clients and the broader Tasmanian community with government funding, and determine how they will make sure that those outcomes are being achieved.

The same approach to client outcomes will be used for all of the funding that DHHS provides to the community sector, including for housing and homelessness services, mental health services, drug and alcohol services, home and community care services, population health

Joined-up human services

18

The DHHS Joined Up Human Services project is being led by Disability, Housing and Community Services, in collaboration with the Department of Premier and Cabinet. It will deliver on Minister Jacquie Petrusma’s election commitment for a more joined-up human services system in Tasmania. Find out more on the DHHS Community Sector Relations Unit webpage, under JUSTT.

services, neighbourhood houses, gambling and community support services, disability services, and children and youth services.

The framework will help DHHS work with the community sector to: • Think about the outcomes they want to achieve for clients.

• Think about the indicators that will show whether those outcomes are being progressed or achieved.

• Document agreed outcomes and indicators in a Commissioning for Outcomes Statement - to help tell the ‘story’ of what is sought to be achieved for clients with a particular program.

• Use a Commissioning for Outcomes Statement to monitor and improve outcomes for clients.

• Use the same approach and language as each other when thinking about client outcomes.

The Department recognises that it will be hard for the community sector to measure outcomes if DHHS, as a funder, is not on the same page and outcomes measurement is not adequately reflected in the Department’s purchasing and accountability frameworks.

This is why it is so important for DHHS to do its own piece of work in this space – to ensure that the DHHS ‘house is in order’, that funding agreement managers are speaking the same language as their community sector partners, and that purchasing and accountability structures align with the broader outcomes measurement improvement agenda.

Although this is an internal piece of work, DHHS will work in partnership with the community sector

at all levels in order to successfully develop and implement the Outcomes Framework.

This will include development and application of the actual outcomes measures for specific individuals, programs and communities being done as a collaborative effort with our community sector partners, through facilitated planning sessions.

Implementation

The Department has already started working with service providers to develop Commissioning for Outcomes Statements for some of its programs. Workshops were held in August to start this process.

DHHS staff and service providers will also be supported by a set of guidelines to assist with practical application of the Framework.

The Framework will be trialled with a sample of DHHS-funded programs across different program areas over the next 12 months.

This will involve embedding the Framework at all levels, including in strategic planning, programlevel outcomes statements and individual funding agreements.

The Framework will start to be rolled into some funding agreements from 2015-16.

It will gradually be rolled into other funding agreements as they are due for renegotiation over a three-year period.

For more information on the DHHS Outcomes Framework, please contact the DHHS Community Sector Relations Unit on (03) 6233 4917 or email jo.white@ dhhs.tas.gov.au See the TasCOSS website, www. tascoss.org.au, for a Plain English guide to the DHHS Outcomes Purchasing Framework.

Meg Webb

Tony Reidy

Deputy Chief Executive

Chief Executive

Beng Poh

Jill Pope

Executive Assistant

Finance Officer

Dale Rahmanovic

Kath McLean

Development Officer

Senior Policy and Research Officer

Sector Development Unit

Social Policy and Research Unit

Wynne Russell

Tim Tabart

Policy and Research Officer

Development Officer

Social Policy and Research Unit

Sector Development Unit

Klaus Baur

Jo Flanagan

HACC Project Officer/Consumer Engagement

Policy and Research Officer

Sector Development Unit

Social Policy and Research Unit

Gabrielle Rish Communications Officer

TasCOSS The Tasmanian Council of Social Service, TasCOSS, was established in 1961. TasCOSS is the peak body for the Tasmanian community services sector.

Our mission

To advocate for the interests of low-income and otherwise disadvantaged Tasmanians, and to serve as the peak council for the state’s community services industry.

Our vision

A fair, just and inclusive Tasmania.

TasCOSS is supported by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Sponsored by Hesta.

Printed by Monotone Art Printers.

Design by Charlie Bravo Design.

Printed on 100% recycled paper.