ACT Public Sector 2016-17

At 30 June 2017 the ACT Public Sector consisted of a workforce of 24,148, making up 11.2 per cent of the Territory’s labour force39. Overall, the ACT Public Sector had an increase of 1.9 per cent in the workforce from June 2016 to June 2017 (up from a headcount of 23,693 at June 2016). This increase is slightly more than the 1.9 per cent total increase of the Australian labour workforce during the same period40.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees in the ACT Public Sector were represented by a headcount of 375, making up 1.6 per cent of all ACT Public Sector employees. The headcount of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees in the ACT Public Sector has increased 13.0 per cent from the 332 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees at June 2016. The gradual increase of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees within the ACT Public Sector demonstrates the success of the ACT Government’s commitment to diversity employment.

ACT Public Sector employees who identified as a Person with Disability were represented by a headcount of 548 (up from 486 at June 2016) or 2.3 per cent of all employees. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse employees were represented by a headcount of 4,138 (up from 3,933 at June 2016) or 17.1 per cent of all employees.

Table 30 - Distribution of the ACT Public Sector (June 2017)41

 

ACTPS41

ACT Audit Office

Elections ACT

Calvary Health Care (Public)

Canberra Institute of Technology

Cultural Facilities Corporation

Office of the Legislative Assembly

Total

FTE total

19,276.7

37.2

11.1

1,048.8

687.6

88.3

49.8

21,199.4

FTE - permanent

15,182.5

30.6

8.5

932.7

425.2

36.0

39.8

16,655.3

FTE - temporary

3,403.7

6.6

2.6

77.3

189.7

23.4

7

3,710.3

FTE - casual

690.6

0

0

38.8

72.7

28.8

3

833.9

Headcount total

21,791

39

12

1,262

840

142

62

24,148

Headcount - permanent

16,539

32

9

1,077

445

40

43

18,185

Headcount - temporary

3,791

7

3

86

213

25

7

4,132

Headcount – casual

1,481

0

0

99

182

77

12

1,851

Age (average)

42.5

37.9

42.7

41.5

46.7

42.1

50

43.3

Length of service (average, years)

8.8

5.3

13.8

6.3

10.3

5.4

9.7

8.5

Separation rate (average permanent headcount)

7.9

24.9

0

11

7.2

0.3

11.6

9.0

Diversity (FTE, headcount): 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders FTE

310.1

0

0

NR

14.3

0

0

324.4

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Headcount

350

0

0

NR

25

0

0

375

People with Disability FTE

464.4

1

0

NR

19.1

2

0

486.5

People with Disability Headcount

521

1

0

NR

25

2

0

548

Culturally & Linguistically Diverse FTE

3,582

18.8

5

NR

115.5

6.0

0

3,727.3

Culturally & Linguistically Diverse Headcount

3970

20

5

NR

135

8

0

4,138

Female FTE

13,728.3

18.6

8.5

809.8

414

46.1

31.2

15,056.5

Female Headcount

14,142

20

9

992

510

81

38

15,792

Table 31 - Snapshot of the ACT Public Sector (June 2016 - June 2017)

 

Jun-16

Jun-17

FTE total

20,852.6

21,169.43

FTE – permanent

16,457.9

16,655.3

FTE – temporary

3,557.06

3,710.3

FTE - casual

837.5

833.9

Headcount total

23,693

24,148

Headcount – permanent

17,921

18,185

Headcount - temporary

3,929

4,132

Headcount – casual

1,843

1,851

Age (average)

42.8

42.4

Length of service (average, years)

8.7

9.8

Separation rate (average permanent headcount)

8.3%

10.7%

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders  FTE

304.1

324.4

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders  Headcount

332

375

People with Disability  FTE

432.1

486.5

People with Disability Headcount

486

548

Culturally & Linguistically Diverse FTE

3,538.9

3,727.3

Culturally & Linguistically Diverse Headcount

3,933

4,138

Female FTE

12,467.7

15,056.5

Female Headcount

14,502

15,792

ACT Public Sector Bodies

At June 2017, public sector bodies employed a total of 2,357 people (headcount), a 3.1 per cent decrease from June 2016. This was due to reductions in staffing profiles at Calvary Health Care and Canberra Institute of Technology of 30 and 38 positions respectively. As can be seen in Table 30 the largest ACT Public Sector body at June 2017 was Calvary Health Care with a headcount of 1,262 employees (1,048.8 FTE), while the smallest ACT Public Sector body was the ACT Electoral Commission with a headcount of 12 employees (11.1 FTE). At June 2017 there were seven public sector bodies:

  • ACT Audit Office;
  • ACT Electoral Commission;
  • ACT Teacher Quality Institute;
  • Calvary Health Care ACT;
  • Canberra Institute of Technology;
  • Cultural Facilities Corporation;
  • ACT Teacher Quality Institute;
  • Director of Public Prosecutions; and
  • Office of Legislative Assembly.

While the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is an ACT Public Sector body, their workforce profile data is incorporated in that of the JACS. Similarly, while the Teacher Quality Institute (TQI) is an ACT Public Sector body their workforce profile data is incorporated into that of the ACTPS. For the purposes of the Agency Survey, the DPP and the TQI report as public sector bodies, and their responses are included with those of the other eight public sector bodies.

Workforce Planning

The 2017 Agency Survey asked public sector bodies whether they had a workforce plan in place. Of the eight, five responded ‘yes’. Of these five bodies, three detailed key workforce strategies to position their organisation to meet future workforce demands. Common strategies identified included:

  • use of ARins and accelerated salary increments;
  • use of consultants and contractors to meet increased work demands;
  • succession planning for critical positions; and
  • the provision of learning and development opportunities so that employees may gain qualifications to meet specific workforce needs.

Attraction & Retention Strategies

Public sector bodies were asked to report on any critical skills shortages, capability gaps or difficulty recruiting to or retaining employees in certain positions during the 2016-17 reporting period. Four bodies highlighted areas where they had experienced difficulty with skills shortages. Due to the specialised nature of the work undertaken in many of the public sector bodies, these skills shortages were particular to each body. For example, Calvary Health Care identified difficulty attracting employees to various positions in specialist health care delivery areas.

Table 32 – Attraction and Retention Incentives, benefits paid under an Australian Workplace Agreement and Special Employment Arrangements in public sector bodies (2016-17)42

 

Total

Total number of new ARins commenced in 2016-17

21

Total number of ARins as at 30 June 2017

39

Total number of SEAs as at 30 June 2017

37

Total number of AWAs as at 30 June 2017

0

Number of ARins terminated during 2016-17

1

Number of SEAs terminated during 2016-17

4

Number of AWAs terminated during 2016-17

0

Number of ARins and/or SEAs providing for privately plated vehicles as at 30 June 2017

0

Total additional remuneration paid under AWAs, ARins and SEAs during 2016-17

$2,635,30742

During the 2016-17 reporting period approximately 0.8 per cent of new employees joining public sector bodies received an ARin.

The range of pay classifications of those employees that received ARins and/or SEAs in the 2016-17 reporting period were from: ASO 5 (classification salary range: $74,081 to $78,415) to Principal 2.3 (classification salary: $139,061).

Preventing Bullying and Harassment

The 2017 Agency Survey asked public sector bodies to report on the number of bullying and harassment related contacts received during the 2016-17 reporting period, and whether the public sector body had a formal system in place for the management of bullying and harassment. Positively, all eight public sector bodies reported having a formal reporting system in place to manage bullying and harassment.

The information in Table 33 provides an insight into the mechanisms of the reporting of bullying and harassment within public sector bodies. It is important to note that the figures captured in Table 29 are not a one for one indicator of bullying and harassment as it is possible for an employee to report through multiple mechanisms, or, have multiple employees report the same incident.

Table 33 – Reports of Bullying and Harassment in ACT Public Sector Bodies (2016-17)

 

2016-17

Total number of contacts received by public sector body RED Contact Officers43

2

Total number of bullying and harassment reports which were informally investigated by HR44 (not by a RED Contact Officer) that did not proceed to a preliminary assessment under Section H of ACTPS Enterprise Agreements

3

Total number of contacts received through RiskMan

2

Total number of contacts received through other mechanisms

3

Total number of reports of bullying or harassment where a formal preliminary assessment under Section H of ACTPS Enterprise Agreements was commenced during the 2016-17 financial year.

3

Total number of reports of bullying or harassment commenced during the 2016-17 financial year that resulted in a misconduct investigation under Section H of ACTPS Enterprise Agreements.

0

Total number of bullying or harassment related misconduct investigations completed during the 2016-17 financial year where a breach of section 9 of the PSM Act was found to have occurred.

2

Total number of bullying or harassment related misconduct investigations that are currently underway/being investigated, as at 30 June 2017. (Total number of investigations commenced, completed and ongoing may not reconcile due to action across financial years).

0

Discipline Action

Public sector bodies were asked to report on the number of investigations they conducted during the 2016-17 reporting period where an employee was cited as having breached section 9 of the PSM Act.

Table 34 – Misconduct Investigations Commenced in 2016-17

 

2016-17

Number of misconduct investigations commenced citing a possible breach of section 9 of the PSM Act

4

Table 35 – Investigations completed in 2016-17 where a Breach(es) of section 9 was Found to have Occurred or where Allegations were Not Sustained

 

2016-17

Number of investigations where a breach of section 9 of the PSM Act was found to have occurred

4

Number of investigations where the allegations were not sustained

0

Public sector bodies were then asked to report on the sanctions imposed as a result of investigations completed in the 2016-17 reporting period, where misconduct was found to have occurred. Table 36 shows the number of outcomes and sanctions imposed as a result of investigations completed in the 2016-17 reporting period. It is important to note that, often more than one sanction can be issued as a result of misconduct and as such the number of investigations resulting in a breach may not reconcile with the total number of sanctions.

As shown in Table 36, the most common reported outcome of misconduct investigations during 2016-17 was the sanction of written warning and admonishment, with the second most reported outcome being a reduction in increment point.

Table 36 – ACT Public Sector Body Disciplinary Sanctions (2016-17)

 

2016-17

Breach found, but no sanction applied

0

Counselling of employee (not including counselling that occurs outside of a section 9 process)

0

Written warning and admonishment

3

Deferral of increment

0

Reduction in incremental point

1

Removal of monetary benefit derived through an existing ARin/SEA

0

Other financial penalty

0

Fully or partially reimburse employer for damage wilfully incurred to property or equipment

0

Transfer, temporarily or permanently, to other position at level

0

Transfer, temporarily or permanently, to other position at lower classification

0

Termination of employment

0

Employee resigned prior to sanction being imposed

0

Fraud and Risk

Seven small head and shoulder silhouette icons in a vertical line adjacent to the text. Text reads: Seven ACT public sector bodies had a senior executive responsible for business integrity and risk (SERBIR) in place throughout the 2016-17 reporting period.Public sector bodies were asked whether a formal risk assessment had been undertaken during 2016-17 in accordance with the Risk Management Standard, with all eight responding yes.

In the 2016-17 reporting period six public sector bodies reported that they had a current Fraud and Corruption Plan, and when asked if they had reviewed their Fraud and Corruption Plan within the past two years, five public sector reported yes.

Public sector bodies were asked to rate a number of integrity risks within their organisation. Eight public sector  bodies provided a response to this question, the results of which are shown in Table 37.

Table 37 – Integrity Risks ACT Public Sector Bodies (2016-17)

Risk level

1 - Low

2 - Low-Medium

3 - Medium

4 - High

5 - Extreme

IT Systems

4

2

2

0

0

Fraud (clients)

3

2

3

0

0

Finance

3

3

2

0

0

Procurement & Contract Management

3

2

2

1

0

Asset Management

3

3

2

0

0

Fraud and Integrity

2

3

3

0

0

As shown in Table 37, for the 2016-17 reporting period:

  • IT systems was the most frequently recorded response in the low risk category;
  • fraud and integrity, and fraud (clients) were the most frequently recorded responses in the medium risk category;
  • procurement and contract management was the most frequently recorded response in the high risk category; and
  • no extreme risks were identified.

The ACTPS Respect Equity and Diversity (RED) Framework

The 2017 Agency Survey asked public sector bodies to identify whether they provided RED specific training to employees during the 2016-17 reporting period. Four of the eight public sector bodies reported yes, with 57 employees undertaking this training during 2016-17.

Table 38 – Activities to promote the RED message in ACT Public Sector Bodies (2016-17)

 

Number of Bodies

Executive support of NAIDOC Week activities

2

Workplace celebrations of Harmony Day

0

International Women’s Day events

1

Disability training

2

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural awareness training

2

LGBTIQ awareness training

3

Other

0

In addition to the activities outlined in Table 38, three public sector bodies reported undertaking other initiatives to promote the RED message, including:

Four silhouetted icon figure, two women and two men in a grid next to the text. Text reads: As at 30 June 2017, within public sector bodies there were a total of twelve RED contact officers and four executive sponsors.
  • RED training and RED refresher training;
  • promotion of RED through posters, monthly HR updates, newsletters and signature blocks;
  • ‘Positive Workplace Culture’ Policy;
  • celebration of World Cultural Diversity Day; and
  • incorporating diversity as a theme of work planning days.

When asked about the initiatives used to promote the RED Framework during 2016-17:

  • six bodies reported using regular discussions about RED issues;
  • two bodies reported using a RED network that meets quarterly (or more frequently);
  • one body reported using RED training available to all public sector bodies; and
  • one body reported using discussions in management and executive committee meetings.

One public sector body reported on a team building exercise that was conducted where employees who would not normally work together were required to collaborate to resolve a fictitious scenario. The exercise was designed to promote respectful consideration of diverse views about the best way to resolve issues. The exercise resulted in strong team outcomes with a renewed focus on resolution of issues that arise, without ascribing blame.

Public sector bodies were asked how their organisation ensured that all employees had access to the details of RED Contact Officers during the 2016-17 reporting period, the results of which are shown in Graph 13. Five of the eight public sector bodies reported that they provided details of their RED Contact Officers on the employee directory. Two public sector bodies reported that they did not use any methods to ensure employees had access to the details of RED Contact Officers.

Graph 13 – Access to details of RED Contact Officers in ACT Public Sector Bodies (2016-17)

Graph displaying the methods used by ACT public sector bodies to ensure that employees had access to details of RED contact officers during 2016-17. Three out of seven public sector bodies provided access through their intranet. One out of seven public sector bodies provided access via their website. Four out of seven public sector bodies provided access via their employee directory. Three out of seven public sector bodies provided access via common areas or notice boards. No public sector bodies provided access via the public sector body switch board. Two out of seven public sector bodies did not proved access in any form and four out of seven public sector bodies provided access via other means.

In addition to the methods listed in Graph 13, four public sector bodies reported using other methods for ensuring employees had access to the details of RED Contact Officers, including:

  • folders and brochures;
  • inclusion of contact information in RED contact officer email signature blocks;
  • periodic promotion of RED via desktop screensavers;
  • regular reminders at monthly all employee meetings; and
  • inclusion of RED Contact Officers details in employee induction.

One public sector body reported implementing a “Working Together” e-learning module to be completed on an annual basis by all employees which includes contact information for all RED contact officers.

Public sector bodies were asked to report on the initiatives implemented during 2016-17 to support employees and potential employees from diversity groups, in particular people from a Culturally and Linguistically Diverse background, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and People with Disability. Initiatives utilised by bodies included:

  • providing cultural support to employees and providing access to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural awareness training;
  • targeted recruitment strategies to recruit people from diverse backgrounds, including ensuring all job advertisements are written to encourage inclusive recruitment practices;
  • development of a work experience program for people of refugee and asylum seeker status;
  • implementation of the ‘Racism Stops with Me’ campaign; and
  • promotion of reasonable adjustment, and encouraging employees to identify diversity matters and any support they may require in the workplace.

Public sector bodies were asked whether they had a RAP in place during the 2016-17 reporting period. Of the eight bodies, two reported that they had a RAP in place. Bodies were then asked to report on the strategies used to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees during 2016-17. Of the eight public sector bodies;

  • three reported utilising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural awareness training;
  • two reported utilising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employee networks; and
  • two reported having a dedicated Indigenous Liaison Officer in place.

Two public sector bodies reported utilising other strategies to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees during 2016-17, including the provision of support through a dedicated Indigenous unit or Cultural Centre.

Public sector bodies were asked to identify the strategies used to support People with Disability employees during 2016-17. Of the eight bodies:

  • one body reported using disability employee networks;
  • five bodies reported using the whole of government Reasonable Adjustment Policy; and
  • three bodies reported using Disability Awareness training.

All eight bodies reported that they make managers and supervisors aware of the requirement to investigate, and where practical, make reasonable adjustment(s) following disclosure of a disability. Bodies do this through:

Five icons in a vertical line from top to bottom adjacent to the text, the icons are a building, a computer screen, a phone and keyboard, the universal symbol for disability and a magnifying glass. Text reads: Strategies used by ACT public sector bodies to ensure accessible workplace: accessibility audits, workstation assessments, provision of sit/stand and other specialised workstation equipment, conducting meetings in suitable locations (e.g. accessible meeting rooms with a hearing loop), and regular workplaces inspections completed by a health and safety representative.

  • embedding reasonable adjustment in pre-employment paperwork;
  • ongoing promotion of disability awareness and support from HR areas;
  • provision of workstation assessments for employees by qualified occupational health and safety assessors;
  • provision of information at employee induction;
  • promotion of the whole of government Reasonable Adjustment Policy;
  • workshops and training for managers and supervisors on disability awareness and recruiting to identified positions; and
  • through public sector body specific WHS framework.

All of the eight public sector bodies reported that they did not make any applications for reasonable adjustment or financial assistance to the Commonwealth Job Access Program in the 2016-17 reporting period.

Performance and Capability Development

The 2017 Agency Survey asked public sector bodies to report on whether they monitored the utilisation of the ACTPS Performance Framework during the 2016-17 reporting period.

Table 39 – Utilisation of the ACTPS Performance Framework by ACT Public Sector Bodies (2016-17)

 

Total Public Sector Bodies

Yes

4

No

4

Of the eight public sector bodies, four identified that they monitored the utilisation of the ACTPS performance framework during the 2016-17 financial year.

Table 40 – Strategies used by ACT Public Sector Bodies during 2016-17 to enhance, develop or improve employee capability and performance

 

Total Outcomes

Mentoring programs

3

Funded training

5

Secondments

6

Job swap opportunities

3

Communities of practice

1

Other

5

Public sector bodies were asked to report on the strategies used during 2016-17 to enhance, develop or improve employee capability and performance. As shown in Table 40, the most utilised strategy by public sector bodies was the use of secondments (six public sector bodies) followed by funded training (five public sector bodies).

Underperformance

Public sector bodies were asked to identify whether they monitored the number of preliminary performance discussions held during the 2016-17 reporting period. Of the eight bodies, four reported that they did monitor preliminary performance discussions and that there were two discussions that proceeded to formal underperformance processes during the 2016-17 reporting period.

Public sector bodies were asked to provide details of the number of formal underperformance processes that were commenced in the 2016-17 financial year under the procedures set out in the relevant ACTPS Enterprise Agreement. Table 41 provides details of these processes.

Table 41 – ACT Public Sector Bodies Underperformance Processes (2016-17)

 

Total Processes

Number commenced in 2015-16 but finalised in 2016-17

0

Number commenced in 2016-17

2

Number commenced and finalised in 2016-17

1

Number commenced in 2016-17 but yet to be finalised at 30 June 2017

1

Two public sector bodies reported commencing a formal underperformance process as set out in the relevant Enterprise Agreement during the 2016-17 reporting period. Of the two processes commenced in the 2016-17 reporting period, one employee resigned during the process and the other process had not been completed as at 30 June 2017.


39 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Labour Force Australia 6202.0
40 Ibid.
41 Director of Public Prosecutions is included in the reporting of Justice and Community Safety Directorate, and hence is included in the figures for the ACT Public Service. Similarly, data for the ACT TQI is included within that of the ACT Public Service and hence is not reported in this table separately.
42 Total additional remuneration paid under AWAs, ARins and SEAs during 2016-17 is an approximate figure. The 2015-16 State of the Service Report reported an incorrect amount for total additional remuneration paid under AWAs, ARins and SEAs. The correct figure of $2,841,731 was published via corrigendum in 2017.
43 Contacts with RED Contact Officers and HR can often be preliminary to seek advice on how best to deal with workplace conflict or whether an experience constitutes bullying and harassment. Feedback indicates that a large proportion of the issues behind initial contacts are resolved at a local level.
44 ‘Informally investigated’ is taken to mean where HR has kept some form of record of the discussions had/actions taken but has not proceeded to a preliminary investigation under Section H of ACTPS Enterprise Agreements