NEW ZEALAND AND DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT POLICY IN THE 1990s(1).

• Author: Lunt, Neil

INTRODUCTION

In this paper we examine the range of policies within New Zealand that aim to integrate and reintegrate people with disabilities(2) into the workforce. During the 1990s there has been growing interest in the participation of people with disabilities within the workforce. We attempt a critical assessment of the directions disability employment policy has taken in recent years and ask whether this direction has benefited people with disabilities.

The paper is structured in three parts. First, we outline the recent history of the pressures and rationales that have encouraged policy shifts, including the wider socio-economic trends and associated policy developments of the last decade. Second, we describe the themes that have emerged from disability employment policy and use specific policy examples to illustrate the changes. Within this thematic approach we critically examine a range of such policy initiatives as the inclusion of disability in the Human Rights Act, incentive-based employment approaches, policies for service provision (training, placement and rehabilitation), and persuasion policies. Third, the paper examines the existing research evidence on outcomes of these policy initiatives, and concludes by suggesting a series of key research questions.

RECENT HISTORY OF DISABILITY AND WORK

Ensuring employment opportunities for disadvantaged groups has taxed the minds of policy makers across industrialised countries, particularly since the economic tribulations of the 1970s. Initially, attention focused on the impact of recession and restructuring on the labour market position of women and ethnic groups (OECD 1976, Maori Economic Development Commission 1985). The position of people with disabilities was slower to gain policy attention but, in common with other OECD countries, is now firmly on the New Zealand policy agenda (Thornton and Lunt 1997). Initially, policies for people with disabilities were regarded primarily from a health perspective. Thus policy concern focused on issues such as containment and compensation in the form of segregated sheltered employment, day centres and long-term benefit provision. The Department of Social Welfare had primary responsibility for vocational programmes for people with disabilities. In recent years there has been support for mainstream employment, and disability employment policy has shifted to being a labour market concern of ensuring opportunities and participation.

A number of reasons explain this recent policy shift. First, organisations and coalitions of people with disabilities have highlighted disability issues and critiqued the ways traditional organisations and charities have represented people with disabilities (Hawker 1996). Second, previously invisible sectors of the disability community, including individuals with psychiatric illness and learning disabilities, have demanded the right to speak for themselves and for policy debates to be inclusive of their needs and aspirations (Tennant 1996).

Third, research has highlighted the particular disadvantage that people with disabilities face across a range of spheres -- social, economic, cultural and political (Statistics NZ 1997). In relation to employment for example, paid labour remains central to an individual's self-worth, provides the most likely route out of poverty, and enables participation in wider social life. The 1996 Household Disability Survey has documented the fact that people with disabilities are over-represented in statistics on low income and unemployment (Statistics NZ 1997).

Fourth, and more fundamentally, there has been a questioning of how disability should be conceptualised and defined. In this reappraisal of disability it is suggested that disability is a relationship between individuals and their society (Oliver 1990, Sullivan 1991). Hence disability is not something that any person "has", rather disability and the social disadvantage it entails are created and/or exacerbated by the social, economic, cultural and political organisation of society.

These developments present significant challenges for policy and practice. They require policy makers, professionals and academics to work in partnership with people with disabilities (Hawker 1996). Radically re-defining what disability actually is, and how we should conceptualise it, results in a range of alternative policy responses. For example, if we focus on systems rather than individuals we are less likely to perceive someone being a wheelchair user as the "problem". Rather the problem is created and/or exacerbated by whether transport systems and the built environment are able to accommodate wheelchair use. Similarly, if we identify structural inflexibility in the benefit system for those wishing to take on part-time employment, we are less likely to identify the "problem" as being an individual's inability to work full hours.(3) Crucially, people with disabilities become key stakeholders in helping to identify appropriate policy responses.

While this new social paradigm has influenced the development of disability employment policy, there have also been other economic, social and political currents that have influenced the policy environment. Since the late 1980s successive governments have implemented a programme of economic deregulation, restructuring and social reform which has produced a number of significant changes in social and economic policies. The general effects in the disability area of these policy changes have been the restructuring of Disability Support Services (DSS) (Pernice et al. 1996a). The government considered that the provision of services in New Zealand had developed over many years in an ad hoc manner, which had resulted in an uneven distribution of services and in a variety of different access criteria. Further, many services were funded by "demand driven" budgets which did not provide incentives for resources to be used efficiently (Ministry of Health 1992).

Therefore the intention of the restructuring was to provide a more flexible system of service delivery which would be more efficient, cost effective and accountable. The reform was premised on a separation between service provider and funder in a similar way to the health sector reforms. This created a competitive bidding system to induce efficiencies, but which posed considerable challenges to service providers and difficulties for some service recipients (Pernice et al. 1996b).

Another significant effect of both the new social paradigm and the involvement of people with disabilities in policy responses has been the 1996 review of purchasing of vocational services for people with disabilities, which resulted in the funding arrangements being mainstreamed. In July 1997, placement into open employment was transferred from the New Zealand Community Funding Agency (NZCFA)(4) to the New Zealand Employment Service (NZES). In July 1998 responsibility for purchasing vocational programmes, supported employment and training shifted from the Department of Social Welfare and from NZCFA to NZES. These have since been assigned to Work and Income NZ (WINZ). The remainder of vocational services for people with disabilities (remaining vocational services, daily activities, sheltered work and vocational training) are being transferred in July 1999.

Government position papers have stated an interest in more than the question of service efficiency. Their objectives include promoting "welfare to work" and reducing welfare "dependency", and increasing individual obligation and participation (Department of Social Welfare 1996a, 1996b). As the conceptual and economic aspects of policy are developed simultaneously, governments have a clear fiscal interest in reducing the number of long-term beneficiaries and lowering public spending. This has meant some cuts in benefits, as well as a general tightening of eligibility criteria for these benefits, and for adaptations, equipment and services.

People with disabilities are also not immune to wider changes that are occurring in the national economic system. There has been a radical restructuring of labour markets and the national economy. The expectations and aspirations of economic policy have fundamentally altered. Successive governments have eschewed commitment to full employment, although ameliorating and alleviating long-term unemployment is a stated concern. Global economic recession and restructuring, combined with domestic economic policy responses, have resulted in the dilution of employment rights and security for most workers.

One result has been a changing labour market and a growth in non-standard employment opportunities. This includes work with the following attributes: part-time (which may involve a very small number of hours); based on short-term contracts; seasonal or temporary; self-employed; located in the service sector; homeworking or tele-working; flexible hours; requiring employees to be functionally flexible and undertake ongoing training and re-skilling; rewarded under local wage agreements (Department of Social Welfare 1996a, Lunt and Thornton 1998). The key words are change and flexibility; individuals will expect to change jobs or careers far more than previously.

The 1991 Employment Contracts Act (ECA) raised issues about the ability of workers with a disability to negotiate contracts from what is generally considered to be a less than comparable position of strength (Bascand and Frawley 1991). Pre-1991, collective negotiations at the national level affected six out of ten workers and all employees -- whether union members or not -- were covered (ibid.). The ECA has radically shifted the balance of the bargaining process in favour of employers. It is now easier for employers to engage workers on a temporary, fixed-term or casual basis. Under the ECA, collective negotiations of contracts have no preferred status, and the employer can choose to restrict collective...