Annual Report 2010 - Parliament of Western Australia...your information and presentation to...

Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment

Annual Report 2010

ii Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment Annual Report 2010

Contact details

Office location: Level 21 Governor Stirling Tower 197 St Georges Terrace PERTH WA 6000

Telephone: (08) 9219 6400Facsimile: (08) 9219 6040 Email: [email protected] Web address: www.oeeo.wa.gov.au

Availability in other formats

This document can be made available in alternative formats upon request.

People who have a hearing or speech impairment may call the ACE National Relay Service on 133 677 and quote telephone number (08) 9219 6000.

This report is available in PDF from the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (OEEO) website. To minimise download times and reduce printing, the report is provided in chapters as well as the entire document. We encourage you to print double sided and on recycled paper.

Limited printed copies are available.

The content of this report has been printed in accordance with the requirements of the Annual Reporting Framework 2009-10 published by the Public Sector Commission. The report is available in full colour from the OEEO website.

ISSN 1328-7001

Published by the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity

September 2010

Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment Annual Report 2010 iii

Contents

Statement of compliance v

Director’s message 1

Legislative framework 2

Role of the DEOPE 2

Responsibilities of public authorities 3

Operating context for OEEO 4

Strategic direction 4

How we work 5

What we do 5

Clients and cross-government partnerships 6

Resources and corporate governance 6

Contribution to State Government goals 6

Activities and achievements 7

Key result area 1: Build and support quality practices in equity and diversity management

7

Key result area 2: Provide high quality, accurate and timely reports on the effectiveness of EEO and diversity in the public sector

9

Key result area 3: Deliver robust and relevant customer service and effective performance partnering

12

Key result area 4: Effective staff, systems and processes 15

Key initiatives for 2010–11 16

Workforce diversity 17

Workforce diversity - Women 19

Workforce diversity - Indigenous Australians 27

Workforce diversity - People from culturally diverse backgrounds 31

iv Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment Annual Report 2010

Workforce diversity - People with disabilities 36

Workforce diversity - Youth and mature workers 41

Workforce diversity - Snapshot 43

Workforce diversity - Composite equity index 46

Employee Perceptions Survey results 47

Annual Agency Survey 2010 results 54

Appendices 55

Appendix 1: Abbreviations 56

Appendix 2: OEEO Strategic Plan 2009-10 57

Appendix 3: Participating public sector agencies and authorities in the Employee Perceptions Survey for 2009-10

59

Appendix 4: Public sector agencies and authorities, local government authorities and public universities reportedduring 2009-10

60

Appendix 5: Public sector agencies and authorities’workforce demographics

67

Appendix 6: Local government authorities’ workforce demographics

74

Appendix 7: Public universities’ workforce demographics 83

Appendix 8: Glossary and definitions 91

Appendix 9: Public sector agencies and authorities and public universities – composite equity index, equity indexand representation by diversity group for 2009-10

99

Appendix 10: Employee Perceptions Survey results for2009-10

115

Appendix 11: OEEO publications 119

References 122

Contents

Statem

ent of compliance

Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment Annual Report 2010 v

To the Honourable Colin Barnett MEc MLA Premier; Treasurer; Minister for State Development

In accordance with section 144 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, I hereby submit for your information and presentation to Parliament, my Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2010.

Michael Palermo

A/Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment

17 September 2010

Statement of compliance

vi Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment Annual Report 2010

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Director’s m

essage

Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment Annual Report 2010 1

I am pleased to present the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment’s (DEOPE) Annual Report 2010. This report outlines my role, activities and the administration of my functions in accordance with section 144 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (the Act).

In the 25 years since the Act’s commencement, the Western Australian public sector workforce has become progressively more inclusive and diverse. I believe as a whole, the Western Australian public sector recognises the benefits and value of a diverse workforce and attitudes towards workforce diversity have broadened from a social justice and compliance responsibility to include the business imperative.

This year, I am pleased to report that public sector agencies, local government authorities and public universities maintained 100% compliance with Part IX of the Act. These public authorities have continued to progress equity and diversity through the inclusion of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs in their EEO Management Plans. In addition, improving data collection methods, developing supporting resources to create positive outcomes for diversity groups and strengthening existing cross-government partnerships have all assisted with achieving an equitable and diverse workforce.

During the year, my Office played a lead role in providing a customised EEO management planning consultancy service, developing relevant diversity products, evaluating and monitoring progress and raising equity and diversity awareness via the delivery of Diversity Forums.

Looking ahead, my Office will work with the public sector and key stakeholders to further progress and sustain equity and diversity, and I will continue to monitor and report on equal opportunity in public employment.

I thank all public authorities, stakeholders and partners for their support and commitment to my Office and the State Government’s diversity agenda. I would also like to thank Mr Mal Wauchope, Public Sector Commissioner, for his interest and support. I extend a special thank you to my team for their professionalism, enthusiasm and commitment.

I look forward to continuing to work with the public sector on the diversity journey in 2010-11.

Michael Palermo A/Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment

Director’s message

2 Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment Annual Report 2010

The Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment (DEOPE) is a statutory officer appointed by the Western Australian Governor to perform the functions outlined in Part IX of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (the Act). The DEOPE reports annually to the Minister responsible for Part IX of the Act, currently the Premier.

The Act promotes equal opportunity in Western Australia and addresses discrimination in the areas of employment, accommodation, education and the provision of goods, facilities, services and activities on the following grounds:

The objects of Part IX are:

• to eliminate and ensure the absence of discrimination in employment in public authorities1 on grounds covered by the Act; and

• to promote equal employment opportunity for all persons in public authorities.

The Act positions Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Management Plans (Plans) as the principal accountability instrument for public authorities to ensure an absence of discrimination and positive employment outcomes for all employees. Sections 141, 143, 145 and 146 of the Act provide for a shared accountability between the DEOPE and chief executive officers of public authorities in achieving these outcomes.

Role of the DEOPE

The statutory role of the DEOPE is to:

• advise and assist public authorities to develop Plans; • evaluate the effectiveness Plans in achieving the objects of Part IX of the Act;• monitor and report to the Minister on the operation and effectiveness of Plans;

and • undertake investigations into matters regarding the development and

implementation of Plans.The DEOPE is supported by the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (OEEO) in performing these functions.

1 Public authorities include all public sector bodies (including government trading enterprises), local government authorities and public universities.

Legislative framework

• sex• sexual orientation• gender history• family responsibility or family status• marital status

• race• religious or political conviction• age• impairment• pregnancy

Legislative framew

ork


Responsibilities of public authorities To achieve the objects of Part IX of the Act, public authorities are required to prepare and implement a Plan as outlined in s.145(1) of the Act. Ultimate responsibility for the Plan rests with the authority’s chief executive officer (s.141 of the Act).

EEO Management Plan preparation and implementation The provisions to develop a Plan are set out in ss 145(2)(a)-(h) of the Act. Effective and compliant Plans must contain:

OEEO uses a planning framework to assist public authorities develop Plans incorporating all of the above aspects. The planning framework consists of three high-level outcomes.

Public authorities’ annual report to the DEOPESection 146 of the Act outlines public authorities’ requirement to report annually to the DEOPE, in concurrence with the implementation date of their Plan.

Regular monitoring and evaluation enables authorities to assess whether strategies in their Plan are appropriate, achievable and effective in meeting the objects of Part IX of the Act.

a. a process for the development of policies and programs to ensure a harassment-free workplace;b. strategies to communicate the policies and programs referred to in point (a);c. methods for the collection and recording of diversity data, including a current workforce diversity profile;d. processes for the review of personnel practices to identify possible discriminatory practices; e. the inclusion of goals and targets to determine the success of the Plan; f. strategies to evaluate the policies and programs referred to in point (a);g. a process to review and amend the Plan; and h. the assignment of implementation and monitoring responsibilities.

1. The organisation values EEO/diversity and the work environment is free from racial and sexual harassment.

2. Workplaces are free from employment practices that are biased or discriminate unlawfully against employees or potential employees.

3. Employment programs and practices recognise and include strategies to achieve workforce diversity.


Strategic direction

Vision A more diverse workforce that:

• better matches the community at all levels of public employment;

• promotes equal opportunity in a work environment; and

• is inclusive and free from discrimination.

MissionTo achieve a more diverse workforce at all levels of public employment and to ensure compliance by public authorities with their legislative obligations to eliminate discrimination and promote equal opportunity in public employment.

ValuesThe activities of the DEOPE and OEEO are guided by our values:

• ensuring a strong customer focus and acknowledging the individual needs of customers;

• valuing the diversity of clients and their workforces in recognising that equity can involve treating people differently according to their circumstances;

• being honest and ethical in dealings with clients and each other;

• achieving quality and excellence in work; and

• being a leader in creating an equitable and diverse workforce within OEEO.

Operating context for OEEO

Key result area 1Build and support quality practices in equity

and diversity management.

Key result area 2 Provide high quality, accurate and timely reports on the effectiveness of EEO and

diversity in the public sector.

Key result area 3 Deliver robust and relevant customer service

and effective performance partnering.

Key result area 4 Effective staff, systems and processes.

Operating context for

OEEO


How we work OEEO provides a range of key services to assist public authorities to develop, implement and monitor Plans in accordance with Part IX of the Act. The DEOPE and OEEO work with public authorities to achieve a public sector workforce that reflects our diverse Western Australian community and values and respects the contribution of all employees.

The DEOPE also works with the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner (OPSSC) towards common objectives associated with supporting quality practices in human resource management.

What we do Guided by the four key result areas, OEEO:

See Appendix 2 for the OEEO Strategic Plan 2009-10.

• provides a customised consultancy service to assist public authorities develop their Plans;

• provides advice on the design and implementation of specific strategies to meet equity and diversity needs;

• provides access to tools and reference material to assist with planning and evaluation strategies;

• monitors, evaluates and reports on the progress made by public authorities towards achieving a diverse workforce;

• provides advice on diversity data collection and equity index calculations;

• delivers regular Diversity Forums and online newsletters on equity and diversity topics;

• participates in cross-government initiatives to improve equity and diversity in the public sector; and

• develops and delivers diversity products and services based on best practice in human resource and diversity management.


Clients and cross-government partnerships

The DEOPE and OEEO work with the following Western Australian public authorities:

• public sector agencies and authorities (including government trading enterprises);

• local government authorities; and

• public universities.

The DEOPE is a member of various cross-government initiatives and contributes to the:

• National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Economic Participation and Indigenous Economic and Career Development Strategy governance group;

• Ministerial committee initiative for the promotion of opportunities for women in senior local government roles;

• Equal Opportunity Commission Substantive Equality program;

• Disability Services Act Review working party;

• Year of Women in Local Government steering committee;

• Public Sector Commission’s State of the Service working group; and

• Office of Multicultural Interests’ Cultural Competence Training steering committee.

Resources and corporate governance

OEEO is co-located with OPSSC. OPSSC supports corporate services and business system functions for OEEO and is the accountable authority for the purposes of the Financial Management Act 2006.

Contribution to State Government goals

In the 2009-10 budget statements OEEO committed to a number of key initiatives, contributing to the government goal of outcomes-based service delivery: a greater focus on achieving results in key service delivery areas for the benefit of all Western Australians. These services and outcomes are contained in the Activities and achievements section (p. 7) of this report.

Activities and achievem

ents


Key result area 1: Build and support quality practices in equity and diversity management

Strategies at Work series OEEO’s Strategies at Work publications showcase real life examples of effective strategies used by public authorities to increase the workforce representation and distribution of the diversity groups.

The series was launched at the September 2009 Diversity Forum. The material is designed for public authorities to adapt to their business requirements.

New tools for EEO Management Planning OEEO produced a new suite of EEO management planning tools for public authorities. The tools were generated from public authority consultations and outline strategies that can be customised to meet the specific workforce needs of each authority.

The suite of tools consists of:

• Plan templates with suggested initiatives aligned with the OEEO outcomes framework for EEO management planning;

• guidelines outlining legislative requirements and tips on producing an effective Plan;

• a sample evaluation tool to assist with meeting the requirements of ss 145(2)(a)–(h) of the Act; and

• good practice EEO Management Plan examples.

EEO Management Plan complianceOEEO monitors public authority compliance with s.145 of the Act. In 2009-10, 60 public authorities with expiring Plans received advice and assistance for the development of their new Plans. OEEO also worked closely with four new public authorities to develop their inaugural Plans. This resulted in OEEO completing 64 Plan evaluations. Additionally, OEEO provided guidance to public authorities reviewing their existing Plans.

In 2009-10, public authorities maintained 100% compliance with s.145 of the Act. This full compliance rate meant the DEOPE was satisfied with the preparation and implementation of Plans by all public authorities and did not undertake any investigations under s.147 of the Act.

Activities and achievements


Consultancy approach and services

OEEO play a key role in providing information on equity and diversity trends and good practice through a customised consultancy service. In 2009-10 a significant proportion of OEEO’s resources were devoted to assisting public authorities with the development, implementation and review of their Plans.

OEEO provided consultancy services which included:

• assistance with Plan development; • evaluation of Plans submitted by public

authorities; • advice on the design and implementation of

specific workforce strategies to meet the individual equity and diversity needs of public authorities;

• advice on diversity data collection and equity index calculations; and • development of planning and evaluation tools and reference material.

The EEO Management Planning process

In 2009-10, public authorities maintained 100% compliance with

s.145 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984


ents


Key result area 2: Provide high quality, accurate and timely reports on the effectiveness of EEO and diversity in the public sectorGuided by s.143 of the Act, OEEO evaluates diversity data and reports on public authority progress towards the achievement of a diverse workforce. Diversity data is collected through an annual survey program and is used in planning, reporting and to guide the improvement of equity and diversity programs across the public sector.

Fourth and Final Progress Report for the Equity and Diversity Plan for the Public Sector Workforce 2006-2009 OEEO prepared the Fourth and Final Progress Report for the Equity and Diversity Plan for the Public Sector Workforce 2006-2009 (EDP2) which was released by the Premier in December 2009.

The final report demonstrates that significant progress in equity and diversity has been made over the three year span of EDP2. It shows an increase since 2006 in workforce representation of women in management, people from culturally diverse backgrounds, people with disabilities and youth.

The equity index, which measures distribution of a diversity group across salary levels, exceeded the State Government objective in 2009 for Indigenous Australians, people from culturally diverse backgrounds and people with disabilities.

Public Sector Commissioner’s Circular: Equity and diversity in the public sector workforce With the expiration of EDP2, OEEO worked with the Public Sector Commission (PSC) to prepare the Public Sector Commissioner’s Circular on the future direction of equity and diversity which was released to public sector agencies and authorities early in 2010.

The Circular reinforces the State Government’s commitment to progressing diversity. It positions workforce diversity as part of good workforce planning which provides an opportunity to tap into job ready talent pools.

In March 2010, a Public Sector Commissioner’s

Circular was released on the future direction of equity and diversity in a contemporary

public sector workforce.


Workforce Analysis and Comparative Application data collection system OEEO continued to work with public sector agencies and authorities to ensure appropriate diversity data was collected, maintained and reported through the Workforce Analysis and Comparative Application (WACA) system. Data collected in July 2010 provided a third year of directly comparable data since the WACA system was introduced.

OEEO worked with the Department of Education, Department of Health and other large agencies to resurvey their staff to improve the overall WA public sector equity and diversity reporting outcomes. The resurvey program was conducted in May and June 2010. It included the development of an online diversity survey system for employees and support for agencies in implementing this system.

In addition, the diversity data collection process for local government authorties and public universities was managed by OEEO and OPSSC.

Comparison reports OEEO prepared and distributed annual How Does Your Agency Compare? reports to all public sector agencies and authorities with more than 100 employees. Similar reports were prepared and distributed to the four public universities: How Does Your University Compare?

The comparative reports contain diversity data provided by authorities to OEEO. The reports compare each authority’s current workforce diversity profile to their diversity objectives for the reporting period, revealing strengths and areas for improvement in the authority’s

performance. The reports also provide cross-sector comparisons by including diversity information for similar authorities.

Employee Perceptions SurveyOEEO in collaboration with OPSSC surveyed public sector agency employees’ perceptions of their agency’s human resource management, ethical behaviour and equity principles. The survey enables agencies to identify areas of good practice and acknowledge areas for improvement.

In 2009-10, 7,109 employee surveys were distributed to 16 public sector agencies (as online surveys) and 2,336 surveys were returned, providing a response rate of 32.9%. Refer to Appendix 3 for a list of agencies that participated.


ents


OEEO provided feedback to the CEO of each participating agency. This included a statistical report comparing the agency’s performance with the public sector average. The report also presents the results separately for men, women, managers and non-managers as well as by diversity group where appropriate. Results from this year’s survey appear in the Employee Perceptions Survey results section on pp. 47-53. AR Table He

Annual Agency Survey

The Annual Agency Survey 2010, managed by OPSSC, was another program used by OEEO to collect equity and diversity information. The survey provides a mechanism for CEOs to report on activities within their agency relating to the Public Sector Code of Ethics, Principles of Official Conduct (including Public Interest Disclosures) and Equal Employment Opportunity.

The survey incorporates how the agency leads and champions EEO, focusing on equity and diversity training, flexible work options and management of bullying and harassment.

One hundred and twenty-six public sector agencies were surveyed in 2009-10. The results relating to EEO appear in the Annual Agency Survey 2010 results section on p. 54. Full survey results will be captured in OPSSC’s State of the Service Report 2010.


Key result area 3: Deliver robust and relevant customer service and effective performance partnering

Diversity Forums Four Diversity Forums were held over the year, showcasing strategies and personal journeys around equity and diversity in the public sector workforce. Each Forum attracted between 90 and 130 attendees and the A/DEOPE is appreciative of all who participated. Forum topics are outlined below:

Strategies at Work – An Employee’s Perspective, September 2009The Strategies at Work series was launched with five employees who feature in the publications sharing their stories. They showcased good practice strategies used by WA public authorities to increase workforce representation across the diversity groups. Presenters were from Challenger TAFE, Department of Treasury and Finance, Animal Resources Authority, Public Transport Authority and WA Police.

Indigenous Australians – Attraction and Retention, December 2009

Presenters covered strategies and experiences from both whole of government and agency perspectives. This included the National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Economic Participation, Indigenous Employment & Career Development Strategy and the Public Sector Commission’s Business Traineeship Program. The Department of Health and the former Department of Education and Training presented their Aboriginal employment strategies.

(L-R) Gillian Greaves, Sophie Neale, Bydon Wang, Liz Harris, Chanel Fordham and A/DEOPE Michael Palermo

Kristina Radcliffe


ents


Women in Leadership – A Personal Journey, March 2010

Inspiring women from public sector agencies, local government authorities and public universities shared their perspective as women leaders including highlights and challenges in their journeys to their current positions.

Indigenous Australians – Engagement and Employment, June 2010The Forum covered progress on the Indigenous Employment & Career Development Strategy and use of the Indigenous Jobs Australia website as a recruitment tool. An Indigenous senior public servant shared his personal career experience and the Department of Indigenous Affairs outlined their Indigenous attraction and retention strategies.

Presentations

The DEOPE delivered presentations at the following events –

• National Equity and Diversity Officers’ Forum, Canberra, August 2009. The topic was ‘Ensuring a Concrete and Cohesive EEO Management Plan’.

• Department of Education and Training’s Women in Leadership Reference Group, October 2009. The presentation was on ‘Progress: Women in leadership in the public sector’.

• Australian Human Resources Institute, November 2009. The presentation was entitled ‘Progressing Diversity in the Public Sector in Challenging Times’.

(L-R) Gay Thornton, Prof Colleen Hayward, Rebecca Harris, A/DEOPE Michael Palermo, Anne Banks-McAllister and Prof Jane den Hollander

Neville Collard


OEEO e-bulletins Based on feedback from clients, OEEO launched a streamlined quarterly online bulletin in March 2010, Diversity Bizz. The new format provides readers with updates the activities of OEEO and diversity articles from around Australia and the globe.

The table below outlines OEEO e-bulletin topics and readership in 2009-10.

Topic Total number of people who viewed articles on the topic

Number of articles posted

Average number of

viewers per article posted

OEEO activities 1436 10 144Women in management

363 10 36

Indigenous Australians 354 7 51People with disabilities 165 6 28Youth and mature workers

153 3 51

General employment / diversity issues

625 7 89

OEEO staff (L-R): Kate Riley, A/DEOPE Michael Palermo, Will Beresford, Angela McIver and Chrystal Hellewell


ents


Key result area 4: Effective staff, systems and processes

In 2009-10, the OEEO comprised 9 full-time equivalent employees and the total cost of services provided was $1,197,083. This figure includes salaries, direct operating costs and contributions to shared infrastructure and services associated with co-location arrangements.

Key effectiveness indicators

Accountability and achievement key effectiveness

indicators

2008-09 Actual

2009-10 Budget

2009-10 Actual

Percentage of public authorities that have provided all reports as required by legislation

100% 100% 100%

Notes: Numbers are based on public authority yearly reports on equal employment opportunity for the year ending 30 June 2010. Public authorities that have provided all reports consist of 126 public sector agencies, 141 local government authorities and 4 public universities (total =271).

Key efficiency indicators

This indicator shows the average cost per public authority for reporting on compliance with Part IX of the Act and assisting public authorities to achieve a more diverse workforce.

Year Costs $ (000) Number of public authorities

Average cost per public

authority ($)2009-10 1 197 271 4 4172008-09 1 169 267 4 3772007-08 887 268 3 3102006-07 1 038 269 3 859

Notes: Total costs for the financial year for delivering this output are divided by the total number of public authorities providing yearly reports on equal employment opportunity for the year ending 30 June 2010. This may differ from the number reported in the OPSSC 2010 Annual Report and OPSSC 2010 State of the Service Report as the data is used for different reporting purposes.


In 2010-11, the DEOPE and OEEO will continue to advise and assist public authorities on how to achieve their equal employment opportunity and diversity objectives, as well as evaluate and report on progress in meeting their responsibilities under Part IX of the Act.

Key initiatives include:

• providing high quality advice and assistance to public sector agencies and authorities, local government authorities and public universities to further enhance and streamline EEO Management Planning;

• sharing information and promoting good practice in equity and diversity in the public sector through regular Diversity Forums, online bulletins and the development of new resources for public authorities;

• supporting public authorities with data collection as part of the annual reporting process under s.146 of the Act and monitoring and reporting outcomes; and

• working collaboratively with the Public Sector Commission to develop whole of government workforce strategies which progress equity and diversity in a contemporary public sector.

Key initiatives for 2010-11

Key initiatives for 2010–11W

orkforce diversity


Workforce diversity

Data collectionOEEO analyses demographic data on the representation and distribution of employees from diversity groups at all levels in public employment. This demographic data allows the DEOPE to assess the effectiveness of a public authority’s Plan. In 2009-10, the DEOPE received annual demographic data from:

• 126 public sector agencies and authorities;

• 141 local government authorities; and

• 4 public universities.

Refer to Appendix 4 for a list of all public authorities reported during 2009-10.

The chart below provides a breakdown of public authorities and employees in 2009-10.

Refer to Appendices 5,6 and 7 for complete workforce demographic data for public sector agencies and authorities, local government authorities and public universities.

141 local government

authorities as at November 2009

(20,020 employees) 4 public

universities as at March 2010

(17,363 employees)

126 public sector agencies and

authorities as at June 2010 (161,483

employees)

In 2009-10, there were 198,866 employees in public sector


For reporting purposes diversity groups include women, Indigenous Australians, people from culturally diverse backgrounds, people with disabilities, youth and mature workers.

RepresentationRepresentation (expressed as a percentage) is based on the number of individuals who identify themselves as belonging to a diversity group as a proportion of the workforce who responded to the OEEO recommended diversity survey. Diversity surveying is managed by public authorities.

Distribution Equity is determined by the distribution of each diversity group at all salary levels of the workforce, including senior executive and management positions and is measured using the equity index. The ideal equity index is 100. An equity index less than 100 indicates the diversity group is concentrated at the lower salary ranges, while an equity index greater than 100 indicates the group is concentrated at the higher salary ranges.

For a full description of how representation and distribution are measured, refer to Appendix 8: Glossary and definitions.

Wom

en


This section focuses on three components: women in public employment in general; women in management as a diversity group; and the employment status of women compared to men.

The data shows that women generally represent more than 50% of the public sector workforce yet are under-represented across the sector in management positions. The public sector has targeted career development strategies to address this shortfall. Results in 2009-10 reflect a general improvement for women in management in public employment although there is still much to be done to increase equity for women in senior management positions.

‘Women in management’ refers to the representation of women in the top three management tiers, which includes the senior executive service (SES), senior and middle management. The management tiers link to decision making responsibility rather than salary.

‘Employment status’ discusses the rates of part-time and full-time work for women and men, as well as the proportion of permanent and fixed term contract staff by gender.

Workforce diversity - Women


RepresentationIn 2010, women represent 67.5% of employees in public sector agencies and authorities, remaining relatively unchanged from 2009 (67.3%).

The representation of women in local government authorities (indoor and outdoor workers combined) remained steady at 52.2% in 2009.

In public universities, the percentage of female general staff remains steady in 2010 (65.4%). The representation of female academics increased slightly to 48.2% in 2010 from 47.6% in 2009.

Representation of women in public authorities: 2006-2010

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Public sect 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.5 4.2 2.8 2.8Local gove 1.2 0.9 1.3 0.8 1.4 2.0 2.2 2.8 2.7Public univ 2.4 2.1 4.0 4.3 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.0 1.5 1.4Public univ 2.8 2.5 2.5 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.3 2.2 1.8 1.5

Representation of People with Disabilities in Public Authorities: 2006 to 2010

Note: The data for this diversity group relies on self nomination and it is therefore possible that these results underestimate the true number.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Public sector agencies and authorities

Local government authorities

Public universities -Academic staff

Public universities -General staff

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Community Working Age Representation = 4%

Wom

en


Distribution The equity index for women in public sector agencies and authorities has increased from 60 in 2009 to 62 in 2010.

The equity index for female local government indoor workers increased from 76 in 2008 to 80 in 2009. The equity index for female local government outdoor workers decreased from 104 in 2008 to 96 in 2009.

For public universities, the equity index for female academics remains relatively unchanged at 69 in 2010. The equity index for female general staff is also relatively unchanged at 81 in 2010.

Equity index for women in public authorities: 2006-2010

Equity indices for women in public authorities Women 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

56 57 61 60 62Public sector agencie 65 69 76 80Local government au 101 101 104 96Local government au 64 65 67 68 69Public universities - A 78 79 80 80 81Public universities - General staff

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Equi

ty In

dex

Public sector agencies and authorities Local government authorities - Indoor workers Local government authorities - Outdoor workers Public universities - Academic staffPublic universities - General staff


Public sector agencies and authorities: Employment status

Employment statistics show that in 2010, women represent 62.3% of all full-time equivalents (FTEs) in public sector agencies and authorities.

Employment statistics also show that women are less likely to be permanent than men in public employment. For public sector agencies and authorities in 2010, permanency rates for women are 63.7%, compared to 75.4% for men. Women are also more likely to be part-time, with 49.3% of permanent and fixed term women in public sector agencies and authorities being part-time in 2010, compared to 12.9% of men.

Public sector agencies and authorities – part-time and permanent women compared to men from 2001-2010

Part Time and Permanent Women compared to Men

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Part-time women as % 39.8 40.79 40.47 41.35 42.32 42.56 42.9 49.2 49.2Part-time men as % o 6.9 8.79 7.27 7.75 8.1 8.46 9 14.4 14.1Permanent women as 65.3 67.88 66.68 67.92 69.5 70.05 69.1 61.4 62.8Permanent men as % 78.4 79.93 78.94 79.63 78.66 79.43 79.1 75.1 75.3

0102030405060708090

100

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

Part-time women as % of permanent and fixed term womenPart-time men as % of permanent and fixed term menPermanent women as % of all womenPermanent men as % of all men

Wom

en


Public sector agencies and authorities: Women in management In 2010, women hold 26.9% of SES positions in public sector agencies and authorities. Women represent 26.2% of tier 1 management (CEOs) in 2010, which has increased from 23% in 2009. This equates to an increase from 28 positions in 2009 to 33 positions in 2010.

The number (and representation) of women in tier 2 management positions in public sector agencies and authorities decreased slightly from 218 (33.9%) in 2009 to 216 (31.7%) in 2010. For tier 3 management positions, the number of women increased from 575 (33.4%) in 2009 to 596 (35.1%) in 2010. The representation of women in management tiers 2 and 3 combined also increased from 33.6% in 2009 to 34.1% in 2010.

Public sector agencies and authorities – women in management tiers and senior executive service from 2001-2010

2030405060708090

100

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Perc

enta

ge (%

)



Public sector agencies and authorities: Distribution across salary ranges

In 2010, 5.5% of all women in public sector agencies and authorities are in salary ranges 7 to 10 compared to 10.3% for all employees. The number of women in salary ranges 4 to 6 is 40.5% for women compared to 42.0% for all employees. The percentage of women in salary ranges 1 to 3 (53.9%) is 6.3% higher than for all employees (47.6%).

Distribution of women across salary ranges in public sector agencies and authorities in 2010

across sala

% Ranges 1 to 3 % Ranges 4 to 6 % Ranges 7 to 8 % Ranges 9 to 10

All employees 47.6 1.0 42.0 1.0 7.2 1.0 3.1Women 53.9 1.0 40.5 1.0 4.3 1.0 1.2

47.653.9

42.040.5

7.24.3

3.11.2

All employees Women

% Ranges 9 to 10

% Ranges 7 to 8

% Ranges 4 to 6

% Ranges 1 to 3

Wom

en


Local government authorities: Women in management Women represented only 7.1% of tier 1 management (CEOs) in local government authorities in 2009. The representation of women indoor workers in tier 2 management positions (corporate executive level) increased to 29.1% in 2009, up from 26.4% in 2008. However, the representation of women indoor workers in tier 3 management positions decreased slightly from 34.5% in 2008 to 33.7% in 2009.

Local government authorities – women in management tiers from 2000-2009

2030405060708090

100

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0102030405060708090

100

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Perc

enta

ge (%

)



Public universities: Women in management The overall representation of women in management tiers in the four Western Australian public universities (academics and general staff combined) has increased in 2010. There is one woman (25.0%) occupying a tier 1 management position, tier 2 management representation increased to 37.5% in 2010 from 33.3% in 2009, and tier 3 representation remains unchanged at 36.0%.

Public universities – women in management tiers from 2001-2010

25303540455055

enta

ge (%

)

05

10152025303540455055

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

Mngt tier 1 Mngt tier 2 Mngt tier 3

Indigenous Australians


Indigenous Australians are people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent who identify as such and are accepted as such by the community in which they live. Estimates from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2006 Census indicated 3.0% of Western Australia’s population was Indigenous and aged between 15 and 64 years (ABS 2006).

RepresentationThe representation of Indigenous Australians employed in public sector agencies and authorities has increased slightly to 2.4% (2,127 employees) in 2010. This representation is lower than the representation of working age Indigenous Australians in the community (3.0%).

In local government authorities, the representation of Indigenous Australian outdoor workers was 7.1% (198 employees) in 2009, remaining above representative levels in the community. Representation of Indigenous Australian indoor workers remains low at 1.6% (113 employees).

The percentage of Indigenous Australian public university academics is relatively unchanged at 1.2% (66 employees) in 2010. Representation of Indigenous Australian general staff in public universities is also relatively unchanged at 1.2% (78 employees) in 2010.

Representation of Indigenous Australians in public authorities: 2006-2010


4.0Community Working Age Representation = 3 0%

3.0

3.5

4.0Community Working Age Representation = 3.0%

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

ntag

e (%

)

Community Working Age Representation = 3.0%

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Perc

enta

ge (%

)


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Perc

enta

ge (%

)


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0





Perc

enta

ge (%

)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0





Perc

enta

ge (%

)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Workforce diversity - Indigenous Australians


Distribution The relatively low workforce representation of Indigenous Australians in public authorities means that small changes in distribution can cause large fluctuations in equity index scores.

The equity index for Indigenous Australians in public sector agencies and authorities reached its highest point of 63 in 2009. However, there has been a significant drop to 48 in 2010.

The equity index for Indigenous Australian local government indoor workers increased from 52 in 2008 to 62 in 2009. For outdoor workers it decreased from 98 in 2008 to 91 in 2009. Note that the salary range for outdoor workers stops at level 6.

The equity index for Indigenous Australian university academics has continued to increase from 59 in 2009 to 76 in 2010. For general staff however, the equity index has declined from 58 in 2009 to 53 in 2010.

Equity index for Indigenous Australians in public authorities: 2006-2010

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Equi

ty In

dex

Public sector agencies and authoritiesLocal government authorities - Indoor workers Local government authorities - Outdoor workers Public universities - Academic staff Public universities - General staff



Public sector agencies and authorities: Distribution across salary ranges

The number of Indigenous Australians in public sector agencies and authorities at salary ranges 7 to 10 has increased from 93 in 2009 to 103 in 2010. Overall, there is still a high concentration of this diversity group at lower salary ranges.

In 2010, of all Indigenous Australians in public sector agencies and authorities, 4.8% are at salary ranges 7 to 10 and 0.4% at salary ranges 9 to 10. This compares to 10.3% and 3.1%, respectively, for all employees. The representation of Indigenous Australians in salary ranges 9 and 10 has decreased from 1.0% in 2005 to 0.5% in 2008, and further down to 0.4% in 2010.

Representation of Indigenous Australians in salary ranges 9 and 10 is the lowest it has been in a decade. This is of significant concern given that staff in these salary ranges are considered a pool for future appointments to the SES.

Distribution of Indigenous Australians across salary ranges in public sector agencies and authorities in 2010

42.0

31.9

7.24.43.10.4

% Ranges 9 to 10

% Ranges 7 to 8

% R 4 t 6

Distribution of Indigenous Australian employeesacross salary ranges in the Public Sector in 2010

47.6

63.2

42.0

31.9

7.24.43.10.4

All employees Indigenous Australians

% Ranges 9 to 10

% Ranges 7 to 8

% Ranges 4 to 6

% Ranges 1 to 3

Distribution of Indigenous Australian employeesacross salary ranges in the Public Sector in 2010


Public sector agencies and authorities – Indigenous Australians in salary ranges 9-10 from 2001-2010

Public Sector - Indigenous Australians in Management Tiers IAPublic Sector 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Salary ranges 9- 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 1 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.4

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

Salary ranges 9-10

People from culturally diverse

backgrounds


The level of cultural diversity in public authorities is measured by the number of people born in countries other than those categorised by the ABS as ‘main English speaking’ (MES) countries (i.e. Australia, United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and United States of America).

Estimates from the ABS 2006 Census indicated the proportion of Western Australia’s population from a culturally diverse background aged 15 to 64 years was 16.4% (ABS 2006).

RepresentationThe representation of people from culturally diverse backgrounds in public sector agencies and authorities decreased slightly from 12.8% (10,113 employees) in 2009 to 11.9% (10,629 employees) in 2010. However, the number of people from culturally diverse backgrounds has increased over the last few years, from 8,095 employees in 2005 to 10,629 employees in 2010.

For local government indoor workers the percentage representation of people from culturally diverse backgrounds remained steady at 13.4% (917 employees) in 2009. Representation of outdoor workers from culturally diverse backgrounds increased from 12.6% (323 employees) in 2008 to 13.8% (386 employees) in 2009.

Workforce diversity - People from culturally diverse backgrounds


The percentage of academic staff in public universities from culturally diverse backgrounds increased from 21.4% (1078 employees) in 2009 to 22.8% (1221 employees) in 2010. The proportion of university general staff from culturally diverse backgrounds is relatively unchanged at 18.8% (1239 employees) in 2010.

People from culturally diverse backgrounds are well represented in public universities but representation in public sector agencies and authorities and local government authorities is lower than the community.

Representation of people from culturally diverse backgrounds in public authorities: 2006-2010


35

25

30

35

)

20

25

30

35

ntag

e (%

)


10

15

20

25

30

35

Perc

enta

ge (%

)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Perc

enta

ge (%

)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35





Perc

enta

ge (%

)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35





Perc

enta

ge (%

)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



backgrounds


DistributionThe equity index for people from culturally diverse backgrounds in public sector agencies and authorities decreased from 155 in 2009 to 129 in 2010.

The equity index for people from culturally diverse backgrounds employed in local government authorities as indoor workers decreased slightly from 112 in 2008 to 110 in 2009. For outdoor workers it remained steady at 102 in 2009. Note that the salary range for outdoor workers stops at level 6.

Despite a downward trend, the equity index for people from culturally diverse backgrounds in public sector agencies and authorities and local government authorities indicates good distribution across the salary ranges for this diversity group.

In public universities, the equity index for academic staff from culturally diverse backgrounds decreased slightly from 88 in 2009 to 86 in 2010. Similarly, the equity index for general staff from culturally diverse backgrounds decreased slightly from 95 in 2009 to 93 in 2010.

Equity index for people from culturally diverse backgrounds in public authorities: 2006-2010

6080

100120140160

Equi

ty In

dex

020406080

100120140160

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Equi

ty In

dex

Public sector agencies and authorities Local government authorities - Indoor workers Local government authorities - Outdoor workers Public universities - Academic staff Public universities - General staff


Public sector agencies and authorities: Distribution across salary ranges People from culturally diverse backgrounds are well represented at senior levels. The number of people from culturally diverse backgrounds in public sector agencies and authorities at salary ranges 7 to 10 has remained steady over the last two years (1,481 in 2009 and 1,471 in 2010).

In 2010, of all people from culturally diverse backgrounds in public sector agencies and authorities, 13.9% are at salary ranges 7 to 10 and 4.2% at salary ranges 9 to 10. This compares to 10.3% and 3.1%, respectively, for all employees. This is however the second consecutive year where representation for people from culturally diverse backgrounds in salary ranges 9 to 10 has decreased. Given this group is considered a pool for future appointments to the SES, it is important that efforts are directed at maintaining representation of people from culturally diverse backgrounds in these salary ranges.

Distribution of people from culturally diverse backgrounds across salary ranges in public sector agencies and authorities in 2010

42.040.5

7.2 9.7

3.1 4.2

% Ranges 9 to 10

% Ranges 7 to 8

% R 4 t 6

Distribution of People from Culturally Diverse Backgroundsacross salary ranges in the Public Sector in 2010

47.6 45.6

42.040.5

7.2 9.7

3.1 4.2

All employees People from culturally diverse backgrounds

% Ranges 9 to 10

% Ranges 7 to 8

% Ranges 4 to 6

% Ranges 1 to 3

Distribution of People from Culturally Diverse Backgroundsacross salary ranges in the Public Sector in 2010


backgrounds


Public sector agencies and authorities – people from culturally diverse backgrounds in salary ranges 9-10 from 2001-2010

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

Salary ranges 9-10


The community benchmark figure of 4% is based on ABS 2001 Census data for people with a moderate core activity restriction aged between 15 and 64 years. More recent estimates from the ABS indicated that 3.6% of Western Australia’s population had a moderate core activity restriction (ABS 2004). The proportion of the State’s population aged 15 to 64 years with a profound or severe core activity restriction was estimated at 3.7% (ABS 2004).

Note: The OEEO definition and the community benchmark definition differ slightly. See Appendix 8: Glossary and definitions for the full OEEO definition of people with disabilities (p. 94).

RepresentationThe representation of people with disabilities in public sector agencies and authorities is unchanged at 2.8% (2,490 employees) in 2010.

For local government indoor workers the representation of people with disabilities decreased from 2.1% (135 employees) in 2008 to 1.9% (133 employees) in 2009. The percentage of local government outdoor workers with disabilities remained steady at 4.5% (126 employees) in 2009.

Workforce diversity - People with disabilities

People with disabilities


The percentage of academic staff with disabilities in public universities is relatively unchanged from 1.5% (74 employees) in 2009 to 1.4% (77 employees) in 2010. The proportion of university general staff with disabilities has decreased from 1.8% (113 employees) in 2009 to 1.5% (102 employees) in 2010.

Overall, the representation of people with disabilities in public employment is down in 2010. This trend may be due to a reduction in the quality of diversity data and/or reduced efforts on behalf of individual authorities. Increased efforts are required in both areas to ensure benchmark levels of representation are achieved in public employment for future years.

Representation of people with disabilities in public authorities: 2006-2010


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Public sect 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.5 4.2 2.8 2.8Local gove 1.2 0.9 1.3 0.8 1.4 2.0 2.2 2.8 2.7Public univ 2.4 2.1 4.0 4.3 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.0 1.5 1.4Public univ 2.8 2.5 2.5 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.3 2.2 1.8 1.5

Representation of People with Disabilities in Public Authorities: 2006 to 2010

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

rcen

tage

(%)



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0





Perc

enta

ge (%

)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



DistributionThe equity index for people with disabilities in public sector agencies and authorities decreased from 132 in 2009 to 112 in 2010. Despite a drop from recent years, this indicates that there is good distribution for this diversity group in public sector agencies and authorities.

The equity index for local government indoor workers with disabilities increased from 72 in 2008 to 77 in 2009. The equity index for outdoor workers with disabilities decreased slightly from 86 in 2008 to 84 in 2009.

In public universities, the equity index for academic staff with disabilities increased slightly from 105 in 2009 to 108 in 2010, indicating good distribution. The equity index for general staff decreased from 76 in 2009 to 72 in 2010.

Equity index for people with disabilities in public authorities: 2006-2010

Equity indices for people with disabilities in public authoritiesPeople with disabilities Public Sector 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Public sector ag 93 102 119 132 112Local governme 109 93 72 77Local governme 90 92 86 84Public universitie 114 123 106 105 108Public universitie 70 65 72 76 72

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Equi

ty In

dex

Public sector agencies and authorities Local government authorities - Indoor workers Local government authorities - Outdoor workers Public universities - Academic staffPublic universities - General staff



Public sector agencies and authorities: Distribution across salary ranges The number of people with disabilities in public sector agencies and authorities at salary ranges 7 to 10 increased from 278 in 2009 to 344 in 2010.

In 2010, of all people with disabilities in public sector agencies and authorities, 13.8% are at salary ranges 7 to 10 and 3.2% at salary ranges 9 to 10. This compares to 10.3% and 3.1%, respectively, for all employees. The representation of people with disabilities in salary ranges 9 and 10 has increased over the last five years (3.2% in 2010 compared to 1.7% in 2005).

Distribution of people with disabilities across salary ranges in public sector agencies and authorities in 2010

across sala

% Ranges 1 to 3 % Ranges 4 to 6 % Ranges 7 to 8 % Ranges 9 to 10

All employees 47.6 1.0 42.0 1.0 7.2 1.0 3.1Women 53.9 1.0 40.5 1.0 4.3 1.0 1.2

47.653.9

42.040.5

7.24.3

3.11.2

All employees Women

% Ranges 9 to 10

% Ranges 7 to 8

% Ranges 4 to 6

% Ranges 1 to 3


Public sector agencies and authorities – people with disabilities in salary ranges 9-10 from 2001-2010

Public Sector - People with Disabilities in Management TiersPWD 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Public Sector

1.1 1.6 1.1 1.9 1.7 2 2.2 2.1 3.4 3.2Salary ranges 9-10

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

Salary ranges 9-10

Youth and mature w

orkers


The following data relates to youth (15-24 years) and mature workers (45 years and over) in public employment. For these groups, equity of distribution is not evaluated as salary ranges correlates closely with experience and age.

Representation of youthThe representation of youth in public sector agencies and authorities decreased from 6.6% (10,499) in 2009 to 6.2% (10,029) in 2010, a loss of 470 employees under the age of 25.

In local government authorities, youth representation (indoor and outdoor workers combined) remained steady at 13.4% in 2009.

Representation of youth in public universities (academic and general staff combined) has decreased from 5.8% in 2009 to 5.5% in 2010.

Representation of youth in public authorities: 2006-2010

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Public sect 3.5 4.9 5.0 5.5 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.6 6.6 6.2Local government auth 4.0 11.9 12.0 12.1 11.4 11.0 13.8 13.4Public univ 2.7 5.7 7.5 5.3 6.4 6.5 7.8 7.7 5.8 5.5

Representation of Youth in Public Authorities: 2006 to 2010

05

1015202530354045505560


Local government authorities Public universities

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Workforce diversity - Youth and mature workers


Representation of mature workersMature workers are over-represented in public employment compared to the community overall. An increase in turnover in public authorities is likely to occur in the next decade as this large employment cohort approaches retirement. To mitigate this effect, many authorities are developing strategies to retain mature workers through part-time and flexible work options. This will assist in the transfer of corporate knowledge and skills to the younger workforce.

In 2010, mature workers in public sector agencies and authorities represent 49.9% (80,535 employees) of the workforce, up slightly from 49.4% (78,560 employees) in 2009.

Representation of mature workers in local government authorities (indoor and outdoor combined) increased from 38.5% in 2008 to 40.8% in 2009.

In public universities, representation of mature academic staff has increased slightly from 41.7% in 2009 to 42.0% in 2010. The representation of mature general staff has decreased slightly from 31.4% in 2009 to 30.9% in 2010.

Representation of mature workers in public authorities: 2006-2010

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Public sect 3.5 4.9 5.0 5.5 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.6 6.6 6.2Local government auth 4.0 11.9 12.0 12.1 11.4 11.0 13.8 13.4Public univ 2.7 5.7 7.5 5.3 6.4 6.5 7.8 7.7 5.8 5.5

Representation of Youth in Public Authorities: 2006 to 2010

05

1015202530354045505560


Local government authorities Public universities

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Workforce diversity -

Snapshot


This section provides an overview of diversity group representation in public authorities for the last five years.

The data presented is based on public authority yearly reports to the DEOPE. The data for Indigenous Australians, people from culturally diverse backgrounds and people with disabilities relies on self nomination and therefore it is possible that these results may underestimate the true number.

Snapshot 1: Representation in public sector agencies and authorities 2006–2010

DIVERSITY GROUPRepresentation (%)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Women in managementSenior executive service 23.7 22.7 23.7 25.1 26.9Tier 1 19.8 24.8 23.5 23.0 26.2Tier 2 29.8 31.3 33.9 33.9 31.7Tier 3 32.8 32.7 33.6 33.4 35.1Indigenous Australians 2.5 2.3 3.3 2.3 2.4People from culturally diverse backgrounds 8.1 7.9 12.4 12.8 11.9

People with disabilities 1.5 1.5 4.2 2.8 2.8YouthMature workers

5.746.8

5.947.6

6.748.8

6.649.4

6.249.9

Note: Data for 2006 to 2009 may be different in the 2010 report compared to previous years due to one or more agencies updating their historical data.

Workforce diversity - Snapshot


Snapshot 2: Representation in local government authorities 2005–2009


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Women in management

Tier 1 – Indoor workersTier 1 – Outdoor workers

2.8n/a

5.6n/a

6.3n/a

9.9

n/a

7.1

n/aTier 2 – Indoor workersTier 2 – Outdoor workers

22.5

3.7

26.1

0

24.6

0

26.4

14.0

29.1

1.9Tier 3 – Indoor workersTier 3 – Outdoor workers

32.4

5.8

28.5

1.2

33.5

2.9

34.5

9.1

33.7

3.8


Indoor workersOutdoor workers

0.94.2

1.25.6

1.36.2

1.57.9

1.6

7.1People from culturally diverse backgrounds


4.8

6.3

9.6

8.6

11.0

12.2

13.4

12.6

13.4

13.8



1.11.9

1.6

2.9

1.6

3.7

2.1

4.4

1.9

4.5Youth Indoor workers

Outdoor workers 15.15.0

12.68.0

12.37.8

16.17.5

15.3

8.7Mature workers Indoor workers

Outdoor workers 35.947.0

36.148.9

35.8

54.2

33.8

51.4

37.1

50.3

Workforce diversity -

Snapshot


Snapshot 3: Representation in public universities 2006–2010


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Women in management (Academic and general staff)

Tier 1 Tier 2Tier 3

028.634.5

25.029.234.5

25.034.636.3

25.0

33.3

36.1

25.0

37.5

36.0


Academic staffGeneral staff

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.2

1.6

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.2

1.2People from culturally diverse backgrounds

Academic staffGeneral staff

16.0

14.0

22.2

17.9

23.2

16.4

21.4

18.7

22.8

18.8


Academic staff General staff

2.83.0

2.73.3

2.0

2.2

1.5

1.8

1.4

1.5Youth Academic staff

General staff 3.4

9.2

3.9

10.9

3.7

10.9

2.2

8.8

2.4

8.1Mature workers Academic staff

General staff 41.7

34.4

51.5

41.7

50.1

37.5

41.7

31.4

42.0

30.9


In 2005-06, a single equity measure called the composite equity index (CEI) was developed and reported for the first time. The CEI combines data on the representation and distribution of each of the four main diversity groups – women, Indigenous Australians, people from culturally diverse backgrounds and people with disabilities.

The CEI measures the extent to which members of those diversity groups are distributed across the salary levels. An ideal CEI is 100. Under-participation of any one group, or clustering of a diversity group in lower salary ranges will result in a CEI less than 100. Over-representation or clustering of a diversity group in higher salary ranges will result in a CEI greater than 100.

In 2010, the CEI for Western Australian public sector agencies and authorities has decreased slightly to 93.3, from 94 in 2009.

Composite equity index for public sector agencies and authorities: 2006-2010

Note: The CEI has been calculated using the 2009 diversity objectives set out in EDP2. These are 13% for people from culturally diverse backgrounds, 3.2% for Indigenous Australians and 3.7% for people with disabilities.

Refer to Appendix 9 for CEIs of public sector agencies and authorities and public universities with more than 100 employees.

Workforce diversity - Composite equity index

Employee Perceptions Survey results


The Employee Perceptions Survey forms part of the annual survey program conducted by OPSSC and OEEO. It enables the DEOPE to evaluate the effectiveness of Plans under s.143 of the Act, as well as determine the level of discrimination in the workplace under s.146. See p. 10 of this report for further information and refer to Appendix 10 for full results.

Employee perceptions about the treatment of diversity groups Results from surveys conducted in 2009-10 indicate public sector employee perceptions regarding the treatment of different diversity groups in the workplace are generally positive. The following bar charts provide a breakdown of the results by question:

70% of employees agreed their agency is committed to creating a diverse workforce (e.g. gender, age, cultural background, disability and Indigenous status).

Public Sector-5.8

-10.212.333.5

13 Your immediate supervisor supports the use

Valid Disagree Stro -5.5Disagree Som -7.4Neither Agree 0.0Agree Somew 30.4Agree Strongl 36.8

Missing Dont know or 9.0No Response 10.9

Total

Public Sector-5.8

-10.212.333.5

42 10 34 36 4 11

76 30 37 9 11

Strongly Disagree AgreeNeither Strongly AgreeDisagree

Don't know or Doesn't apply No response


Percentage

10 Your workplace culture supports people to achieve a suitable work/life balance



Total

Public Sector-5.8

-10.212.333.5

1 Your agency is committed to creating a diverse workforce (eg gender, age, cultural background, disability and Indigenous status)



Total

116 10 34 28 1 11




55% of employees agreed their agency supports them in feeling confident in working with people from different diversity groups.

74% of employees indicated their workplace culture is equally welcoming of people from all diversity groups, while 4% of employees did not (106 employees in total).

Of those employees who felt their workplace culture was not equally welcoming, 31% felt people from culturally diverse backgrounds were not equally welcomed, followed by Indigenous Australians (24%), people with disabilities (22%) and other various diversity groups (22%).

2 Has your agency supported you in feeling confident in working with people from different diver

Valid No -8.5Yes 54.9Don't Know 25.1

Missing No Response 11.5Total

3 Your workplace culture is equally welcoming of people from all diversity groups

Valid No -5Yes 74.3Don't Know 10.3

Missing No Response 10.9

9 55 25 12

No Yes Don't know or Doesn't apply No responseDon't know or Doesn't apply


4 Your immediate supervisor treats employees from all diversity groups in the workplace with eq



9 55 25 12

5 74 10 11









9 55 25 12






9 55 25 12

5 74 10 11









9 55 25 12






9 55 25 12

5 74 10 11









9 55 25 12






9 55 25 12

5 74 10 11



Percentage

Percentage



77% of employees agreed managers treat employees from all diversity groups in the workplace with equal respect, while 4% of employees did not (94 employees in total).

Of those employees who perceived managers did not treat employees from all diversity groups with equal respect, 32% felt people from culturally diverse backgrounds were not treated with equal respect, followed by Indigenous Australians (17%), people with disabilities (12%) and other various diversity groups (38%).

73% of employees believed their co-workers treat employees from all diversity groups in the workplace with equal respect, while 6% of employees did not (131 employees in total).

Of those employees who felt co-workers did not treat employees from all diversity groups with equal respect, 39% felt people from culturally diverse backgrounds were not treated with equal respect, followed by Indigenous Australians (34%), people with disabilities (14%) and other various diversity groups (13%).

5 Your co-workers treat employees from all diversity groups in the workplace with equal respect



4 77 8 12

6 73 9 12


6 Staff making unwelcome comments, jokes or remarks based on a person's gender or diversity

Valid Yes -9No 72.0Don't Know 8.4


4 77 8 12

6 73 9 12

9 72 8 11







4 77 8 12

6 73 9 12





4 77 8 12

6 73 9 12

9 72 8 11










9 55 25 12






9 55 25 12

5 74 10 11









9 55 25 12






9 55 25 12

5 74 10 11









9 55 25 12






9 55 25 12

5 74 10 11









9 55 25 12






9 55 25 12

5 74 10 11



Percentage

Percentage


Employee perceptions about the occurrence and acceptance of unwelcome behaviour were relatively positive.

72% of employees did not feel that staff making unwelcome comments, jokes or remarks based on a person’s gender or diversity group status is acceptable behaviour in their workplace. Nine percent of employees however felt it is acceptable behaviour (200 employees in total).

76% of employees did not believe that staff making unwelcome sexual advances or other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature is acceptable behaviour in their workplace. Approximately 5% of employees believe it is acceptable behaviour (124 employees in total).




4 77 8 12

6 73 9 12





4 77 8 12

6 73 9 12

9 72 8 11



No Yes Don't know or Doesn't apply No responseDon't know or Doesn't apply7 Staff making unwelcome sexual advances or other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature is ac






5 76 6 12


9 Unwelcome sexual advances or other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature from staff occurs



5 76 6 12

11 66 11 11

4 68 14 15









9 55 25 12






9 55 25 12

5 74 10 11









9 55 25 12






9 55 25 12

5 74 10 11



Percentage

Percentage



66% of employees did not feel staff made unwelcome comments, jokes or remarks based on a person’s gender or diversity group status in their workplace, while 11% of employees did (262 employees in total).

Of those employees who perceived the occurrence of unwelcome comments, jokes or remarks, 36% of employees believed unwelcome comments, jokes or remarks were made about people from culturally diverse backgrounds, followed by Indigenous Australians (26%), people with disabilities (12%), and other various diversity groups (25%).

68% of employees did not believe unwelcome sexual advances or other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature from staff occurred in their workplace. Approximately 4% of staff indicated that unwelcome sexual advances or other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature from staff occurred in their workplace (95 employees in total).

Refer to Appendix 10 for all Employee Perceptions Survey results for 2009-10.

4 68 14 15

Yes No Don't know or Doesn't apply No responseDon't know or Doesn't apply

7 Staff making unwelcome sexual advances or other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature is ac






5 76 6 12


9 Unwelcome sexual advances or other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature from staff occurs



5 76 6 12

11 66 11 11

4 68 14 15









9 55 25 12






9 55 25 12

5 74 10 11









9 55 25 12






9 55 25 12

5 74 10 11









9 55 25 12






9 55 25 12

5 74 10 11









9 55 25 12






9 55 25 12

5 74 10 11



Percentage

Percentage


Employee perceptions about workplace flexibilityThe employee perceptions survey also asks questions about agency support of flexible work options and leave arrangements (for example, flexible start and finish times, part-time work and purchased leave arrangements). Results for 2009-10 are similar to previous years and demonstrate employees generally feel their workplace supports flexible arrangements.

62% of respondents agreed their agency’s workplace culture supports people to achieve a work/life balance.

35% of respondents believed taking up flexible work options and leave arrangements would limit their career prospects.




Total

Public Sector-5.8

-10.212.333.5




Total

116 10 34 28 1 11



11 Taking up flexible work options

Agree Stro -11.1Agree Som -24.0Neither Agr 0.0Disagree S 23.6Disagree S 18.5Dont know 12.0No Respon 10.8

12 Your agency's policies support the use of flexible work options

Valid Disagree Strongly -5.20Disagree Somewha -10.50Neither Agree nor D 0.00Agree Somewhat 37.00Agree Strongly 28.10

Missing Dont know or doesn 8.10No Response 11.00

Total

2411 24 19 12 11

115 37 28 8 11

Strongly Agree Strongly DisagreeDisagreeAgree







Total

Public Sector-5.8

-10.212.333.5




Total

116 10 34 28 1 11






Total

Public Sector-5.8

-10.212.333.5




Total

116 10 34 28 1 11



Percentage

Percentage



65% of respondents indicated their agency’s policies support the use of flexible work options and leave arrangements and provide relevant information to staff.

67% of respondents perceived managers support the use of flexible work options and leave arrangements and accommodate the needs of employees.

Refer to Appendix 10 for all Employee Perceptions Survey results for 2009-10.

11 Taking up flexible work options

Agree Stro -11.1Agree Som -24.0Neither Agr 0.0Disagree S 23.6Disagree S 18.5Dont know 12.0No Respon 10.8

12 Your agency's policies support the use of flexible work options

Valid Disagree Strongly -5.20Disagree Somewha -10.50Neither Agree nor D 0.00Agree Somewhat 37.00Agree Strongly 28.10

Missing Dont know or doesn 8.10No Response 11.00

Total

2411 24 19 12 11

115 37 28 8 11








Total

Public Sector-5.8

-10.212.333.5




Total

116 10 34 28 1 11



Public Sector-5.8

-10.212.333.5

13 Your immediate supervisor supports the use



Total

Public Sector-5.8

-10.212.333.5

42 10 34 36 4 11

76 30 37 9 11






Total

Public Sector-5.8

-10.212.333.5




Total

116 10 34 28 1 11



Percentage

Percentage


To monitor how agencies ensure equity and diversity initiatives are included in recruitment planning, bullying and/or harassment policies and through specific training, OEEO included a selection of questions in the OPSSC Annual Agency Survey 2010. The survey results for these questions are presented below.

Equity and diversity trainingDuring 2009-10, 4.5% (7,248 employees) of employees in public sector agencies and authorities participated in specific training in equity and diversity awareness. Of these, 20.4% (1,479) were senior managers, managers or supervisors. This training was spread across agencies of all sizes and represents good coverage public sector agencies and authorities.

Recruitment planningIn 2009-10, 96.8% of public sector agencies and authorities indicated their recruitment plans addressed the principles of fairness, equity and diversity, and that their actions were consistent, transparent, impartial and open for review.

Bullying and/or harassmentIn response to the question on how public sector agencies work towards minimising the risk of bullying and/or harassment in the workplace, the results indicate that -

• All large public sector agencies have specific policies developed and implemented. Most small (83%) and medium (82%) agencies also have specific policies developed and implemented. For very small agencies, only 64% have policies in place.

• Most small (87%), medium (97%) and large (95%) agencies have clear processes established for dealing with allegations. This was less likely to be the case for very small agencies with only 72% having procedures in place.

• Most large (95%) public sector agencies monitor and review policies and processes to ensure they are being applied appropriately. Medium (70%), small (57%), and very small (40%) agencies were less likely to monitor and review bullying and/or harassment policies and procedures.

• The overall trend was that smaller agencies were less likely to have advanced policies and systems in place to monitor, review and report bullying and harassment, compared to larger agencies.

Note: In the above text, ‘large’ agencies have >1000 employees, ‘medium’ agencies have >200 -1000 employees, ‘small’ agencies have 20-200 employees, and ‘very small’ agencies have <20 employees.

Annual Agency Survey 2010 results

Appendices

Annual A

gency Survey

2010 results


Appendix 1: Abbreviations

Appendix 2: OEEO Strategic Plan 2009-10


Appendix 4: Public sector agencies and authorities, local government authorities and public universities reported during 2009-10

Appendix 5: Public sector agencies and authorities’ workforce demographics


Appendix 7: Public universities’ workforce demographics

Appendix 8: Glossary and definitions

Appendix 9: Public sector agencies and authorities and public universities – composite equity index, equity index and representation by diversity group for 2009-10

Appendix 10: Employee Perceptions Survey results for 2009-10

Appendix 11: OEEO publications

Appendices


Appendix 1: Abbreviations

Listed below are abbreviations and acronyms used in this report.

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

the Act Equal Opportunity Act 1984

CDB Culturally diverse backgrounds (people from)

CEI Composite equity index

CEO Chief executive officer

DEOPE Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment

EDP2 Equity and Diversity Plan for the Public Sector Workforce 2006-2009

EEO Equal employment opportunity

FTE Full-time equivalent

HR MOIR Human resource minimum obligatory information requirements

IA Indigenous Australians

MES main English speaking (countries)

OEEO the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity

OPSSC the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner

Plan Equal Employment Opportunity Management Plan (also ‘EEO Management Plan’)

PSC Public Sector Commission

PSM Act Public Sector Management Act 1994

PWD People with disabilities

SES Senior executive service

WA Western Australia (or Western Australian)

WACA Workforce Analysis and Comparison Application

Appendices


Appendix 2: OEEO Strategic Plan 2009-10

Key result area Legislative function / Strategic objective

Strategies

Key result area 1

Build and support quality practices in equity and diversity management.

Advise and assist authorities in relation to Plans, including the development of guidelines to assist authorities in preparing Plans.

Evaluate the effectiveness of Plans in achieving the objects of Part IX of the Act.

Develop and implement program of Plan evaluation and improvement tools for public authorities.Implement Planning support programs for local government authorities. Develop specific strategies to support the development and implementation of Plans to assist with the representation of:

• Women in management• People with disabilities• Indigenous Australians• People from culturally diverse

backgrounds• Youth

Maintain and develop a range of targeted information services, products and resources.

Key result area 2

Provide high quality, accurate and timely reports on the effectiveness of EEO and diversity in the public sector.

Make reports and recommendations to the Minister as to the operation of Plans.

Make reports and recommendations to the Minister as to such matters as the DEOPE thinks appropriate.

Undertake annual EEO data collection and reporting:

• Sector Progress Reports• Prepare and deliver How Does

Your Agency Compare? and How Does Your University Compare?

• Prepare and deliver DEOPE Annual Report.

Undertake audits and/or investigations where and when appropriate (s.147 of the Act, TI1202).Provide equity focus to OPSSC reports as required.Contribute to and support implementation of cross sector workforce data collection and reporting initiatives.Provide advice and assistance in the second year of the transition of EEO reporting from HR MOIR to WACA.


Key result area Legislative function / Strategic objective

Strategies

Key result area 3

Deliver robust and relevant customer service and effective performance partnering.

Consult with persons or peak bodies who are concerned with any or all of the objects of the Act.

Maintain, build and facilitate performance partnerships that foster cross sector leadership in equity and diversity management. Support targeted initiatives that provide leverage for the objects of the Act across the sector and in large agencies.

Key result area 4

Effective staff, systems and processes.

To ensure internal coherence and accountability in planning, decision making, operations, evaluation and reporting.

Develop an accountability framework that defines roles/responsibilities and articulates decision-making mechanisms.Establish, develop and maintain a diverse, effective and appropriately skilled OEEO team.

Appendices



Agency Total surveys distributed

Total surveys returned Response rate

Department of Education (Central Office) 1,574 575 36.5%

Department of Environment and Conservation 1,523 508 33.4%

Department of Education (Bunbury District) 1,387 336 24.2%

Department of Training and Workforce Development 567 207 36.5%

Department of the Premier and Cabinet 470 175 37.2%

Department of Education (Goldfields) 678 148 21.8%

Department for Communities 286 114 39.9%

Department of Regional Development and Lands 259 108 41.7%

Kimberley TAFE 172 53 30.8%

Metropolitan Cemeteries Board 69 32 46.4%

Equal Opportunity Commission 32 17 53.1%

Heritage Council 32 17 53.1%

Commissioner for Children and Young People 19 15 78.9%

Construction Training Fund 13 10 76.9%

Goldfields-Esperance Development Commission 13 12 92.3%

Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services 15 9 60.0%

Total 7,109 2,336 32.9%Note: Overall response rate is a weighted average.


Public sector agencies and authorities as at 30 June 2010

The Western Australian public sector agencies and authorities whose data is aggregated in this report are listed below:

Albany Port Authority Animal Resources Authority Architects Board of WA

Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority Broome Port Authority Builders’ and Painters’

Registration Board of WA

Bunbury Port Authority Bunbury Water Board Burswood Park Board

Busselton Water Board C Y O’Connor College of TAFE Central Institute of Technology

Challenger Institute of Technology Chemistry Centre WA Commissioner for Children and

Young People

Construction Training Fund Corruption and Crime Commission

Country High School Hostels Authority

Curriculum Council Dampier Port Authority Department for Child Protection

Department for Communities Department of Agriculture and Food Department of Commerce

Department of Corrective Services

Department of Culture and the Arts Department of Education

Department of Education Services

Department of Environment and Conservation Department of Fisheries

Department of Health Department of Housing Department of Indigenous Affairs

Department of Local Government

Department of Mines and Petroleum Department of Planning

Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor

Department of Regional Development and Lands

Department of Sport and Recreation

Department of State Development

Department of the Attorney General

Department of the Premier and Cabinet

Department of the Registrar Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission

Department of Training and Workforce Development Department of Transport

Appendix 4: Public sector agencies and authorities, local government authorities and public universities reported during 2009-10

Appendices


Department of Treasury and Finance Department of Water Disability Services Commission

Durack Institute of Technology East Perth and Subiaco Redevelopment Authorities Economic Regulation Authority

Equal Opportunity Commission Esperance Port Authority Fire and Emergency Services Authority of WA

Forest Products Commission Fremantle Port Authority Gascoyne Development Commission

Geraldton Port Authority Gold Corporation (Perth Mint) Goldfields-Esperance Development Commission

Government Employees Superannuation Board (GESB)

Great Southern Development Commission

Great Southern Institute of Technology

Hairdressers’ Registration Board

Health Promotion Foundation of WA (Healthway) Heritage Council of WA

Horizon Power Independent Market Operator Insurance Commission of WA

Kimberley Development Commission Kimberley TAFE Law Reform Commission of

WA

Legal Aid WA Legal Practice Board of WA Lotterywest

Main Roads WA Metropolitan Cemeteries Board Mid West Development Commission

Midland Redevelopment Authority

Minerals and Energy Research Institute of WA National Trust of Australia (WA)

Nurses and Midwives Board of WA Office of Energy Office of Health Review

Office of the Auditor General Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Office of the Environmental Protection Authority

Office of the Information Commissioner

Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services

Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner

Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations (Ombudsman WA)

Peel Development Commission Perth Market Authority

Pharmaceutical Council of WA Pilbara Development Commission Pilbara TAFE

Polytechnic West Port Hedland Port Authority Potato Marketing Corporation of WA


Public Sector Commission Public Transport Authority Racing and Wagering WA

Rottnest Island Authority Small Business Development Corporation

South West Development Commission

South West Regional College of TAFE Synergy VenuesWest

Verve Energy Veterinary Surgeons’ Board WA College of Teaching

WA Electoral Commission WA Greyhound Racing Authority WA Institute of Sport

WA Land Authority (LandCorp) WA Land Information Authority (Landgate) WA Meat Authority

WA Police WA Tourism Commission WA Treasury Corporation

Water Corporation West Coast Institute of Training Western Power

Wheatbelt Development Commission WorkCover Zoological Parks Authority

Independent agencies reported by larger agency For the purposes of reporting on equity and diversity in the public sector, some individual agency data has been amalgamated with that of a larger agency.

• Conservation Commission WA, Keep Australia Beautiful Council and Swan River Trust reported with Department of Environment and Conservation

• Drug and Alcohol Office and Mental Health Commission reported with Department of Health

• Office of the Public Advocate and Public Trustee’s Office reported with Department of the Attorney General

• Electoral Officers and Salaries and Allowances Tribunal reported with Department of the Premier and Cabinet

• State Supply Commission reported with Department of Treasury and Finance

Appendices


Agencies removed in 2009-10• Department for Planning and Infrastructure (refer below for new agencies)

• Department of Education and Training (refer below for new agencies)

• Department of Local Government and Regional Development (refer below for new agencies)

New agencies in 2009-10• Department of Education (split from Department of Education and Training)

• Department of Local Government (split from Department of Local Government and Regional Development)

• Department of Planning (split from Department for Planning and Infrastructure)

• Department of Regional Development and Lands (split from Department of Local Government and Regional Development)

• Department of Training and Workforce Development (split from Department of Education and Training)

• Department of Transport (split from Department for Planning and Infrastructure)

• Mental Health Commission

• Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (formerly part of Department of Environment and Conservation)


Local government authorities as at 30 November 2009

City of Albany Shire of Cunderdin Shire of Narrogin

City of Armadale Shire of Dalwallinu Shire of Ngaanyatjarruka

City of Bayswater Shire of Dandaragan Shire of Northam

City of Belmont Shire of Dardanup Shire of Northampton

City of Bunbury Shire of Denmark Shire of Nungarin

City of Canning Shire of Derby-West Kimberley Shire of Peppermint Grove

City of Cockburn Shire of Donnybrook-Balingup Shire of Perenjori

City of Fremantle Shire of Dowerin Shire of Pingelly

City of Geraldton-Greenough Shire of Dumbleyung Shire of Plantagenet

City of Gosnells Shire of Dundas Shire of Quairading

City of Joondalup Shire of East Pilbara Shire of Ravensthorpe

City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder Shire of Esperance Shire of Roebourne

City of Mandurah Shire of Exmouth Shire of Sandstone

City of Melville Shire of Gingin Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale

City of Nedlands Shire of Gnowangerup Shire of Shark Bay

City of Perth Shire of Goomalling Shire of Tammin

City of Rockingham Shire of Halls Creek Shire of Three Springs

City of South Perth Shire of Harvey Shire of Toodyay

City of Stirling Shire of Irwin Shire of Trayning

City of Subiaco Shire of Jerramungup Shire of Upper Gascoyne

City of Swan Shire of Kalamunda Shire of Victoria Plains

Appendices


City of Wanneroo Shire of Katanning Shire of Wagin

Shire of Ashburton Shire of Kellerberrin Shire of Wandering

Shire of Augusta-Margaret River Shire of Kent Shire of Waroona

Shire of Beverley Shire of Kojonup Shire of West Arthur

Shire of Boddington Shire of Kondinin Shire of Westonia

Shire of Boyup Brook Shire of Koorda Shire of Wickepin

Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes Shire of Kulin Shire of Williams

Shire of Brookton Shire of Lake Grace Shire of Wiluna

Shire of Broome Shire of Laverton Shire of Wongan-Ballidu

Shire of Broomehill-Tambellup Shire of Leonora Shire of Woodanilling

Shire of Bruce Rock Shire of Manjimup Shire of Wyalkatchem

Shire of Busselton Shire of Meekatharra Shire of Wyndham-East Kimberley

Shire of Capel Shire of Menzies Shire of Yalgoo

Shire of Carnamah Shire of Merredin Shire of Yilgarn

Shire of Carnarvon Shire of Mingenew Shire of York

Shire of Chapman Valley Shire of Moora Town of Bassendean

Shire of Chittering Shire of Morawa Town of Cambridge

Shire of Christmas Island Shire of Mount Magnet Town of Claremont

Shire of Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire of Mount Marshall Town of Cottesloe

Shire of Collie Shire of Mukinbudin Town of East Fremantle

Shire of Coolgardie Shire of Mullewa Town of Kwinana


Shire of Coorow Shire of Mundaring Town of Mosman Park

Shire of Corrigin Shire of Murchison Town of Narrogin

Shire of Cranbrook Shire of Murray Town of Port Hedland

Shire of Cuballing Shire of Nannup Town of Victoria Park

Shire of Cue Shire of Narembeen Town of Vincent

Public universities as at 31 March 2010

Curtin University of Technology

Edith Cowan University

Murdoch University

University of Western Australia

Appendices


Appendix 5: Public sector agencies and authorities’ workforce demographics

Women, men, youth and mature workers in public sector agencies and authorities

Representation of women, men, youth and mature workers 2006-2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Number of employees 128 052 131 742 153 582 159 033 161 483

Number of women 81 907 85 450 103 034 106 972 108 960

Number of men 46 145 46 292 50 548 52 061 52 523

Women as % of all employees 64.0% 64.9% 67.1% 67.3% 67.5%

Estimated women FTEs as % of all estimated FTEs 59.3% 60.2% 62.0% 62.2% 62.3%

Number of youth (<25 yrs) 7 242 7 777 10 153 10 499 10 029

Youth as % of total employees 5.7% 5.9% 6.6% 6.6% 6.2%

Number of mature workers (>45 yrs) 59 967 62 682 75 021 78 560 80 535

Mature workers as % of total employees 46.8% 47.6% 48.8% 49.4% 49.9%

Note: Estimated FTEs are calculated by counting each full time person as one FTE and each part time and casual person as 0.5 FTEs.Data for 2006 to 2009 may be different in the 2010 report compared to previous years due to one or more agencies updating their historical data.


Employment type - women and men 2006-2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Permanent women 57 384 59 004 63 230 67 149 69 445

Permanent women as % of all women 70.1% 69.1% 61.4% 62.8% 63.7%

Permanent men 36 654 36 633 37 942 39 206 39 604

Permanent men as % of all men 79.4% 79.1% 75.1% 75.3% 75.4%

Part-time women 30 568 32 193 40 155 42 099 43 130

Part-time women as % of permanent and fixed term women 42.6% 42.9% 49.2% 49.2% 49.3%

Part-time men 3 546 3 805 6 365 6 423 5 939

Part-time men as % of permanent and fixed term men 8.5% 9.0% 14.4% 14.1% 12.9%

The equity index is a measure of compression at the lower salary ranges of the sector. An index of 100 indicates no compression.Data for 2006 to 2009 may be different in the 2010 report compared to previous years due to one or more agencies updating their historical data.

Women in management in public sector agencies and authorities

Distribution of women 2006-2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Equity index for women 56 56 61 60 62

Women as % salary ranges 7-10 29.5% 29.7% 33.7% 32.9% 36.0%

Women as % salary ranges 9-10 22.8% 23.3% 26.4% 26.6% 26.0%


Appendices


Women in the senior executive service (SES) 2006-2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

People in the SES 376 389 384 382 412

Women in the SES 89 91 139 96 111

Women as % SES 23.7% 22.7% 23.7% 25.1% 26.9%

Women in the management tiers 2006-2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total in tier 1 121 121 120 122 126

Women in tier 1 24 30 28 28 33

Women as % tier 1 19.8% 24.8% 23.3% 23.0% 26.2%

Total in tier 2 583 565 620 643 682

Women in tier 2 174 177 210 218 216

Women as % tier 2 29.8% 31.3% 33.9% 33.9% 31.7%

Total in tier 3 1 566 1 647 1 725 1 720 1 700

Women in tier 3 513 539 578 575 596

Women as % tier 3 32.8% 32.7% 33.5% 33.4% 35.1%

Note: The number of CEOs may not match the number of agencies where one CEO is managing two or more organisations.


Indigenous Australians in public sector agencies and authorities

Representation of Indigenous Australians 2006-2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Employees surveyed 106 080 99 465 75 153 78 353 88 729

Employees surveyed as % total 82.8% 75.5% 48.9% 49.3% 54.9%

Indigenous Australians 2 616 2 277 2 496 1 775 2 127

Indigenous Australians as % employees surveyed 2.5% 2.3% 3.3% 2.3% 2.4%

Permanent employees as % total 73.4% 72.6% 65.9% 66.9% 67.5%

Permanent Indigenous Australians as % all Indigenous Australians 67.2% 67.5% 67.5% 69.4% 71.3%

Note: The data on Indigenous Australians relies on self nomination. It is therefore possible that these results may underestimate the true number.Data for 2006 to 2009 may be different in the 2010 report compared to previous years due to one or more agencies updating their historical data.

Distribution of Indigenous Australians 2006-2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Equity index for Indigenous Australians 36 38 39 63 48

No. Indigenous Australians in salary ranges 7-10 72 79 114 93 103

% All employees salary ranges 7-10 8.8% 9.1% 10.2% 9.1% 10.4%

% Indigenous Australians in salary ranges 7-10 3.0% 3.7% 4.6% 5.2% 4.8%

No. Indigenous Australians in salary ranges 9-10 22 18 13 10 9


% Indigenous Australians in salary ranges 9-10 0.9% 0.8% 0.5% 0.6% 0.4%

The equity index is a measure of compression at the lower salary ranges of the sector. An index of 100 indicates no compression. Data for 2006 to 2009 may be different in the 2010 report compared to previous years due to one or more agencies updating their historical data.

Indigenous Australians in the senior executive service (SES) 2006-2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Indigenous Australians in the SES 8 6 N/A 4 3

Indigenous Australians as % SES 2.1% 1.5% N/A 1.0% 0.7%

Appendices


People from culturally diverse backgrounds in public sector agencies and authorities

Representation of people from culturally diverse backgrounds 2006-2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



People from culturally diverse backgrounds 8 628 7 832 9 227 10 113 10 629

People from culturally diverse backgrounds as % employees surveyed 8.1% 7.9% 12.4% 12.8% 11.9%


Permanent people from culturally diverse backgrounds as % all people from culturally diverse backgrounds

75.2% 74.9% 72.0% 73.5% 73.8%

Note : The data on people from culturally diverse backgrounds relies on self nomination.It is therefore possible that these results may underestimate the true number.Data for 2006 to 2009 may be different in the 2010 report compared to previous years due to one or more agencies updating their historical data.

Distribution of people from culturally diverse backgrounds 2006-2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Equity index for people from culturally diverse backgrounds 133 155 140 155 129

No. people from culturally diverse backgrounds in salary anges 7-10 910 1 003 1 387 1 481 1 471


% People from culturally diverse backgrounds in salary 7-10 12.1% 14.3% 15.2% 14.6% 13.9%

No. people from culturally diverse backgrounds in salary ranges 9-10 228 294 470 499 441


% People from culturally diverse backgrounds in salary ranges 9-10 3.0% 4.2% 5.1% 4.9% 4.2%



People from culturally diverse backgrounds in the senior executive service (SES) 2006-2010

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010People from culturally diverse backgrounds in the SES 13 16 N/A 26 27

People from culturally diverse backgrounds as % of SES 3.5% 4.1% N/A 6.8% 6.6%

Appendices


People with disabilities in public sector agencies and authoritiesRepresentation of people with disabilities 2006-2010

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



People with disabilities 1 604 1 504 3 058 2 077 2 490

People with disabilities as % employees surveyed 1.5% 1.5% 4.2% 2.8% 2.8%


Permanent people with disabilities as % all people with disabilities 76.6% 79.9% 81.9% 77.1% 73.1%

Note: The data on people with disabilities relies on self-nomination.It is therefore possible that these results may underestimate the true number.Data for 2006 to 2009 may be different in the 2010 report compared to previous years due to one or more agencies updating their historical data.

Distribution of people with disabilities 2006-2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Equity index for people with disabilities 93 102 119 132 112

No. people with disabilities in salary ranges 7-10 124 137 400 278 344


% People with disabilities in salary ranges 7-10 8.9% 9.9% 13.1% 13.4% 13.8%

No. people with disabilities in salary ranges 9-10 28 30 64 70 79


% People with disabilities in salary ranges 9-10 2.0% 2.2% 2.1% 3.4% 3.2%

The equity index is a measure of compression at the lower salary ranges of the sector.An index of 100 indicates no compression.Data for 2006 to 2009 may be different in the 2010 report compared to previous years due to one or more agencies updating their historical data.

People with disabilities in the senior executive service (SES) 2006-2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

People with disabilities in the SES 2 3 N/A 7 6

People with disabilities as % SES 0.5% 0.8% N/A 1.8% 1.5%



Wom

en, m

en, y

outh

and

mat

ure

wor

kers

in lo

cal g

over

nmen

t aut

horit

ies

Rep

rese

ntat

ion

of w

omen

, men

, you

and

mat

ure

wor

kers

200

5-20

09

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

In

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Num

ber o

f em

ploy

ees

10 8

764

587

11 5

144

403

12 1

534

612

13 4

474

912

14 4

375

583

Num

ber o

f w

omen

6 73

7 5

547

217

559

7 85

8 6

328

767

774

9 42

61

016

Num

ber o

f men

4

139

4 03

34

297

3 84

34

295

3 98

04

680

4 13

85

011

4 56

7

Wom

en a

s %

of

all e

mpl

oyee

s61

.9%

12.1

%62

.7%

12.7

%64

.7%

13.7

%65

.2%

15.8

%65

.3%

18.2

%

Est

imat

ed

wom

en F

TEs

as

% o

f all

estim

ated

FT

Es

57.1

%9.

0%58

.3%

9.6%

60.0

%10

.5%

60.9

%12

.3%

61.3

%14

.1%

Num

ber o

f you

th

(<25

yrs

)1

640

229

1 45

3 3

531

490

358

2 16

2 3

692

204

485

Yout

h as

% o

f to

tal e

mpl

oyee

s15

.1%

5.0%

12.6

%8.

0%12

.3%

7.8%

16.1

%7.

5%15

.3%

8.7%

Num

ber o

f m

atur

e w

orke

rs

(>45

yrs

)3

905

2 15

54

162

2 15

34

348

2 49

84

544

2 52

35

363

2 81

1

Mat

ure

wor

kers

as

% o

f tot

al

empl

oyee

s35

.9%

47.0

%36

.1%

48.9

%35

.8%

54.2

%33

.8%

51.4

%37

.1%

50.3

%

Not

e: E

stim

ated

FTE

s ar

e ca

lcul

ated

by

coun

ting

each

full

time

pers

on a

s on

e FT

E a

nd e

ach

part

time

and

casu

al p

erso

n as

0.5

FT

Es.

Dat

a fo

r 200

5 to

200

8 m

ay b

e di

ffere

nt in

the

2010

repo

rt co

mpa

red

to p

revi

ous

year

s du

e to

one

or m

ore

Loca

l Gov

ernm

ent

Age

ncie

s up

datin

g th

eir h

isto

rical

dat

a.

Appendices


Empl

oym

ent t

ype

- wom

en a

nd m

en 2

005-

2009

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

In

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Per

man

ent w

omen

4 45

4 3

214

618

302

4 84

0 3

585

152

396

5 47

6 5

35

Per

man

ent w

omen

as

%

of a

ll w

omen

66.1

%57

.9%

64.0

%54

.0%

61.6

%56

.6%

58.8

%51

.2%

58.1

%52

.7%

Per

man

ent m

en3

049

3 78

73

072

3 55

52

991

3 69

83

073

3 71

53

156

4 04

5

Per

man

ent m

en a

s %

of

all m

en73

.7%

93.9

%71

.5%

92.5

%69

.6%

92.9

%65

.7%

89.8

%63

.0%

88.6

%

Par

t-tim

e w

omen

1 74

2 1

141

829

87

2 11

0 1

122

205

96

2 34

5 1

62

Par

t-tim

e w

omen

as

% o

f pe

rman

ent a

nd fi

xed

term

w

omen

36.5

%34

.7%

36.4

%27

.4%

39.1

%28

.9%

38.8

%23

.0%

38.4

%28

.6%

Par

t-tim

e m

en 2

54 1

16 2

85 7

7 3

17 8

7 3

66 1

39 3

62 9

9

Par

t-tim

e m

en a

s %

of

perm

anen

t and

fixe

d te

rm

men

7.3%

3.0%

8.3%

2.1%

9.2%

2.3%

10.3

%3.

6%9.

9%2.

4%

Wom

en in

man

agem

ent i

n lo

cal g

over

nmen

t aut

horit

ies

Dis

trib

utio

n of

wom

en 2

005-

2009

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

In

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Equ

ity in

dex

for w

omen

62

88

65

101

69

101

76

104

80

96

Wom

en a

s %

sal

ary

rang

es 7

-10

29.6

%4.

6%33

.3%

5.9%

36.5

%6.

5%41

.9%

8.1%

44.8

%10

.0%

Wom

en a

s %

sal

ary

rang

es 9

-10

20.5

%3.

8%23

.9%

6.2%

27.8

%6.

0%31

.5%

7.5%

36.1

%9.

8%

The

equi

ty in

dex

is a

mea

sure

of c

ompr

essi

on a

t the

low

er s

alar

y ra

nges

of t

he s

ecto

r.

An

inde

x of

100

indi

cate

s no

com

pres

sion

.D

ata

for 2

006

to 2

009

may

be

diffe

rent

in th

e 20

10 re

port

com

pare

d to

pre

viou

s ye

ars

due

to o

ne o

r mor

e ag

enci

es u

pdat

ing

thei

r his

toric

al

data

.


Wom

en in

man

agem

ent t

iers

200

5-20

09

20

0520

0620

0720

0820

09

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

or

Tota

l in

tier 1

144

1

44

144

1

41

141

Wom

en in

tier

1 4

8

9

1

4

10

Wom

en a

s %

tier

12.

8%

5.6%

6.

3%

9.9%

7.

1%

Tota

l in

tier 2

386

54

399

53

422

52

424

57

422

54

Wom

en in

tier

2 8

7 2

104

0 1

040

112

8 1

23 1

Wom

en a

s %

tier

222

.5%

3.7%

26.1

%0.

0%24

.6%

0.0%

26.4

%14

.0%

29.1

%1.

9%

Tota

l in

tier 3

601

138

550

83

597

104

632

88

694

78

Wom

en in

tier

3 1

95 8

157

1 2

00 3

218

8 2

34 3

Wom

en a

s %

tier

332

.4%

5.8%

28.5

%1.

2%33

.5%

2.9%

34.5

%9.

1%33

.7%

3.8%

Appendices


Indi

geno

us A

ustr

alia

ns in

loca

l gov

ernm

ent a

utho

ritie

s

Rep

rese

ntat

ion

of In

dige

nous

Aus

tral

ians

200

5-20

09

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

In

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Em

ploy

ees

surv

eyed

9 10

54

106

7 27

53

290

6 67

42

624

6 36

02

572

6 85

22

796

Em

ploy

ees

surv

eyed

as

% o

f tot

al83

.7%

89.5

%63

.2%

74.7

%54

.9%

56.9

%47

.3%

52.4

%47

.5%

50.1

%

Indi

geno

us A

ustra

lians

79

172

85

184

87

163

95

204

113

198

Indi

geno

us A

ustra

lians

as

% o

f em

ploy

ees

surv

eyed

0.9%

4.2%

1.2%

5.6%

1.3%

6.2%

1.5%

7.9%

1.6%

7.1%

Not

e: T

he d

ata

on In

dige

nous

Aus

tralia

ns re

lies

on s

elf n

omin

atio

n. It

is th

eref

ore

poss

ible

that

thes

e re

sults

may

und

eres

timat

e th

e tru

e nu

mbe

r.D

ata

for 2

006

to 2

009

may

be

diffe

rent

in th

e 20

10 re

port

com

pare

d to

pre

viou

s ye

ars

due

to o

ne o

r mor

e ag

enci

es u

pdat

ing

thei

r his

toric

al

data

.


Dis

trib

utio

n of

Indi

geno

us A

ustr

alia

ns 2

005-

2009

20

0520

0620

0720

0820

09

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orE

quity

inde

x fo

r In

dige

nous

Aus

tralia

ns 4

1 9

6 3

6 9

4 5

6 9

8 5

2 9

8 6

2 9

1

No.

Indi

geno

us

Aus

tralia

ns in

sal

ary

rang

es 7

-10

6 1

29 3

140

10

140

10

153

21

154

% A

ll em

ploy

ees

sala

ry

rang

es 7

-10

28.9

%80

.1%

28.8

%86

.9%

30.2

%86

.7%

36.8

%88

.0%

41.1

%83

.1%

% In

dige

nous

Aus

tralia

ns

in s

alar

y ra

nges

7-1

010

.3%

79.1

%5.

1%78

.2%

14.5

%91

.5%

14.1

%89

.0%

25.6

%87

.5%

No.

Indi

geno

us

Aus

tralia

ns in

sal

ary

rang

es 9

-10

0 4

7 1

51

4 6

0 1

80

9 8

8

% A

ll em

ploy

ees

sala

ry

rang

es 9

-10

14.7

%29

.7%

14.9

%38

.2%

16.3

%38

.9%

19.6

%39

.7%

23.0

%46

.9%

% In

dige

nous

Aus

tralia

ns

in s

alar

y ra

nges

9-1

00.

0%28

.8%

1.7%

28.5

%5.

8%39

.2%

1.4%

46.5

%11

.0%

50.0

%

The

equi

ty in

dex

is a

mea

sure

of c

ompr

essi

on a

t the

low

er s

alar

y ra

nges

of t

he s

ecto

r.

An

inde

x of

100

indi

cate

s no

com

pres

sion

.

Appendices


Peo

ple

from

cul

tura

lly d

iver

se b

ackg

roun

ds in

loca

l gov

ernm

ent a

utho

ritie

s

Rep

rese

ntat

ion

of p

eopl

e fr

om c

ultu

rally

div

erse

bac

kgro

unds

200

5-20

09

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

In

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Em

ploy

ees

surv

eyed

9 14

04

112

7 27

53

290

6 67

42

624

6 36

02

572

6 85

22

796

Em

ploy

ees

surv

eyed

as

% o

f tot

al84

.0%

89.6

%63

.2%

74.7

%54

.9%

56.9

%47

.3%

52.4

%47

.5%

50.1

%

Peo

ple

from

cul

tura

lly

dive

rse

back

grou

nds

442

260

700

284

737

321

851

323

917

386

Peo

ple

from

cul

tura

lly

dive

rse

back

grou

nds

as

% o

f em

ploy

ees

surv

eyed

4.8%

6.3%

9.6%

8.6%

11.0

%12

.2%

13.4

%12

.6%

13.4

%13

.8%

Not

e: T

he d

ata

on p

eopl

e fro

m c

ultu

rally

div

erse

bac

kgro

unds

relie

s on

sel

f nom

inat

ion.

It is

ther

efor

e po

ssib

le th

at th

ese

resu

lts m

ay

unde

rest

imat

e th

e tru

e nu

mbe

r.D

ata

for 2

006

to 2

009

may

be

diffe

rent

in th

e 20

10 re

port

com

pare

d to

pre

viou

s ye

ars

due

to o

ne o

r mor

e ag

enci

es u

pdat

ing

thei

r his

toric

al

data

.


Dis

trib

utio

n of

peo

ple

from

cul

tura

lly d

iver

se b

ackg

roun

ds 2

005-

2009

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

In

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Equ

ity in

dex

for p

eopl

e fro

m c

ultu

rally

div

erse

ba

ckgr

ound

s 1

12 9

6 1

12 1

01 1

16 1

07 1

12 1

02 1

10 1

02

No.

peo

ple

from

cul

tura

lly

dive

rse

back

grou

nds

in

sala

ry ra

nges

7-1

0 1

27 1

76 2

01 2

39 2

35 2

69 2

73 2

33 3

33 2

72

% A

ll em

ploy

ees

sala

ry

rang

es 7

-10

28.9

%80

.1%

28.8

%86

.9%

30.2

%86

.7%

36.8

%88

.0%

41.1

%83

.1%

% P

eopl

e fro

m c

ultu

rally

di

vers

e ba

ckgr

ound

s in

sa

lary

rang

es 7

-10

31.5

%69

.0%

31.1

%86

.0%

34.4

%87

.3%

38.2

%79

.8%

42.7

%73

.9%

No.

peo

ple

from

cul

tura

lly

dive

rse

back

grou

nds

in

sala

ry ra

nges

9-1

0 5

5 6

1 1

06 1

22 1

22 1

65 1

60 1

03 1

94 1

70

% A

ll em

ploy

ees

sala

ry

rang

es 9

-10

14.7

%29

.7%

14.9

%38

.2%

16.3

%38

.9%

19.6

%39

.7%

23.0

%46

.9%

% P

eopl

e fro

m c

ultu

rally

di

vers

e ba

ckgr

ound

s in

sa

lary

rang

es 9

-10

13.6

%23

.9%

16.4

%43

.9%

17.9

%53

.6%

22.4

%35

.3%

24.9

%46

.2%

The

equi

ty in

dex

is a

mea

sure

of c

ompr

essi

on a

t the

low

er s

alar

y ra

nges

of t

he s

ecto

r.

An

inde

x of

100

indi

cate

s no

com

pres

sion

.

Appendices


Peo

ple

with

dis

abili

ties

in lo

cal g

over

nmen

t aut

horit

ies

Rep

rese

ntat

ion

of p

eopl

e w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s 20

05-2

009

20

0520

0620

0720

0820

09

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

or

Em

ploy

ees

surv

eyed

9 14

24

107

7 27

53

290

6 67

42

624

6 36

02

572

6 85

22

796

Em

ploy

ees

surv

eyed

as

% o

f tot

al84

.1%

89.5

%63

.2%

74.7

%54

.9%

56.9

%47

.3%

52.4

%47

.5%

50.1

%

Peo

ple

with

dis

abili

ties

102

79

117

95

106

96

135

114

133

126

Peo

ple

with

dis

abili

ties

as

% o

f em

ploy

ees

surv

eyed

1.1%

1.9%

1.6%

2.9%

1.6%

3.7%

2.1%

4.4%

1.9%

4.5%

Not

e: T

he d

ata

on p

eopl

e w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s re

lies

on s

elf n

omin

atio

n. It

is th

eref

ore

poss

ible

that

thes

e re

sults

may

und

eres

timat

e th

e tru

e nu

mbe

r.D

ata

for 2

006

to 2

009

may

be

diffe

rent

in th

e 20

10 re

port

com

pare

d to

pre

viou

s ye

ars

due

to o

ne o

r mor

e ag

enci

es u

pdat

ing

thei

r his

toric

al

data

.


Dis

trib

utio

n of

peo

ple

with

dis

abili

ties

2005

-200

9

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

In

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Indo

orO

utdo

orIn

door

Out

door

Equ

ity in

dex

for p

eopl

e w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s 9

1 7

4 1

09 9

0 9

3 9

2 7

2 8

6 7

7 8

4

No.

peo

ple

with

di

sabi

litie

s in

sal

ary

rang

es 7

-10

28

34

38

62

26

68

28

81

33

79

% A

ll em

ploy

ees

sala

ry

rang

es 7

-10

28.9

%80

.1%

28.8

%86

.9%

30.2

%86

.7%

36.8

%88

.0%

41.1

%83

.1%

% P

eopl

e w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s in

sal

ary

rang

es 7

-10

28.9

%43

.0%

33.9

%66

.7%

25.7

%71

.6%

23.1

%73

.0%

29.2

%64

.8%

No.

peo

ple

with

di

sabi

litie

s in

sal

ary

rang

es 9

-10

19

12

19

38

19

36

17

31

14

36

% A

ll em

ploy

ees

sala

ry

rang

es 9

-10

14.7

%29

.7%

14.9

%38

.2%

16.3

%38

.9%

19.6

%39

.7%

23.0

%46

.9%

%P

eopl

e w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s in

sal

ary

rang

es 9

-10

19.6

%15

.2%

17.0

%40

.9%

18.8

%37

.9%

14.0

%27

.9%

12.4

%29

.5%

The

equi

ty in

dex

is a

mea

sure

of c

ompr

essi

on a

t the

low

er s

alar

y ra

nges

of t

he s

ecto

r. A

n in

dex

of 1

00 in

dica

tes

no c

ompr

essi

on.

Appendices


Representation of women, men, youth and mature workers 2006-2010 Academics 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Number of women 2 997 2 346 2 752 3 649 3 769

Number of men 3 433 2 856 3 020 4 024 4 044



Number of youth (<25 yrs) 219 203 212 171 185




Note: Estimated FTEs are calculated by counting each full time person as one FTE and each part time and casual person as 0.5 FTEs.Data for 2006 to 2009 may be different in the 2010 report compared to previous years due to one or more public universities updating their historical data.

Appendix 7: Public universities’ workforce demographics

Women, men, youth and mature workers in public universities


Representation of women and men 2006-2010 General staff 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Number of women 4 815 4 145 4 834 6 040 6 244

Number of men 2 669 2 146 2 519 3 203 3 306



Number of youth (<25 yrs) 685 688 804 814 772




Note: Estimated FTEs are calculated by counting each full time person as one FTE and each part-time and casual person as 0.5 FTEs.Data for 2006 to 2009 may be different in the 2010 report compared to previous years due to one or more public universities updating their historical data.

Representation of women and men 2006-2010 Academics and general staff

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total number of employees 13 914 11 493 13 125 16 916 17 363

Total number of women 7 812 6 491 7 586 9 689 10 013

Total number of men 6 102 5 002 5 539 7 227 7 350

Total women as % of all employees 56.1% 56.5% 57.8% 57.3% 57.7%

Appendices


Women and men by employment type in public universities

Employment type – women and men 2006-2010 Academics 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Permanent women 800 791 814 810 823


Permanent men 1 371 1 322 1 296 1 266 1 255


Part-time women 484 494 547 585 643


Part-time men 300 334 341 360 382


Employment type – women and men 2006-2010 General staff 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Permanent women 2 464 2 351 2 469 2 548 2 681


Permanent men 1 441 1 394 1 396 1 395 1 431


Part-time women 1 262 1 293 1 349 1 443 1 457


Part-time men 232 219 256 241 246


Women in management in public universities

Distribution of women 2006-2010 Academics 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


% Women in Academic levels D-E 21.5% 22.4% 23.4% 24.7% 25.7%


Distribution of women 2006-2010 General staff 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


% Women at HEW 7-11 51.0% 51.5% 51.8% 53.0% 53.6%

The equity index is a measure of compression at the lower salary ranges of the sector. An index of 100 indicates no compression.

Women in management tiers 2006-2010 Academics & General staff

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total in tier 1 4 4 4 4 4

Women in tier 1 0 1 1 1 1

Women as % of tier 1 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

Total in tier 2 35 24 26 27 24

Women in tier 2 10 7 9 9 9

Women as % of tier 2 28.6% 29.2% 34.6% 33.3% 37.5%

Total in tier 3 171 87 102 122 125

Women in tier 3 59 30 37 44 45

Women as % of tier 3 34.5% 34.5% 36.3% 36.1% 36.0%

Note: Data for 2006 to 2009 may be different in the 2010 report compared to previous years due to one or more public universities updating their historical data.

Appendices


Indigenous Australians in public universities

Representation of Indigenous Australians 2006-2010 Academics 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Employees surveyed as % of total 75.1% 87.2% 65.5% 65.8% 68.6%

Indigenous Australians 57 49 60 58 66

Indigenous Australians as % of employees surveyed 1.2% 1.1% 1.6% 1.1% 1.2%

Note: The data on Indigenous Australians relies on self nomination.Data for 2006 to 2009 may be different in the 2010 report compared to previous years due to one or more public universities updating their historical data.

Representation of Indigenous Australians 2006-2010 General staff 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



Indigenous Australians 70 66 62 73 78

Indigenous Australians as % of employees surveyed 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2%


Distribution of Indigenous Australians 2006-2010 Academics 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


No. Indigenous Australians in Academic levels D-E 6 5 6 8 11

Distribution of Indigenous Australians 2006-2010 General staff 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


No. Indigenous Australians in HEW levels 7-11 11 15 10 13 9

The equity index is a measure of compression at the lower salary ranges of the sector. An index of 100 indicates no compression.Note: Data for 2006 to 2009 may be different in the 2010 report compared to previous years due to one or more public universities updating their historical data.


People from culturally diverse backgrounds in public universities

Representation of people from culturally diverse backgrounds 2006-2010 Academics

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



People from culturally diverse backgrounds 637 819 877 1 078 1 221

People from culturally diverse backgrounds as % of employees surveyed 16.0% 22.2% 23.2% 21.4% 22.8%

Note: The data on people from culturally diverse backgrounds relies on self nomination.It is therefore possible that these results may underestimate the true number.Data for 2006 to 2009 may be different in the 2010 report compared to previous years due to one or more public universities updating their historical data.

Representation of people from culturally diverse backgrounds 2006-2010 General staff

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



People from culturally diverse backgrounds 700 855 905 1 194 1 239

People from culturally diverse backgrounds as % of employees surveyed 14.0% 17.9% 16.4% 18.7% 18.8%


Distribution of people from culturally diverse backgrounds 2006-2010 Academics

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Equity index for people from culturally diverse backgrounds 106 90 98 88 86

No. people from culturally diverse backgrounds in Academic levels D-E 144 164 182 207 219

Appendices


Distribution of people from culturally diverse backgrounds 2006-2010 General staff

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Equity index for people from culturally diverse backgrounds 99 99 105 95 93

No. people from culturally diverse backgrounds in HEW levels 7-11 192 251 273 343 343


People with disabilities in public universities

Representation of people with disabilities 2006-2010 Academics 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



People with disabilities 81 77 76 74 77

People with disabilities as % of employees surveyed 2.8% 2.7% 2.0% 1.5% 1.4%

Note: The data on people with disabilities relies on self nomination. It is therefore possible that these results may underestimate the true number.Note: Data for 2006 to 2009 may be different in the 2010 report compared to previous years due to one or more public universities updating their historical data.

Representation of people with disabilities 2006-2010 General staff 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010



People with disabilities 116 114 119 113 102

People with disabilities as % of employees surveyed 3.0% 3.3% 2.2% 1.8% 1.5%



Distribution of people with disabilities 2006-2010 Academics 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


No. people with disabilities in Academic levels D-E 15 16 15 14 14

Distribution of people with disabilities 2006-2010 General staff 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


No. people with disabilities in HEW levels 7-11 22 22 24 25 21


Appendices


Appendix 8: Glossary and definitions

The following notes and definitions clarify some main terms relating to equal opportunity and diversity in Western Australia. Where absolute definitions are required the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 should be consulted. There are also definitions pertinent to demographic data collection undertaken by public sector agencies, local government authorities and public universities. For more details visit the OEEO website at www.oeeo.wa.gov.au.

Annual Agency Survey

The Annual Agency Survey collects information from all public sector chief executive officers relating to compliance with the general principles of Human Resource Management, the WA Public Sector Code of Ethics, agency codes of conduct and overall agency administration and management.

Distribution

The distribution of a diversity group across salary ranges is determined using the equity index. The ideal equity index is 100. An equity index less than 100 indicates the diversity group is concentrated at the lower salary ranges, while an equity index greater than 100 indicates the group is concentrated at the higher salary ranges.

EEO

Equal employment opportunity.

Employee Perceptions Surveys

Employee Perceptions Surveys are conducted by the OPSSC for employees in public sector agencies and authorities. These include questions relating to human resource management, ethics and equity and diversity. Analysis of the employee perceptions surveys is conducted comparing responses for each agency to the public sector aggregate and providing a gender breakdown.

Employment type (also called ‘employment status’)

Employment status relates to whether an employee is employed on a permanent, fixed term, casual or sessional basis and whether they work full-time or part-time.

• Permanent An employee employed for an indefinite period of time, usually under the terms and conditions of a relevant award or agreement.

• Fixed term An employee employed for a finite period of time.


• Full-time An employee who usually works the agreed or award hours for a full-time employee in their occupation. If the agreed or award hours do not apply, an employee is regarded as full-time if they ordinarily work 35 hours or more per week.

• Part-time An employee who works less than full-time hours as defined above.

• Casual An employee who is paid an hourly rate and receives a loading, usually in lieu of leave entitlements.

• Sessional An employee employed to work for session periods.

• Other An employee who does not fit into any of the above groups.

Equal opportunity

As stated in section 3 of the Act, equal opportunity is concerned with:

• the elimination of discrimination on the basis of the grounds covered in the Act; and

• the promotion of the recognition and acceptance of the equality of all persons regardless of sex, marital status or pregnancy, family responsibility or family status, race, religious or political conviction, impairment or age.

Equity index

The equity index is a measure of distribution. It compares the distribution of women or a diversity group in the workforce to the distribution of the workforce as a whole. If the group has a similar distribution across all ranges as the total workforce the equity index is 100. An equity index of less than 100 indicates compression of the group at the lower salary ranges. An equity index of more than 100 indicates compression of the group at the higher salary ranges.

Details of the calculation are included at the end of this appendix. OEEO has electronic calculators available for agency use to calculate the equity indices for their organisation.


Persons of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent who identify as such and are accepted as such by the community in which they live.

Managementprofile

Management profile relates to the top three management tiers in the organisational management structure and is linked to decision-making responsibility rather than salary. A range of possible management structures exist, depending on the nature of

Appendices


the organisation’s business. While all organisations will have tier 1 management, some smaller organisations or those with flatter structures may have only two tiers of management.

Management tiers

Tier 1 management

• Directs and is responsible for the organisation and its development as a whole.

• Has ultimate control of, and responsibility for, the upper layers of management.

• Typical titles include Director General, Chief Executive Officer, General Manager, Executive Director and Commissioner.

Tier 2 management

• Is directly below the top level of the hierarchy.

• Assists tier 1 management by implementing organisational plans.

• Is directly responsible for leading and directing the work of other managers of functional departments below them.

• May be responsible for managing professional and specialist employees.

• Does not include professional and graduate staff e.g. engineers, medical practitioners, accountants – unless they have a primary management function.

Tier 3 management• Is responsible to tier 2 management.

• Formulates policies and plans for their area of control and manages a budget and employees.

• Is the interface between tier 2 management and lower level managers.

• Does not include professional and graduate staff e.g. engineers, medical practitioners, accountants – unless they have a primary management function.

People from culturally diverse backgrounds

People born in countries other than those categorised by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as ‘main English speaking’ (MES) countries (i.e. Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and the United States of America).



People with an ongoing disability who have an employment restriction due to their disability that requires any of the following:

• modified hours of work or time schedules;

• adaptations to the workplace or work area;

• specialised equipment;

• extra time for mobility or for some tasks; and/or

• ongoing assistance or supervision to carry out their duties.

People with disabilities – types of impairments

• Sight – employee uses braille, low vision aids or other special technology such as appropriate computers or screens (note: does not include glasses or contact lenses).

• Speech – employee uses aids such as word processors or communication boards in order to be understood or needs extra time to be understood.

• Hearing – employee uses aids such as a hearing help card or volume control telephone in order to hear, or TTY (telephone typewriter), Auslan interpreter or note-taker in order to communicate.

• Learning – employee uses specific support and training to perform the job, needs more than average time to learn some parts of a job or has difficulty with reading or writing e.g. has an intellectual disability, acquired brain injury or dyslexia.

• Use of arms or hands – employee uses specific equipment e.g. modified keyboard, hands-free telephone or needs extra time for handling objects.

• Use of legs – employee uses aids or needs extra time for mobility e.g. wheelchairs, crutches.

• Long term medical, physical, mental or psychiatric condition – employee has any long term health or medical condition which regularly restricts or limits activities e.g. requires regular absences due to illness or time to be provided at work for medication or treatment, or restricts some functions due to health and safety considerations.

Appendices


Representation

Representation (expressed as a percentage) is based on the number of individuals who identify themselves as belonging to a diversity group as a proportion of the workforce who responded to the OEEO recommended diversity survey. Diversity surveying is managed by public authorities.

Response rate for demographic survey of employees

Data on Indigenous Australians, people from culturally diverse backgrounds and people with disabilities is obtained through self-nomination using voluntary surveys or other voluntary data collection tools. In some organisations this information is not available for all employees and the number of surveyed employees is required to calculate an estimated percentage of employees in the diversity group within the organisation.

The survey response rate is the number of people who have identified themselves as belonging to a diversity group, divided by the total nunber of employees in the organisation (including casuals and others) who have responded to the request for information. The response rate may be different for each of the three diversity groups if a different type of survey or data collection tool was used for each diversity group at a different time.

Salaryprofile

Data relating to salary profiles refers only to permanent and fixed term employees and trainees according to their current equivalent annual base wage or salary. Equivalent salary is the salary that would be paid to a full-time employee at that level including:

• equivalent annual rate of pay as specified in the award, enterprise or workplace agreement;

• salary incremental step;

• ordinary time earnings;

• higher duties allowance for ordinary time hours; and

• base wage or salary for employees on unpaid leave.Penalty payments, shift and other remunerative allowances and overtime pay are excluded.

Senior executive service

In Western Australia, the senior executive service (SES) is generally comprised of positions classified at level 9 or above that carry specific management or policy responsibilities. Chief executive officers are appointed under s.45 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (PSM Act) while other SES members are appointed under ss 53 and 56 of the PSM Act.


Explanation of calculations Calculating the equity index

The equity index has the following formula:

Where:

• EGroup is the equity index for one of the diversity groups;

• α is equal to 0.5;

• j is the salary level (from 1 to 10);

• sj is the number of employees in that diversity group at salary level j;

• S is the total number of employees in that diversity group in the agency;

• tj is the number of employees at salary level j; and

• T is the total number of employees across the agency.

The index is designed so that it has a value of 100 for an “ideal” distribution of the diversity group through the levels.

Howtocalculatethesignificancetest

Since the equity index is based upon actual numbers that may vary by chance, it is necessary to determine the statistical significance of the index. First the measure of its uncertainty is calculated using the following formula:

Then the following calculation is done to test whether the equity index is significantly different from 100 (the ‘ideal’ score):

Significance test =

A value of more than 2 or less than –2 indicates a significant difference from the ideal index of 100.

( )∑= ∑

TtiiiF

S/

2

2

100

SE 10010 −10

Appendices


Useofthesignificancetestforsmalldiversitygroupnumbers

Where the organisation has small numbers of women (or the relevant diversity group) random fluctuations may have a high impact on the equity index and the deviation from 100 may be quite large before it becomes significant. In these situations it is important to consider the history of the index for the organisation. If the history shows the index is consistently low there may be cause for concern even if the test is not significant. However if the index is sometimes high and sometimes low it would indicate that chance fluctuations are causing these results.

Useofthesignificancetestwherethediversitygroupisthemajority

The calculation for the significance test is an estimate of a more complex test. It provides a good estimate where there is a low or medium representation of women or the diversity group in the workforce. Where the representation of women or the diversity group is high (e.g. in female dominated industries or occupations) the test is not quite as accurate and gives a slight underestimate. In this situation the test may show the deviation from 100 is not significant when the precise calculation would show that it is.

If women or people from the diversity group are the majority of the workforce, and the significance test is not significant but is close to –2 or 2, the test should be carried out for the minority group (e.g. men in female-dominated industries). If this shows a significant difference from 100, the majority group will also be significantly different from 100.

Composite equity index

The composite equity index (CEI) is used to measure the equity outcomes achieved by public sector agencies and authorities as a result of applying the principles of merit, equity and probity. The CEI uses employment data provided by agencies with more than one hundred employees to provide a single measure of equity for each agency.

The CEI is calculated by combining equity indices for each of the four main diversity groups (women, Indigenous Australians, people from culturally diverse backgrounds and people with disabilities) with representation in agency employment for each of the four groups. Extensive development has gone into preparing the CEI. Although complex, it has been rigorously tested.

The eight components (four equity indices and four participation indices) are combined into the CEI via the following formula:


Where:

• CI is the composite equity index score for an agency;

• α is equal to 0.5;

• k represents the equity groups (women, Indigenous Australians, people from culturally diverse backgrounds and people with disabilities)

• Ek is the equity index for the equity group k;

• Pk is the participation index for the equity group k;

• Tgtk is the community representation for the equity group k;

• Yk is an indicator variable, with a value of one if the equity score for that equity group is greater than zero, and zero otherwise; and

• Zk is an indicator variable, with a value of one if the community representation for that equity group is greater than zero, and zero otherwise.

The CEI has been calculated using the 2009 diversity objectives set out in EDP2: 13% for people from culturally diverse backgrounds; 3.2% for Indigenous Australians and 3.7% for people with disabilities. Changes to the CEI for 2006 (as compared to data published in the 2006 DEOPE Annual Report) are due to significant corrections to 2006 data provided by the Department of Education and Training.

Participation index

The participation index has the following formula:

Where:

• PGroup is the participation index for one of the diversity groups;

• S is the number of employees in that diversity group in the agency;

• T is the total number of employees in the agency; and

• Tgt is the community representation for the diversity group as specified in the Equity and Diversity Plan for the Public Sector Workforce 2006-2009.

Appendices


Appendix 9: Public sector agencies and authorities and public universities – composite equity index, equity index and representation by diversity group for 2009-10

Number of employees and composite equity indexNote: This and subsequent tables only include authorities with more than 100 employees.

Agency name No. employeesComposite

equity index

Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority 166 71Central Institute of Technology WA 1,827 98Challenger Institute of Technology WA 1,269 85Chemistry Centre (WA) 121 69Corruption and Crime Commission 153 64Country High School Hostels Authority 158 85Curriculum Council 148 89CY O’Connor College of TAFE 317 96Department for Child Protection 2,423 111Department for Communities 295 94Department of Agriculture and Food 1,471 77Department of Commerce 1,013 88Department of Corrective Services 4,699 96Department of Culture and the Arts 817 83Department of Education 55,200 98Department of Environment and Conservation 2,345 78Department of Fisheries 429 69Department of Health 43,255 105Department of Housing 1,188 87Department of Indigenous Affairs 173 113Department of Local Government 113 82Department of Mines and Petroleum 781 81Department of Planning 730 75Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor 119 97Department of Regional Development and Lands 232 74Department of Sport and Recreation 278 87Department of State Development 177 66Department of the Attorney General 1,869 96Department of the Premier and Cabinet 928 90


Department of Training and Workforce Development 615 88Department of Transport 1,242 72Department of Treasury and Finance 1,761 78Department of Water 609 74Disability Services Commission 2,107 96Durack Institute of Technology 404 84Esperance Port Authority 107 58Fire and Emergency Services Authority of WA 1,357 55Forest Products Commission 294 46Fremantle Port Authority 317 95Gold Corporation 256 70Government Employees Superannuation Board 234 65Great Southern Institute of Technology 439 117Horizon Power 390 82Insurance Commission of WA 370 70Kimberley College of TAFE 205 89Landgate 957 69Legal Aid WA 331 152Lotterywest (Lotteries Commission of WA) 206 70Main Roads WA 1,104 59Metropolitan Cemeteries Board 143 77Office of the Auditor General 115 78Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions 254 58Pilbara TAFE 298 96Polytechnic West 2,113 75Public Sector Commission 114 89Public Transport Authority 1,451 64Racing and Wagering Western Australia 523 83Rottnest Island Authority 143 69South West Regional College of TAFE 500 78Synergy 332 40Verve Energy 612 76WA Police Service 8,379 66Water Corporation 3,049 71West Coast Institute of Training 562 103

Appendices


Western Australian Land Authority 204 75Western Australian Sports Centre Trust 1,299 105Western Australian Tourism Commission 122 73Western Power 2,955 72WorkCover WA 163 79Zoological Parks Authority 247 94

Note: Data used to calculate the equity index and percent representation is as supplied by individual agencies through HR MOIR as at 30 June 2010.

Number of employees and composite equity index

University No. employees Composite equity index

Curtin University of Technology ACA 2,368 90Curtin University of Technology HEWS 2,610 96Edith Cowan University ACA 1,213 95Edith Cowan University HEWS 1,303 96Murdoch University ACA 1,065 91Murdoch University HEWS 1,243 79University of Western Australia ACA 3,167 84University of Western Australia HEWS 4,394 89

Equity index by diversity group

Equity index

Agency name Women IA CDB PWD

Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority 78.9 5.9 69.1 2.3Central Institute of Technology WA 92.1 124.4 84.5 40.2Challenger Institute of Technology WA 89.0 40.6 65.2 94.3Chemistry Centre (WA) 42.3 0.0 103.2 111.4Corruption and Crime Commission 69.7 90.7 99.7 37.4Country High School Hostels Authority 45.5 21.5 377.3 7.1Curriculum Council 70.1 27.3 92.8 149.4CY O’Connor College of TAFE 58.2 23.9 208.4 45.6Department for Child Protection 88.3 54.6 116.2 95.0Department for Communities 79.4 51.1 72.5 18.5


Department of Agriculture and Food 63.5 26.1 109.9 80.2Department of Commerce 68.8 89.3 110.8 84.7Department of Corrective Services 97.7 60.1 152.4 65.1Department of Culture and the Arts 82.4 35.0 83.9 41.0Department of Education 72.1 41.0 137.6 123.6Department of Environment and Conservation 64.6 14.1 154.7 141.9Department of Fisheries 51.6 84.8 84.9 140.5Department of Health 70.2 33.8 124.7 159.0Department of Housing 60.5 58.7 97.0 53.0Department of Indigenous Affairs 78.6 74.4 74.6 92.3Department of Local Government 74.5 0.0 43.1 102.5Department of Mines and Petroleum 57.3 135.4 97.0 73.5Department of Planning 71.7 15.0 73.3 54.8Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor 53.4 37.5 76.1 419.7Department of Regional Development and Lands 65.2 129.8 58.0 71.5Department of Sport and Recreation 51.3 57.8 167.2 129.8Department of State Development 75.6 0.0 76.4 42.9Department of the Attorney General 66.4 55.3 76.9 137.5Department of the Premier and Cabinet 66.8 102.3 95.3 38.1Department of Training and Workforce Development 85.9 54.5 81.1 44.3Department of Transport 43.0 17.0 116.9 36.5Department of Treasury and Finance 69.8 47.2 86.6 51.5Department of Water 79.0 191.8 81.3 36.3Disability Services Commission 87.0 79.6 66.8 70.1Durack Institute of Technology 76.7 95.6 65.5 74.1Esperance Port Authority 46.0 40.1 154.5 31.0Fire and Emergency Services Authority of WA 94.2 45.0 87.2 86.7Forest Products Commission 21.5 2.0 35.4 27.6Fremantle Port Authority 99.8 32.6 107.9 373.3Gold Corporation 44.0 8.5 46.7 7.0Government Employees Superannuation Board 87.6 0.0 88.1 19.1Great Southern Institute of Technology 77.2 426.6 230.4 74.6Horizon Power 65.8 70.5 131.6 136.2

Appendices


Insurance Commission of WA 46.2 10.3 85.6 52.6Kimberley College of TAFE 100.0 27.5 42.5 73.2Landgate 68.0 34.6 75.7 68.0Legal Aid WA 80.1 86.7 72.1 53.5Lotterywest (Lotteries Commission of WA) 74.6 14.1 77.3 20.6Main Roads WA 52.5 21.1 104.0 71.2Metropolitan Cemeteries Board 135.4 2.8 293.2 2.8Office of the Auditor General 65.5 0.0 43.7 54.0Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions 86.3 0.0 121.4 0.0Pilbara TAFE 74.3 83.6 40.5 123.0Polytechnic West 57.5 37.5 33.4 104.3Public Sector Commission 74.2 6.2 75.8 136.5Public Transport Authority 87.4 19.8 96.7 56.6Racing and Wagering Western Australia 27.7 76.9 432.1 113.2Rottnest Island Authority 66.5 85.0 82.2 2.3South West Regional College of TAFE 69.0 63.4 66.5 83.3Synergy 66.2 0.0 0.0 0.0Verve Energy 124.8 143.9 122.4 113.2WA Police Service 55.2 56.9 93.1 124.0Water Corporation 75.4 41.9 124.0 108.6West Coast Institute of Training 76.1 770.2 65.5 31.8Western Australian Land Authority 75.6 72.5 115.0 28.1Western Australian Sports Centre Trust 79.0 4.1 57.0 1557.0Western Australian Tourism Commission 74.0 52.1 51.9 20.2Western Power 77.7 56.1 101.0 83.2WorkCover WA 76.5 8.6 52.2 21.2Zoological Parks Authority 110.4 2.6 48.0 195.1


Equity index by diversity group

Equity index

University Women IA CDB PWD

Curtin University of Technology ACA 69.1 61.1 84.7 81.5Curtin University of Technology HEWS 77.8 50.1 87.0 92.5Edith Cowan University ACA 76.8 122.4 95.9 152.4Edith Cowan University HEWS 80.6 59.5 112.1 62.1Murdoch University ACA 69.4 149.3 95.0 312.7Murdoch University HEWS 77.8 37.5 87.5 62.9University of Western Australia ACA 66.8 70.7 82.7 159.9University of Western Australia HEWS 87.2 76.2 94.9 50.5

Note: The equity index is not reliable when calculated for diversity groups with less than 10 individuals. This calculation has been provided but should be interpreted with caution.

Representation by diversity group

% Representation


Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority 52.4% 1.8% 23.6% 0.6%Central Institute of Technology WA 61.2% 1.4% 19.9% 2.8%Challenger Institute of Technology WA 54.8% 1.4% 14.7% 2.3%Chemistry Centre (WA) 46.3% 0.0% 24.8% 3.3%Corruption and Crime Commission 39.9% 0.7% 7.2% 0.7%Country High School Hostels Authority 67.7% 4.0% 5.7% 0.7%Curriculum Council 70.9% 2.1% 9.7% 2.1%CY O’Connor College of TAFE 66.2% 7.3% 8.5% 2.9%Department for Child Protection 79.4% 10.3% 11.6% 1.2%Department for Communities 89.5% 8.2% 7.5% 2.1%Department of Agriculture and Food 42.1% 2.0% 13.0% 2.9%Department of Commerce 56.5% 1.1% 11.5% 3.8%Department of Corrective Services 45.9% 7.6% 10.0% 1.3%Department of Culture and the Arts 66.0% 1.2% 13.3% 1.8%

Appendices


Department of Education 82.3% 3.3% 6.8% 2.1%Department of Environment and Conservation 46.0% 4.2% 6.4% 1.0%Department of Fisheries 39.4% 1.3% 5.8% 3.3%Department of Health 77.5% 0.7% 15.1% 6.4%Department of Housing 62.1% 7.7% 9.7% 1.7%Department of Indigenous Affairs 60.7% 28.3% 10.6% 2.3%Department of Local Government 61.9% 0.0% 15.0% 15.0%Department of Mines and Petroleum 43.9% 0.4% 17.6% 3.3%Department of Planning 53.2% 0.2% 20.7% 2.2%Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor 50.4% 0.9% 22.0% 5.3%Department of Regional Development and Lands 48.7% 0.7% 13.0% 1.4%Department of Sport and Recreation 54.3% 4.2% 6.5% 2.6%Department of State Development 53.7% 0.0% 16.9% 1.7%Department of the Attorney General 67.6% 4.8% 13.3% 2.6%Department of the Premier and Cabinet 66.4% 1.6% 12.7% 4.0%Department of Training and Workforce Development 72.0% 3.5% 8.8% 1.6%Department of Transport 56.8% 1.1% 13.5% 2.9%Department of Treasury and Finance 49.4% 0.7% 21.1% 1.1%Department of Water 50.1% 0.7% 10.0% 0.3%Disability Services Commission 68.9% 0.7% 19.1% 3.8%Durack Institute of Technology 65.1% 4.2% 6.7% 1.2%Esperance Port Authority 10.3% 3.4% 7.9% 6.7%Fire and Emergency Services Authority of WA 14.5% 0.2% 7.2% 1.4%Forest Products Commission 47.3% 0.7% 18.7% 0.6%Fremantle Port Authority 22.4% 0.5% 11.9% 12.5%Gold Corporation 48.0% 2.0% 36.3% 2.3%Government Employees Superannuation Board 54.7% 0.0% 18.4% 0.4%Great Southern Institute of Technology 64.7% 3.4% 6.2% 2.7%Horizon Power 29.0% 3.2% 13.2% 2.6%Insurance Commission of WA 54.1% 0.6% 15.9% 3.4%Kimberley College of TAFE 59.0% 14.1% 5.9% 1.5%Landgate 45.1% 1.0% 8.5% 2.6%Legal Aid WA 80.4% 1.8% 11.1% 87.5%Lotterywest (Lotteries Commission of WA) 56.8% 0.5% 13.1% 1.9%Main Roads WA 27.7% 1.1% 10.0% 2.2%Metropolitan Cemeteries Board 34.3% 1.4% 4.2% 1.4%Office of the Auditor General 60.0% 0.0% 40.0% 3.5%Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions 60.6% 0.0% 13.1% 0.0%


Pilbara TAFE 64.8% 7.1% 12.1% 3.5%Polytechnic West 55.2% 1.7% 19.9% 1.5%Public Sector Commission 60.5% 1.0% 18.1% 4.8%Public Transport Authority 22.7% 1.0% 16.9% 0.7%Racing and Wagering Western Australia 45.1% 0.4% 7.1% 1.9%Rottnest Island Authority 52.4% 2.5% 10.4% 0.9%South West Regional College of TAFE 63.8% 1.8% 7.2% 1.8%Synergy 62.0% 0.0% 12.1% 1.1%Verve Energy 13.7% 0.9% 7.1% 2.7%WA Police Service 32.1% 1.7% 6.6% 2.3%Water Corporation 29.6% 1.2% 10.2% 1.3%West Coast Institute of Training 64.1% 0.5% 14.6% 2.5%Western Australian Land Authority 49.0% 1.5% 8.3% 1.5%Western Australian Sports Centre Trust 60.2% 0.1% 13.9% 0.5%Western Australian Tourism Commission 65.6% 5.6% 6.0% 0.8%Western Power 19.9% 0.7% 25.3% 1.6%WorkCover WA 57.7% 1.3% 18.3% 5.5%Zoological Parks Authority 67.6% 1.6% 6.9% 8.1%

Representation by diversity group


Curtin University of Technology ACA 51.8% 1.7% 25.7% 2.0%Curtin University of Technology HEWS 64.8% 1.4% 23.5% 1.9%Edith Cowan University ACA 53.3% 1.2% 15.3% 2.6%Edith Cowan University HEWS 68.2% 1.8% 14.4% 3.3%Murdoch University ACA 46.0% 0.8% 15.0% 0.8%Murdoch University HEWS 66.9% 0.9% 11.1% 0.7%University of Western Australia ACA 44.4% 0.9% 28.1% 0.2%University of Western Australia HEWS 64.5% 0.8% 19.8% 0.5%

Note: The number of employees in each diversity group is based on self-nomination in agency administered diversity surveys and will vary depending on diversity survey response rates.

Appendices


Number of employees by diversity group

Number of employees*


Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority 87 3 13 1Central Institute of Technology WA 1,118 26 363 47Challenger Institute of Technology WA 695 18 187 29Chemistry Centre (WA) 56 0 30 4Corruption and Crime Commission 61 1 11 1Country High School Hostels Authority 107 6 9 1Curriculum Council 105 3 14 3CY O’Connor College of TAFE 210 23 27 9Department for Child Protection 1,923 249 279 30Department for Communities 264 24 22 6Department of Agriculture and Food 620 28 187 40Department of Commerce 572 9 116 30Department of Corrective Services 2,158 228 294 39Department of Culture and the Arts 539 8 92 12Department of Education 45,424 590 1,208 368Department of Environment and Conservation 1,079 76 151 20Department of Fisheries 169 5 23 13Department of Health 33,544 118 2,419 1,023Department of Housing 738 90 115 20Department of Indigenous Affairs 105 49 18 4Department of Local Government 70 0 3 3Department of Mines and Petroleum 343 3 137 26Department of Planning 388 1 120 13Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor 60 1 26 6Department of Regional Development and Lands 113 1 19 2Department of Sport and Recreation 151 10 16 6Department of State Development 95 0 30 3Department of the Attorney General 1,264 62 176 32Department of the Premier and Cabinet 616 8 64 20Department of Training and Workforce Development 443 17 43 8Department of Transport 705 11 130 28Department of Treasury and Finance 870 9 267 14Department of Water 305 4 58 2


Disability Services Commission 1,451 13 304 66Durack Institute of Technology 263 17 27 5Esperance Port Authority 11 3 7 6Fire and Emergency Services Authority of WA 197 1 35 7Forest Products Commission 139 2 55 1Fremantle Port Authority 71 1 22 3Gold Corporation 123 5 93 6Government Employees Superannuation Board 128 0 43 1Great Southern Institute of Technology 284 15 27 12Horizon Power 113 12 50 10Insurance Commission of WA 200 2 56 12Kimberley College of TAFE 121 29 12 3Landgate 432 10 81 25Legal Aid WA 266 5 32 14Lotterywest (Lotteries Commission of WA) 117 1 27 4Main Roads WA 306 12 110 24Metropolitan Cemeteries Board 49 2 6 2Office of the Auditor General 69 0 46 4Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions 154 0 24 0Pilbara TAFE 193 21 36 8Polytechnic West 1,167 36 420 27Public Sector Commission 69 1 19 5Public Transport Authority 329 13 226 10Racing and Wagering Western Australia 236 2 34 9Rottnest Island Authority 75 3 12 1South West Regional College of TAFE 319 9 36 9Synergy 206 0 21 2Verve Energy 84 3 24 9WA Police Service 2,686 135 510 181Water Corporation 901 37 311 40West Coast Institute of Training 360 3 82 13Western Australian Land Authority 100 3 17 3Western Australian Sports Centre Trust 782 1 181 7Western Australian Tourism Commission 80 6 6 1Western Power 587 19 727 45WorkCover WA 94 2 28 8Zoological Parks Authority 167 4 17 20

Appendices


Number of employees by diversity groupNumber of employees*


Curtin University of Technology ACA 1,227 31 472 36Curtin University of Technology HEWS 1,691 28 487 40Edith Cowan University ACA 646 15 185 32Edith Cowan University HEWS 889 23 188 43Murdoch University ACA 490 5 99 5Murdoch University HEWS 831 8 96 6University of Western Australia ACA 1,406 15 465 4University of Western Australia HEWS 2,833 19 468 13


Total employees surveyed by diversity group

Total employees surveyed


Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority 166 166 55 166Central Institute of Technology WA 1,827 1,825 1,827 1,679Challenger Institute of Technology WA 1,269 1,268 1,269 1,262Chemistry Centre (WA) 121 121 121 121Corruption and Crime Commission 153 153 153 153Country High School Hostels Authority 158 151 158 151Curriculum Council 148 144 144 144CY O’Connor College of TAFE 317 313 317 309Department for Child Protection 2,423 2,412 2,415 2,406Department for Communities 295 293 294 291Department of Agriculture and Food 1,471 1,377 1,434 1,364Department of Commerce 1,013 807 1,012 787Department of Corrective Services 4,699 3,010 2,941 3,080Department of Culture and the Arts 817 688 692 677Department of Education 55,200 17,683 17,656 17,683Department of Environment and Conservation 2,345 1,831 2,345 2,037Department of Fisheries 429 400 400 400Department of Health 43,255 16,018 16,018 16,018Department of Housing 1,188 1,174 1,182 1,188Department of Indigenous Affairs 173 173 170 173Department of Local Government 113 20 20 20Department of Mines and Petroleum 781 780 780 780Department of Planning 730 579 579 579Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor 119 113 118 114Department of Regional Development and Lands 232 146 146 146Department of Sport and Recreation 278 240 246 232Department of State Development 177 177 177 177Department of the Attorney General 1,869 1,305 1,322 1,219Department of the Premier and Cabinet 928 502 503 503Department of Training and Workforce Development 615 489 487 489Department of Transport 1,242 964 964 964Department of Treasury and Finance 1,761 1,220 1,265 1,226Department of Water 609 580 580 576

Appendices


Disability Services Commission 2,107 1,946 1,588 1,746Durack Institute of Technology 404 404 404 401Esperance Port Authority 107 89 89 89Fire and Emergency Services Authority of WA 1,357 487 487 485Forest Products Commission 294 294 294 172Fremantle Port Authority 317 185 185 24Gold Corporation 256 256 256 256Government Employees Superannuation Board 234 234 234 234Great Southern Institute of Technology 439 438 439 438Horizon Power 390 380 380 380Insurance Commission of WA 370 355 353 350Kimberley College of TAFE 205 205 205 203Landgate 957 955 957 957Legal Aid WA 331 278 288 16Lotterywest (Lotteries Commission of WA) 206 206 206 206Main Roads WA 1,104 1,104 1,104 1,104Metropolitan Cemeteries Board 143 143 143 143Office of the Auditor General 115 115 115 115Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions 254 183 183 183Pilbara TAFE 298 297 298 227Polytechnic West 2,113 2,112 2,113 1,806Public Sector Commission 114 105 105 105Public Transport Authority 1,451 1,355 1,341 1,340Racing and Wagering Western Australia 523 479 479 479Rottnest Island Authority 143 118 115 115South West Regional College of TAFE 500 498 500 491Synergy 332 174 174 174Verve Energy 612 337 337 337WA Police Service 8,379 7,755 7,691 7,721Water Corporation 3,049 3,049 3,049 3,049West Coast Institute of Training 562 561 562 517Western Australian Land Authority 204 201 204 201Western Australian Sports Centre Trust 1,299 1,290 1,298 1,291Western Australian Tourism Commission 122 108 100 122Western Power 2,955 2,878 2,878 2,878WorkCover WA 163 155 153 146Zoological Parks Authority 247 247 247 247


Total employees surveyed by diversity group

Total employees surveyed


Curtin University of Technology ACA 2,368 1,834 1,834 1,834Curtin University of Technology HEWS 2,610 2,073 2,073 2,073Edith Cowan University ACA 1,213 1,213 1,213 1,213Edith Cowan University HEWS 1,303 1,303 1,303 1,303Murdoch University ACA 1,065 658 658 658Murdoch University HEWS 1,243 865 865 865University of Western Australia ACA 3,167 1,656 1,656 1,656University of Western Australia HEWS 4,394 2,367 2,367 2,367

Representation of women in management and youth

Women in management Youth

Agency name Tier 2 Tier 3 <25

Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority 66.7% 33.3% 16.9% Central Institute of Technology WA 55.6% 65.6% 6.2% Challenger Institute of Technology WA 75.0% 62.5% 4.7% Chemistry Centre (WA) 0.0% 10.0% 10.7% Corruption and Crime Commission 33.3% 11.1% 0.7% Country High School Hostels Authority 50.0% 22.2% 3.8% Curriculum Council 40.0% 53.8% 2.7% CY O’Connor College of TAFE 20.0% 56.3% 6.3% Department for Child Protection 42.9% 57.6% 7.4% Department for Communities 80.0% 44.4% 4.7% Department of Agriculture and Food 15.4% 0.0% 3.1% Department of Commerce 27.3% 34.8% 6.9% Department of Corrective Services 62.5% 61.3% 3.7% Department of Culture and the Arts 20.0% 51.9% 5.6% Department of Education 37.5% 38.5% 5.1%

Appendices


Department of Environment and Conservation 7.1% 17.9% 6.3% Department of Fisheries 25.0% 23.1% 3.5% Department of Health 36.4% 49.4% 6.1% Department of Housing 42.9% 27.6% 7.2% Department of Indigenous Affairs 37.5% 51.4% 4.6% Department of Local Government 42.9% 52.9% 9.7% Department of Mines and Petroleum 0.0% 11.8% 4.5% Department of Planning 60.0% 33.3% 6.4% Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor 50.0% 22.2% 5.9% Department of Regional Development and Lands 20.0% 15.4% 7.8% Department of Sport and Recreation 20.0% 14.3% 23.7% Department of State Development 75.0% 20.0% 9.0% Department of the Attorney General 11.1% 36.2% 10.7% Department of the Premier and Cabinet 15.6% 15.0% 12.8% Department of Training and Workforce Development 50.0% 52.9% 9.9% Department of Transport 0.0% 22.2% 9.7% Department of Treasury and Finance 23.1% 23.7% 6.5% Department of Water 20.0% 14.8% 5.3% Disability Services Commission 50.0% 50.0% 5.0% Durack Institute of Technology 33.3% 58.8% 2.7% Esperance Port Authority 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% Fire and Emergency Services Authority of WA 0.0% 33.3% 1.7% Forest Products Commission 0.0% 0.0% 11.2% Fremantle Port Authority 33.3% 15.0% 3.2% Gold Corporation 42.9% 31.6% 7.4% Government Employees Superannuation Board 50.0% 46.7% 3.4% Great Southern Institute of Technology 60.0% 70.0% 4.1% Horizon Power 22.2% 11.4% 3.1% Insurance Commission of WA 0.0% 14.3% 9.7% Kimberley College of TAFE 66.7% 30.0% 4.4% Landgate 22.2% 50.0% 5.9% Legal Aid WA 85.7% 61.9% 6.6% Lotterywest (Lotteries Commission of WA) 50.0% 33.3% 1.9% Main Roads WA 16.7% 9.5% 8.1% Metropolitan Cemeteries Board 66.7% 0.0% 10.5% Office of the Auditor General 20.0% 33.3% 10.4% Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions 0.0% 38.9% 11.4% Pilbara TAFE 40.0% 62.5% 6.0%


Polytechnic West 28.6% 36.4% 5.6% Public Sector Commission 25.0% 42.9% 7.0% Public Transport Authority 13.3% 19.6% 3.7% Racing and Wagering Western Australia 12.5% 16.2% 18.0% Rottnest Island Authority 28.6% 26.7% 4.9% South West Regional College of TAFE 33.3% 33.3% 2.4% Synergy 0.0% 25.0% 8.1% Verve Energy 0.0% 19.2% 5.7% WA Police Service 0.0% 4.3% 6.6% Water Corporation 12.5% 12.5% 6.7% West Coast Institute of Training 25.0% 63.2% 5.5% Western Australian Land Authority 20.0% 33.3% 3.9% Western Australian Sports Centre Trust 12.5% 50.0% 51.3% Western Australian Tourism Commission 25.0% 43.8% 4.9% Western Power 12.5% 21.4% 6.5% WorkCover WA 50.0% 40.0% 4.3% Zoological Parks Authority 100.0% 43.8% 14.6%

Representation of women in management and youth

Women in management Youth

University Tier 2 Tier 3 <25

Curtin University of Technology ACA 75.0% 25.0% 4.7%Curtin University of Technology HEWS 33.3% 29.6% 13.5%Edith Cowan University ACA 16.7% 34.5% 0.2%Edith Cowan University HEWS 50.0% 50.0% 5.2%Murdoch University ACA 33.3% 13.3% 5.6%Murdoch University HEWS 0.0% 71.4% 15.8%University of Western Australia ACA 50.0% 50.0% 0.3%University of Western Australia HEWS 50.0% 0.0% 3.6%

Appendices


Appendix 10: Employee Perceptions Survey results for 2009-10

EEO and diversity No

resp

onse

Agr

ee

stro

ngly

Agr

ee

som

ewha

t

Nei

ther

ag

ree

nor

disa

gree

Dis

agre

e so

mew

hat

Dis

agre

e st

rong

ly

Don

’t kn

ow o

r do

esn’

t ap

ply

Your agency is committed to creating a diverse workforce (eg gender, age, cultural background, disability and Indigenous status)

10.8% 35.7% 34.2% 10.1% 3.8% 1.6% 3.8%

Your workplace culture supports people to achieve a suitable work/life balance

11.0% 27.9% 34.1% 9.7% 10.5% 5.7% 1.0%


EEO and diversity

No

resp

onse

Agr

ee

stro

ngly

Agr

ee

som

ewha

t

Dis

agre

e so

mew

hat

Dis

agre

e st

rong

ly

Don

’t kn

ow o

r do

esn’

t ap

ply

Taking up flexible work options and leave arrangements (for example flexible start and finish times, part-time work, purchased leave arrangements) would limit your career in your agency

10.8% 11.1% 24.0% 23.6% 18.5% 12.0%

Your agency’s policies support the use of flexible work options and leave arrangements (for example flexible start and finish times, part-time work, purchased leave arrangements) and provide relevant information to staff

11.0% 28.1% 37.0% 10.5% 5.2% 8.1%

Your immediate supervisor supports the use of flexible work options and leave arrangements (for example flexible start and finish times, part-time work, purchased leave arrangements) and accommodates the needs of employees

10.9% 36.8% 30.4% 7.4% 5.5% 9.0%

Appendices


EEO and diversity

No

resp

onse

Yes

No

Don

’t kn

ow /

no

opin

ion

Has your agency supported you in feeling confident in working with people from different diversity groups? (for example people from culturally diverse backgrounds, people with disabilities, Indigenous Australians and other diversity groups)

11.5% 54.9% 8.5% 25.1%

Your workplace culture is equally welcoming of people from all diversity groups (for example people from culturally diverse backgrounds, people with disabilities, Indigenous Australians and other diversity groups) a

10.9% 74.3% 4.5% 10.3%

Your immediate supervisor treats employees from all diversity groups in the workplace with equal respect b 11.6% 76.6% 4.0% 7.7%

Your co-workers treat employees from all diversity groups in the workplace with equal respect c 11.9% 73.4% 5.6% 9.1%

Staff making unwelcome comments, jokes or remarks based on a person’s gender or diversity group status is acceptable behaviour in your workplace

11.0% 8.6% 72.0% 8.4%

Staff making unwelcome sexual advances or other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature is acceptable behaviour in your workplace

12.2% 5.3% 76.2% 6.3%

Staff making unwelcome comments, jokes or remarks based on a person’s gender or diversity group status occurs in your workplace d

11.3% 11.2% 66.5% 11.0%

Unwelcome sexual advances or other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature from staff occurs in your workplace

14.7% 3.5% 67.9% 13.9%


EEO and diversity

Peop

le fr

om c

ultu

rally

di

vers

e ba

ckgr

ound

s

Peop

le w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s

Indi

geno

us A

ustr

alia

ns

Oth

er

a. If not, people from which diversity group were not welcomed 31.3% 22.3% 24.1% 22.3%

b. If not, people from which diversity group were not treated with equal respect

32.3% 12.5% 16.7% 38.5%

c. If not, people from which diversity group were not treated with equal respect

38.8% 14.1% 33.5% 13.5%

d. If yes, about which diversity group were unwelcome comments, jokes or remarks made about

35.8% 12.3% 26.5% 25.4%

Appendices


Appendix 11: OEEO publications

The following publications and reports have been produced by OEEO. Limited numbers are available to the public at no cost and they can be made available in alternative formats on request. All publications are available from the OEEO website:

New suite of EEO Management Planning Tools:

• EEO Management Plan for agencies with less than 50 staff

• EEO Management Plan for agencies with more than 50 staff

• EEO Management Plan: Evaluation Tool

• Guidelines to assist with Equal Employment Opportunity Management Planning and complying with Part IX of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984

• Good practice examples of approved EEO Management Plans

Accessing Abilities

Recruiting and retaining people with disabilities in the Western Australian public sector

Annual Reports

Archive of DEOPE Annual Reports from 1999-2009

Acts of Courage?

Public sector CEOs on men, women and work

Breaking Through

Women executives in the WA public sector

Diversity Bizz

Quarterly online OEEO newsletter

Diversity Survey Information

Surveying your staff on cultural diversity and disability

Diversity Survey Questionnaire

Surveying your staff on cultural diversity and disability


EEO and Diversity Management Planning

A guide for equity planners and practitioners

EEO and Diversity Management Planning Guide

Checklist of planning considerations

Equity and Diversity Planning

Making use of your demographic data

Equity and Diversity Plan for the Public Sector Workforce 2006-2009 (includes Progress Reports)

Equity Principles in Competency Standards

Development and implementation

Executive and Management Recruitment

Encouraging women applicants

Indigenous Employment in the WA Public Sector

Valuing the difference

Innovative Recruitment

A guide for HR managers and practitioners

Insights – Strategies for Success

Indigenous and non-Indigenous people on work

OEEO – What we do

Part-time Managers

Frequently asked questions

Recruiting for the Western Australian Public Sector

A quick guide for recruitment consultants

Appendices


Showing the Way: • Employees from culturally diverse backgrounds

• Employing people with disabilities

• Employment and retention of Indigenous Australians

• Recruitment and retention of youth

• Women in management

Updated Equity and Diversity Statistics for the ‘Showing the Way’ Series

Strategies at Work:

• Enhancing employment opportunities for Indigenous Australians

• Enhancing employment opportunities for people from culturally diverse backgrounds

• Enhancing employment opportunities for people with disabilities

• Enhancing employment opportunities for youth

• Enhancing opportunities for women in management

Supported Work Team documentary

DVD which demonstrates the benefits of employing people with disabilities through the Supported Work Team initiative

Tapping into Talent

New insights into workforce diversity

Understanding Equal Employment Opportunity in WA

Voices of Diversity

Benefits of cultural diversity in the public sector

Women in Management

Good ideas for improving diversity


Australian Bureau of Statistics (2003). Disability, Aging and Carers Table 1. All

Persons, Disability and long term health condition status by age,

Western Australia, 2003 (ABS 2003, Cat. No. 4430.0). Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006). Census Tables 2006 Population and

Housing Western Australia. Country of Birth of Persons (a) by Age and

Sex. Count of persons based on place of usual residence, June 2006

(ABS 2006 Census, Cat. No. 2068.0). Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006). Experimental Estimates of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander Australians, June 2006 (ABS 2006 Census,

3238055001DO001 200606). Canberra.

References

Date post:	02-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

Annual Report 2010 - Parliament of Western Australia...your information and presentation to...

Documents