For those with disabilties, in country regions, it is important that there is suitable access to transport especially public transport.
Example the NSW government in 2012 began/returned a daily train service between Bathurst and Central Station Sydney.They made no effort to improve access for those with mobility issues. Consequently those with mobility scooters cannot access train. Only space for one wheelchair. This state government has no plans to replace country train fleet all the money is for city rail.
So isolation for those with disabilities restricts choices.

For those with some form of disability who get some assistance from CENTRELINK but can pick up some casual work be afraid of Centrelink.
They will punish you by including that little bit of extra money as income for that fortnight so any money you receive , from Centrelink,
The amount will be deducted. You are PUNISHED.

Part 1/2

While David may have his heart in the right place, he demonstrably lacks the facts to form a sound opinion on this matter.

Firstly, businesses do not "make an offer" of low wages to people with disabilities. All employers MUST abide by the relevant state and Federal industrial relations frameworks, including minimum wage and awards.

An ADE provider can offer a place in their program and subsequently use a recognised assessment tool to calculate the hourly rate for that individual. Often this starts at a significantly low rate and may increase with further assessments.

Only registered ADE providers can offer the employment, not Joe Bloggs Lawn Mowing or Fred's Paper Delivery Pty Ltd. The registered ADE provider can, and often does, have commercial contracts that allow for the employment to exist.

Secondly, the legal issue is not about the low wages, but about the assessment used to determine those wages, in this case the BSWAT. Justice Crennan accurately pointed out that "the basic defect in the use of BSWAT is that it reduces wages to which intellectually disabled workers would otherwise be entitled by reference to considerations which do not bear upon the work that they actually do."

These considerations are an assessment of subjective, unmeasurable "competencies" including: work with others, communicate in the workplace, apply quality standards etc.
Each of these "competencies" are presented as a series of questions that must be answered by the employee. Conceptualising and communicating an adequate answer to questions that are quite irrelevant to the tasks performed in their employment can prove difficult for someone with a significant intellectual disability and they are unfairly penalised as a result.

There are viable alternatives to BSWAT, including the Supported Wage System (SWS) enshrined in the vast majority of our state and federal awards.

… continued

Part 2/2

Thirdly, David's conclusion that "we must let employers offer wages as they see fit" catastrophically undermines the industrial relations framework we have built up in the last century. We have awards and the minimum wage as a necessary safety mechanism to stop unfair employment practices. We must continue to uphold these tenets, not only for abled employees, but especially for those that do not have the capacity to stand up for themselves.

On a final note, David is also incorrect in his talk about a "graduated" pension. That only applies to a person in what the industry calls "open employment", whereby someone with a disability is employed at, or better than, minimum or award wages. These employees will have their disability support pension reduced at the current rate. Anyone employed under the ADE program, or on an SWS retains their full pension.

/end

Collin,

While I understand your desire to protect the disabled, the sweeping controls you recommend eliminate most of the potential jobs for the disabled.

A simple assessment of each person's abilities should allow private companies to employ these people on reduced salaries.

Lamp; could you have made a complaint of improper dismissil ?