Mr. R?n?n Hession:

I thank the Senator. As a discussion document, the Green Paper is trying to put a new proposition for people to react to. In trying to distinguish what are the different levels of employment engagement between the three different tiers, it is trying to make the point that there is a nuanced difference between levels 2 and 3 and to get across that the level of engagement will be more proactive. There will be a higher expectation that it will lead somewhere other than someone's exclusion from work. It is trying to get that point across. I accept the point that the wording has created concern that it has a jobseeking ring to it but that is not the intention. It is really just trying to create a distinction in the context of a discussion document.

I will refer to the questions that sit behind the Green Paper. The cost of disability report states that whatever one does, one should not take a limited budget and spread it thinly. Therefore, the questions, even before one gets to the tiering, are what would be the best way to figure out how to target the money, what is the best way, from the limited resources available for employment supports, of targeting those and what would one look to say in those conversations. For tier 3, we will be saying that we have the full suite of supports here, we will contact the customer, take account of where they are at with their condition, experience, education, skills, etc., and that our expectation is that we will be able to have a constructive conversation that will lead somewhere, as opposed to engaging purely in information-sharing and it is for the customer then to decide if they want to initiate. It is trying to get that across.

It has been helpful to have this back and forth today to see how the language leads people to see that as a marker for escalation or something. It has been helpful for us to get that feedback and we accept that.