Non-English speaking background

As indicated above, the term ‘NESB’, representing people from a non-English speaking background, is used in APSED. In the absence of an alternative, the measure used to analyse data for this purpose is NESB1, which includes people born overseas whose first language was not English. NESB2 data, which includes children of certain migrants, has not been included as there is little evidence of employment disadvantage having occurred.

The proportion of people in the APS who identified themselves as being from a NESB1 rose a little during the past year, from 5.2% in 2004 to 5.3% in 2005. Representation for this group has been particularly stable over the past decade, varying by less than half of one percentage point over the period.

The 20 most common countries of origin for APS employees born overseas, beginning with the most common, were: England, India, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Vietnam, Philippines, Scotland, Hong Kong, China, Germany, the USA, Italy, Poland, South Africa, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Canada, Mauritius, and the Netherlands.

The 10 most common first languages, other than English, spoken by APS employees (again, beginning with the most common) were: Chinese (including Cantonese and Mandarin), Italian, Greek, German, Vietnamese, Polish, Spanish, Croatian, and Dutch.

Figure 9.9 shows the representation of NESB1 employees by classification from 1996 to 2005. Representation rose or remained steady for NESB1 employees at all classification levels this year. NESB1 employees who entered the APS through trainee classifications are much more likely to do so via graduate programmes than through other training opportunities. At June 2005, 5.9% of graduate trainees were NESB1, compared with only 2.1% of other trainees.

NESB1 employees are much more likely to have graduate qualifications than are other employees—at June 2005, over two-thirds (71.5%) of NESB1 employees had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with the APS average of 49.9%.³²

The classification profile of NESB1 employees is higher than that of other diversity groups, and closer to that of the overall APS. NESB1s have lower representation only at the EL classifications (18.9% compared to 22.5% of total APS) and in the SES (0.6% compared to 1.6% of total APS). This group’s high representation in the graduate trainee classification—seen as a feeder group to these higher classification groups—suggests that their representation should improve at the EL and SES classifications over time.

Figure 9.9: Proportion of ongoing staff by classification who are NESB1 1996 to 2005

Source: APSED

Representation of NESB1 employees varies between agencies, with the Royal Australian Mint (29.9%), National Library of Australia (NLA) (16.1%), IP Australia (15.0%) and the Australian Research Council (14.5%) being the highest. Figure 9.9 shows representation for those agencies with more than 1000 ongoing employees.

Figure 9.10: Representation of NESB1 employees in agencies with more than 1000 ongoing employees, June 2005

Source: APSED

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

Few agencies have specific initiatives for NESB employees and, while there is little evidence of employment disadvantage for NESB2 employees, the representation of NESB1 employees in the APS has remained relatively stable over the last decade, with a slight increase in 2005 to 5.3%.33 In some agencies there has been a move towards a ‘productive diversity’ model—capitalising on the talents of language and cultural diversity in the workplace for business benefits—rather than one of perceived deficit (disadvantaged groups). Centrelink, for example, reports on the number of employees who speak a language other than English and/or English and another language. A number of agencies are using the skills of bilingual employees to better meet the needs of their clients.

Employee perceptions

The 2005 employee survey asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement with the statement, ‘my agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of people from all cultural backgrounds’, as it applies in their agency. Eighty- one per cent of all respondents agreed with the statement. This result was similar to employees’ level of agreement that their agency supports the employment of women, and is higher than comparable results for Indigenous Australians and people with a disability. The range among large agencies was the narrowest of all four EEO groups, extending from a low of 55% to a high of 87%, with the highest results being at ABS, ATO, BoM, Centrelink, CRS, Defence, DAFF, DEST, DFAT, and DIMIA.

Eighty-two per cent of non-NESB1 respondents agreed with the statement that their agency actively supports the employment, development and promotion of people from all cultural backgrounds, compared to 73% of respondents who identified themselves as being from a NESB1.

The APS result is consistent with positive results in the Victorian public sector from the Victorian Government’s People Matter Survey 2004 in relation to employees’ perceptions of cultural background issues. The Victorian Government found that agreement that cultural background is not a barrier to success is only marginally lower among employees who speak a language other than English at home (85%) compared to employees who speak English at home (88%).³⁴

This year the employee survey also asked whether employees thought that their agency needed to do more or less to support people from NESB1. Just under a quarter of employees felt that their agency needed to do either more (18%) or much more (5%) to support the employment, development and promotion of people from NESB1. Forty-eight per cent of people from NESB1, however, felt that their agency needed to do more to support them, compared with 19% of non-NESB1 respondents.

The generally high level of agreement that agencies support the employment of people from all cultural backgrounds was reflected in the limited number of comments made by employees about NESB employees in the APS.

Job satisfaction and other employee indicators—people from a non-English speaking background

Based on the job satisfaction index,³⁵ NESB1 employees reported similar levels of overall job satisfaction to non-NESB1 employees; 71% of both groups were, on average, satisfied with the factors they nominated as important. Table 9.17 shows that four of the top five job satisfaction factors were common to both NESB1 and non-NESB1 employees. ‘Opportunities to utilise my skills’ was included only in the top five factors for NESB1 employees, whilst ‘regular feedback/recognition for effort’ was included only in the top five factors for non-NESB1 employees.

Table 9.17: Most important job satisfaction factors, by NESB1 status, 2004–05

Note: The ‘per cent satisfied’ includes only those respondents who selected the factor and then rated their satisfaction.

Source: Employee survey

Table 9.17 also shows the proportion of each group satisfied with the factors they had identified as important. The majority of NESB1 employees were satisfied with four (out of five) of their most important job satisfaction factors, with only 39% of NESB1 employees who selected the factor ‘salary’ actually satisfied with this factor (this compares to 51% of relevant non-NESB1 employees being satisfied with this factor). The majority of non-NESB1 employees were also satisfied with four (out of five) of their most important factors.

When employees’ perceptions of their immediate supervisors’ leadership and management capabilities were examined, the views of NESB1 and non-NESB1 employees differed. Based on the supervisor capability index, NESB1 employees rated their immediate supervisor’s leadership capability lower than that of non-NESB1 employees. Only 57% of NESB1 employees rated their immediate supervisor’s overall leadership capability above average, compared to 69% of non-NESB1 employees. NESB1 employees were also less likely to rate their immediate supervisor as highly effective at managing people (46% compared to 51% of non-NESB1 employees).

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

33 The representation of NESB1 employees has increased compared with the level reported last year. This is due to a revision in the calculation of this group’s representation. Previous years’ data has also been revised, so any longitudinal movement is not due to the change in methodology.

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

35 Background information on the job satisfaction and other employee indicator questions in the employee survey is found above at the section ‘Job satisfaction and other employee indicators–women’.

go to top of the page