Home > Workplace diversity > Indigenous employment

INDIGENOUS EMPLOYMENT

At June 2004, APSED recorded that 2.3% 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.⁵

However, after some growth in absolute numbers in each of the previous three years, the number of Indigenous employees fell during 2003—04, both in actual numbers and as a proportion of total ongoing staff. The number fell by 98, from 2937 to 2839, and the representation rate fell from 2.4% to 2.3%. The representation of Indigenous employees has fallen considerably from the high of 2.7% in 1999, after increasing for some years before 1999.

Representation rates of Indigenous employees vary between agencies. Agencies that predominantly deliver services to, or work with, Indigenous communities generally had a higher proportion of Indigenous employees. As Table 8.6 shows, the agencies with the highest proportion of Indigenous employees (i.e. more than 10% of total ongoing employees) at 30 June 2004 were Aboriginal Hostels Limited (AHL), Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA), ATSIS, AIATSIS, National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) and DEST.

Table 8.6: Agencies with the highest proportions of ongoing Indigenous employees, 2004

Source: APSED

Note: Data does not reflect changes to Administrative Arrangements Orders post-30 June 2004, in particular movement of staff from ATSIS to other agencies.

At 30 June 2004, four agencies employed over 65% of ongoing Indigenous staff. Those agencies were Centrelink (948 or 33.4%), ATSIS (489 or 17.2%), AHL (242 or 8.5%) and DEST (170 or 6.0%). These four agencies accounted for almost 23% of all ongoing APS employees. Twenty-one APS agencies reported that none of their ongoing employees identified as Indigenous. These agencies were small except for one large (Finance) and three medium agencies (ComSuper, ACC and ANAO).

Figure 8.3: Representation of Indigenous employees in agencies with more than 1000 ongoing employees, 2004

Source: APSED

Note: Data does not reflect changes to administrative arrangement orders post-30 June 2004, in particular movement of staff from ATSIS to other agencies.

The agencies with the highest decline in numbers of Indigenous employees were AHL (40), Centrelink (29) and Health (11). DEST and DEWR had an increase in the number of Indigenous employees (6 and 5 respectively).

As Table 8.7 below shows, during 2003—04 the actual number of Indigenous employees increased slightly in APS 3—4 and EL classification levels, but fell in all other classifications, especially in the trainee classifications which have historically been used as a means to increase the representation of Indigenous Australians in the APS. About half the total decline in numbers of Indigenous employees in 2003—04 is related to reduced recruitment of trainees and graduate trainees. Over the past decade the proportion of Indigenous employees employed at the APS 5—6 levels through to the SES has increased, and the proportion at lower classifications remained largely stable, with a slight decline at the APS 3—4 levels. The recent stalling of total growth relates primarily to the reduced number of positions at the APS 1—2 levels.

Table 8.7: Ongoing representation of Indigenous employees by classification

Source: APSED

The main factor explaining the decline in Indigenous employment is likely to be the reduction in entry-level opportunities mentioned earlier. While the proportional representation of Indigenous employees at the APS 1—2 levels is now similar to that of ten years ago, absolute numbers have fallen significantly, reflecting the overall reduction in employment at these levels.

Despite these structural changes, engagements of Indigenous employees rose in absolute terms between 1996—97 and 2002—03, before falling sharply in 2003—04 (from 393 to 256, a fall of 34.9%). This decline was similar, but not as great as that for engagements overall (39.9%–see Chapter 2), and the proportional representation of Indigenous employees in engagements actually rose, from 2.6% in 2002—03 to 2.8% in 2003—04. This was, however, the first percentage increase for some years, and the proportion is still much lower than it was ten years ago (4.7% in 1994—95). Indigenous separations rose again sharply this year, from 4.1% of all ongoing separations in 2002—03 to 4.9% in 2003—04; the highest rate in a decade. The absolute decline in numbers of Indigenous employees in 2003—04 resulted from both the decline in numbers of engagements and the increase in separations. These trends are shown in Table 8.8.

Table 8.8: Indigenous representation in engagements and separations of ongoing employees, 1994—95 to 2003—04

Source: APSED

In percentage terms, trainee programs have represented an important source of engagements for Indigenous employees, as shown in Figure 8.4 below. 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 in graduate trainee programs (2.7% of graduate trainees at 30 June 2004 were Indigenous, compared to 8.8% of other trainees). However, overall trainee numbers (both trainees and graduate trainees) dropped significantly across the APS in 2003—04, with a larger than average decrease in Indigenous trainees (falling from 7.0% at June 2003 to 5.6% at June 2004), and absolute numbers of Indigenous trainees and graduate trainees fell from 87 at June 2003 to 40 at June 2004.

Figure 8.4: Representation of ongoing Indigenous employees in trainee classifications, 1995 to 2004

Source: APSED

Figure 8.5 compares the length of service in the APS by Indigenous status, for those staff who separated from the APS during 2003—04. It shows the proportion of separations that occurred at different lengths of service for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous employees. Results were similar to those in 2002—03. Indigenous employees do not remain as long in the APS as non-Indigenous employees. During 2003—04, over one half of Indigenous employees who left had worked in the Service for fewer than five years, compared to less than onethird of non-Indigenous employees.

Figure 8.5: Ongoing staff: Separations by Indigenous status and length of service, 2003—04

Source: APSED

The decrease in Indigenous employment in both absolute and proportional terms in 2003—04 is of concern. Falls in recruitment of trainees in 2003—04 have added to the ongoing problems of declining low-level job opportunities and higher than average separation rates. A declining trend in Indigenous employment is now emerging since the peak in 1998—99 and the need for targeted recruitment and retention strategies is clear, particularly given the transfer of many Indigenous employees from ATSIS to mainstream agencies at the beginning of 2004—05. Some agencies are making efforts to address this concern.

AGENCY SUPPORT FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS

As in 2002—03, the agency survey included detailed questions about agency support for Indigenous Australians and people with a disability, reflecting the key issues for these groups identified in previous State of the Service reports. Future surveys may explore other diversity issues.

The agency survey asked agencies about their strategies to recruit and retain Indigenous employees, and about their use of formal Indigenous employment strategies. The employee survey asked about employees’ perceptions of whether their agency supported the employment, development and promotion of Indigenous employees.

Indigenous recruitment

There has been little change in 2004 in the frequency of strategies used (across all agencies) to recruit Indigenous Australians, compared to 2003.

Table 8.9 sets out the overall frequency of strategies used by agencies to recruit Indigenous Australians in 2004.

Table 8.9: Agency strategies to recruit Indigenous Australians

Source: Agency survey

Only 53% of agencies reported using one or more strategies to recruit Indigenous Australians. Twenty-two per cent of agencies reported using a single strategy, most commonly participation in the National Indigenous Cadetship Program run by DEWR. Nine per cent of agencies, mostly large agencies, used a combination of five or more strategies to recruit Indigenous employees. Eleven per cent of agencies reported that they are developing at least one strategy for Indigenous recruitment.

While it is useful to note the frequency and type of strategies agencies are using to recruit Indigenous employees, the critical issue is, of course, how effective those strategies are. This will vary depending on the organisational context of the agency. It is reasonable, for example, for an agency to concentrate on a single strategy that has proved effective, while others might employ a range of strategies to good effect.

While it would be unreasonable, given the variation between agencies, to suggest that they should use a particular strategy or mix of strategies, it is concerning that a sizeable proportion of agencies (43%), including 10 medium and two large agencies, report that they do not use any specific strategies to recruit Indigenous Australians and are not developing strategies.

Of the 24 WDPs examined in detail for the Commission’s WDP evaluation, 16 referred to strategies aimed at eliminating employment disadvantage for Indigenous Australians. Along with NESB employees, initiatives for Indigenous employees were the least likely to be included in WDPs.

FaCS’s WDP, assessed as being among the best, included the following detailed strategy (summarised below).

DIVERSITY THROUGH RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OBJECTIVE: FaCS will improve diversity capability.
STRATEGY: Attract, support, develop and retain Indigenous employees.		PERFORMANCE INDICATORS The number of Indigenous employees has increased and a range of support and development mechanisms are in place to meet policy development and program management requirements.
ACTION: Develop, implement and review an Indigenous recruitment and retention plan, detailing employment, learning, support and inclusion activities.		RESPONSIBILITY: Work-life Diversity Team, in consultation with FaCS Indigenous Officers’ Network, Indigenous Policy and North Australia Office and State and Teritory Offices.

Retention of Indigenous employees

Specific measures to retain Indigenous employees were more common than measures to recruit Indigenous employees. The majority of agencies (72%) reported using strategies to retain Indigenous employees: the most common strategy being provision of special leave (for example, ceremonial leave), which was included as a possible response in the agency survey for the first time in 2004.

It is pleasing to note that, putting special leave aside for the purpose of comparison with 2003, there has been a 15 percentage point increase (48% in 2004 compared to 33% in 2003) in agencies using strategies to retain Indigenous employees. However, 24 agencies (28%) do not use any specific strategies to retain Indigenous employees, and only two of those agencies report that they are developing strategies. This group includes eight medium agencies and one large agency. Of medium and large agencies without retention strategies, seven do have Indigenous employees, and could reasonably be expected to have strategies for retaining them.

Table 8.10 sets out the frequency of strategies used across all agencies.

Table 8.10: Agency strategies to retain Indigenous employees

Note: Results do not include agencies that did not respond to the question relating to the particular strategy.

Source: Agency survey

Indigenous employment strategies

Given the multiple dimensions to Indigenous employment disadvantage in the APS, in some agencies the development of formal and integrated strategies to support Indigenous employment, rather than the implementation of isolated measures, may be appropriate.

The agency survey asked agencies whether they currently have a formal Indigenous Employment Strategy (IES) in place. Only thirteen agencies indicated that they had such a strategy. These agencies provided a copy of their strategy to the Commission.

Several strategies were out-of-date. One strategy referred to the PS Act 1922 as legislation underpinning their strategy. Another strategy, launched in August 1999, covered the period 1999—2001. Other strategies had a narrow view of opportunities for Indigenous employees, concentrating on work in Indigenous-related policy, program, and service delivery areas.

Some agencies, including DEST, had put a detailed IES in place.

Employee perceptions

The employee survey asked respondents to rate their level of agreement with the statement ‘my agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of Indigenous employees’. Overall, 57% of respondents across the APS agreed with the statement, with results for the 22 large agencies ranging from 29% to a high of 85% at DEST. The APS result was much lower than similar questions in relation to women and people from all cultural backgrounds, but similar to the level of agreement about agency support for people with a disability.

It is clear, however, that the level of agreement, especially in those agencies with the highest responses, is strongly correlated with the proportion of Indigenous employees in the agency. For example, the five large agencies (ATSIS, DEST, DEWR, Centrelink and DEH) with the largest proportion of Indigenous employees also had the highest level of agreement, with all achieving agreement rates over 70%, compared to the APS average of 57%. Similarly, the lowest levels of agreement were at agencies with no or very low numbers of Indigenous employees.

This result may explain the higher level of agreement among Indigenous employees, who are concentrated in a small number of agencies with higher than average Indigenous employment, that their agency supported the employment, development and promotion of Indigenous employees (63% compared to 56% of non-Indigenous employees). Indigenous employees’ views were, however, more polarised, with a much higher proportion of Indigenous employees having disagreed with the statement than non-Indigenous employees (24% compared to 5% for non-Indigenous employees). Non-Indigenous employees who did not agree with the statement were more likely to have chosen ‘neither agree nor disagree’ (27% compared to 11%) or ‘don’t know’ (12% compared to 2%).

At least half of respondents (ranging from 50% to 62%) from five of the 22 large agencies included in the survey chose ‘neither agree nor disagree’ or ‘don’t know’ in relation to their agency’s support for Indigenous employees.

This suggests that some agencies need to better develop or more clearly articulate their commitment to support the employment, development and promotion of Indigenous Australians. While it might be unreasonable to expect that employees would be familiar with the detail of their agency’s recruitment and retention strategies, it is important, and in the interests of the agency, that their employees are clear about the agency’s commitment to Indigenous employment.

Following are some employee comments about their agency’s support for Indigenous Australians.

The agency supports the employment of Indigenous employees however development and promotion is poor.

It's as if once an Indigenous person is employed that's it, the target has been achieved, and when they don't rise up that's because of their own deficiencies.

In the case of Indigenous it's possible that 'active support' is less relevant than successful outcomes (i.e. employment of Indigenous people).

More use could be made of Aboriginal Cadetship schemes.

The employment of Indigenous people seems to occur largely for Indigenous policy/program areas, rather than across the department.

If actively supports means 'employs' then the answer is no for Indigenous people.

JOB SATISFACTION–INDIGENOUS EMPLOYEES

Background information on the job satisfaction questions in the employee survey is found above at the section ‘Job satisfaction–women’.

Table 8.11 sets out the five most important workplace factors for Indigenous and non-Indigenous employees, and the overall proportion of those groups that are satisfied with that factor.

Indigenous employees were more likely than other employees to choose ‘opportunities to develop my skills’, and ‘opportunities to utilise my skills’ among the job satisfaction factors that were most important to them.

Table 8.11: Most important job satisfaction factors, by Indigenous status

Source: Employee survey

Note: The results in this table relate to factors chosen and rated by respondents. Data for factors chosen by respondents who did not go on to rate their satisfaction with those factors is not included.

While ‘good manager’ is not among the most important job satisfaction factors for Indigenous employees in Table 8.11, it was ranked just outside the five factors included in the table.

The majority of non-Indigenous employees were satisfied with each of the job satisfaction factors they chose as most important, while a majority of Indigenous employees were satisfied with four of the five.

Of the factors that Indigenous and non-Indigenous employees have in common (‘good working relationships’, ‘flexible working arrangements’ and ‘salary’) ‘good working relationships’ was unambiguously the most important factor for both groups. Only 70% of Indigenous employees, however, were satisfied with their ‘working relationships’ compared with 86% of non-Indigenous employees.

The overall job satisfaction of Indigenous employees (based on the job satisfaction index) was 68% compared to 74% for non-Indigenous employees.

In response to another question on people management, there were no significant differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous employees in their likelihood of rating their supervisors as highly effective at managing people.

5 Australian Census 2001.