Case Study2

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

This is the second year that the PS Commissioner’s report on Diversity in the APS has been included in the State of the Service report. This approach ensures that workplace diversity is considered within the broader context of the APS Values and organisational capability in the APS. As Chapter 9 indicates, agencies are putting more effort into workforce planning for corporate and business outcomes. Recognising the contribution workplace diversity can make to achieve those outcomes is an important part of this process. A strategic approach to workforce planning that takes account of the diversity of the Australian community will ensure that agencies are better placed to attract and retain the skills they need to achieve their goals in the context of a competitive and ageing labour market. A diverse workforce also contributes to the responsiveness of agencies to an increasingly demanding and informed Australian public. Diversity can make a positive difference where agencies want to ensure there is effective consultation with stakeholders, where it is important to tap into community agendas, or where service delivery mechanisms need to be established on the ground. There is therefore a strong business case for a diverse workforce. However, as the legislative framework makes clear, diversity in the APS also encompasses equity in employment—a core component of the APS Values. Agencies are required to take measures to ensure that, among other things, employment related disadvantage on the basis of gender, Indigenous status, disability and on the basis of race and ethnicity is eliminated. While employment related disadvantage is not defined in the legislation, it includes access to employment opportunities, salary, promotions, and management positions. This chapter draws on APSED data and on responses to the agency and employee surveys. It also incorporates, where appropriate, conclusions, case studies and other material from an evaluation of agencies’ written workplace diversity programs (WDPs) that was carried out by the Commission this year. The chapter begins by briefly outlining the legislative framework for workplace diversity in the APS, and presents the key findings of the WDP evaluation. Key issues in collecting and analysing diversity data in the APS are then examined, as are employment disadvantage in the four EEO areas specified in the PS Commissioner’s Directions, age diversity and work-life balance issues for the APS. The chapter concludes with a consideration of how bullying, harassment and discrimination are managed in the APS.

139

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK The legislative provisions relating to workplace diversity in the APS are part of a wider framework of Commonwealth laws that, among other things, support and promote equal opportunity and equity in employment. They include the: • Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cwlth) • Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cwlth) • Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cwlth) • Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cwlth) • Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cwlth) • Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cwlth).

THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT 1999 Section 18 of the PS Act requires agency heads to establish WDPs to assist in giving effect to the APS Values. Section 12 of the PS Act provides that agency heads must promote and uphold the APS Values. A number of the Values are particularly relevant to workplace diversity. These include: • s. 10(1)(b)—the APS is a public service in which employment decisions are based on merit • s. 10(1)(c)—the APS provides a workplace that is free from discrimination and recognises and utilises the diversity of the Australian community it serves • s. 10(1)(j)—the APS provides a fair, flexible, safe and rewarding workplace • s. 10(1)(l)—the APS promotes equity in employment. The Values relevant to workplace diversity are supported by the PS Commissioner’s Directions made under section 11(1) of the PS Act.

COMMISSIONER’S DIRECTIONS Workplace diversity is addressed in Chapter 3 of the PS Commissioner’s Directions. The Directions set out the measures that agencies must take in relation to workplace diversity and include requirements for establishing, reviewing and evaluating WDPs. A more detailed description of the legal framework within which WDPs operate is set out in the Commission’s publication Guidelines on Workplace Diversity—Working Together No.2.1

APSED AND EEO DATA The provision of some EEO data by APS employees to their agency is voluntary. Therefore, as with any large voluntary data collection, APSED tends to under-represent the number of Indigenous Australians, people with a disability and people from a non-English speaking background (NESB). In addition, EEO data includes ongoing employees only, as data is not routinely collected for non-ongoing employees. Longitudinal data shows that people are more likely to report their EEO status over time. For example, when the June 2003 APSED dataset was finalised for the State of the Service Report 2002–03, 2879 people had identified

1

140

This publication is available at <www.apsc.gov.au>

included in the 2003 dataset now identified themselves as Indigenous Australians. Some of this change may be due to improved data quality, but is also likely to reflect a decision on the part of some individuals to give their EEO status, where they had chosen not to in the past. For the first time this year the employee survey asked respondents who identified themselves as being from an EEO group (other than women) whether they had provided their agency with their EEO details (see Table 8.1).

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

as Indigenous Australians. The dataset for the following year, finalised at June 2004, shows that 2938 people

The survey results showed that most employees in each group believe they have informed their agency of their EEO status; 74% of NESB employees, 85% of people with a disability and 89% of Indigenous employees. Relatively few employees (around 10% for each group) reported that they chose not to provide their EEO details, with very few indicating that they had not provided their EEO status for other reasons. NESB employees were more likely than other employees to be unsure whether they had declared their status. Table 8.1: Employees’ reporting of EEO status to their agency EEO Group

Yes (%)

No—chose not to inform (%)

No—for another reason (%)

Not sure (%)

Indigenous Australians

89

9

1

0

People with a disability

85

11

3

1

People from a NESB

74

9

3

14

Source: Employee survey

These results suggest a higher level of reporting by employees of their EEO status than would be expected from the APSED data. It is likely that some of the ‘yes’ response relates to informal reporting, for example verbally informing their supervisor of their EEO status or participating in EEO networks, rather than entering the data into their agency’s HR systems. It is also possible that agencies systems are not as effective as they could be in capturing this information and ensuring that declarations of EEO status to the agency are reported to APSED. The result certainly suggests that employees’ willingness to identify is not the main factor influencing the completeness of APSED data. The integrity of APSED, and the ability of the Commission to report on workplace diversity in the APS, is fundamentally linked to the quality of data provided by agencies. Agencies also need this data to develop and implement effective WDPs that are based on an understanding of their workforce demographics. The agency survey asked agencies how they collect workplace diversity data from new employees. The large majority of agencies, 89%, said that they request new employees complete and return a paper form. Fifteen per cent of agencies requested that new employees complete and return an online form, and five per cent (or four agencies)—three small and one medium—said that they did not collect diversity data. Agencies were also asked how they updated their existing workplace diversity data against individual employee records. The most common response was agencies requesting, but not requiring, all employees to complete a paper form and return it (47%). Online systems were used more often to update than to collect data initially, with 41% of agencies stating that they requested, but did not require, employees to update their details through online systems. Few agencies required, rather than requested, employees to provide data online (2%) or by completing a paper form (7%).

141

Agencies were also asked how often their agency conducts an agency-wide review of their diversity data in order to update data against individual employee records. Only a minority did this on a regular basis (17% once a year and 2% twice a year). The majority, 64%, conduct such reviews only on an ad-hoc basis. Eleven per cent, including three large agencies, never conduct such reviews of their data. Improving data quality continues to be a priority of the Commission, and several agencies have implemented strategies to improve and maintain the data they provide for APSED. For example, DIMIA’s WDP makes staff responsible for updating their EEO details with six-monthly prompts to remind staff of this requirement. There is still, however, as indicated by the agency survey results, considerable room for improvement by some agencies. In last year’s State of the Service report Defence was identified as having poor quality APSED data. During 2003–04 Defence have developed initiatives to improve their data quality including an online web-based system that allows Defence APS employees to update their EEO data. An enhancement to this system, allowing employees to update their education qualifications details, is planned. The Commission continues to focus on improving the quality of APSED data so that its reliability for research, policy development and workforce planning continues to improve. However, the voluntary nature of providing EEO details means that there will always be a proportion of employees for whom data is incomplete. The APSED team is currently developing a statistical model that will take into account this ‘no data’ component. This will allow inclusion of the ‘no data’ component when analysing the representation of EEO groups for future years’ reports.

EVALUATION OF WRITTEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY PROGRAMS During 2004 the Commission carried out an evaluation of APS agencies’ written workplace diversity programs. The evaluation looked at how effectively the statutory requirements for WDPs have been incorporated into APS agencies’ written programs, with some requirements assessed for all agency WDPs and others assessed for a sample of programs. The evaluation methodology is set out in Appendix 3. The conclusion of the evaluation was that most agencies have taken substantial and positive steps toward meeting the requirements for WDPs. The evaluation also reinforced the importance of written programs. It found, through cross-referencing to employee survey results, that WDPs assessed as being of a higher quality are associated with: • higher levels of employee agreement that their agency supports the employment of, or provides the same opportunities for, each of the four EEO groups • higher levels of satisfaction with flexible work practices. FaCS, for example, achieved consistently high results across all of the requirements for WDPs, and had significantly better than the APS average 2004 employee survey results for its commitment to three of the four EEO groups, and for employee satisfaction with flexible work practices. Similarly, the agency that was assessed as having the poorest quality WDP, received employee survey results in relation to diversity and flexible work practices that were generally significantly below the APS average. More specific conclusions and highlights from the evaluation are set out below. Most WDPs demonstrate a commitment to workplace diversity and recognised the link between diversity and agency performance. Most agencies have adopted a broad and inclusive definition of diversity.

142

strengths. Managing diversity well means creating an inclusive environment that values and utilises the contributions of people from different backgrounds, experience and perspectives. Diversity relates to gender, age, language, ethnicity, cultural background, disability, sexual orientation, religious belief and family responsibility. It also refers to the ways we differ from each other in

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

The Federal Court’s WDP states that the diversity of the Court’s employees is one of our greatest

respects such as educational level, job function, socio-economic background, personality, geographic location, marital status and whether or not we have carer responsibilities. The broad approach taken to workplace diversity may, in some cases, be at the expense of more specific initiatives to remove employment disadvantage for the specified EEO groups, with some agencies not including measures for all four groups. While it is acknowledged that each agency may choose to focus on particular EEO groups, it is reasonable to expect that all four EEO groups would be included in agencies’ WDPs. Of the 24 agencies in the sample for the evaluation, only 12 included measures for all four EEO groups. Six agencies included measures for three of the EEO groups, one agency included measures for two EEO groups and three agencies included measures for one EEO group. Two agencies included only generic measures for EEO groups. The EEO group most likely to be included was people with a disability (in 21 WDPs), and the groups least likely to be included were Indigenous Australians and NESB people (16 WDPs). While most agencies included some performance indicators in their WDP, the quality of those indicators varied considerably. Some were difficult to measure, some were not measures of effectiveness, and some were not closely related to the strategies of the WDP or linked to targets. The performance indicators in DIMIA's WDP are clearly articulated, measurable and are measures of effectiveness.

DIMIA—Measuring Our Success By working together to manage our diversity successfully, we expect the following outcomes for DIMIA. DIMIA’s annual workforce reports indicate that: • No group is unfairly disadvantaged with respect to training, development and promotional opportunities. • The number and median classification of employees within DIMIA who identify as Indigenous continues to increase over the life of the plan. • The proportion of staff accessing flexible work options remains comparable with the APS average and improves over the life of the plan. • Our workplace diversity profile is better than the APS average. • Code of Conduct training is reported in SAP HR as being provided for all new staff, with refresher training being provided at least every two years for ongoing staff. • The harassment contact officer and employee assistance program annual reports indicate a reduction in the number of harassment complaints that relate to diversity.

143

• DIMIA’s reporting on the Workplace Diversity Report, the Commonwealth Disability Strategy and the Charter for Cultural Diversity in a Culturally Diverse Society in the annual report, contains input from all major business areas. • Percentage of staff who have entered EEO data in SAP HR is over 90% by December 2004. The WDPs of some agencies do not appear to be based on a good understanding of the demographics of the agency’s workforce. Other agencies do demonstrate a detailed demographic knowledge of their workforce, an essential requirement in developing an effective WDP. The National Museum of Australia’s WDP, for example, includes an overview of the Museum’s diversity status, including the areas where it is doing well, and the areas it needs to work on, such as cultural and linguistic background, disability, and socio-economic background. Almost all of the agencies required to, do have a current WDP in place. However, agencies have not been routinely forwarding their programs to the Commission as required and there is some indication that they have not always been reviewed as often as required under the Directions. Agencies will be asked to forward their WDP to the Commission as a regular component of future State of the Service agency surveys, and agencies without an up-to-date WDP in place will be named in future reports.

REPRESENTATION OF EEO GROUPS There was a rise in the absolute numbers and proportion of ongoing women and NESB1 staff employed in the APS between June 2003 and June 2004. The number and proportion of ongoing employees with a disability was stable. Both the proportion and absolute numbers of Indigenous Australians decreased. The proportional representation of women, Indigenous Australians, people with a disability, and people from a non-English speaking background as at June of each of the last 10 years is presented in Table 8.2. Table 8.2: Representation of EEO groups among ongoing employees 1995 (%)

1996 (%)

1997 (%)

1998 (%)

1999 (%)

2000 (%)

2001 (%)

2002 (%)

2003 (%)

2004 (%)

Women

47.2

47.7

48.1

48.6

49.0

49.9

51.5

51.9

52.8

53.1

Indigenous Australians

2.5

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.7

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.4

2.3

People with a disability

5.8

5.6

5.5

5.4

5.1

4.7

4.3

4.0

3.8

3.8

NESB1

3.9

3.8

3.7

3.5

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.2

3.3

Source: APSED

Trends in representation for each of these groups are discussed in the following sections. Changes in the classification profile of the APS are likely to have contributed to changes in the representation of women, Indigenous Australians, people with a disability and people from a NESB (referred to in this chapter as EEO groups).2 Employment opportunities have fallen in traditional entry-level administrative roles, where a larger 2

144

In the absence of alternative measures, the concept ‘NESB’, representing people from a non-English speaking background, is used with APSED to capture issues relating to racial and ethnic diversity. This captures information about first language spoken, place of birth and parental heritage. NESB1, the measure used here, includes people born overseas whose first language was not English and who arrived in Australia after the age of five. NESB2 has been reported in State of the Service reports prior to 2002–03, in addition to NESB1, and includes children of migrants, including those who were born overseas and arrived in Australia before the age of five 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 NESB parent, and those who were Australian born and had neither parent speaking English as a first language. Analysis of APSED data has found that this group does not have a substantial employment disadvantage compared to other workers, and it therefore is not reported here.

classification profile of the APS reflects a shift over time in how the APS does business. For example, in the 1970s a large proportion of APS employees were engaged in base-grade entry level positions to provide administrative or technical support services. These positions have, in many cases, yielded to technological change, outsourcing or other productivity measures. This issue is discussed further in Chapter 9.

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

proportion of EEO groups and younger workers have previously been concentrated. This change in the

WOMEN IN THE APS The representation of women in the APS has increased steadily over the past decade. At 30 June 2004, women represented 53.1% of all ongoing employees in the APS, a slight increase on the previous year. Women represented 57.7% of engagements in 2003–04, compared to 52.9% of separations, suggesting the trend to increasing representation of women in the APS workforce is likely to continue a little further. The proportional representation of men and women varies from agency to agency. Of agencies with more than 1000 ongoing employees, the Protective Service had the highest proportion of men (86.2%), followed by BOM (81.5%), while Health had the highest proportion of women (72.7%) followed by FaCS (70.7%) (see Figure 8.1). Figure 8.1: Representation of women and men in agencies with more than 1000 ongoing employees, 2004

Source: APSED

145

As Table 8.3 makes clear, women continue to be under-represented at more senior classification levels, although there have been significant gains over time. Table 8.3: Ongoing staff: Proportion of women across classification levels 1995 (%)

2003 (%)

2004 (%)

Trainees and graduate trainees

50.8

51.5

50.5

APS 1–2

56.1

53.7

52.7

APS 3–4

59.5

64.0

64.3

APS 5–6

40.3

50.2

50.7

EL

26.3

37.9

39.3

SES

18.4

30.1

31.6

Total

47.2

52.8

53.1

Source: APSED

Women represented 39.3% of ELs at June 2004 (up from 37.9% in 2003). As Figure 8.2 shows, while women made up only 42.0% of engagements to EL classifications, they represented 48.4% of promotions. In addition, women made up only 34.7% of separations, so further increases in this group can be expected. Figure 8.2: Ongoing staff: Engagement and promotion rates for women, 2003–04

Source: APSED

At June 2004, women represented 31.6% of the SES (up from 30.1% in 2003). Given that 31.9% of engagements and 41.9% of promotions to, and within, the SES were women, compared to 24.8% of separations, this increase in representation can be expected to continue. SES representation rates for women compare well with those in Tasmanian (25%) and Queensland (20%) State governments, but are still somewhat lower than the Victorian and New Zealand governments (35% and 36% respectively).

146

Under 40 years (%)

40–44 years (%)

45–49 years (%)

50+ years (%)

EL

49.7

41.6

34.9

28.8

SES

36.7

40.7

35.4

24.2

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

Table 8.4: Representation of women in selected classifications by age group, June 2004

Source: APSED

Table 8.4 shows that women’s representation at both EL and SES classification groups is higher for younger age groups, adding further to the evidence that the representation of women at these levels will continue to increase over time. Almost half of ELs aged under 40 (49.7%) and 41.6% of those aged 40–44 are women, compared with 28.8% of those aged 50 and over. For the SES, the picture is slightly different with women accounting for 36.7% of those aged under 40 and 40.7% of those aged 40–44, suggesting that women are less likely to be entering the SES under 40 than men, however, both figures are considerably higher than the 24.2% of the SES aged 50 and over who are women, and the current overall representation rate of 31.6%. Large agencies with the highest representation of women at SES levels are DEST (55.4%) and Health (52.5%). The large agencies with the lowest representation of women at SES levels are BOM (13.3%) and Defence (20.9%). In all, the positive trend towards increased representation of women at higher levels of the APS is continuing steadily, with no sign of stalling. There is still considerable room for improvement in the representation of women amongst agency heads (16.3% at 30 June 2004, prior to the appointment of four new women to departmental Secretary positions on 22 October 2004). The variation across agencies suggests quite a few agencies could be more pro-active in encouraging women to apply for more senior positions.

AGENCY SUPPORT FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN The employee survey asked respondents for their level of agreement with the following statement: ‘my agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of women’. The majority of employees, 81%, agreed with this statement, and only five per cent disagreed. One large agency had a particularly low level of agreement of 56%. The level of agreement for all other large agencies varied from 73% to 87%. Employees were asked about their agreement with similar statements for each of the other EEO groups. Employees were most likely to have agreed that their agency supported the employment, development and promotion of women and people from all cultural backgrounds. This State of the Service employee survey figure is consistent with positive results in the Victorian public sector from the Victorian Government's People Matter Survey 2003 in relation to employees' perception of gender issues. While not directly comparable, the Victorian Government found a high rate of agreement (85%) that ‘gender is not a barrier to success in my workgroup’ among responding employees.3 The majority of women responding to the State of the Service employee survey (76%) agreed that their agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of women. However, women were less likely to

3

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

147

have agreed than men (76% compared to 86%) and more likely to have disagreed (7% compared to 2% for men). The highest level of disparity between men and women in large agencies was 29 percentage points. Some employees made comments about their agency’s support for women. For example: [My] agency has a significant number of women in senior positions, so clearly there is a culture of support for promotion of women. For example in my Division, Division Head and 3 of the 6 Branches are women. Two of last three DHs have been women. While my agency actively supports the employment etc of all sorts of people, the nature of the work may make it difficult for some people to be promoted to their full potential. For example, long hours may mean that women with young children or people from cultures that place a higher value on spending time with families may not be promoted as quickly or readily as their peers. I believe the agency is somewhat backward in its approach to EEO regarding women …. This may be in part because it is a male-dominated workplace and merit decisions may be unintentionally biased even though EEO groups are regularly represented on selection panels. The department has a good and well-promoted workplace diversity policy. However, the decisions about individual employment, promotion and development opportunities are made at individual not departmental level, and hence there is always the risk of the ‘cloning' effect. The profile of the department indicates that white Anglo men are getting more of the promotion opportunities than women or NESB people. Work-life balance issues wipe many women out of seeking or succeeding in promotions.

Of the 24 agencies in the APS Commission’s sample for detailed analysis in its evaluation of written WDPs, 18 referred to specific measures to eliminate employment disadvantage for women, as required by the PS Commissioner’s Directions. Initiatives for women were the second most likely to be included of initiatives for the four EEO groups, after people with a disability. For example, the ANAO’s WDP includes as one of three initiatives that are the focus for 2002–04: ‘review the selection documentation from previous recruitment rounds to identify the skills areas in which ANAO internal female applicants for senior management positions warrant improvement. Based on this information, support for members of this EEO group to undertake leadership development training, development opportunities or to participate in working parties, committees and project teams, will be encouraged’.

JOB SATISFACTION—WOMEN The employee survey asked respondents to choose the five workplace factors (out of a list of 16) that impacted most on how satisfied they were with their job. Respondents were then asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with their top five factors using a five point scale (from ‘very satisfied’ to ‘very dissatisfied’). A summary index was created from the results of the job satisfaction question in the employee survey. The index ranges from zero (respondent was very dissatisfied with all of the factors nominated) to 10 (respondent was very satisfied with all factors). An index of five translates to a respondent being, on average, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with his/her nominated factors.

148

are limited to discussion of results in relation to EEO and age groups.4 Women reported slightly higher levels of overall job satisfaction than men; 75% were, on average, satisfied with the factors they nominated as important, compared to 72% of men. Table 8.5 shows the most important job satisfaction factors for women and men. Whereas in 2003 these factors were similar for men and women, with four out of five common to both, this year there are only two factors in common: ‘good working relationships’

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

The APS-wide results on job satisfaction are discussed in Chapter 5. Results on job satisfaction in this chapter

and ‘flexible working arrangements’. This can be explained in part by the inclusion of ‘good manager’ as an additional workplace job satisfaction factor this year, which was chosen among the most important factors for women, but not for men. The two factors that are common to women and men are also the job satisfaction factors most likely to be common to all EEO and other groups examined in this chapter. ‘Good working relationships’ was among the most important factors for every group, and ‘flexible working arrangements’ was common to all groups except people with a disability and people under 25 years. Women were also more likely to place more importance than men on ‘regular feedback/recognition for effort’ and ‘opportunities to develop my skills’. By contrast, men were more likely to have chosen ‘salary’ and ‘opportunities to utilise my skills’ among the factors most important to them. Table 8.5: Most important job satisfaction factors, by sex Women Factor

Men Satisfied with factor (%)

Factor

Satisfied with factor (%)

Good working relationships

89

Good working relationships

81

Flexible working arrangements

83

Flexible working arrangements

77

Regular feedback/recognition for effort

53

Salary

48

Opportunities to develop my skills

62

Opportunities to utilise my skills

62

Good manager

64

Seeing tangible results from my work

65

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

Table 8.5 also shows the proportion of each group satisfied with the factors they had identified as important. The majority of women were satisfied with each job satisfaction factor they identified as most important, and the majority of men were satisfied with four of their most important job satisfaction factors. In response to another question on people management, women were as likely as men to think their supervisor was highly effective at managing people (both 53%). This reflects an overall improvement in 2004 in employee

4

It is important to note that discussion on job satisfaction in this chapter is based on analysis of results for, at times, small populations and is indicative only. The five most important factors chosen and rated by respondents have been highlighted as a useful point of comparison, including across the four EEO groups (i.e. women, Indigenous Australians, people with a disability and people from NESB), but the relative rankings of the factors has not been reported.

149

perceptions of their immediate supervisor’s effectiveness at managing people, and closes the gap between the perceptions of women and men that was suggested by last year’s employee survey results (49% compared to 44%).

INDIGENOUS EMPLOYMENT At June 2004, APSED recorded that 2.3% of ongoing APS employees identified themselves as Indigenous Australians. The representation of Indigenous Australians in the APS compares favourably with the broader Australian context, in which 1.9% of all Australians aged 15–64 and 1.4% of the Australian labour force identified themselves as Indigenous Australians.5 However, after some growth in absolute numbers in each of the previous three years, the number of Indigenous employees fell during 2003–04, both in actual numbers and as a proportion of total ongoing staff. The number fell by 98, from 2937 to 2839, and the representation rate fell from 2.4% to 2.3%. The representation of Indigenous employees has fallen considerably from the high of 2.7% in 1999, after increasing for some years before 1999. Representation rates of Indigenous employees vary between agencies. Agencies that predominantly deliver services to, or work with, Indigenous communities generally had a higher proportion of Indigenous employees. As Table 8.6 shows, the agencies with the highest proportion of Indigenous employees (i.e. more than 10% of total ongoing employees) at 30 June 2004 were Aboriginal Hostels Limited (AHL), Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA), ATSIS, AIATSIS, National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) and DEST. Table 8.6: Agencies with the highest proportions of ongoing Indigenous employees, 2004 Agency

Indigenous ongoing staff

Total ongoing staff

Indigenous (%)

AHL

242

291

83.2%

TSRA

26

34

76.5%

ATSIS

489

1109

44.1%

AIATSIS

10

59

16.9%

NNTT

34

243

14.0%

DEST

170

1684

10.1%

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

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

5

150

Australian Census 2001.

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

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

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

The agencies with the highest decline in numbers of Indigenous employees were AHL (40), Centrelink (29) and Health (11). DEST and DEWR had an increase in the number of Indigenous employees (6 and 5 respectively). As Table 8.7 below shows, during 2003–04 the actual number of Indigenous employees increased slightly in APS 3–4 and EL classification levels, but fell in all other classifications, especially in the trainee classifications which have historically been used as a means to increase the representation of Indigenous Australians in the APS. About half the total decline in numbers of Indigenous employees in 2003–04 is related to reduced recruitment of trainees and graduate trainees. Over the past decade the proportion of Indigenous employees employed at the APS 5–6 levels through to the SES has increased, and the proportion at lower classifications remained largely stable, with a slight decline at the APS 3–4 levels. The recent stalling of total growth relates primarily to the reduced number of positions at the APS 1–2 levels.

151

Table 8.7: Ongoing representation of Indigenous employees by classification 1995

2003

2004

Number

%

APS 1–2

1122

3.7

326

4.2

291

3.7

APS 3–4

1283

3.2

1374

3.1

1390

3.1

APS 5–6

597

1.7

876

2.2

834

2.0

Executive

128

0.6

247

1.0

260

1.0

SES

13

0.7

27

1.4

24

1.3

Trainee

34

16.2

62

12.7

30

8.8

Graduate trainee

26

2.9

25

3.3

10

2.7

Other

31

1.7

0

–

0

–

3234

2.5

2937

2.4

2839

2.3

Total

Number

%

Number

%

Source: APSED

The main factor explaining the decline in Indigenous employment is likely to be the reduction in entry-level opportunities mentioned earlier. While the proportional representation of Indigenous employees at the APS 1–2 levels is now similar to that of ten years ago, absolute numbers have fallen significantly, reflecting the overall reduction in employment at these levels. Despite these structural changes, engagements of Indigenous employees rose in absolute terms between 1996–97 and 2002–03, before falling sharply in 2003–04 (from 393 to 256, a fall of 34.9%). This decline was similar, but not as great as that for engagements overall (39.9%—see Chapter 2), and the proportional representation of Indigenous employees in engagements actually rose, from 2.6% in 2002–03 to 2.8% in 2003–04. This was, however, the first percentage increase for some years, and the proportion is still much lower than it was ten years ago (4.7% in 1994–95). Indigenous separations rose again sharply this year, from 4.1% of all ongoing separations in 2002–03 to 4.9% in 2003–04; the highest rate in a decade. The absolute decline in numbers of Indigenous employees in 2003–04 resulted from both the decline in numbers of engagements and the increase in separations. These trends are shown in Table 8.8. Table 8.8: Indigenous representation in engagements and separations of ongoing employees, 1994–95 to 2003–04 1994– 1995– 95 (%) 96 (%)

1997– 98 (%)

1998– 99 (%)

1999– 00 (%)

2000– 01 (%)

2001– 02 (%)

2002– 03 (%)

2003– 04 (%)

Engagements

4.7

4.2

4.4

4.2

3.2

2.3

2.7

3.2

2.6

2.8

Separations

2.5

3.3

2.9

2.5

3.0

3.7

3.1

3.1

4.1

4.9

Source: APSED

152

1996– 97 (%)

employees, as shown in Figure 8.4 below. The use of traineeships and graduate trainee programs to recruit Indigenous Australians varies over time, though Indigenous employees remain more highly represented in traineeships than in graduate trainee programs (2.7% of graduate trainees at 30 June 2004 were Indigenous, compared to 8.8% of other trainees). However, overall trainee numbers (both trainees and graduate trainees) dropped significantly across the APS in 2003–04, with a larger than average decrease in Indigenous trainees

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

In percentage terms, trainee programs have represented an important source of engagements for Indigenous

(falling from 7.0% at June 2003 to 5.6% at June 2004), and absolute numbers of Indigenous trainees and graduate trainees fell from 87 at June 2003 to 40 at June 2004. Figure 8.4: Representation of ongoing Indigenous employees in trainee classifications, 1995 to 2004

Source: APSED

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

153

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

Source: APSED

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

AGENCY SUPPORT FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS As in 2002–03, the agency survey included detailed questions about agency support for Indigenous Australians and people with a disability, reflecting the key issues for these groups identified in previous State of the Service reports. Future surveys may explore other diversity issues. The agency survey asked agencies about their strategies to recruit and retain Indigenous employees, and about their use of formal Indigenous employment strategies. The employee survey asked about employees’ perceptions of whether their agency supported the employment, development and promotion of Indigenous employees.

Indigenous recruitment There has been little change in 2004 in the frequency of strategies used (across all agencies) to recruit Indigenous Australians, compared to 2003. Table 8.9 sets out the overall frequency of strategies used by agencies to recruit Indigenous Australians in 2004.

154

Recruitment Strategy

Number of agencies (N = 87) In place

Being Developed

Not in place

opportunities only to Indigenous applicants

16

2

69

Identified positions

19

4

64

24

2

61

employment scheme

10

3

74

Advertising employment opportunities in Indigenous media

29

2

56

Own recruitment strategy

17

7

63

Special employment measures limiting employment

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

Table 8.9: Agency strategies to recruit Indigenous Australians

Participation in the National Indigenous Cadetship Program run by DEWR Providing opportunities for Indigenous people to gain skills and experience under an agency-based Indigenous

Source: Agency survey

Only 53% of agencies reported using one or more strategies to recruit Indigenous Australians. Twenty-two per cent of agencies reported using a single strategy, most commonly participation in the National Indigenous Cadetship Program run by DEWR. Nine per cent of agencies, mostly large agencies, used a combination of five or more strategies to recruit Indigenous employees. Eleven per cent of agencies reported that they are developing at least one strategy for Indigenous recruitment. While it is useful to note the frequency and type of strategies agencies are using to recruit Indigenous employees, the critical issue is, of course, how effective those strategies are. This will vary depending on the organisational context of the agency. It is reasonable, for example, for an agency to concentrate on a single strategy that has proved effective, while others might employ a range of strategies to good effect. While it would be unreasonable, given the variation between agencies, to suggest that they should use a particular strategy or mix of strategies, it is concerning that a sizeable proportion of agencies (43%), including 10 medium and two large agencies, report that they do not use any specific strategies to recruit Indigenous Australians and are not developing strategies.

155

Of the 24 WDPs examined in detail for the Commission’s WDP evaluation, 16 referred to strategies aimed at eliminating employment disadvantage for Indigenous Australians. Along with NESB employees, initiatives for Indigenous employees were the least likely to be included in WDPs. FaCS’s WDP, assessed as being among the best, included the following detailed strategy (summarised below).

DIVERSITY THROUGH RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION O B J E C T I V E : FaCS will improve diversity capability.

S T R AT E G Y :

P E R F O R M A N C E I N D I C AT O R :

Attract, support, develop and retain Indigenous employees.

The number of Indigenous employees has increased and a range of support and development mechanisms are in place to meet policy development and program management requirements.

ACTION:

R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y:

Develop, implement and review an Indigenous recruitment and retention plan, detailing employment, learning, support and inclusion activities.

Work-life Diversity Team, in consultation with FaCS Indigenous Officers’ Network, Indigenous Policy and North Australia Office and State and Teritory Offices.

Retention of Indigenous employees Specific measures to retain Indigenous employees were more common than measures to recruit Indigenous employees. The majority of agencies (72%) reported using strategies to retain Indigenous employees: the most common strategy being provision of special leave (for example, ceremonial leave), which was included as a possible response in the agency survey for the first time in 2004. It is pleasing to note that, putting special leave aside for the purpose of comparison with 2003, there has been a 15 percentage point increase (48% in 2004 compared to 33% in 2003) in agencies using strategies to retain Indigenous employees. However, 24 agencies (28%) do not use any specific strategies to retain Indigenous employees, and only two of those agencies report that they are developing strategies. This group includes eight medium agencies and one large agency. Of medium and large agencies without retention strategies, seven do have Indigenous employees, and could reasonably be expected to have strategies for retaining them. Table 8.10 sets out the frequency of strategies used across all agencies.

156

Retention strategy

Number of agencies (N = 87) In place

Being developed

Not in place

27

6

54

(e.g. internal network)

23

3

61

Provide study awards

15

2

70

Provide culturally specific training programs

13

5

67

13

5

68

(e.g. ceremonial leave)

58

2

27

Other retention strategy

16

2

53

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

Table 8.10: Agency strategies to retain Indigenous employees

Encourage participation in the Indigenous APS Employees’ Network Support another Indigenous employees’ network

Provide Indigenous cultural awareness training for all employees Provide special leave provisions

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

Indigenous employment strategies Given the multiple dimensions to Indigenous employment disadvantage in the APS, in some agencies the development of formal and integrated strategies to support Indigenous employment, rather than the implementation of isolated measures, may be appropriate. The agency survey asked agencies whether they currently have a formal Indigenous Employment Strategy (IES) in place. Only thirteen agencies indicated that they had such a strategy. These agencies provided a copy of their strategy to the Commission. Several strategies were out-of-date. One strategy referred to the PS Act 1922 as legislation underpinning their strategy. Another strategy, launched in August 1999, covered the period 1999–2001. Other strategies had a narrow view of opportunities for Indigenous employees, concentrating on work in Indigenous-related policy, program, and service delivery areas. Some agencies, including DEST, had put a detailed IES in place. DEST’s Indigenous Australian recruitment and career development strategy—Yarrangi has been in place since 1993. The strategy focuses on attracting Indigenous Australians to employment opportunities in DEST, and developing and retaining Indigenous employees in DEST through ongoing career development and support. Yarrangi is overseen by a national steering committee made up of an elected Indigenous Australian staff member from each State, Territory and National Office and is co-chaired by the Indigenous Education Leader and the Head of Corporate Strategy Group. It is also supported at the local level by

157

local Yarrangi sub-committees of Indigenous Australian staff, providing strong ownership of Yarrangi by Indigenous staff. To attract new Indigenous employees through entry level positions, DEST participates in both the Indigenous Cadetship Program for the Australian Public Service and in the New Apprenticeships Program. In 2004 DEST took on 6 Indigenous cadets. DEST also undertakes a specific campaign to attract Indigenous graduates for the DEST graduate program. The application rate from Indigenous Australians for the 2004 intake of apprentices and graduates was low, and of the small number received, none were successful. DEST responded with a revised targeted recruitment strategy conducted in 2004 for the 2005 intake and this has resulted in a much stronger application rate and field of applicants. DEST conducts an Indigenous Australian Study Program that offers two types of study awards for Indigenous staff: a tertiary preparation award, for DEST Indigenous staff who have had no previous tertiary level study; and a degree completion award, for DEST Indigenous staff to complete an undergraduate degree in an approved area of study. Since 1994, 27 Indigenous staff have participated in these programs. Another major learning and development initiative for DEST's Indigenous staff is the Training for the Indigenous Education Network (TIEN) training strategy. TIEN was developed in response to the review of DEST’s Indigenous Education Direct Assistance (IEDA) programs and its principle focus is to develop the capabilities of staff who deliver the DEST IEDA programs (of the 220 staff who are participating in TIEN around 70% are Indigenous Australians). The program commenced in 2003–04 and will be completed in December 2004. TIEN provides competency based training with options for accredited pathways, including the attainment of a Certificate IV in Government. Key features of TIEN include: resources which are relevant to the work of DEST Indigenous education staff; learning material and delivery methodology appropriate to Indigenous Australian culture developed and tested through a reference group and piloting of all sessions; linkages to the department’s performance management system; mentoring support for staff to achieve maximum success; and opportunities for pathways to qualifications. Recognition and support, for Indigenous employees, is strong in DEST (around 10% of DEST employees are Indigenous). This is provided through the celebration of key Indigenous Australian dates and the presentation of the Excellence Awards during NAIDOC Week. These awards recognise individuals and teams that achieve excellence in the development and delivery of services and policies which affect Indigenous Australians. DEST also recognises that Indigenous Australians have cultural and community responsibilities and these are supported with leave and other entitlements available through the DEST CA.

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

158

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

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

It is clear, however, that the level of agreement, especially in those agencies with the highest responses, is

This result may explain the higher level of agreement among Indigenous employees, who are concentrated in a small number of agencies with higher than average Indigenous employment, that their agency supported the employment, development and promotion of Indigenous employees (63% compared to 56% of non-Indigenous employees). Indigenous employees’ views were, however, more polarised, with a much higher proportion of Indigenous employees having disagreed with the statement than non-Indigenous employees (24% compared to 5% for non-Indigenous employees). Non-Indigenous employees who did not agree with the statement were more likely to have chosen ‘neither agree nor disagree’ (27% compared to 11%) or ‘don’t know’ (12% compared to 2%). At least half of respondents (ranging from 50% to 62%) from five of the 22 large agencies included in the survey chose ‘neither agree nor disagree’ or ‘don’t know’ in relation to their agency’s support for Indigenous employees. This suggests that some agencies need to better develop or more clearly articulate their commitment to support the employment, development and promotion of Indigenous Australians. While it might be unreasonable to expect that employees would be familiar with the detail of their agency’s recruitment and retention strategies, it is important, and in the interests of the agency, that their employees are clear about the agency’s commitment to Indigenous employment. Following are some employee comments about their agency’s support for Indigenous Australians. The agency supports the employment of Indigenous employees however development and promotion is poor. It's as if once an Indigenous person is employed that's it, the target has been achieved, and when they don't rise up that's because of their own deficiencies. In the case of Indigenous it's possible that 'active support' is less relevant than successful outcomes (i.e. employment of Indigenous people). More use could be made of Aboriginal Cadetship schemes. The employment of Indigenous people seems to occur largely for Indigenous policy/program areas, rather than across the department. If actively supports means 'employs' then the answer is no for Indigenous people.

JOB SATISFACTION—INDIGENOUS EMPLOYEES Background information on the job satisfaction questions in the employee survey is found above at the section ‘Job satisfaction—women’. Table 8.11 sets out the five most important workplace factors for Indigenous and non-Indigenous employees, and the overall proportion of those groups that are satisfied with that factor. Indigenous employees were more likely than other employees to choose ‘opportunities to develop my skills’, and ‘opportunities to utilise my skills’ among the job satisfaction factors that were most important to them.

159

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

Factor

Non-Indigenous Satisfied with factor (%)

Factor

Satisfied with factor (%)

Good working relationships

70

Good working relationships

86

Flexible working arrangements

77

Flexible working arrangements

81

Salary

38

Salary

52

Opportunities to develop my skills

66

Regular feedback/recognition for effort

52

Opportunities to utilise my skills

63

Good manager

64

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

While ‘good manager’ is not among the most important job satisfaction factors for Indigenous employees in Table 8.11, it was ranked just outside the five factors included in the table. The majority of non-Indigenous employees were satisfied with each of the job satisfaction factors they chose as most important, while a majority of Indigenous employees were satisfied with four of the five. Of the factors that Indigenous and non-Indigenous employees have in common (‘good working relationships’, ‘flexible working arrangements’ and ‘salary’) ‘good working relationships’ was unambiguously the most important factor for both groups. Only 70% of Indigenous employees, however, were satisfied with their ‘working relationships’ compared with 86% of non-Indigenous employees. The overall job satisfaction of Indigenous employees (based on the job satisfaction index) was 68% compared to 74% for non-Indigenous employees. In response to another question on people management, there were no significant differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous employees in their likelihood of rating their supervisors as highly effective at managing people.

PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY There is no consistent definition across the APS of what constitutes disability for the purpose of EEO data collected by agencies. Some agencies use a specific definition, based on the impact of the disability on how the person works, for example, while others leave it to individuals to decide whether to disclose a disability for the purpose of EEO data. There are also different types of disabilities that are likely to affect employment in different ways, for example: • sensory, physical, psychological, and medical • disabilities of different severity • episodic, continuous, short term, and degenerative disabilities • disabilities that are acquired pre or post employment.

160

data is voluntary and it is important when considering the data relating to people with a disability to understand that it is an approximation only of the incidence of disability, however defined, across the APS. Over the past decade, the data shows a consistent decline in the employment of people reporting a disability as a proportion of APS employees. In absolute terms, the number fell each year until 2001–02, before recovering slightly in 2002–03 and 2003–04, but this slight recovery still left a continuing decline in those years as a

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

In addition to these definitional issues, it needs to be stressed that reporting of data on disability like other EEO

proportion of ongoing employees. Currently, people with a disability represent 3.8% of ongoing APS employees, down from 5.8% ten years ago. While the decline in absolute numbers can be partly explained by a reduction in the number of APS 1–2 positions, where people with a disability have historically made up a greater percentage of employees, there has been a decline at all classifications, as Figure 8.6 indicates. This contrasts with the picture for Indigenous employees (Table 8.7). During 2003–04 representation was stable overall, but continued to decrease at the APS1–2 and SES levels, and rose slightly at the APS 3–4 levels. Figure 8.6: Ongoing staff: Proportion of people with a disability by classification, 1995 to 2004

Source: APSED

Engagement and separation rates for people with a disability have changed slightly over the 10 years to June 2004. However, for each of the past ten years, except for 2002–03, there has been a consistent pattern of separations outnumbering engagements. The engagement rate in 2002–03, however, was unusually high. In 2003–04, the representation of people with a disability in ongoing engagements was 2.2% (compared with 3.0% in 2002–03) and their representation in ongoing separations was 4.5%. Agencies with relatively high proportions of people reporting a disability are EOWA (10%), the Office of National Assessments (ONA) (9.8%), Questacon (9.6%) and the Australian Industrial Registry (AIR) (8%). None of these agencies is large, and so the actual numbers of people with a disability they employ is relatively small. Ten agencies reported that they employed no people with a disability on an ongoing basis. These agencies were small except for one medium-sized agency (AEC). Figure 8.7 below shows the proportion of people reporting a disability in agencies with more than 1000 ongoing employees.

161

Figure 8.7: Proportion of people with a disability in agencies with more than 1000 ongoing employees, 2004

Source: APSED

AGENCY SUPPORT FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY The agency survey asked agencies about their strategies to recruit and retain people with a disability. The employee survey asked about employees’ perceptions of whether their agency supports the employment, development and promotion of people with a disability.

162

Table 8.12 sets out the number and types of strategies agencies use to facilitate the recruitment of people with a disability. Table 8.12: Agency strategies to recruit people with a disability Recruitment Strategy

Number of agencies (N = 87) In place

Being developed

Not in place

opportunities to persons with an intellectual disability

3

1

82

Working with organisations that specialise in placing people with a disability in employment

21

2

64

Providing opportunities for people with a disability to gain skills and experience under an agency-based employment scheme

10

2

75

Providing assistance during the application process

43

4

40

Appropriate accommodation made to any testing situation

45

2

39

Training of selection panels in appropriate interviewing methods for people with a disability

17

9

61

Providing information and/or access to advice on reasonable adjustment measures in the workplace

64

2

21

Seeking expert assessments on reasonable adjustment in relation to specific cases

48

2

35

Other

7

0

50

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

Recruitment of people with a disability

Special employment measures limiting the employment

Source: Agency survey Note: Results in this table do not include those agencies that did not respond to the question about the particular strategy.

The use of measures to facilitate the recruitment of people with a disability was more common than for Indigenous employees, with 85% of agencies using at least one measure.6 Most agencies reported using a combination of strategies to facilitate the recruitment of people with a disability. Thirteen agencies did not have any strategies in place, although two of these agencies were developing strategies. Most of the agencies that did not have strategies to facilitate the recruitment of people with a disability were small, except for four medium-sized agencies. There is a relationship between agency size and the number of strategies used, with larger agencies more likely to have used multiple strategies. The most common strategies used to facilitate the employment of people with a disability were ‘providing assistance during the application process’, ‘appropriate accommodation made to any testing situation’, ‘providing information and/or access to advice on reasonable adjustment measures in the workplace’ and ‘seeking expert assessments on reasonable adjustment in relation to specific cases’.

6

It is not possible to compare this result with the result from the agency survey in 2003, due to significant changes to the corresponding question in 2004.

163

Centrelink’s Disability Coalition was established in February 2003 as a consultative and advisory body with a link to the Guiding Coalition, Centrelink’s senior executive body. The Coalition exists to promote a culture of excellence, equitable inclusion and productivity for Centrelink employees with disabilities. It has also become a strong advocate within the organisation on behalf of employees with disabilities. Early achievements of the Coalition included the briefing of recruitment providers on Centrelink’s diversity requirements and the establishment of a disability HR consultant in a Victorian area office to support employees with disabilities and to raise awareness. Also established was Centrelink’s Employees with a Disability Network. In addition, one of Centrelink’s call centres partnered with one of their recruitment providers and two disability groups, the Royal Society for the Blind and the Disability Recruitment Coordination Service, to work on providing employment for people with disabilities in the Adelaide call centre. To date the call centre has 12% of the current workforce of 270 ongoing staff identifying as having a disability. Flow on benefits have included better building access, better processes for obtaining specialised equipment needed by staff, increased knowledge within the call centre of the differing needs of people with disabilities, and links forged with disability organisations. The Coalition continues to build on earlier work, and achievements in 2003–04 include: • There has been an increase in the level of representation of employees with disabilities from 5.9% in 2003 to 6.1% in 2004. • The number of people who participate in the Employees with a Disability Network has steadily increased. At June 2004 there were approximately 90 participants. This network is also supported by the establishment of an electronic ‘TeamRoom’ or ‘discussion forum’ available to employees with a disability to share information. • The establishment of the Equity of Access focus group that is working closely with the Building Forum, the group responsible for managing the planning phase of the proposed new National Support Office building in Canberra. Strong consultation between these forums will ensure that access issues are addressed and are integrated into design plans upfront. For example, past experience has shown that broadloom carpet is not practical for people in a wheelchair. • Running a supplement to the staff poll designed specifically for staff with disabilities to provide feedback on issues of particular significance. Proposed work for the next financial year will include: • continued support for employees through the Employees with a Disability Network and raising awareness of disability issues at all levels of the organisation • continuing to encourage self-identification for people with disabilities on Infolink HR • responding to and addressing issues raised by employees with disabilities via the network, staff poll and other mechanisms available • building on selection and recruitment processes to encourage more people with disabilities to apply for Centrelink positions • exploring options such as funding for assistance with travel for employees with disabilities where carers are required and leave for employees with disabilities to attend to maintenance and daily living necessities.

164

Table 8.13 sets out the frequency of strategies used by agencies to retain people with a disability. Table 8.13: Agency strategies to retain people with a disability Retention Strategy

Number of agencies (N = 87) In place

Being Developed

Not in place

Encourage participation in a network for people with a disability

12

2

73

Disability awareness training program for employees generally

13

4

70

Access to adaptive technology or other practical support such as signers or parking spaces

65

1

21

Access to contact officers who assist with issues such as discrimination

72

1

14

Access to part-time or other flexible working arrangements

76

1

10

Access to skills development

68

3

16

Other retention strategies

11

0

47

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

Retention of people with a disability

Source: Agency survey Note: Results in this table do not include those agencies that did not respond to the question in relation to the particular strategy.

The large majority (90%) of agencies reported that they had at least one measure to retain people with a disability, more than for Indigenous employees (72%). The majority of these agencies had more than one strategy in place. However, five medium and four small agencies reported that they had no strategies for retaining employees who have a disability. There has been a 14 percentage point increase during 2003–04 in the frequency of strategies used by agencies to retain people with a disability, particularly in the use of access to contact officers and skills development, and access to flexible working arrangements. ‘Flexible working arrangements’ remains the most commonly used strategy; it is used or being developed by all but five small and five medium agencies.

Employee perceptions This year’s employee survey asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement with the statement ‘my agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of people with a disability’, as it applies in their agency. Fifty-five per cent of all respondents agreed with this statement. This result was much lower than similar questions in relation to women and people from all cultural backgrounds, but similar to the level of agreement about agency support for Indigenous employees. The proportion of employees that agreed with this statement in large agencies ranged widely (from 23% to 75%) with the highest agreement rates at FaCS, CRS and BOM. While of concern, the results in relation to agency support for people with a disability are broadly consistent with results in the Victorian public sector from the Victorian Government's People Matter Survey 2003 in relation to employees’ perception of disability issues in employment.7 While not directly comparable, the Victorian 7

See . Caution should be exercised in comparing the results because of the differences in wording of the questions, and differences in methodologies between the two surveys.

165

Government found that only 70% of employees agreed that ‘disability is not a barrier to success in my workgroup’, 15 percentage points lower than a similar statement in relation to gender, and 19 percentage points lower than a similar statement about cultural background. Fifty-six percent of people who did not have a disability agreed that their agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of people with a disability, compared to only 48% of people with a disability.8 The following represents a sample of the comments employees made about their agency’s support for people with a disability. Given the nature of the duties undertaken by staff we have limited opportunities to take on and promote people with disabilities. Greater attention could be given to the recruitment of persons with a disability. During the past five years, I have not seen one person with a disability or an Indigenous person appointed. While the agency employs such people I do not believe that they develop and/or promote people with a disability in all cases. People with disabilities are not welcome. I've seen people with workplace injuries treated pretty shabbily. Whilst [agency name] does employ people with disabilities such as myself, their support of such people via the use of adaptive technology accessibility as a priority when new products are developed e.g. the [agency intranet] , online leave forms and time sheets, leaves a lot to be desired. In addition it is personally a stressful thing for me to always have to play catch up when, as is the case most of the time, products are developed and released for staff use without access issues for staff such as myself even being considered. Of the 24 agency WDPs examined in detail for the Commission’s evaluation, 21 included initiatives for people with a disability, the highest rate of inclusion for any of the four EEO groups.

JOB SATISFACTION—PEOPLE WITH A DISABILITY Background information on the job satisfaction questions in the employee survey is found above at the section ‘Job satisfaction—women’. Table 8.14 sets out the most important job satisfaction factors chosen by people with a disability, compared to those for people who do not have a disability.

8

For the purposes of the employee survey, a disability was defined as any physical, intellectual or psychological restriction or lack of ability (resulting from an impairment) to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal. Impairment can include people suffering from ongoing illness or injury.

166

People with a disability Factor

Good working relationships

People without a disability Satisfied with factor (%) 76

Regular feedback/recognition

Factor

Good working relationships

Satisfied with factor (%)

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

Table 8.14: Most important job satisfaction factors, by disability status

86

Regular feedback/recognition

for effort

33

for effort

54

Good manager

49

Good manager

65

Salary

40

Salary

52

Opportunities to utilise my skills

44

Flexible working arrangements

81

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

Of the most important job satisfaction factors chosen by people with a disability, four were common to people without a disability; they are ‘regular feedback/recognition for effort’, ‘good manager’, ‘salary’ and ‘good working relationships’. Some major differences emerge, however, when the proportions satisfied with those factors are compared. The proportion satisfied with the factors that were chosen by employees with a disability, as set out in Table 8.14, ranged from 33% to 76%, with a rating of more than 50% being achieved for only one factor, ‘good working relationships’. The range for people without a disability was 52% to 86%. People with a disability also rated ‘opportunities to utilise my skills’ among their most important job satisfaction factors. Their satisfaction with this factor, however, was only 44%, compared to 63% of those employees without a disability who also rated it as important. The result for ‘opportunities to develop my skills’ was also poor (33% compared to 60% for people who do not have a disability), this factor being just outside the five included in Table 8.14. ‘Flexible working arrangements’ was also just outside the five most important job satisfaction factors for those with a disability. Satisfaction with this factor was relatively positive (69%) but still well below that for employees without a disability (81%). An examination of results of all 16 factors shows that 65% or more of people with a disability were satisfied with only four of the 16 factors. This is a poor result compared to people without a disability (65% or more were satisfied with nine of the 16 factors). When the summary index results for people with a disability (57% scoring over five out of 10) are compared with employees who do not have a disability (75% scoring over five out of 10), there is a similarly large disparity in overall satisfaction. The largest difference in any of the job satisfaction factors was in relation to ‘a safe and healthy work environment’, where only 41% of people with a disability who considered this factor among the most important were satisfied, compared to 75% of other employees.

167

The low job satisfaction levels of people with a disability are of concern. This is particularly an issue as they are consistent with a number of other results for this group reported throughout this year’s State of the Service report. These include: • a higher likelihood of believing that they had experienced discrimination and bullying or harassment (see the ‘Bullying, harassment and discrimination’ section in this chapter) • lower rates of satisfaction with how reports of discrimination, bullying or harassment are dealt with (see the ‘Bullying, harassment and discrimination’ section in this chapter) • lower levels of satisfaction that their supervisor would support their use of flexible work practices (see the ‘Work-life’ section in this chapter) • lower rating of the effectiveness of their supervisor at managing people (see Chapter 9). These results are consistent with results reported in 2002–03. They are also consistent with generally poor satisfaction rates for people with a disability reported in a survey of the NZ public service conducted in 2000. This survey found that people with a disability were less likely to have rated their manager as ‘good’ at ‘encouraging and supporting’ their career development, more likely to have rated their ‘access to high-profile work’ as ‘poor’, more likely to have reported ‘being set unrealistic goals’, and less likely to have rated their jobs as ‘good’ at ‘providing a reasonable workload’. The NZ survey also found that people with a disability were more likely to have reported having experienced unfair treatment on the basis of a personal characteristic, and to have experienced unwelcome behaviour.9

NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING BACKGROUND As indicated above, the term ‘NESB’, representing people from a non-English speaking background, is used in APSED. In the absence of an alternative, the measure used to analyse data for this purpose is NESB1, which includes people born overseas whose first language was not English. NESB2 data, which includes children of certain migrants, has not been included as there is little evidence of employment disadvantage. The representation of NESB2 employees in the APS has been relatively stable over the past five years, changing from 2.8% of total ongoing employees in 1999 to 2.9% in 2003.10 In addition, their classification profile in 2004 is very similar to that of the overall APS workforce. The 20 most common countries of origin for APS employees born overseas, starting with the most common, were: England, New Zealand, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Vietnam, Philippines, Scotland, Hong Kong, Germany, China, USA, Italy, Poland, Fiji, South Africa, Papua New Guinea, Netherlands, Canada, Mauritius. The most common first languages, other than English, spoken by APS employees were: Chinese (including Cantonese and Mandarin), Italian, Greek, German, Polish, Vietnamese, Spanish, Aboriginal languages, Croatian, Dutch, Arabic, Macedonian, Serbian, Turkish, Slovenian. The proportion of people in the APS who identified themselves as being from a non-English speaking background (NESB1) rose a little during the past year, from 3.2% in 2003 to 3.3% in 2004. This brings the proportion of

9

NZ State Service Commission, Highlights—Career Progression and Development Survey, 2000—Results for the New Zealand Public Service, April 2002.

10

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

168

lower than their representation a decade ago (3.9% in 1995). Figure 8.8 shows the representation of NESB1 employees by classification from 1995 to 2004. Apart from the lower representation at SES levels, there is no clear pattern of declining representation in higher classification levels. The trainee and graduate trainee classifications were the only ones that were not lower in 2004 than they were in 1995, although there was considerable variation in these classifications over the period, from a low of

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

NESB1 employees back to the level at which it has been in every year since 1999 (except for 2003), but leaves

2.6% in 1995–96 to a high of 5.3% in 1999–00. Unlike Indigenous employees, NESB1 employees who come into the APS through trainee classifications are much more likely to do so through graduate programs than other training opportunities. During 2003–04, NESB1 representation rose marginally for all APS classification levels, remained steady for EL levels and fell slightly for the SES. Figure 8.8: Ongoing staff: Proportions of NESB1 employees by classification, 1995 to 2004

Source: APSED

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

169

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

Source: APSED

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

AGENCY SUPPORT FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF PEOPLE FROM A NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING BACKGROUND This year’s employee survey asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement with the statement ‘my agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of people from all cultural backgrounds’, as it applies in their agency. Eighty per cent of all respondents agreed with this statement. The range among large agencies was the narrowest of all four EEO groups, extending from a low of 64% to a high of 88%, with the highest results being at DEST, Customs and ATO. The APS result was similar to employees’ level of agreement that their agency supports the employment of women, and is higher than similar results for Indigenous Australians and people with a disability. The State of the Service result is also consistent with positive results in the Victorian public sector from the Victorian Government's People Matter Survey 2003 in relation to employees' perception of cultural background issues.

170

that ‘cultural background is not a barrier to success in my workgroup’ among responding employees.11 Eighty-one per cent of non-NESB1 respondents agreed with the statement that their agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of people from all cultural backgrounds, compared to 72% of respondents who identified themselves as being NESB1.

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

While the results are not directly comparable, the Victorian Government found a high rate of agreement (89%)

Despite the generally high level of agreement that agencies support the employment of people from all cultural backgrounds, some employees made comments about difficulties facing NESB employees in the APS. I have seen on several occasions that very skilled and experienced employees from non-English speaking backgrounds encountering problems in promotions and placements, regardless of their skills and experience. The non-English speaking condition seems to be a barrier even though they have many proven skills and abilities. Some areas of the department are more culturally diverse than others. My work area is predominantly Anglo-Celtic. Diversity is accepted, although lack of skill with the English language can hamper recruitment to positions that require a high level of written ability. Hard to understand accents can also hamper recruitment to positions dealing with the public or industry. This is because we recruit people we think can do the job well. Of the 24 WDPs examined in detail for the Commission’s evaluation, 16 included initiatives for NESB employees. Along with Indigenous employees, this is the lowest rate of inclusion of specific initiatives for the four EEO groups. DAFF has included measures to support employees from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in its WDP by: • introducing programs to help improve English skills, both written and verbal • providing access to a quiet room for prayer and meditation • recognising religious festivities • establishing a database of language and cultural skills.

JOB SATISFACTION—PEOPLE FROM A NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING BACKGROUND Background information on the job satisfaction questions in the employee survey is found above at the section ‘Job satisfaction—women’.

11

See . Caution should be exercised in comparing the results because of the differences in wording of the questions, and differences in methodologies between the two surveys.

171

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

Non-NESB1 Satisfied with factor (%)

Factor

Satisfied with factor (%)

Good working relationships

70

Good working relationships

87

Flexible working arrangements

82

Flexible working arrangements

80

Regular feedback/recognition

Regular feedback/recognition

for effort

42

for effort

54

Salary

43

Salary

53

Opportunities to develop my skills

53

Good manager

65

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

There is a high degree of similarity between the factors chosen by NESB1 and non-NESB1 employees as most contributing to job satisfaction, with four of the five most important factors being common to both groups. ‘Opportunities to develop my skills’ was ranked among the most important factors by NESB1 employees, as setout in Table 8.15, but was just outside the five most important chosen by non-NESB1 employees. Similarly, ‘good manager’ was among the most important factors chosen by non-NESB1 employees, but was just outside the five most important for NESB1 employees. When a summary index of the job satisfaction results for NESB1 employees is compared with non-NESB1 employees there was little difference in overall job satisfaction: 72% of NESB1 employees had an index rating of more than five (satisfied to very satisfied overall) compared to 74% for non-NESB1 employees. In response to another question on people management, there were no significant differences between NESB1 and non-NESB1 employees in their likelihood of rating their supervisors as highly effective at managing people.

AGE DIVERSITY The 2003 MAC report Organisational Renewal sets out the challenges APS agencies face in maintaining and improving their capability in a changing environment.12 In particular, it identified a future contraction of the labour market, the ageing profile of the APS workforce, and the career intentions of new graduates as critical factors agencies will need to address in the context of their current and future workforce planning. The statistical snapshot of the APS in Chapter 2 of this report highlighted the ageing of the APS over the last decade, and the implications of demographic changes for workplace planning are discussed in Chapter 9. These chapters highlight the growing reliance on mature-aged workers in the APS, and the importance of providing a work environment and work practices that are conducive to their optimal participation, at the same time as putting in place strategies to attract and build the capability of younger employees.

12

172

MAC, Report 3, Organisational Renewal, 2003,

over) over the last decade, from 28.8% in 1995 to 39.3% in 2004, while the proportion of younger workers has declined. The changed age profile of the APS is shown in Figure 8.10. Figure 8.10: Ongoing staff: Age profile, 1995 and 2004

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

There has been a significant increase in the proportion of APS employees aged over 45 (both 45–54 and 55 and

Source: APSED

MATURE-AGED EMPLOYEES Consistent with its ageing profile, the APS is increasingly reliant on mature-aged employees (45 and over) who now represent 39.3% of its ongoing workforce, although there is significant variation across agencies (see Chapter 2). While 23.2% of the APS workforce could, if they wished, retire with superannuation benefits within five years (including 27.6% of EL staff and 43.7% of the SES), there are some indications that employees in this group may remain in the workforce longer than previous cohorts. Results of employee surveys conducted for the MAC report indicated that a high proportion of employees intend to work beyond 55 years. In addition, declining membership of the CSS (closed to new members since 1990) is likely to contribute to this trend as the ‘54/11’ incentive to retire diminishes. As noted in Chapter 2, while separations for employees aged 55 and over increased by 112 during 2003–04, there was also growth in the overall number of ongoing employees in this age group (of 1395, from 9939 in 2002–03 to 11,334 in 2003–04). Figure 8.11 below shows the separation trends for APS employees in the 50–64 age group in 1994–95 and 2003–04. It shows that in the earlier period there was a steady rise in the separation rate for older workers. A smaller proportion of employees aged 55 and over leaves each year now than in 1994–95. By 2003–04 the ‘54/11’ effect had become apparent. Despite this peak in departures between the ages of 53 and 55, the proportion of ongoing APS employees over 55 increased from 8.3% in 2003 to 9.3% in 2004 (rising from 5.4% in 1995).

173

Figure 8.11: Separation rates for ongoing employees aged 50 to 64, 1994–95 and 2003–0413

Source: APSED

There are a number of factors affecting separation rates for mature-aged employees, including the earning rates of the superannuation funds which affect the benefits available for those who resign before age 55. Nevertheless, older workers appear to be willing to remain in the workforce for longer periods of time, particularly if agencies can provide them with additional flexibility. On 3 December 2003 the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, the Hon. Kevin Andrews MP, launched a package of materials, Implementing Organisational Renewal—Mature Aged Workers in the APS, to support APS agencies in retaining their mature-aged employees, and to take the APS to the forefront in responding to the ageing of the Australian workforce. The package of materials includes: • APS Commission guidance on leadership and learning issues in relation to mature-aged workers • material prepared by DEWR addressing the design and implementation of flexible working arrangements for mature-aged workers • guidance prepared by Comcare on occupational health and safety for a mature-aged workforce • advice prepared by Finance and the Superannuation Boards to help APS managers and employees understand the superannuation implications of available retirement options. Treasury’s WDP includes a strategy to ‘ensure gender, age or culture are not barriers to career opportunities within Treasury’ and includes a specific initiative aimed at retaining older workers through the development of a flexible employment framework. FaCS has developed a comprehensive Mature Age Workers Strategy, which was launched mid-way through the life of its current WDP.

13

The separation rate for those aged 64 and over in 1994–95 was inflated due to compulsory age retirement at that time. This meant that the number of separations was artificially higher, and the number of employees at the beginning and end of the financial year (used in calculating the separation rate) was lower than is the case now. This has resulted in a separation rate of over 100%.

174

Background information on the job satisfaction questions in the employee survey is found above at the section ‘Job satisfaction—women’. Table 8.16 shows the top five job satisfaction factors for workers 45 years and over, and employees aged less than 45 years.

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

Job satisfaction—mature-age workers

Table 8.16: Most important job satisfaction factors, by 45 years and over and under 45 years Mature-aged employees (45 years and over) Factor

Satisfied with factor (%)

Employees under 45 years Factor

Satisfied with factor (%)

Good working relationships

89

Good working relationships

82

Flexible working arrangements

84

Flexible working arrangements

79

Regular feedback/recognition for effort

55

Regular feedback/recognition for effort

50

Opportunities to utilise my skills

66

Opportunities to develop my skills

55

Salary

55

Good manager

63

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

There is a strong similarity between the job satisfaction factors ranked as most important by mature-aged employees and by employees aged under 45, with three factors in common (‘good working relationships’, ‘flexible working arrangements’ and ‘regular feedback/recognition for effort’). The areas of difference between mature-aged and younger employees are likely to be, to some extent, related to life stage. For example, mature-aged employees chose ‘opportunities to utilise my skills’ among their five most important job satisfaction factors, while younger employees chose ‘opportunities to develop my skills’ and ‘good manager’. Most mature-aged and younger employees in both groups were satisfied with each of the job satisfaction factors that they identified as most important. When a summary index of all job satisfaction factor results for matureaged employees is compared with those for younger employees, the overall difference in job satisfaction is also narrow: 76% of mature-aged employees had an index rating of more than five (satisfied to very satisfied overall) compared to 72% for younger employees. In response to another question on people management, there were no significant differences in the likelihood of employees 45 and over and younger employees rating their supervisors as highly effective at managing people.

YOUNGER WORKERS Last year’s State of the Service report noted a turnaround in the number of younger employees working in the APS. Unfortunately this trend has reversed somewhat during 2003–04. The number of employees aged less than 25 years decreased from 5977 at June 2003 to 5232 at June 2004; in 1995 the number in this age group was 9694. There were decreases in both the under 20 and 20–24 year age groups. The latter group had shown consistent growth for each of the previous four years.

175

The reduction during 2003–04 was due, in large part, to a decline in engagements of younger employees, which fell both in number and as a proportion of all engagements. Both trainee and graduate trainee classifications have historically provided opportunities for younger employees to enter the APS. During 2003–04, engagements to these classifications fell more than engagements overall. For graduate trainees, the decrease was 46.3% compared with the previous year, while engagements of other trainees fell by 46.6%. Overall engagements fell by 39.9%. While it is likely that employment for 20–24 year olds will continue to be variable, reflecting broader APS employment trends, other labour market factors and high school retention rates mean the trend away from APS employees in the 15–19 age group may continue. Agencies should consider strategies such as traineeships and graduate recruitment, as part of their broader attraction and retention strategies, to attract promising young people as the employment market tightens. This might also help to redress some of the problems concerning employment of a wider range of people, including Indigenous Australians and people with a disability. The impact of declining numbers of younger workers in the APS is also discussed in Chapter 9.

Job Satisfaction—younger workers Background information on the job satisfaction questions in the employee survey is found above at the section ‘Job satisfaction—women’. Table 8.17 shows the ranking of the top five job satisfaction factors for employees aged less than 25 years, compared to those aged 25 years and over. Table 8.17: Most important job satisfaction factors, by under 25 years and 25 years and over Employees aged under 25 years Factor

Good working relationships

Employees aged 25 years and over Satisfied with factor (%) 88

Regular feedback/recognition

Factor

Good working relationships

Satisfied with factor (%) 85

Regular feedback/recognition

for effort

65

for effort

51

Opportunities to develop my skills

52

Flexible working arrangements

81

development

52

Salary

51

Interesting work provided

78

Good manager

64

Opportunities for career

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

The difference in job satisfaction factors chosen as most important by employees under 25, and those chosen by employees aged 25 years and over, were more marked than for most groups, with only two factors among the five most important in common: ‘regular feedback/recognition for effort’ and ‘good working relationships’— the latter being common to all the groups examined in this chapter. Both younger employees and those aged 25 and over were very satisfied with their ‘working relationships’ (88% for under 25s and 85% for those aged 25 and over), but younger employees were more satisfied with ‘regular feedback/recognition for effort’ than their older colleagues (65% and 51% respectively).

176

under 25 years, with ‘opportunities to develop my skills’ and ‘opportunities for career development’ reflecting the interests and concerns of younger employees starting out on their career in the APS. The other factor among the five most important for those under 25 years, but not for older workers, was ‘interesting work provided’. Along with people with a disability, people under 25 years were the only group not to include ‘flexible working arrangements’ in their top five job satisfaction factors. For employees under 25 years, this factor was only ranked

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

Life stage appears to be influential in determining the most important job satisfaction factors for employees aged

tenth in importance of the 16 job satisfaction factors included in the employee survey, a substantially different result compared to other employees. The scores on the summary job satisfaction index for those aged less than 25 and those 25 years and over were also similar, with both groups having 74% of employees scoring over five (out of 10) (satisfied to very satisfied overall). In response to another question on people menegement, there were no significant differences in the likelihood of employees under 25 years and older employees rating their supervisors as highly effective at managing people. Agencies wishing to attract and retain younger workers need to consider the workplace factors important to them. The employee survey suggests that these may not always be the same as those for other employees.

WORK-LIFE BALANCE The PS Commissioner’s Directions require agency heads to: • put in place measures directed at ensuring that employment and workplace arrangements take appropriate account of employees who are seeking to balance individual needs and the achievement of organisational goals • assist employees to balance their work, family and other caring responsibilities effectively by encouraging the development of mutually beneficial work practices in the agency.14 In addition, agency WDPs are required to include measures directed at ensuring that ‘workplace structures, systems and procedures assist employees in balancing their work, family and other caring responsibilities’.15 The APS Commission’s evaluation of written WDPs found that issues relevant to work, family and caring balance were included to some extent in all of the agency WDPs included in the sample for the evaluation. Nine WDPs were assessed as having extensive work and family measures (see excerpt from FaCS’s WDP at Figure 8.12); 13 as having a moderate level of measures; and two as having limited measures. Many of the WDPs had extended the concept of work and family balance to balancing work and life in general. Overall, the WDPs demonstrate a high level of acknowledgement of employees’ desire to better balance work and other activities and responsibilities. There is clearly room for more agencies to do so. In addition, some WDPs suggest that agencies conceive of work-life balance as belonging exclusively in the realm of HR, and do not recognise the mutual benefits of measures for work-life balance. There was little evidence that the cost-benefits of work-life balance measures had been assessed by agencies in their WDPs. There was also little evidence in the written WDPs that the measures agencies have in place are in response to the demonstrated needs of the workforce or the agency.

14

Clauses 2.11(1) and 3.2(2), PS Commissioner’s Directions.

15

Clause 3.3(b), PS Commissioner’s Directions.

177

Some of the work-life balance measures included in WDPs were: • provision of flexible work arrangements such as flexible hours, part-time work, job sharing, or home based work • provision of flexible leave arrangements such as maternity and paternity leave and purchased leave • assistance with caring arrangements such as financial assistance with family care, elder care kits, the provision of a carer’s room and breast feeding facilities • assistance with broader life-balance issues such as study assistance, ‘health weeks’ and bereavement kits • other general support, such as employee assistance programs. Figure 8.12: Work-life measures in FaCS’s workplace diversity program OBJECTIVES:

S T R AT E G Y :

Everyone in FaCS is supportive of work-life balance.

Build an organisational framework to support worklife balance.

Work-life balance enables people at FaCS to contribute to maximum capacity.

ACTIONS:

1. Include flexible work options in certified agreement. 2. Collect and analyse data on the number of employees utilising flexible work options. 3. Provide development and support for Diversity Contact Officers and Business Support Units to disseminate information and receive inquiries on flexible work options and other work-life balance issues. 4. Assess how well flexible work options meet the needs of employees from a culturally and linguistically diverse background by a targeted survey and develop new options as needed. 5. Review flexible work option strategies through monitoring and evaluation. 6. Utilise the orientation process to promote awareness of flexible work options. 7. Utilise learning, development and awareness raising mechanisms when making any changes to flexible work option policies.

P E R F O R M A N C E I N D I C AT O R S :

• A range of flexible work option strategies is in place to support the development of policy and management of programs at FaCS. • An increase in the number of employees utilising flexible work option strategies. • Positive and constructive feedback is received about the implementation of flexible work option strategies. Source: FaCS Diversity Plan 2002-2004

178

One of the measures that help women with young children balance their work and family responsibilities in the APS is access to maternity leave, both paid and unpaid. This measure is a key one for agencies in encouraging the retention of their female employees. There has been an increase in the total number of women completing a period of maternity leave from 1445 in

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

MATERNITY LEAVE

2002–03 to 1960 in 2003–04.16 This follows a slight decrease in 2002–03, with no particular trend emerging since 2000, when the current methodology for collecting maternity leave figures was implemented in APSED. Most women combine their paid maternity leave with other forms of leave, including recreation leave and long service leave, to extend the period of paid leave before returning to work. Many also use unpaid maternity leave and other forms of unpaid leave. The effectiveness of allowing leave to be used flexibly as a retention strategy is reflected in the return to work rates for women who have completed a period of maternity leave. Of the 1445 women who completed a period of maternity leave during 2002–03, only 162 (11.2%) had separated from the APS by 30 June 2004.

CARER RESPONSIBILITIES The employee survey asked respondents about their caring responsibilities. Thirty-six per cent of employees said that they had carer responsibilities, a similar proportion to last year’s survey. Carers were most likely to care for children between 5–16 years old (60% of carers) followed by children under five years old (26%) and aged parents (19%). Carers were much less likely to care for disabled dependants (3%) or grandchildren 16 years or under (1%). Nine per cent of employees indicated they had other carer responsibilities. The most common ‘other’ response was dependent children over the age of 16. There was a wide variety of other responses including spouses, aged relatives other than parents, other extended family members, and people with a disability who were not directly related. More women than men had carer responsibilities (42% compared to 30%), a change from 2003, when the rates for women and men were closer (37% and 35% respectively). Women and men had similar likelihoods of caring for children, but women were more likely to care for aged parents (23% compared to 12%). As in 2003, Indigenous employees were more likely to have carer responsibilities than other employees (50% compared to 36%). Indigenous carers were also more likely than other carers to care for children under five (51% of Indigenous carers compared to 25% of non-Indigenous carers). People with a disability were less likely than other employees to have carer responsibilities (29% compared to 37%). However, for those employees with a disability who did have carer responsibilities, there were no significant differences in their likelihood of having particular types of carer responsibilities. Employees from non-English speaking backgrounds were more likely than other employees to have carer responsibilities (48% compared to 35%). There was no significant difference in their likelihood of having particular types of carer responsibilities.

16

APSED records both the maternity leave start date and the maternity leave completion date. The financial year of completion is often not the same as the financial year in which the maternity leave was started. The date of completion was chosen as there is less chance of underestimating the number of women who then chose to separate from the APS.

179

Carer responsibilities were also associated with: • employment status, with ongoing employees more likely to have carer responsibilities than non-ongoing employees (36% compared to 27%) • working hours, with part-time employees more likely to have carer responsibilities than full-time employees (61% compared to 34%). Most carers had only one form of carer responsibility (83%). Seventeen per cent of carers had two or more different types. Women were more likely to have more than one form of carer responsibility than men (19% compared to 14%). Carers were asked how often over the last 12 months they had personally used leave or some other arrangement at short notice to care for those for whom they were responsible. The results are shown at Figure 8.13. Carers were most likely to take between 1–5 days of carer’s leave (or similar arrangement) (63%) with only 12% taking no such leave. Figure 8.13: Proportion of carers reporting days used for carer’s leave or similar arrangements

Source: Employee survey

Female carers were slightly more likely than male carers to take at least some carer’s leave (91% compared to 85%). Differences for other EEO groups were not statistically significant.17

FLEXIBLE WORKING ARRANGEMENTS A wide range of flexible working practices are used in the APS, reflecting both the needs of employees and agencies’ business needs. This was reflected in the evaluation of agencies’ written WDPs, which showed that many agencies have incorporated options for flexible working arrangements, such as home-based work, job sharing, part-time work and flexible working hours. Data on part-time work from APSED, presented in Chapter 2, shows a substantial increase in part-time work over the last ten years (see Figure 2.6). In 2004 the proportion of ongoing staff working part-time increased again to 10.2%, compared to 9.4% in 2003. Women are much more likely to be employed part-time (16.6% of women

17

In this context the results were not statistically significant at the 95% Confidence Interval (see Appendix 2 for more information on confidence intervals).

180

employees are more likely to work part-time than any other group, with over one quarter of non-ongoing women working part-time. Employee survey results show that the rate of coverage by AWAs of full-time and part-time employees is similar—13% of full-time employees, compared to 11% of part-time employees. While there has been continual growth in part-time work, the number of non-ongoing staff fell considerably in 2003–04, by 18.1%. The share of non-ongoing staff in the APS has been falling proportionally for most of the

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

employed as ongoing employees were working part-time compared with 2.9% of men). Female non-ongoing

past decade. While this is likely to largely reflect a decline in lower level and unskilled jobs, it also suggests a reduction in the range of flexible options available to employees in the APS. While there has been a general reduction in non-ongoing employees, the impact has had greater implications for women who make up almost two-thirds of non-ongoing employees, and particularly for women aged between 30–44 (38.1% of non-ongoing women are aged in this age group compared to 32.4% of non-ongoing men). The numbers of female nonongoing employees decreased by 20.4% in 2003–04 compared to 13.9% for men. A reduction in the use of non-ongoing employment could also limit flexibilities for older employees who may be interested in returning to the APS on a temporary basis to undertake particular projects.

Satisfaction with supervisor support for the use of flexible work practices An important measure of work-life balance is whether employees are satisfied that their supervisor would support their use of flexible work practices. The APS continues to perform well against this measure. Eighty-one per cent of respondents to the employee survey were satisfied that their supervisor would support the use of flexible work practices such as flex-time, personal leave, flexible working hours, and part-time work. The result was similar in 2003. Nine per cent were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and a further nine per cent were dissatisfied. The strong satisfaction level in the APS is high compared to a similar survey conducted in Victoria. The Victorian Government’s People Matter Survey 2003 found that 67% of respondents agreed that their manager offered practical ways to achieve work-life balance.18 The APS employee survey results suggest that satisfaction with support for flexible work practices is related to the type of work undertaken by the employee, and the effectiveness of their supervisor’s management skills. In particular: • APS 1–6 employees (83%) were more likely to report satisfaction than EL employees (76%), who were again more likely to report satisfaction than SES employees (62%) • those working more than their standard or agreed number of hours were less likely to be satisfied than other employees (86% of employees working around their standard or agreed number of hours were satisfied, compared to 82% of those reporting they worked more than their standard or agreed number of hours, and 71% of employees who reported working significantly more than their standard or agreed hours were satisfied)19 • ninety per cent of employees who gave their supervisor a high rating for effectiveness in managing people, also reported satisfaction with their supervisor’s support for flexible work practices, compared to 63% of employees who rated the effectiveness of their supervisor at managing people as low.

18

See . Caution should be exercised in comparing the results because of the differences in wording of the questions, and differences in methodologies between the two surveys.

19

SES employees were asked to report on whether they had worked more than ‘a reasonable number of hours’.

181

Other factors associated with employees’ satisfaction with their supervisor’s support for flexible practices were: • age, with the lowest satisfaction among those aged 35–44 years (79%), and the highest satisfaction among those aged 45–54 and over 55 (84%) • sex, with women (83%) slightly more likely to report satisfaction than men (80%) • disability status, with people with a disability less satisfied (73%) compared to other employees (82%). There was no significant difference in the likelihood that carers or non-carers would report satisfaction with their supervisor’s support for flexible work practices. However, carers were slightly more likely to report dissatisfaction (11% compared to 8%) because of a lower ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ response. There was no relationship between satisfaction that supervisors would support the use of flexible work practices and Indigenous or NESB1 status. The large agency with the lowest satisfaction rating had a satisfaction rating of only 51%, with other agencies more closely grouped between 70% and 90%. ABS and FaCS both had satisfaction levels significantly higher than the APS average. Employees made a number of comments about flexible working arrangements, both positive and negative. These included: Happy with the flexible hours and personal leave as per the current Enterprise Agreement. One key reason for applying for the position in the [agency’s name] was the acknowledged flexibility of this agency in granting part-time work if applied for. I am completely satisfied with my working/personal life balance. Flex time, flexible working hours, part-time work are not available to me. Working hours are dictated by industry, not by my employer. Employer tries its hardest to accommodate my personal leave requests. My SES is very good and accommodating with flexible work hours, however it is not a real possibility except for emergency situations as the work just keeps piling up. As a part-time EL1 I feel pressured to work as if I'm full-time (i.e. case load). I think that it is often forgotten that the administration and training needs are the same as a full-time employee. I also feel as if I shouldn't take carer's leave as it 'looks bad'. Flex is utilised instead, even for unplanned absences. [Work-life balance is] very hard to achieve at SES level in the APS in the positions I have held.

AVERAGE HOURS WORKED IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS The high satisfaction rates for support for flexible working arrangements are particularly important for employees in balancing their work and outside work commitments, given that many continue to report working long hours. Fifty-eight percent of employees reported working more (40%) or significantly more (19%) than their ‘standard or agreed’ hours, or for SES employees a ‘reasonable’ number of hours, on average over the last six months. This was, however, down slightly from 2003, when 62% of employees reporting working more than standard/ agreed or reasonable hours. This reduction was because of a reduction in those reporting significantly more hours (19% compared to 23% in 2003). Not surprisingly, the number of employees who reported working more or significantly more than their standard/ or reasonable agreed hours generally increased with classification, with EL and SES employees working longer hours than APS employees (see Figure 8.14). While the results for EL employees are slightly higher than for SES employees, this result may have been influenced by the different wording used for the question for this group.

182

of hours on average over the past six months

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

Figure 8.14: Proportion of employees working more, or significantly more than a standard or agreed number

Source: Employee survey

Working more than standard/agreed or reasonable hours was associated with: • employment status, with full-time workers more likely to work more hours (60%) than part-time workers (38%) •

job satisfaction, with workers scoring higher on the job satisfaction index less likely to work more hours than other employees (for example, of workers scoring 9–10 on the job satisfaction index, 57% worked more or significantly more than standard/agreed or reasonable hours, compared to 70% for workers scoring 1–2 on the job satisfaction index).

Carers were more likely than other employees to state that they worked significantly more than their agreed or standard hours (22% compared to 17%). There was a wide variation among large agencies in the proportion of employees reporting that they had worked significantly more than their standard or agreed hours. The result ranged from a low of 10% to a high of 52%. Comments by employees on the subject of long hours included: Although unreasonably long and irregular hours are an inevitable feature of the type of job I currently hold, I am happy to do them at my stage of life and career. I often work more than standard number of hours, but use flex time to compensate. I find it a satisfactory arrangement. It is an accepted fact that working in the [agency name] entails high workloads. In general, [agency name] staff accept this and do their best. My department does not offer flex time and expects many people to work many more hours than the agreed hours, especially around budget time. Time off in lieu (if they receive it) is barely adequate for the extra hours that they work.

183

BULLYING, HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION One element of the APS Code of Conduct is the requirement that APS employees, when acting in the course of APS employment, must treat everyone with respect and courtesy and without harassment.20 This requirement is closely linked to valuing and encouraging diversity in the workplace, which needs to be based on respect for differences between employees. It operates in tandem with protections for employees under federal discrimination legislation, and relevant State legislation, where federal discrimination legislation does not cover the field. ‘Bullying, harassment or discrimination’ were grouped and identified as an issue by a significant minority of employees in the State of the Service Report 2002–03. The 2004 employee survey separated discrimination21 from bullying and harassment,22 to allow a further analysis of these two related, but potentially distinct, issues. The 2004 survey found that employees were more likely to report that they had experienced bullying and harassment than discrimination. The employee survey found that six per cent of employees reported that they had experienced discrimination during the last 12 months23 and that 15% of employees considered that they had experienced bullying or harassment. In total, 18% of employees indicated that they had either experienced discrimination or bullying or harassment, a similar result to 2003. While these results continue to be unsatisfactory, they also continue to be lower than the results for other jurisdictions. In South Australia, 26% of public servants who responded to a 2003 survey by the SA Office for the Commissioner of Public Employment said that they had personally experienced bullying and harassment in the workplace in the previous 12 months.24 Differences in the questions asked in the two surveys and variations in methodology mean that any comparison between these figures should be treated with considerable caution, but the results suggest that concern about APS employee behaviour needs to be tempered. The likelihood of an employee reporting that they had experienced discrimination in the APS was related to: • disability status (12% of employees with a disability believed they had been discriminated against, compared to 5% of other employees) • NESB1 status (11% of NESB1 employees believed they had been discriminated against, compared to 5% of other employees). 20

PS Act, s. 13(3).

21

For the purpose of the employee survey, discrimination was defined as any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction, social origin or other attributes that removes equality of opportunity of treatment in employment. It does not include any distinction, exclusion or preference in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements of the job or any distinction, exclusion or preference which is a special measure to eliminate employment related disadvantage of a particular group.

22

For the purpose of the employee survey, workplace harassment was defined as entailing offensive, belittling or threatening behaviour directed at an individual or group of APS employees. The behaviour was described as unwelcome, unsolicited, usually unreciprocated and usually (but not always) repeated. While the survey noted that there is no standard definition of workplace bullying, it stated that it is generally used to describe repeated workplace behaviour that could reasonably be considered to be humiliating, intimidating, threatening or demeaning to an individual or group of individuals. It also stated that it can be covert or overt.

23

The employee survey allowed employees to provide an ‘other’ result. On analysing this response, the Commission found a relatively large number of employees had identified themselves as being discriminated against, but had indicated a ground that was not covered by federal or state anti-discrimination legislation, for example work performance. These responses were removed, reducing the proportion of employees reporting they had experienced discrimination from 9% to 6%.

24

Office for the Commissioner for Public Employment, Selected Findings from the OCPE Workforce Perspective Survey 2003. Results can be found at

184

but were more likely than other employees to be unsure about whether they had experienced discrimination. The factors relating to a belief that an employee had suffered bullying or harassment were slightly different. Employees with a disability were more likely to believe they had experienced bullying and harassment than other employees (24% compared to 15%), but:

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

Indigenous employees were not significantly more or less likely to state that they had been discriminated against,

• employees outside the ACT were slightly more likely to believe they had experienced bullying or harassment (17% compared to 13% for employees in the ACT) • there were no statistically significant differences on the basis of Indigenous or NESB1 status.25 The 2004 results are not directly comparable with 2003 results as this year employees were asked about discrimination, and bullying and harassment separately. Unlike the 2003 results, however, the 2004 results did not show a statistically significant difference between men and women in the likelihood of responding that they had experienced discrimination, bullying or harassment. There were also no statistically significant differences between employees of different ages. Classification continued to be relevant to the likelihood of reporting both discrimination and bullying or harassment in 2004, but unlike 2003 there was only a statistically significant difference between SES and nonSES employees, with rates of discrimination and bullying or harassment reported by APS and EL employees not being significantly different (see Figure 8.15). Figure 8.15: Proportion of employees reporting discrimination and bullying or harassment, by classification

Source: Employee survey

For the first time, the 2004 survey asked employees to identify who was responsible for the discrimination, bullying or harassment. Respondents could choose more than one option, so responses total more than 100%. For 68% of respondents reporting discrimination, the person responsible for the discrimination was someone more senior (other than their supervisor) and for 42% it was their supervisor. Thirty per cent of relevant respondents reported that a colleague was the person responsible for discrimination. These three groups were also most likely to be perceived as responsible for bullying and harassment, but in such cases there were much smaller differences between the proportions of employees selecting each option. One explanation for this

25

In this context the results were not statistically significant at the 95% Confidence Interval (see Appendix 2 for more information on confidence intervals).

185

difference could be that perceived discrimination issues relate more to rules and policies that are made at a higher level than the immediate work area, while bullying and harassment relates more to behavioural issues at the workplace level. Clients and other people outside the agency were identified by only a small minority of employees for both bullying or harassment, or discrimination (see Figure 8.16). Most employees reported only one source of discrimination, bullying or harassment. However, employees reporting discrimination were more likely to identify more than one source. Figure 8.16: Person(s) responsible for discrimination and bullying or harassment

Source: Employee survey

Of the employees who reported experiencing discrimination, the highest proportions reported that the ground for the behaviour was age (33%) and sex (32%) (see Figure 8.17). There was a sizeable gap between the proportion of relevant employees selecting age and sex and the next most common grounds which were grouped within six percentage points of each other, that is, political opinion, union/non-union status, race, ethnicity and disability. Only relatively small numbers of employees identified religion or sexual preference as a ground for discrimination. Most of the employees who believed they had experienced discrimination (71%) identified only one type of discrimination.

186

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

Figure 8.17: Proportion of employees reporting discrimination on different grounds

Source: Employee survey

For bullying or harassment, ‘perceived personality differences’ was by far the most common ground at 53% of relevant employees (see Figure 8.18 for the eleven most common grounds). The next most common grounds were ‘work performance’ (20%) and ‘employment status’ (16%). The significant minority of employees indicating bullying or harassment was based on ‘work performance’ highlights the fine line at times between a strong emphasis on performance and providing robust feedback, and what can be perceived as bullying or harassment by either a subordinate or a manager. The initial analysis of the data on the grounds for bullying or harassment showed a high ‘other’ response (25% of relevant employees). When this was examined in more detail the most common ‘other’ ground was general employment/work issues, raised by seven per cent of all employees reporting bullying and harassment, followed by managerial style, raised by five per cent of employees.26 Other issues identified, in addition to those included in Figure 8.17, and affecting only small numbers of employees, included religion, political opinion, appearance, carer responsibilities, union or non-union status, educational qualifications or the making of a complaint or raising of a Code of Conduct or Values issue. In general, the analysis highlighted the fact that while bullying and harassment can be based on multiple grounds, these commonly centre around work and personality issues. Bullying or harassment that occurred because a person was a member of a particular EEO group or on another discriminatory ground was relatively uncommon, even for sex and age (10% and 7% of relevant employees respectively).

26

For example, employees who stated that bullying was the way their manager treated all his or her staff.

187

Figure 8.18: Proportion of employees reporting bullying or harassment on different grounds

Source: Employee survey

Most employees (two-thirds) nominated one ground for the bullying/harassment. The employee survey also asked employees who believed that they experienced bullying or harassment to indicate the nature of this behaviour. Employees could choose more than one response. The two most common forms of bullying or harassment (both reported by 54% of employees who believed they had experienced bullying or harassment) were: • persistent and unjustified criticism • humiliation through sarcasm, criticism or insults, sometimes in front of other employees or customers. Other common responses included: • intimidating or aggressive body language (38% of relevant employees) • deliberately withholding information from me so that I am less able to do the job (37% of relevant employees) • oral and/or written threats (28% of relevant employees) • shouting and screaming (25% of relevant employees). ‘Acts of physical violence’ was nominated by only one per cent of relevant employees. There was a high ‘other’ response for this question (21%). Employees who chose this option reported unwanted sexual behaviour and circulation of sexually explicit material; exclusion from conversations and events; offensive gossip and defamatory remarks; abusive language; differential treatment, for example in allocation of leave; and general lack of respect. Bullying or harassment routinely was seen as taking more than one form. Support structures provided by agencies for employees who believe they have experienced discrimination, bullying or harassment can vary considerably and can include mechanisms for both informal and formal handling of complaints. There are a number of statutory processes available to employees, including: • a review of action under s. 33 of the PS Act, including direct to the Merit Protection Commissioner in defined circumstances • reporting a breach of the Code of Conduct to an authorised person (Division 2.2 of Part 2 of the PS Regulations)

188

• lodging a complaint with HREOC where the alleged behaviour is based on certain grounds including sex, race, age, union membership, sexual preference or disability • lodging a claim for compensation if an injury has been sustained. The results of the employee survey indicated that the majority of APS employees (66%) were confident about

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

• reporting risks to health or safety to an occupational health and safety manager

using support structures in their agencies should they be subjected to harassment, discrimination or bullying (a similar result to 2003). Eighteen per cent reported that they would not be confident using support structures. Confidence levels varied by age, with employees under 25 most likely to be confident (84%) and employees aged 35–44 least likely to be confident (59%). Of particular concern is that those who had raised an issue of discrimination, bullying or harassment through the support structures in their agency were less likely to be confident in those structures than those who had not (39% compared to 49%). Thirty-nine percent of employees who believed they had experienced discrimination, bullying or harassment indicated that they had raised the issue through the support structures in their agency, close to the rate of reporting of bullying and harassment in the SA Office for the Public Commissioner’s for Employment’s survey (34%).27 Women were more likely to have raised the issue than men. The question of whether to raise an issue of discrimination, bullying or harassment through agency support structures is one for individual employees to decide. Comments by some employees indicated that the reasons for not raising such issues are variable, for example: I did not raise the bullying through the support structures, as I did not feel confident that I would be supported in the process. Felt my complaint would not have been addressed. I deal with it by taking the person on myself… I couldn't be bothered reporting them as they were minor. There is often too much work to get through and higher priorities than the arduous and complicated process of dealing with such processes. We have officers appointed by management we are invited to seek out and discuss issues with. I would not have felt comfortable with most of them, by this I would be concerned my confidentiality would be breached. The Harassment Contact Officer regime we have generally involves HCOs who are very junior staff...well below EL1 level and I would never ever approach them with such concerns. It was most common for employees to raise issues of discrimination, bullying or harassment with their supervisor or manager (61% of relevant employees), followed by a manager other than their supervisor or manager (34% of relevant employees). Harassment, equity or diversity contact officers were only used by a relatively small minority of relevant employees (20%). Other options were the agency’s HR area (17%) and the employee assistance program (15%). Ten per cent of relevant employees had raised their issue through other support structures, including unions, legal representatives, staff counsellors and colleagues.

27

Office for the Commissioner for Public Employment, op cit. Caution should be exercised in comparing these results because of differences in methodologies between the two surveys.

189

Of the employees who experienced discrimination, bullying or harassment and raised it in their agency, 34% were satisfied with the way the issue was dealt with and 45% were dissatisfied. While still a poor result, this was a considerable improvement on the 2003 results when only 18% of relevant employees were satisfied and 70% were dissatisfied. This issue is clearly a difficult one, and other jurisdictions are also grappling with employee dissatisfaction in this area. For example, the SA Office for the Commissioner for Public Employment’s employee survey found that only 23% of SA public sector employees who had made a report about an alleged incident of bullying or harassment agreed that the process was carried out in accordance with the relevant policy on bullying and harassment.28 When the results are examined by EEO group, there was little difference in the satisfaction of men and women, but: • employees with a disability were less likely to express satisfaction than employees without a disability (8% of relevant employees with a disability compared to 38% of other relevant employees) • employees from non-English speaking backgrounds were more likely to express satisfaction than other employees (57% compared to 30%). There were too few Indigenous employees responding to this question to provide statistically valid results. Some employees provided comments that explained their dissatisfaction which usually related to a perceived lack of action on the part of the agency, for example: Nothing was done. Told that it would ‘blow over’. I was told to ignore it or confront him, but I would have preferred someone with more authority to have a word with him/give him a warning because of the content of the messages. HCOs are almost inaccessible. They advise they are too busy and find someone else. No assistance given at all. Just acknowledgement that the behaviour was real and was given opportunity to change work location. No sanctions for the behaviour. Some care is needed in interpreting the information provided by the employee survey in relation to harassment, bullying and discrimination. The results suggest that the primary concern of APS employees in this area, particularly for employees reporting harassment or bullying, relates to workplace relations and the quality of management. There is clearly still a long way to go to ensure all managers are skilled in people management, including in performance feedback and communication with employees more generally. There are some particular concerns in relation to the sensitive management of people with a disability. Similarly, there is considerable room for improvement in handling complaints of discrimination, bullying and harassment. Apart from improving the skills of managers to help them handle such complaints informally but effectively, there is a need for alternative paths to make complaints that are widely known and are not seen as presenting risks for complainants, for example, networks or groups of trained contact officers (such as harassment contact officers, equity and diversity contact officers), advisers in the human resource area of the agency, and employee assistance programs, as well as more formal internal complaint processes. It must also be acknowledged that some employee perceptions of discrimination, harassment or bullying may be unreasonable. The modern public service does need to take a firmer approach to performance management. It

28

Office for the Commissioner for Public Employment, op cit. Caution should be exercised in comparing these results because of differences in methodologies between the two surveys.

190

harassment. The fact is, nonetheless, that such a firmer approach does not ever justify bullying behaviour or discrimination. The Commission is currently developing a guide to help agencies prevent bullying and harassment. The guide covers the nature of bullying and harassment, the responsibilities of agencies, managers and employees and the potential effect on agencies and employees, as well as good practice. An exposure draft was released in May

Chapter eight WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

is accepted that legitimate management action, provided it is undertaken in a reasonable way, is not bullying or

2004. The Commission has also jointly hosted with Comcare workshops on preventing workplace bullying and harassment, aimed at lowering the incidence of psychological injuries, which can be caused by harassment and bullying, which are emerging as a major issue for the Commonwealth workers' compensation scheme.

CONCLUSIONS Trends in diversity and in the representation of different EEO groups in 2003–04 have been largely consistent with movements in recent years. The satisfaction of APS employees with flexible arrangements that allow them to maintain an effective work-life balance remains high, and these arrangements appear to be allowing employees to deal with continuing long working hours in some areas. The performance of the APS in the employment of women has also been particularly strong: not only has the overall representation of women among ongoing employees continued to rise, but more importantly, the proportion of women employed at senior levels is continuing to increase steadily, with encouraging signs that this improvement is likely to continue. The slight rise in the employment of NESB1 employees this year is also encouraging, although in effect the employment of this group has been relatively stable for the last five years, after falling from 3.9% in 1995 to 3.3% in 1999. Of major concern is the employment of Indigenous Australians and people with a disability. Indigenous employees were the only EEO group whose representation fell in both absolute and proportional terms in 2003–04. Last year’s report highlighted that growth in Indigenous employment has stalled, and that there was serious risk of a decline. The evidence this year is that a longer term trend of declining representation may indeed be beginning to emerge with the proportion of Indigenous employees in the APS declining from 2.7% in 1999 to 2.3% in 2004, after gains in the period leading up to 1999. General trends to decreasing engagement rates and increasing separation rates for Indigenous employees indicate that this situation could deteriorate further unless the APS takes concerted action. Changes to ATSIC and ATSIS also represent a serious short-term risk that must be carefully managed. The agency survey results indicate that there is considerable potential for agencies to adopt more targeted measures aimed at recruiting and retaining Indigenous employees. The APS Commission has identified this area as a priority and, through its Indigenous Employment Strategy, is continuing to work with agencies to redress the declining representation of Indigenous Australians in the APS. Priority areas for 2004–05 include supporting the transition of Indigenous employees from ATSIS to APS line agencies, and developing training approaches to support the new Indigenous Coordination Centres which have replaced existing ATSIS regional offices. The impact of these changed administrative arrangements on Indigenous employment will be monitored closely in future State of the Service reports. The representation of people with a disability in the APS was stable in 2003–04, but it is too early to suggest that there has been any change in the trend to declining representation for this group since 1995. While agencies are more likely to identify specific measures for the recruitment of people with a disability than for the recruitment of Indigenous employees, these measures are not being reflected in outcomes. In addition, the continuing high dissatisfaction rates of people with a disability, and to a lesser extent Indigenous employees, remain of concern.

191

The employee survey results on the proportion of employees who have experienced discrimination, bullying or harassment are consistent with those from last year and, despite some improvements in relation to satisfaction with agency support structures, suggest that agencies need to pay more attention to this issue. The main problem appears to be poor management. Our findings suggest that agencies could benefit by a greater concentration on developing managers’ skills in such areas as performance appraisal and feedback, developing effective review mechanisms, and communicating expected standards of workplace behaviour. To make the most of a diverse workforce, to address issues associated with the ageing of the APS workforce, and to ensure that employment disadvantage is eliminated for relevant groups, agencies need to engage in systematic diversity planning that is integrated with their broader workforce planning. Data from the employee survey on differing job satisfaction factors that are important for different groups of employees, and on those that are important for almost all groups (that is, good working relationships and flexible working arrangements) can help to inform this planning. However, agency WDPs need to be based on a thorough understanding of their own workforce demographics. The Commission’s examination of a sample of written WDPs in 2003–04 indicates that considerable work has already been done in the area of workforce diversity planning, and also indicates that effective WDPs can have a substantial impact on the credibility of agencies’ approaches to workplace diversity. It is important, however, that agencies do not lose sight of the need for specific measures targeted at groups likely to suffer employment disadvantage, particularly Indigenous Australians and people with a disability, who may otherwise find it difficult to secure and retain employment in an increasingly highly-skilled APS. With the exception of women, the provision of data for EEO groups remains less systematic than could be wished. The agency survey provides information about why this may be so, and particularly indicates the potential for agencies to implement more systematic and regular approaches to reviewing and updating diversity data for their employees. This data is not only relevant to the maintenance of the Commission’s APSED database and reporting on service-wide trends, but is essential for agencies themselves to underpin effective workplace diversity programs and workforce plans.

192