2009 Census Report: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees

Downloads

• 2009 Census Report (PDF)
• 2009 Census Report (DOC)
• 2009 Census report: At a glance (PDF)
• 2009 Census Report: survey results (XLS)
• 2009 Census survey (DOC)

Web version

• Key findings and areas for focus
• Demographic profile of the Indigenous APS workforce
• Commencing in the APS
• Nature of current job role
• Employee satisfaction with their job and agency
• Employee wellbeing in the workplace
• Management effectiveness and learning and development
• Selection processes and workforce planning
• Agency support to encourage retention
• Appendix A—Indigenous APS Employees census survey methodology
• Appendix B—Demographic profile of survey respondents
• Glossary

Contact and acknowledgement information

Enquiries or suggestions about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander APS Employees’ Census Report 2009 are welcome and should be directed to:

Australian Public Service Commission
16 Furzer Street
PHILLIP ACT 2606

Email correspondence should be directed to: StateoftheService@apsc.gov.au.

Preface

Since August 2005, the APS Employment and Capability Strategy for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Employees (the Strategy)¹ has contributed to the stabilisation of Indigenous employment levels in the Australian Public Service (APS), as well as to the Australian Government’s wider agenda of improving employment and equity outcomes for Indigenous² Australians.

As part of the research component under the Strategy, the Australian Public Service Commission (the Commission) conducted the first comprehensive survey of Indigenous APS employees in 2005.³ The results provided valuable insights into the views of Indigenous employees on the nature of their employment in the APS and helped shape the work under the Strategy.

The Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG’s) National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Economic Participation⁴ (the Agreement) aims to accelerate improvements in ‘closing the gap’ in economic outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. An element of this Agreement includes the review of public sector Indigenous employment and career development strategies. The aim of the review is to effect increased Indigenous employment across all classifications so that it reflects national Indigenous working-age population share of at least 2.6 per cent by 2015. The Commonwealth has now raised this to 2.7 per cent of representation across the Commonwealth public sector, and the onus is on all portfolios and their agencies, both APS and non-APS, to determine how they will meet the COAG target.

In this context, the Commission conducted a second census of Indigenous APS employees to ask them again about their experience as employees in the APS, and about what is and is not working well for them. It also aimed to determine if current initiatives for the employment, development and retention of Indigenous staff were meeting their needs.

The Commission engaged the services of ORIMA Research to assist with the design, delivery and statistical outputs of the survey, as well as drafting the census report in consultation with Commission staff.

All employees in the APS who had identified to their agency that they are Indigenous were invited to participate. A total of 1,649 valid responses were received, representing a response rate of 52 per cent. Appendix A to this report provides information on the survey methodology.⁵

Data from the APS 2005 Indigenous Census and 2009 State of the Service Employee Survey has been used where possible to make comparisons. Where such comparisons were not made, the reader can assume that there was no equivalent data from the other two sources, or that a question was phrased differently, thus resulting in somewhat different outcomes preventing logical comparison.

Information from the APS Employment Database (APSED) has also been used in outlining the demographic profile of the APS Indigenous workforce. It should be noted that the APSED data refers only to ongoing Indigenous employees, whereas the census included both ongoing and non-ongoing Indigenous staff.

The outcomes from the 2009 Census do not provide the answer to all the questions about how to recruit, develop and retain more Indigenous APS staff; in fact, in some instances, they raise even more questions. Consequently, this report should also be regarded as a platform for further research which continues to be a key element of the Strategy.

However, the findings will assist agencies and their human resource practitioners to gain more insights into the barriers and challenges that Indigenous APS employees face in their working environment. In turn, this will help agencies determine the strategies they need to develop and implement in order to attract, recruit, develop and retain Indigenous staff.

The 2009 Census findings, together with the impetus created by both the Australian Government’s commitment to achieving the COAG target and the release of Ahead of the Game: Blueprint for the reform of Australian Government Administration⁶, are a catalyst for agencies to focus their effort to improve the employment outcomes for Indigenous staff across the APS. The mechanisms for success are largely in place, and the onus is now on all APS agencies to step up to this undoubted challenge.

The report is available on the Commission’s website at http://www.apsc.gov.au/. A summary pamphlet entitled Indigenous APS Employees’ Census Report 2009 at a Glance, the survey methodology report, and other related material will also be available.

Chapter 1: Key findings and areas for focus

The outcomes from the 2009 Indigenous APS Employees’ Census demonstrate that there have been no major changes in what Indigenous APS staff report about their experience of working in the APS since the first census in 2005. The findings highlight that there are many areas where the APS is performing well. At an aggregate level, positive results from the census include:

• 96% were willing to put in extra effort to get a job done
• 92% had a clear understanding of how their job contributed to the work of the team
• 87% clearly understood what was expected of them in their job
• 82% were satisfied with their supervisor’s support for them to use flexible working practices
• 81% on average expressed positive views about the job satisfaction factors that they nominated as important
• 78% of those with caring responsibilities were satisfied with their supervisor’s support in assisting them meeting their caring responsibilities
• 76% were satisfied on average with their supervisor’s performance against the attributes that they consider to be important
• 75% agreed that they had the same opportunities as non-Indigenous staff in their agency to access learning and development.

However, it is clear that while the decline in representation has halted, employment levels have not increased (see chapter 2). Therefore, it is not surprising that the results also highlight four major areas that require further attention by APS agencies. Addressing these effectively will be a key factor in enhancing Indigenous employees’ experiences of working in the APS and are likely to assist APS agencies to contribute to the COAG target of 2.7 per cent of Indigenous representation in the Commonwealth public sector by 2015.

1. Strengthening the focus on retaining Indigenous employees

According to the State of the Service Report 2008–09, the separation rate of Indigenous APS staff has been higher than their overall representation rate every year over the last ten years (see also chapter 2). The survey results suggest that retention will continue to be a significant challenge for the APS in the years ahead.

• Indigenous employees with graduate qualifications are more likely to have the intention to leave or to not be sure about their plans for the next three years than other Indigenous employees. Given that Indigenous employees are less likely than employees APS-wide to hold graduate qualifications, agencies should examine ways to put a particular focus on their retention efforts for this group of employees.
• There were several factors that were related to employees’ career intentions. The survey results show that in order to contribute to maximising employees’ satisfaction with their job and agency, thereby increasing the retention of Indigenous employees, agencies need to focus on:
  • providing effective supervisors
  • creating and sustaining an environment where staff work sensitively and effectively with Indigenous Australians
  • reducing the incidence of discrimination, harassment and/or bullying.

Two of the most commonly cited reasons as to why employees intend to leave (i.e. a lack of job satisfaction and feeling under-valued) can be described as ‘push factors’—negative aspects of the agency that are within the agency’s control rather than outside ‘pull factors’ drawing staff away to other employment opportunities.

Although intrinsic factors appeared to be important in influencing employees’ decision to leave the APS, extrinsic factors (including convenience) also seemed to be important in influencing employees’ decision to rejoin the APS. The results from the survey suggest that both intrinsic and extrinsic factors can play an important role in attracting and retaining Indigenous employees. It appears, however, that focussing efforts on intrinsic factors (such as job satisfaction) may be the most effective way to improve Indigenous staff retention in the APS.

Further research, perhaps by conducting and analysing agency exit surveys, may provide more insights into the causes for the high separation rates of Indigenous APS staff.

2. Recruiting Indigenous employees

Current approaches appear to be most effective in recruiting Indigenous employees to entry level positions (i.e. most Indigenous employees join the APS at the APS 4 level or below). However, there is clearly scope to consider and implement new ways of attracting Indigenous Australians to join the APS at higher classification levels. This may also assist the APS attract more Indigenous staff who have tertiary qualifications:

• Indigenous-specific media should be used more prolifically to promote the APS as an employer of choice and to advertise APS jobs.
• An option to consider is the use of the Special Measures⁷ provision to recruit at all APS classifications across a range of job roles to increase the number of Indigenous staff with tertiary qualifications.

3. Promotion of wider job opportunities for Indigenous employees

The survey results show that Indigenous employees continue to work predominantly in service delivery roles—they are twice as likely as employees APS-wide to work in these roles. This may in part reflect the lower classification profile of the Indigenous APS workforce compared with the APS-wide workforce, that most Indigenous employees work outside of the Australian Capital Territory and that Indigenous employees are less likely than employees APS-wide to hold graduate qualifications.

An important part of any approach in encouraging Indigenous employees to work in a wider range of job roles will be ensuring that appropriate support mechanisms are available to staff and managers, including through:

• ensuring that supervisors and co-workers, both in the immediate work area and the whole agency, are able to work effectively and sensitively with Indigenous Australians
• appropriate personal and professional development opportunities to equip Indigenous APS employees with the skills and confidence to work in the area of their choice
• providing assistance to Indigenous employees to map their career pathways and to consider whether greater mobility can be achieved.

4. Improving opportunities for career development and advancement

Almost half of Indigenous employees continued to report that there were factors that prevented them from seeking a higher position in the APS. The most common reasons cited were:

• a limited number of vacancies or opportunities at a higher level
• lack of self confidence
• not yet having the necessary qualifications and/or experience.

The results suggest that there is a greater need for strategies focussed on increasing awareness among Indigenous staff about where the opportunities for higher duties and/or promotion exist. These strategies should include professional and personal development activities designed to increase employees’ self-confidence, qualifications and/or experience. Such approaches are also important in encouraging Indigenous employees to work in a wide range of jobs.

The survey results highlight the need for career development and learning and development activities to be targeted to specific groups of Indigenous employees:

• Activities focussed on leadership were most likely to be seen by EL2/SES employees as a ‘high’ priority for their personal development, whereas communication skills were seen as most important by employees at the APS 1–4 levels.
• Access to a mix of Indigenous-specific and general learning and development opportunities is optimal. Targeting Indigenous-specific programs at lower classification levels (e.g. at apprentices/trainees/graduates/cadets and APS 1–2) may be most beneficial.
• Increased career development and learning and development opportunities for Indigenous staff outside of Canberra would be beneficial, including on and off the job opportunities.

It is also important that agencies examine ways they can increase career development opportunities for APS 5–6 and EL1 Indigenous staff in their agency. Supporting these two groups of employees to advance their careers in the APS will be critical in increasing the number of Indigenous staff in leadership roles at the EL2 and SES classification levels. As at 30 June 2009 there were only 16 SES who identified as being Indigenous, and it is important for agencies to focus on longer term strategies to encourage increased Indigenous representation at this senior level of the APS.

Ways forward

The critical message from the 2009 Census is clear: the APS needs to do more to improve the level of representation of Indigenous employees. While it is essential to increase recruitment of Indigenous Australians to the APS, the key to such improvement lies also in retaining and developing career pathways for Indigenous staff.

The following significant opportunities are now in place and are expected to contribute to positive changes to the employment outcomes for Indigenous Australians across the APS:

• The task of achieving the COAG target of 2.7 per cent Indigenous representation across the Commonwealth public sector by 2015 has prompted considerable activity among APS agencies in 2010. The Commission is collaborating with the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, the lead agency for this work, to help agencies enhance existing recruitment strategies and develop new ones to increase engagements and improve strategies for the retention of Indigenous staff.
• The Commission already has in place a number of initiatives that will help agencies to address recruitment, development and retention of Indigenous employees under the APS Employment and Capability Strategy for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Employees (the Strategy).⁸ The Strategy was revised recently to sharpen its focus to ensure that it meets the expectations of the Government’s ‘closing the gap’ agenda and continues to respond to the needs of Indigenous APS employees and their managers, as well as APS agencies’ business objectives. In this context, as well as in light of the 2009 Census findings, the Commission will work more closely with agencies to help them embed relevant strategies in their workforce plan.
• The Government’s commitment to diversity in the APS is reflected in the statement in the recently released document Ahead of the Game: Blueprint for the Reform of Australian Government Administration⁹ (the Blueprint):

The APS should mirror the diversity of the broader population and reflect Australia’s diversity of cultural backgrounds, people with disability, women and the Indigenous population. Diversity should be reflected at all levels of the APS and not be confined to more junior positions.

The Blueprint sets an ambitious and interlinked reform agenda that seeks to improve services, programs and policies for Australian citizens. Above all, it recognises that to be strong, the APS must make the most of the talents, energy and integrity of its people. The proposed reforms therefore seek to boost and support the APS workforce and leadership, and to embed new practices and behaviour into the APS culture. Many of the reforms relate directly or indirectly to the four areas of focus identified in the report and provide an opportunity to embed structures that will lead to improving the outcomes for Indigenous employees in the APS.

Chapter 2: Demographic profile of the Indigenous APS workforce

This chapter provides a snapshot of the Indigenous APS workforce at 30 June 2009.¹⁰ Key information includes:

• the number of Indigenous staff in the APS
• their age profile and gender
• their classification
• the main agencies in which they worked, as well as their geographic location
• their qualification
• engagements and separations.

Numbers in the APS

As at 30 June 2009, there were 3,176 ongoing Indigenous employees in the APS. Although the actual number of Indigenous staff has increased slightly since 2008, the number of APS employees increased overall, and so Indigenous representation remained steady for the 2008–09 financial year at 2.1 %.

It should be noted that the APS Employment Database (APSED) information on the diversity status of APS employees is provided by individual agencies, and that providing information to their agency regarding their Indigenous heritage is voluntary for APS employees. Therefore, APSED tends to under-represent the actual number of employees in this group.

Age profile

The median age of Indigenous employees rose from 32 years to 37 years over the decade to 2005. At 30 June 2009, it was 38 years. An age profile comparison for June 2009 between Indigenous employees and the general APS population reveals that the majority of Indigenous employees are younger than the general APS population which had a median age of 42 years.¹¹

Gender

The proportion of Indigenous women in the APS is higher than the proportion of women in the general APS population (68% compared with 58%). The proportion of Indigenous women in the APS is up by 3% from the 2005 Indigenous Census.

Indigenous women are more concentrated in lower classifications, as are women in the APS generally. This is similar to the findings from the 2005 Indigenous Census.

Classifications

As Table 1 shows, there has been considerable fluctuation of Indigenous representation within classifications since 1995. At 30 June 2009, over half (52.5%) of ongoing Indigenous staff were employed at the APS 1–4 classifications compared with just over a third (36.6%) of staff APS-wide.

The proportion of ongoing Indigenous employees at the APS 5–6 and EL classifications has steadily increased to 45%; some 3% of these classifications are Indigenous. However, a mere 0.6% of SES staff are Indigenous—at 30 June 2009, only 16 SES officers were Indigenous, five of whom are over the age of 50, and another four are in the 45–49 age bracket.

Over a quarter (26.8%) of Indigenous employees are at the middle management classifications (APS 6–EL2) compared with almost half (46.5%) of the general APS population.

Table 1: Representation of ongoing Indigenous APS employees by classification, 1995, 2008 & 2009

	1995			2008			2009
	No.	% of class’n who are Indigenous	% of Indigenous employees	No.	% of class’n who are Indigenous	% of Indigenous employees	No.	% of class’n who are Indigenous	% of Indigenous employees
Source: APSED
APS 1–2	1179	3.9	35.1	354	5.9	11.2	353	6.3	11.1
APS 3–4	1348	3.3	40.2	1346	2.7	42.8	1313	2.7	41.3
APS 5–6	608	1.7	18.1	977	1.9	31.0	1015	2.0	32.0
EL	127	0.6	3.8	374	1.0	11.9	415	1.1	13.1
SES	15	0.8	0.4	16	0.6	0.5	16	0.6	0.5
Trainee	52	15.8	1.5	52	13.1	1.7	42	17.1	1.3
Grad APS	27	3.0	0.8	29	2.4	0.9	22	2.0	0.7
Total	3357	2.6	100.0	3148	2.1	100.0	3176	2.1	100.0

Location

Indigenous employees are concentrated in a small number of APS agencies, and more than half of all ongoing Indigenous staff were employed in just three agencies: Centrelink (31.7%); Aboriginal Hostels Limited (9.7%); and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (9.6%).

Twenty-eight agencies reported that none of their employees were Indigenous.

The APS agencies with the highest level of Indigenous representation at 30 June 2009 were:

• Aboriginal Hostels Limited (84.2% or 308 employees)
• Torres Strait Regional Authority (64.9% or 24 employees)
• Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander Studies (20.9% or 9 employees)
• National Native Title Tribunal (9.7% or 19 employees)
• Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (9.3% or 291 employees).

Of those agencies with more than 1,000 ongoing employees at 30 June 2009, six had representation that was higher than the APS Indigenous average representation of 2.1%.

Those agencies were:

• Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (9.3%)
• Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (5.3%)
• Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (4.2%)
• Centrelink (3.8%)
• Department of Health and Ageing (2.4%)
• Medicare (2.2%).

The largest increases in Indigenous employment during 2008–09 were in Centrelink (50), the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (13 employees each), and Medicare (10). The largest decreases were in the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (32), the Department of Health and Ageing (13) and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (12).

The geographic location of Indigenous employees varies within the APS. It should be noted that although the greatest proportion of ongoing APS employees is located in the ACT, Indigenous representation in the ACT as such is only 1.4%, compared with the broader APS representation of 37.4%. Indigenous representation is highest in the Northern Territory at 18.3% of APS ongoing employment.

Table 2: Geographic location of employees in the APS

	ACT	NSW	VIC	QLD	SA	WA	TAS	NT	Overseas	TOTAL
Source: APSED
Indigenous representation in State/Territory (ongoing)	1.4%	1.9%	0.9%	4.3%	1.6%	2.8%	2.9%	18.3%	1.0%	2.1%
APS representation in State/Territory (ongoing)	37.4%	19.1%	16.2%	11.3%	6.0%	5.1%	2.5%	1.6%	0.8%	100.0%

Graduate qualifications

The proportion of Indigenous employees with graduate qualifications or better remains much lower than for APS employees generally—27.5% compared with 53.8%. This is a slight increase when compared with the results as at 30 June 2005 (27.3% for Indigenous employees compared with 51% for the general APS population). This slight increase reflects the broader change in the APS to a graduate workforce.

However, over the last ten years, the rate of Indigenous engagements with graduate qualifications has slowly but steadily declined as shown in the table below. It should be noted that:

• 2006 was a peak year for employment of Indigenous employees with graduate qualfications
• the data for 2009 will improve over time as updates are provided to APSED and is expected to increase the percentage to around 22%.

Table 3: Engagements of staff with graduate qualifications

	2000 %	2001 %	2002 %	2003 %	2004 %	2005 %	2006 %	2007 %	2008 %	2009 %
Source: APSED
Indigenous ongoing engagements	30.4	26.1	28.1	28.3	26.7	26.4	28.8	27.4	25.9	17.1
Total ongoing engagements	62.2	54.1	58.1	58.5	66.3	66.6	59.1	61.5	61.9	68.1

Engagements and separations

Rates of Indigenous engagements at 3.1% and separations at 3.6% are considerably higher than the actual representation rate of 2.1%. This has been the case since 2000. Indigenous rates of separation have also been higher than their engagement rate every year, with the exception of one year (2002).

Three quarters (75.3%) of Indigenous employees who left the APS during 2008–09 resigned compared with 62% for the general APS population. Indigenous employees are also twice as likely to be terminated from their employment compared with the general APS population (4.5% compared with 2.2%). Almost a third (32.4%) of separations for the general APS population left the APS due to retrenchment or age retirement, compared with 17.5% of Indigenous separations for this category.

Indigenous employees continue to have a significantly shorter length of service before leaving the APS than non-Indigenous staff. Almost half (48.5%) of the Indigenous employees who separated from the APS during 2008–09 had fewer than five years of service, compared with 38.6% of non-Indigenous employees.

Key chapter findings

Despite the positive impact of the APS Employment and Capability Strategy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employees (the Strategy) since 2005, the APSED data shows clearly that representation of Indigenous employees has not increased across the APS during 2008–09.

The growth in Indigenous employees at the APS5–6 and EL classifications is a positive. It is of considerable concern, however, that representation at the SES classification continues to be extremely low, and agencies need to engage in succession planning, including implementing strategies for developing and mentoring talented Indigenous EL2s to increase the current SES cohort.

The dwindling number of Indigenous graduates in the APS is also a matter for concern. The APS is competing against other Commonwealth agencies as well as state, territory and local government public sectors and the private sector for a very small number of Indigenous graduates. However, there are other factors that impact on the engagement and retention levels of Indigenous graduates, some of which are explored in the ensuing chapters. More research into how to attract, recruit and retain this group of employees may be warranted.

There are no clear-cut explanations for the continuing trend of high separation rates of Indigenous APS staff, though the 2009 Census findings provide an insight into some possible causes.

Chapter 3: Commencing in the APS

This chapter considers four aspects related to Indigenous employees’ experiences of commencing in the APS:

• their employment status immediately prior to joining the APS
• the type of employment process used to recruit them
• the classification level at which they were engaged
• whether they were required to leave home to take up a position in the APS.

Employment status prior to joining the APS

Indigenous employees were most likely to enter the APS from the private sector, from study, or from employment in state/territory or local government (see Figure 1):

• just over one-third of Indigenous employees entered the APS from the private sector (36%)
• just under one-fifth were students (19%) or employed in state/territory or local government (18%) prior to joining the APS.

Figure 1 also shows that the employment status of Indigenous employees prior to joining the APS was broadly similar in 2009 and 2005. The main change involved a slightly higher likelihood that Indigenous employees were previously employed in the private sector in 2009 (36% in 2009 compared with 31% in 2005), and a slightly lower likelihood that they were previously employed in an Indigenous community organisation (8% in 2009 compared with 11% in 2005).

The employment status of Indigenous employees prior to joining the APS showed some variation based on the classification level of the employee:

• Employees at the EL1 level and above were less likely to have been unemployed prior to joining the APS (5%) and more likely to have been employed in state/territory or local government (23%) than employees at more junior classification levels (11% and 17% respectively).
• Employees at the APS 5 level and above were more likely to have been students prior to joining the APS (24%) than APS 1–4 level employees (13%), but less likely than apprentices/trainees/cadets/graduates (53%).

The survey results suggest that private sector organisations and educational institutions are two key areas where recruitment efforts for Indigenous employees should be focussed. For recruitment to more senior levels in the APS, targeting recruitment from the private sector and state/territory or local governments may be beneficial.

Processes used to recruit Indigenous Australians into the APS

Although most Indigenous employees were recruited through Indigenous-specific recruitment processes, there was a strong increase in the proportion of Indigenous employees recruited through general recruitment processes amongst staff who entered at higher classification levels.

Figure 2 shows that 54% of Indigenous employees were recruited to the APS through a general recruitment process, while 37% were recruited through an Indigenous-specific recruitment process. This is a very similar recruitment profile to that shown in the 2005 Indigenous Census.

Indigenous employees who entered the APS at higher classification levels were less likely to have been recruited through Indigenous-specific recruitment processes than those who entered the APS at lower levels. Increasing the use of specific recruitment processes at higher levels may contribute to increased senior representation in the APS. Figure 3 shows that:

• the proportion of Indigenous employees recruited through Indigenous-specific recruitment processes varied from 66% for those who entered the APS at apprentices/ trainees/cadets/graduates level to 0% for those who entered at the EL2/SES level
• the proportion of Indigenous employees who were recruited through general recruitment rounds varied from 29% for those who entered the APS at the apprentices/trainees/ cadets/graduates level to 100% for those who entered at the EL2/SES level.

Classification level on joining the APS

The survey showed that the vast majority of Indigenous employees (86%) entered the APS at the APS 4 level or below. Indigenous employees were most likely to enter the APS at the APS 1–2 level (36%), APS 3–4 level (26%) or the trainee/graduate level (23%).

Between 2005 and 2009, the proportion of Indigenous employees who entered the APS at the APS 1–2 level declined from 44% in 2005 to 36% in 2009, while the share who entered at the APS 3–4 level increased from 19% to 26% over the same period. This may in part be due to the general decline in the number of APS 1–2 level positions across the APS.

The level at which Indigenous employees entered the APS varied based on their educational qualifications and whether they were located inside or outside the ACT:

• Indigenous employees with graduate qualifications were more likely to enter the APS as a cadet or graduate (31%) and less likely to enter at the trainee level (5%) or the APS 1–2 level (18%) than those without graduate qualifications.
• Indigenous employees who were based in the ACT at the time of the survey were more likely to have entered the APS as a cadet or as a graduate (20% compared with 5% located outside the ACT) and less likely to have entered at the APS 1–2 level (24% compared with 40% located outside the ACT).

Examples of the comments provided by employees in relation to commencing in the APS include:

Entering the APS through the Indigenous Graduate Program gave me an opportunity I would not normally have been able to achieve.

I would like to see more opportunities available for mature-age Aboriginal people to enter the APS, through mature-age traineeships for example.

There needs to be a targeted employment strategy particularly for agencies to recruit Indigenous people at all levels, Apprentices, Cadets and Graduates.

The recruiting, inducting and management of the 12 month Indigenous traineeship was poorly done. There was a lack of communication of the processes and requirements.

Requirement to leave home location to take up a position in the APS

Just under one-quarter of Indigenous employees (23%) reported having had to leave their home location or extended family to take up their position with the APS, down slightly from 25% in 2005. More than half of those who entered the APS at graduate (68%) or cadet (52%) levels have had to move away from their home base.

The proportion of Indigenous employees at other classifications who had to leave their extended family varied from 16% of those who entered as trainees/apprentices to 66% of those who entered as EL2/SES employees.

Indigenous staff employed in the ACT were much more likely to have had to leave their home location or extended family to take up their APS position (40%) than those located outside the ACT (18%).

Key chapter findings

The way that Indigenous employees enter the APS has remained fairly stable between 2005 and 2009:

• Indigenous employees were most likely to have entered the APS from the private sector, although study and the state/territory or local government public sectors were also key pathways.
• Employees who entered the APS at higher levels were more likely to have been previously employed in state/territory or local government and less likely to have been unemployed than those who entered at more junior levels.
• While just over half of Indigenous employees entered the APS through general recruitment processes, almost two-fifths were recruited through Indigenous-specific processes.
• Those who entered the APS at higher classification levels were less likely to have been recruited through Indigenous-specific recruitment processes than those entering at lower levels.
• The majority of Indigenous employees entered the APS at the APS 4 level or below. Employees with graduate qualifications and those located in the ACT were more likely to have entered the APS as a cadet or graduate than other employees.
• Just under one-quarter of Indigenous employees had to leave their home or extended family to take up employment with the APS.
• Those who entered the APS at higher levels or who were located in the ACT were more likely to have had to leave their home or extended family to take up their position.
• It appears that the higher the classification, the less likely it is that there are relevant positions outside the ACT. Agencies with a presence in regional, rural or remote Australia may be in a position to consider addressing this issue as well as how to improve recruitment outcomes outside of the ACT more generally; for example, only 5% of Indigenous employees outside of the ACT had entered the APS as a graduate.

Chapter 4: Nature of current job role

This chapter examines the main type of work Indigenous employees are performing and aspects of their current position.

Main type of work

Indigenous employees were most likely to be involved in service delivery to the public (41%), with the next most common types of work being program design and/or management (15%) and corporate services (12%).

The type of work that Indigenous employees were involved in varied considerably from the profile of all APS employees (see Figure 5). Compared with all APS employees, Indigenous employees were:

• twice as likely to be involved in service delivery (41% compared with 20%) and slightly more likely to be involved in program design and/or management (15% compared with 11%)
• less likely to be involved in:
  • corporate services (12% compared with 21%)
  • exercising regulatory authority (6% compared with 11%)
  • research (2% compared with 6%)
  • policy development (7% compared with 12%).

These results may in part:

• reflect the lower classification profile of the APS Indigenous staff compared with that of the APS-wide workforce
• emphasise the fact that Indigenous employees are less likely than employees APS-wide to hold graduate qualifications
• indicate a failure to attract high quality and/or well-qualified Indigenous employees into a broad range of roles across the APS
• highlight that a much higher percentage of Indigenous employees are located outside of the ACT.

There were considerable differences in the main type of work performed by Indigenous employees by classification level. The highest representation of Indigenous employees in service delivery roles was amongst those at lower classifications, while higher level staff were more likely to be involved in program design and/or management and policy roles. Figure 6 shows that:

• over half of Indigenous employees at the APS 1–2 (52%) and APS 3–4 (58%) were involved in service delivery roles compared with less than 10% of those at the EL1 level and above
• the proportion of Indigenous employees involved in program design and/or management ranged from less than 10% of those at the APS 3–4 level and below to 44% for EL2/SES employees
• the proportion of employees involved in policy roles ranged from 0% of APS 1–2 staff to 21% of EL2/SES employees.

These differences based on classification are consistent with those found APS-wide.

The type of work performed by Indigenous staff also varied considerably by location, gender and educational attainment:

• Those located outside the ACT were much more likely to be involved in service delivery to the general public (51% compared with 7% of those located in the ACT). In contrast, they were less likely than those inside the ACT to be involved in policy (3% compared with 20%), corporate services/legal (8% compared with 24%) and program design and/ or management (12% compared with 24%).
• Women were more likely to be involved in service delivery (46% compared with 31% of men), and less likely to be involved in exercising regulatory authority (3% compared with 10% of men).
• Employees with graduate qualifications were more likely than those without graduate qualifications to be involved in policy (14% compared with 4%) or program design/ management (24% compared with 12%). In contrast, they were less likely to be involved in service delivery roles (21% compared with 47%).

Aspects of Indigenous employees’ current position

Approximately two-thirds (65%) of Indigenous employees were in a role that involved interaction with Indigenous people and communities. About one-third (34%) were involved in the development of policies or programs relating to Indigenous people (see Figure 7).

One-third (36%) of Indigenous employees reported that they were in an identified position.¹² This is slightly lower than the proportion of Indigenous employees who stated that they were in an identified position¹³ in 2005 (43%).

Employees were more likely to be in a role that involved interaction with Indigenous people and communities if they:

• were located outside the ACT (69% compared with 51% of those inside the ACT)
• did not have graduate qualifications (67% compared with 57% of those with graduate qualifications).

Employees were more likely to be in a role that involved the development of policies or programs relating to Indigenous people if they were:

• at the EL2/SES classification levels (69% compared with 49% of EL1s; 47% of trainees/ apprentices/graduates/cadets; and 40% of APS 5–6 staff)
• located in the ACT (41% compared with 32% of those outside the ACT).

Employees were more likely to report that their current position was an identified position if they:

• were at lower classification levels (53% of APS 1–2 employees compared with around one-quarter of EL1 and EL2/SES employees)
• were located outside the ACT (40% compared with 25% of those inside the ACT)
• did not have graduate qualifications (40% compared with 22% of those with graduate qualifications).

Some of the comments provided about the nature of work include:

I am based in a region—implementation of program and policy. My position gives me the ability to influence policy and program but it is difficult to find a clear pathway to do this within the department.

I was placed in the Indigenous space—I did not actively seek out Indigenous work.

I feel that the level of service delivery to Aboriginal people has been eroded by the watering down and subsequent eradication of the identified position criteria in the Australian public service.

Through my career I have actively sought out development opportunities, these have provided the required skills and capabilities to do each of my roles effectively and efficiently.

Key chapter findings

The main type of work that Indigenous employees are typically involved in varies considerably from that of other APS employees. Compared with employees APS-wide, Indigenous employees were more likely to be involved in service delivery to the general public and slightly more likely to be involved in program design and/or management than other APS employees. However, they were less likely to be involved in corporate services, exercising regulatory authority, research and policy development:

• The high representation of Indigenous employees in service delivery roles was concentrated amongst those at lower levels.
• Employees at higher levels were more likely to be involved in program design and/or management and policy roles.
• Differences in the type of work Indigenous staff performed based on classification were consistent with those found APS-wide.

Around one-third of Indigenous employees were involved in the development of policy or programs relating to Indigenous people and two-thirds had work that involved interacting with Indigenous people/communities. Although staff located outside the ACT were more likely to have roles that involved interaction with Indigenous people/communities, they were less likely than employees in the ACT to be involved in the development of policies or programs relating to Indigenous Australians.

Just over one-third of Indigenous employees said that their current position was an identified position. Employees at lower classification levels, located outside the ACT or without graduate qualifications were more likely to be in an identified position than other staff.

These results demonstrate that Indigenous employees are still primarily working in service delivery roles and also on work that involves interacting with Indigenous Australians and communities. It is important to Indigenous staff to work in a range of job roles, not just those where all or most of the tasks involve the development and/or delivery of policies, programs and services that impact on Indigenous Australians and/or require interaction with Indigenous communities or their representatives.

An important part of broadening the opportunities for Indigenous employees across all job roles will be developing strategies for equipping them with the professional skills and confidence to work in a wider range of fields.

Chapter 5: Employee satisfaction with their job and agency

This chapter considers four areas that are related to Indigenous employees’ satisfaction with their job and their agency:

• overall job satisfaction
• agreement levels with a range of statements related to their current job
• factors that impact on job satisfaction
• overall satisfaction with their agency.

Overall job satisfaction

Almost three-quarters of APS Indigenous employees (73%) were satisfied overall with their current job—just over one in ten (13%) were dissatisfied (see Figure 8).

Employees were more likely to be satisfied with their current job if they:

• had been in the APS for shorter durations (85% of employees who had been working in the APS for less than one year compared with 72% of employees with longer durations of service)
• were working in service delivery or regulatory roles (77% compared with 61% of those in policy roles)
• were working in a role that involved interacting with Indigenous Australians/ communities (76% compared with 68% of other employees)
• did not have graduate qualifications (74% compared with 69% of employees with graduate qualifications).

Job satisfaction index

In addition to the single-question measure of job satisfaction, the survey also allowed a job satisfaction index to be calculated. The index ranges from zero (the respondent was very dissatisfied with all of the factors they nominated as important) to 10 (the respondent was very satisfied with all of the factors they nominated as important). An index of five translates to a respondent on average being neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with their nominated factors.

Just over eight in ten Indigenous employees (81%) recorded moderate to high job satisfaction ratings against the job satisfaction index in 2009. This is above the corresponding result for Indigenous employees in 2005 (74%) and consistent with the result for APS employees on average (81%) in 2009 (see Figure 9).

The likelihood that employees reported moderate to high job satisfaction ratings varied across different groups of Indigenous employees. Table 4 shows that there were differences in employee satisfaction levels based on agency size, age, classification level, length of service in the APS, and the type of work employees were performing.

Table 4: Satisfaction with workplace factors—summary index results by group, 2009

Group		Satisfaction with workplace factors summary index rating > 5 in 2009 (%)
a See Appendix A–Size of agency
Agency sizea	Small	81
	Medium	87
	Large	80
Age	< 25 years	85
	25–44 years	78
	45–54 years	84
	> 54 years	90
Classification	Training classifications	87
	APS 1–2	86
	APS 3–4	82
	APS 5–6	78
	EL1	82
	EL2/SES	81
Length of service in the APS	<1 year of service	84
	1–5 years of service	82
	6–10 years of service	79
	11–15 years of service	81
	16–20 years of service	79
	> 20 years of service	83
Type of work	Policy	67
	Program design / management	75
	Service delivery	84
	Exercising regulatory authority	91
	Corporate / legal	78
	Administrative support / clerical	81
	All Indigenous respondents	81

Aspects of current job

Indigenous employees recorded moderate to high ratings of the aspects of their current job that were measured in the survey. Figure 10 shows that:

• over 90% of Indigenous employees agreed that they were willing to put in extra effort to get a job done (96%), and that they had a clear understanding of how their job contributed to the work of their team (92%)
• over 80% of staff agreed with a range of other positive statements about their job, ranging from 81% who agreed that they liked the work in their current job to 87% who agreed that they clearly knew what was expected of them in their job
• approximately 70% of staff agreed with the remaining statements (although about 10% disagreed).

These satisfaction levels are generally similar to those recorded for employees APS-wide (see Figure 11). The only notable difference between Indigenous and all APS employees was a slightly higher level of agreement amongst Indigenous employees that their current job gives them a feeling of personal accomplishment (73% compared with 67% APS-wide).

Some groups of Indigenous employees were more likely to agree with some statements relating to aspects of their job:

• Employees whose role involved interactions with Indigenous people were more likely to agree that their job gave them a feeling of personal accomplishment (73% compared with 63% of other employees).
• Employees at higher classification levels (86% of EL2/SES), who were aged 35 years or over (73%), or who were working outside the ACT (72%) were more likely than other employees to agree that their interests matched the responsibilities of their job/agency.
• Employees working in program design and/or management (81%) or service delivery roles (76%) or in roles that involved the development of policies or programs for Indigenous Australians (89%) or interaction with them (84%) were more likely than other employees to agree that they understood how their role affects Indigenous Australians.

Factors that impact on job satisfaction

This section examines the most important workplace factors that impact on employees’ job satisfaction levels and their levels of satisfaction with these factors.

Key factors

The survey asked respondents to choose the five workplace factors that have the most impact on how satisfied they are with their job from a list of 15 factors. Respondents were then asked to state their level of satisfaction with all 15 factors.

Indigenous employees were most likely to consider good working relationships to be important for their job satisfaction (64%). Other commonly nominated factors included flexible working arrangements, salary, the chance to make a useful contribution to society/ Indigenous Australians, and having a good supervisor (see Figure 12).

Compared with the 2005 Census outcomes, in 2009 Indigenous employees were more likely to consider good working relationships to be important (64% compared with 48% in 2005).

There were some differences between Indigenous employees and employees APS-wide in the workplace factors they nominated as having a significant impact on their job satisfaction:

• Indigenous employees were more likely than employees APS-wide to report that good working relationships, the opportunity to develop skills, duties/expectations made clear, and opportunities for career development were important to them.¹⁴
• Indigenous employees were less likely than employees APS-wide to state that interesting work provided, appropriate autonomy, appropriate workload, seeing tangible results from their work, salary, and flexible working arrangements were important to them.

The workplace factors that Indigenous employees believed had the most important impact on their job satisfaction varied substantially by their classification level:

• Employees at higher classification levels were more likely to say that making a useful contribution to society/Indigenous Australians, appropriate autonomy, seeing tangible results from their work, and the chance to be creative/innovative were important to them.
• Employees at lower classification levels were more likely to feel that having their duties/expectations made clear and opportunities to develop their skills were important to them.

Satisfaction with workplace factors that impact on job satisfaction

There was widespread improvement in Indigenous employees’ satisfaction with workplace factors that they considered to have the most important impact on their job satisfaction between 2005¹⁵ and 2009 (see Figure 13). The largest rises occurred for opportunities for career development (up 14 percentage points (pp) to 58%), appropriate workload (up 13pp to 53%), opportunities to develop skills (up 13pp to 73%) and opportunities to utilise skills (up 13pp to 76%).

In 2009 the two factors that Indigenous employees were most likely to consider having a significant impact on their job satisfaction (good working relationships and flexible working arrangements) were also the two factors that recorded the highest satisfaction ratings (both over 80%):

• At least three-quarters of Indigenous employees were satisfied with seven of the 15 workplace factors, ranging from appropriate autonomy (75%) to good working relationships (88%).
• Indigenous employees were least likely to be satisfied with their opportunities for career development (58%) and their workload (53%).

Figure 13 and Figure 14 also show that generally similar proportions of Indigenous employees and employees APS-wide were satisfied with each of the factors that they considered to be important. The main differences were that compared with employees APS-wide, Indigenous employees were:

• much more likely to be satisfied on average than employees APS-wide with their opportunities for career development
• slightly to moderately more likely to be satisfied with regular feedback/recognition for effort, the chance to be creative and innovative, and opportunities to develop their skills
• less likely to be satisfied with the appropriateness of their workload, their level of autonomy, and flexible working arrangements in their job.¹⁶

Some examples of employee comments in relation to job satisfaction include:

I am very lucky to work in a small team of people who all get along very well and can knuckle down and get the work done and [where] everyone pulls their own weight. My team leader is wonderful and flexible with making it work between work/family life.

I love explaining/showing things to Indigenous customers and they can see the benefit of what is being informed to them. The information given to the Indigenous people, if they take that away and work towards/with that information then they experience a positive outcome, then that ‘makes my day’.

At the APS2 level, there have always been limited training opportunities available apart from the regular/yearly ones which we have all undertaken at some stage. Need more APS2 training opportunities in regional areas not Canberra.

I would like the opportunity to contribute more to ‘staff development’ which is at times restricted because of operational requirements and therefore frustrating.

My agency does not see Indigenous issues as a priority. Regardless of the bulk core work of my agency, there have been limited to no attempts at improving human resource management tools for Indigenous staff to feel confident in their role…

Particularly with the very small representation of Indigenous people employed in Indigenous specific programs. The inability of managers to recognise the skills and abilities of Indigenous staff and the potential to promote Indigenous staff to decision making roles.

At present and over the last 12–18 months since the merging of Departments and major changes to programs etc it has been a rather see-sawing time in relation to job satisfaction. Not having clear duties etc. In relation to immediate supervisor and manager once removed there are not a lot of problems, but when it comes to senior management there are issues there relating to leadership qualities.

Overall satisfaction with agency

Just over two-thirds of Indigenous employees (67%) were satisfied overall with their current agency, while 16% were dissatisfied. (see Figure 15).

Employees were more likely to be satisfied with their agency if they:

• had been in the APS for shorter durations (86% of employees who had been working in the APS for less than one year compared with 65% of employees with longer durations of service)
• were working at lower classification levels (83% of trainees/apprentices/graduates/cadets and 73% of APS 1–2 staff compared with 65% of staff at higher levels).

Key chapter findings

Approximately eight in ten Indigenous employees were satisfied overall with their current job. This demonstrates that moderate to high proportions of Indigenous employees were satisfied with most aspects of their current job, in line with the average satisfaction rates for all APS employees.

The survey showed that good working relationships was the workplace factor most likely to impact on their job satisfaction, with a broad range of other factors also considered important by a significant proportion of employees.

Between 2005 and 2009, there has been a widespread improvement in Indigenous employees’ satisfaction with workplace factors that they considered to have the most impact on their job satisfaction. The largest increases between 2005 and 2009 were recorded for Indigenous employees’ satisfaction ratings of opportunities for career development, appropriate workload, opportunities to develop skills, and opportunities to utilise skills.

The proportion of Indigenous employees who were satisfied with workplace factors that impact on their job satisfaction was broadly consistent with the APS-average for around half of these factors. Of the remaining factors:

• a few were more positive for Indigenous employees than the APS-average, including opportunities for career development, regular feedback/recognition, chance to be creative/innovative, and opportunities to develop skills
• a few were less positive, including appropriateness of workload, level of autonomy and flexible working arrangements.

It is important that agencies and managers continue to focus on the factors that impact on their employees’ job satisfaction and retention. For example, providing access to flexible working arrangements is of considerable benefit for many Indigenous employees, given they are twice as likely as employees APS-wide to have caring responsibilities and/or cultural obligations that take them away from the workplace (see also chapter 6).

Chapter 6: Employee wellbeing in the workplace

This chapter considers six aspects that are related to Indigenous employees’ wellbeing in the workplace:

• supervisor support for flexible working practices
• carer responsibilities and supervisor support
• community obligations and supervisor support
• bullying and/or harassment
• discrimination
• reporting discrimination, bullying and/or harassment.

Supervisor support for flexible working practices

A very large proportion of Indigenous employees (82%) continue to be satisfied with their supervisor’s support for them to use flexible work practices.¹⁷ This result is unchanged from that recorded in 2005.

The likelihood that Indigenous employees were satisfied with their supervisor’s support in this area varied for some segments of the workforce; for example:

• satisfaction decreased as classification increased (86% of Indigenous employees at the apprentice/trainee/cadet/graduate and APS 1–2 levels were satisfied compared with 74% of staff at the EL2/SES levels—10% of EL2/SES staff were dissatisfied)
• satisfaction decreased as agency size increased (89% of Indigenous employees in small agencies were satisfied compared with 81% in large agencies)
• satisfaction levels were highest for Indigenous employees working in corporate/legal (88%) and regulatory (86%) roles.

Carer responsibilities and supervisor support

Just over half of Indigenous employees (52%) reported having carer responsibilities, a similar result to that in 2005. Indigenous employees are now more than twice as likely as all APS employees (25%)¹⁸ to have such responsibilities.

When asked for the first time in 2009 how satisfied they were with their supervisor’s support in assisting them meeting their carer obligations, eight in ten (78%) Indigenous employees with caring responsibilities stated they were satisfied.

Indigenous employees were more likely to have caring responsibilities if they were:

• female (56% compared with 45% of males)
• aged 35–44 years (68% compared with 22% of employees aged less than 25 years and 30% aged over 54 years)—employees in this age group also recorded the highest levels of satisfaction (81%) with their supervisor’s support
• working outside the ACT (55% compared with 43% of employees inside the ACT)— those outside the ACT recorded lower levels of satisfaction with their supervisor’s support (79% compared with 85% in the ACT)
• at the APS 5–6 (57%), EL1 (54%) or APS 3–4 (52%) classification levels—APS 5–6 and EL1 staff recorded higher levels of satisfaction with their supervisor’s support (around 84% each) than those at the APS 3–4 level (72%).

Indigenous employees with caring responsibilities were most likely to be caring for children 5–16 years old (60%), children under 5 years old (33%) extended family members (18%) and aged parents (15%). This pattern of results is consistent with that from the 2005 Census.

There was very little variation between different segments of the workforce in terms of for whom they had caring responsibilities; however, women (21%) were more likely than men (14%) to care for extended family members, and younger employees were most likely to be caring for children aged under 5 years old.

Community obligations and supervisor support

Almost two in five Indigenous employees (38%) had cultural and/or community obligations that took them out of the workplace. This is up slightly from the 33% of Indigenous employees who reported that this was the case in 2005.

When asked for the first time in 2009 how satisfied they were with their supervisor’s support in assisting them to meet their cultural and/or community obligations, almost three-quarters of Indigenous employees (72%) with such obligations were satisfied.

Indigenous employees were more likely to have cultural and/or community obligations if they were:

• aged 45 years and over (40% compared with 23% of those aged less than 25 years)— employees aged 45 years and over also recorded the highest levels of satisfaction 78% with their supervisor’s support
• at the EL2/SES (46%) and APS 5–6 (42%) classification levels—employees at these levels were also more likely than employees at most other classification levels to be satisfied with their supervisor’s support (80% and 76% respectively)
• working in small agencies (60% compared with 45% of those in medium and 36% in large agencies)—employees in small and medium agencies (85% each) were also more likely to be satisfied with their supervisor’s support
• working in program design and/or management roles (54% compared with 26% in corporate/legal and regulatory roles)—levels of satisfaction with their supervisor’s support ranged from 85% for employees working in regulatory roles to 51% of those in policy roles.

These results suggest that many Indigenous employees are satisfied with their supervisor’s support in enabling them to use flexible working practices and also in supporting them to meet their caring and community/cultural obligations. This is important for employee wellbeing given the substantial proportion of Indigenous employees with caring and cultural/community obligations.

Some examples of comments in relation to access to flexible working practices include:

I am confident that my Supervisor supports me when needed. I have never had to use my leave to attend cultural/community obligations but if or when I do I know that my Supervisor will support me.

[M]y manager is very supportive of my requests towards work/life family responsibilities. Although always approved I feel as if my ‘commitment’ to my extended family are not fully understood.

People may have attended Cultural Awareness programs, however, people choose what they would like to retain. I also believe the cultural awareness given did not include very important topics e.g.: funerals, men’s/women’s business (not in detail), visitors (extended families), local history, traditional/living in two worlds etc.

A really good supervisor can make this work/life balance WORK in real life by really being understanding and supportive. From my experience, I have had supervisors who ‘don’t give a rats’ about my cultural, family and carer responsibilities. They don’t come out and say it, the non-verbal communication is subtle and sooner or later this impacts on Indigenous staff performance.

…the senior management staff do not have a proper understanding of what cultural and community obligations are. They do not understand the concept of family in the Indigenous sense. Because of this, I find it difficult to rely on my supervisors and senior managers to understand my unique position.

This is one area that I am very satisfied with in my workplace. If you have to go you can go. The only element is funeral leave is identified as being available for use for immediate family members only. My extended family is my immediate family (uncles, aunts, elders who are my grandparents). The way non-Indigenous people view family to how we view family is very different. Culturally, [they’re] our mob we must go and bury them all together. So often this means taking leave of another nature to attend.

It would be more reasonable if the work/life balance was fair across the team and other team members with children were subjected to the same scrutiny as I am when my child was unwell. I actually provided medical evidence to verify without being requested, others are always accepted on face value and not questioned. Should be same rules for everyone.

The following sections consider harassment and/or bullying and discrimination, which are other important aspects that can impact on employees’ wellbeing.

Bullying and/or harassment

This section examines Indigenous employees’ perceptions about whether they had experienced bullying and/or harassment in the last 12 months, its basis, who was responsible, and the nature of the bullying and/or harassment.

Experiences of bullying and/or harassment in the workplace

Just over one in four Indigenous employees (27%) stated that they had experienced bullying and/or harassment in their workplace in the last 12 months (see Figure 16):

• This is up slightly from the levels of perceived bullying and/or harassment reported by Indigenous employees in 2005 (23%).
• Indigenous employees are more likely than all APS employees (17%)¹⁹ to say that they had experienced bullying and/or harassment in their workplace.

Indigenous employees were more likely to say that they had experienced bullying and/or harassment in their workplace in the last 12 months if they were:

• female (27% compared with 20% of males)
• working in large agencies (28% compared with around 20% in other agencies)
• working in policy roles (37% compared with 21% in regulatory roles)
• at the EL1 classification (33% compared with 10% at the apprentice/trainee/graduate/ cadet level) (see Figure 16).

Indigenous employees’ perceptions about experiencing bullying and/or harassment were also related to their career plans. Those employees who had experienced bullying and/or harassment were almost twice as likely as employees who had not experienced bullying and/ or harassment (23% and 13% respectively) to signal their intention to leave the APS in the next three years (see also the discussion about career intentions in chapter 8).

Basis of the bullying and/or harassment

Indigenous employees who had experienced bullying and/or harassment were most likely to identify it as being based on general employment/work issues (45%); perceived personality differences (37%); managerial style (25%); and/or work performance (25%) (see Figure 17).

Employees under 25 years were more likely than other employees to believe that the bullying and/or harassment was related to age (43%).

Person/s responsible for the bullying and/or harassment

Indigenous employees who had experienced bullying and/or harassment were most likely to identify someone more senior (other than their supervisor) (42%), their supervisor (40%) and/or a co-worker (37%) as responsible for the bullying and/or harassment.

• The pattern of responses in 2009 was similar to that recorded for Indigenous employees in the 2005 Indigenous Census, as well as to that reported in the State of the Service Report 2008–09 for all APS employees.
• There were no notable differences across various groups of Indigenous employees (e.g. location, age or classification).

Nature of the bullying and/or harassment

Consistent with the 2005 results, in 2009 Indigenous employees who said that they had experienced bullying and/or harassment identified the nature of the bullying and/or harassment as psychological rather than physical; for example:

• humiliation through sarcasm, criticism or insults, sometimes in front of other employees or clients (52%)
• persistent and unjustified criticism (50%)
• intimidating or aggressive body language (45%)
• deliberately withholding information (35%)
• oral and/or written threats (30%)
• shouting or screaming (20%)
• acts of physical violence (1%).

The nature of bullying and/or harassment was generally consistent across various groups of Indigenous employees; however, employees aged less than 25 years (79%) were more likely than those aged 25–34 years (47%) to identify the nature of the bullying and/or harassment as humiliation.

Discrimination

This section examines Indigenous employees’ perceptions about whether they had experienced discrimination in the last 12 months, the basis of the discrimination, and who was responsible for it.

Experiences of discrimination in the workplace

Almost one in five Indigenous employees (17%) responded that they had experienced discrimination in their workplace in the last 12 months. This is similar to the levels of perceived discrimination by Indigenous employees in 2005 (18%). Nevertheless, it continues to be well above the 9% recorded for all APS employees.²⁰

Indigenous employees were more likely to have experienced discrimination in their workplace in the last 12 months if they:

• were working in the ACT (22% compared with 16% outside the ACT)
• were working in large agencies (19% compared with around 10% in other agencies)
• had graduate qualifications (23% compared with 16% for employees without graduate qualifications).

Indigenous employees’ perceptions about experiencing discrimination were also related to their career intentions. Those employees who had experienced discrimination were almost twice as likely as employees who had not experienced discrimination (25% and 14% respectively) to say that they plan to leave the APS in the next three years. This may in part also explain why Indigenous employees with graduate qualifications are more likely to intend leaving the APS in the next three years (i.e. it may be that discrimination is acting as a ‘push’ factor) (see also the discussion about career intentions in chapter 8).

Basis of discrimination

Indigenous employees who experienced discrimination were most likely to identify its basis as race/ethnicity (59%) (see Figure 18).

• This is lower than the 68% of relevant Indigenous employees who felt this way in 2005.
• Younger and older workers (i.e. those aged under 25 years and those aged 54 years and over) were more likely than other employees to report that the discrimination was related to age as well (48% and 25% respectively).

Person/s responsible for the discrimination

Indigenous employees who had been subjected to discrimination were most likely to nominate someone more senior (other than their supervisor) (47%) or a co-worker (40%) as being responsible for the discrimination. Almost one-third of relevant Indigenous employees (30%) nominated their supervisor as responsible for the discrimination and 15% nominated a client and/or customer.

• The pattern of responses in 2009 was similar to that in 2005, although in 2009, relevant employees were less likely to nominate a co-worker as being responsible for the discrimination (40% compared to 47% in 2005).
• Employees working in service delivery (24%) or administrative support roles (23%), at the APS 3–4 level (23%) or outside the ACT (21%) were more likely than other staff to nominate a client/customer.

Reporting discrimination, bullying and/or harassment

This section explores whether Indigenous employees use formal or informal support structures within their agency to report discrimination, bullying and/or harassment; the types of structures they use; and their level of satisfaction with the way issues are being dealt with. The final part examines whether Indigenous employees feel comfortable raising discrimination, bullying and/or harassment issues within their agency.

Use of agency support structures to report incidents

Indigenous employees who had experienced discrimination, bullying and/or harassment were asked whether they had raised their concerns through any formal or informal support structures in their agency. Just over six in ten Indigenous employees (61%) said that they had, up from the 52% in 2005. The increase in 2009 may in part reflect a slight change in the wording of the question used in 2005 and 2009.²¹

Indigenous employees who had been subjected to discrimination, bullying and/or harassment were more likely to have used support structures if they were:

• working outside the ACT (62% compared with 57% inside the ACT)
• women (59% compared with 50% of men)
• at classifications below EL1 (at least 63% at other classification levels compared with 46% for EL1s and 41% for EL2s/SES).

When it came to the type(s) of formal and/or informal support structures that respondents used to raise concerns about discrimination, bullying and/or harassment, they were most likely to report that they had raised their concerns through a more senior manager—either their supervisor and/or a manager other than their supervisor (43% each). These were also the two support structures most frequently reported in 2005.

• Other support structures that were commonly used included raising their concern with colleagues (30%), their agency’s HR area (21%), and/or the harassment/equity/diversity contact officer.
• The pattern of use of these support structures was generally consistent across most groups of Indigenous employees.

Satisfaction with the way reported incidents are dealt with

Indigenous employees who had experienced discrimination, bullying and/or harassment and had raised their concern were asked how satisfied they were with the way that issues had been handled. Just over one-quarter of relevant employees (38%) were satisfied and a further 24% had a neutral feeling about the way the issues were being handled. The largest proportion of relevant employees (44%) was dissatisfied.

Levels of satisfaction were generally consistent across most groups of Indigenous employees; however, women (30%) were more likely than men (21%) to be satisfied, as were relevant employees in medium (45%) compared to large (25%) agencies.²²

Although levels of satisfaction in 2009 remained unchanged compared with those recorded in 2005, lower levels of dissatisfaction were recorded in 2009 (44% compared with 54% in 2005). The decrease in dissatisfaction was offset by an increase in the proportion of relevant employees providing a neutral response (24% in 2009 compared with 16% in 2005).

Given the sensitivities and emotions often involved in cases of discrimination, bullying and/or harassment, it is unlikely that high levels of satisfaction will be recorded with the way such cases are handled. The higher neutral response in 2009 suggests that agencies may be improving the way they are handling reported cases of discrimination, bullying and/or harassment.

The low level of satisfaction among relevant Indigenous employees about the way that reported incidents of discrimination, bullying and/or harassment are dealt with (28%) reflects the low level of satisfaction reported by all APS employees. In 2004, some 34% of all relevant APS employees were satisfied with the way that reported incidents of discrimination, bullying and/or harassment were managed.²³

Employee comfort in raising issues within their agency

Three-quarters of Indigenous employees reported that they were comfortable in raising discrimination, bullying and/or harassment issues within their agency. Indigenous employees were more likely to be comfortable in raising such issues if they were:

• working in small and medium agencies (91% and 86% respectively compared with 73% in large agencies)
• at lower classification levels (81% of APS 1–2s compared with 71% of EL2s)
• working in service delivery roles (78% compared with 65% in policy roles).

Those Indigenous employees who were not comfortable in raising discrimination, bullying and/or harassment issues within their agency provided a range of reasons why they felt this way. Some of the common reasons included:

• being deterred by potential repercussions
• there was no point as nothing would be done about it
• feeling that their report would not be taken seriously
• a lack of trust in management
• feeling their report would not be believed and/or that it would be too hard to prove.

Examples of some of the comments provided by employees include:

Fear of losing my job and I am already damaged by the bad experiences and I just want to survive in the job because I need the salary and don’t have any options to move out of the section unless I get another job.

Poor track record of dealing with bullying. Nothing ever seems to get done.

It would be covered up or ignored.

Afraid of reprisal—don’t trust the people I work with—with the exception of one or two people. Others not able to provide support as it will be deemed someone is taking sides and the issues are not listened to and are generally crushed and or marginalised or place the other person (who is witnessing) in as bad a situation as you are.

Lack of proof, as the criticism has sometimes been said to others and they do not want to ‘rock the boat’. It’s said in a joking way ‘ha ha you got the job because you’re Aboriginal’.

Key chapter findings

Managers who support staff to achieve work and life balance are key contributors to fostering employee wellbeing. Such support is particularly important for many Indigenous employees given that they are more than twice as likely as employees APS-wide to have caring responsibilities (52% and 25% respectively), and that 38% have cultural and/or community obligations that take them out of the workplace.

• It is, therefore, a positive sign that Indigenous employees continue to report high levels of satisfaction with their supervisor’s support for flexible working practices.
• Indigenous employees with caring, community and/or cultural obligations that take them out of the workplace also reported high levels of satisfaction with their supervisor’s support in assisting them to meet these obligations.

Results were less positive, however, in other important areas of employee wellbeing, including discrimination, bullying and/or harassment. Indigenous employees were twice as likely as employees APS-wide to report that they had experienced discrimination, bullying and/or harassment in their agency in the last 12 months. It is not clear why this is the case, but it is of considerable concern, especially since these unacceptable behaviours appear to have an adverse impact on retention—Indigenous employees who had experienced discrimination, bullying and/or harassment were almost twice as likely as those who did not report such negative experiences that they intend to leave the APS in the next three years.

It is of considerable concern that bullying and/or harassment appear to be particular issues for Indigenous employees in the following two groups:

• Indigenous employees in large agencies were more likely than employees in medium and small agencies to have experienced bullying and/or harassment.
• Similarly, EL1s were more likely than employees at other classification levels to report that they had been subjected to these negative behaviours.

Gaining an understanding of why bullying and/or harassment are higher among these two groups of Indigenous employees may enable agencies to develop strategies to improve the retention of these employees.

An additional challenge for agencies is building EL1s’ confidence and trust in agency support structures—EL1s were least likely to use formal and/or informal support structures within their agency to raise bullying and/or harassment issues.

Tackling the issue of discrimination, bullying and/or harassment requires a concerted effort from agencies, management and supervisors. It appears that two different but interrelated strategies will be needed as discrimination was seen to be predominately based on race/ ethnicity, whereas bullying and/or harassment was seen to be largely the result of management and work-related issues. There is also a need to shift from a culture where employees feel uncomfortable reporting such incidents because of perceived potential repercussions to one where a more culturally appropriate approach is taken to support employees who raise concerns.

Chapter 7: Management effectiveness and learning and development

This chapter considers six aspects that are related to Indigenous employees’ views about management effectiveness and learning and development:

• attributes Indigenous employees would like to see in a supervisor
• current supervisor’s performance
• time spent on off-the-job learning and development activities
• priority areas for development
• development programs and opportunities
• overall satisfaction with learning and development.

Attributes Indigenous employees would like to see in a supervisor

Employees were asked to select the five attributes that they would most like to see in a supervisor. Employees were most likely to select ‘demonstrates honesty and integrity’, ‘respects staff as individuals’, and ‘works with staff to find solutions to problems’. The five attributes most likely to have been selected in 2009 were similar to those selected in 2005 (see Table 5).

Table 5: Top five attributes employees would like to see in a supervisor, 2005 & 2009

	% respondants
Attribute	2005a	2009
a Please note that the 2005 results shown in this table are different to the published results from the 2005 Indigenous Census survey. This is because the data in this table excludes cases where respondents identified more than five attributes they would like to see in a supervisor. This is done to allow a valid comparison with the 2009 results (in 2009, the online survey did not allow respondents to choose more than five attributes).
Demonstrates honesty and integrity	67	66
Respects employees as individuals	53	51
Works with staff to find solutions to problems	53	43
Stands up for staff	–	40
Sets realistic performance expectations	36	38
Listens carefully to views and opinions	34	–

The attributes selected across various groups of Indigenous employees (e.g. gender, educational attainment, age and classification) were generally consistent.

Current supervisor’s performance

This section examines employees’ perceptions about aspects of their current supervisor’s performance, including whether people in their workgroup feel valued for their contribution.

Supervisor attributes

After employees had nominated the five attributes that they would most like to see in a supervisor, they were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with their current supervisor’s performance against these attributes.

• The two attributes that employees were most likely to nominate as important were also the two attributes where relevant employees were most likely to be satisfied (see Tables 5 and 6).
• Relevant employees were least likely to be satisfied with their supervisor’s performance in the area of providing informal feedback—they were also most likely to be dissatisfied with their current supervisor’s performance in this area (23%).

Table 6: Top five attributes employees would like to see in a supervisor and satisfaction with their supervisor’s performance, 2009

Attribute	% respondents	% satisfied with supervisor’s performance	% dissatisfied with supervisor’s performance
Demonstrates honesty and integrity	66	73	12
Respects employees as individuals	51	73	13
Is empathetic and understanding	22	70	11
Works effectively & sensitively with Indigenous Australians	36	68	12
Is open to new ideas and ways of working	29	67	11
Demonstrates passion to succeed	7	67	13
Works with staff to find solutions to problems	43	67	15
Sets realistic performance expectations	38	66	15
Possesses relevant job skills	27	64	17
Listens carefully to views and opinions	36	64	16
Clearly articulates organisational goals	19	62	17
Provides access to effective learning & development	25	62	18
Is respectful of diverse points of views	21	62	15
Stands up for staff	40	60	19
Provides quality informal feedback	32	58	23

Employees’ level of satisfaction with their supervisor’s performance against the attributes that they nominated as important was generally consistent across most groups of Indigenous employees. There were, however, some differences in satisfaction levels based on classification and age:

• APS 1–6 staff were generally more likely to be satisfied with each attribute than EL/SES employees.
• Employees aged less than 25 years were generally most likely to be satisfied with each attribute compared to employees in other age groups.

Summary index results

A summary index was created from the results of the supervisory attribute question in the census survey. The index ranges from zero (the respondent was very dissatisfied with all of the attributes they nominated as important) to 10 (the respondent was very satisfied with all of the attributes they nominated as important). An index of five translates to a respondent on average being neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with their nominated attributes.

Just over three-quarters of employees (76%) were on average satisfied with their supervisor’s performance against the attributes that they consider to be important. This is similar to the 74% recorded in 2005.

Employees’ levels of satisfaction with their supervisor’s performance against the attributes they consider to be important varied across different groups of Indigenous employees. Table 7 shows that there were differences in employee satisfaction levels based on age, classification level, length of service in the APS, and the type of work employees were performing.

Table 7: Satisfaction with supervisor’s performance against five most important attributes— summary index results by group, 2009

Group		Supervisor summary index rating > 5 in 2009 (%)
Age	< 25 years	83
	25–54 years	74
	> 54 years	79
Classification	Training classifications	88
	APS 1–2	85
	APS 3–4	77
	APS 5–6	73
	EL1	66
	EL2/SES	83
Length of service in the APS	<1 year of service	82
	1–5 years of service	77
	6–20 years of service	74
	> 20 years of service	73
Type of work	Policy	70
	Program design/management	73
	Service delivery	76
	Exercising regulatory authority	89
	Corporate/legal	73
	Administrative support/clerical	70
	All Indigenous respondents	76

Employees’ levels of satisfaction with their supervisor’s performance against the attributes they consider to be important were also related to their career intentions. Those employees who were on average satisfied with the attributes they nominated as important were less likely to flag that they intend to leave the APS in the next three years (11% compared with 30% of other employees) (see also the discussion about career intentions in chapter 8).

Overall effectiveness of supervisor at managing people

Just over half of Indigenous employees (54%) rated the overall effectiveness of their supervisor at managing people as ‘high’ or ‘very high’—up slightly from 50% in 2005. Almost one-third of employees (31%) rated their supervisor’s effectiveness as ‘moderate’ and 14% rated it as ‘low’ or ‘very low’.

Indigenous employees were more likely to rate their supervisor’s effectiveness as ‘good’ or ‘very good’ if they were:

• at lower classification levels (69% for apprentices/trainees/cadets/graduates and 66% for APS 1–2 level staff compared with around 49% for APS 5–6 and EL1s)
• aged less than 25 years (64% compared with around half of employees aged 45–54 years and older than 54 years)
• working in service delivery roles (55% compared with 46% in regulatory roles).

Indigenous employees’ perceptions about their supervisor’s effectiveness at managing people were also related to their career intentions. Those employees who rated their supervisor’s effectiveness as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ were more than twice as likely as employees who were positive about their supervisor’s effectiveness to say that they intend leaving the APS in the next three years (28% and 12% respectively) (see also the discussion about career intentions in chapter 8).

Feeling valued

A majority (59%) of Indigenous employees reported that the people in their work group felt valued for their contribution to their work area. However, just under one in five (18%) disagreed that people felt this way. These results are better than those recorded for all APS employees, where 52% agreed that people in their work group felt valued for their contribution and 23% disagreed.

Indigenous employees were more likely to agree that people in their work group felt valued for their contribution if they were:

• at the training classifications or EL2/SES levels (76% and 68% respectively, compared with 54% of APS 5–6 employees)
• working in medium size agencies (71% compared with around 58% in other agencies)
• under 25 years (69% compared with 56% for those aged 25–35 years)
• working in service delivery or regulatory roles (63% and 58% respectively, compared with around 50% for those working in policy and corporate/legal roles).

Learning and development

Managing teams and people is just one of the many aspects of a supervisor’s role. They also have a key role to play in supporting employees to develop their skills. Both on-the-job and off-thejob learning and development can assist employees in this way. The following sections examine employees’ perceptions about aspects of learning and development activities in the APS.

Time spent on off-the-job learning and development

Most Indigenous employees (79%) had spent some time on off-the-job learning and development activities during the last 12 months—one in five employees (21%) had spent no time on learning and development activities.

• This represents a better result than that recorded in 2005, when 74% of Indigenous employees reported engaging in such activities and 26% did not participate.
• In 2009, compared with employees APS-wide, Indigenous employees were slightly less likely to have spent time on off-the-job learning and development activities (83% and 79% respectively).

In 2009, Indigenous employees were most likely to have spent 3–5 days (23%) or 1–2 days (22%) on off-the-job learning and development. This is similar to the pattern of results recorded in 2005.

The time Indigenous employees had spent on off-the-job learning and development varied by classification, location, agency size and educational attainment:

• Apprentices/trainees/graduates/cadets were most likely to spend the most time (62% spent more than 10 days, compared with 7% of employees at the APS 1–2 level).
• Employees had also generally spent more time on off-the-job learning and development if they were located in the ACT, worked in larger agencies, and/or had graduate qualifications.

Development priority areas

When asked about their priorities for learning and development, Indigenous employees placed a ‘high’ priority on developing people-oriented skills. The most commonly nominated priorities were to develop communication (69%), leadership (65%) and management (59%) skills. These three areas were also most likely to be nominated as ‘high’ priorities in 2005.

Development priority areas varied for some groups of Indigenous employees; for example, differences occurred based on age, location, classification and type of work:

• Older employees were generally more likely to place a lower priority on all areas of skills development. Those aged over 54 years were generally least likely to place a ‘high’ priority on any areas of learning and development.
• Employees in the ACT were more likely to place a ‘high’ priority on developing public administration skills, whereas employees working outside the ACT were more likely to place a ‘high’ priority on developing other public service-specific capabilities.
• There was variation across classification levels: for example, EL2/SES employees were more likely to place a ‘high’ priority on leadership skills (80%), whereas APS 1–4 employees were most likely to place a ‘high’ priority on communication skills (see Table 8).
• These variations appeared to reflect the different skills and capabilities required for different types of work; for example:
  • employees who mainly worked in policy roles were more likely than those in service delivery roles to place a ‘high’ priority on developing public administration skills (74% and 43% respectively)
  • employees in program design and/or management roles were more likely than those in administrative support/clerical roles to place a ‘high’ priority on developing leadership skills (72% and 47% respectively).

Table 8: Learning and development priorities identified as ‘high’ by employees by classification, 2009

	Classification
Area	APS 1–4 (%)	APS 5–6 (%)	EL1 (%)	EL2/SES (%)
Leadership (e.g. general leadership development, whole of government approaches)	59	74	68	80
Public administration (e.g. writing for government, policy development, implementation)	45	55	52	60
Management (e.g. project, financial, time, contract and people management)	52	69	65	67
Other public service capabilities (e.g. customer skills, community consultation, record keeping, program delivery)	60	51	34	44
Technical, relevant to specific jobs (e.g. knowledge of specialist areas, legislation)	58	59	51	51
IT (e.g. training in agency specific IT systems, computer skills)	45	41	36	23
Communication skills (e.g. presentation skills, cultural sensitivities, negotiation)	70	69	57	60

Development programs and opportunities

This section examines Indigenous employees’ views about the type of learning and development programs they find most beneficial, and whether they have the same opportunities as non-Indigenous staff to access learning and development.

Program preferences

Indigenous employees were asked whether they learnt more from development programs specifically targeted at Indigenous employees, general programs open to everybody, or a combination of the two. Almost half of Indigenous employees (46%) felt that they learnt the most from a combined approach, while 29% believed that general programs were best, and 16% preferred programs targeted at Indigenous employees.

The type of programs that employees felt that they learnt the most from varied for different groups of Indigenous employees; for example, differences were found based on classification, location, agency size and educational attainment:

• As employees’ classification levels increased, they were less likely to report that they learnt best from programs targeted specifically at Indigenous employees (22% of apprentices/ trainees/cadets/graduates and 20% of APS 1–2s compared with 1% of EL2/SES employees).
• Employees aged over 54 years were most likely to prefer Indigenous-specific programs (28% compared with less than 18% for all other age groups).
• Employees with graduate qualifications, located in the ACT, and/or from agencies with a small number of Indigenous employees tended to think they learnt more from general programs compared to their counterparts.

Opportunities to access learning and development

When asked about their opportunities to access learning and development, three-quarters of Indigenous employees agreed that they had the same opportunities as non-Indigenous staff in their agency. One in ten employees (11%) disagreed that this was the case and a further 14% were unsure. These results are similar to those recorded in 2005.

Indigenous employees were more likely to agree that they had the same opportunities as non-Indigenous staff to access learning and development if they were:

• at higher classification levels (86% of EL1s compared with 68% of APS 1–2 staff)
• aged 25–34 years (79% compared with 67% of those aged over 54 years)
• working in small agencies (83% compared with 76% in large and 66% in medium agencies).

Overall satisfaction with learning and development

Just over half of Indigenous employees (55%) were satisfied overall with their access to learning and development opportunities in their agency. One in five employees (22%) were dissatisfied, and a further 23% provided a neutral response. These results are consistent with those from the 2005 Indigenous Census and those recorded for all APS employees in the 2009 State of the Service Employee Survey.

There was not a lot of variation in agreement levels across different groups of Indigenous employees. There was, however, some variation based on classification, with overall satisfaction generally increasing with classification (see Figure 19). Employees at the apprentice/trainee/graduate/cadet level were most likely to be satisfied (80%), whereas staff at the APS 3–4 level were most likely to be dissatisfied (25%).

Some employees were very positive about their access to learning and development, but others were not so positive. Some of the reasons why employees were less positive about their access included there being a lack of funding to support training (especially employees working outside of the ACT), and that high workloads meant that they were unable to be released to attend off-the-job training.

Some employees commented that they did not have the same access as non-Indigenous staff to learning and development opportunities.

Examples of comments provided by employees include the following:

Everyone has access to the same learning and development.

Most training is Canberra orientated and there are very limited funds to travel to Canberra to undertake some of the training that would be beneficial.

My Supervisor is extremely supportive of any learning opportunities that arise and encourages my participation in any networking opportunities etc.

I am very satisfied that I am able to access training whenever it is offered; however, I am only able to attend training when it is free.

Opportunities may be there in the sense that you can fill in the paperwork/request to attend, but time is an issue.

I have the same opportunities as other State Office staff; however, there is a vast difference between L&D opportunities here and National Office.

Key chapter findings

Indigenous employees were most likely to report that the attributes they would most like to see in a supervisor were ‘honesty and integrity’, ‘respect for employees as individuals’ and the ability to ‘work with staff to find solutions to problems’.

• Respondents were also most likely to be satisfied with their supervisor’s performance against the two attributes that they were most likely to nominate as important.
• There appears to be scope, however, for some supervisors to improve the quality of the informal feedback that they are providing to staff.

Between 2005 and 2009, there has been a slight increase in the proportion of Indigenous employees who believed that their supervisor was highly effective at managing people— although still only just over half of employees (54%) thought this was the case. Employees in middle manager roles (i.e. APS 5–6 and EL1) were least likely to be positive about their supervisor’s performance.

Supervisors have a significant impact on an employee’s decision to stay in an area, the agency or even the APS as they are the part of the ‘management team’ that has the day-to-day contact with staff. Given that employees who had a negative perception about their supervisor’s performance were more likely to say that they intend to leave the APS in the next three years, it is important that supervisors have the skills to perform their roles effectively and in a culturally appropriate manner.

Most Indigenous employees reported that they had spent some time on off-the-job learning and development in the last 12 months. They were slightly less likely than employees APS-wide to have done so. Accessing learning and development appeared to be a concern particularly for employees based outside the ACT, with the cost of travel as well as being released for training cited as common barriers by employees outside the ACT. These results suggest that agencies need to examine ways of improving access to learning and development for employees outside of the ACT.

Although almost half of Indigenous employees thought that they learnt the most from a mix of Indigenous-specific and general programs, a significant number of employees reported a preference for only general or Indigenous-specific programs. These results suggest that there is a need to ensure that there continues to be a mix of programs available to Indigenous staff.

Targeting Indigenous-specific programs at lower classification levels (e.g. apprentices/ trainees/graduates/cadets and APS 1–2) may be most beneficial.

Chapter 8: Selection processes and workforce planning

This chapter considers seven aspects that are related to Indigenous employees’ views regarding selection processes and workforce planning:

• their views regarding APS selection processes
• ways of increasing Indigenous representation in the APS
• their experiences in applying for APS jobs in the last 12 months
• factors hindering Indigenous employees seeking higher positions in the APS
• career intentions
• equity in career development opportunities
• prior employment in the APS and reasons for leaving.

Views regarding APS selection processes

When asked about the selection process for APS vacancies, a high proportion (80%) of Indigenous employees agreed they were able to interpret the selection documentation/job package and understood what was required of them when submitting a job application.

Employees were somewhat less positive regarding the interview process, with 73% reporting they felt confident they could present themselves well in interviews.

Similar results were recorded across most areas in 2005. The main differences were that in 2009, Indigenous employees were more likely to agree that:

• they were confident that they could present well at interview (up from 66% to 73% in 2009)
• recruitment providers/assessment centres provided a fair and objective assessment of skills (up from 31% to 43% in 2009).

Some differences emerged between different groups of Indigenous employees:

• Employees who were graduate-qualified, worked in small agencies, and were located in the ACT were more likely to provide a positive response in terms of submitting job applications and presenting themselves well at interviews.
• Employees aged under 35 years and those at lower classification levels were more likely to agree that the use of recruitment providers or assessment centres provided a fair and objective assessment of skills.

Employees were also asked whether they would prefer to apply for vacancies that are only open to Indigenous Australians²⁴, advertised as an identified position²⁵, or open to all Australians. Almost half (48%) preferred to compete in a general recruitment process, 42% preferred applying for an identified position, and 37% agreed that they preferred applying for a position reserved for Indigenous applicants.

• About 40% of employees provided neutral responses across all three options, suggesting that whether the vacancy is Indigenous-only, identified or open to everybody is not an important consideration for many prospective employees.
• These results are consistent with those from 2005.

There were, however, some differences across different groups of Indigenous employees in the type(s) of positions for which they would prefer to apply. Differences were found based on classification, location, educational attainment and type of work:

• Employees at lower classification levels were more likely to prefer to apply for identified positions and Indigenous-only positions (e.g. 49% of APS 1–2 employees would prefer to do so, compared with 9% of EL2/SES employees) (see Figure 20).
• Employees were also much more likely to prefer to apply for identified positions and Indigenous-only positions if they worked outside the ACT, did not hold graduate qualifications, and worked in administrative support/clerical or service delivery roles.

Ways of increasing Indigenous representation in the APS

When asked about methods to increase Indigenous representation in the APS, Indigenous employees were positive about a range of approaches. Employees were most likely to agree that using approaches focussed on entry level positions (including graduates, cadets, apprentices and trainees) would be effective. They were least likely to agree that advertising vacancies that are open only to Indigenous Australians would be effective (see Table 9).

Table 9: Ways of increasing Indigenous representation in the APS, 2009

Approach	% agree effective
Increasing number of traineeships/apprenticeships	88
Greater use of Indigenous graduate programs/cadetships	87
Agencies promoting general vacancies more widely to Indigenous Australians (e.g. through Indigenous-specific media)	86
Increasing number of entry level positions	85
Greater use of Indigenous staff on selection panels	84
Agencies promoting themselves better as employers of choice for Indigenous Australians	83
Greater use of identified positions	77
Advertising vacancies that are only open to Indigenous Australians	69

Some groups of Indigenous employees held different views about whether or not particular approaches would be effective. Differences were found based on classification, age and gender:

• Employees at lower classification levels (except apprentices/ trainees/ graduates/ cadets) were much less likely than employees at other classification levels to agree that approaches that focussed on entry level positions would be effective (see Figure 21). Just under three-quarters of APS 1–2 employees agreed that increasing the number of entry level positions would be an effective measure, compared with 95% of EL2/SES employees.
• Employees under 25 years were most likely to agree that promoting general vacancies more widely to Indigenous Australians, such as through Indigenous-specific media, would be effective (87%).
• Females were more likely than males to agree that it would be effective for agencies to promote themselves better as employers of choice for Indigenous Australians (86% and 77% respectively).

Examples of employee comments in relation to attracting and recruiting Indigenous APS employees include:

Aboriginal people need to participate in selection panels as well as assessment centres.

Recruitment needs to be ‘targeted’ and a more realistic approach needs to be addressed, i.e. recognise a person’s ability for what it is and ‘train’ them up.

…I think Indigenous people will be entering in greater numbers via Indigenous specific media, and have a selection panel of (mostly) Indigenous people and a greater amount of entry-level programs.

The Identification Positions Policy is now perceived as ‘the token policy’ because there is the risk of not capturing the full translation and understanding of cultural knowledge. There should be more than one Indigenous staff on the selection panels.. My concern is that cultural information can be incorrectly translated if an interviewer does not fully understand what it is like to be an Indigenous person living with the experiences. What it comes down to though is communication and the communication barriers at the interview that can limit the information sharing and exchange between the Indigenous applicant and the panel.

There seems to be more resources and emphasis on recruiting indigenous APS employees but not retaining them. There is no support/training/development for Indigenous staff when it comes to being competitive for higher positions. There is no succession planning to allow Indigenous staff to have the necessary skills and experience to work at a higher level.

Traineeships, Cadetships and entry level positions will increase numbers of people, mostly short term. There needs to be career pathing, and opportunities at a policy/decision making level to make a real and sustainable difference.

Experiences in applying for jobs in the APS in the last 12 months

Almost half (46%) of Indigenous employees had applied for a position in the APS in the last 12 months. This is a similar result to that recorded in 2005.

• Just over three-quarters of these employees (78%) continued to report that they had applied for a position at a higher classification level.
• Just under one-third of these employees (30%) had applied for an identified position. This is down from 39% in 2005.

The likelihood that employees had applied for a position in the last 12 months varied for some groups of Indigenous employees. Differences were found based on age, location, classification, educational attainment and type of work:

• Employees under 35 years were more likely to have applied for a position (50% compared with 41% of older employees). They were also more likely to have applied for a position at a higher classification level (80% compared with 74%).
• Employees in the ACT were more likely to have applied for a position (66% compared with 40% of employees outside the ACT).
• Employees at the APS 1–2 level and training classifications were least likely to have applied (26% and 30% respectively) and EL1s most likely (58%).
• Employees with graduate qualifications were more likely to have applied (56% compared with 43% of those without graduate qualifications).
• Those in policy roles were most likely to have applied (67% compared with 32% of those in regulatory and 40% of those in service delivery roles).

The likelihood that relevant employees had applied for an identified position also varied for different groups of Indigenous employees. Relevant employees were more likely to apply for an identified position if they:

• worked outside the ACT (34% compared with 25% of those inside the ACT)
• did not hold graduate qualifications (33% compared with 23% of those with graduate qualifications)
• were at lower classification levels (51% of apprentices/trainees/cadets/graduates compared with 16% of EL1 employees)
• worked in program design and/or management or service delivery roles (around one-third each compared with 17% of those in regulatory roles).

In terms of the outcomes from the application process, results in 2009 were consistent with those in 2005. Of the employees who had applied for a position in the last 12 months:

• three in five (60%) had been offered an interview
• one-third (34%) were successful in being offered the position
• two in five (41%) were not offered the position
• almost one in five (17%) reported that the process was not yet complete.

Factors hindering Indigenous employees seeking higher positions

Just under half (46%) of Indigenous employees felt that there were factors that had hindered or prevented them from seeking a higher position in the APS. This represents an improvement on the results of 2005, when 59% of employees thought such factors existed. The decrease in 2009 may in part reflect a slight change in question wording in 2005 and 2009 (see Figure 22).²⁶

Employees were more likely to feel that there were factors that had hindered or prevented them from seeking a higher position in the APS if they:

• worked in large agencies (50% compared with 28% for medium and 39% for small agencies)
• were at the APS 5–6 or EL2/SES classification (around 50% each)
• worked in program design and/or management roles (57% compared with 40% of those in service delivery roles).

Figure 22 demonstrates that relevant employees believed the most common factor to be the limited number of vacancies or opportunities at a higher level (cited by 49%, up from 37% in 2005). Other leading factors were:

• lack of self-confidence (38%)
• not yet having the necessary qualifications and/or experience (29%)
• the recruitment process being too onerous (27%)
• concerns that they could not balance work, family and community responsibilities at a higher level (25%).

Across different groups of Indigenous employees, different factors seemed to be perceived as a barrier to seeking a higher position; for example, differences were found based on age, classification, gender and location:

• Younger employees were more likely to feel that lack of self-confidence, not yet having the necessary qualifications and/or experience, and the limited number of vacancies or opportunities available were barriers. In contrast, they were less likely to say they had no desire to relocate to another area to take up a higher-level position (10% of 25–34 year olds agreed, compared with 25% of those aged over 54).
• As classification level increased, employees tended to be less likely to say that they lacked self-confidence, that they did not have the necessary qualifications and/or experience, and that the recruitment process was too onerous.
• Apprentices/trainees/cadets/graduates were more likely to be concerned about possible discrimination because of their Indigenous heritage (30% compared with less than 9% for all other classification levels). They were also more likely to believe that the recruitment process was too onerous.
• Women were more likely to report factors such as not being able to balance work, family and community responsibilities at a higher level (33% agreed this was a barrier compared with 23% of male employees), and a lack of self-confidence (39% compared with 27%).
• Those working in the ACT were more likely to say that they did not have the necessary qualifications and/or experience for a higher-level position (37% compared with 26% for employees outside the ACT), and that they lacked self-confidence (44% compared with 36% for employees outside the ACT).

Career intentions

This section examines whether Indigenous employees intend to leave the APS in the next three years and the reasons why.

Intention to leave

The following findings are consistent with those from the 2005 Indigenous Census:

• Over half of Indigenous employees (54%) signalled their intention to stay in the APS for at least the next three years.
• A further 31% of employees were undecided about their career intentions.
• In contrast, approximately one in seven Indigenous employees (15%) stated that they intend to leave the APS in the next three years—5% in the next year, 5% in the next 1–2 years, and 5% in the next 2–3 years.

However, it is important to note that these results are merely an indicator of employees’ actual behaviour. Drawing on the findings from the 2005 Indigenous Census and actual separation rates as recorded by APSED for the following three years, there is a moderate proportion of employees who do not indicate in the survey that they intend to leave the APS.

• Intention to leave data from 2005 showed around 61% of Indigenous employees stated a firm intention to leave in each of the following three years
• Actual separation rates as measured by APSED were at least 11% for each of these years. The comparable separation rate for the APS overall at 7% during 2008–09 was significantly lower than for Indigenous employees (11.9% in 2008–09).

Therefore, the intention to leave results flagged in both the 2005 and 2009 Indigenous census suggest that retaining Indigenous employees will continue to be a significant challenge for the APS.

Table 10 shows that there were differences based on agency size, age, classification, length of service in the APS, type of work, and educational attainment. Employees were more likely to intend to leave or not be sure if they:

• worked in small agencies
• were aged over 54 years
• were at the apprentice/trainee/cadet/graduate, EL1 or EL2/SES classifications—60% of graduates were not sure about their career plans for the next three years
• had very short or very long lengths of service in the APS
• had graduate qualifications—26% of employees with postgraduate qualifications intended to leave the APS in the next three years and 34% were not sure.

Table 10: Intention to leave—results by demographic groups, 2009

		Intention to leave APS in next three years (%)
Group		Yes	No	Not sure
Agency sizea	Small	20	48	33
	Medium	16	57	26
	Large	15	53	32
Age	< 25 years	20	43	38
	25–44 years	14	54	47
	45–54 years	16	54	30
	> 54 years	27	44	28
Classification	Training classifications	16	43	41
	APS 1–2	13	54	33
	APS 3–4	14	57	29
	APS 5–6	17	52	30
	EL1	18	47	35
	EL2/SES	15	48	37
Length of service in the APS	<1 year of service	14	51	35
	1–20 years of service	16	53	31
	> 20 years of service	19	51	30
Type of work	Policy	24	42	34
	Program design/management	18	48	34
	Service delivery	13	58	29
	Exercising regulatory authority	12	56	32
	Corporate/legal	17	56	27
	Administrative support/clerical	16	52	32
Educational attainment	Graduate qualifications	19	42	39
	No graduate qualifications	14	57	29
	All Indigenous respondents	15	54	31

There was a range of other factors related to employees’ career intentions within the APS:

• Employees who were on average dissatisfied with their job and/or their agency were around five times more likely to say they want to leave than employees who were satisfied (46% and 40% respectively compared with 9% and 8% respectively).
• Employees who rated their supervisor’s performance negatively were much more likely to want to leave than employees who rated their supervisor’s performance positively (26% compared with 11%) (see also the discussion in chapter 7).
• Those who disagreed that people in their immediate team and/or most people in the agency worked effectively and sensitively with Indigenous Australians were two to three times more likely to say that they intend to leave than employees who recorded a positive response (32% and 28% respectively compared with 14% and 11% respectively).
• Employees who had experienced discrimination, bullying and/or harassment in the last 12 months were around twice as likely as employees who had not experienced these negative behaviours to flag their intention to leave (24% and 24% respectively compared with 13% and 12% respectively) (see also chapter 6).
• Employees who did not think that they have the same opportunities for career development as non-Indigenous staff were around three times more likely to state their intention to leave than employees who thought that the same opportunities existed (33% compared with 12%).
• Those employees who believed that there were factors hindering or preventing employees from seeking a higher position were around twice as likely to say that they intend to leave as employees who did not see any factors hindering their advancement (21% compared with 10%).
• Employees who reported barriers to seeking a higher APS position such as concerns about possible discrimination because of their Indigenous heritage, a lack of positive role models amongst more senior staff, other people’s lack of confidence in them, and/or a lack of support from their supervisor were most likely to report their intention to leave the APS in the next three years (30% to 34%, compared with 12% to 28% for those who reported other barriers).
• Employees who had left the APS and rejoined in the last five years were less likely than other employees to intend to stay in the APS for the next three years (47% compared with 56%).

Reasons for leaving

The most commonly cited reasons why Indigenous employees intended to leave the APS in the next three years were:

• lack of job satisfaction (41%)
• feeling under-valued (35%)
• to pursue job opportunities outside the APS (34%) (see Figure 23).

Of the top five factors influencing employees’ decisions to leave the APS in 2009:

• four can be described as ‘push’ factors, that is, negative aspects of an employee’s immediate work area, the agency as such, or the APS as a whole
• the other factor in the top five (to pursue job opportunities outside the APS) can be said to be a ‘pull’ factor, that is, that a different employment situation is more attractive.

The factors influencing employees’ decision to leave cited in the 2009 census were generally similar to those reported in 2005 (see Figure 23). However, in 2009 employees were:

• more likely to nominate factors such as lack of job satisfaction and better salaries/ conditions elsewhere
• less likely to nominate lack of workplace support, to pursue job opportunities outside the APS and excessive workload as factors influencing their decision to leave.

Across different groups of Indigenous employees, some factors were more likely to influence employees’ intention to leave; for example, differences were found based on location, classification, age, gender, and educational attainment:

• Employees in the ACT were more likely to intend to leave because of a lack of job satisfaction (53% compared with 36% for employees outside the ACT) and feeling under-valued (40% compared with 33%).
• APS 1–6 level employees were more likely to intend to leave because of a lack of job satisfaction (44% compared with 18% of EL/SES employees). In contrast, EL/SES level employees were more likely to intend to leave because of family/caring commitments (19% compared with 11% of APS 1–6 employees).
• Those aged 35 years and over were more likely to nominate poor management (29% compared with 20%) as a ‘push’ factor. In contrast, employees under 35 years were more likely to nominate pursuing job opportunities outside the APS (58% compared with 24%) and a lack of job satisfaction (48% compared with 37%) as reasons for their intention to leave.
• Men were more likely to cite retirement as a reason to leave (20% compared with 11% of women). In contrast, women were more likely to nominate feeling under-valued (39% compared with 29%) and family/caring commitments (15% compared with 6%).
• Employees with graduate qualifications were more likely to nominate reasons such as pursuing job opportunities outside the APS (42% compared with 31% of employees without graduate qualifications) and limited career development opportunities in the APS (31% compared with 25%).

Some examples of employee comments in relation to career intentions illustrate these views:

In the last 5 years all positions above mine (except one) have been filled by non-Aboriginal applicants.

I believe it is difficult for aboriginal people in my position to advance.

I have career intentions, but not within my current agency. Other agencies do not seem to be recruiting much recently, and the ones that are, have not been particularly reliable. While my applications are received and I am made aware of my advancement in the recruitment process, they have all fizzled out, the jobs have all been made unavailable. Very disheartening indeed.

When interesting positions arise, ‘it is who you know’ not ‘what you know’ (unfortunately—not as open as it should be) .

Equity in career development opportunities

More than seven in ten Indigenous employees (71%) agreed that they have the same opportunities to develop their career as non-Indigenous staff in their agency. This is up from the 65% recorded in 2005.

The likelihood that Indigenous employees believed they had the same opportunities as non-Indigenous staff in their agency varied for some groups of employees; for example differences were found based on classification, location, age, agency size, and type of work:

• Staff at the EL1 level and apprentices/trainees/cadets/graduates were most likely to agree (81% and 79% compared with 63% of APS 1–2 employees).
• Employees in the ACT were more likely to agree (77% compared with 69% of employees working outside the ACT).
• Agreement tended to decrease as age increased (73% for 25–34 year olds compared with 61% for those older than 54 years).
• Employees in medium agencies were least likely to agree (65% compared with 72% for large and 78% for small agencies).
• Agreement levels varied from 63% of employees in program design and/or management roles to 79% for employees in corporate/legal roles.

Prior employment in the APS and reasons for leaving

This section examines whether employees had previously worked in the APS and rejoined in the last five years. It looks at their reasons for initially leaving and also why they chose to rejoin the APS.

Leaving and rejoining the APS in the last five years

One in six employees (17%) reported that they had previously worked in the APS, had left the service, and had rejoined within the last five years. This is consistent with the results from 2005. The likelihood that employees had left and rejoined the APS in the last five years generally did not vary substantially across different groups of Indigenous employees.

Reasons for initial decision to leave

The most commonly cited reasons by employees who had left the APS and rejoined in the last five years as to why they had left the APS were:

• family/caring commitments (24%)
• to pursue job opportunities outside the APS (20%)
• feeling under-valued (18%)
• a lack of job satisfaction (18%) (see Figure 24).

The factors influencing employees’ previous decision to leave in 2009 were somewhat different to those reported in 2005 (see Figure 24). In 2009 employees were:

• more likely to nominate factors such as family/caring commitments, better salaries/ conditions elsewhere and having been subjected to discrimination, harassment and/or bullying; but
• less likely to nominate their views conflicting with those of their agency, lack of a personal support network, and limited career development opportunities in the APS.

Across different groups of Indigenous employees, some factors were more likely to have influenced employees’ decision to leave; for example, differences were found based on location, classification, age, gender, and educational attainment. These differences were generally consistent with those currently influencing employees’ decisions to leave the APS.

Reasons for rejoining APS

The most commonly cited reasons for rejoining the APS were:

• needed work, and a position was available (49%)
• the conditions of service in the APS are better (30%)
• opportunity to make a difference for Indigenous Australians (25%)
• the salary is better in the APS (21%) (see Figure 25).

The reasons given in the 2009 survey as influencing employees’ decision to rejoin were generally similar to those reported in 2005 (see Figure 25).

Across different groups of Indigenous employees, some reasons were more likely to have influenced employees’ decision to rejoin the APS; for example, differences were found based on location, classification, age, gender, and educational attainment:

• Employees working in the ACT were more likely to have rejoined the APS because the conditions of service are better (37% compared with 28% of employees outside the ACT). In contrast, employees outside the ACT were more likely to have returned because they needed work and a position was available (52% compared with 36% for employees in the ACT).
• APS 1–6 level employees were more likely to have rejoined because they needed work and a position was available. In contrast, EL/SES employees were more likely to have rejoined because of better salaries in the APS.
• Employees aged over 35 years were more likely than younger employees to report that their family conditions had changed, and one in three employees aged over 54 years had rejoined the APS to come out of retirement.
• Women were more likely to have rejoined because the conditions of service in the APS are better (28% compared with 19% of men).
• Those with graduate qualifications were more likely to have returned to the APS because they had completed their studies and were looking for work again (19% compared with 3%), and they saw an opportunity to make a difference for Indigenous Australians (31% compared with 22%).
• In contrast, employees without graduate qualifications were more likely to have rejoined because they needed work and a position was available (54% compared with 30%) and because their family conditions had changed (21% compared with 10%).

Key chapter findings

The survey results suggest that there is a greater need for strategies focussing on increasing awareness among Indigenous staff about opportunities for higher duties and/or promotion, along with encouragement and support for professional and personal development activities designed to increase employees’ self-confidence, qualifications and/or experience.

Approximately one in seven Indigenous employees stated an intention to leave the APS in the next three years, but it is likely that the number of employees who actually leave is significantly higher than that. These results suggest—once again—that retaining Indigenous employees will continue to be a considerable challenge for the APS.

Of particular concern is that Indigenous employees with graduate qualifications were more likely to intend to leave or not to be sure about their plans for the next three years. Given that Indigenous employees are less likely than employees APS-wide to hold graduate qualifications, agencies should develop and implement strategies to retain this group of employees.

When employees were specifically asked why they intended to leave the APS, a lack of job satisfaction, feeling under-valued, and to pursue job opportunities outside the APS were the most commonly cited reasons. The first two of these reasons can be described as ‘push’ factors within the agency’s control rather than ‘pull’ factors generated externally; therefore, it is possible that a greater focus on actively addressing Indigenous employees’ concerns may contribute to increase the retention of Indigenous employees. This could be achieved by implementing strategies that will:

• raise employees’ satisfaction levels with their job and agency
• ensure that supervisors are effective
• provide an environment where staff are able to work sensitively and effectively with Indigenous Australians
• reduce the incidence of discrimination, harassment and/or bullying.

It is also of interest to note that three of the top four reasons why employees initially left the APS (to pursue job opportunities outside the APS, feeling under-valued and lack of job satisfaction) and rejoined in the last five years were the same reasons cited by employees for intending to leave the APS in the next three years.

The survey results show that although intrinsic factors appeared to be important in influencing employees’ decision to leave the APS, extrinsic factors seemed to be important as well in influencing employees’ decision to rejoin the APS. The most commonly cited reasons for rejoining the APS were needing work and a position was available, conditions of service in the APS are better, opportunity to make a difference for Indigenous Australians, and better salary in the APS.

Chapter 9: Agency support to encourage retention

This chapter considers three aspects that are related to Indigenous employees’ views regarding their agency’s support to encourage the retention of Indigenous staff:

• general perceptions regarding agency support
• access and use of formal support measures
• whether various support mechanisms could contribute to retaining Indigenous employees within the APS.

General perceptions regarding agency support

This section examines Indigenous employees’ general perceptions about their agency’s support for the employment of Indigenous Australians.

Active support by agencies

Almost six in ten Indigenous employees (57%) agreed that their agency actively supports the employment, development, retention, and promotion of Indigenous employees.

• This is up from the 49% of Indigenous employees who agreed that this was the case in 2005.
• Almost one in five Indigenous employees (18%) disagreed with this statement; however, this is an improved result compared with the 22% recorded in 2005.

Indigenous employees were more likely to agree that their agency actively supports Indigenous employees if:

• they were working in medium sized agencies (76% compared with less than 60% of employees in other agencies)—20% of employees in large agencies disagreed
• they were at higher or lower classification levels (agreement levels declined from a high of 71% among apprentices/trainees/cadets/graduates to 51% for APS 5–6 level employees, and then increased to 62% for EL2/SES employees)—the highest levels of disagreement were recorded at the middle management levels (23% for EL1s and 20% for APS 5–6 staff)
• they were aged less than 25 years or over 54 years (64% each)
• they did not hold graduate qualifications (58% compared with 50% for employees with graduate qualifications)—more than one in five employees with graduate qualifications disagreed (21%)
• their agency had short- to medium-term workforce planning strategies in place (58% compared with 39% of employees in agencies without such strategies).²⁷

Working effectively and sensitively with Indigenous Australians

Almost three-quarters of Indigenous employees (73%) agreed that their colleagues work effectively and sensitively with Indigenous Australians—up slightly from 69% in 2005.

Levels of agreement regarding most staff, (i.e. other than immediate colleagues in the agency) working effectively and sensitively with Indigenous Australians remained stable at 58%—15% of Indigenous employees disagreed that this was the case.

Indigenous employees were more likely to agree that their colleagues and/or most staff in their agency work effectively and sensitively with Indigenous Australians if they:

• were at the APS 1–2 level (80% for colleagues and 74% for most staff in their agency)
• were aged over 54 years (81% agreed that their colleagues and 70% agreed that most staff in their agency did so)
• worked in small and medium agencies
• worked outside the ACT (75% compared with 67% inside the ACT for colleagues and 61% and 47% respectively for most staff in their agency)
• did not hold graduate qualifications
• were working in service delivery roles (77% for colleagues and 65% for most staff, compared with 62% and 35% respectively for colleagues and most staff in policy roles)
• were working in an agency that has short- to medium-term workforce planning strategies in place.²⁸

Almost one quarter (24%) of EL2/SES and 19% of EL1 staff disagreed that most staff in the agency work effectively and sensitively with Indigenous Australians.

Other comments in relation to working with people include:

Since I have been here I have seen a real difference in the way staff deal with Indigenous customers. The whole office has really stepped up, and are more open to issues affecting customers and show more respect and understanding for the culture . This kind of attitude has decreased a lot of extra rework and built stronger relationships with community. Now the Indigenous worker is mostly used for complex situations only, by both the other staff and customer, but more for supporting staff.

Because of the lack of cultural competency training within my office and on a national scale, Indigenous issues are not commonly known. There are no training or education tools provided to non-Indigenous staff to better their knowledge of Indigenous people. Although, they seem to be interested, which is a positive aspect.

Have regular training sessions (more than half day) in regional areas for mainstream staff when dealing and working or visiting with Indigenous communities, cultural protocols, sensitivities etc. Too many mainstream staff do not possess any knowledge on how to deal with Indigenous people and when I try to discuss the protocols, sensitive issues etc with them, they do not listen or want to know—they just ‘want to get on with the job’.

I think that there should be a bit more depth to their understanding of Indigenous people and issues. I think that they only know the surface of what affects Indigenous people…

I feel some of my work colleagues are employed within an Identified area for the ‘job status quo’ and lack understanding of cultural issues and empathy. They show no interest in Indigenous events or interest in learning of Indigenous culture that pertain to the position they are employed in.

I feel that some staff in my agency who do not work directly with Indigenous Employment Programs do not have any idea or concept of how to work effectively or sensitively with Indigenous Australians.

Awareness of Indigenous Employment Strategies

Almost six in ten Indigenous employees (57%) thought that their agency had a formal Indigenous Employment Strategy (IES)—up from 51% in 2005. Over one-third of Indigenous employees (36%) were unsure whether their agency had a formal IES and a further 7% did not think that that their agency had such a strategy.

Just over one-quarter of agencies reported in the 2009 State of the Service Agency Survey that their agency had an IES. Large agencies were most likely to have an IES (65% compared with 20% of medium and 12% of small agencies).

A moderate proportion of Indigenous employees working in agencies that had a formal IES²⁹ were uncertain about whether their agency had such a strategy (31%, compared with 52% of employees working in agencies without an IES). Just under two-thirds of Indigenous staff (64%) working in agencies with an IES said that they were aware of the strategy.

Indigenous employees were more likely to be uncertain about whether or not their agency had a formal IES in place if they:

• were at lower classification levels (53% for APS 1–2 employees compared with 8% for EL2/SES staff)
• were working in small agencies (64% compared with 51% of those in medium and 33% in large agencies)—employees in large agencies were most likely to agree that their agency had a formal IES
• were working outside the ACT (39% compared with 28% inside the ACT)
• did not hold graduate qualifications (39% compared with 26% of employees with graduate qualifications).

Knowledge of Indigenous cultural awareness training offered by agency

Almost half of Indigenous employees (49%) said that they knew of Indigenous cultural awareness training being offered by their agency to employees in the last 12 months.

• This is up from the 33% of Indigenous employees who were aware of such training in 2005.
• The increase in 2009 may in part reflect a slight change in the question wording and response options used in 2005 and 2009.³⁰

Indigenous employees were more likely to know about Indigenous cultural awareness training offered by their agency if they:

• were at higher classification levels (80% of EL2/SES employees compared with 42% of APS 1–2 level staff)
• aged less than 25 years (58% compared with 35% of employees aged older than 54 years)
• were working in small agencies (65% compared with 53% in large and 21% in medium agencies)
• were working in the ACT (62% compared with 45% outside the ACT)
• held graduate qualifications (56% compared with 47% for employees without graduate qualifications)
• were working in policy roles (66% compared with 34% of those in regulatory roles).

Access to and use of formal support measures

Indigenous employees reported that there was a range of easily accessible formal support measures in their agency, most notably leave to attend National Aboriginal and Islander Day Observance Committee (NAIDOC) celebrations (77%), Indigenous staff networks (63%), and special leave provisions for ceremonial leave (60%).

• Figure 26 shows that leave to attend NAIDOC celebrations and Indigenous staff networks were also the measures that employees were most likely to have used.
• It also shows that for all other measures (except special leave provisions for ceremonial leave) less than half of employees felt that the measure was easily accessible, and less than 40% of employees had used it.

Some groups of Indigenous employees were more likely to believe that support measures were easily accessible in their agency; for example, differences occurred based on classification, age, and location:

• APS 1–6 employees were more likely than EL/SES staff to think that support measures such as coaching, buddy schemes, special leave provisions for ceremonial leave, and Indigenous-specific training programs were easily accessible in their agency. EL/SES employees were generally more likely than APS 1–6 staff to report that most of the other measures were easily accessible.
• Employees under 25 years were more likely to think that mentoring was easily accessible, and they were also more likely to have used it. Employees aged over 54 years were less likely to find that a range of measures was easily accessible and were generally less likely to have used these measures.
• Employees working in the ACT were more likely than their colleagues working outside the ACT to report that nine of the fourteen measures were easily accessible.

Impact of support measures on retention

At least three-quarters of Indigenous employees said that measures such as leave to attend NAIDOC celebrations, Indigenous staff networks, and targeted learning and development opportunities could assist in retention (see Figure 27). For other measures, at least 60% of Indigenous employees thought that each measure could contribute to retention. Employees were least likely to agree that Reconciliation Action Plans could contribute to retaining Indigenous employees (46%).

Very few Indigenous employees provided comments about any other support mechanisms that they had used in their agency. Some of their comments included:

I have used the local Indigenous Network and found it has been useful for items such as upcoming training opportunities.

Indigenous representation on the National Consultative Committee. This ensures that Indigenous specific issues/views are brought to the table when discussing policies relating to HR and the workplace.

Networking within new recruits, apprentices and grads. When I started my colleagues would meet during the lunch to discuss issues, etc.

Some groups of Indigenous employees were more likely to agree that certain measures could be effective in retaining Indigenous employees; for example, differences occurred based on classification, location and educational attainment:

• EL/SES employees were more likely than APS 1–6 level employees to agree that measures such as mentoring, coaching, and placement/mobility options could be effective (see Figure 28 and Figure 29).
• Employees working outside the ACT were generally more likely than those working in the ACT to agree that each of the measures could be effective.
• Employees with graduate qualifications were more likely than those without graduate qualifications to agree that measures such as coaching, buddy schemes, Indigenous specific study awards, and placement and/or mobility options could be effective in improving retention.

Examples of employee comments in relation to support for Indigenous APS employees to encourage retention include:

The (agency Indigenous staff support program) needs to be put into action and [not] . put on the shelf collecting dust – otherwise we will be waiting a long time for this to change in the way of keeping staff in positions.

Most of the initiatives can contribute. The question is do they. I believe more could be done if there was genuine support as opposed to being seen to be doing the right thing…More ‘damage’ is done when words and actions do not match.

Whilst a lot of Indigenous people want to work in Indigenous programs within agencies there are just as many Indigenous employees that need to try out their skills in the ‘mainstream’ programs and areas of APS agencies and not just pigeon holed into Indigenous client service delivery areas. They are truly an untapped resource that could be utilised more effectively in attracting ATSI people to the APS.

Key chapter findings

Over the last four years, there have been improvements in Indigenous employees’ perceptions regarding their agency’s active support for Indigenous employees, and for their colleagues’ ability to work effectively and sensitively with Indigenous Australians. Although the improvement in the latter area builds on very positive results in 2005, there appears to be scope to improve agency support and ensure that all agency employees are working effectively and sensitively with Indigenous Australians. Indigenous employees who were least likely to be positive about these issues were those working in large agencies, outside the ACT, with graduate qualifications and/or at the EL1 classification.

There is scope for considerable improvement in the promotion and provision of cultural awareness training for all employees.

• Only half of Indigenous employees were aware of the availability of such training in their agency.
• Developing, embedding and sustaining an organisational ethos within which all employees are attuned to cultural differences are critical components in creating supportive workplaces, not only for Indigenous staff but all APS employees as well as external stakeholders.

The 2009 Indigenous Census results demonstrate that there is an opportunity for agencies with an IES to promote them more effectively to staff. It is of concern that moderate proportions of Indigenous employees working in agencies with an IES are not sure whether such a strategy exists in their agency.

Indigenous employees reported that there was a range of support measures that could contribute to retaining Indigenous staff in the APS.

• In some cases, the measures most likely to be nominated as effective in improving retention were also the ones that were easily accessible in agencies (i.e. leave to attend NAIDOC celebrations, Indigenous staff networks, and special leave provisions for ceremonial leave).
• However, there appears to be an opportunity for agencies to place a greater focus on improving accessibility and encouraging Indigenous staff to make use of a wide range of other support measures such as targeted learning and development opportunities, Indigenous-specific training programs, and Indigenous-specific study awards (e.g. scholarships).
• Encouragement to participate in Indigenous-specific events and mentoring may also assist in improving the retention of Indigenous employees.

Given employees’ views about support measures varied by classification, consideration should be given to targeting particular measures to different groups of Indigenous employees (e.g. placement and mobility options for EL and SES staff).

Appendix A: Indigenous APS Employees Census Survey Methodology

The 2009 Indigenous Census was designed to gain a better understanding of the views of Indigenous APS employees on a range of issues, including pathways to employment, work-life balance, job satisfaction, people management and learning and development. The results of the survey were the main source of information drawn on in producing this report.

Scope and coverage

The survey was conducted as a census of all APS Indigenous employees. The list of employees was drawn from the Australian Public Service Employment Database (APSED). Provisions were also made for Indigenous APS employees who were not identified on APSED to register with the Commission to participate in the survey.

The Commission distributed employee lists to the various agency contact officers to obtain either the email address or workplace postal address of individual staff members. Across all agencies contacted, information was returned for 3,675 employees.³²

Privacy, anonymity and confidentiality

Maintaining confidentiality throughout the entire survey process was of primary concern.

Privacy arrangements for APSED preclude Commission employees, other than those in the APSED team, the Group Manager of the Research and Evaluation Group, and the Commission’s Executive, from accessing APSED data relating to individuals. This meant that the identity of the survey population was not available to the Commission’s Workforce Participation Team or any other non-APSED employees involved in the survey process. A small number of ORIMA Research staff had access to the data.

All responses to the survey were anonymous so that individuals could not be identified. Results have been presented in collated form so that identification of individuals is not possible. While the data has been analysed using some demographic categories, results relating to members of small demographic groups have not been reported where identification of individuals may be possible (or even guessed at).

Each person invited to participate in the census survey was provided with a unique password. This prevented multiple responses from individual respondents.

Survey design

The census survey was designed based on a range of surveys previously conducted by the Commission, most notably the Indigenous Employees Census Survey of 2005 and the 2009 State of the Service Employee Survey.

Pilot testing took place on 9 October 2009, with two groups, of two Indigenous employees each. The pilot testers were asked to complete a hardcopy version of the draft census questionnaire prior to the session and to provide feedback and comments to staff from ORIMA Research and the Commission during the session. The suggestions raised during the pilot testing process were discussed by the ORIMA Research and Commission project teams, and the questionnaire was amended accordingly.

The survey was delivered using two methods. The main delivery was online via a password-protected internet site. The majority of Indigenous APS employees were sent an email from ORIMA Research on behalf of the Commission inviting them to participate in the online survey.

A secondary, paper-based delivery method was developed and implemented for employees working in agencies that do not provide access to an individual email account or do not have (or have only limited) access to the internet. These employees received a letter from the Commission inviting them to participate in the survey, as well as a paper copy of the survey to complete and return to ORIMA Research.

Invitation emails and letters were sent out between 22 and 26 October 2009. Respondents were asked to complete the survey and submit or return it to ORIMA Research by 20 November 2009.³³

An adjustment was made to the final survey population size to account for those out of scope of the survey, including:

• employees who could not be contacted (covering repeatedly bounced emails, returned hard-copy surveys where the address was unknown and those ‘out of office’ for the entire survey period)
• those known to be no longer employed in the APS at the time of the survey
• those who were incorrectly identified on APSED as being Indigenous.

Adjustments were also made to account for those Indigenous APS employees who were not identified on APSED, but who had registered with the Commission to participate in the survey. The final survey population was reduced by 511 to 3,164.

Final response numbers

Overall, 1,649 responses were received from the final (adjusted) survey population of 3,164. This represents a response rate of 52%.

In total, there were 1,550 online responses and 99 hardcopy responses.

Weighting

The survey responses were re-weighted to correct for different response rates between strata. This was done to ensure that the aggregate results represent the underlying demographic profile of Indigenous APS employees. The re-weighting process was based on the following demographic variables:

• level (APS/EL/SES)
• agency (for the 60 agencies where respondents were employed)
• location (ACT and non-ACT).

In total, 150 different weights were applied (noting that not all agencies had Indigenous employees at all levels and/or location). For this survey, the weights were calculated by dividing the overall response rate by the response rate for each stratum; for example, if there were 20 APS 5–6 Indigenous employees in the Commission in the ACT, and the response rate for this group was 80% (with the overall response rate being 52%), the weight assigned to each APS 5–6 respondent working in the Commission in the ACT would be 0.65. If the data were not re-weighted, some strata could be over-represented and others underrepresented in the total survey results.

Results have generally been presented rounded to the nearest whole percentage point (i.e. 88% not 87.7%). Due to this rounding, the percentage results for some questions may not add up to exactly 100%.

Measures of error and accuracy

Two types of error can occur in surveys: sampling error and non-sampling error. As this was a census survey (i.e. every member of the target population was included), the results are not affected by sampling error. However, census surveys can still be affected by non-sampling errors, which cause bias in statistical results and can occur at any stage of a survey. Estimating non-sampling error can be difficult, so it is important to be aware of this type of error and to either minimise or eliminate it from the survey.

Every effort was made to keep the non-sampling errors in the census survey to a minimum by careful survey design and efficient operating procedures. The following section provides a brief discussion of the main types of non-sampling error that could have affected the census survey and should be considered when making inferences to all Indigenous APS employees.

Note: when it is judged that ‘errors were minimised’, this does not imply that the error was zero or close to zero, but rather that it is unlikely that any other reasonable actions could have been taken to address these errors.

Non-sampling error

Coverage error—this error occurs when all relevant population units are not included in the population survey frame. This error applies to the census survey as APSED does not have a complete listing of all Indigenous APS employees.³⁴ The survey was extensively promoted to encourage Indigenous APS employees who were not identified on APSED to register with the Commission to participate in the survey so as to minimise this error.

Non-response error—this error potentially applies to any survey with a less than 100% response rate. However, the reasonable response rate achieved (52%) and the relatively similar response rates across strata indicate that this error was minimised.

Respondent error—this error occurs when a respondent does not answer a question correctly and can apply in any survey. The pilot testing process and the online, hardcopy and telephone support options would have helped to minimise this error.

Coding and processing errors—these errors occur when errors are made in the recording and coding of responses and in data processing. The online survey delivery option, where the respondents themselves entered the data when responding to the survey, would have minimised errors in the recording and coding of responses. In addition, identifiable errors made by respondents while completing the survey were removed from the results database; for example, blank responses were generally coded to non-response categories.

Interpretation of scales

Scales were included in any question that required a respondent to measure the strength or level of a theoretical construct. In its simplest form in the survey, a scale asked a respondent to rate the level of importance, satisfaction or effectiveness of various workplace variables on a five-point scale.

The scales used in the survey were generally balanced—that is, they allowed the respondent to express one of the two extremes of view (e.g. satisfaction and dissatisfaction). These scales were also designed with a midpoint that allowed respondents to enter a ‘neutral’ response.

When interpreting scales, it is important to realise that there is not an ordinal relationship between points in a scale. That is, the strength of opinion to shift a respondent from ‘neutral’ to ‘satisfied’ may be much smaller than the strength required to shift a respondent from ‘satisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’.

Summary indexes

Summary indexes have been used to assist analysis of results on a number of survey questions comprising several parts. The indexes operate to condense a multiple response question into a single index for comparative purposes; for example, in exploring respondents’ overall level of job satisfaction, a question comprising 15 factors was summarised into a single index using a point scoring system. In this way, analysis of the 15 job satisfaction factors can be supplemented by analysis at the summary level.

Coding of open-ended responses

The survey questionnaire provided specified response options for most questions. It also included open-ended response options for some questions, which enabled respondents to provide a text response to a question. Open-ended options were commonly provided, for example, as part of a specified response question in the form of ‘other (please specify)’.

Some open-ended responses have been coded to assist analysis. Coding involved, for example, removing irrelevant and incidental comments from statistical outputs as well as counting relevant comments against the appropriate response option.

Size of agency

In analysing survey results, comparisons have been made on the basis of the size of the agency and the size of the agency’s Indigenous population.

For the purposes of the survey, agencies were divided into three groups: small, medium and large. Small agencies were defined as having up to 250 employees; medium agencies were defined as having between 251 and 1000 employees; and large agencies were defined as having more than 1000 employees.

Agencies were also divided up into three groups based on the number of Indigenous employees the agency employed (as recorded by APSED): small, medium and large. Small agencies were defined as having fewer than 20 Indigenous employees; medium agencies were defined as having between 20 and 49 Indigenous employees, and large agencies were defined as having 50 or more Indigenous employees.

Appendix B: Demographic profile of survey respondents

Figure 30 to Figure 34 show the demographic profile of respondents to the survey. Some key features of the survey sample include:

• employees were most likely to be aged 35–44 years (32%) or 25–34 (27%) years
• they were most likely to be working in Queensland (26%) or the ACT (23%)
• almost three-quarters of employees were at the APS 3–4 (43%) or APS 5–6 (31%) levels
• just over two-thirds were female (68%)
• almost one-quarter had graduate qualifications (22%).

Glossary

ACT - Australian Capital Territory

the Agreement - National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Economic Participation

APS - Australian Public Service

APSC - Australian Public Service Commission

APSED - Australian Public Service Employment Database

ATSI - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

CDEP - Community Development Employment Projects

Class’n - Classification

COAG - Council of Australian Governments

the Commission - Australian Public Service Commission

EL - Executive Level

Grad - Graduate

HR - Human resources

IAPSEN - Indigenous Australian Public Service Employees’ Network

IES - Indigenous Employment Strategy

Indigenous - refers to both Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people

L&D - learning and development

NAIDOC - National Aboriginal and Islander Day Observance Committee

NT - Northern Territory

NGO - Non-government Organisation

NSW - New South Wales

OS - Overseas

pp - percentage points

QLD - Queensland

RAP - Reconciliation Action Plan

SA - South Australia

SES - Senior Executive Service

the Strategy - APS Employment and Capability Strategy for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Employees

TAS - Tasmania

training classifications - include graduate, trainee, apprentice and cadet positions

VIC - Victoria

WA - Western Australia