ACT Public Sector Workforce Profile 2017-18

At 30 June 2018 the ACT Public Sector consisted of a workforce of 24,815, making up 10.8 per cent of the Territory’s labour force¹. Overall, the ACT Public Sector had an increase of 2.1 per cent in the workforce from June 2017 to June 2018 (up from a headcount of 24,148 at June 2017). This increase is slightly less than the 2.4 per cent total increase of the Australian labour workforce during the same period².

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees in the ACT Public Sector were represented by a headcount of 401, 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 6.3 per cent from the 375 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees at June 2017. 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 599 (up from 548 at June 2017) or 2.4 per cent of all employees. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse employees were represented by a headcount of 4,184 (up from 4,138 at June 2017) or 16.9 per cent of all employees.

Table 27 provides a summary of the ACT Public Sector outlining staff numbers broken down by public sector body against key workforce indicators. Table 28 provides a snapshot of the ACT Public Sector in comparison with the previous reporting period.

ACT Public Sector Bodies

At June 2018, public sector bodies employed a total of 2,585 people (headcount), a 9.7 per cent increase from June 2017. As can be seen in Table 27 the largest public sector body at June 2018 was Calvary Health Care (Public) with a headcount of 1,299 employees (1,067.4 FTE), while the smallest public sector body was the ACT Quality Teacher Institute with a headcount of 10 employees (9 FTE). At June 2018, there were twelve public sector bodies consisting of:

• ACT Audit Office;
• ACT Electoral Commission;
• ACT Teacher Quality Institute;
• Calvary Health Care ACT (Public)³ ;
• Canberra Institute of Technology;
• City Renewal Authority;
• Cultural Facilities Corporation ⁵;
• Director of Public Prosecutions⁴;
• Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission;
• Long Service Leave Authority;
• Office of Legislative Assembly⁵; and
• Suburban Land Agency.

Please note that this is not a complete list of the independent statutory bodies across the public sector, however it does represent those bodies with Head of Service management powers.

The Head of Service Annual Report provides an overview of the public sector bodies in relation to directorates.

2017-18 saw the establishment of two new public sector bodies, the City Renewal Authority and the Suburban Land Agency. These bodies commenced operations on 1 July 2017 under the City Renewal Authority and Suburban Land Agency Act 2017. For the purposes of the Agency Survey, their responses were incorporated as part of the EPSDD response.

For the purposes of the Agency Survey, the ACT Teacher Quality Institute response has been incorporated into the Education Directorate’s response. As such, nine public sector bodies completed the 2018 Agency Survey.

Workforce Planning

The 2018 Agency Survey asked public sector bodies whether they had a workforce plan in place. Of the nine, five responded yes. All five bodies detailed key workforce strategies to position their organisation to meet future workforce demands. Common strategies identified included:

• use of ARIns and accelerated salary increments;
• appropriate recruitment practices including the use of consultants and contractors to meet increased work demands;
• succession planning for critical positions;
• participation on external working groups focusing on staff recruitment and training within specialist areas;
• promoting secondment or acting opportunities for staff; and
• the provision of learning and development opportunities so that staff may gain qualifications to meet specific workforce needs.

Attraction and Retention Strategies

Public sector bodies were asked to report on any critical skills shortages, capability gaps or difficulty recruiting or retaining employees during the 2017-18 reporting period. Five bodies highlighted areas where they had experienced difficulty with skills shortages, in particular related to attracting those with specialist skills. 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 ACT (Public) identified difficulty attracting staff to positions in specialist health care delivery areas.

The range of pay classifications of those employees that received ARIns and/or SEAs in the 2017-18 reporting period were from: Administrative Services Officer Class 5 (classification salary range: $74,081 to $78,415) to Senior Specialist (classification salary: $222,205). The public sector body reporting the most ARIns was Calvary Health Care ACT (Public) across a range of health classification levels. The second most common type of classification for an ARIn was within the administration stream comprising Administrative Services Officer Class 5 to Senior Officer Grade A classifications (classification salary: $137,415).

Appropriate Workplace Behaviour

The 2018 Agency Survey asked public sector bodies to report on the number of bullying and harassment related contacts received during the 2017-18 reporting period, and whether the public sector body had a formal system in place for the management of bullying and harassment. Six public sector bodies reported having a formal reporting system in place to manage bullying and harassment.

The information in Table 30 outlines the mechanisms of the reporting of bullying and harassment within public sector bodies. It is important to note that the figures captured in Table 30 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 matter.

Table 31 shows the actions being taken by public sector bodies in response to reports of bullying and harassment.

Disciplinary Action

Public sector bodies were asked to report on the number of investigations they conducted during the 2017-18 reporting period where an employee was suspected of breaching Section 9 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (PSM Act). Across the nine public sector bodies, four suspected breaches of Section 9 of the PSM Act were reported to have occurred.

Of the three disciplinary sanctions imposed in 2017-18, one resulted in a written warning and admonishment while two resulted in the employees resigning prior to a sanction being imposed.

Fraud and Risk

Public sector bodies were asked whether a formal risk assessment had been undertaken during 2017-18 in accordance with the Risk Management Standard, with eight of the 10 public sector bodies¹⁰ responding yes.

In the 2017-18 reporting period six public sector bodies (or 60 per cent) 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, four public sector bodies (or 40 per cent) reported yes.

Public sector bodies were asked to rate a number of integrity risks within their organisation against a category of low, medium, high or extreme. The risk areas were:

• fraud and integrity;
• asset management;
• procurement and contract management;
• finance;
• fraud (clients);
• IT systems; and
• other (please specify).

For the 2017-18 reporting period, the most common risks identified by public sector bodies and their associated risk rating is below:

• low risk category: asset management and fraud (clients);
• medium risk category: fraud and integrity and finance; and
• high risk category: procurement and contract management and IT systems.

There were no extreme category risks identified by public sector bodies.

ACTPS Respect Equity and Diversity (RED) Framework

The 2018 Agency Survey asked public sector bodies to identify whether they provided RED specific training to employees during the 2017-18 reporting period. Four of the nine public sector bodies who completed the Agency Survey reported yes, with 73 employees completing this training during the 2017-18 reporting period.

Table 32 outlines the key activities used by public sector bodies to promote the RED message during the reporting period.

In addition to the activities outlined in Table 32, six public sector bodies reported undertaking other initiatives to promote the RED message, including:

• RED training and RED refresher training;
• RED working groups;
• promotion of RED through all staff emails from the executive;
• ongoing discussions at staff stand-up sessions;
• promotion of RED through posters, monthly HR updates, newsletters and signature blocks; and
• internal policy documents outlining the principles of RED and positive workplace cultures.

When asked about the initiatives used to promote the RED Framework during 2017-18:

• two public sector bodies reported providing RED overview sessions;
• three public sector bodies reported using regular discussions about RED issues; and
• one public sector body reported using a RED network that meets quarterly (or more frequently).

Public sector bodies were asked how their organisation ensured that all staff had access to the details of RED Contact Officers during the 2017-18 reporting period. The most common method of ensuring staff had access to details of their RED Contact Officers was through the use of common areas and notice boards with five of the nine public sector bodies using this method. Positively, all nine public sector bodies reported that they had used methods to ensure staff had access to the details of RED Contact Officers.

Other methods used by public sector bodies for ensuring staff had access to the details of RED Contact Officers include:

• folders and brochures;
• identifying RED Contact Officers on staff phone lists;
• inclusion of contact information in RED Contact Officer email signature blocks;
• regular reminders at monthly all staff meetings and via all staff emails; and
• inclusion of RED Contact Officers details in staff induction and new starter packs.

Public sector bodies were asked to report on the initiatives implemented during 2017-18 to support employees and potential employees from diversity target groups, in particular people from a Culturally and Linguistically Diverse background, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and People with Disability. Initiatives utilised by public sector bodies included:

• providing cultural support to staff 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 and participation of work experience programs for people of refugee and asylum seeker status;
• ongoing communication strategies including myth busting exercises around inclusion groups; and
• promotion of reasonable adjustment; and
• encouraging staff to identify diversity matters and any support they may require in the workplace.

Public sector bodies were asked whether they had a Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) in place during the 2017-18 reporting period. Of the nine public sector bodies, two reported that they had a RAP in place. Public sector bodies were then asked to report on the strategies used to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees during 2017-18. Of the nine public sector bodies:

• three reported utilising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural awareness training;
• one promoted the ACT Public Sector as an employer of choice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders;
• one reported utilising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employee networks; and
• two reported having a dedicated Indigenous Liaison Officer in place.

One public sector body reported utilising other strategies to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees during 2017-18, including the provision of support through a dedicated Indigenous unit or Cultural Centre.

Two public sector bodies ensured that for selection panels for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated positions an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person was a member of the panel. One public sector body consulted with the Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs during the recruitment of casual employees.

The 2018 Agency Survey asked public sector bodies if they had a Disability Action Plan in place during the 2017-18 reporting period. One public sector body reported that they had a Disability Action Plan in place. Public sector bodies were also asked to identify the strategies used to support People with Disability employees during 2017-18. Of the nine public sector bodies, two public sector bodies reported using the Whole of Government Reasonable Adjustment Policy.

Seven of the nine public sector bodies reported that they made managers and supervisors aware of the requirement to investigate, and where practical, make reasonable adjustment(s) following disclosure of a disability. Public sector bodies do this through:

• embedding reasonable adjustment in pre-employment paperwork;
• ongoing promotion of disability awareness and support from HR areas;
• provision of workstation assessments for staff by qualified occupational health and safety assessors;
• 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
• public sector body specific WHS framework.

All of the nine 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 2017-18 reporting period.

Performance and Capability Development

The 2018 Agency Survey asked public sector bodies to report on whether they monitored the utilisation of the ACTPS Performance Framework during the 2017-18 reporting period.

Of the nine public sector bodies, five identified that they monitored the utilisation of the ACTPS performance framework during the 2017-18 financial year.

Public sector bodies were asked to report on the strategies used during the 2017-18 reporting period to enhance, develop or improve employee capability and performance. As shown in table 34, the most utilised strategy by public sector bodies was the use of funded training (six public sector bodies) followed by mentoring programs (four public sector bodies).

Underperformance

Public sector bodies were asked to identify whether they monitored the number of preliminary performance discussions held during the 2017-18 reporting period. Of the eight public sector bodies, five reported that they did monitor preliminary performance discussions and that there was one discussion that proceeded to formal underperformance processes during the 2017-18 reporting period.

Public sector bodies were also asked to provide details of the number of formal underperformance processes that were commenced in the 2017-18 reporting year under the procedures set out in the relevant ACTPS Enterprise Agreement. Table 35 provides details of these processes.

One public sector body reported commencing formal underperformance processes as set out in the relevant ACTPS Enterprise Agreement during the 2017-18 reporting period. Of the four underperformance processes finalised during 2017-18, one employee returned to satisfactory performance, one employee was re-allocated to a role more suited to their capabilities and two resigned during the process.

¹ Australian Bureau of Statistics, Labour Force Australia 6202.0.

² Ibid.

³ These public sector bodies have their own payroll system. The other public sector bodies are part of the payroll system Chris21.

⁴ Workforce profile data for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has been reported as part of the
ACT Public Service Workforce Profile within the JACS Directorate.

⁵ For the purposes of reporting ARIns, SEAs and AWAs, the City Renewal Authority and Suburban Land Agency data is included in the ACT Public Service Workforce Report.

⁶ Prior to the introduction of ARIns in 2013, these arrangements were achieved through the use of Special Employment Arrangements (SEAs) and Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). SEAs and AWAs continue to apply to until they are ceased by either party. Whilst there continues to be employees covered by SEAs and AWAs in the ACTPS, no new arrangements can be commenced using these instruments.

⁷ Total additional remuneration paid under AWAs, ARIns and SEAs during 2017-18 is an approximate figure.

⁸ Contacts with RED Contact Officers and HR can often be to seek advice on how best to deal with workplace conflict or whether an experience constitutes bullying and harassment.

⁹ Total number of investigations commenced, completed and ongoing may not reconcile due to action across financial years.

¹⁰ The additional body referenced in the Fraud and Risk section of this report was the Teacher Quality Institute (TQI). The reason for this inclusion was that the TQI has an internal Senior Executive Responsible for Business Integrity Risk who was able to report on the bodies activities during the reporting period.