Chapter 8: Workplace diversity

Representation of EEO groups

Changes in the classification and age profiles of the APS have contributed to changes in the representation of women, Indigenous employees, people with a disability and from a non-English speaking background (EEO groups).⁴ As Figure 8.1 shows, employment opportunities have fallen in traditional entry-level administrative roles, where a larger proportion of EEO groups and younger workers have previously been concentrated. This reduction reflects changes in the nature of APS business and its composition over time. In 1975, APS 1–2 employees accounted for half of all ongoing employees. This proportion decreased slowly until the mid-1980s and then more quickly throughout the 1990s before levelling out to 6.5% at June 2003. Now entry-level recruits are far more likely to be employed at the APS 3–4 levels. Conversely, there are now more employees at the managerial level, where EEO groups have historically been under-represented. These structural changes have presented agencies with continuing challenges about the way in which they address workplace diversity.

Despite demographic changes, there has been a rise in the absolute numbers of people employed from all EEO groups between June 2002 and June 2003. However, because the increase in actual numbers for all groups except women was not as large as that of the APS overall, the proportion of employees in the other EEO groups decreased during 2002–03. The proportional representation of women, Indigenous Australians, people with a disability, and people from a non-English speaking background as at June of each of the last 10 years is presented in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1: Representation of EEO groups among ongoing employees

	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003
Women	47.8	47.2	47.7	48.1	48.6	49.0	49.9	51.5	51.9	52.8
Indigenous Australians	2.3	2.5	2.5	2.6	2.7	2.7	2.5	2.5	2.5	2.4
People with a disability	5.5	5.5	5.4	5.2	5.0	4.7	4.3	3.9	3.7	3.6
NESB 1	4.2	4.0	3.9	3.8	3.6	3.4	3.4	3.4	3.4	3.3

Source: APSED⁵

Trends in representation for each of these groups are discussed in the following sections.

Women in the APS

The representation of women in the APS has increased over the past decade. At 30 June 2003, women represented 52.8% of all ongoing employees in the APS, a slight increase on the previous year. Women also represented 59.4% of engagements in 2002–03, compared to 53.1% of separations, suggesting the trend to increasing representation of women in the APS workforce is likely to continue a little further, but not to the point where serious concerns about male employment in the APS will arise.

The proportional representation of men and women varies from agency to agency. Of agencies with more than 1000 ongoing employees, the Protective Service has the highest proportion of men (87.8%) while Health had the highest proportion of women (72.0%).

The employee survey asked respondents for their level of agreement to the following statement: ‘Women in my agency have the same opportunities for development and promotion as men’. The majority of women (76%) agreed with this statement. However, women were less likely to agree than men (76% compared to 83%) and more likely to disagree (12% compared to 6% for men). As Table 8.2 makes clear, women continue to be under-represented at more senior classification levels, although there have been significant gains over time.

Table 8.2: Ongoing staff: proportion of women across classification levels

	1994 %	2002 %	2003 %
Trainees and graduate trainees	51.6	56.2	51.1
APS 1–2	54.7	55.5	54.1
APS 3–4	59.0	63.2	64.1
APS 5–6	39.5	48.5	50.1
EL	25.5	36.7	37.8
SES	17.1	28.3	30.4
Total	47.8	51.9	52.8

Source: APSED

Women represented 37.8% of ELs at June 2003 (up from 36.7% in 2002). As Figure 8.3 shows, while women made up only 35.9% of engagements to EL classifications, they also represented 45.0% of promotions and only 31.8% of separations, so further increases in this group can be expected.

At June 2003 women represented 30.4% of the SES (up from 28.3% in 2002). Because 39.0% of engagements and 38.2% of promotions to the SES were women (compared to 22.0% of separations), this increase in representation can be expected to continue for some time. This SES representation rate compares well with those in the Queensland (20%) and Tasmanian (29%) state governments, though it is still somewhat lower than the Victorian state government (33%) and the New Zealand government (36%).

Women reported slightly higher levels of overall job satisfaction than men (78% with a job satisfaction index of over 5 compared to 74% of men) and were more likely to think that their supervisor was highly effective at managing people (49% compared to 44%). Table 8.3 shows the top five job satisfaction factors for women and men. These factors were similar between men and women, with four out of the five common to both. The main difference between them was that women rated ‘salary’ in their top five while men included ‘seeing tangible results from my work’. However, ‘salary’ was only just outside the top five for men.

Table 8.3: Top five job satisfaction factors, by gender

Women	Employees satisfied %	Men	Employees satisfied %
1 good working relationships	85	good working relationships	86
2 flexible working arrangements	88	opportunities to utilise my skills	72
3 opportunities to utilise my skills	67	flexible working arrangements	83
4 salary	68	interesting work provided	76
5 interesting work provided	71	seeing tangible results from my work	69

Source: Employee survey

Table 8.3 also shows the proportion of men and women that were satisfied with the factors they had identified as one of their top five. The majority of both men and women were satisfied with each top five job satisfaction factor, and average level of satisfaction for the five identified factors was similar for men and women (76% for women compared with 77% for men). Both men and women were relatively less satisfied with opportunities to utilise skills and the provision of interesting work, and with ‘salary’ (for women), and ‘seeing tangible results’ (for men). Women were more likely to be satisfied with ‘flexible working arrangements’ (88% compared to 83% for men) and men were more satisfied in relation to ‘opportunities to utilise my skills’ and ‘interesting work’ (72% and 76% respectively for men, compared to 67% and 71% for women).

Survey findings also indicate that women were slightly more likely than men to identify career development as among their top five job satisfaction factors (34% of women compared to 29% of men). Women who identified career development as an important job satisfaction factor were considerably more likely to report satisfaction with their development opportunities than comparable men (50% compared to 36%). The survey shows no significant difference between men and women in regard to their levels of satisfaction with access to leadership development opportunities.

Women’s satisfaction with work–life balance was very similar to that of men, and is discussed further in the section in this chapter on‘Life choice options’.

Indigenous employment

In 2003, APSED recorded that 2.4% of ongoing APS employees identified themselves as Indigenous Australians. The representation of Indigenous Australians in the APS compares favourably with the broader Australian context, in which 1.9% of all Australians aged 15–64 and 1.4% of the Australian labour force identified themselves as Indigenous Australians.⁶

While actual numbers of Indigenous employees in the APS increased by 80 in 2002–03, the overall APS workforce increased at a greater rate. For this reason, the proportion of Indigenous employees working in the APS decreased slightly from 2.5% in 2002 to 2.4% in 2003.

Representation rates of Indigenous employees vary between agencies. Not surprisingly, agencies that predominantly deliver services to, or work with, Indigenous communities generally had a higher proportion of Indigenous employees. As Table 8.4 shows, the agencies with the highest proportion of Indigenous employees (i.e. more than 10% of total ongoing employees) at 30 June 2003 were AHL, the Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA), ATSIS, AIATSIS, the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) and DEST.

Table 8.4: Agencies with the highest proportions of ongoing Indigenous employees, 2003

Agency	Indigenous ongoing	Total ongoing staff	% Indigenous
AHL	278	341	81.5
TSRA	20	30	66.7
ATSIS	506	1072	47.2
AIATSIS	17	62	27.4
NNTT	31	241	12.9
DEST	160	1464	10.9

Source: APSED

At 30 June 2003, five APS agencies employed 60% of ongoing Indigenous staff. In addition to ATSIS, those agencies were DEST (10.9%), DEWR and Centrelink (3.8% each) and DEH (2.2%). These five agencies accounted for almost 26% of all ongoing APS employees. Nineteen APS agencies reported that they employed no Indigenous Australians on an ongoing basis. These agencies were small except for two medium agencies (Finance and ComSuper).

As Table 8.5 shows, during 2002–03 the actual numbers of Indigenous employees increased in most classification levels, though generally not at the same rate as the overall APS workforce. For this reason, representation of Indigenous Australians as a proportion of all ongoing APS employees decreased slightly. However, both numbers and proportional representation of Indigenous employees increased at the EL and non-graduate trainee classification levels.

Table 8.5: Ongoing representation of Indigenous employees by classification

Classification	1994		2002		2003
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
APS 1–2	1303	3.5	337	4.2	331	4.2
APS 3–4	1123	2.8	1319	3.1	1331	3.0
APS 5–6	561	1.5	843	2.3	873	2.2
EL	132	0.6	209	0.9	242	1.0
SES	13	0.7	30	1.7	26	1.4
Trainee	19	16.5	40	10.3	49	13.5
Graduate trainee	26	3.6	21	3.8	27	3.0
Other	36		0		0
Total	3213	2.3	2799	2.5	2879	2.4

Source: APSED

The main factor constraining growth in Indigenous employment is the reduction in the entry-level opportunities at the APS 1–2 levels considered earlier. While the proportional representation of Indigenous employees at these levels is now somewhat higher than it was 10 years ago, absolute numbers have fallen significantly. Despite these structural changes, engagements of Indigenous employees increased in absolute numbers between 1996–97 and 2001–02 before declining slightly in 2002–03. As a proportion of all ongoing engagements, Indigenous representation has halved over the past decade, falling from 5.0% in 1993–94 to 2.4% in 2002–03. Indigenous separations have risen over the same period, from 2.4% in 1993–94 to 4.0% in 2002–03. These trends are shown in Table 8.6.

Table 8.6: Ongoing Indigenous employees’ engagement and separation rates, 1993–94 to 2002–03

	1993–94	1994–95	1995–96	1996–97	199–987	1998–99	1999–00	2000–01	2001–02	2002–03
Engagements	5.0	4.8	4.3	4.4	4.2	3.2	2.2	2.6	3.1	2.4
Separations	2.4	2.5	3.3	2.9	2.5	3.0	4.1	3.1	3.1	4.0

Source: APSED

In percentage terms, trainee programs represent a more important source of engagements for Indigenous employees than for non-Indigenous employees, as shown in Figure 8.5. The use of traineeships and graduate trainee programs to recruit Indigenous Australians varies over time, though Indigenous employees remain more highly represented in traineeships than graduate trainee programs (13.5% of all trainees at June 2003 were Indigenous, compared to 3.0% of graduate trainees). In actual numbers, the representation for the two groups is much closer, with 49 Indigenous trainees and 27 Indigenous graduate trainees at June 2003.

Figure 8.6 compares the length of service in the APS by Indigenous status, for those staff who separated from the APS during 2002–03. It shows the proportion of total separations that occurred at different lengths of service for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous employees. Indigenous employees do not remain as long in the APS as non-Indigenous employees. Indeed, during 2002–03, 50% of Indigenous employees who left the APS had worked in the service for less than five years, compared to 29.1% of non-Indigenous employees who left the APS.

While the total number of Indigenous Australians employed in the APS is increasing, it is concerning that the rate of increase remains lower than that of non-Indigenous employees and that separation rates are higher. Representation overall has now clearly stalled since the peak in 1998–99. A number of agencies are making efforts to address this concern.

In the agency survey, 57% of agencies (51 agencies) reported employing or developing targeted strategies to recruit Indigenous Australians (46% had strategies in place, and 11% were developing strategies), including the use of special measures⁸ and identified positions.⁹

For those agencies that reported using or developing specific recruitment strategies during 2002–03, the most common measure reported was advertising employment opportunities in Indigenous media (29 agencies; four agencies reported that they are developing this measure; 14 reported that they do not have this measure in place; 42 agencies did not respond to this question). Other measures were:

• the agency’s own recruitment strategy (24 agencies; eight agencies reported that they are developing this measure; 12 reported that they do not have this measure in place; 45 agencies did not respond to this question)
• participation in the National Indigenous Cadetship Program run by DEWR (22 agencies; three agencies reported that they are developing this measure; 22 reported that they do not have this measure in place; 42 agencies did not respond to this question)
• the use of identified positions (17 agencies; two agencies reported that they are developing this measure; 27 reported that they do not have this measure in place; 43 agencies did not respond to this question)
• the use of special measures provisions limiting employment opportunities only to Indigenous applicants (14 agencies; two agencies reported that they are developing this measure; 31 reported that they do not have this measure in place; 42 agencies did not respond to this question).

Thirty-three per cent of agencies reported using strategies to retain Indigenous employees and an additional 15% were developing such strategies. The most common measure used by these agencies was encouraging participation in the Indigenous APS Employees Network (reported by 27 agencies). Other measures were:

• supporting another Indigenous network such as an internal support network (23 agencies)
• providing Indigenous cultural awareness training for all employees (15 agencies)
• providing study awards (13 agencies)
• providing culturally specific training programs (11 agencies).

When asked about Indigenous employees’ employment opportunities in the employee survey, almost 60% of employees believed that Indigenous employees had no fewer opportunities for employment, development and promotion than others, with only 7% disagreeing. However, a lower proportion of Indigenous employees (52%) agreed with the statement, with 26% disagreeing.

The employee survey also asked about job satisfaction factors, with three out of the top five factors being common to Indigenous and non-Indigenous employees (see Table 8.7). The main differences were that Indigenous employees put more weight on ‘duties/expectations being made clear’, and ‘regular feedback and recognition’ than did non-Indigenous employees.

Table 8.7: Top five job satisfaction factors, by Indigenous status

Indigenous	Employees satisfied %	Non-Indigenous	Employees satisfied %
1 flexible working arrangements	92	good working relationships	85
2 good working relationships	72	flexible working arrangements	86
3 duties/expectations made clear	65	opportunities to utilise skills	69
4 regular feedback and recognition for effort	66	interesting work provided	74
5 salary	55	salary	62

Source: Employee survey

Table 8.7 also shows the proportion of each group satisfied with the factors they had identified as important. The majority of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous employees were satisfied with each top five job satisfaction factor. However, the average level of satisfaction for the five factors for Indigenous employees (70%) was lower than that of non-Indigenous employees (75%) and there was more variation in Indigenous responses (between 55% and 92% rating themselves as satisfied against each factor, compared to between 62% and 86% of non-Indigenous employees). Indigenous employees were more likely to be satisfied with ‘flexible working arrangements’ (92% compared with 86% for non-Indigenous employees), and less likely to be satisfied with ‘good working relationships’ (72% compared with 85% for non-Indigenous employees) and ‘salary’ (55% compared with 62%).

Indigenous employees were more polarised than other employees in their views about leadership development opportunities. Forty per cent of Indigenous employees were satisfied with their own access to leadership development opportunities in their organisation compared to 27% of non-Indigenous employees, but 44% of Indigenous employees were dissatisfied compared to 34% of non-Indigenous employees. Indigenous employees were more likely to rank ‘opportunities for career development’ in their top five factors impacting on job satisfaction (43%) compared with non-Indigenous employees (31%). However, their satisfaction level with this factor was slightly lower (37% compared with 43% for non-Indigenous employees).

Indigenous employees had significantly greater caring responsibilities than non-Indigenous employees, but were slightly more satisfied than non-Indigenous employees with their access to flexible work practices. This issue is discussed further below in ‘Life choice options’.

The APS Commission has identified Indigenous employment as a strategic priority for 2003–04 in cooperation with agencies. Its focus is on the key obstacles to improving Indigenous employment, which analysis suggests are:

• recruitment problems, particularly with more limited career pathways into the APS
• retention problems, particularly inadequate career planning and learning and development arrangements
• lack of personal support, particularly in agencies with a small number of Indigenous employees.

The primary strategies being developed are identification and implementation of strategic partnerships to open up more career pathways, to trial innovative solutions to aspects of Indigenous employment and to promote better practice approaches. The project has involved extensive consultation with Indigenous APS employees, line managers, agency HR practitioners and senior executives. The project is overseen by a multi-agency senior executive steering committee.

In addition, the APS Commission facilitates the Indigenous Employment Group that meets quarterly and provides a networking opportunity for HR practitioners involved in Indigenous employment. Regional offices also promote Indigenous recruitment and retention in their diversity networks. The APS Commission supports the national Indigenous APS Employees Network, which facilitates communication between Indigenous employees about APS workforce issues.

People with a disability

In considering data relating to people with a disability it is important to note that there is no consistent definition across the APS of what constitutes an employment-related disability. Some agencies use a specific definition, while others leave it to individuals to decide whether to disclose a disability for the purpose of EEO data. In any case, reporting of this data is voluntary.

Over the past decade, the data show a consistent decline in the employment of people reporting a disability as a proportion of APS employees. In absolute terms, the number fell each year until 2001–02, before recovering slightly in 2002–03. Currently, people with a disability represent 3.6% of APS employees, down from 5.5% a decade ago. While the decline in absolute numbers can be partly explained by a reduction in the number of APS 1–2 positions, where the employment of people with a disability has historically been concentrated, in fact there has been a decline at all classifications, as Figure 8.7 indicates.

Engagement and separation rates for people with a disability have changed little over the 10 years to June 2003. Between 1993–94 and 2001–02 there has been a consistent trend of separations outnumbering engagements. However, this trend reversed in 2002–03, with the number of engagements for people with a disability (403) being greater than the number of separations (310). The net percentage increase was nonetheless less than the percentage increase in employment of people without disabilities, so that there was still another small decline in the representation of people with disabilities in the APS in 2002–03.

Agencies with high representation rates of people reporting a disability are the Family Court (8.7%), the Australian Industrial Registrar (AIR) (7.6%) and AIATSIS (8.1%). None of these agencies is large, and so the actual numbers of people with a disability they employ is relatively small. Nine APS agencies reported that they employed no people with a disability on an ongoing basis. These agencies were small except for one medium-sized agency (AEC). Figure 8.8 below shows the proportion of people reporting a disability in agencies with more than 1000 ongoing employees.

The employee survey asked respondents for their level of agreement to the following statement: ‘My agency actively supports the employment of people with a disability’. People with a disability (36%) were less likely to agree to this statement than people without a disability (57%) and more likely to disagree (18% compared to 8%).

The agency survey asked agencies about the use of specific strategies to facilitate the recruitment of people with a disability during 2002–03. In their responses:

• 81 agencies reported ensuring that selection criteria were not systemically discriminatory (two agencies reported that they are developing this measure; six agencies did not respond to the question)
• 61 agencies reported providing information on reasonable adjustment measures in the workplace (17 agencies reported that they do not have this measure in place; four agencies reported that they are developing this measure; seven agencies did not respond to the question)
• 58 agencies stated they provided assistance during the application process (22 agencies reported that they do not have this measure in place; three agencies reported that they are developing this measure; six agencies did not respond to the question)
• 52 agencies made accommodations to any testing situations (30 agencies reported that they do not have this measure in place; one agency reported that it is developing this measure; six agencies did not respond to the question)
• 13 agencies reported having worked with organisations that specialise in placing people with a disability in employment (60 agencies reported that they do not have this measure in place; eight agencies reported that they are developing this measure; eight agencies did not respond to the question)
• 11 agencies provided training for selection panels on appropriate interviewing techniques for people with disabilities (55 agencies reported that they do not have this measure in place; 16 agencies reported that they are developing this measure; seven agencies did not respond to the question).

An increasing number of APS agencies are using contracted services provided by employment services such as Koomari and Job Match, to support people with an intellectual disability.

When asked if they used strategies to retain people with a disability, 65% of agencies (58 agencies) reported that they did. Twenty-six agencies reported that they did not use such strategies (one agency did not respond). Approaches taken by agencies included:

• providing access to contact officers who assist with issues such as discrimination (57 agencies; two agencies reported that they are developing this measure; three reported that they do not have the measure in place; 27 agencies did not respond to this question)
• providing access to adaptive technology or other practical support (56 agencies; two agencies reported that they are developing this measure; four reported that they do not have this measure in place; 27 agencies did not respond to the question)
• encouraging participation in a network for people with a disability (17 agencies; six agencies reported that they are developing this measure; 38 reported that they do not have this measure in place; 28 agencies did not respond to this question)
• disability awareness training programme for employees generally (15 agencies; seven agencies reported that they are developing this measure; 39 reported that they do not have this measure in place; 28 agencies did not respond to this question).

The agency survey results indicate that some agencies clearly have a long way to go in the development and implementation of strategies to recruit and retain employees with a disability. The results of the employee survey add weight to the urgency of the issue, with employees with a disability emerging as a relatively dissatisfied group of employees.

People with a disability were significantly more dissatisfied with their job than people without a disability. Only 49% of people with a disability had a job satisfaction index of over five compared to 77% of people without a disability.

People with and without a disability had similar ratings for the importance of job satisfaction factors, with four out of the top five factors being common to each group. However, people with a disability put more emphasis on ‘regular feedback and recognition for effort’, and slightly more emphasis on ‘opportunities to utilise my skills’. The top five job satisfaction factors for people with and without a disability are at Table 8.8. People with a disability were somewhat more likely to nominate career development opportunities among their top five job satisfaction factors than people without a disability (39% compared to 31%), but of those who nominated career development as a job satisfaction factor, only 10% were satisfied with their opportunities for development, compared to 45% of people without a disability.

Table 8.8: Top five job satisfaction factors, by disability status

People with a disability	Employees satisfied %	People without a disability	Employees satisfied %
1 opportunities to utilise my skills	46	good working relationships	86
2 flexible working arrangements	69	flexible working arrangements	87
3 good working relationships	67	opportunities to utilise my skills	71
4 regular feedback/recognition for effort	34	interesting work provided	75
5 interesting work provided	35	salary	63

Source: Employee survey

Table 8.8 also shows the proportion of each group satisfied with the factors they had identified as important. Satisfaction ratings for people with and without a disability were very different. While the majority of people without a disability were satisfied with each factor identified as important, the majority of people with a disability were only satisfied with two factors (‘flexible working arrangements’ and ‘good working relationships’). The average satisfaction rating for people with a disability was 50%, compared to 76% for other employees. Lowest ratings were for ‘regular feedback/recognition for effort’ and ‘interesting work provided’, where the percentage of people with a disability satisfied were 20 and 40 percentage points lower than other employees. The small numbers of people with a disability responding to the survey means that further analysis of significant correlations (such as by classification) within these results is not possible.

People with a disability were much less likely to rate their supervisors highly as people managers (26% compared to 48% of people without a disability), and more likely to give their supervisors a low rating in this area (39% compared to 16%). People with a disability were also much less likely than other employees to be satisfied with their own access to leadership development opportunities (9% compared to 28%) and more likely to be dissatisfied (65% compared to 33%).

People with a disability have similar levels of caring responsibilities to other employees and similar levels of satisfaction with access to flexible working practices, but they have different types of caring responsibilities. This issue is discussed further below in ‘Life choice options’.

Overall, the picture is not positive. Despite the strategies agencies report having in place, the representation of people with a disability is continuing to decline. Significant numbers of employees with a disability disagree their agency is providing support and they are more dissatisfied in their jobs. Further analysis is needed in this area to identify possible causes. Agencies also need to consider more carefully, including in consultation with their employees with a disability, the effectiveness of their strategies.

Non-English speaking background

In the absence of an alternative, the concept ‘NESB’, representing people from a non-English speaking background, is used in APSED. The measure used to analyse data for this purpose is NESB1, which includes people born overseas whose first language was not English. NESB2 data, which includes children of certain migrants, has not been included as there is little evidence of employment disadvantage. The representation of NESB2 employees in the APS has been relatively stable over the past 10 years, changing from 6.3% of total ongoing employees in 1994 to 6.1% in 2003. In addition, their classification profile in 2003 is very similar to that of the overall APS workforce.

The 20 most common countries of origin for APS employees born overseas, starting with the most common, were:

England, New Zealand, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Vietnam, Scotland, Philippines, Hong Kong, Germany, China, USA, Italy, Poland, Fiji, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, South Africa, Canada, Singapore.

The most common first languages, other than English, spoken by APS employees were:

Italian, Greek, German, Polish, Vietnamese, Spanish, Cantonese, Croatian, Dutch, Arabic, Serbian, Aboriginal languages, Macedonian, Mandarin, Turkish, Slovenian.

The proportion of people in the APS who identified themselves as being from non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB1) decreased from 3.4% in 2002 to 3.3% in 2003. This continues a consistent slow downward trend over the past decade, from 4.2% in 1994 to 3.3% in 2003. Figure 8.9 shows the representation of NESB1 employees by classification from 1994 to 2003. The trainee and graduate trainee classifications were the only ones to show an overall increase in the proportion of NESB1 employees between 1994 and 2003 (from 2.8% to 3.5%), although, despite a rise over the last two years, their representation in 2003 was below the high point of 2000 (5.1%). The increasing number of NESB trainees and graduate trainees is an encouraging sign that traineeships offer one strategy for improving NESB representation in the APS. NESB1 representation at APS 1–2 classifications fell from 4.8% to 2.9% over the 10 years to 2003 and, as highlighted earlier, APS 1–2 classifications are a declining source of recruits into the APS. For all other classification groups, the decline has been more gradual.

Representation of NESB1 employees varies between agencies, with the National Library of Australia having the highest representation of NESB1 employees (14.0%), followed by DIMIA (11.1%), ComSuper (9.2%), NOHSC (9.0%) and CrimTrac (8.8%). These higher rates of representation may in part reflect the diversity of some of the agencies’ clients. Figure 8.10 reports on those agencies with over 1000 employees.

In the employee survey, 75% of all respondents agreed that people from all cultural backgrounds have the same opportunities as others. The employee survey did not ask respondents to identify themselves as NESB. It is not therefore possible to examine employee survey responses on a NESB/non-NESB basis.

While this year’s agency survey did not ask about the recruitment and retention of NESB1 employees, some agencies are using specific strategies to attract employees from a range of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. For instance, Centrelink has specifically targeted local cultural communities as part of its overall recruitment strategy. Where there is a high customer base from a different cultural or language background, local Centrelink offices have promoted vacancies through community radio or sent information to various multicultural groups. This is generally facilitated through multicultural services officers. Job advertisements have also been placed in the ethnic press for particular communities to attract applicants from specific backgrounds.

The long-term decline in the representation rate of people from a non-English speaking background in the APS has not been as severe as that for people with a disability. In addition, the representation of NESB2 employees (including the children of migrants) has been largely stable over the last decade. Nevertheless, further analysis is needed to identify the likely causes of the fall in representation of NESB1 employees.

These may include changes in the external environment (such as the representation of NESB1 in the community which has fallen slightly¹⁰) as well as internal changes. In the meantime, agencies should review their relevant strategies.

 

4 The Public Service Commissioner’s Directions require agency heads to put in place measures directed at ensuring that measures are taken to eliminate any employment-related disadvantages on the basis of being an Aboriginal or a Torres Strait Islander; gender; race or ethnicity; or physical or mental disability.

5 ABS census data for 2001 shows the following labour market comparisons. NESB 13.8%, people with a disability 11.7%, and Indigenous Australians 1.4%. Note that direct comparisons cannot be made for people with disabilities or NESB data, as the definitions used in APSED and for the census are different.

6 Australian Census 2001

7 The ‘no data’ component of responses to Indigenous status was particularly high in Protective Service (64.8%) and Defence (61.3%).

8 Chapter 4 of the Public Service Commissioner’s Directions allows agency heads to use special measures by identifying specific employment opportunities as available only to Indigenous applicants.

9 Identified positions are jobs that require an understanding of the culture and issues faced by Indigenous Australians and an ability to deal with them sensitively. While it is likely that these positions would be occupied by Indigenous Australians, recruitment is on the basis of merit and not restricted to Indigenous applicants.

10 ABS data shows that the proportion of the Australian population who were born in non-English speaking countries fell slightly from 15.8% in 1996 to 15.5% in 2001. Note, however, that the definition is not directly comparable.