Home > Workplace diversity > Non-Enhlish speaking background

NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING BACKGROUND

As indicated above, the term ‘NESB’, representing people from a non-English speaking background, is used in APSED. In the absence of an alternative, 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 five years, changing from 2.8% of total ongoing employees in 1999 to 2.9% in 2003.¹⁰ In addition, their classification profile in 2004 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, Philippines, Scotland, Hong Kong, Germany, China, USA, Italy, Poland, Fiji, South Africa, Papua New Guinea, Netherlands, Canada, Mauritius.

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

Chinese (including Cantonese and Mandarin), Italian, Greek, German, Polish, Vietnamese, Spanish, Aboriginal languages, Croatian, Dutch, Arabic, Macedonian, Serbian, Turkish, Slovenian.

The proportion of people in the APS who identified themselves as being from a non-English speaking background (NESB1) rose a little during the past year, from 3.2% in 2003 to 3.3% in 2004. This brings the proportion of NESB1 employees back to the level at which it has been in every year since 1999 (except for 2003), but leaves lower than their representation a decade ago (3.9% in 1995).

Figure 8.8 shows the representation of NESB1 employees by classification from 1995 to 2004. Apart from the lower representation at SES levels, there is no clear pattern of declining representation in higher classification levels. The trainee and graduate trainee classifications were the only ones that were not lower in 2004 than they were in 1995, although there was considerable variation in these classifications over the period, from a low of 2.6% in 1995—96 to a high of 5.3% in 1999—00. Unlike Indigenous employees, NESB1 employees who come into the APS through trainee classifications are much more likely to do so through graduate programs than other training opportunities. During 2003—04, NESB1 representation rose marginally for all APS classification levels, remained steady for EL levels and fell slightly for the SES.

Figure 8.8: Ongoing staff: Proportions of NESB1 employees by classification, 1995 to 2004

Source: APSED

Representation of NESB1 employees varies between agencies, with the National Library of Australia (NLA) (12.8%), DIMIA (9.7%) and ABS (7.9%) being among the highest. Figure 8.9 shows representation for those agencies with more than 1000 ongoing employees.

Figure 8.9: Representation of NESB1 employees in agencies with more than 1000 ongoing employees, 2004

Source: APSED

The proportion of State of the Service employee survey respondents who identified themselves as NESB, defined as being born outside Australia and not speaking English as a first language, was 11%. This is much higher than the corresponding NESB1 figure for APSED (3.3%), and higher even than the combined proportion of NESB1 and NESB2 employees (6.2%). As noted above, EEO groups are likely to be somewhat under-represented in APSED, but this is unlikely to explain all of the difference. It is possible that there may have been some definitional confusion among respondents, but the extent of this cannot be assessed. Given the disparity in results, the employee survey results in relation to the views of NESB employees should be treated with some caution.

AGENCY SUPPORT FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF PEOPLE FROM A NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING BACKGROUND

This year’s employee survey asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement with the statement ‘my agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of people from all cultural backgrounds’, as it applies in their agency. Eighty per cent of all respondents agreed with this statement. The range among large agencies was the narrowest of all four EEO groups, extending from a low of 64% to a high of 88%, with the highest results being at DEST, Customs and ATO.

The APS result was similar to employees’ level of agreement that their agency supports the employment of women, and is higher than similar results for Indigenous Australians and people with a disability. The State of the Service result is also consistent with positive results in the Victorian public sector from the Victorian Government's People Matter Survey 2003 in relation to employees' perception of cultural background issues.

While the results are not directly comparable, the Victorian Government found a high rate of agreement (89%) that ‘cultural background is not a barrier to success in my workgroup’ among responding employees.¹¹

Eighty-one per cent of non-NESB1 respondents agreed with the statement that their agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of people from all cultural backgrounds, compared to 72% of respondents who identified themselves as being NESB1.

Despite the generally high level of agreement that agencies support the employment of people from all cultural backgrounds, some employees made comments about difficulties facing NESB employees in the APS.

I have seen on several occasions that very skilled and experienced employees from non-English speaking backgrounds encountering problems in promotions and placements, regardless of their skills and experience. The non-English speaking condition seems to be a barrier even though they have many proven skills and abilities.

Some areas of the department are more culturally diverse than others. My work area is predominantly Anglo-Celtic.

Diversity is accepted, although lack of skill with the English language can hamper recruitment to positions that require a high level of written ability. Hard to understand accents can also hamper recruitment to positions dealing with the public or industry. This is because we recruit people we think can do the job well.

Of the 24 WDPs examined in detail for the Commission’s evaluation, 16 included initiatives for NESB employees. Along with Indigenous employees, this is the lowest rate of inclusion of specific initiatives for the four EEO groups.

DAFF has included measures to support employees from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in its WDP by:

• introducing programs to help improve English skills, both written and verbal
• providing access to a quiet room for prayer and meditation
• recognising religious festivities
• establishing a database of language and cultural skills.

JOB SATISFACTION–PEOPLE FROM A NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING BACKGROUND

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

Table 8.15 sets out the most important job satisfaction factors indicated by employees identifying as being NESB1 and their satisfaction with those factors.

Table 8.15: Most important job satisfaction factors, by NESB1 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.

There is a high degree of similarity between the factors chosen by NESB1 and non-NESB1 employees as most contributing to job satisfaction, with four of the five most important factors being common to both groups. ‘Opportunities to develop my skills’ was ranked among the most important factors by NESB1 employees, as setout in Table 8.15, but was just outside the five most important chosen by non-NESB1 employees. Similarly, ‘good manager’ was among the most important factors chosen by non-NESB1 employees, but was just outside the five most important for NESB1 employees.

When a summary index of the job satisfaction results for NESB1 employees is compared with non-NESB1 employees there was little difference in overall job satisfaction: 72% of NESB1 employees had an index rating of more than five (satisfied to very satisfied overall) compared to 74% for non-NESB1 employees.

In response to another question on people management, there were no significant differences between NESB1 and non-NESB1 employees in their likelihood of rating their supervisors as highly effective at managing people.

10 The proportion of employees in the NESB2 category is lower than that reported previously. This is because of an error in the algorithm used to calculate NESB status in earlier years when employees with missing data were incorrectly assigned a NESB status.

11 See <http://www.ope.vic.gov.au> . Caution should be exercised in comparing the results because of the differences in wording of the questions, and differences in methodologies between the two surveys.