Home page
> Indigenous affairs > Census report > Chapter 8: APS agency commitment and support to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders
> Publications
‹ Previous page

Census report

related indigenous items Useful references

Chapter 8: APS agency commitment and support to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders

The State of the Service Report 2004–05 identified considerable variation among agencies in the degree to which they had specific strategies in place relating to the employment of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. Nineteen agencies had formal Indigenous employment strategies in place, and a greater number had adopted a range of specific recruitment and retention strategies. Nevertheless, 19 agencies (23% of the total) did not have any specific strategies in place to retain Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees.

This chapter explores Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees’ perceptions of their agencies’ commitment to, and support for, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment. It looks at respondents’ views about the level of support within their agency and the effectiveness of Indigenous employment strategies and cultural awareness training. It also examines how effectively and sensitively their fellow employees work with Indigenous Australians.

The chapter looks, too, at the level of access to, and perceptions of, the importance of a range of formal support mechanisms for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees. It also explores in more detail employee awareness of, and views about, the Indigenous APS Employees’ Network (IAPSEN) as well as other issues relevant to the level of support employees feel they receive in their workplace.

Agency commitment

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employee survey asked employees to rate their level of agreement with the statement ‘My agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees.’ Almost half (49%) of respondents agreed that their agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees. However, 23% of respondents disagreed with this statement, while 25% neither agreed nor disagreed. The level of agreement expressed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees is lower than the 58% reported for APS employees overall.⁴⁷

Employees were more likely to agree with the statement ‘My agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees’ if they were:

aged less than 25 or 45 and over (60% and 57% respectively, compared to those aged 25 to 44 (44%) and 35 to 44 (47%))
at the APS 1–2 levels (63%), with agreement levels falling as classifications rose down to 44% for EL employees
from rural (55%) and remote (62%) areas (compared to 39% for metropolitan areas and 45% for capital cities)
in identified positions (59% compared to 41% for employees in non-identified positions).

When asked whether their agency should be doing more or less to support the employment, development and promotion of Indigenous employees a large majority of respondents replied ‘more’ or ‘much more’ (80%).

Seventeen per cent of respondents indicated that their agency should do neither more nor less, while 2% did not know. Respondents were more likely to think that their agency should do more to support Indigenous employees if:

they were from metropolitan areas (91%) and capital cities (82%) rather than rural (77%) and remote (76%) areas
their work was directly related to the Indigenous community (87% compared to 74% for those whose work was not specifically related to the Indigenous community)
they had less than one year of service (65% compared to 81% for other employees).

Respondents provided the following comments with regard to their agency’s level of commitment to Indigenous employees.

I am not up to date with current thinking but it does seem to be doing more & trying to recruit & more importantly retain indigenous staff in SA however, we still seem to be thin on the ground!

I think constant improvement should always be an objective.

Need to employ more Indigenous Employees at higher levels (i.e. APS6 and above).

Agency needs to engage in succession planning of Indigenous employees to the middle management level.

My agency has a dedicated group of people in HR who are working very hard to improve levels of Indigenous Employment in the department. I cannot say though, that the agency as a whole shares this commitment or enthusiasm.

We have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander meetings every 3 months, each meeting the same issues are raised and nothing gets done about them.

Indigenous employment strategies

Just over half of respondents (51%) indicated that their agency had a formal Indigenous Employment Strategy, while 38% were unsure. Eleven per cent of Indigenous employees reported that their agency did not have a formal Indigenous Employment Strategy.

Views on the effectiveness of formal Indigenous employment programmes were generally not positive. Only 30% of respondents who indicated that their agency had a formal Indigenous Employment Strategy in place believed that it had been effective in improving employment outcomes for Indigenous employees. Forty-three per cent of employees did not believe that their agency’s strategy had been effective and 27% were not sure.

To obtain further information about the spread of employee views and agency variation, the analysis looked specifically at the spread of views of employees in the 11 agencies that reported in the 2005 State of the Service agency survey that they had a formal Indigenous Employment Strategy in place, and which had more than 20 respondents to the survey.⁴⁸ Table 8.1 indicates the range of the proportion of employees who were aware that their agency had a formal Indigenous Employment Strategy in place in agencies which did report having a formal strategy. It also provides the range of views on the strategy’s effectiveness of respondents who were aware of the agency’s strategy.

Table 8.1: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees’ awareness of their agency’s Indigenous Employment Strategy, where the agency reported having a strategy, and their views on its effectiveness

	Survey results (% range)
	Yes (%)	No (%)	Not Sure (%)
Does your agency have a formal Indigenous Employment Strategy	25–83	4–33	8–50
Has the Indigenous Employment Strategy been effective in improving employment outcomes for Indigenous employees (Note: only asked of employees who answered yes to the question above)	3–32	4–45	5–25

Note: The ranges provided are derived from agency-specific survey results of the 11 agencies that reported that they had a formal Indigenous Employment Strategy in place and had more than 20 respondents to the survey. They include the result from the relevant agency reporting the lowest proportion of employees with the particular result for the question and the relevant agency with the highest proportion. They do not include the APS-wide results.

Source: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees Census Survey

Where agencies had indicated in the 2005 State of the Service agency survey that they had a formal Indigenous Employment Strategy in place, the proportion of employees aware of that strategy ranged from a low of 25% to a high of 83%. Views on the effectiveness of such strategies were not particularly positive, ranging from a low of 3% of relevant respondents who believed that the strategy had been effective in one agency to a high of 32%.

While views were generally not positive, respondents were more likely to view formal Indigenous employment strategies as effective if they:

were in the youngest (under 25) or oldest (54 and over) age groups (42% and 45% respectively, with respondents aged 25 to 34 least likely to agree (23%))
were at lower classifications (agreement ranging from a high of 55% for APS 1–2 respondents down to a low of 23% for EL respondents)
were in medium agencies (64% compared to 24% in small and 26% in large agencies)
were in remote areas (43% agreement compared to 29% for respondents in capital cities, 23% for metropolitan and 30% for rural areas)
were in identified positions (37% compared to 22% for employees in non-identified positions)
had less than one year of service (52% compared to respondents in all other length of service categories ranging from 23% to 36%)
had a diploma and/or certificate level educational qualification (36%, higher than employees with tertiary (25%), Year 11 or 12 (28%) or Year 10 or less (29%) qualifications).

Cultural awareness training

Respondents to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employee survey were also asked about whether they were aware of any Indigenous cultural awareness training being offered by their agency to employees in general over the last 12 months. A third were aware of such training, with most (55%) reporting that they were not aware of any Indigenous cultural awareness training. Twelve per cent were not sure.

Of those respondents who reported that they were aware that Indigenous cultural awareness training had been offered in their agency in the last 12 months, views about its effectiveness were generally more positive than in relation to the effectiveness of formal Indigenous employment strategies. Fifty-nine per cent of respondents who indicated that cultural awareness training had occurred in their agency reported that it had been effective in building an increased awareness of Indigenous issues (i.e. a better understanding of the issues faced by Indigenous Australians). Twenty-six per cent were not sure whether the training was effective, while 15% reported that it was not effective.

Amongst those who indicated that Indigenous cultural awareness training had been offered in their agency in the last 12 months, respondents were more likely to think that the training was effective in building an increased awareness of Indigenous issues if they:

were at the APS 1–2 (91%) and APS 3–4 (62%) levels, compared to employees at the APS 5–6 (50%) and EL (48%) classifications
worked outside the ACT (63% compared to 45% for those working inside the ACT)
were in identified positions (65% compared to 54% in non-identified positions)
did not have a tertiary qualification (ranging from 59% to 67% for this group compared to only 45% for those with tertiary qualifications).

Working effectively and sensitively with Indigenous Australians

Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement about whether the colleagues in their immediate work area, their supervisor and most employees in their agency work effectively and sensitively with Indigenous Australians.

The majority of respondents (69%) agreed that most of their colleagues in their immediate work area work in such a way. Eighteen per cent of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed, 10% disagreed, and 3% were unsure. Respondents were more likely to agree if they:

were aged over 54 (80%, with the lowest agreement being for those aged 25 to 34 (65%))
were from small (88%) and medium (83%) agencies (compared to 66% for large agencies)
were employed outside the ACT (70% compared to 63% for those employed in the ACT)
were in identified positions (77% compared to 61% in non-identified positions)
had less than one year of service (81%, with employees in all other length of service categories ranging from 65% to 71%).

A similar proportion (70%) of respondents agreed that their supervisor works effectively and sensitively with Indigenous Australians. Only 7% disagreed, while 20% neither agreed nor disagreed. Respondents were more likely to agree with this sentiment if they:

were aged under 25
were from small or medium agencies
worked in identified positions, or did work directly related to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community.

Respondents employed in capital cities were less likely to agree that their supervisor works effectively with Indigenous Australians (67%) than were employees who worked in metropolitan (77%), rural (76%), or remote (75%) areas.

When compared to views on colleagues’ and supervisors’ ability in this area, fewer respondents agreed that most staff in their agency work effectively and sensitively with Indigenous Australians, although the majority (56%) were still in agreement. Twenty-four per cent of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement, 15% disagreed, and 5% were not sure. The highest levels of agreement with this statement came from respondents:

aged under 25 or over 54
at the APS 1–2 levels
from small and medium agencies
in identified positions or whose work is directly related to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community
with less than one year of service.

Respondents from rural and remote areas (both 67%) were more positive than were employees in metropolitan areas or capital cities (both 49%).

The following comments from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees provide some insight into their views on agency commitment to Indigenous employment within the APS.

Within our agency there are lots of strategies put in place—[agency Indigenous Employment Strategy] but there is no follow through once it’s implemented.

It should be compulsory for all non Indigenous staff to attend Cross cultural awareness training.

This is one area where this Department can be proud—I believe it takes the lead in its commitment to Indigenous Employment when compared to other Government Departments.

Although there is a formal agreement at Secretariat level to maintain and recruit Indigenous people in my immediate agency, it appears to not have adequately filtered down to middle management/regional managers.

Our Department has combined Indigenous and Multicultural awareness courses. Not relevant for Indigenous issues. The Indigenous recruitment strategy is Canberra-centric and ignores the needs of the state/territory offices.

Agency support

Respondents to the survey were asked if their agency provided a range of formal support mechanisms, and, if so, whether they had accessed any of them. Table 8.2 provides the results for these questions, listing support mechanisms in descending order based on the proportion of respondents who indicated that their agency offered the mechanism.

Table 8.2: Agency support mechanisms

	Is this offered by your agency?			Have you accessed any of these support mechanisms?
	Yes (%)	No (%)	Not Sure (%)	Yes (%)	No (%)
Leave to attend NAIDOC celebrations	79	9	13	76	24
Employee Assistance Program	73	5	22	38	62
Special leave provisions for ceremonial leave	65	10	25	42	58
Indigenous Staff Networks	58	22	20	79	21
Indigenous-specific study awards (e.g. scholarships)	52	19	29	25	75
Targeted learning and development opportunities	48	21	30	63	37
Mentoring	40	33	27	46	54
Placement and/or mobility options	37	20	43	35	65
Indigenous-specific training programmes	37	33	31	66	34
Coaching	36	33	31	60	40
Encourages participation in IAPSEN⁴⁹	35	25	40	56	44
Indigenous HR Coordinator	24	40	36	48	52
Buddy Scheme	24	45	31	58	42

Source: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees Census Survey

The most commonly reported support mechanisms available to respondents were leave to attend National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee (NAIDOC) celebrations, the agency Employee Assistance Program, special leave provisions for ceremonial leave, Indigenous staff networks and Indigenous-specific study awards. There were relatively high levels of uncertainty about whether some of the mechanisms were offered, particularly in relation to placements and mobility options and encouragement of participation in IAPSEN.

Of the five support mechanisms most frequently reported by employees as being offered by their agency, the most frequently accessed were Indigenous staff networks and leave to attend NAIDOC celebrations. Other support mechanisms most likely to be accessed by employees who indicated that they were available in their agency included targeted learning and development opportunities, Indigenous-specific training programmes and coaching.

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each support mechanism as a way of supporting them at work, regardless of whether it was available in their agency. For each mechanism, respondents could rate it as important, neither important nor unimportant, or not important.⁵⁰ A majority of employees rated all options as important, with agreement that mechanisms were important ranging from a low of 72% for the Employee Assistance Program, to a high of 93% for targeted learning and development opportunities.

Twenty-five per cent of all respondents indicated that they had accessed Indigenous-specific study awards such as scholarships. Respondents who had received such awards were asked to rate their satisfaction with being able to apply the skills they had gained through their studies in the workplace. Forty-three per cent of relevant employees who answered the question reported that they were satisfied that they had been able to apply the skills gained through their studies in the workplace. Thirteen per cent disagreed, 13% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 31% felt that the question was not applicable to their situation.

Indigenous APS Employees’ Network

Respondents were also asked whether they had heard of IAPSEN. Networks of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS employees, which operate in Canberra, Brisbane, NSW, Victoria and WA, aim to establish and maintain a culturally appropriate network that supports and advocates Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employee interests, values and perspectives in the APS.⁵¹

The results indicate that there is significant potential for IAPSEN to be better promoted among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees. Only 44% of respondents reported they had heard of IAPSEN and approximately half (49%) of Indigenous APS employees specifically indicated that they had not heard of the network. There was a greater awareness of IAPSEN among employees at higher classifications and education levels and among those working in small and large rather than medium agencies. IAPSEN was much better known inside the ACT (69% of respondents) than outside the ACT (38% of respondents). IAPSEN was also more widely known in capital and metropolitan localities, than in rural and remote localities.

All respondents were asked if they had participated in IAPSEN and how satisfied they were with its effectiveness. While most respondents said the question was not applicable to them, similar proportions of respondents were satisfied or neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Fourteen per cent indicated that they were satisfied with IAPSEN’s effectiveness, 13% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4% were dissatisfied and 69% reported that the question was not applicable.⁵²

Respondents were more likely to be satisfied with IAPSEN’s effectiveness if they:

were aged between 25 and 34 and 45 and 54
had longer periods of service (particularly 20 years or more)
worked in capital cities or metropolitan areas.

Respondents were also asked, if they had not participated in IAPSEN, why this was so. The following reasons were provided, with by far the most common response being a lack of knowledge about IAPSEN:

did not know about IAPSEN (59%)
IAPSEN not available in my location (9%)
not interested in participating (6%)
not allowed time off by my agency/supervisor (4%)
I have heard it is not very effective (3%)
Other (13%).

The following comments from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees provide some idea of their views on the formal support mechanisms provided to Indigenous employees to support them at work.

Applying for NAIDOC leave certainly is a challenge rather than encouraged, also attending IAPSEN.

You should have asked if these [support] mechanisms were effective. In my case, only the IEN was effective, in fact, if it wasn’t for the support of my IEN colleagues I would have left the APS by now.

I have myself been a mentor, conducted coaching sessions and acted as a buddy and feel this is very important. I have acted in this position to assist younger staff members. I have also had two work experience students from our local communities participate in work experience for a week and have acted as their supervisor/mentor. I find this is very rewarding.

I am extremely disappointed that the [agency] no longer provide support/facilitation for the IAPSEN. To me, this does not demonstrate a commitment to Indigenous recruitment/retention.

Although we have a lot in place, I sometimes wonder about the effectiveness of it. To me it seems like a peace offering. They are there to keep the Indigenous numbers happy, but not to be taken seriously.

I’m cynical of some of the above because I’ve seen people abuse things like ceremonial leave. They do it just to get out of work. This makes it bad for the rest of us.

We have an informal network developed through word of mouth.

There is not much support given to Indigenous staff at an individual level and also at a group/area level. It’s a feeling of sink or swim, which I feel is not right given the cultural aspects of Indigenous staff.

My agency has reduced its active support over the past two years and is now wondering why the numbers of Indigenous staff are reducing.

I think IAPSEN has a great deal of potential, however it is in its infancy so I would like to see it develop more before I make any real judgement on it.

Although rarely accessing my mentor during my scholarship I take comfort in knowing that she is there should I need to contact her. I also take comfort in knowing she is Indigenous.

At the moment it is only an annual get together without any true outcomes other than having a guest speaker in attendance. I have not seen any positive outcomes from these gatherings such as emphasis on Indigenous recruiting, training or mentoring. Good lunches, poor results!

Working life

The survey examined a number of aspects of working life, particularly employees’ satisfaction with their say in the workplace, their work-life balance and their use of flexible working practices. It also looked at their satis-faction with the support provided by their agency to allow them to meet cultural and community obligations.

Input into workplace decisions

Respondents were asked how satisfied they were with the overall say they have in decisions that impact on their work. Over half (54%) of respondents were satisfied with the overall say they have in decisions that impact on their work; 26% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and 19% were dissatisfied. This compares favourably with results for APS employees overall, where 45% of APS employees reported that they were satisfied while 29% were dissatisfied.

Older respondents (those aged 45 or over), EL respondents, respondents in metropolitan areas and those from medium agencies were more satisfied with their overall say in decisions that impact on their work.

Despite the overall positive results, some negative comments were made by respondents.

Input into workplace decisions is dependent on how good your supervisor is. There are some managers who pretend to consult but are not genuine.

As an APS 3 [I] have very little input into workplace decisions—there a culture of importance/credibility only begins at the APS 5–6 level.

I am often asked and provide good feedback on workplace improvements and best practice. At the end of the day it’s just lip service, they don’t care what you have to say because the decisions have already been made.

We are not often consulted about a decision in the office, but informed after a decision is made, if and when our ( management team) decides we need to know.

I was told that I was part of a management team but very seldom ever get to attend meetings as I am not informed when they are or they get me to do other work so I cannot attend.

Work-life balance

Just over half (53%) of respondents had carer responsibilities. This is a much higher result than for APS employees overall (39%), emphasising the importance of family-friendly work practices for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees.⁵³

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers were most likely to be caring for children aged between five and 16 (61%), followed by children under five (33%), extended family members (20%), aged parents (15%) and dependents aged over 16 (14%). They were less likely to care for disabled dependents (7%). Four per cent of respondents also indicated that they had ‘other’ carer responsibilities, commonly caring for their partner and/or spouse.

Respondents were more likely to have carer responsibilities if aged between 35 and 44, at the APS 5–6 levels, and employed outside the ACT or outside capital cities. As for APS employees generally, women were more likely to have carer responsibilities (57%) than were men (45%).

Those with carer responsibilities were asked how often they had personally used leave or some other arrangement to care for those for whom they are responsible. The results are shown at Figure 8.1. The proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers accessing any carers leave was similar to (and slightly less than) that for APS employees generally. However, when they did take leave they were more likely to take longer periods of leave. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees were less likely to use one to five days of leave than APS employees were (49% compared to 64%) and more likely to use more than 10 days leave (19% compared with 7%).

Figure 8.1: Proportion of carers reporting days used for carers leave or similar arrange-ments by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees and APS employees

Chart

Source: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees Census Survey and 2005 State of the Service Employee Survey

Supervisor’s support for flexible work practices

Respondents to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employee survey were asked how satisfied they were that their supervisor would support the use of flexible work practices such as flextime, personal leave, flexible working hours, and part-time work. The large majority— 82% of respondents—were satisfied that their supervisor would support them in their use of flexible work practices. Nine per cent were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 9% were dissatisfied. This was similar to the proportion for APS employees overall (81% satisfied).⁵⁴

Respondents from medium agencies were more likely to be satisfied (85%) than respondents from small (72%) or large (82%) agencies.

Balancing cultural and community commitments

Respondents were asked whether they had cultural or community obligations that took them out of the workplace. A third of respondents indicated that they did and of these respondents, 37% indicated that they had used one or two days of leave in the last 12 months at short notice to meet these obligations. A further 23% had used between three and five days, 13% had used between six and 10 days and 10% more than 10 days.

Respondents were more likely to have cultural and/or community obligations that take them out of the workplace if they were aged between 45 and 54, were at the APS 5–6 levels or EL employees, worked in small agencies, worked in remote localities, or worked in identified positions or with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community.

Overall, relevant employees had high levels of satisfaction with the support provided by their workplace in meeting their cultural or community obligations. Around three-quarters of respondents with cultural and/or community obligations were satisfied with the support provided by their workplace in meeting their obligations. Seventeen per cent were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, while only 10% were dissatisfied with the support provided. Respondents were more satisfied with workplace support in this area if they were aged 45 to 54, worked in medium agencies, and worked in identified positions or with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. However, while still generally positive, employees at the APS 3–4 levels, where the largest proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees are employed, reported the lowest satisfaction levels (67% compared to 79% for employees at other levels).

The following comments provide some respondents’ views on the support they receive in trying to balance work-life and community obligations.

I find that when it comes to family my team leader and the organisations support is second to none and should be commended for this. For family must always come first, so thank you.

I have a supportive Team Leader but I still have to fully explain my obligations within an Aboriginal family when asking for time off to go to a funeral.

A lot of my community obligations cannot be met as I have limited leave or workplace obligations.

I think if the government really supports Aboriginal cultural obligations, cultural leave should be approved as paid leave not leave without pay.

Sometimes (not all the time) Indigenous persons abuse the APS conditions under this criteria.

Our office is very understanding of individual family responsibilities/commitments and I guess this is due to everybody being in a similar situation.

My supervisor is very flexible with regards to taking time off provided my work is done… mainly because he is an Indigenous person as well. But it can be a bit uncomfortable asking for leave for a funeral if you have attended 3 in a month already. I don’t think non-Indigenous people and the APS understand the family connections, roles and responsibilities that Indigenous people have with family (some very large) and the duties that come with it.

I would like to see more work from home opportunities offered to be able to balance my home life and seeing my children and work.

A large consideration in my leaving the private sector to work in the APS was the commitment to a work/life balance.

I am confident that if it was required, I would be granted leave for family, cultural and similar leave. The problem is that there is little or no choice for someone filling-in and assisting with the workload on these occasions. I have purposely not gone to some family occasions (including funerals) because of the above issue.

I’ve found that as I’ve moved up the ladder in the APS I’ve gotten more respect and support for my family/cultural obligations out of the workplace. It was a lot harder to apply for leave and convince your boss when I was an APS 1–4.

My community activities are outside work times, cause I think there is a lack of interest, even at management level to participate at the community level.

My current supervisor is very supportive of any other activities I do outside of work.

It seems like our organisation is selective on the type of leave we must use up for different community obligations (e.g. one gathering I may be able to just go to, another I am told to use recreational leave, then another maybe I can use my flex leave).

Key findings

The survey found a number of positive results in relation to the support that employees receive within the workplace. In particular, a large majority of employees are satisfied both with their supervisor’s support for flexible work practices, and more specifically with the support provided by their workplace in meeting their community and cultural obligations. These findings are particularly significant given the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees are more likely to have caring responsibilities than other employees, and that around a third have cultural or community obligations which sometimes take them out of their workplace. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees are also more satisfied than are other employees with their say in decisions at work and many have access to a range of formal support mechanisms.

Nevertheless, there are a number of concerns about respondents’ perceptions of their agencies’ support for, and commitment to, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment. In particular, only half of Indigenous respondents agreed that their agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees, and views concerning the effectiveness of formal Indigenous employment strategies within agencies were generally negative.

Employees were much more positive about the ability of individual colleagues and supervisors to work ef-fectively and sensitively with Indigenous Australians than they were about the effectiveness of their agency’s formal strategies. Nevertheless, given results presented in Chapter 7 relating to levels of discrimination and bullying and harassment, agencies may need to pay particular attention to the small minority of employees who appear not to have this ability.

One support mechanism examined in detail in the census survey was awareness of, and satisfaction with, IAPSEN, an initiative implemented over the last few years to improve opportunities for networking among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees across the APS. The survey found that many Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in the APS are not aware of IAPSEN, indicating that there may be a need to better promote the network and its benefits. Nevertheless, agency Indigenous staff networks were one of the more commonly available support mechanisms for employees. Where agencies are recruiting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander graduates or trainees in particular, they may want to consider recruiting more than one graduate or trainee in a specific round, to encourage opportunities for informal networking.

⁴⁷ APS employee results come from the 2005 State of the Service employee survey and were reported in the State of the Service Report 2004–05 and/or the State of the Service Employee Survey Results 2004–05.

⁴⁸ It is possible that other agencies may have introduced formal Indigenous employment strategies since the 2005 State of the Service agency survey, but these agencies have not been included in Table 8.1. Agencies with less than 20 respondents in total have also not been included. Employees in agencies included in Table 8.1 accounted for 90% of respondents who indicated that their agency had a formal Indigenous Employment Strategy in place, but the exclusion of other respondents may have some impact on the results.

⁴⁹ Indigenous APS Employees’ Network.

⁵⁰ Respondents were not asked to rank the relative importance of mechanisms.

⁵¹ Networks have also previously run in Adelaide and Townsville.

⁵² As all respondents were asked this question, this is likely to reflect those who had not participated. In addition, 22% did not answer the question.

⁵³ APS employee results come from the 2005 State of the Service employee survey and were reported in the State of the Service Report 2004–05 and/or the State of the Service Employee Survey Results 2004–05.

⁵⁴ APS employee results come from the 2005 State of the Service employee survey and were reported in the State of the Service Report 2004–05 and/or the State of the Service Employee Survey Results 2004–05.