Appendixes

In this section:

Appendix A – Evaluation framework

This appendix outlines the approach undertaken by the Public Sector Commission to evaluate performance in accordance with the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (PSM Act) and Public Interest Disclosure Act 2003 (PID Act).

Under ss. 21 and 22D of the PSM Act, the Public Sector Commissioner is required to monitor and report on the state of public sector administration and management each year, and compliance with standards and ethical codes. The Commission's jurisdiction under the PSM Act applies to all WA public sector bodies, which includes:

  • departments (established under s. 35 of the PSM Act)
  • SES organisations
  • non-SES organisations
  • ministerial offices.

This does not include other government bodies such as:

  • public universities
  • local governments
  • other entities listed in Schedule 1 of the PSM Act (e.g. government trading enterprises, courts and tribunals, departments of the Parliament, electorate offices and the Police Force).

Under s. 22 of the PID Act, the Commissioner is also required to report on compliance with the PID Act and the Public interest disclosure code of conduct and integrity. The Commissioner's jurisdiction under the PID Act is broader and includes public universities, local governments and other PSM Act Schedule 1 entities.

As of 1 July 2015, the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA) was amended. This has resulted in the transfer of the oversight of minor misconduct by public officers and the prevention and education functions to the Commission. Under the revised Act, the Commission will monitor and report to Parliament on behavioural trends and activities undertaken by public authorities to respond effectively and prevent unethical behaviour in the sector.

Evaluation framework

The Commission monitors the state of the sector through performance assessments, general enquiries, surveys (of public authorities and employees) and other workforce data collection.

The Commission makes every effort to ensure the integrity of public sector data but it relies on public authorities to provide accurate data.

Employee perception survey (EPS)

The EPS evaluates employee views about their workplace, including ethical behaviour, equity and diversity, and job satisfaction. The EPS is a valuable tool to identify areas of opportunity and acknowledge good practice.

In 2015, employees from 20 public sector entities were invited to complete the EPS. These entities comprised a range of sizes and portfolios as, typically, the EPS is conducted in each entity with more than 20 employees approximately once every five years. The EPS continues to evolve and gather information about different topics from year to year. As such, trends across time may not be available for some items.

The average response rate for 2015 was 31%. This report assumes there is no significant difference between those employees who were asked to participate and those who were not. It also assumes there is no difference between those participants who responded and those who did not. Some care should be taken in considering the EPS results as they may not be entirely representative of the views of the broader public sector.

The State of the WA public sector statistical bulletin 2015 lists sector-wide EPS data by demographic categories. De-identified data from the EPS is made available at www.data.gov.au in line with government policy of making data within the sector available and transparent.

Public sector entity survey (PSES)

The annual PSES requests information from public sector entities about their administration and management practices, such as capability development, workforce diversity, and innovation. The survey also requests information about designated public interest disclosure officers, internal procedures and any disclosures received. The PSES provides entities with an internal planning and diagnostic tool.

In 2015, only public sector entities with more than 20 full-time equivalents (FTE)36 were asked to complete the PSES. All of these entities responded to the survey.

To reduce the reporting burden, those with less than 20 FTE (24 entities) completed a shorter version of the survey in the form of the integrity and conduct survey (ICS). The PSES was completed by 84 entities (more than 20 FTE). The PSES continues to evolve and gathers information about different topics from year to year. As such, trends across time may not be available for some items.

Entity level responses are published in the State of the WA public sector statistical bulletin 2015.

Integrity and conduct survey (ICS)

Following legislative changes brought about by the Corruption and Crime Commission Amendment (Misconduct) Act 2014, the public interest disclosure survey has been replaced by the ICS for 2015.

The ICS will be sent annually to the principal officers of public authorities. This survey is one of the methods used to evaluate compliance with the PID Act and in the future, the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003.

The survey assists public sector entities with fewer than 20 FTE, as well as non-public sector authorities, to meet their annual reporting requirements.

The ICS requests information about designated public interest disclosure officers, internal procedures and any disclosures received, as well as activities undertaken by authorities to respond effectively to and prevent unethical behaviour.

In 2015, 267 public authorities were asked to complete the ICS and the average response rate was 72%. Broken down by authority type, the response rates were:

  • 100% of public sector entities with less than 20 FTE (24 of 24 responded)
  • 100% of public universities (4 of 4)
  • 83% of government trading enterprises (15 of 18)
  • 72% of local governments (100 of 138)
  • 58% of government boards and committees (48 of 83).

Human resource minimum obligatory information requirement (HRMOIR)

On a quarterly basis, the Commission collects and reports HRMOIR workforce data from public sector entities. The data includes demographic information such as age, gender, diversity status and occupation. The State of the WA public sector statistical bulletin 2015 lists key HRMOIR statistics, both sector-wide and at the entity level.


36 Includes all current employees, except for casuals not paid in the final pay period fortnight of the financial year. One FTE equals one person paid for a full-time position at the end of the financial year.

return to top

Appendix B – Explanatory notes for benchmarking data

This appendix provides further information for inter-jurisdictional comparison data throughout the report.

Data sources

Table B.1 lists the data sources used by the Public Sector Commission to benchmark the WA public sector results.

Table B.1 - Data sources used to benchmark WA public sector results

Jurisdiction

Data source

Australian Capital Territory (ACT)

ACT Commissioner for Public Administration 2014, State of the service report 2013-2014

Australian Public Service (APS)

Australian Public Service Commission 2014; 2015, State of the service report 2013–2014, Statistical bulletin 2014-2015

New South Wales (NSW)

NSW Public Service Commission 2014, Workforce profile report 2014, People matter employee survey 2014: Main findings report

Northern Territory (NT)

NT Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment 2014, State of the service report 2013–14

Queensland (Qld)

Qld Public Service Commission 2014, Queensland public service workforce characteristics 2013-2014, Working for Queensland: Employee opinion survey 2014 report

South Australia (SA)

SA Commissioner for Public Sector Employment 2014, South Australian public sector workforce information: June 2014 – summary tables, ‘Data dashboard—June 2014’

Tasmania (Tas)

Tas Department of Premier and Cabinet 2014, Tasmanian State Service annual report 2013–2014

Victoria (Vic)

Vic Public Sector Commission 2014, The state of the public sector in Victoria 2013–2014

United Kingdom (UK)

United Kingdom Cabinet Office 2014, Civil service people survey 2014: Summary of findings

Explanatory notes

In general, the term 'workforce' represents the public sector workforce in each jurisdiction.

For WA, all workforce numbers are calculated based on data reported by entities through the human resource minimum obligatory information requirement (HRMOIR) process at 30 June 2015. Workforce respondent data is from the Commission's 2015 employee perception survey.

Table B.2 explains some of the differences in workforce metrics and data definitions used by each jurisdiction. Caution should be exercised in drawing any comparisons across jurisdictions due to these and other differences.

Unless otherwise stated, data for other jurisdictions is from the 2013/14 reporting year, and data for WA is from 2014/15 due to the time of publication.

Table B.2 Explanatory notes for inter-jurisdictional comparisons

Metric

Explanatory notes

Women as % of
senior executives

'Senior executives' are defined differently across jurisdictions. In WA, senior executives comprise those employees in the SES as defined in Part 3, Division 2 of the PSM Act.

This metric is based on headcount for all jurisdictions except QLD (FTE). For Vic, senior executives includes those in public entities.

Aboriginal Australians
as % of workforce

'Aboriginal Australians' is respectfully used to refer to people of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander descent who identify as such and are accepted as such by the community in which they live.

This metric is based on headcount for all jurisdictions. APS data is for ongoing employees only. Tas data is based on responses to the 'Tasmanian State Service workforce survey'.

People with disability as
% of workforce

'People with disability' is defined differently across jurisdictions. In WA, people with disability have an ongoing employment restriction, due to their disability, that requires any of the following:

  • restriction in the type of work they can do
  • modified hours of work or schedules
  • adaptations to the workplace or work area
  • specialised equipment
  • extra time for mobility or for some tasks
  • ongoing assistance or supervision to carry out their duties.

This metric is based on headcount for all jurisdictions. APS data is for ongoing employees only. Tas data is based on responses to the 'Tasmanian State Service workforce survey'.

% workforce respondents who believe they have ethical leadership

'Ethical leadership' is defined differently across jurisdictions. For WA, this is represented by 'senior managers lead by example in ethical behaviour'.

This data is collected through employee perception surveys.

Employee engagement

'Employee engagement' represents a combination of employee perceptions such as work commitment, pride, satisfaction and motivation. Based on the UK Civil Service methodology, it is measured using an index derived from employee responses to five survey items. Further information on this methodology is provided in Appendix C.

% workforce respondents who are satisfied with their career opportunities

'Satisfaction with career opportunities' is defined differently across jurisdictions. For WA, this is represented by 'I am satisfied with the opportunities available to me for career progression in my current agency'.

This data is collected through employee perception surveys.

% workforce respondents who reported receiving formal performance feedback in the last 12 months

'Formal performance feedback' is defined differently across jurisdictions. For WA, this is represented by 'if you have been employed in your agency for more than 12 months, have you participated in one or more formal, documented performance management meetings with your supervisor in the past 12 months?'

This data is collected through employee perception surveys.

% workforce respondents who reported being subject to bullying in the last 12 months

'Bullying' is defined differently across jurisdictions. For WA, this is represented by 'during the past 12 months, have you been subjected to repeated bullying in your workplace?' Bullying is defined by WA to mean: 'repeated (i.e. on more than one occasion) unreasonable or inappropriate behaviour directed towards workers that creates a risk to health and safety. Bullying should not be confused with legitimate feedback given to staff (including constructive criticism) on work performance or work-related behaviour; or other legitimate management decisions and actions undertaken in a reasonable and respectful way.'

This data is collected through employee perception surveys. WA, NSW, and Vic data covers 'bullying' only. Data for APS and QLD covers 'bullying and harassment'.

Where data has been collected through employee perception surveys, the methodology differs significantly across jurisdictions. For example, most jurisdictions conduct a census across all public sector entities whereas WA conducts a sample survey of around one in five entities each year.

Other differences include the employee survey response scales, where jurisdictions generally use either 5- or 7-point rating scales, and some exclude the 'don't know' option. These differences may result in higher positive and negative scores (due to the inclusion or exclusion of slight positive, slight negative and 'don't know' scores). WA uses a 7-point scale however respondents can select 'don't know' as applicable.

return to top

Appendix C – Employee engagement model

A theoretical model has been developed by the Public Sector Commission, based on employee engagement research from Australian and international jurisdictions. This model is designed to measure the strength of relationships between workplace factors, job satisfaction and employee engagement, and several key organisational outcomes.

The model enables identification of factors that have the most impact on employee engagement. Examining the performance of these factors within an organisation can help identify priorities for capability and policy development.

Key drivers of employee engagement and outcomes

Analysis of the Commission's 2015 employee perception survey (EPS) data identified eight key factors affecting employee engagement within a sample of public sector entities. These factors are shown on the left of the model diagram in Figure C.1.

The three factors with the most impact for the 20 entities surveyed were:

  • senior leadership
  • work/life balance
  • job empowerment.

Research has shown that higher levels of engagement across an organisation result in better productivity, lower levels of absenteeism, higher retention, improved service quality and increased innovation.37 Level of employee engagement was shown to be related to intention to leave, productivity and innovation in the 2015 EPS sample.

Figure C1 Employee engagement model

Analysis of the Commission's 2015 employee perception survey (EPS) data identified eight key factors affecting employee engagement within a sample of public sector entities

Workplace factors: Organisational objectives, Work/life balance, Job empowerment, Diversity, Development, Productivity, Ethics and integrity, Immediate supervisor; lead to 'Employee engagement' fulfilling Organisational objectives: Lower intention to leave, Increased innovation, Better productivity, Lower absenteeism, Increased service quality; to create 'Better organisational performance'

Click on the image to enlarge

Factor analysis

A principal components exploratory factor analysis was conducted to examine the relationships between 43 questions in the 2015 EPS and identify the possible factors driving employee engagement.

Factor analysis statistically groups together highly related survey questions. This is where one survey question shows a very similar pattern of responses to another question. Factors are considered to reflect underlying drivers of employee engagement and measure broader concepts than the individual survey questions.

The analysis extracted eight factors from the 2015 EPS questions.38 Those questions that were most strongly associated with each of the factors are shown in Table C.1 in order of the strength of relationship between the question and its factor. 39

Table C.1 2015 EPS questions associated with each workplace factor

Factor

Question

Senior leadership

Change is managed well in my agency

I feel that my agency on the whole is well managed

My agency's senior leaders provide effective leadership

My agency uses technological advances to improve service design and delivery to customers/clients

In relation to your current job, please indicate your level of satisfaction with your agency as an employer

Recruitment and promotion decisions in my agency are fair

Work/life balance

You are able to access and use flexible work arrangements to assist in your work/life balance

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

My agency is committed to health and wellbeing within the workplace

Job empowerment

My job allows me to utilise my skills, knowledge and abilities

I am sufficiently challenged by my work

I am clear what my duties and responsibilities are

I understand how my work contributes to my agency's objectives

In relation to your current job, please indicate your level of satisfaction with the job overall

I have the authority (e.g. the necessary delegations, autonomy, level of responsibility) to do my job effectively

I am recognised for the contribution that I make

I am satisfied with the opportunities available to me for career progression in my current agency

Diversity

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

Your co-workers treat employees from all diversity groups with equal respect

Your immediate supervisor treats employees from all diversity groups in the workplace with equal respect

Your agency is committed to creating a diverse workforce

Development

In my agency, there is adequate opportunity to develop the required skills for being a leader

Training and development opportunities in my work area are available to all employees

I receive appropriate training or have access to information that enables me to meet my recordkeeping responsibilities

I have received performance feedback from my supervisor in the last 12 months that has helped my performance

Productivity

My workgroup achieves a high level of productivity

The people in my work group use their time and resources efficiently

The people in my work group are committed to providing excellent customer service and making a positive difference to the community

In the last 12 months, my work group has implemented innovative processes or policies

Ethics and integrity

Senior managers in my agency lead by example in ethical behaviour

Confidential information in my workplace is only disclosed to appropriate people

Conflicts of interest are identified and managed effectively in my workplace

Purchasing decisions in my workplace are not influenced by gifts or incentives

My agency actively encourages ethical behaviour by all of its employees

My co-workers demonstrate honesty and integrity in the workplace

Immediate supervisor

My immediate supervisor is effective in managing people

My immediate supervisor makes use of appropriate communication and interpersonal skills when dealing with me

My immediate supervisor effectively communicates with me about business risks impacting my work group

My immediate supervisor appropriately deals with employees that perform poorly

My immediate supervisor demonstrates honesty and integrity in the workplace

My input is adequately sought and considered about decisions that directly affect me

In my work area, communication between senior managers and other employees is effective

Determining employee engagement levels

An employee engagement index was calculated for the EPS respondents as a measure of the level of employee engagement within the sample. The index was the same as that reported for Victoria (Vic), New South Wales (NSW), the Australian Public Service (APS) and the United Kingdom (UK) to enable benchmarking across jurisdictions.40

Calculating the engagement index

The index measures employee responses to five EPS questions that ask staff about:

  • pride – 'I am proud to tell others I work for my agency'
  • motivation – 'my agency motivates me to help it achieve its objectives'
  • inspiration – 'my agency inspires me to do the best in my job'
  • advocacy – 'I would recommend my agency as a great place to work'
  • attachment – 'I feel a strong personal attachment to my agency'.

An index is calculated by first converting responses to the five questions as per Table C.2, then averaging the scores for each employee.

Table C.2 Conversion scores for EPS engagement items

Response

Score

Strongly agree

100

Moderately agree

83.33

Mildly agree

66.66

Neither agree nor disagree

50

Mildly disagree

33.33

Moderately disagree

16.66

Strongly disagree

0

No index is calculated for employees that did not answer, or responded 'don't know' or 'doesn't apply', to any of the questions.

The employee engagement index for the WA sample overall was 67. This is similar to Vic (66) and NSW (65), and higher than the APS (62) and the UK (59). The engagement index for each of the 20 entities that participated in the 2015 EPS ranged from 51 to 74.

The impact of factors on employee engagement

A multiple regression analysis was used to model the effect of the key drivers on employee engagement as measured by the engagement index.

The factor analysis that was used to identify the drivers produces a score for each employee against each factor. These factor scores were used as the predictor variables in the analysis.

The regression analysis showed that all factors in Figure C.1 were significant drivers of engagement. The factors are ordered according to their impact on engagement, with senior leadership, work/life balance and job empowerment having the largest impact. This was based on the size of standardised coefficients produced by the multiple regression.


37 MacLeod, D & Clarke, N 2009, Engaging for success: Enhancing performance through employee engagement, pp. 11-14

38 Using direct oblimin rotation and extracted based on eigenvalues greater than 1.

39 With a coefficient of at least 0.4. Where questions loaded on more than one factor, they have been listed against the factor with the highest coefficient in Table C.1.

40 See Appendix B for information about inter-jurisdictional data sources.

return to top

Appendix D – Compliance statements

In accordance with s. 31(2) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (PSM Act), organisations which are not listed in Schedule 1 of the Financial Management Act 2006 (FM Act) are required to provide each year to the Public Sector Commissioner a statement on the extent to which they have complied with the public sector standards in human resource management, codes of ethics and any relevant code of conduct.

These compliance statements are reported below, in accordance with s. 31(4) of the PSM Act. Some non-SES organisations report with an affiliated entity instead (under
s. 31(1)), and this is indicated where relevant.

Compliance statements provided under the PSM Act, 2014/15

Architects Board of Western Australia

No compliance issues concerning public sector standards, codes of ethics or the Board's code of conduct arose during the period from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015.

 

Commissioner for Children and Young People (CCYP)

I am satisfied that, to the best of my knowledge, CCYP has complied with the public sector standards, codes of ethics and agency code of conduct in accordance with s. 31(2) of the PSM Act.

Commissioner for Equal Opportunity

In accordance with s. 31(2) of the PSM Act, the Commissioner has fully complied with regards to the public sector standards, Public Sector Commissioner's Instructions, the Code of Ethics and the agency's code of conduct.

Commission for Occupational Safety and Health

Reported under the Department of Commerce in accordance with s. 31(1) of the PSM Act

Conservation Commission of Western Australia

The Department of Parks and Wildlife, through an operational agreement signed in 2006, provides the framework for human resource management for the Conservation Commission.

In the administration of the Conservation Commission, the Director has complied with the Public Sector Standards in Human Resource Management, the Western Australian Public Sector Code of Ethics and the Conservation Commission's Code of Conduct. Information on both the Code of Ethics and the Code of Conduct is provided to employees on commencement with the Conservation Commission.

No complaints have been lodged under the Code of Ethics during the reporting period and there have been no instances of misconduct.

Environmental Protection Authority

Reported under the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority in accordance with s.31(1) of the PSM Act.

Heritage Council of Western Australia

Reported under the Department of the State Heritage Office in accordance with s. 31(1) of the PSM Act.

Legal Practice Board

The Legal Practice Board has fully complied with s. 31(2) of the PSM Act as it relates to the operations of the Board. The Board continues to be fully compliant with regard to the public sector standards and ethical codes.

The Board is committed to maintaining a high standard of accountability, integrity and transparency in all its functions and activities in line with the public sector standards. As part of this, the Board continues to undertake a program to review and update all policies relating to both its internal and external functions, including (but not limited to) human resource management. The Board is also committed to continuing to develop its own code of conduct, both for Board members and for Board staff, in line with the Commissioner's Instruction No. 8 – Codes of conduct and integrity training.

In accordance with s. 31(2) of the PSM Act, the Board provides the following information regarding compliance during the period under review:

  • nil breach claims
  • information on standards is provided at recruitment and the Code of Ethics is included in the offer of employment contract
  • all employees receive an induction manual on employment with the Board, which includes the Code of Ethics (the manual sets out the Board's policies and conditions of employment and employees are required to sign that they have read the manual)
  • training is provided to recruitment panels to ensure compliance with relevant standards
  • the Board's policies are consistent with ethical principles and are subject to regular review and update.

The Board is committed to continually seeking to review and update its current practices through avenues such as auditing and review of its functions, performance management, ongoing training and seeking feedback from all stakeholders.

As far as the Executive Director is aware the Board complies with relevant Public Sector reporting.

Office of the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment

Reported under the Public Sector Commission in accordance with s. 31(1) of the PSM Act.

Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)

The OIC has a code of conduct which was last updated in July 2013. The code has been distributed to all staff and is available on the intranet. New staff members are provided with a copy as part of their induction.

Among other things, the code outlines the requirement to:

  • refer to the WA Public Sector Code of Ethics to guide decision-making
  • not divulge any information received under the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (FOI Act) for any purpose except in accordance with the FOI Act
  • adhere to the principles of natural justice when dealing with matters before the Information Commissioner
  • report conflicts of interest
  • treat stakeholders without discrimination
  • report any gift or hospitality offers.

The public sector standards are followed by the OIC. During 2014/15, no staff were redeployed, terminated or disciplined, and no grievances were lodged. Two recruitment processes were finalised during the year, which adhered to the Employment standard. The performance management policy for the OIC is currently under review, which will more appropriately follow the Performance management standard.

Office of the Public Advocate

Reported under the Department of the Attorney General in accordance with s. 31(1) of the PSM Act.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations (Ombudsman)

In the administration of the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations, I have complied with the public sector standards in human resource management, the Code of Ethics and the office's code of conduct.

I have put in place procedures designed to ensure such compliance, and conducted appropriate internal assessments to satisfy myself that the above statement is correct.

Parliamentary Superannuation Board

Reported under the Government Employees Superannuation Board in accordance with s. 31(1) of the PSM Act.

Plumbers Licensing Board

Reported under the Department of Commerce in accordance with s. 31(1) of the PSM Act.

Salaries and Allowances Tribunal

Reported under the Public Sector Commission in accordance with s. 31(1) of the PSM Act.

Solicitor General

Reported under the Department of the Attorney General in accordance with s. 31(1) of the PSM Act.

Veterinary Surgeons' Board

The Board has complied with the public sector standards and ethical codes.

return to top

Appendix E – Abbreviations

3D - Three dimensional

ACT - Australian Capital Territory

AEDM - Accountable and ethical decision making

ANZAC - Australian and New Zealand Army Corps

APS - Australian Public Service

CEO - Chief executive officer

EEO - Equal employment opportunity

EO Act - Equal Opportunity Act 1984

EPS - Employee perception survey

FTE - Full-time equivalent

GTE - Government trading enterprise

HRMOIR - Human resource minimum obligatory information requirement

ICS - Integrity and conduct survey

NFP - Not-for-profit

NSW - New South Wales

PID - Public interest disclosure

PID Act - Public Interest Disclosure Act 2003

PSES - Public sector entity survey

PSM - Public Service Medal

PSM Act - Public Sector Management Act 1994

QC - Queen’s Counsel

QLD - Queensland

SA - South Australia

SES - Senior Executive Service

Tas - Tasmania

UK - United Kingdom

VIC - Victoria

WA - Western Australia

return to top

Appendix F – References

For all Public Sector Commission publications, please refer to the Commission's website at www.publicsector.wa.gov.au

 

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015, 6291.0.55.003 – Labour force, Australia, detailed, quarterly, May 2015, viewed 22 September 2015, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6291.0.55.003

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015, 6202.0 – Labour force, Australia, August 2015, viewed 22 September 2015, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2014, 3101.0 – Australian demographic statistics, December quarter 2014, viewed 22 September 2015, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/
abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2014, 3218.0 Regional population growth, Australia, 2013-14, viewed 22 October 2015, http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3218.02013-14?OpenDocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013, 2002.0 – Census of population and housing: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Indigenous) profile, 2011 third release, viewed 22 September 2015, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/2002.0

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012, Census of population and housing, viewed 22 September 2015, http://www.abs.gov.au/census

Australian Capital Territory Commissioner for Public Administration 2014, State of the service report 2013-2014, viewed 22 September 2015, http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/
__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/644541/State-of-Service-AR-2014.pdf

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and Australian Institute of Family Studies 2012, Increasing Indigenous employment rates, viewed 22 October 2015, http://www.aihw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/Content/Publications/2012/ctg-ip03.pdf

Australian Institute of Management 2013, Learning and development in the public sector: The case for maintaining investment in the tough times, viewed 7 August 2015, http://www.aim.com.au/sites/default/files/downloads/AIM-Research-Learning-Development-Public-Sector.pdf

Australian Public Service Commission 2014, State of the service report 2013–2014, viewed 23 October 2015, http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/current-publications/state-of-the-service

Australian Public Service Commission 2015, Statistical bulletin 2013-2014, viewed 23 October 2015, http://www.apsc.gov.au/about-the-apsc/parliamentary/aps-statistical-bulletin/statistics-2015

Blueprint for Free Speech 2014, Whistleblower protection laws in G20 countries - priorities for action, viewed 21 July 2015, https://www.transparency.de/fileadmin/pdfs/Themen/Hinweisgebersysteme/Whistleblower-Protection-Laws-in-G20-Countries-Priorities-for-Action.pdf

Canstar Blue 2015, 'City trains reviewed', viewed 14 September 2015, http://www.canstarblue.com.au/travel/city-trains/

Curtin University 2015, Sustainable funding and contracting with the not-for-profit sector initiative and associated procurement reforms, viewed 7 August 2015, http://business.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/150227-Sustainable-Funding-and-Contracting-2014-Evaluation.pdf

Department of Employment 2015, Small area labour markets Australia – June quarter 2015, viewed 22 October 2015, http://docs.employment.gov.au/node/34689

Department of Health 2015, Department of Health annual report 2014-15, viewed 22 October 2015, http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/
displaypaper/3913426a40a7a6c7f105059548257eca00275fa2/$file/3426.pdf

Department of Training and Workforce Development 2015, Department of Training and Workforce Development annual report 2014-15, viewed 22 October 2015, http://www.dtwd.wa.gov.au/dtwcorporateinfo/annual-report/Documents/Annual_Report_2015_Online.pdf

Department of Treasury WA 2015, 'Public private partnerships', viewed 8 August 2015, http://www.treasury.wa.gov.au/Treasury/Public_Private_Partnerships/Public_Private_Partnerships/

Department of Treasury WA 2015, 'WA schools PPP project', viewed 8 August 2015, http://www.treasury.wa.gov.au/Strategic_Projects/Our_Projects/WA_Schools_PPP_Project/

Government of Western Australia 2015, 2014-15 Annual report on state finances, viewed 16 October, http://static.treasury.wa.gov.au/ARSF/2014-15_Annual_Report_of_State_Finances.pdf

Infrastructure Australia 2008, National public private partnership policy framework, viewed 7 August 2015, http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy-publications/public-private-partnerships/files/National_PPP_Policy_Framework_Dec_08.pdf

Institute for Public Administration Australia 2014, Shaping the future through co-creation, viewed 8 August 2015, http://www.ipaa.org.au/documents/2014/05/innovation-report.pdf

Kasalana 2015, How do we promote ethical behaviour?, viewed 29 June 2015, http://www.kasalana.com/sites/kasalana.com/files/downloads/Our%20Perspective%206%20-%20Kasalana.pdf

MacLeod, D & Clarke, N 2009, Engaging for success: Enhancing performance through employee engagement, pp. 11-14, viewed 22 October 2015, http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1810/

Minister for Police 2015, 'New taskforce tackles methamphetamine scourge', viewed 11 September 2015, https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Barnett/2015/06/New-taskforce-tackles-methamphetamine-scourge.aspx

New South Wales Public Service Commission 2014, Workforce profile report 2014, viewed 22 September 2015, http://www.psc.nsw.gov.au/reports---data/workforce-profile

New South Wales Public Service Commission 2014, People matter employee survey 2014: Main findings report, viewed 22 September 2015, http://www.psc.nsw.gov.au/
reports---data/state-of-the-sector/people-matter-employee-survey/people-matter-employee-survey-2014

Northern Territory Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment 2014, State of the service report 2013–14, viewed 22 September 2015, http://www.ocpe.nt.gov.au/workforce_planning/state_of_the_service_report

Public Transport Authority 2015, 'Nine in 10 passengers happy with Transperth', viewed 14 September 2015, http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/Default.aspx?id=1520&tabid=121

Premier; Minister for State Development; Science 2015, 'Open data policy delivers new WA opportunities', viewed 5 August 2015, https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/
Pages/Barnett/2015/07/Open-Data-Policy-delivers-new-WA-opportunities.aspx

Queensland Public Service Commission 2014, Queensland public service workforce characteristics 2013-2014, viewed 22 September 2015, http://www.psc.qld.gov.au/publications/workforce-statistics/assets/characteristics-qps-2014.pdf

Queensland Public Service Commission 2014, Working for Queensland: Employee opinion survey 2014 report, viewed 22 September 2015, http://www.psc.qld.gov.au/
publications/workforce-statistics/assets/2014_WFQ_reports/Highlight_Report_
on_QPS_results_from_2014_Working_for_Queensland_survey.PDF

South Australia Commissioner for Public Sector Employment 2015, 'Data dashboard—June 2014', http://publicsector.sa.gov.au/about/our-public-sector/dashboard/

South Australia Commissioner for Public Sector Employment 2014, State of the sector report 2013–2014, viewed 22 September 2015, http://publicsector.sa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/20141201-State-of-the-Sector-2014.pdf

South Australia Commissioner for Public Sector Employment 2014, South Australian public sector workforce information: June 2014 – summary tables, viewed 22 September 2015, http://publicsector.sa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014-Workforce-Information-Full-Report.pdf

Tasmania Department of Premier and Cabinet 2014, Tasmanian State Service annual report 2013–2014, viewed 22 September 2015, http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/
divisions/ssmo/publications/annual_reports

Treasurer; Minister for Energy 2015, 'Government energised for electricity reform', viewed 7 August 2015, https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Barnett/
2015/03/Government-energised-for-electricity-reform.aspx

United Kingdom Cabinet Office 2014, Civil service people survey 2014: Summary of findings, viewed 22 September 2015, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418707/csps2014_summaryoffindings_final.pdf

Victorian Public Sector Commission 2014, The state of the public sector in Victoria 2013–2014, viewed 22 September 2015, http://vpsc.vic.gov.au/resources/state-of-the-public-sector-in-victoria/

WA Planning Commission 2014, State planning strategy 2050, viewed 7 August 2015, http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/6561.asp

WA Police 2015, WA Police annual report 2015, viewed 22 October 2015, http://www.police.wa.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=%2fO8TKHb7W4o%3d&tabid=935

return to top

Appendix G – List of figures

Figure 1.1 Public sector staff by non-metropolitan region, June 2015

Figure 1.2 WA public sector, labour force and population in the regions, 2014 and 2015

Figure 1.3 Gender distribution across public sector salary bands, June 2015

Figure 1.4 Age profile of public sector and WA labour force, June 2015

Figure 2.1 Employee perceptions of ethical leadership across jurisdictions, 2014 and 2015 (%)

Figure 4.1 Employee engagement index across jurisdictions, 2014 and 2015

Figure 4.2 Employee engagement drivers in a public sector sample, 2015

Figure 4.3 Employees reporting receipt of performance feedback across jurisdictions, 2014 and 2015 (%)

Figure 4.4 Entities with staff who participated in learning programs, 2014/15 (%)

Figure 4.5 Representation of Aboriginal employees across jurisdictions, 2014 and 2015 (%)

Figure 4.6 Representation of employees with disability across jurisdictions, 2014 and 2015 (%)

Figure 4.7 Representation of women in senior executive positions across jurisdictions, 2014 and 2015 (%)

Figure 4.8 Gender distribution across public sector salary bands, June 2015

Figure C.1 Employee engagement model

return to top

Appendix H – List of tables

Table 1.1 Occupations in the public sector and broader WA workforce, 2003 and 2015 (%)

Table 1.2 Representation of diversity groups in public employment, March and June 2015 (%)

Table 2.1 Outcomes of breach claims against public sector standards, 2014/15

Table 3.1 Alleged breaches of ethical codes reported by public sector entities, 2014/15

Table 3.2 Outcomes of breaches of ethical codes, 2014/15

Table 3.3 Alleged breaches of staff conduct codes and policies in local governments, boards and committees, universities and GTEs, 2014/15

Table 4.1 Representation of diversity groups in public authorities, 2015 (%)

Table B.1 Data sources used to benchmark WA public sector results

Table B.2 Explanatory notes for inter-jurisdictional comparisons

Table C.1 2015 EPS questions associated with each workplace factor

Table C.2 Conversion scores for EPS engagement items

return to top

Appendix I – Acknowledgments

Case studies

The Commission gives special thanks to the following organisations featured in case studies in this year's report:

  • City of Albany
  • City of Greater Geraldton
  • Conservation Volunteers Australia
  • Corruption and Crime Commission
  • Department of Education
  • Department of Fire and Emergency Services
  • Department of Parks and Wildlife
  • Department of Regional Development
  • Department of the Attorney General
  • Department of Water
  • Equal Opportunity Commission
  • Housing Authority
  • Jawun
  • Kimberley Training Institute
  • Landgate
  • Office of the Government Chief Information Officer
  • Pilbara Development Commission
  • Rio Tinto
  • Shire of East Pilbara

Contribution of photos

The Commission acknowledges the following entities for contributing photos of government employees and projects to this year's report:

  • Chemistry Centre WA
  • City of Albany
  • Corruption and Crime Commission
  • Department of Education
  • Department of Fire and Emergency Services
  • Department of Health
  • Department of Parks and Wildlife
  • Department of Regional Development
  • Department of the Attorney General
  • Department of Water
  • Electricity Networks Corporation
  • Equal Opportunity Commission
  • Forest Products Commission
  • Kimberley Training Institute
  • Lotteries Commission of Western Australia
  • Pilbara Development Commission
  • Pilbara Ports
  • Regional Power Corporation
  • Small Business Corporation
  • Wheatbelt Development Commission

return to top


Previous chapter: Open collaboration – Partnering for success

 


Page last updated 18 November 2015