Chapter 5: Equity and diversity

Abbreviations

A list of the abbreviations used in this report is available in the Glossary

Employees from a non-English speaking background

As indicated earlier in this chapter, the term ‘NESB’ is used in APSED to represent people from a non-English speaking background. 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 having occurred for this group.

The proportion of APS employees who identified themselves as being from a non-English speaking background²¹ rose again this year to 5.6%, up from 5.4% last year and 5.3% in 2004. Representation for this group has been quite stable over the past decade and, indeed, is higher now than it was 10 years ago.

The proportion of employee survey respondents identifying themselves as from a non-English speakingbackground, defined as being born outside of Australia and not speaking English as a first language, was 15%, closer to the combined figures for NESB1 and NESB2 (13%) from APSED. Given this result it is likely there may have been some definitional confusion among respondents, but the extent of this cannot be assessed. It is also possible that there is some under-reporting on APSED. Given the disparity in results, the employee survey results in relation to employees from non-English speaking backgrounds should be treated with some caution.

The 10 most common countries of origin for APS employees born overseas, beginning with the most common, were: England, India, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Scotland, Hong Kong and China.

The five most common first languages, other than English, spoken by APS employees, beginning with the most common, were: Chinese (including Cantonese and Mandarin), Italian, Greek, German and Vietnamese.

The representation of employees from a non-English speaking background by classification has remained steady over the past 10 years. The exception is trainee and graduate trainee classifications, where this group’s representation has ranged from 6.6% in 2000 to 3.0% in 2002—at June 2006 it was 4.0%. Compared with the APS overall, employees from a non-English speaking background are slightly more concentrated at APS 3–4 and APS 5–6 classifications and slightly less represented at the EL group, but the differences are only small. However, representation at SES levels is much lower, with 0.6% of employees from a non-English speaking background at the SES level compared to 1.7% of the APS as a whole.

Employees from a non-English speaking background are much more likely to have graduate qualifications than are other employees—at June 2006, 73.2% of NESB1 employees had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with the APS average of 51.9%.²²

Representation of employees from a non-English speaking background varied between agencies, with the highest representation in the Royal Australian Mint (26.5%), Australian Fair Pay Commission, Commonwealth Grants Commission (both 20.0%), National Library of Australia (17.2%) and IP Australia (15.8%). Figure 5.10 shows representation for those agencies with more than 1000 ongoing employees.

Figure 5.10: Representation of NESB1 employees in agencies with more than 1000 ongoing employees, June 2006

Source: APSED

Agency support for the employment of people from non-English speaking backgrounds

The large majority of employees believed that their agency was supportive of the employment of people from non-English speaking backgrounds, with agreement levels similar to those relating to support for women. Eighty-two per cent of employees agreed that their agency actively encourages the recruitmentand employment of people from non-English speaking backgrounds. The level of agreement in large agencies was generally high, ranging from 66% to 92%.There was no difference on this statement according to non-English speaking background status.

Just over two-thirds of employees (67%) agreed that their agency encouraged the retention of employees from non-English speaking backgrounds.The level of agreement in large agencies ranged from 53% to 79%. Of the large agencies, those with agreement rates significantly above the APS average were ABS, Centrelink and Medicare Australia.

Employees from non-English speaking backgrounds were less likely to agree that their agency actively encourages the retention of employees from non-English speaking backgrounds compared with employees not in this group.

Seventy-six per cent of employees agreed that cultural background was not a barrier to success in their workplace. The level of agreement in large agencies was generally high, ranging from 63% to 83%. However, employees from non-English speaking backgrounds were less likely to agree than other employees.

As with support for Indigenous employees and people with disability, employees outside the ACT were more likely to agree with each question.

Employee engagement and job satisfaction

Employees from non-English speaking backgrounds reported similar overall levels of job satisfaction to other employees. They also reported few differences in their satisfaction with the range of employee engagement factors shown at Figure 5.11.²³ The largest differences were the factors relating to senior/ leaders culture and understanding current role, where they were both more positive than other employees.

Figure 5.11: Employee satisfaction with factors identified through factor analysis—NESB1 and non-NESB1 employees, 2005–06

Source: Employee survey

Employees from non-English speaking backgrounds refer only to those people born overseas whose first language was not English (those reported on APSED as NESB1).
The method used to calculate the proportion of employees with graduate or tertiary qualifications includes those with qualifications at bachelor degree and above. It excludes from the denominator those for whom no data was provided by agencies, and those who chose not to provide details for their highest educational qualification.
See Appendix 4.

Next page: Age diversity