Go to main text : Contact the Commission : Privacy

Who we are

examines the people who make up the Australian Public Service- not only their numbers but how they reflect the community. It includes the following chapters:

2. Workforce profile

3. Diversity

Chapter 3: Diversity

The Australian Public Service (APS) is strongly committed to and has a proud record in encouraging workplace diversity. There is a need to continue to focus our efforts on ensuring a highly diverse workforce across the APS, where employees have a range of gender, age, cultural background, disability status and Indigenous status. This will ensure that a broad mix of perspectives and ideas are considered when developing and implementing public policy, and also support stronger citizen engagement.

Under section 18 of the Public Service Act 1999 (the Act), agency heads must establish workplace diversity programmes to help give effect to the APS Values (the Values). According to the Public Service Commissioner’s Directions 1999 (the Commissioner’s Directions), and under the Commission’s Guidelines on Workplace Diversity (2001), agency heads are required to adhere to a series of measures to ensure workplace diversity. These include:

Develop performance indicators for their workplace diversity program so that they can evaluate the effectiveness and outcomes of the programme.¹

Review their workplace diversity program at least once every four years to ensure that the program continues to give effect to the APS Values and achieves its outcomes.²

This chapter examines agencies’ commitment to workplace diversity through their internal policies and practices. It looks at the success or otherwise of the APS in improving employment outcomes for particular groups of employees, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees, employees with disability, employees from non-English speaking backgrounds, and employees of different ages. It also looks at what agency attributes attracted employees from the various diversity groups to their current job. A broader analysis of attraction factors for the whole of the APS can be found in Chapter 4. The chapter draws on data from the Australian Public Service Employment Database (APSED) and on responses to the agency and employee surveys to make an assessment of how well the APS is using diversity within its workplaces.

The APS continues to make good progress in addressing employment-related disadvantage for women which is reflected in their improved representation, especially at higher classifications. Specific trends in women’s employment are discussed in Chapter 2 and variations in men’s and women’s views are highlighted in other chapters where they are significant.

APSED and the quality of EEO data

Information on the diversity status of APS employees comes from individual agencies and is stored on APSED. The provision of equal employment opportunity (EEO) data by APS employees to their agency is voluntary, with the exception of sex. Therefore, as with any voluntary data collection, APSED tends to under-represent the actual number of employees in these groups.

Employees for whom no data is available are included in the population for calculating percentages. Therefore, the percentages provided on representation of EEO groups in the APS are likely to under-estimate the actual proportions in agency and APS populations.

All APSED data in this chapter covers only ongoing employees. This is due to the quality of diversity data provided by agencies for non-ongoing employees, which is generally lower than that for ongoing employees.

Of the data provided by agencies to APSED at the end of June 2008, around 43.0% had comprehensive EEO data. Indigenous status, for example, was provided for 59.3% of employees and data on disability for 54.7%. Once an employee’s data is provided to APSED, it is stored there permanently unless the employee subsequently chooses not to provide it. If the person moves to another agency that doesn’t provide this information to APSED, then the previous data is retained.

Using this approach, Indigenous status is available for 74.3% of ongoing employees in the database, and disability status is available for 68.4%. These proportions are higher than those reported last year, indicating improved data quality in some agencies. The quality of employee-provided data overall, however, is still of concern and many agencies are still unable to provide data for nearly half of their employees.

Trends in representation of EEO groups

Table 3.1 shows proportional representation in the APS for Indigenous Australians, people with disability and people from a non-English speaking background for the past 10 years.

Table 3.1: Representation of EEO groups among ongoing employees, 1999 to 2008³

	1999 %	2000 %	2001 %	2002 %	2003 %	2004 %	2005 %	2006 %	2007 %	2008 %
Source: APSED
Indigenous Australians	2.7	2.5	2.6	2.6	2.5	2.5	2.3	2.2	2.2	2.1
People with disability	4.9	4.6	4.3	4.1	4.2	4.1	4.0	3.6	3.4	3.1
People from NESB1	5.6	5.6	5.6	5.6	5.5	5.5	5.7	5.9	6.0	6.0

• The representation of Indigenous Australians fell slightly during 2007–08, from 3,108 (2.2%) to 3,059 (2.1%).
• For employees with disability, representation declined again this year to 4,636 (3.1%) from 4,820 (3.4%) at June 2007.
• During 2007–08, the actual number of people from a non-English speaking background⁴ grew from 8,612 to 8,804 but remained steady at 6.0% as a proportion of all ongoing employees.

The improvement in data quality for the past two years is pleasing, and suggests that agencies are having some success at establishing environments where employees feel more comfortable in identifying their EEO status, as well as developing systems to collect the data. For all groups, last year’s proportions have been revised upwards as a result of improved data quality, for example, the Indigenous figure in last year’s report was 2.1% in 2006–07, but has been adjusted to 2.2%.

Agency commitment to workplace diversity

Workplace diversity can only become embedded in the APS if agencies are committed to the concept. One way for agencies to do this is to ensure they have a workplace diversity programme in place which is reviewed regularly.

In this year’s survey, agencies were asked whether they have a workplace diversity programme in place. While more than three-quarters (77%) of agencies said they had a workplace diversity programme in place, nearly one-fifth of agencies (19%) said their programme was still being developed and 4% of agencies did not have one at all.

Of those agencies that did have a programme, 36% said it was currently being reviewed and 34% said their programme was reviewed in the past two years. Ten per cent of agencies said their programme had never been reviewed.

This indicates that, despite workplace diversity being on the APS agenda for more than a decade, a minority of agencies have not yet fully embraced the concept by having a programme in place.

From an employee’s perspective, when asked whether their organisation was committed to creating a diverse workforce, 69% of APS employees agreed. This was the same as last year’s figure.

In terms of how well workplace diversity was managed, 65% of employees said their agency managed diversity in their workplace well, with young employees (those aged under 25 years) most likely to think that their agency managed workplace diversity well (82%). However, employees with disability were much less likely to agree (49%). This indicates a significant disparity between groups in their perceptions of how well agencies manage diversity in the workplace.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees

The two years of growth in the number of Indigenous employees, recorded in last year’s report, was not sustained this year, and the long-term trend decline in the proportion of Indigenous employment in the APS continued (now 2.1%). The actual number of Indigenous employees fell from 3,108 at June 2007 to 3,059 at June 2008 (a reduction of 1.6%).

Data on APSED is similar to that reported for Indigenous representation in the employee survey (2%). The survey results have been consistent for the past four years and suggest that, despite some concerns about data quality, APSED is not substantially under-representing the proportion of Indigenous Australians in the APS.

Indigenous representation in the APS is lower than that in the Australian community (2.1% compared with 2.3%).⁵ However, it compares favourably with that of the broader Australian workforce, in which 1.3%⁶ of Australian workers identified as Indigenous Australians, and even more favourably when analysis is restricted to people employed in APS equivalent occupations in the broader Australian workforce (0.9%).⁷

Representation of Indigenous employees varies widely among agencies. It is highest in those agencies that deliver services predominantly to, or work with, Indigenous communities, suggesting a concentration of Indigenous employees in Indigenous-specific roles. As Table 3.2 shows, the agencies with over 10.0% Indigenous representation are those with significant Indigenous functions. FaHCSIA is the only large agency in this group.

Table 3.2: Agencies with the highest proportion of ongoing Indigenous employees, June 2008

	Indigenous ongoing employees	Total ongoing employees	Indigenous employees (%)
Source: APSED
AHL	301	362	83.1
TSRA	25	36	69.4
AIATSIS	9	48	18.8
NNTT	23	217	10.6
FaHCSIA	282	2810	10.0

Figure 3.1 shows representation of Indigenous employees in those agencies with more than 1,000 ongoing employees at June 2008. Large agencies with above average representation of Indigenous employees include FaHCSIA (10.0%), DEEWR (5.8%), DEWHA (4.2%), Centrelink (3.6%) and DoHA (2.7%).

Indigenous employees are still concentrated in a small number of agencies. At June 2008, four agencies employed over half of all ongoing Indigenous employees (59.3%). These agencies were Centrelink (905 or 29.6%), DEEWR (325 or 10.6%), AHL (301 or 9.8%) and FaHCSIA (282 or 9.2%).

Thirty agencies reported that none of their ongoing employees had identified as Indigenous. These agencies were all small except for the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) and the Australian National Audit Office ANAO.

The quality of data on the Indigenous status of employees varied widely among agencies—at June 2008, seven agencies had ‘no data’ recorded on APSED for more than half of their ongoing employees. Most of these agencies were small, except for the Office of the Workplace Ombudsman (WO) (no data for 68.8% of ongoing employees), the Workplace Authority (66.9%) and Defence (58.9%).

Excluding agencies affected by machinery of government changes, the largest increases in Indigenous employment during 2007–08 were in ATO (15 employees) and AHL (10 employees). The largest decrease was in Centrelink (81 employees).

Table 3.3 shows that the number of Indigenous employees rose at the APS 5–6 and EL classifications during 2007–08, remained steady in the SES and fell at all other classifications. The proportion of Indigenous employees at the APS 5–6 and EL classifications rose during the year, from 40.3% to 43.0%. This result is particularly pleasing, and continues a long-term trend—in 1999, the proportion was only 27% of all Indigenous employees.

Indigenous representation at the Graduate APS and Trainee classifications fell during 2007–08, both in actual numbers and as a proportion of the classification. As noted in Chapter 2, some agencies engage trainees at the APS 1–2 levels rather than in the actual trainee classifications, so variations over time may not necessarily reflect agencies’ use of trainees more broadly.

Despite the fall in Indigenous Graduate APS employees during 2007–08, this group’s representation has grown proportionally over the past 10 years.

The number of Indigenous SES has not changed between 1999 and 2008, but the group has decreased in proportional terms as the size of the overall SES has increased substantially over that period.

As noted in Chapter 2, the APS is increasingly becoming a graduate workforce. The proportion of Indigenous employees with graduate qualifications is much lower than the APS average—26.9% at June 2008 compared with an APS average of 52.5%.⁸ It is likely that this disparity impacts on the ability of some potential Indigenous employees to enter the APS and progress to higher classifications. Agencies may wish to make greater use of traineeships as an entry point for Indigenous Australians to ameliorate this difference in qualification.

Table 3.3: Representation of ongoing Indigenous employees by classification, 1999, 2007 and 2008

	1999			2007			2008
	No.	% of class’n who are Indigenous	% of Indigenous employees	No.	% of class’n who are Indigenous	% of Indigenous employees	No.	% of class’n who are Indigenous	% of Indigenous employees
Source: APSED
APS 1-2	564	4.5	20.6	364	5.1	11.7	355	5.7	11.6
APS 3-4	1340	3.6	49.0	1382	2.8	44.5	1294	2.6	42.3
APS 5-6	603	2.0	22.1	910	1.9	29.3	948	1.9	31.0
EL	135	0.7	4.9	343	1.0	11.0	367	1.0	12.0
SES	18	1.1	0.7	18	0.7	0.6	18	0.7	0.6
Trainee	64	39.3	2.3	55	13.8	1.8	46	11.5	1.5
Grad APS	9	1.3	0.3	36	2.9	1.2	31	2.4	1.0
Total	2733	2.7	100.0	3108	2.2	100.0	3059	2.1	100.0

Indigenous employee numbers are affected by the number of Indigenous engagements to the APS and the number of Indigenous employees separating from the APS.

Indigenous engagements have varied over the past 10 years, but have generally fallen as a proportion of all engagements. During 2007–08, Indigenous employees accounted for 2.5% of ongoing engagements, down from 2.8% the previous year. The proportion was the second lowest for the past 10 years. The number of Indigenous engagements also fell—from 552 in 2006–07 to 388 in 2007–08. The Indigenous engagement rate has been equal to or higher than overall Indigenous representation within the APS for each of the past 10 years. These trends are shown in Table 3.4.

During 2007–08, Indigenous employees accounted for 3.6% of all engagements to the main APS entry levels—APS 1 to APS 3 and graduate and other trainee classifications—a decrease from 4.2% the previous year.

Indigenous separations can be looked at in two ways—either as a proportion of Indigenous employees, or as a proportion of total separations. Using the first method, 14.2% of all ongoing Indigenous employees separated during 2007–08, an increase from 13.8% in 2005–06 and 12.3% in 2006–07. The comparable separation rate for the APS overall during 2007–08 was significantly lower (8.2%).

Table 3.4 looks at Indigenous separations using the second method described above. As a proportion of all ongoing separations, Indigenous separations rose this year, from 3.5% in 2006–07 to 3.7% in 2007–08, substantially higher than overall Indigenous representation of 2.1%. The separation rate for Indigenous employees has been higher than their engagement rate for all but two of the past 10 years, and has been higher than their overall representation every year.

Table 3.4: Indigenous representation in engagements and separations of ongoing employees, 1998–99 to 2007–08

	Year ending June
	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
Source: APSED
Engagements	270	308	426	425	466	318	323	458	552	388
% of engagements	3.4	2.6	3.1	3.5	3.1	3.4	2.8	2.2	2.8	2.5
Separations	477	422	270	286	309	392	444	401	371	439
% of separations	3.3	3.8	3.4	3.4	4.3	5.4	4.2	4.2	3.5	3.7
% of ongoing staff	2.7	2.5	2.6	2.6	2.5	2.5	2.3	2.2	2.2	2.1

Indigenous employees continue to have a much shorter length of service before leaving the APS. During 2007–08, 50.8% of Indigenous employees who separated from the APS had fewer than five years of service, compared with 43.1% of non-Indigenous employees.

The continuing trends of relatively high separation rates and shorter periods of service for Indigenous employees appear to be entrenched. If agencies want to reverse these trends, they may need to look closely at the reasons why Indigenous employees choose to leave the APS.

APS Employment and Capability Strategy for AborigInal and Torres StraIt Islander employees

To help raise the number of Indigenous employees in the APS, the Commission released the APS Employment and Capability Strategy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employees⁹ (the Strategy) in August 2005. Since then, the number of Indigenous employees in the ongoing APS workforce increased for two years, before falling slightly during 2007–08. An independent evaluation of the Strategy was conducted earlier this year.

In August this year, the Commission released a starter kit for APS agencies (Building An Indigenous Employment Strategy—A Starter Kit for APS Agencies) ¹³ that helps agencies to identify their specific business needs and objectives. It contains a range of initiatives to assist agencies wishing to formulate an Indigenous Employment Strategy (IES) based on the agency workplace, recruitment and retention, and recommended actions.

According to this year’s agency survey, 29% of agencies said they had a formal IES in place, a drop from last year (32%). Forty-eight per cent of agencies reported they did not have a formal IES in place, and 22% of agencies said they were developing one.

A higher proportion of agencies reported having a Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) in place to help them build positive relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, and align agencies’ strategic, corporate and divisional business plans. A RAP also identifies specific actions to help improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, both in APS agencies and the wider community.¹⁴ This year’s survey showed that 40% of agencies have a RAP and 19% of agencies were developing a plan. Many agencies developed RAPs to recognise the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Aboriginal referendum.

Recruitment and retention measures used in agencies

While the use of formal IESs among agencies decreased slightly this year, the use of specific recruitment and retention measures for Indigenous Australians continues to be widespread, with many agencies participating in elements of the Commission’s strategy.

During 2007–08, the Commission collaborated with 35 APS agencies to deliver Pathways to Employment recruitment programmes for Indigenous graduate, cadet and entry-level positions. Support programmes and services to these recruits were increased to enhance short-to medium-term retention prospects.

Through the Indigenous Graduate Recruitment programme, the Commission recruited and placed 26 Indigenous graduates in 17 APS agencies. The Commission expects a similar number will be engaged through the 2009 intake, with 28 APS agencies involved. The Commission also recruited and placed 35 Indigenous tertiary students in cadet positions in 15 agencies through its bulk recruitment initiative under the National Indigenous Cadetship Project.

The Indigenous Entry Level programme provides a pathway to employment for Indigenous Australians who do not have tertiary qualifications. This year, the Commission recruited and placed 23 trainees across eight APS agencies through this programme and coordinated the delivery of formal training towards a Certificate III or IV in Government for Indigenous participants engaged as entry-level recruits.

This year, most agencies (73%) reported using one or more measures to recruit and retain Indigenous Australians (see Table 3.5), although a quarter of agencies (27%) did not use any measures. Of those agencies that used measures, the average number of measures was five, similar to last year’s result.

The most common measures used by agencies continue to be providing Indigenous employees with study options, with more than half offering options such as financial assistance for study and study leave, and a range of training programmes and tertiary courses, including scholarship schemes. The proportion of agencies using study options has increased substantially over the past two years—from 45% in 2005–06 to 53% in 2007–08.

There was also an increase in the proportion of agencies using a range of other recruitment and retention strategies for Indigenous employees (39% in 2007–08, compared to 35% in 2006–07). These included ATO’s School to Work sponsorship programme in Queensland and a range of Indigenous cadet and graduate programmes across agencies.

The next most useful strategies for agencies were providing mentoring (40%) and advertising employment opportunities in Indigenous media (37%).

Table 3.5: Agency measures used to recruit and/or retain Indigenous Australians, 2007–08

Measures to recruit/retain Indigenous employees	Yes (%)	Being developed (%)	No (%)	Not applicable (no Indigenous employees) (%)
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 as agencies that did not provide a response are not shown in the table. Small differences may also be due to rounding. Source: Agency survey
Special employment measures	30	1	68	–
Identified positions	28	–	71	–
Providing other opportunities for Indigenous employees to gain skills and experience under an agency-based Indigenous employment scheme	23	4	71	–
Advertising employment opportunities in Indigenous media	37	6	57	–
Operate an internal agency-based Indigenous employees’ network	26	3	47	24
Provide study options	53	18	–	26
Provide culturally specific training programmes for Indigenous employees	26	2	46	26
Provide Indigenous cultural awareness training for all employees	23	18	40	19
Provide targeted leadership development opportunities	26	4	46	24
Provide mentoring and/or coaching to Indigenous employees	40	7	28	26
Provide mobility and/or secondment opportunities into mainstream positions	31	3	34	30
Other recruitment and/or retention strategies	39	8	30	18

Agencies were asked whether they conducted exit interviews or exit surveys with Indigenous employees leaving their agency. Forty-one per cent of agencies said it was not applicable to them but of those to whom it was applicable, 81% said they did conduct exit interviews and/ or exit surveys.

Forty-six per cent of relevant agencies collected data on the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who applied for positions in their agency, an improvement on last year’s result (38%).

Employee perceptIon of agency support

Of the employees who identified themselves as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person, 62% said their agency valued and managed diversity in the workplace well. This is consistent with the 65% of all APS employees who said that diversity is managed well in their agency.

When asked whether their organisation was committed to creating a diverse workforce, 60% of Indigenous employees agreed, although their response was lower than the proportion of non-Indigenous employees (69%) who agreed with this question. Agencies would still appear to have work to do to help improve the perception that they provide a supportive environment for employees from diverse backgrounds.

Attraction and selection

In order to find out what attracts an employee to their job and how well their expectations have been met, this year’s employee survey asked employees to rate selected agency attributes on how important they were in attracting them to their current job and whether or not the job met their expectations.

Table 3.6 shows how Indigenous employees ranked those attributes in terms of attracting them to their current job. For employees who ranked the attributes as important, the table also indicates how well expectations were met for each attribute.

Table 3.6: Agency attraction attributes—importance and how well expectations were met by Indigenous status, 2007–08

Agency attributes	Rated important in attracting employee to job		Expectations met well(a)
	Indigenous employees (%)	Non-Indigenous employees (%)	Indigenous employees (%)	Non-Indigenous employees (%)
(a) Expectations relate only to employees who rated the agency attribute as important. Note: The top five attributes selected by both Indigenous and other employees are highlighted. Source: Employee survey
Job security	94	83	75	80
Location	84	68	67	81
Interests match job	76	71	56	65
Making a difference	71	63	68	61
Important work	71	62	67	75
Gaining experience	69	50	63	66
Development opportunities	68	57	49	51
Remuneration	67	66	58	60
Good work practices	65	61	61	62
Career opportunities	63	63	51	44
Work on leading edge projects	46	43	48	54

For Indigenous employees, the top five attributes that attracted them to their job were job security (94%), location (84%), whether their interests or experience matched the job (76%), and making a difference and important work (both 71%). The importance of job security was significantly higher for Indigenous employees than for other employees (83%).

Getting an understanding of how well an employee’s expectations have been met is an important part of how agencies satisfy and retain staff—this is particularly important for Indigenous employees where retention is relatively poor. In this year’s survey, employees were asked how well their expectations were met by their agency against each of the workplace attributes. Overall, the expectations of Indigenous employees were much less likely to be met than the expectations of other employees.

In particular, expectations for developmental opportunities within agencies were not met well according to Indigenous employees. Of the 68% who said it was an important attribute, only 49% said their expectations were met well. Agencies identified offering access to study as a key strategy for attracting Indigenous employees, so these results suggest that agencies may need to examine whether the support they offer is meeting or can better meet Indigenous employees’ expectations.

In this year’s employee survey, factor analysis identified a set of 12 factors which provide an overall summary of employee perceptions of issues such as governance and integrity, agency culture (and innovation culture), leadership and management, merit and career progression, work-life balance, and personal innovation and flexibility.¹⁵

Indigenous employees were more likely than non-Indigenous employees to be satisfied with Senior Leaders and Agency Culture (see Figure 3.2). However, compared to non-Indigenous employees, Indigenous employees reported lower levels of satisfaction with current Job and Work-Life Balance.

Employees with disability

The long-term decline in employment of people with disability in the APS has continued this year, with the proportion now down to 3.1%. In absolute terms, the number of employees with disability fell for the fourth year in a row, after increasing in 2002–03 and 2003–04. The fall represented a decrease of 3.8% in the number of employees with disability, compared with an increase in overall ongoing employees of 2.7% during the year. The decrease in absolute terms (184) is the largest since 2000–01.

Results from the employee survey suggest that there is some under-reporting of disability on APSED and in agencies. The proportion of employees who reported in this year’s survey that they had an ongoing disability was 6%. Although reporting through the employee survey has been consistently higher than results on APSED, the declining representation in APSED has been consistent over a long period, and is likely to reflect a real trend. Agencies need to consider how they can overcome the under-reporting of disability, by providing a more accepting and supportive environment where employees feel comfortable in identifying themselves as having a disability.

The long-term decline in employment of people with disability can be explained partly by a reduction in the number of positions at the APS 1–2 levels, where employees with disability have historically been over-represented. The long-term proportional decline, however, has been evident at all classification levels. Figure 3.3 shows employees with disability as a proportion of all ongoing employees, by classification level, for the past 10 years. The proportional representation for employees with disability at the APS 1–2 levels rose slightly during 2007–08, from 5.1% to 5.2%, although the actual number of employees with disability in these classifications fell—from 360 to 325. Representation in the SES rose from 71 to 75 during 2007–08, but in percentage terms remained steady at 2.8%. The number of ELs who identified as having a disability also increased (up from 1,059 at June 2007 to 1,086 at June 2008) but proportional representation continued to fall due to higher overall growth in that classification group.

Employees with disability are somewhat less likely to have graduate qualifications than other employees—at June 2008, 42.7% of ongoing employees with disability had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with the APS average of 52.5%.¹⁶ In the APS workforce where having graduate qualifications is becoming the norm, the relatively less qualified employees with disability may be less able to compete for promotion.

Agencies with relatively high proportions of employees with disability are the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator (ORER) (10%), the Commission (9%), Questacon (8.5%), AIATSIS (8.3%), and CrimTrac (8%). These are all small agencies, so the actual number of employees with disability is relatively low. Fourteen agencies, all of which were small, reported that they had no ongoing employees with disability.

The quality of data on the disability status of employees varied widely among agencies—at June 2008, 10 agencies had ‘no data’ recorded on APSED for more than half of their ongoing employees. Most of these agencies were large or medium in size—the Workplace Ombudsman (no data for 71.5% of ongoing employees), the Workplace Authority (68.5%), Defence (67.1%), the Australian Trade Commission (Austrade) (63.7%), Customs (51.9%) and the Australian Film Commission (AFC) (50%).

While the number of employees with disability fell overall, there were small increases in some agencies. The largest increase was in FaHCSIA where the number of employees with disability increased by 12, although part of this increase was due to employees moving to that agency following machinery of government changes. The agencies with the largest decreases in employment of people with disability were Centrelink (107 fewer employees with disability), Defence (42 employees), ABS and DIAC (both 13 employees), DVA (12 employees), Customs and DHS (both 11 employees) and Medicare Australia (10 employees). Despite the fall in employment of people with disability during 2007–08, Centrelink continues to have above average representation for this group—5.2% at June 2008—although it fell from 5.4% at June 2007.

Figure 3.4 shows the proportion of people with disability in agencies with more than 1,000 ongoing employees at June 2008. Large agencies with representation rates equal to or above the APS average were FaHCSIA (6.3%), Centrelink (5.2%), DoHA (4.2%), BoM (3.6%), ABS and DVA (both 3.3%), and Defence and DEEWR (both 3.1%).

The age profile of employees with disability is somewhat older than for the APS overall, with a median age of 47 years at June 2008 compared with the APS average of 42 years. This group also has a much longer length of service than the APS overall with a median length of service of 15 years compared with the APS average of eight years.

The engagement rate for employees with disability was fairly constant at 1.4%. The separation rate fell slightly, from 3.7% to 3.6% (see Table 3.7). The engagement rate was substantially lower than the representation rate of employees with disability in the APS (3.1%) while the separation rate was somewhat higher than the group’s representation. The separation rate for employees with disability has been higher than their APS representation for all but one of the past 10 years. Employees with disability are overrepresented in retrenchments and age-retirements—the latter likely reflecting their older age profile.

Table 3.7: Representation of employees with disability in engagements and separations of ongoing employees, 1998–99 to 2007–08

	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
Source: APSED
Engagements	162	194	203	270	519	240	261	350	264	224
% of engagements	2.1	1.6	1.5	2.2	3.4	2.6	2.3	1.7	1.4	1.4
Separations	781	515	332	359	317	349	440	454	387	432
% of separations	5.4	4.7	4.2	4.2	4.4	4.8	4.1	4.8	3.7	3.6
% of ongoing staff at 30 June	4.9	4.6	4.3	4.1	4.2	4.1	4.0	3.6	3.4	3.1

The under-representation in engagements of employees with disability has a relatively greater impact than their higher separation rate. This may reflect a range of factors, including misconceptions held by agencies about their ability to undertake a wide range of work, lack of support in the workplace and inability to access job information.

Agency progress in implementIng the MAC objectives to support the employment of people wIth disability

Much stronger commitment by all agencies is needed to reverse the long-term decline in the representation of people with disability in the APS (3.1% in 2008, down from 4.9% in 1999). Over the past year, agencies have worked on implementing the eight Management Advisory Committee (MAC) objectives to promote the employment of people with disability, but those actions are yet to be reflected in a turnaround in employment trends for people with disability. MAC members committed to these objectives in its August 2006 report, Employment of People with Disability in the APS.¹⁷ The MAC objectives required that agencies improve their policies and practices to attract and retain employees with disability. It is very disappointing that two years on, there is still no sign of traction on this issue.

While not all initiatives may be appropriate for all agencies, each agency has been asked to determine how best to approach the initiatives in order to meet the MAC objectives. The agency survey in 2009 will seek more information on initiatives that agencies have put in place to support people with disability, consistent with the MAC objectives, and also examine the performance of individual agencies. ‘In light of the outcomes of the 2008–09 State of the Service Report, MAC, through the Commission, will review the achievements and progress of APS agencies at that time.’¹⁸

It is clear that considerably more work needs to be done by agencies to boost the representation of people with disability in the APS which continues to lag behind their representation in the community.

This section looks at agencies’ progress under four key headings: cultural change; access to employment; support; and improving and monitoring performance.

Cultural change

Creating a culture that values diversity and actively promotes the employment of people with disability is the first MAC objective. Agencies made substantial improvements over the past year in highlighting the business case for employing people with disability through workforce and business plans, workplace diversity programmes, and recruitment and retention policies. Thirty-two per cent of agencies implemented these strategies in 2007–08, compared to 15% of agencies in 2006–07.

In this year’s agency survey, 43% of agencies used initiatives specifically targeted at developing a culture that values diversity and actively supports the employment of people with disability. This has increased slightly compared to the proportion of agencies that used these initiatives last year (40%). Fifty-eight per cent of agencies implemented mainstream policies and procedures to encourage the recruitment and retention of people with disability, also up slightly from last year’s result (55%).

Despite these modest improvements by agencies, and apart from the fact that most agencies have in place mainstream policies and procedures to foster the recruitment and retention of people with disability, more than half of agencies do not have strategies designed to create inclusive workplace cultures that value and promote the employment of people with disability.

Agencies also failed to acknowledge the importance of creating this change in culture—an essential ingredient for agencies to become an employer of choice among this diversity group—with very few agencies listing creating or encouraging a diverse workforce among their key workforce challenges as part of this year’s agency survey.

Access to employment

An inability to access job advertisements and recruitment processes, together with employer perceptions and a lack of work experience are just some of the challenges people with disability can encounter when trying to get a job. Table 3.8 shows agencies’ progress on the following three MAC objectives, which involve providing access to employment for people with disability:

• flexible recruitment strategies that are accessible to applicants with disability
• accessible training, cadetship and mentoring opportunities for people with disability
• special employment measures to employ people with intellectual disability.

Table 3.8: Agency initiatives to improve access to employment for people with disability, 2007–08

Initiatives	Yes (%)	No (%)
(a) Excludes the 19% of agencies who said that this question was not applicable to them. Source: Agency survey
Objective two—flexible recruitment strategies that are accessible to applicants with disability
Work with organisations that specialise in placing people with disability in employment	37	63
Advertise vacancies through disability employment and support services/networks	13	87
Ensure any recruitment agencies contracted by your agency encourage and support people with disability	39	61
Accept applications in different formats and give people with disability reasonable time to lodge applications and/or make appropriate adjustments to any direct testing situation	88	12
Have processes in place to ensure that methods of selection do not indirectly discriminate against applicants with disability	90	10
Ensure delegates and selection panels are cognisant of the diverse needs of applicants with disability	83	17
Agency collected data on the number of people with disability who applied for positions in their agency(a)	47	53
Objective three—accessible training, cadetship and mentoring opportunities for people with disability
Provide opportunities (such as traineeships or cadetships) for people with disabilities to gain skills and experience under an agency-based employment scheme	9	91
Participate in mentoring programmes for students with disability interested in a career in the APS	7	93
Objective four—special employment measures to employ people with intellectual disability
Use special employment measures limiting employment opportunities only to people with intellectual disability	7	93
Use external organisations to assist in designing appropriate positions and selection criteria and identifying suitable applicants for positions to be filled by people with intellectual disability	11	89

In terms of implementing flexible recruitment, the biggest improvement has been made in the number of agencies that have implemented measures to ensure people with disability are given reasonable time to lodge job applications and that they are able to lodge them in different formats. The number increased substantially, from 63 agencies (72%) last year to 79 agencies (88%) this year.

The number of agencies that worked with organisations specialising in placing people with disability in employment also increased from 28 agencies (32%) last year to 33 agencies (37%) this year. The number of agencies with processes in place to ensure that selection methods do not indirectly discriminate against applicants with disability remains high, increasing slightly this year, from 77 agencies (88%) in 2006–07 to 81 agencies (90%) in 2007–08.

However, agencies need to make substantial improvements in their use of disability employment and support services and networks when advertising job vacancies. Only 13% of agencies (12 agencies) currently use these services and networks, up only slightly from last year (10% or 9 agencies). Agencies can help meet the MAC objective on flexible recruitment strategies through the use of services such as the not-for-profit organisation Disability Works Australia, which is used by Finance and Treasury to advertise vacancies, or the Australian Government initiative, the Disability Employment Network (DEN), which is overseen by DEEWR.

Support

In creating an inclusive workplace, it is vital that agencies provide support to employees with disability by making premises accessible, implementing flexible work practices and reducing the complexity and cost to managers of employing people with disability.

Table 3.9 shows agencies’ progress over the past year on the two MAC objectives relating to the provision of support. These objectives are:

• accessible premises, workplaces and supportive work environment for people with disability
• reduced complexity, cost and risk for managers employing people with disability.

Table 3.9: Agency initiatives to improve support both to employees with disability and managers of employees with disability, 2007–08

Initiatives	Yes (%)	No (%)	Not applicable (%)
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 as agencies that did not provide a response are not shown in the table. Small differences may also be due to rounding. Source: Agency survey
Objective five—accessible premises, workplaces and supportive work environment for people with disability
Identify the reasonable adjustments required by new employees with disability, before they commence duty	77	6	18
Provide access to adaptive technology or other practical support required by employees with disability	86	-	14
Identify an SES officer to act as a senior-level advocate for employees with disability	26	51	23
Operate an agency network for people with disability	9	66	26
Offer individual workplace agreements to people with disability to provide flexibility to meet individual reasonable adjustment needs	16	59	26
Objective six—reduced complexity, cost and risk for managers employing people with disability
Centralised funding for adaptive technology or other forms of practical support	52	44	-
Adaptive technology provided to employees is transferred with them when they move within the agency	76	2	22
A centralised source of information and expertise (such as disability action officers, case managers or ready access to external sources of information) to assist managers and employees with disability	72	11	17
Provide training and/or awareness programmes for managers and/or employees on mental illness, depression or related disorders	66	30	-

While agencies made some progress over the past year in providing support to employees with disability, there were a number of areas that agencies identified as not being applicable to them. Last year, agencies were simply given the option of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, so comparisons between the two years may not be meaningful.

The top three initiatives reported by agencies this year were providing access to adaptive technology (86%), identifying reasonable adjustments for new employees before they start (77%), and transferring adaptive technology when an employee moves jobs (76%).

Almost two-thirds of agencies (66%) provide training and awareness programmes for managers and employees on mental illness, depression or related disorders.

Disappointingly, only a little over one-quarter of agencies (26%) had identified an SES officer to act as a senior-level advocate for employees with disability. More than a quarter of agencies (26%) said offering individual workplace agreements to people with disability to provide flexibility in meeting individual reasonable adjustment needs did not apply to them, and only 16% said they did offer these agreements. It is also disappointing that little progress has been made in relation to operating an agency network for people with disability—only 9% of agencies said they had established an agency network.

Improving and monitoring performance

The seventh MAC objective relates to ensuring a ‘consistent conceptual framework for defining disability’. The MAC report said agencies need to adopt consistent definitions of disability in order to help improve and monitor agencies’ performance in managing their employees with disability.

The MAC report identified two definitions of disability for use in the APS. Unfortunately, there has been very little change over the past year in the number of agencies that have adopted these definitions, signalling that it has not been a priority for agencies.

The first (broader) definition is used by agencies in developing recruitment and retention policies. This year, 48 agencies (53%) reported that they had adopted the definition of disability in section 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992as a basis for developing recruitment and retention strategies. This number was unchanged from last year.

The second (more specific) definition of disability is used by agencies as part of their employee data collection. Forty-one agencies (46%) reported that they had adopted the definitions of ‘disability’ used by the ABS Disability, Ageing and Carers: Summary of Findings 2003 survey to collect data and statistics from APS employees. This is the same proportion as recorded last year.

As well as following consistent definitions of ‘disability’ across agencies, making sure employees keep information on their disability status up-to-date is an important monitoring tool to allow agencies to report on the representation of people with disability within the agency. This information also allows agencies to follow up where an employee reports a disability which may require specific workplace adjustments to help the employee to do their job. Regrettably, only a small majority of agencies (55%) reported actively encouraging their employees to update their disability status on their human resources (HR) systems, up slightly from last year (53%).

The final MAC objective relates to agencies making continuous improvements in recruiting and retaining people with disability. More than 20 agencies listed a range of other recruitment and retention strategies that they adopted in 2007–08 to support the employment of people with disability.

Seventy-five per cent of relevant agencies reported that they conducted exit interviews and/ or surveys for employees with disability who left the agency. The proportion of relevant agencies that collected data on the number of people with disability who applied for positions in their agency increased, from 34% in 2006–07 to 47% in 2007–08.

Employee perceptions of agency support

Employees with disability were much less likely than other employees to report that their agency valued and managed diversity in the workplace well (49% compared to 66%). When asked whether their organisation was committed to creating a diverse workforce, 55% of employees with disability agreed—this was again substantially lower than the proportion of other employees (69%) who agreed with this question.

These results indicate that agencies need to make substantial improvements or changes to the mechanisms they are using to support their employees with disability, who appear to be largely dissatisfied with agencies’ current efforts to foster diversity in the workplace. This is particularly important because ‘word of mouth’ from APS employees with disability is an important attraction factor for would-be employees with disability.

Attraction and selection

Table 3.10 shows how employees with disability ranked the attributes that attracted them to their current job, and compares their rankings with those of other employees. For employees who ranked the attributes as important, the table also indicates how well expectations were met for each attribute.

Table 3.10: Agency attraction attributes—importance and how well expectations were met by disability status, 2007–08

Agency attribute	Rated important in attracting employee to job		Expectations met well(a)
	Employees with disability (%)	Employees without disability (%)	Employees with disability (%)	Employees without disability (%)
Job security	87	83	71	81
Interests match job	76	71	69	65
Important work	70	61	70	75
Making a difference	69	63	57	61
Career opportunities	64	63	30	45
Location	63	69	82	81
Development opportunities	57	57	44	52
Remuneration	56	66	46	60
Good work practices	52	62	52	63
Work on leading edge projects	49	43	49	54
Gaining experience	45	50	69	65
(a) Expectations relate only to employees who rated agency attribute as important. Note: The top five attributes selected by both employees with disability and other employees are highlighted. Source: Employee survey

The top five attributes that attracted employees with disability to their current job were job security, finding a job that matched their interests and experience, the agency’s reputation for doing important work, ability to contribute to making a difference, and future career opportunities in the agency. While these five attributes were similar to the top five attributes for other employees, employees with disability were much more attracted to their job because of the agency’s reputation for doing important work, compared to other employees (70% compared to 61%).

Interestingly, an agency’s reputation for good work practices such as work-life balance and people management was less of an attractor for employees with disability (52%) compared to other employees (62%). This was also the case for remuneration, where 56% of employees with disability said it was important compared to 66% of other employees.

In general, the expectations of employees with disability were less likely to be met than those of other employees. In particular, of the 64% of employees with disability who said future career opportunities were important, only 30% said their expectations had been met well.

Employees with disability reported lower satisfaction levels than employees without disability with 10 of the 12 employee engagement factors (see Figure 3.5). Innovation Culture and Personal Innovation and Flexibility were the only factors where satisfaction levels were similar. The largest differences were for the Learning and Development, Work-Life Balance, and Governance and Integrity factors.

Employees from non-English speaking backgrounds

The term ‘NESB’, representing people from a non-English speaking background, is used in APSED to capture information about employment disadvantage experience by employees on the basis of race or ethnicity. The analysis in this section concentrates on the category of 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 occurring for this group.

The proportion of APS employees who identified themselves as being from a non-English speaking background remained steady this year, at 6%. Representation for this group has been very stable over the past decade, varying by no more than half of one percentage point over the period.

The representation of NESB1 employees in the APS, while not directly comparable, appears to be lower than representation in the Australian community, in the broader Australian workforce, and in APS equivalent occupations.

The proportion of employee survey respondents who identified as being from a non-English speaking background, defined as being born outside of Australia and not speaking English as a first language, was 13%—a result closer to the combined figures for NESB1 and NESB2 (14.0%) from APSED. This higher level of reporting in the employee survey has been consistent over a number of years. It is likely that this result reflects some definitional confusion among respondents, but the extent of this cannot be assessed. It is also likely that some under-reporting is occurring on APSED. Given the disparity in results, the employee survey results for employees from non-English speaking backgrounds should be treated with some caution.

The largest group of employees from a non-English speaking background were born in South-East Asia (24.6% of those who provided their country of birth), followed by Southern and Central Asia (19.6%). The five most common languages spoken by ongoing NESB1 employees, beginning with the most common, were Chinese (including Cantonese and Mandarin), Vietnamese, Spanish, Polish and German.

Representation of employees from a non-English speaking background by classification has remained steady over the past 10 years, except for the graduate and trainee classifications where representation has varied from 7.2% in 2000 to 3.0% in 2002—at June 2008 it was also 3.0%. Employees from a non-English speaking background are slightly over-represented at the APS 1–6 levels—75.8% are at these levels compared with 72.0% of the overall APS. They are slightly under-represented in the EL classifications—22.8% compared with 25.1%, and substantially under-represented in the SES—0.7% compared with the APS average of 1.8%.

Although small in number, SES employees from a non-English speaking background increased from 2.1% to 2.5% of all SES during 2007–08.

Employees from a non-English speaking background are much more likely to have graduate qualifications than are other employees—at June 2008, almost three-quarters (74.5%) of employees from a non-English speaking background had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with the APS average of 52.5%.²¹

Agencies with a high representation of employees from a non-English speaking background include the Royal Australian Mint (RAM) (26.0% of all ongoing employees), the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman (PHIO) (18.2%), the National Library of Australia (NLA) (16.9%) and IP Australia (15.2%). Figure 3.6 shows representation of employees from a non-English speaking background in those agencies with more than 1,000 ongoing employees at June 2008. Agencies with the highest representation are DIAC (12.4%), DIISR (12.1%), Medicare Australia (11.4%) and BoM (10.0%). Agencies with the lowest representation are DEWHA (1.5%), AGD (3.0%) and Defence (3.1%).

The quality of data on the status of employees’ non-English speaking backgrounds varied widely among agencies—at June 2008, eight agencies had ‘no data’ recorded on APSED for more than half of their ongoing employees. Most of these agencies were small, except for the Workplace Ombudsman (no data for 67.4% of ongoing employees), the Australian Trade Commission (Austrade) (67.0%) and the Workplace Authority (64.9%).

Employee perceptions of agency support

Employees from a non-English speaking background are, to a large extent, satisfied with their agencies’ efforts in creating and encouraging diversity in the workplace. Sixty-seven per cent of employees from a non-English speaking background agreed that their agency valued and managed diversity well, similar to the 64% of other employees. In terms of whether they believed agencies were creating a diverse workforce, 67% of employees from a non-English speaking background agreed that their organisation was committed to creating a diverse workforce. This was similar to the proportion of employees who were not from a non-English speaking background (69%) who agreed with this question.

Attraction and selection

Table 3.11 shows how employees from non-English speaking backgrounds ranked the attributes that attracted them to their current job and compares their ranking with those for other employees. For employees who ranked the attributes as important, the table also indicates how well expectations were met for each attribute.

The top attributes that attracted employees from a non-English speaking background to their current job were job security, the agency’s reputation for doing important work, a job that matched their interests or experience, and the agency’s reputation for good work practices. Geographic location, the remuneration package and future career opportunities were also considered important.²²

A greater proportion of employees from a non-English speaking background rated each of the 11 workplace attraction attributes as important. Employees from a non-English speaking background, for example, were much more likely than other employees to consider an agency’s reputation for doing important work (77%) and for good work practices (76%) as important attractors to their current job (compared to 60% and 59% respectively for other employees).

The expectations of employees from a non-English speaking background fell substantially short when it came to remuneration and future career opportunities. Of the 72% of employees from a non-English speaking background who rated remuneration and future career opportunities as important, only 53% and 41% respectively reported that their expectations had been well met.

Table 3.11: Agency attraction attributes—importance and how well expectations were met by non-English speaking background status, 2007–08

Agency attribute	Rated important in attracting employee to job		Expectations met well(a)
	Employees from non-English speaking backgrounds (%)	Employees not from non-English speaking backgrounds (%)	Employees from non-English speaking backgrounds (%)	Employees not from non-English speaking backgrounds (%)
Job security	91	83	79	80
Important work	77	60	78	74
Interests match job	76	71	63	65
Good work practices	76	59	64	62
Location	72	68	75	82
Remuneration	72	65	53	61
Career opportunities	72	62	41	45
Making a difference	71	62	59	62
Development opportunities	66	56	46	52
Gaining experience	66	48	60	67
Work on leading edge projects	54	42	49	54
(a) Expectations relate only to employees who rated the agency attribute as important. Note: The top five attributes selected by both employees from non-English speaking backgrounds and other employees are highlighted. Source: Employee survey

Figure 3.7 shows the results for employees from non-English speaking backgrounds against each of the employee engagement factors. There were no clear trends with employees from non-English speaking backgrounds being more satisfied in some factors and less satisfied on others. The largest differences were for the factors Understanding Current Role and Innovation Culture where employees from a non-English speaking background were more satisfied than other employees and the Merit and Career Progression factor where they were less satisfied.

Age diversity

A growing issue in workplace diversity is the importance of creating a workplace environment that is attractive to, and draws on, the skills of employees of all age groups. Intergenerational issues that arise in the workplace must be handled effectively if agencies are to attract and retain employees from a broad spectrum of ages. This is particularly important given the impact of the ageing APS workforce.

This section looks at the age diversity of APS employees, particularly young employees (aged under 25 years), mature-aged employees (aged 45 to 54 years), and older workers (aged 55 years and older). The age profile of the APS differs to that of the broader workforce, with lower representation of both young employees and older workers. However, the APS is becoming increasingly reliant on mature-aged and older workers. In the past decade the 45 years and over age group has grown from 35.4% of all ongoing employees at June 1999 to 41.8% at June 2008, although there is considerable variation in individual agencies’ reliance on this age group. The proportion of older workers in the APS has almost doubled between 1999 and 2008.

There is also evidence that older workers are increasingly returning to the APS on a more flexible basis after resigning or retiring—48.5% of non-ongoing employees in the 55–59 years age group and 44% in the 60 years and over age group have previously worked as ongoing employees. Older workers are also choosing to incorporate more flexibility into their work-life balance through part-time arrangements as they approach retirement.

A number of factors are likely to affect the ability of the APS to retain employees aged 45 years and over. These include access to flexible working arrangements, general levels of job satisfaction, and the earnings rates of the superannuation funds, which affect the benefits available to those who resign before age 55. This latter factor has important implications for agencies’ ability to retain some mature-aged employees, with the separation rate for those aged 54 years being much higher than for slightly older or younger employees.²³

The workforce profile of young employees is different to that of the APS overall, with this group being more likely to work on a non-ongoing basis, and having a much higher separation rate. Young employees accounted for 7.5% of separations during 2007–08, compared with their overall representation of 4.9% at June 2008. Their relatively high separation rate has also increased over time.

Employee perceptions of agency support

Young employees were much more likely to think that their agency valued and managed diversity in their workplace well with 82% of those aged under 25 years agreeing that their agency valued and managed diversity in the workplace well compared to 64% for all age groups. Employees aged under 25 years were also more likely to agree that their organisation was committed to creating a diverse workforce—77% compared to 69% for all age groups.

These results indicate that young employees are substantially happier with their agencies’ efforts to create a diverse workforce, compared to mature-aged and older workers. Agencies need to ensure that their workforce diversity strategies cross, not only cultural barriers, but also age barriers.

Attraction and selection

Workplace attributes that are important to employees can differ across age groups; however, they can also be similar. Job security, for example, was the attribute most likely to be selected by all age groups (young employees, mature-aged employees and older workers). (See Table 3.12.) Younger workers were more likely to be attracted to their current job due to career and development opportunities, while mature-aged and older workers were more likely to be attracted because their interests matched the job or due to the geographical location of the job.

Table 3.12: Agency attraction attributes—importance and how well expectations were met by age group, 2007–08

Agency attribute	Young employees (under 25 years)		Mature-aged employees (45-54 years)		Older workers (55 years and over)
	Rated important in attracting employee to job (%)	Expectations met well(a) (%)	Rated important in attracting employee to job (%)	Expectations met well(a) (%)	Rated important in attracting employee to job (%)	Expectations met well(a) (%)
(a) Expectations relate only to employees who rated the agency attribute as important. Note: The top five attributes selected by each age group are highlighted. Source: Employee survey
Job security	85	87	83	81	83	71
Career opportunities	80	54	54	46	49	35
Development opportunities	80	59	46	48	47	56
Good work practices	76	68	56	60	59	67
Gaining experience	74	81	42	64	46	66
Making a difference	72	59	62	63	65	62
Interests match job	65	56	72	65	74	68
Location	63	81	71	79	70	81
Remuneration	62	72	64	59	60	71
Important work	62	78	62	79	66	77
Work on leading edge projects	50	54	41	57	41	63

In terms of agencies meeting employees’ expectations in these areas, there were mixed results. For younger employees, agencies performed well in meeting expectations in the areas of job security and providing experience to employees, but not so well in the areas of career and development opportunities. For mature-aged and older workers, agencies generally performed well in meeting expectations in the areas that they considered most important. Remuneration, however, is an area where agencies may be able to better manage expectations of certain mature-aged employees. It is important for both retention and employee engagement that agencies understand the attractors for different segments of the workforce and effectively manage employees’ expectations in these areas.

Young employees were much more satisfied with a range of measures relevant to employee engagement than both mature-aged employees and older workers (see Figure 3.8). Satisfaction with the summary employee engagement measure for younger employees was 83% compared to 68% for mature-aged employees and 67% for older workers. Factors where younger workers were substantially much more satisfied than their older counterparts were Governance and Integrity, Senior Leaders, Merit and Career Progression, Learning and Development and Agency Culture. They were less satisfied with Understanding Current Role and to a lesser extent with Current Job.

In general, mature-aged and older employees shared quite similar views on the employee engagement factors. The biggest difference was in the Work-Life Balance factor with older workers somewhat more satisfied (64%) than mature-aged employees (54%).

These results again indicate the need for agencies to work on embedding an inclusive and engaging culture for all employees, and to highlight the different work styles and preferences of the various age groups.

Key chapter findings

Success in creating a diverse workplace has long been seen as an area in which the APS performs well, with the majority of employees agreeing that agencies are committed to this issue. It is also important that the composition of the APS workforce reflects, where possible, that of the broader Australian community. While there are many aspects of workplace diversity in which the APS performs well, there are others in which APS performance is poor, and is in need of improvement.

This year, the employment of women—both at senior levels and overall—has continued to rise. Representation of employees from a non-English speaking background continues to be stable.

The APS also appears to be doing well in improving the participation of mature-aged and older workers—an increasingly important group in a tightening and ageing labour market— through flexible working arrangements. The growing proportion of older, non-ongoing employees who have previously worked in the APS are an important resource for agencies to draw on in managing peak workflows, as well as providing ways of maintaining corporate knowledge and high levels of productivity.

Another pleasing outcome this year is the improvement in the quality of data provided to APSED on the diversity status of employees. This reflects efforts by some agencies to improve their processes for collecting and reporting data, and also promotes an environment in which employees feel comfortable in identifying their diversity status. Many other agencies, however, still do not seem to place sufficient importance on this issue. Greater efforts from these agencies, some of whom are among the largest in the APS, would have a major impact on data quality for the overall APS. Better data quality will provide an increased understanding of the APS workforce, a more accurate measure of the success of our initiatives and also identify areas in which we need to improve.

After two years of growth reported in last year’s report, it is disappointing that the number and proportion of Indigenous employees fell this year, although the decline in proportional terms was small. Employee survey results show that the expectations of Indigenous employees are not being met on several of the attributes that attracted them to their job. While APS-wide efforts to improve the recruitment of Indigenous employees appear to be producing some successes, this group is much more likely to leave the APS than other employees. It is important that agencies find out why this happens, and ameliorate this trend if we are to reverse the long-term decline in Indigenous employment in the APS.

For employees with disability, results suggest that the APS is having little success at both recruiting and retaining ongoing employees. While there are concerns about the quality of the data, there is still a long-term decline in this group’s representation in the APS. Employee survey results indicate that employees with disability are dissatisfied with agencies’ support in the workplace. There is significant room for improvement in all four main areas of the MAC objectives for promoting the employment of people with disability. Next year’s State of the Service report will focus in more detail on individual agencies’ progress in implementing these important strategies.

 

1 Public Service and Merit Protection Commission 2001, Guidelines on Workplace Diversity, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 5.

2 Public Service and Merit Protection Commission 2001, Guidelines on Workplace Diversity, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 5.

3 Due to improvements in the quality of historical data, proportions in this table may differ from those published in previous years.

4 In the absence of alternative measures, the concept ‘NESB’, representing people from a non-English speaking background, is used with APSED. This captures information about first language spoken, place of birth and parents’ language. NESB1, the measure reported here, includes people born overseas whose first language was not English. NESB2 has previously been reported in addition to NESB1 and includes children of migrants, including those who were born overseas and arrived in Australia when they were aged five or younger and did not speak English as a first language, those who were Australian born but did not speak English as a first language and had at least one NESB1 parent, and those who were Australian born and neither of whose parents spoke English as a first language. Analysis of APSED data has found that the NESB2 group does not have a substantial disadvantage compared to other employees, and it is therefore not reported on here.

5 ABS, Census of Population and Housing, 2006, ABS, Canberra, <http://www.abs.gov.au>

6 ABS, Census of Population and Housing, 2006, ABS, Canberra, <http://www.abs.gov.au>

7 A sub-set of occupations from the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) that is similar to the type of work undertaken in the APS.

8 The method used to calculate the proportion of employees with graduate or tertiary qualifications includes those with qualifications at bachelor’s degree level and above. It excludes from the denominator those for whom no data was provided by agencies, and those who chose not to provide details of their highest qualification.

9 Australian Public Service Commission 2005, APS Employment and Capability Strategy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employees, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

10 Australian Public Service Commission 2005, APS Employment and Capability Strategy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employees, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

11 Australian Public Service Commission 2004, State of the Service Report 2003–04, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

12 Australian Public Service Commission 2008, Building an Indigenous Employment Strategy—A Starter Kit for APS Agencies, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

13 Australian Public Service Commission 2008, Building An Indigenous Employment Strategy—A Starter Kit for APS Agencies, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

14 Australian Public Service Commission 2008, Building An Indigenous Employment Strategy—A Starter Kit for APS Agencies, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

15 Full details of the factor analysis, including details of the methodology and questions used, are set out in Appendix 3.

16 The method used to calculate the proportion of employees with graduate or tertiary qualifications includes those with qualifications at bachelor’s degree level and above. It excludes from the denominator those for whom no data was provided by agencies, and those who chose not to provide details of their highest qualification.

17 Management Advisory Committee 2006, Employment of People with Disability in the APS, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au/mac>

18 Management Advisory Committee 2006, Employment of People with Disability in the APS, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. 65, <http://www.apsc.gov.au/mac>

19 Australian Public Service Commission 2007, Ability at Work—Tapping the Talent of People with Disability, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

20 Australian Public Service Commission 2007, Ability at Work—Working Better Together, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

21 The method used to calculate the proportion of employees with graduate or tertiary qualifications includes those with qualifications at bachelor’s degree level and above. It excludes from the denominator those for whom no data was provided by agencies, and those who chose not to provide details of their highest qualification.

22 Ranked by the proportion of employees who rated the attribute important.

23 The separation rate is calculated as the proportion of employees separating in a particular cohort during the year, divided by the average number of employees in that cohort at the beginning and end of the financial year.

Previous Next: Attracting, engaging and retaining the APS workforce

About the State of the Service Previous State of the Service reports are available from our State of the Service page

Navigation Letter of transmittal Preface Overview Who we are Enhancing productive capacity

Reinvigorating the traditions of Westminster government Working with stakeholders and moving to more inclusive government Appendices

Resources Glossary Downloads Figures and tables