Download PDF version (1 MB)

Contents
View separate pages

Commissioner's Foreword

image

This Human Resource Capability (HRC) survey of Public Service departments provides a wide range of insights and information on New Zealand's Public Service and State services workforce. The report gives information on trends and changes that individual agencies and the Public Service ‘system' can draw on to plan for future needs and address current or forecast workforce pressure points.

It is vital that the Public Service represents the public it serves. We need to have a workforce that reflects the diverse population of New Zealand, and is led by people who, regardless of their personal background, can engage with and respond to our many different communities. This is especially true in Auckland, which continues to grow rapidly and is now one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the world.

This report is a snapshot of how diverse the Public Service is, both as a total workforce and the senior leadership as a group. As State Services Commissioner I am responsible for the appointment of most Public Service Chief Executives. I am very pleased that there has been a marked and ongoing increase in the number of female Chief Executives appointed. Between 2010 and 2015 the percentage of female Chief Executives has grown from 16% to 39%. The number of females in the wider senior leadership group (Chief Executives and tier two and three managers) has increased from 39.8% to 44.2% over the same period.

Ensuring we can attract and retain the people we need to deliver high quality public services has to be carefully balanced against making sure there is good value for the taxpayer. This report sets out a range of information on wage and salary movements in public agencies. There are a number of different ways to measure remuneration movement, but the consistent finding is that remuneration growth in the Public Service continues to be moderate and slower than seen in the private sector.

Costs only represent part of the value for money equation though, performance and results are just as important. I am confident that, while there will inevitably be particular issues that will be identified and dealt with, our public agencies are performing at a high standard overall and are continuing to improve their performance.

One of the most visible ways of assessing this performance is to look at the progress being made against the Government's Ten Results for Better Public Services. The Results include reducing long-term welfare dependency, reducing crime and reoffending, and providing businesses with an online shop for all government advice and support.

I invite you to visit the SSC website to see an up to date dashboard showing how well the Public Service is performing against these targets. You will see that there is real and sustained progress towards achieving all the results. This is down to a lot of hard work and dedication by Public Servants who are increasingly working together with their colleagues in other agencies in new ways to try new and innovative approaches to address important issues.

image

Iain Rennie
State Services Commissioner

Executive Summary

This report provides information about trends in the State sector workforce with a focus on the Public Service. The report is produced annually and looks at both annual and historical changes, as well as highlighting areas of focus for the State Services Commission (SSC). In the year to 30 June 2015:

image

45,348 FTE
employees

Public Service staff numbers are similar to last year

Public Service FTEs increased slightly by 0.1% (or +68) to 45,348 in year to 30 June 2015. Over the same period, the size of the State sector increased by 0.6%, health sector by 2.4%, education sector by 3.0%, total public sector by 0.8% and the private sector by 3.4%.

There was little change in the regional distribution of Public Service employees in 2015. Wellington region remains the largest share (41.1% down slightly from 41.4% in 2014), followed by Auckland (20.2%), Canterbury (9.7%) and Waikato (8.4%).

image

Wages and
salaries

The average salary of Public Service employees has increased by 2.7%

The average salary in the Public Service has increased to $72,177, up from $70,248 last year. This movement is not a direct reflection of the salary increases staff receive, as it reflects overall changes in workforce structure and occupational mix, and the movement in staff pay due to both bargaining movements and pay progression.

In the year to June 2015, the Labour Cost Index (a measure of wage inflation controlling for both compositional and quality changes in the workforce) measured an increase in wages and salaries of 1.2% for the Public sector. Within the Public sector, the Public Service wage increased by 0.9%, the education sector by 0.8% and the health sector by 0.5%. In comparison, the private sector wage increased by 1.8% and 2.2% in local government.

image

Redundancy
payments totalled
$18.8 million

Redundancies continue to decrease

In the year to 30 June 2015, 380 employees in the Public Service were made redundant (down from 440 in 2014, and 696 in 2013). The total cost of redundancy decreased by 23.6% to $18.8 million (from $24.6 million in 2014).

image

Retention of
policy analysts

There is better retention of policy analyst graduates this year, compared to previous years.

The retention of policy analyst graduates employed in the Public Service is increasing. On average, around 73% of policy analyst graduates who began employment in the Public Service between 2012 and 2013 were still employed after two years, compared to a 54% retention after two years for those employed between 2010 and 2011.

image

Senior leadership
mobility

Mobility of senior leadership has increased

Mobility around the Public Service of tier 2 leaders has increased over the past five years – from 45% having been in the same position for at least three years in 2009 to 29% in 2014. There was also a doubling in the number of tier two leaders who were employed in another Public Service agency three years ago – from 11% in 2009 to 22% in 2014.

image

44.2% Women
in senior leadership
roles

The number of women in management and senior leadership continues to increase

The proportion of women in the Public Service has continued to increase to 60.5%, compared with 47.0% in the overall New Zealand workforce.

There is increasing diversity at senior levels with the proportion of women in tiers 1, 2 and 3 rising from 39.6% in 2011 to 44.2% in 2015. If the trend of the last five years continues, the Public Service will reach 50% female representation in senior leadership by 2021.

Introduction

Information in this report comes primarily from the HRC survey, which collects payroll data on staff in all 29 Public Service departments. The survey has been conducted annually since the year 2000. The SSC has a statutory role of employing Public Service chief executives and reviewing their performance. The HRC survey provides insights into performance from a Human Resource Information System (HRIS) perspective.

This report provides information about characteristics and trends within the Public Sector, and provides an extra level of analysis of the Public Service in the five main topic areas:

  • Workforce
  • Career
  • Remuneration
  • Diversity
  • Workplace.

The survey data is a resource for agencies to use in benchmarking themselves with other agencies, sectors and the Public Service as a whole. HRC information also feeds into university research, parliamentary questions, international benchmarks on government performance, policy advice and is an example of the Public Service's commitment to open government.

Technical aspects of the survey

The survey collects employee and organisational level information from departments. The survey covers permanent and fixed-term staff. The database of information is managed by the Strategic Information team within the State Services Commission, which holds information on Public Service employment dating back to 1913. Information on the survey structure, definitions, and contact details are available on the SSC website: http://www.ssc.govt.nz/hrc-survey-materials .

HRC reporting and capping reporting

This report complements the Capping of Core Government Administration update on the total number of positions (FTE staff numbers plus vacancy numbers) in the Core Government Administration group, and the number of communication staff in each department. For the full capping report, see http://www.ssc.govt.nz/capping-june15.

There is a significant overlap between the staff covered by the cap on Core Government Administration and staff in the Public Service. The diagram below highlights the overlaps and differences between these two groups.

Core Government Administration and the Public Service

Core Government Administration of the Public Service

A guide to New Zealand's central government agencies

A guide to New Zealand's central government agencies

Public Service

By definition, the Public Service comprises the departments listed on the 1st Schedule of the State Sector Act 1988. Irrespective of being called a department, ministry or some other title, they are all Public Service departments.

State Services

By definition, the State Services comprises the agencies that operate as instruments of the Crown in respect of the Government of New Zealand (i.e. the Executive Branch of Government). This includes the Public Service, most Crown entities, the Reserve Bank, a range of agencies listed on the 4th Schedule of the Public Finance Act 1989, companies listed on Schedule 4A of the Public Finance Act, and a small number of departments that are not part of the Public Service.

State sector

By convention, the State sector comprises the agencies whose financial situation and performance is included in the Crown accounts as part of the Government reporting entity under the Public Finance Act 1989. This includes the State Services, tertiary education institutions, State-owned Enterprises and Mixed Ownership Model companies, as well as a small number of agencies that operate as instruments of the Legislative Branch of Government.

1 Workforce

Public sector workforce

The New Zealand public sector employed around 353,000 people at 30 June 2015. This represents 15% of the total workforce. The public sector is separated into the State sector and Local Government as shown in Figure 1.1.

The State sector employed around 302,000 people, and can be further broken down into several sub-sectors. The broad Education sector (36%) is the largest, followed by the Health sector (23%), the Public Service (16%), State-owned Enterprises (11%) and the remaining 15% comprising the Police, the Defence Force and other Crown entities.

Figure 1.1 The public sector workforce (headcount), June 2015

Figure 1.1 The public sector workforce (headcount), June 2015

Public sector agencies

At present the New Zealand public sector consists of around 2,600 organisations. They include a wide range of agencies – 29 Public Service departments,

20 District Health Boards, 26 tertiary education institutions, 67 Territorial Local Authorities, 16 Regional Councils, 17 state-owned enterprises and mixed ownership companies, approximately 2,435 school boards of trustees, 76 other Crown entities and around 200 Crown entity subsidiaries.

Traditionally, agencies in the State sector have operated autonomously in making decisions on functional business areas. As part of Better Public Services reform, changes are being made to provide for stronger system-wide leadership across agencies to achieve results for the people of New Zealand.

Workforce trend

The public sector workforce has undergone significant changes over the last two and a half decades as shown in Figure 1.2. Major state sector reforms during the 1990s saw a 20% contraction of the workforce from 343,000 people in 1989 to around 273,000 in the mid-1990s. Privatisation in the early 1990s resulted in a significant decrease in the workforce of State-owned Enterprises. Since 2001 the public sector workforce has grown by 29%, to 353,000 people in 2015. Growth has varied in each sector, which is related to an increasing population and changing demographics. Over the 2001-2015 period, the population of New Zealand has increased by 18% and the median age has increased by about three years.

Figure 1.2 The public sector workforce, 1989–2015

Figure 1.2 The public sector workforce, 1989–2015

Over the four-year period, 2011-2015, the public sector workforce grew by 4.2%, which compares to private sector growth of 8.4%. Public sector growth was driven by Local Government (+26.2%) and modest growth in the State sector (+1.2%) as shown in Table 1.1.

Within the State sector, growth has varied widely in each sector between 2011 and 2015. The workforce in State-owned Enterprises decreased by 11.2%. The Health sector increased by 8.6% while the Public Service grew by 3%.

Table 1.1 Public Sector workforce by sector (headcount), 30 June 2011–2015

Sectors

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

% change 2011–15

Public Sector

339,339

343,984

342,825

350,521

353,455

4.2%

State Sector

298,939

298,284

297,625

300,621

302,455

1.2%

Public Service

45,807

45,444

46,546

47,120

47,159

3.0%

Health Sector (DHB)

62,674

63,914

65,177

66,460

68,045

8.6%

Education Sector

106,100

103,500

104,600

104,800

107,900

1.7%

State-owned Enterprises

37,600

38,700

36,300

35,600

33,400

-11.2%

Other

46,758

46,726

45,002

46,641

45,951

-1.7%

Local Government

40,400

45,700

45,200

49,900

51,000

26.2%

Private Sector

1,841,661

1,845,216

1,859,075

1,931,079

1,995,945

8.4%

Total Sector

2,181,000

2,189,200

2,201,900

2,281,600

2,349,400

7.7%

The Public Service

The Public Service (which comprises 29 government departments) is the main focus of this report, with extensive analysis on various aspects of its workforce.

Within the wider context of the State sector, the Public Service is a relatively small part at 16%, compared to the Education (36%) and Health (23%) sectors as shown in Figure 1.1.

Over the last 60 years, the Public Service workforce has ranged in size from a low of 30,000 people in 2000 to a peak of 72,000 people in 1987. These changes are influenced by functions moving into or out of the Public Service as well as changes within departments. Staffing trends in recent years are shown in Table 1.2 and Figure 1.3.

In the year to 30 June 2015, the number of FTE employees in the Public Service increased marginally by 0.1% (or +68) to 45,348. Staff numbers have remained relatively flat in the last 18 months.

Table 1.2 Public Service staff numbers, 30 June 2011 - 2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Total Headcount 45,807 45,444 46,546 47,120 47,159
Total FTE employees 43,595 43,345 44,500 45,280 45,348
Annual change in FTE (%) -2.2 -0.6 2.7 1.8 0.1

Figure 1.3 Staff numbers in the Public Service and Core Administration

Figure 1.3 Staff numbers in the Public Service and Core Administration

Capping of Core Government Administration

Figure 1.3 also shows the number of staff under the cap on Core Government Administration (lower line), compared to the Public Service (higher line). The two lines cover different groups of staff. The Public Service line covers FTE staff in 29 Public Service departments, including three front line business units: Work and Income, Child Youth and Family within the Ministry of Social Development and Corrections Services within the Department of Corrections.

The Core Government Administration line tracks progress against the government's capping policy. It measures staff positions (FTE staff plus vacancies) and covers the Public Service, excluding the three front line business units mentioned above, and includes five large Crown entities (NZTA, NZTE, NZQA, TEC and HNZC) that are outside the Public Service. (Six-monthly update reports on capping are available at the State Services Commission website: http://www.ssc.govt.nz/capping).

Despite the overall increase in the Public Service employees over the last three years, the number of positions in Core Government Administration has generally been declining and remained below the cap, reaching 35,632 at 30 June 2015.

Changes in staff numbers in Public Service departments

The Public Service workforce has increased in size by 0.1% or 68 FTE employees during the 2015 June year. Fifteen departments had an increase in FTE employees and fourteen departments had a decrease, as shown in Figure 1.4.

The largest increases in staff numbers are in the Ministry of Social Development (MSD +147) and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI +101), while the largest decreases in size were the Ministry of Justice (MoJ -157) and the Ministry of Education (MoE -147).

Figure 1.4 Changes in department FTE staff numbers, June year 2014–2015

Figure 1.4 Changes in department FTE staff numbers, June year 2014–2015

Staff numbers by occupation

Occupational information within the Public Service is collected using the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO). A set of HRC customised occupational groups is used to report on occupations in the Public Service. A breakdown of the most common occupations in these customised groups is provided in Appendix 5. Table 1.3 shows FTE staff numbers by occupational group for the last five years.

In 2015, over 45,000 Public Service staff were employed in 29 departments which provide a wide range of services including social welfare, health, education, employment, business, industry, security, taxation, corrections, transport, etc. Their work spreads across 255 different occupations which are divided into ten broad occupation groups as shown in Table 1.3. The two largest groups are "Inspectors and Regulatory Officers" and "Social, Health and Education Workers" which account for 39% of the Public Service workforce.

Table 1.3 FTE staff numbers by occupation group, 30 June 2011–2015

HRC Occupational Groups

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

% change 2011-2015

Managers

5,050

5,172

5,120

5,281

5,290

4.7%

Policy Analysts

2,603

2,624

2,760

2,514

2,535

-2.6%

Information Professionals

3,333

3,530

3,956

4,327

5,230

56.9%

Social, Health and Education Workers

8,078

7,992

8,330

8,502

8,399

4.0%

ICT Professionals and Technicians

1,738

1,677

1,794

1,807

1,737

-0.1%

Legal, HR and Finance Professionals

2,075

2,182

2,202

2,111

2,077

0.1%

Other Professionals not elsewhere included

1,813

1,660

1,938

2,282

2,256

24.4%

Inspectors and Regulatory Officers

9,334

9,234

9,480

9,688

9,456

1.3%

Contact Centre Workers

4,426

4,361

4,154

4,217

4,070

-8.1%

Clerical and Administrative Workers

4,821

4,565

4,393

4,191

3,971

-17.6%

Other

324

347

373

361

327

0.9%

Total

43,595

43,345

44,500

45,280

45,348

4.0%

Over the four-year period, 2011-2015, there has been a steady increase in Information Professionals (56.9%) and steady decrease in Clerical and Administrative Workers (-17.6%).

In 2015, eight of the eleven occupational groups have increased in size. Information Professionals increased by 21%, while Managers (+0.1%) and Policy Analysts (+0.8%) had small increases in size. The increase in the Information Professionals occurred largely in two agencies (MBIE and MSD), partly due to changes in the use of ANZSCO codes.

While these occupational groups have been collected on the same basis each year, departments periodically review their occupation codes to ensure that the most appropriate codes are used. This can impact on the growth pattern of different occupation groups. More detailed descriptions of the different occupation groups are given in Appendix 5.

Fixed-term staff and inter-agency secondments

Collaboration enables better decisions, based on more diverse perspectives. Staffing arrangements such as secondments, fixed-term agreements and acting roles enable collaboration by creating new relationships and generating more horizontal movement across the sector than the use of permanent employment alone. Table 1.4 shows the number and proportion of employees on fixed-term agreements and inter-agency secondments. Secondments within departments are not included. The overall proportion of fixed-term employees in the Public Service decreased to 7.0% in 2015. There were 195 people on secondment as at 30 June 2015, which is about the same level as last year.

Table 1.4 Number and proportion of employees on permanent fixed-term agreements and secondments, 30 June 2011-2015

Employees (headcount)

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Permanent employees

42,522

42,060

42,661

43,181

43,837

Fixed-term employees

3,285

3,384

3,885

3,939

3,322

Proportion of current employees on fixed term agreements

7.2%

7.4%

8.3%

8.4%

7.0%

Number of inter-agency secondments

130

148

148

196

195

The SSC is working with departments and the Public Service Association (PSA) to identify initiatives to enable more horizontal movement across the sector. In the first instance this will look at modernising the approach to seconding staff between agencies.

Regional Public Service staff

In 2015, there were 45,348 Public Service FTE employees across New Zealand. The Wellington region, being the main central administration, had the largest proportion of this workforce with 41.1%. This was followed by Auckland (20.2%), Canterbury (9.7%) and Waikato (8.4%) as shown in Table 1.5. These four regions accounted for 79.4% of the Public Service workforce. The regional distribution has been relatively stable in recent years.

Table 1.5 Regional staff (FTE) in the Public Service, 30 June 2011-2015

Regions

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

% of the Public Sector 2015

Wellington

17,672

17,568

18,493

18,734

18,637

41.1%

Auckland

8,748

8,782

8,950

9,041

9,159

20.2%

Canterbury

4,210

4,071

4,237

4,354

4,386

9.7%

Waikato

3,524

3,725

3,640

3,798

3,816

8.4%

Manawatu-Wanganui

1,685

1,756

1,674

1,879

1,875

4.1%

Bay of Plenty

1,561

1,537

1,544

1,632

1,648

3.6%

Northland

1,152

1,176

1,191

1,213

1,244

2.7%

Otago

1,269

1,221

1,207

1,227

1,202

2.6%

Hawke's Bay

1,055

1,021

1,073

1,051

1,090

2.4%

Southland

705

658

661

572

564

1.2%

Nelson

512

475

467

474

505

1.1%

Taranaki

536

441

489

410

345

0.8%

Gisborne

237

245

248

253

251

0.6%

West Coast

256

238

217

218

191

0.4%

Marlborough

136

126

129

126

126

0.3%

Tasman

25

26

31

34

36

0.1%

Overseas

313

278

251

264

273

0.6%

Total

43,595

43,345

44,500

45,280

45,348

100.0%

Regional State sector workforce

At the broader State sector level comparable 2015 workforce data by region is not available on the same basis as for the Public Service as they are outside the scope of the HRC survey. However, the 2013 Census data (from Statistics New Zealand) provides a useful snapshot of regional State sector workforce.

At the 2013 Census (3 March), there were 296,100 people employed in the State sector (this is slight lower that the 30 June 2013 estimate total of 297,625 provided in Table 1.1, partly due to undercount at the Census and different dates of both measures). Auckland region had the largest proportion of the State sector workforce at 28.2% (or 83,400 people), followed by Wellington (19.9%), Canterbury (12.7%) and Waikato (8.9%) as shown in Figure 1.5. These four regions accounted for almost 70% of the state sector workforce.

Figure 1.5 Regional share of State sector workforce, 2013 Census

Figure 1.5 Regional share of State sector workforce, 2013 Census

Table 1.6 provides additional information on the distribution of State sector workforce across the five sub-sectors within each region. For most regions the Education sector was the largest employer, followed by the Health Sector. These two sectors accounted for over half of each region's State sector workforce, with the exception of Wellington region, where the Public Service being the largest sector. Other crown agencies were also significant employers in Wellington, Manawatu- Wanganui and Marlborough regions, accounted for over 20% of the State sector workforce in each of these regions. State-owned Enterprises were also relatively significant employers in Marlborough and the West Coast regions, accounted for 18% and 17% of their State sector workforce respectively.

Table 1.6 Regional State sector workforce, 2013 Census (3 March)
Regional council areas Distribution by region Distribution across sub-sectors within each region (%)
State sector employees Regional share (%) Education sector Health sector Public Service Other crown agencies State-owned enterprises Total

Auckland

83,400

28.2%

39%

22%

11%

15%

13%

100%

Wellington

59,100

19.9%

23%

12%

31%

23%

11%

100%

Canterbury

37,500

12.7%

36%

24%

14%

13%

13%

100%

Waikato

26,300

8.9%

40%

22%

16%

9%

12%

100%

Manawatu-Wanganui

18,800

6.3%

39%

18%

14%

22%

7%

100%

Otago

15,100

5.1%

48%

17%

12%

9%

14%

100%

Bay of Plenty

14,800

5.0%

44%

25%

13%

11%

6%

100%

Hawke's Bay

8,900

3.0%

46%

25%

14%

9%

6%

100%

Northland

8,600

2.9%

44%

22%

16%

11%

5%

100%

Taranaki

5,400

1.8%

47%

27%

11%

8%

8%

100%

Southland

5,000

1.7%

45%

23%

14%

8%

10%

100%

Nelson

3,200

1.1%

37%

32%

11%

8%

12%

100%

Gisborne

2,700

0.9%

48%

28%

13%

8%

4%

100%

Marlborough

2,600

0.9%

32%

19%

10%

21%

18%

100%

West Coast

2,400

0.8%

32%

30%

13%

7%

17%

100%

Tasman

2,400

0.8%

47%

22%

14%

9%

8%

100%

All Regions

296,100

100.0%

37%

20%

17%

15%

11%

100%

2 Career

SSC work programme

The State Services needs leaders who are focused on whole-of-system transformation and strategy. To enable this it is critical that leaders can influence beyond their agency boundary to deliver on key government outcomes for the people of New Zealand.

In 2013 the State Services Commissioner was given statutory responsibility for putting in place a strategy for developing senior leadership and management capability in the Public Service.

Chief executives formally signed up in 2014 and that commitment has been reinforced in their annual performance expectations set by the Commissioner.

SSC is helping the chief executives bring those commitments to life. This is not a traditional leadership development programme where people are identified and developed across a core curriculum over a period of time. It is an interconnected set of strategic, all-of- system actions that will lift leadership capability across the State Services.

SSC is building leadership and talent across the system by:

  • identifying, developing and deploying capability to priority areas
  • strengthening leadership by building a system culture across the State Services
  • encouraging and supporting leaders to step into more challenging and complex roles
  • supporting the move away from a Wellington centric- view of talent, encouraging diversity within and beyond the Public Service.

Early in Careers - new data on graduate retention

With the Early in Careers work stream, SSC is investing in attracting, developing and retaining new talent for future leadership. Key highlights of this work stream include:

  • Events for summer interns and graduates, providing induction and showcasing career opportunities in the Public Service will be offered between December 2015 and April 2016.
  • The Emerging Leaders Fast Stream Programme will be launched by December 2015. This is a multi- year pilot with a focus on providing accelerated development for identified high potential emerging leaders in the Justice sector.
  • Online introduction to working in the Public Service for all new staff will be launched by December 2015. This will be available to all agencies across the Public Service to support them in effectively on-boarding new staff.

The development of the Early in Careers work programme will be assisted by a new source of information on career pathways. The development of the prototype HRC-IDI dataset (see insert at end of this chapter) sheds new light on graduate retention in the Public Service, as it allows graduates who join the Public Service to be more accurately identified, and it also allows their subsequent employment to be followed.

The prototype results presented in Figure 2.1 shows the potential of this dataset as a tool to understand how graduate retention is changing over time. Here the retention rates for different policy analyst graduates cohorts are summarised. Retention rates have changed for different cohorts. On average, around 65% of graduates who begun employment as a policy analyst in the Public Service between 2005 and 2009, were employed in the Public Service (in any role) after two years, 44% after four years and 30% after nine years. The 2010-11 cohort had lower retention rates, with 54% employed after two years and 28% after four years. So far, the retention rate for the 2012-13 cohort has bounced back with 73% employed after two years.

The 2010-11 cohort was the most affected by the impact of Global Financial Crisis (GFC) both in terms of fiscal restraint in the public services and on labour market conditions in general (the unemployment rate was relatively high at around 6.5% – 7.0% between 2009 to 2012). The first impact can be seen in the relative sizes of the cohorts. On average, the Public Service employed around 170 policy analyst graduates a year between 2005 and 2009. In comparison, around 100 graduates a year were employed between 2010 and 2011, and 140 between 2012 and 2013.

Figure 2.1 Graduate retention in the Public Service for policy analysts

Figure 2.1 Graduate retention in the Public Service for policy analysts

From good agency leaders to great system leaders

The big challenges facing the State Services require leaders who can operate at both an agency and a system level. Leaders need to understand different organisational cultures within and outside the State

Services, and think differently about how agencies collectively achieve outcomes. As a result, there is a renewed emphasis on people management - how to attract, develop and retain people, as well as help them be most effective. The shift in leadership SSC seeks is defined in Table 2.1.

Within the senior leaders work stream, SSC is developing people for senior leadership. Key highlights across this work stream includes:

  • From July 2015 there has been a consistent talent management process for all senior leaders across the Public Service. This will be extended to include all Public Service employees by 2017.
  • A Talent Management Information System has been procured and by December 2015 will be implemented. This will support the Career Board process and more effective deployment of senior leaders to where they are needed most, both for system critical roles or to support their development.
  • SSC has worked with an assessment provider to develop a common approach to assessment and benchmarking. This will enable us to develop a better understanding of the current leadership capability in the Public Service and the strengths and development needs of individual leaders. This common assessment approach is called Leadership Insight. The assessment of senior leaders commenced in August 2015. By December 2015 SSC plans to have all tier two leaders and a number of tier three leaders from across the system assessed using this tool.
  • The basis for the Leadership Insight assessment approach is the Leadership Success Profile. This has been updated to ensure it is reflective of the needs of our leaders and the challenges they face. Over the 2015/16 year this will be implemented in a range of people management processes by SSC, the Leadership Development Centre and agencies.
Table 2.1 From good agency leaders to great system leaders

From good agency leaders...

To great system leaders...

  • Leaders who operate with authority over things they are accountable for (Agency Leaders).
  • Leaders who lead their agency and are mostly internally focused.
  • Leaders who are focused on managing risk and delivering results safely.
  • Leaders who consult the community on their solutions.
  • Leaders who get everything expected of them done.
  • Leaders who focus on agency achievement and protect their resources.
  • Leaders who ‘manage' their senior team members.
  • Leaders who operate with influence over things they feel responsible for (Public Service leaders).
  • Leaders who lead in the cross-sectoral and wider State Services context and are mostly externally focused.
  • Leaders who reflect and respond to the needs of diverse New Zealanders.
  • Leaders who know when to take calculated risks and are not scared to experiment and learn from failure.
  • Leaders who engage the community in their questions.
  • Leaders who concentrate their resources on their top priorities.
  • Leaders who also contribute to collective achievement.
  • Leaders who build powerful teams and who lead highly engaged organisations.

Trends in senior leadership in the Public Service

Senior leadership in the context of the HRC data is defined as the top three tiers of managers within Public Service departments.

As at 30 June 2015, there were 968 senior leaders in the Public Service. This compares to 1,025 senior leaders last year. This continues the trend over the last 14 years of declining senior leader numbers as shown in Figure 2.2. This is largely due to machinery of government changes that have reduced the number of Public Service departments over this period from 39 to 29. The decrease in 2015 is partly due to improvements in how senior leaders are identified in the data.

Figure 2.2 The trend in the size of senior leadership, June 2001-2015

Figure 2.2 The trend in the size of senior leadership, June 2001-2015

The average length of service within their department for tier two leaders, excluding those on fixed-term contracts, is 8.0 years in 2015, down from 9.5 years in 2010. The equivalent tenure for tier three leaders in 2015 was 11.3 years and this was unchanged from 2010.

Sick leave usage for senior leadership is very low, at 3.7 days in 2015. This compares with 5.8 days for the all managers group, and 8.3 days on average, for all Public Service employees.

Mobility in senior leadership and management

Senior Leaders are expected to have experience in a range of contexts to be able to perform effectively in delivering better public services. As mentioned in the Workforce chapter, secondments are a good way of promoting exchange of ideas, building new relationships and broadening perspectives. The number of secondments in the senior leadership group can act as a measure for increased collaboration in practice. As shown in Figure 2.3 the number of secondments in leadership and management positions has been increasing over the last seven years.

Figure 2.3 Secondments in Public Service leadership and management positions, 30 June 2008-2015

Figure 2.3 Secondments in Public Service leadership and management positions, 30 June 2008-2015

Changing pathways of new tier two leaders

The new prototype HRC-IDI dataset (see insert at end of this chapter) also shows that mobility in senior leadership has increased over the past five years. The prototype data in Figure 2.4 shows where tier two leaders were employed three years previously. For example, of those that were tier two leaders in 2004, 51% were a tier two at the same department three years earlier, 20% were at the same department but below tier two level, 13% were at another public service department, 6% were working in the wider public sector, 8% were working in the private sector and 3% were overseas or were not employed three years earlier.

Figure 2.4 Where tier two leaders were three years earlier

Figure 2.4 Where tier two leaders were three years earlier

The pattern for the 2009 tier two cohort was fairly similar to the 2004 cohort, except for an increase in those who had been promoted internally and those who were employed in the wider public sector.

However, there were some larger changes for the 2014 cohort, with a drop in the proportion who had been a tier two at the same agency three years earlier. All other pathways increased their share in 2014, with the largest increase being the doubling in share of tier two leaders who were employed in another public service department three years ago. This indicates much greater movement in tier two leaders around the Public Service in recent years.

Note that further analysis shows that this change in cohort pathways between 2004/09 and 2014 was not the result of major restructurings such as the creation of MBIE.

Diversity in senior leadership

The figures for diversity in senior leadership are shown in Table 2.2 below. Because of the relatively low turnover in tier 1, 2 and 3 roles, the ethnic and gender composition of senior leaders does not change much year on year. The trend over time is more important. The proportion of women in senior leadership roles has been increasing over the last decade. As at 30 June 2015, the percentage of women in senior management is 44.2%, up from 39.6% in 2011. If the trend of the last 5 years continues, the Public Service will reach 50% female representation in senior leadership by 2021.

There has been less of an increase in ethnic diversity in senior leadership and Māori, Pacific and Asian ethnicities are still under-represented compared to the overall Public Service workforce. There has been an increase in the proportion of Pacific senior leaders, from 1.8% in 2014 to 2.6% in 2015.

Table 2.2 Diversity in senior leadership, 30 June 2011–2015
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Public Service workforce (2105)

Women

39.6%

42.1%

41.5%

42.0%

44.2%

60.5%

Māori

9.2%

9.6%

11.2%

12.0%

11.1%

16.4%

Pacific people

1.6%

1.7%

1.8%

1.8%

2.6%

8.0%

Asian

1.9%

2.6%

2.3%

2.4%

2.1%

8.5%

Gender pay gap in senior leadership

Table 2.3 shows the change in senior leadership pay gap over the last five years. It shows that the average salary of female senior leaders has been around 9% lower than their male counterparts over the last five years. As at 30 June 2015 the gender pay gap in senior leadership was 8.9%. This is low compared to the gender pay gap for all management roles (13.7%) and compared to the Public Service as a whole (14.0%).

Further information on pay for senior leaders is discussed in the Remuneration chapter.

Table 2.3 Senior leadership gender pay gap, 30 June 2011–2015
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Senior leadership gender pay gap 8.0% 11.0% 9.1% 8.3% 8.9%

Prototype HRC-IDI dataset - dynamic workforce data

SSC has been working with Statistics New Zealand to test the integration of the HRC dataset into the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI). The IDI combines data from a range of organisations (see Figure 2.5) into a powerful dataset for government and academic research purposes. It provide the insights government needs to improve social and economic outcomes for New Zealanders. Integrated data is particularly useful to help address complex social issues such as crime and vulnerable children.

Statistics NZ operates the IDI within a 'five safes' framework that ensures that:

  • researchers can be trusted to use data appropriately and follow procedures
  • the project has a statistical purpose and is in the public interest
  • security arrangements prevent unauthorised access to the data
  • the data itself inherently limits the risk of disclosure (e.g. all personal information is removed from the IDI)
  • the statistical results produced do not disclose any identifying information.

Integrating the HRC into the IDI enhances the HRC's usefulness in a number of ways:

  • allows employees to be followed anonymously through the Public Service and beyond thereby creating new information on career pathways
  • provides additional information on employees not captured by the HRC (e.g. highest qualification, migration, nationality, job history)
  • makes it easier to produce workforce information for the wider State sector and the private sectors that are comparable to the Public Service
  • allows easier access to HRC data for researchers and opens up the use of more advanced statistical modelling techniques.

Work to date has shown that it is feasible to integrate the HRC into the IDI. Although the HRC is an anonymised dataset (i.e. it does not collect names or IRD numbers), the relatively small size of Public Service departments has made it possible to integrate the data using other payroll variables. The match rates between HRC and IDI data are generally high – they were around 90% to 95% for the prototype data underlying Figures 2.1 and 2.5. The quality of the match appears very high, with testing showing a very low rate of false-positive matches. The key limitations at this stage are a lack of timeliness (the HRC-IDI results in this report are historic, rather than for 2015) and missing data for one of the larger Public Service agencies.

SSC will work with Statistics NZ on the feasibility of integrating the HRC data into the IDI on an ongoing basis, addressing these limitations and looking to further develop the range of information that is produced.

See Appendix 6 for further information on the IDI.

Figure 2.5 Statistics NZ's Integrated Data Infrastructure

Figure 2.5 Statistics NZ's Integrated Data Infrastructure

3 Remuneration

On average, around forty percent of departmental costs are staff employment related, including wages and salaries, superannuation, performance pay, redundancy and retirement. Agencies also have costs associated with their HR function, which run the people policies and processes to effectively recruit, develop and manage staff.

Remuneration of employees is an important employment condition that is necessary to support an organisation's workforce to achieve its business objectives. Annual remuneration adjustments are done through a combination of collective agreement bargaining and organisational remuneration system review processes.

All State sector agencies, except state-owned enterprises, must take into account the Government's expectations for pay and employment conditions including all processes for adjusting remuneration and conditions, including collective bargaining. Adjustment must be affordable and sustainable within baseline funding, and should not lead wider labour market movements and trends. The section below on sector wage movements indicates that in general the Government's expectations related to pay and employment conditions have been met. For further information on the Government's expectations refer to: http://www.ssc.govt.nz/govt-expectations-pay-employment

Sector wage movements comparison

To supplement the annual HRC survey salary information, SSC acquired a customised dataset from Statistics New Zealand's Labour Cost Index (LCI) to monitor wage movements in the Public Service and other sectors on a quarterly basis. The LCI measures movements in salary and wage rates, or wage inflation, for the New Zealand workforce.

In the year to June 2015, the LCI measured an increase in wages and salaries of 1.2% for the public sector and 1.8% for the private sector. Within the public sector, the Public Service's overall wage increased by 0.9%, the education sector by 0.8%, the health sector by 0.5% and local government by 2.2%. General inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased by 0.4%.

Figure 3.1 shows the LCI long term trend in salary and wage movements of selected sectors since March 2010 on a quarterly cumulative basis. Generally the gap in wages and salaries movement has been widening between the public and private sectors. Public sector wages and salaries have increased by 7.5% over the last five and a half years, compared to 10.4% for the private sector. Within the public sector, the Public Service has increased by 6.2%, compared with 6.4% for the health sector, 6.7% for the education sector, and 11.1% for the local government sector. The Public Service movement has been lower than those in the private sector and other government sectors. The CPI increased by 7.3% over the same period (excluding the effect of GST increase in 1st October 2010 from 12.5% to 15%).

It should be noted that salary movements measured by LCI and HRC figures are based on different concepts and are not directly comparable. The LCI figures are adjusted to ensure a constant quality and quantity of labour is measured, whereas the HRC salary movements (discussed in the following sections) reflect overall changes in workforce structure and occupational mix, and the movement in staff pay due to both bargaining movements and pay progression. The HRC movements are a composite measure and are generally higher.

Figure 3.1 Public and private sector wage movements, 2010–2015

Figure 3.1 Public and private sector wage movements, 2010–2015

Personnel expenses

The Treasury publishes annual Financial Statements of the Government. These statements include personnel expenditure, which covers total remuneration paid by employers to employees, and includes payments such as wages, superannuation contributions and leave entitlements. Personnel expenditure[1] for core Crown government agencies has increased by 5.1% in 2015, while the total Crown personnel expenditure (that also includes Crown entities and SOEs) has increased by 3.1% (Table 3.1). Definitions for Core Crown and Total Crown are given in Appendix 6.

[1] Source: The Treasury, Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the Year Ended 30 June 2015. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/financialstatements/yearend/jun15

Table 3.1 Personnel expenditure in core Crown and total Crown, June year 2011-2015
 

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Core Crown Personnel expenditure

$5,996m

$5,915m

$6,037m

$6,232m

$6,552m

Total Crown Personnel expenditure

$19,088m

$19,475m

$19,935m

$20,484m

$21,124m

% Change in Core Crown personnel expenditure from previous year

0.1%

-1.4%

2.1%

3.2%

5.1%

% Change in Total Crown personnel expenditure from previous year

3.3%

2.0%

2.4%

2.8%

3.1%

Note: The Core Crown segment consists of government departments, Offices of Parliament, the NZS Fund and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Total Crown includes the core Crown plus Crown entities and State-owned Enterprises.

The Public Service annual salary movement

The HRC survey provides a snapshot of the base salaries of staff in the Public Service as at 30 June each year. In the year to 30 June 2015, the movement of the average salary was 2.7%. This movement is affected by the occupational structure of the workforce, movement in staff pay, and the salaries of new and departing staff. It measures the salary change of the Public Service as a whole, as opposed to measuring salary movements for individuals. The trend since 2011 is shown in Table 3.2. This group is slightly different from the core Crown group that is mentioned above.

Table 3.2 Average and median salary in Public Service, 30 June 2011-2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Median ($) 56,119 57,560 58,425 60,000 61,984
Average salary ($) 65,179 67,119 68,561 70,248 72,177
Movement in average salary (%) 2.4% 3.0% 2.1% 2.5% 2.7%

Total salary cost

Expenditure on base salaries is the single largest people expense. Other components of personnel costs include superannuation, performance payments, redundancy costs and ACC levies. Total salary cost presented in Figure 3.2 is calculated by multiplying the total number of FTE employees in the Public Service by the average annual FTE salary. These are indicative salary costs and do not represent exact annual salary expenditure. The total salary cost in the Public Service rose by 2.8% to $3.27 billion in 2015, up from $3.18 billion in 2014. The growth trend since 2000 reflects the increase in staff numbers and average salary.

Figure 3.2 Total salary cost of Public Service (FTE employees x average salary), June year 2000-2015

Figure 3.2 Total salary cost of Public Service (FTE employees x average salary), June year 2000-2015

Senior pay

The State Services Commissioner employs and sets the remuneration of chief executives of Public Service departments (except for the Crown Law Office, Government Communication Security Bureau, and the State Services Commission whose chief executive remuneration is set by the Remuneration Authority). Chief executives, set the remuneration for their staff.

In the Public Service staff are on a mixture of permanent and fixed-term contracts and their remuneration packages are more commonly structured around a base salary component, which is adjusted through annual performance review process or collective bargaining.

In contrast, Public Service chief executives are on fixed- term contracts of between three and five years, which may be extended for a further term. Their remuneration consists of a total remuneration package, parts of which are at-risk and must be earned through individual performance and contribution to broader sector outcomes.

Public Service chief executive remuneration was redesigned in 2014 to create a stronger and clearer link between chief executives' performance expectations and remuneration. Chief executives' total potential remuneration is typically comprised of:

  • Target remuneration which is made up of 90% base salary and a 10% earn-back component which is linked to very good performance over the year against achievement of the expectations for chief executives. Payment of the earn-back component is withheld until after performance has been assessed at the end of the year.
  • Exceptional performance payment of up to 15% of target remuneration, specifically linked to chief executives demonstrating exceptional performance against the system-wide stewardship expectations, paid at the State Services Commissioner's discretion.
  • Employer contribution to superannuation arrangements, typically 10% of salary.

For further information on Public Service chief executive remuneration refer to SSC webpage: http://www.ssc.govt.nz/ssw-pay.

As at 30 June 2015, the Public Service workforce was made up of 11% managers and 89% in other occupational groups. There were 28 chief executives (one vacancy), 940 tier 2 and 3 managers and 4,375 other managers employed on 30 June 2015 as shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Public Service staff by seniority, 30 June 2015

Seniority

Headcount

% share

Chief executive

28

0.1%

Tier-2 manager

170

0.4%

Tier-3 manager

770

1.6%

Other manager

4,375

9.3%

Rest of staff

41,816

88.7%

Total

47,159

100.00%

The average base salary of staff increases along with seniority as shown in Figure 3.3, reflecting the increasing job size and responsibilities of their roles. Base salary is used for general comparison because data for individual employee's superannuation and performance pay are not collected in the HRC survey. It is also less relevant to compare total remuneration of chief executives with other employees because their remuneration structures are different.

Figure 3.3 Average base salary of Public Service staff by seniority, June year 2012-2015

Figure 3.3 Average base salary of Public Service staff by seniority, June year 2012-2015

The average annual base salary of Public Service chief executives in 2015 ranged from $215,000 to $630,000, with the average being $410,000.

Figure 3.4 shows the ratios of average salary for the four management levels over the rest of non-management staff.

Figure 3.4 Average salary ratio by seniority, June year 2015

Figure 3.4 Average salary ratio by seniority, June year 2015

These ratios were quite stable over the last three years. In 2015, the average base salary of chief executives in the Public Service is on average 6.3 times that of the rest of non-management staff. The ratios for other management levels are: tier-2 manager at 3.9, tier-3 manager at 2.7 and other manager at 1.7 times. At a broader level the average salary ratio for chief executives to all other staff (including managers) was lower at 5.7 times.

While salary ratios generally remain stable from year to year, annual salary movements can be volatile at management levels owing to their relatively smaller cohorts, which are more susceptible to influence by staff movement and organisational changes. Table 3.4 shows the annual rates of salary movement for the last three years. The average movement for Public Service chief executives was 2.1%, lower than other management and non-management groups.

Table 3.4 Annual salary increase by seniority 2013 - 2015

Year

Chief executive

Tier-2 manager

Tier-3 manager

Other manager

Rest of staff

Total

2013

2.8%

4.3%

3.6%

3.2%

2.4%

2.1%

2014

2.1%

1.0%

4.4%

1.2%

2.4%

2.5%

2015

1.5%

3.2%

1.7%

4.0%

2.9%

2.7%

Average 2013-15

2.1%

2.8%

3.2%

2.8%

2.6%

2.5%

Note: These annual increases in base salary reflect the impact of changes in the Public Service workforce structure, occupational mix, movement in staff pay through performance review process or collective bargaining, and the salaries of new and departing staff. It measures the salary change of the Public Service as a whole, as opposed to measuring salary movements for individuals.

Disclosure of remuneration of Public Service and State sector senior staff

In addition to the HRC survey data, the State Services Commission also conducts an annual survey of remuneration of Public Service and State sector chief executives, as well as compiling information on the number of staff earning more than $100,000 across a number of State sector organisations.

Cabinet has agreed that remuneration paid to Public Service and State sector senior staff should be disclosed annually in one location. This provides transparency for the public around the level of remuneration received by senior State servants. The total remuneration of individual chief executives in 2015 is published at: http://www.ssc.govt.nz/ssw-pay

The numbers of senior staff (excluding chief executives) who received $100,000 or more in total remuneration (including base salary, and any superannuation, performance and redundancy payments) are shown in Apendices 4a and 4b. In the year to 30 June 2015, there were 7,559 such senior staff in the Public Service and selected Crown Entities group. In the year to 31 December 2014, there were 6,004 Tertiary Education employees in this category. In both groups about 8% of them received over $200,000 in their total remuneration.

Salary and total cost by occupation in Public Service

Average salary levels vary across different occupation groups reflecting differences in job size, skills and responsibilities as shown in Table 3.5. Managers had the highest average salary, followed by Policy Analysts, ICT Professional and Technicians, and Legal, HR and Finance Professionals. Contact Centre Workers, and Clerical and Administrative workers had the lowest average salary.

Total salary cost by occupation group is calculated by multiplying the average salary for the group by the number of FTE staff in that group as shown in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Average salary and estimated total cost by occupation group 2015

HRC customised occupation groups

Average salary 2015

Salary change (%) 2014-2015

Number of employees (FTE) 2015

Employee change (%) 2014-2015

Total salary cost ($million)

Salary cost change (%) 2014-2015

Managers

$124,388

3.7%

5,290

0.2%

$658

3.9%

Policy Analysts

$93,666

2.4%

2,535

0.8%

$237

3.2%

Information Professionals

$78,612

1.4%

5,230

20.9%

$411

22.5%

Social, Health and Education Workers

$60,498

1.9%

8,399

-1.2%

$508

0.7%

ICT Professionals and Technicians

$86,673

3.1%

1,737

-3.9%

$151

-0.9%

Legal, HR and Finance Professionals

$86,447

1.3%

2,077

-1.6%

$180

-0.3%

Other Professionals not elsewhere included

$72,017

1.3%

2,256

-1.1%

$162

0.1%

Inspectors and Regulatory Officers

$57,598

2.2%

9,456

-2.4%

$545

-0.3%

Contact Centre Workers

$47,469

1.1%

4,070

-3.5%

$193

-2.4%

Clerical and Administrative Workers

$55,336

0.6%

3,971

-5.2%

$220

-4.7%

The Manager group is the largest cost in absolute dollar terms, at $658 million in 2015. This has increased by 3.9% since last year. The second largest cost is the Inspectors and Regulatory Officers group at $545 million, followed by the Social, Health and Education Workers at $508 million as shown in Figure 3.5. These three groups account for over half of Public Service employee numbers and salary costs.

Figure 3.5 Estimated salary cost by occupation group, June year 2012-2015

Figure 3.5 Estimated salary cost by occupation group, June year 2012-2015

The largest percentage increase in salary cost in 2015 is the Information Professionals group (up 22.5%). In contrast, two groups have had an overall salary cost decrease, including Clerical and Administrative Workers (down by 4.7%) and Contact Centre Workers (down by 2.4%), mainly due to decrease in employee numbers.

Performance pay

Performance payments are defined as any lump sum payments made to staff (whether as part of an individual performance assessment or a collective agreement settlement) that relate to performance, incentive, productivity, exceeding expectations, collaborative or innovative work or achieving results. In 2015, the number of employees receiving performance payments has dropped to 1,308 which is 3% of all staff. The average performance payment is $3,061 which is 14% higher than in 2014. The trend since 2011 is shown in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 Lump sum performance payments, June year 2011 to 2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Number of staff receiving performancements 1,667 5,361 6,092 1,634 1,308
Percentage of staff receiving performance payments (%) 4% 12% 13% 4% 3%
Average value of performance payment ($) $3,538 $1,345 $1,626 $2,688 $3,061

The large decrease in the number of performance payments in 2014 compared to 2012 and 2013 was a result of the Ministry of Social Development collective agreement settlement to make productivity dividend payments for the 2011/12 and 2012/13 years only.

Twenty two departments made performance payments in 2015 while seven agencies did not. Around 73% of performance payments were given by six departments: Foreign Affairs and Trade, Land Information New Zealand, Business, Innovation and Employment, Internal Affairs, Treasury and Corrections.

Superannuation

As at 30 June 2015, 84% of Public Service employees were members of at least one employer-subsidised superannuation scheme (up from 81% in 2014). The majority of staff (64%) belong to KiwiSaver, followed by 22% in the State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme (SSRSS). Since the introduction of KiwiSaver in 2007, membership continues to increase steadily as new employees enter the Public Service. In contrast, the proportion of employees belonging to SSRSS and GSF (Government Superannuation Fund) schemes, which were closed to new members in 2008 and 1992 respectively, has been decreasing gradually as members leave the workforce. Figure 3.6 shows the trend of Public Service employees participation in superannuation schemes over the seven years, 2009-2015.

Figure 3.6 Proportion of Public Service employees in subsidised superannuation schemes, June year 2009-2015

Figure 3.6 Proportion of Public Service employees in subsidised superannuation schemes, June year 2009-2015

Recruitment

Recruitment activity in the Public Service has dropped by 9.7% to 7,723 new employees in the 12 months to 30 June 2015, as shown in Table 3.7. About 36% of the new recruits were on fixed-term employment agreements. In the total Public Service workforce the proportion of fixed-term staff has decreased to 7.0%, from 8.4% in 2014.

Table 3.7 New employees, June year 2011-2015
 

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Number of new employees

7,357

7,865

8,679

8,550

7,723

Proportion on fixed-term

43%

40%

39%

39%

36%

The Better Administrative and Support Services (BASS) programme has identified recruiting employees as an expensive HR process. Larger agencies have more efficient recruitment processes than small agencies because of the advantages of scale. The decrease in recruitment in 2015 was due to lower gross turnover (refer to Chapter 5) in the workforce, which impacts on total recruitment costs.

Redundancies

Redundancies are a part of staff turnover that agencies have planned for. In the year to 30 June 2015, 380 employees in the Public Service were made redundant (down from 440 in 2014). The average redundancy payment decreased to $49,382 (from $55,825 in 2014). The total cost of redundancy decreased by 23.6% to $18.8 million (from to $24.6 million in 2014). Table 3.8 shows the number and total cost of redundancies in the Public Service have been decreasing since 2011.

The redundancies in 2015 were spread across 21 agencies, as shown in Figure 3.7. About 41% occurred in two agencies (MBIE and Justice). Most of the redundancies were due to agencies reviewing their operational and workforce requirement.

Table 3.8 Redundancies and average payments, June year 2011-2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Number of redundancies 888 764 696 440 380
Average payment ($) 45,728 50,650 47,696 55,825 49,382
Total cost of redundancy payments ($ millions) 40.6 38.7 33.2 24.6 18.8

Figure 3.7 Redundancies by department, June year 2015

Figure 3.7 Redundancies by department, June year 2015

4 Diversity

 

SSC's approach to diversity and inclusion

SSC's vision for diversity and inclusion is a Public Service that better serves New Zealanders by ensuring that diverse perspectives, experience and backgrounds are better reflected in how public servants work and what they deliver.

Why it's important?

New Zealand is a diverse country, in fact Auckland is one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the world with a very large migrant population. In order to provide services that communities need, the Public Service needs to engage with and understand those communities. There is also extensive research showing that organisations that are more inclusive are more innovative, especially when organisations can harness a wide range of perspectives.

What is the SSC doing?

SSC has a leadership and enabling role for increasing diversity across the Public Service, using both an agency and cross-agency focus. This is achieved through applying a diversity lens to existing work programmes and relationships and delivering key initiatives in partnership with agencies and others. SSC is also working with agencies to ensure that diversity and inclusion is effectively leveraged, enabling more customer-centred services.

SSC applies a diversity and inclusion lens to the following key system areas:

  • Leadership
  • Chief Executive Expectations
  • Four-year plans
  • Employment Relations
  • People Capability
  • Data and Analytics
  • Legislative Framework and Integrity.

There are also a number of system-level pieces of work that SSC will be progressing. These include: promoting flexible work initiatives across agencies; intensifying and influencing recruitment and supply for diversity; growing positive, inclusive workplaces and building communities of practice around diversity.

Monitoring progress in diversity and inclusion is vital to ensure transparency and awareness. Clear data and insights enable evidence-based decision-making. The diversity part of this report has been developed this year to highlight new insights from a broader range of data. New sections for this report include:

  • more extensive information on Auckland
  • a discussion on disability information, and disability data
  • part-time and flexible work
  • customer perception, and integrity and conduct.

How is the Public Service doing?

Women in the Public Service

The proportion of women in the Public Service continued to increase to 60.5% at 30 June 2015 (compared with 47.0% in the overall New Zealand workforce). This is the highest proportion recorded, up from 60.2% in 2014, and 56.2% in 2000. The type of work in the Public Service may partly explain this high representation as many Public Service occupations such as ‘social workers', ‘case workers' and ‘clerical and administration workers' have a high representation of women in the wider labour market. The proportion of women in each Public Service department is shown in Appendix 2.

Table 4.1 shows how female representation varies across occupational groups. Women's representation in management has been increasing slowly over the past 5 years, and has reached 52.5% in 2015. It also shows that women are more heavily represented in social, health and education roles, as well as contact centre and clerical/administrative roles whilst being under represented in ICT and Inspector/Regulatory roles, although representation in the latter roles has increased over the past five years.

Table 4.1 Women representation in occupational groups, 30 June 2011-2015
HRC customised occupation groups 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Managers

48.8%

49.5%

51.0%

51.3%

52.5%

Policy Analysts

55.1%

55.0%

54.5%

56.2%

55.6%

Information Professionals

57.8%

58.5%

59.6%

59.7%

60.6%

Social, Health and Education Workers

75.2%

75.3%

75.6%

75.6%

75.7%

ICT Professionals and Technicians

30.9%

31.3%

31.9%

31.9%

32.3%

Legal, HR and Finance Professionals

62.0%

61.6%

60.0%

60.8%

61.4%

Inspectors and Regulatory Officers

41.6%

41.5%

43.1%

44.9%

45.2%

Contact Centre Workers

75.9%

76.4%

76.4%

77.0%

76.2%

Clerical and Administrative Workers

80.2%

80.6%

82.2%

81.2%

82.2%

Other Occupations

44.3%

47.5%

48.2%

47.9%

46.4%

The unadjusted gender pay gap

As at 30 June 2015, the average salary was $78,850 for men and $67,820 for women. The average salary increased by 2.7% for men and 2.9% women since 30 June 2014. This has meant the unadjusted gender pay gap has decreased slightly, by 0.1 percentage points, to 14.0%. Table 4.2 and Figure 4.1 shows that the historic narrowing of the gender pay gap has slowed since 2010. The definition for calculating the gender pay gap is given in Appendix 6. Gender pay gap varies greatly amongst departments as shown in Appendix 2, ranging from 39% in Ministry of Defence to -37% in Ministry for Women (where the average salary for women is higher than for men). These salary gaps are influenced by relative numbers of women and men in different occupations and seniority level in their workforces.

Table 4.2 Average salary by gender, 30 June 2011-2015
  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Female salary (average)

$61,012

$63,033

$64,297

$65,932

$67,820

Male salary (average)

$71,219

$73,066

$74,903

$76,784

$78,850

Gender pay gap (%)

14.3%

13.7%

14.2%

14.1%

14.0%

Figure 4.1 Unadjusted gender pay gap, June 2006-2015

Figure 4.1 Unadjusted gender pay gap, June 2006-2015

A higher proportion of women work in the lower- paid occupational groups compared to men and this contributes to the gender pay gap. For example, women make up 60% of the Public Service workforce in 2015, but make up 82% of Clerical and Administrative roles. Table 4.3 shows that pay gaps by occupation are all lower than the overall pay gap because people in more equivalent roles are being compared.

Table 4.3 Gender pay gaps by occupation group, 30 June 2011-2015

HRC customised occupation groups

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Managers

13.8%

13.4%

13.9%

13.9%

13.7%

Policy Analysts

11.2%

11.1%

10.2%

9.7%

9.8%

Information Professionals

8.4%

7.7%

9.1%

9.7%

11.2%

Social, Health and Education Workers

4.9%

4.5%

5.4%

3.5%

3.6%

ICT Professionals and Technicians

9.4%

9.8%

9.6%

8.8%

7.8%

Legal, HR and Finance Professionals

9.9%

9.4%

10.6%

12.6%

12.4%

Inspectors and Regulatory Officers

4.6%

4.1%

4.5%

4.2%

5.1%

Contact Centre Workers

2.0%

2.7%

2.0%

3.3%

1.7%

Clerical and Administrative Workers

9.9%

6.8%

8.5%

13.4%*

11.0%

Other Occupations

11.9%

8.8%

8.9%

8.9%

12.0%

* The 2014 figure for ‘Clerical and Administrative Workers' is unusually high due to miscoding of some procurement roles into the group.

Some occupational groups, such as managers, still have high gender pay gaps. These gaps can be better seen by looking at the difference in the gender distribution of salaries by occupational groups as in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2 Gender salary box plots by occupational group, June year 2015

Figure 4.2 Gender salary box plots by occupational group, June year 2015

These box plots show how salary is distributed for each occupation and gender. Note that the whiskers of the distributions can be affected by occupational miscoding. Box plots are more fully explained in Appendix 6.

To some extent, gender pay gaps within occupational groups still reflect compositional differences between the genders in terms of seniority and experience. For example, women make up 52% of managers in the Public Service in 2015, but only 44% of senior managers (although this is up from 38% in 2008). Table 4.4 shows that controlling for occupation, seniority and experience (through age) reduces the size of the gender pay gap by around two-thirds.

Table 4.4 Gender pay gaps adjusted for compositional differences, 30 June 2008-2015
Year Unadjusted Adjusted for:
  Raw gender pay gap Occupation Occupation & seniority* Occupation, seniority* & age

2008

15.4%

6.9%

6.0%

5.1%

2009

15.4%

7.1%

6.2%

5.4%

2010

14.4%

6.2%

5.4%

4.5%

2011

14.3%

6.7%

5.7%

4.7%

2012

13.7%

6.1%

5.1%

4.4%

2013

14.2%

6.8%

5.9%

4.9%

2014

14.1%

7.2%

6.3%

5.3%

2015

14.0%

7.1%

6.4%

5.3%

* Seniority is only controlled for those in the manager and policy analyst occupation groups, due to the unavailability of data for other groups.

The factors contributing to the gender pay gap are complex. Understanding these factors better will contribute to more effective strategies to address the pay gap. One factor that hasn't been adjusted for in this analysis is the impact of caring responsibilities on career progression and pay. Anecdotally this is a key factor, alongside occupational segregation, affecting the gender pay gap. The data to represent this factor is more attainable than it has been in the past. Through the development of the prototype HRC- IDI dataset (see the Career chapter 2), SSC can begin to look at the effect of caring responsibilities on progression and retention in the Public Service.

Caring responsibilities vary significantly across gender. As at 30 June 2015, there were 642 employees on parental leave (1.4% of the Public Service workforce), made up of 637 females and 5 males. As a percentage, 99% of people who are taking parental leave are women.

While data analysis can help to understand some of the factors that contribute to pay gaps, it does not negate them as factors that need to be addressed if we are to reduce the gender pay gap further.

Ethnic diversity in the Public Service

The ethnic diversity of the Public Service workforce over the last five years is shown in Table 4.5. The ethnic composition of the Public Service broadly resembles that of the New Zealand working-age population, based on the Household Labour Force Survey information from Statistics NZ.

In 2015, the European group remained the largest group in the Public Service at 70.6%. The proportion of European staff has been decreasing over the past 5 years, while the proportion of Asian staff is increasing. The proportion of Māori and Pacific staff has remained about the same. The increase in Asian staff is particularly pronounced in Auckland, as described in the challenge for Auckland section.

Table 4.5 Representation of ethnic groups in the Public Service, 30 June 2011-2015
 

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

New Zealand working- age population (2015)

Māori (%)

16.4

16.4

16.5

16.6

16.4

12.9

Pacific people (%)

7.6

8.0

7.7

8.0

8.0

5.8

Asian (%)

7.4

7.0

7.6

8.2

8.5

11.7

Middle Eastern, Latin American, African (%)

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.1

1.0

1.0

European (%)

72.5

73.1

72.0

70.7

70.6

74.1

 

Ethnic pay gaps

Table 4.6 shows ethnic pay gaps in the Public Service. Like the gender pay gap, ethnic pay gaps can relate to the occupation profile of a particular ethnic group. Māori, Pacific and Asian public servants are more highly represented in the lower-paid occupation groups (‘Social, Health, and Education workers', ‘Inspectors and Regulatory officers', ‘Contact Centre workers' and ‘Clerical and Administrative workers').

The pay gap for Pacific and Asian staff shows a small increase over time, whereas the pay gap for Māori has remained about the same. A more detailed analysis of Pacific staff is given later in the chapter.

Table 4.6 Ethnic pay gaps, 30 June 2011-2015
 

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Māori (%)

11.5%

11.3%

11.2%

10.4%

11.0%

Pacific peoples (%)

19.3%

19.0%

19.4%

19.6%

20.5%

Asian (%)

10.6%

11.7%

11.2%

11.6%

12.1%

Challenges

The challenge for Auckland

"Auckland is already one of the world's most diverse cities; second only to Vancouver, Canada in terms of its proportion of foreign born residents. Strong migration flows into Auckland mean that the city's rate of diversification is accelerating. While this creates enormous opportunities for Auckland and for New Zealand, it also presents some challenges. Public service, along with other Auckland employers, need to find ways of attracting, retaining and developing staff from the range of communities that now make up the Auckland population.

Ensuring the Public Service is seen as an attractive career choice for the widest cross-section of New Zealanders is not just about broadening the talent pool. Ultimately, both the effectiveness and the legitimacy of our state services depends on them reflecting the perspectives and the characteristics of the people they are designed to serve."

- Lewis Holden, SSC's Deputy Commissioner Auckland

Prominent academic and demographer Paul Spoonley defines super-diversity as ‘having a large number or percentage of immigrants and people of different ethnicities in a society or area. Super-diversity can also refer to religious or linguistic diversity, especially as these have implications for a shared civic culture or economic outcomes.'[2]

Governments need to ensure that they are aligned to the needs of communities, as part of ensuring cohesive societies and providing better public services. One way of ensuring the diverse perspectives are incorporated is by having a diverse workforce. It is also imperative that public servants work towards having the relevant cultural competencies. In a super-diverse city such as Auckland, this need is heightened. Figure 4.3 shows that Auckland is a much more ethnically diverse region than the New Zealand population as a whole.

Figure 4.3 Ethnic makeup of the Auckland population compared to NZ, 2013 Census

Figure 4.3 Ethnic makeup of the Auckland population compared to NZ, 2013 Census

Figure 4.4 shows that Auckland is becoming an increasingly diverse city. Increasing numbers of migrants are moving to Auckland from overseas. On the other hand, more Aucklanders leave New Zealand each year on a permanent or long-term basis, than are replaced by New Zealanders returning to live in Auckland, although this has improved in recent years.

Figure 4.4 New Zealand external migration trends over the last 10 years

Figure 4.4 New Zealand external migration trends over the last 10 years

Table 4.7 shows representation of ethnic groups in the Public Service workforce in Auckland. The number of Asian staff has been steadily increasing, reaching 18.7% in 2015. This compares to the Wellington figure of 8.3%. The proportion of Pacific staff in Auckland has also been steadily increasing, whilst Māori representation has remained similar/slightly declined.

Table 4.7 Representation of ethnic groups in the Auckland Public Service, 30 June 2011-2015
 

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Māori (%)

15.5%

15.3%

14.9%

15.1%

14.7%

Pacific peoples (%)

17.8%

18.9%

18.5%

19.3%

19.9%

Asian peoples (%)

15.8%

14.7%

16.3%

17.8%

18.7%

As well as a higher representation of Pacific and Asian staff in Auckland, these groups are more highly represented across most occupational groups, compared to Wellington. In particular, Asian staff are highly represented in ICT, Information Professional, and Contact Centre roles, and Pacific staff are highly represented in Social, Health and Education roles and Contact Centre roles.

In contrast to Wellington, where Pacific staff only make up 3% of managerial roles, in Auckland Pacific staff make up 12%. Similarly Pacific representation is 4-5 times higher in policy roles and corporate support roles in Auckland compared to Wellington.

[2] Spoonley ‘Superdiversity, social cohesion, and economic benefits' IZA World of Labor 2014:46

Inclusive workplaces

To access the whole range of potential, experience and opportunities that our diverse communities provide, it is important that workplace cultures in the Public Service are inclusive and that they support a range of people to succeed. A diverse workforce can work to better address the needs of the diverse community that it provides services to, and interacts with. SSC collects information that can contribute to better understanding of workplace culture, through its Integrity and Conduct Survey, and New Zealanders' satisfaction and trust in government, through the Kiwis Count Survey.

In 2013, SSC measured staff views on fair workplaces and processes, opportunities for development, staff feeling valued, and likeliness of staff to leave through the Integrity and Conduct Survey. Staff felt valued in their role, with a vast majority of staff agreeing or strongly agreeing that their job allows them to use their knowledge, skills and abilities. Staff also had a high level of agreement that they had enough flexibility to do their jobs. Pacific, Asian and Māori staff have a more positive perception of their manager's effort to ensure equality and diversity, and are more likely to feel proud to work for their agency, compared to New Zealand European staff. For more findings from the Integrity and Conduct Survey see http://www.ssc.govt.nz/integrity-and-conduct-survey-2013-report.

It is important that New Zealanders, as customers, trust and value their interactions with government. SSC regularly measures New Zealanders' experience and trust with government services through the Kiwis Count survey. The 2009 SSC report ‘How different groups of New Zealanders experience public services', showed that Māori were a little less satisfied with the quality of services compared to non-Māori, and had lower levels of trust in the Public Service. The research also showed that for Māori, staff being non-judgemental and treating people with respect are key elements for fair treatment. This research highlights the importance of the Public Service workforce culture being inclusive, and how this can flow into improving service delivery and trust. For more information on trust and service delivery for demographic groups see the How different groups of New Zealanders experience public services report.

An ageing workforce

Like the population of New Zealand, the Public Service workforce is aging gradually as increasing number of baby boomers are reaching retirement age. Figure 4.5 shows the trends of aging Public Service workforce over the period 2000-2015, with increasing proportion in the over 50 years age groups and decreasing proportion the younger age groups. Figure 4.6 also shows the percentage of staff that are over 55 years of age has been increasing year on year for the last 15 years. In 2015, the Public Service had a similar proportion of older workers as the general workforce.

Figure 4.5 Public Service employee age profile, June 2015

Figure 4.5 Public Service employee age profile, June 2015

Figure 4.6 Percentage of staff over 55 years of age in the Public Service, 30 June 2015

Figure 4.6 Percentage of staff over 55 years of age in the Public Service, 30 June 2015

Table 4.8 shows that over the last 14 years, staff in the Public Service are retiring later. In 2015, 47% of staff who retired were in the 65-69 age group (10.6% in 2001). This increase in retirement age is partly related to the increase in the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation to 65 in the early 2000s, but it is also seen in older age groups.

Table 4.8 Trends in retirement age, 30 June 2001-2015

Age group

2001

2005

2010

2015

50-54

19.2%

17.7%

13.8%

4.6%

55-59

31.1%

24.0%

11.7%

11.1%

60-64

39.1%

32.5%

32.2%

25.1%

65-69

10.6%

25.5%

35.0%

47.0%

70-74

0.0%

0.4%

6.0%

10.4%

75-79

0.0%

0.0%

1.4%

1.8%

There are several impacts of staff retiring later – there is more opportunity for:

  • retaining public sector knowledge
  • effective succession management
  • better responding to the needs of ageing staff
  • maximising the investment in human capital.

In 2004, a SSC survey of departments showed that, as well as having a vast amount of experience and organisational knowledge, there was a perception that older staff can be averse to change and can be seen to limit the career opportunities for younger staff.

In responding to an increasing proportion of older workers, survey respondents indicated that the most important factors for managing the ageing workforce are work-life balance and flexible work practices, and workforce planning. More findings are available at http://www.ssc.govt.nz/information-ageing-ps-workforce.

Migrant flow

In addition to skill sets, staff bring a wide array of experiences into their roles. Diversity of staff from a perspective of where they have come from in the world, paints an interesting picture of cultural diversity and of experience. The SSC has obtained customised 2013 census data from Statistics NZ to get a better picture of migrant flow into the Public Service.

Figure 4.7 uses census data to explore the international diversity of the Public Service. Using country of birth data, the figure shows where public servants (who were not born in New Zealand) were born. It shows that England, Australia and South Africa have the largest level of migration and representation in the Public Service, followed by India, Fiji and Samoa. The diversity of the Public Service spans over 50 countries.

Figure 4.7 Country of birth for public servants in 2013 Census

Figure 4.7 Country of birth for public servants in 2013 Census

Around 25% of public servants in 2013 were born overseas, compared to around 27% of those working in the private sector. The private sector is representative of a more diverse range of countries. Asian countries such as China, India, Korea and Philippines all have higher representation in the private sector compared to the Public Service, whereas England, the United States and Scotland, all have higher representation in the Public Service.

There are many reasons for this, the private sector is much larger than the Public Service in size, and covers a broader range of occupations. The regional distribution of people across New Zealand also explains the difference, with many more private sector roles in Auckland, which is a more culturally diverse city (around 44% of the 2013 Auckland workforce was born overseas).

Pacific staff in the Public Service

SSC has previously highlighted barriers that Pacific public servants face while working in New Zealand, including: difficulties in recognition of their cultural values as important skills that contribute to the workplace, fewer opportunities for direct input into decision making, and a lack of development opportunities. (http://www.ssc.govt.nz/node/4602). This report has shown that Pacific public servants have the highest pay gap relative to other ethnic groups, and are under- represented in management and policy roles and over- represented in front-line occupations such as corrections officers and case workers.

On average Pacific staff are significantly younger than non- Pacific staff, with a much larger proportion of staff in the 20-40 age bracket and less staff in the 50-65 age bracket. This partly explains the high pay gap for Pacific staff.

Pacific public servants predominantly work in the North Island. 50% of Pacific public servants work in Auckland, and 30% work in Wellington.

Gender barriers

Women are still under-represented in senior management and a pay gap between men and women still exists. In the policy quarterly article ‘Engendering Diversity: women's employment in the Public Service'[3], the authors have looked at the progress of women in the Public Service over the last 15 years. Although progress has been made, a gap still exists, and the paper suggests that Better Public Services reforms present an opportunity for system-wide capability development and a more joined-up approach to promoting and encouraging talented women.

Working together, Ministry for Women and the SSC have brought the diversity discussion to the top table, through the SSC's career board process. It has encouraged sectors to think about gender and ethnic diversity as they look to find top talent and fill vacant positions in their leadership groups. Ministry for Women have been sharing its evidence about what organisations need to do to improve progression of women.

The New Zealand Public Service is well-placed compared to other countries for its representation of women in middle and senior management. It has reached equal representation for management as a whole, and is in the top five countries in the OECD for its representation of women in senior management. Only Poland stands out for this figure, at 47%, compared to 40% for New Zealand (measured by OECD in 2010)[4].

Within certain occupational groups, there is a large under/ over-representation of women, particularly in clerical and administrative roles, and ICT and regulatory roles. The small number of women in ICT roles is a global issue, with a number of large technology companies hitting the spotlight for gender discriminative policies or cultures.

New Zealand stands out in OECD comparisons for its high level of women in administrative roles (81% vs an OECD average of 65%).

[3] Washington, Peak and Fahey "Engendering Diversity – women's employment in the public service." Policy Quarterly, 2015 11-17

[4] OECD (2013), Government at a Glance 2013, OECD Publishing, Paris

Actions for organisations to increase the representation of women in leadership

There is a fast growing body of literature on what works to improve women's leadership representation in organisations. This is a summary of common actions taken by organisations that have made progress.

  1. Leadership by the Chief Executive and executive team. A CE and executive team who communicate a clear business case and visibly take action is a precondition for change.
  2. Analyse staff data. Data disaggregated by gender and ethnicity enables organisations to identify where women are not progressing. Many organisations also survey male and female staff on their career experiences and perceptions.
  3. Implement unconscious bias training for all managers. Raising awareness about unconscious biases can reduce its impact on recruitment, development, evaluation and progression decisions.
  4. Amend talent management policies and practices. Transparent, consistent and moderated recruitment, performance, evaluation and progression systems also reduce the scope for unconscious bias to affect decision- making.
  5. Mainstream flexible working arrangements. Promoting the benefits of flexible work to men and women and making it a normal part of organisational practice can reduce the negative impact flexible and part-time work has on women's career progression.
  6. Target specific initiatives to the problem points that have been identified. These include:
    • actively identifying and supporting high-performing women
    • maintaining contact with women on career breaks and providing refresher programmes when they return.
  7. Set measurable objectives, monitor and report on progress.

Suggested reading:

Realising the Opportunity: Addressing New Zealand's leadership pipeline by attracting and retaining talented women (A review of literature on women's progress into leadership roles) http://women.govt.nz/sites/public_files/Realising%20the%20opportunity.pdf

Inspiring action (A bibliography of articles on ways to improve women's career paths) http://women.govt.nz/sites/public_files/MWA_bibliography%20complete%20%28large%29.pdf

DiverseNZ Toolkit (A snapshot of resources and guidelines for senior leaders) http://www.diversenz.org/Toolkit.html

Male Champions of Change (A number of reports from the point of view of Australian business and public sector leaders)
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/male-champions-change

Disability

The information from the 2013 Disability Survey (Statistics NZ) shows that the rate of disability in the Public Service workforce is estimated to be around 16%, lower than that for the overall workforce of 19% as shown in Figure 4.8, although the difference is not statistically significant (i.e. the difference is within the margin of error for the survey).

Figure 4.8 Percentage of staff with disability in each sector, 2013

Figure 4.8 Percentage of staff with disability in each sector, 2013

The Public Service has similar disability rates for sensory and physical disability, but much lower rates for psychiatric or psychological disability and other limitations (this includes impaired speaking, learning, and remembering).

The Public Service has a lower rate for disabilities caused by accident, which may be related to risk of injury being lower in a predominately white collar industry (‘other business services' also have a lower rate for disabilities caused by accident).

The disability rate for managers and professionals is lower in the Public Service than for managers and professionals in the total workforce. However, for lower skilled Public Service staff the disability rate is similar.

SSC is committed to developing an effective method for collecting disability data. As a first step SSC has received a special cut from the 2013 Disability Survey to identify a baseline.

SSC collected data until 2004, when it stopped due to concerns about the integrity of data collected. Disability data is complex due to the self-reported nature, and people are less likely to report that they have a disability especially if they are worried about stigma. SSC is cognisant of these difficulties and will work with agencies and other experts to develop a sound method of collecting disability data.

SSC has also been in discussion with the Disability Data and Evidence Working Group coordinated by the Office of Disability Issues (http://www.odi.govt.nz/what-we-do/better-evidence/ ) which is running concurrent to the Commission's process. This group will establish a common definition of disability, which the Commission will use in designing the relevant data collection method.

Through this process SSC will establish a robust method of disability data collection, at a level that will enable effective monitoring of progress within agencies.

Flexible work

What is flexible working?

The Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment describes flexible work as the opportunity for people to make changes to: the hours they work (over a day, a week or year), the times and days they work, and where they work. Flexible work also affects: how careers are organised, how transitions in and out of work are managed, and how work is managed in the workplace so that employees and businesses benefit. Examples of flexible working arrangements include: part-time working, term-time working, job-sharing, and flexi- time, compressed hours, annual hours, working from home, mobile working/teleworking, career breaks and commissioned outcomes.

Benefits of flexible working arrangements

Flexible working arrangements (FWA) are increasingly sought after by employees, to pursue greater work life balance and different career models[5]. Organisations that have encouraged flexible working are typically high- performing, with a stronger ability to attract and retain staff. Engagement amongst staff who maintain FWA is typically higher too.[6]

There is strong evidence that greater flexibility in working arrangements is a key solution in addressing the leaky career pipeline of female talent, where it has been observed that many women leave organisations long before reaching the ‘glass ceiling'[7]. This departure is partly due to competing demands on their time and work environments that are not accommodating of this need for balance.

Similarly, flexible work can make the workplace more suited to people with disabilities. Workbridge, a New Zealand employment agency for people with disabilities, promotes flexible working for this reason. Flexible working enables people to work with hours and environments that are best suited to their abilities, enabling more effective work and longer tenure.

Furthermore, as Millennial's and members of Generation X make up more of the workforce, the demand for flexible working is going to increase. Other generations are also increasingly interested in greater work-life balance. It is apparent that providing options and a culture of flexible working is a key part of a modern organisation's employee value proposition, with benefits for both the organisation and the employee.

Interestingly, SSC's Integrity and Conduct survey (http://www.ssc.govt.nz/integrity-and-conduct-survey-2013-report ) of people employed in the Public Service found high proportions of staff reporting flexible work. The 2013 Workplace Dynamics survey released by the PSA and Victoria University found that while over 50% of respondents felt they had access to flexible work to some extent, there is a gendered element to flexible work, where ‘72% of women compared to 29% of men strongly disagreed that their working hours were determined entirely by themselves.'

Figure 4.9 shows the proportion of Public Service staff in part-time work over the period 2000-2015. The proportion varied around 6-9%. The high level in 2014 was due to part-time Special Education workers employed by Ministry of Education, and since then the proportion has been trending downwards.

Figure 4.9 Part-time use rates in the Public Service, 30 June 2000-2015

Figure 4.9 Part-time use rates in the Public Service, 30 June 2000-2015

Age profile analysis of part-time work shows that part-time work matches life stages. Figure 4.10 identifies that part- time work is most often used early in career (probably in conjunction with study), then increasing again during the ages when caregiving for children is likely, and increasing again near retirement age.

Figure 4.10 Proportion of Public Service staff working part-time by age group, 30 June 2015

Figure 4.10 Proportion of Public Service staff working part-time by age group, 30 June 2015

Part-time work is considerably more likely to be held by females than males. This is expected to be caused by the increased likelihood that women are the primary caregiver among other factors.

Some occupations are much more likely to engage part- time workers, most notably social, health and education workers. Managers and ICT workers are less likely to use part-time work as shown in Figure 4.11.

Figure 4.11 Part-time use rates by occupation, 30 June 2007-2015

Figure 4.11 Part-time use rates by occupation, 30 June 2007-2015

These graphs identify the importance of having flexible work arrangements that enable better outcomes for people who engage in part-time work during different life-stages and from different careers. As noted earlier, flexible work enables greater retention of talent in the workforce and better outcomes for the organisations that utilise them.

[5] Cabrera, E. (2009). Fixing the leaky pipeline: Five ways to retain female talent. People and Strategy, 32 (1), pp 40-45. More information is available in the Ministry for Women's Inspiring Action report (2014)

[6] Coffman and Hagey "Flexible working models: How to bring sustainability to a 24/7 world. Boston: Bain and Company. 2010

[7]Cabrera "Fixing the leaky pipeline: Five ways to retain female talent" People and Strategy 2009 32 1, 40-45

5 Workplace

The 2011 Better Public Services Advisory Group Report stated that improved State sector performance will require a culture that supports collaboration, innovation, continuous improvement and citizen/business centred service delivery. This has been supported by findings from the Performance Improvement Framework (PIF) that show the need to build a culture of high performance, to strengthen processes of identifying and managing poor performance and to improve employee engagement. It is also critical that public servants operate in a way that is fair, impartial, responsible and trustworthy. All these factors are driven to some degree by culture.

A great place to work is one where there is a high degree of mutual trust, where people respect the integrity of their leaders and colleagues, and enjoy working together harmoniously to achieve meaningful results. The "Great Workplaces" initiative is focussed on State Service agencies aspiring to high standards of behaviour as an integral part of their performance. The work initiative aims to inform the State Services' collective understanding of workplace behaviours and culture, and the ability to make positive and sustainable change; and provide agencies with information, tools, training and practical resources to support behaviours, skills and processes that will achieve and maintain a high integrity culture in the Public Service.

Human resource indicators, such as staff engagement, turnover and sick leave usage, provide insights into organisational workplace culture. These measures should be used in conjunction with other contextual information, to provide richer insights to organisational performance.

Staff engagement

Staff engagement is seen as important because the more engaged an employee is, the more likely they are to apply the extra "discretionary effort" that leads to high performance. There is evidence for this, with a number of studies finding a relationship between staff engagement and organisational performance, in both the public and private sectors[8]. Given this evidence, it is not surprising that agencies regularly survey their staff to gauge their level of engagement.

Information on department results from staff engagement surveys were collected as part of the HRC survey for the first time last year. The goal is to better understand how engagement results vary across agencies over time, and how these results relate to improved department performance.

It will take time to develop this kind of understanding of the staff engagement data. One issue that will need to be resolved is the extent to which staff engagement results can be compared across agencies. There are complications in this regard. First, agencies use different providers to survey staff engagement and results are not easily comparable across the different methodologies. Second, agencies survey staff engagement with differing levels of frequency – currently only around a third of Public Service agencies carry out these surveys annually.

However, all 29 Public Service agencies have carried out at least one staff engagement survey over the past three years. Of these:

  • 16 agencies used Kenexa (IBM)
  • 10 agencies used Gallup
  • 2 agencies used Winsborough
  • 1 agency had developed an internal staff engagement survey.

Figure 5.1 shows how the median aggregate engagement score across all Public Service agencies that use Gallup has increased since 2008. Over this same period, Gallup engagement scores have tended to increase across the wider State Sector and worldwide. However, the increase for Public Service agencies has been stronger, and staff engagement is now far closer to the worldwide median, than for other State sector agencies.

Figure 5.1 Gallup aggregate engagement scores by sector, 2008-09 to 2014-15

Figure 5.1 Gallup aggregate engagement scores by sector, 2008-09 to 2014-15

We do not have data for Public Service agencies who use Kenexa before 2012. Between 2012-13 and 2014- 15 the median aggregate engagement score for these agencies increased by 0.5%. The increase over the same period for agencies using Gallup was 2.3%.

[8] Good summaries of the relationship between staff engagement and organisational performance can be found in chapter two of Engaging for Success: Enhancing Performance through Employee Engagement, a 2009 report to the UK Government and the follow-up 2012 report: The Evidence: Employee Engagement Task Force "Nailing the evidence" workgroup.

Turnover

Turnover measures the rate at which staff change in an organisation. Turnover increases when departments are restructuring and when significant change is occurring in the wider labour market. Some turnover is healthy for

organisations, as new staff bring fresh ideas, and the recruitment process gives the employer the opportunity to adapt to changing capability needs. However, turnover also comes at a cost – the loss of institutional knowledge and recruitment and training costs to replace staff.

Gross turnover includes both turnover that is planned and unplanned from the department's point of view. Planned turnover includes staff who leave due to redundancy and staff who finish fixed-term agreements. Table 5.1 shows that turnover rates in the Public Service have been fairly stable in recent years.

Table 5.1 Turnover rates in the Public Service, June year 2011-2015
 

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Gross turnover rate (%)

17.8

17.3

16.4

17.0

16.2

Core unplanned turnover rate (%)

10.9

11.4

10.5

10.7

10.9

Male core unplanned turnover rate (%)

10.3

10.3

9.8

9.7

10.3

Female core unplanned turnover rate (%)

11.3

12.1

11.1

11.3

11.3

Unplanned turnover

Core unplanned turnover measures the rate at which organisations lose permanent staff due to reasons the organisation has not planned for such as resignations, retirements and dismissals. Unplanned turnover can be used as an indicator of organisational health – less engaged staff are more likely to leave an organisation. Table 5.1 shows that core unplanned turnover across the Public Service has been steady since 2011, at around 11%. The unplanned turnover rate for female staff is around one percentage point higher than for male staff.

Turnover by department

Figure 5.2 shows the variation in core unplanned and gross turnover rates for individual departments. Higher gross turnover can indicate an above average use of fixed-term staff or significant change programmes within an organisation.

Figure 5.2 Gross and core unplanned staff turnover by department, June year 2015

Figure 5.2 Gross and core unplanned staff turnover by department, June year 2015

Turnover tends to be higher for small departments. This relationship is also seen in the private sector9. There are a number of potential reasons for this. There are often fewer opportunities for advancement within smaller organisations so employees need to move to gain experience or to advance their careers. Also, turnover rates are more volatile in smaller organisations. For example, one person leaving in an organisation of only 30 people will increase the turnover rate by over three percentage points.

Note in Figure 5.2, the large difference between gross and unplanned turnover for the Department of Conservation, CERA and the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs is due to the relatively high number of fixed-term contracts coming to an end during the year. In particular, all staff at CERA are on fixed-term contracts, therefore by definition CERA cannot have any unplanned turnover.

[9] As shown by Statistics New Zealand's Linked Employer-Employee Dataset (LEED) worker turnover statistics.

Turnover by occupation group

Another reason for the difference in turnover by department is the variation in occupational composition of their workforces. For example, certain groups such as leadership and management have lower turnover than occupations such as policy analysts, contact centre and clerical and administrative staff. Specialised roles also have low turnover as there is less scope for these skills to be transferable. Departments that feature at the lower end of the unplanned turnover spectrum, such as Government Communications Security Bureau, New Zealand Customs Service, and the Ministry for Primary Industries all have a large number of roles that are specific to their area of expertise.

Table 5.2 shows core unplanned turnover by occupation group. The ‘Manager' group and the ‘Inspectors and Regulatory Officer' group have the lowest turnover rates in the Public Service. The ‘Inspector and Regulatory Officer' occupational group contains specialised roles, such as customs officers and security and intelligence officers, which generally have lower turnover than the general workforce. The ‘Manager' group contains senior leaders and the management pool. This group traditionally has longer tenure within specific roles than the rest of the workforce.

Table 5.2 Core unplanned turnover by occupation group, June year 2011-2015

HRC customised occupation groups

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Managers

8%

9%

9%

9%

8%

Policy Analysts

15%

15%

15%

16%

16%

Information Professionals

10%

11%

11%

11%

12%

Social, Health and Education Workers

10%

11%

10%

10%

10%

ICT Professionals and Technicians

16%

16%

11%

9%

11%

Legal, HR and Finance Professionals

13%

13%

12%

13%

15%

Other Professionals not elsewhere included

10%

11%

9%

11%

10%

Inspectors and Regulatory Officers

8%

8%

9%

8%

9%

Contact Centre Workers

13%

15%

14%

15%

14%

Clerical and Administrative Workers

12%

14%

12%

12%

13%

Sick and domestic leave taken

Sick and domestic leave taken can be used as an indicator of organisational health. High levels can indicate staff disengagement or intention to leave, although there are many other factors that influence sick and domestic leave use, such as age, gender and occupation. In the year to 30 June 2015, Public Service employees took, on average, 8.0 days of sick and domestic leave, up from 7.7 days in 2014. 

Table 5.3 Sick and domestic leave taken, June year 2011-2015
 

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Average sick and domestic leave taken (days)

7.4

7.6

7.9

7.7

8.0 R

R: Revised (refer to footnote in Appendix 3).

As shown in Table 5.4, sick and domestic leave use is affected by the occupational makeup of the workforce - overall front line occupational groups such as contact centre operators and social, health and education workers take more sick leave than policy or manager roles. The average amount of sick and domestic leave taken varies by department from 4 to 15 days. Data on sick and domestic days taken by department is provided in Appendix 3.

Table 5.4 Sick and domestic leave taken by occupational group, June year 2015

HRC customised occupation groups Average sick and domestic leave taken (days)

Managers

5.6 R

Policy Analysts

4.9

Information Professionals

7.3 R

Social, Health and Education Workers

9.6

ICT Professionals and Technicians

7.4

Legal, HR and Finance Professionals

5.8

Other Professionals not elsewhere included

6.1 R

Inspectors and Regulatory Officers

8.8

Contact Centre Workers

10.5

Clerical and Administrative Workers

8.0 R

R: Revised (refer to footnote in Appendix 3).

Length of service and age

The 2015 HRC data shows that the average length of service of Public Service employees has increased slightly by 0.1 of a year to 9.3 years. This figure is based on tenure within a single agency, not the Public Service as a whole and excludes those on fixed-term contracts.

The New Zealand workforce is ageing as a whole. Tenure and age trends since 2011 are shown in Table 5.5. More detail on the age profile of the Public Service is discussed in the Diversity chapter.

Table 5.5 Tenure and average age in the Public Service, 30 June 2011-2015

  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Tenure (years)

9.0

9.2

9.2

9.2

9.3

Average age (years)

44.3

44.6

44.6

44.6

44.8

Appendix 1

FTE employees by department, 30 June 2011 - 2015

Department

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Business, Innovation and Employment

-

-

2,859

2,806

2,822

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority

5

106

182

323

329

Conservation

2,039

1,831

1,880

1,952

1,942

Corrections

7,290

7,509

7,593

7,555

7,571

Crown Law Office

184

186

164

148

152

Culture and Heritage

115

122

118

105

101

Customs

1,161

1,140

1,118

1,070

1,067

Defence

61

59

62

61

60

Education

2,467

2,334

2,570

2,664

2,517

Education Review Office

216

210

211

208

206

Environment

306

258

270

300

302

Foreign Affairs & Trade

841

797

761

798

821

Government Communications Security Bureau

282

294

305

316

301

Health

1,122

1,078

1,089

1,131

1,120

Inland Revenue

5,646

5,301

5,475

5,641

5,681

Internal Affairs

1,964

1,924

2,013

1,982

2,030

Justice

3,068

3,473

3,450

3,540

3,383

Land Information New Zealand

425

427

473

469

487

Māori Development

336

310

306

287

267

Ministry for Women

20

23

24

23

24

Pacific Island Affairs

42

39

35

35

34

Primary Industries

-

1,962

2,070

2,176

2,277

Prime Minister & Cabinet

108

102

102

141

154

Serious Fraud Office

33

50

50

45

44

Social Development

9,210

9,193

9,567

9,931

10,078

State Services Commission

108

105

112

110

114

Statistics New Zealand

853

965

1,074

864

848

Transport

151

140

142

149

134

Treasury

363

378

401

426

456

Total[10]

43,595

43,345

44,500

45,280

45,348

[10] The total includes chief executives, who are not part of the departmental figures.

Appendix 2

Department diversity information, 30 June 2015

Department

Asian (%)

Māori (%)

Pacific (%)

Average Age

Fixed-term (%)

Women (%)

Women in snr mgmt[11] (%)

Gender pay gap[12] (%)

Business, Innovation and Employment

12

6

7

42

14

60

29

21

CERA

-

-

-

41

100

66

59

28

Conservation

2

12

-

46

17

42

28

4

Corrections

6

23

9

48

3

45

36

2

Crown Law Office

6

6

1

40

13

68

29

39

Culture & Heritage

6

10

-

46

29

60

47

20

Customs

11

9

7

44

2

45

21

13

Defence

3

-

2

44

3

43

15

39

Education

6

13

3

48

12

79

59

26

Education Review Office

3

22

5

56

2

75

64

10

Environment

4

4

1

39

4

63

38

20

Foreign Affairs & Trade

5

13

4

42

11

55

39

17

Government Communications Security Bureau

7

8

3

45

3

36

58

10

Health

10

8

4

45

5

67

47

17

Inland Revenue Department

14

12

7

43

2

64

27

20

Internal Affairs

8

10

7

43

14

59

52

18

Justice

8

18

9

44

5

67

36

18

Land Information New Zealand

4

8

3

44

4

52

30

16

Māori Development

3

74

6

48

15

61

76

1

Ministry for Women

4

12

4

45

26

93

100

-37

Pacific Island Affairs

3

12

85

43

12

62

43

3

Primary Industries

8

6

3

44

6

49

32

11

Prime Minister & Cabinet

-

10

3

47

13

55

47

7

Serious Fraud Office

7

-

2

44

7

51

38

11

Social Development

10

24

14

45

4

73

61

10

State Services Commission

7

6

-

46

16

65

42

27

Statistics New Zealand

17

5

4

45

4

54

61

11

Transport

11

6

1

43

4

47

48

17

Treasury

7

3

2

41

11

45

53

18

Public Service Average

8

16

8

45

7

60

44

14

[11] Senior Management figures for individual departments include tier 2 and 3 senior managers only. The Public Service average includes chief executives as well as tier 2 and 3 managers.

[12] Chief executives are excluded from gender pay gap for individual departments but not from the overall Public Service average.

Appendix 3

Tenure, annual leave, sick leave and salary by department, June year 2015

Department

Annual leave balance average (# of days)

Annual leave balance > 5 weeks %

Average tenure (years)

Average sick/domestic leave days taken

Average salary[13] ($)

Business, Innovation and Employment

16

18

7

6

78,979

CERA[14]

11

14

-

-

109,810

Conservation

16

19

11

6 R

65,826

Corrections

21

38

9

7

63,891

Crown Law Office

13

11

6

5

96,997

Culture and Heritage

12

17

7

6

81,875

Customs

15

15

14

10

65,502

Defence

18

28

7

4

107,165

Education

14

12

8

6

76,583

Education Review Office

15

11

9

6

87,451

Environment

9

6

4

6

89,810

Foreign Affairs & Trade

24

40

9

4

104,192

Government Communications Security Bureau

18

28

9

6

86,285

Health

14

9

7

7

90,998

Inland Revenue Department

14

16

11

10

69,089

Internal Affairs

14

13

6

8

77,087

Justice

12

9

8

8

64,893

Land Information New Zealand

16

5

11

6

84,020

Māori Development

14

14

9

5

87,692

Ministry for Women

9

7

3

8

98,622

Pacific Island Affairs

9

5

6

4

81,295

Primary Industries

16

21

10

6

82,424

Prime Minister & Cabinet

14

16

6

4

98,296

Serious Fraud Office

12

2

5

5

110,080

Social Development

17

24

10

10

64,389

State Services Commission

10

5

4

6

125,917

Statistics New Zealand

15

11

9

7

77,207

Transport

17

19

7

5

102,529

Treasury

11

14

6

6

111,461

Public Service Average

16

21

9

8 R

72,177

R: Revised - based on Department of Conservation’s revised data on sick/domestic leave. This revision is also reflected in other figures for sick/domestic leave on pages 49 and 50.

[13] Chief Executives are excluded from average salaries for individual departments but not from the overall Public Service average.

[14] Figures for average tenure and average sick/domestic leave are not available for CERA as these measures refer to open-term staff, whereas all CERA employees are on fixed-term contracts.

Appendix 4a

Public Service and selected Crown Entities* employees who received total remuneration of $100,000 or more in year ended 30 June 2014 and 2015

Remuneration band

Number of staff 2014 / 2015

Number of staff 2013 / 2014

Change

$100,000 to $109,999

1,906

1,756

150

$110,000 to $119,999

1,305

1,300

5

$120,000 to $129,999

977

917

60

$130,000 to $139,999

772

731

41

$140,000 to $149,999

586

525

61

$150,000 to $159,999

473

378

95

$160,000 to $169,999

309

281

28

$170,000 to $179,999

241

249

-8

$180,000 to $189,999

190

160

30

$190,000 to $199,999

167

160

7

$200,000 to $209,999

105

144

-39

$210,000 to $219,999

113

97

16

$220,000 to $229,999

85

84

1

$230,000 to $239,999

56

50

6

$240,000 to $249,999

48

44

4

$250,000 to $259,999

49

32

17

$260,000 to $269,999

28

44

-16

$270,000 to $279,999

26

28

-2

$280,000 to $289,999

18

24

-6

$290,000 to $299,999

15

14

1

$300,000 to $309,999

15

20

-5

$310,000 to $319,999

16

15

1

$320,000 to $329,999

17

15

2

$330,000 to $339,999

8

2

6

$340,000 to $349,999

10

9

1

$350,000 to $359,999

3

3

0

$360,000 to $369,999

3

8

-5

$370,000 to $379,999

5

6

-1

$380,000 to $389,999

5

0

5

$390,000 to $399,999

2

1

1

$400,000 to $409,999

1

5

-4

$410,000 to $419,999

1

0

1

$420,000 to $429,999

2

2

0

$430,000 to $439,999

2

3

-1

$440,000 to $449,999

0

0

0

$450,000 to $459,999

0

1

-1

$460,000 to $469,999

0

0

0

$470,000 to $479,999

0

3

-3

Total

7,559

7,111

448

* Selected Crown Entities include 13 agencies whose chief executives are under Remuneration Authority jurisdiction. Total remuneration received by employees include – base salary and any superannuation, performance and redundancy payments.

Appendix 4b

Tertiary Education employees who received total remuneration* of $100,000 or more in year ended 31 December 2013 and 2014

Remuneration band

Number of staff 2014

Number of staff 2013

Change

$100,000 to $109,999

1,325

1,346

-21

$110,000 to $119,999

1,219

1,095

124

$120,000 to $129,999

792

787

5

$130,000 to $139,999

684

599

85

$140,000 to $149,999

437

433

4

$150,000 to $159,999

339

333

6

$160,000 to $169,999

233

222

11

$170,000 to $179,999

200

177

23

$180,000 to $189,999

162

141

21

$190,000 to $199,999

134

128

6

$200,000 to $209,999

101

65

36

$210,000 to $219,999

81

74

7

$220,000 to $229,999

53

51

2

$230,000 to $239,999

48

34

14

$240,000 to $249,999

43

27

16

$250,000 to $259,999

27

39

-12

$260,000 to $269,999

31

18

13

$270,000 to $279,999

15

15

0

$280,000 to $289,999

20

24

-4

$290,000 to $299,999

12

11

1

$300,000 to $309,999

11

9

2

$310,000 to $319,999

11

8

3

$320,000 to $329,999

5

5

0

$330,000 to $339,999

2

5

-3

$340,000 to $349,999

5

5

0

$350,000 to $359,999

4

3

1

$360,000 to $369,999

0

4

-4

$370,000 to $379,999

4

1

3

$380,000 to $389,999

1

0

1

$390,000 to $399,999

1

2

-1

$400,000 to $409,999

1

1

0

$410,000 to $419,999

1

0

1

$420,000 to $429,999

0

0

0

$430,000 to $439,999

0

0

0

$440,000 to $449,999

0

1

-1

$450,000 to $459,999

0

0

0

$460,000 to $469,999

0

0

0

$470,000 to $479,999

0

0

0

$480,000 to $489,999

0

0

0

$490,000 to $499,999

0

1

-1

$500,000 to $509,999

1

0

1

$510,000 to $519,999

0

0

0

$520,000 to $529,999

0

0

0

$530,000 to $539,999

0

1

-1

$540,000 to $549,999

1

0

1

Total

6,004

5,665

339

* Total remuneration received by employees include – base salary and any superannuation, performance and redundancy payments.

Appendix 5

Occupations in the HR customised occupation groups

HRC customised reporting group

Description

Common occupations

Managers[15]

All managers in the Public Service.

Chief Executive Office Manager
Policy and Planning Manager Corporate Services Manager Finance Manager
ICT Manager

Policy Analysts

The code Policy Analyst is also used for employees in advisory roles.

Policy Analyst Advisor

Information Professionals

Professionals who analyse and manage information and data. Also included are professionals who provide advice on business and organisational methods.

Management Consultant Liaison Officer Statistician
Intelligence Officer Librarian

Social, Health and Education Workers

Professionals who work in the Social, Health and Education sectors.

Welfare and Social Worker Teacher Aide
Residential Care Officer Education Adviser Careers Counsellor

ICT Professionals and Technicians

Covers all ICT staff at the Professional and Technical Level

Systems Analyst Business Analyst Programmer
Customer Support Officer Systems Administrator

Legal, Human Resources and Finance Professionals

Professionals who provide services in legal, financial accounting and human resource matters.

Solicitor
Training and Development Professional
Accountant Auditor
Human Resource Adviser

Other Professionals not elsewhere included[16]

All other Professionals not covered elsewhere.

Park Ranger
Public Relations Professional
Conservation Officer
Environmental Consultant
Veterinarian

Inspectors and Regulatory Officers

Staff who administer and enforce government and corporate regulations and standards.

Prison Officer
Parole or Probation Officer
Customs Officer
Taxation Inspector
Court Registry Officer
Quarantine Officer

Contact Centre Workers

Contact and Call Centre workers, Inquiry Clerks, and their immediate supervisors.

Call or Contact Centre Operator
Inquiry Clerk
Call or Contact Centre Team Leader

Clerical and Administrative Workers General Administrative and Office Support staff at the clerical level.

General Clerk
Personal Assistant
Program or Project Administrator
Accounts Clerk
Clerk of Court
Receptionist (General)
Filing or Registry Clerk

Other Occupations All occupations not classified elsewhere

All occupations not classified elsewhere

Unknown Unknown or unclassifiable occupations Unknown occupations

[15] This group includes communications managers.

[16] This group includes communications staff in non-management roles.

Appendix 6

Definitions

Box plots

Box plots are used in this report to graphically represent the distribution of salaries. The line in the middle of the box is the median salary. Half of employees have a salary greater than the median and half have a salary of less than the median. Median salary is less affected by extreme values than mean (or average) salary.

The bottom of the box indicates the 25th percentile. Twenty-five percent of employees have salaries below the 25th percentile. The top of the box represents the 75th percentile. Twenty-five percent of employees have salaries above the 75th percentile. This means that 50% of employees earn salaries within the range of the box.

The two t-bars or whiskers capture data that is within 1.5 times the range of the box. The salaries that lie outside this range have been excluded.

Core Government Administration

Core Government Administration refers to:

  • all Public Service departments (excluding the Corrections Services section of the Department of Corrections, and the Child, Youth and Family, and Work and Income sections of the Ministry of Social Development)

  • five selected Crown entities: Housing New Zealand Corporation; New Zealand Qualifications Authority; New Zealand Transport Agency; New Zealand Trade and Enterprise; and Tertiary Education Commission.

Core Government Administration excludes:

  • the Corrections Services section of the Department of Corrections

  • the Child, Youth and Family, and Work and Income sections of the Ministry of Social Development

  • Crown entities (apart from the five noted above)

  • non Public Service departments (New Zealand Defence Force, New Zealand Police, Parliamentary Service, New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, Office of the Clerk, Parliamentary Counsel Office).

State services

The State services comprises the agencies that operate as instruments of the Crown in respect of the Government of New Zealand (i.e. the Executive Branch of Government). This includes the Public Service, most Crown entities, the Reserve Bank, a range of agencies listed on the 4th Schedule of the Public Finance Act 1989, companies listed on Schedule 4A of the Public Finance Act, and a small number of departments that are not part of the Public Service.

Public Service

Public Service departments are defined in section 27 of the State Sector Act 1988 as comprising the departments specified in Schedule 1 of the State Sector Act. As at 30 June 2014 there were 29 Public Service departments.

Core Crown

A reporting segment consisting of departments, Offices of Parliament, the NZS Fund and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.

Total Crown

Includes the core Crown (defined above) plus Crown entities and State-owned Enterprises.

Full Time Equivalent (FTE)

Each employee is assigned a FTE value between 0 and 1 depending on the proportion of full-time hours (however defined by each department) worked. For example, an employee working full-time equals 1 FTE while an employee working 60% of full time hours equals 0.6 of an FTE. The FTE values of all employees are added up to give the total number of FTE employees in an organisation.

Turnover

Turnover rates for the Public Service are derived from the exits of staff from departments. As a result, turnover includes movements between departments and so the actual level of ‘loss' to the Public Service is below the figures reported in this report. Two turnover measures are used:

  • Core unplanned turnover – primarily due to resignations of open-term employees, but also includes retirements, dismissals and deaths. Core turnover rate is calculated as follows:

    Core turnover = (terminated permanent staff, who left due to resignation, retirement, dismissal, death or unknown reasons) / [(current year's permanent headcount + previous year's permanent headcount) / 2] x 100, (excludes fixed-term employees)

  • Gross turnover – includes both core unplanned and planned turnover. Planned turnover includes cessations of staff on fixed-term employment agreements and cessations due to restructuring. Gross turnover rate is calculated as follows:

    Gross turnover = (terminated staff on permanent and fixed-term contracts who left for any reason)/ [(current year's headcount + previous year's headcount) / 2] x 100

Gender pay gap

The gender pay gap is defined as the difference between the average salary for women and the average salary for men, and is expressed as a percentage of the average salary for men.

Ethnic pay gap

Ethnic pay gaps are defined as the difference between the average salary for an ethnic group and the average salary of those not in that ethnic group, and are expressed as a percentage of the average salary of those not in the ethnic group.

Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI)

The results in this report that have been derived from data sourced from the IDI, managed by Statistics NZ, are not official statistics, they have been created for research purposes. The opinions, findings, recommendations, and conclusions expressed in relation to these results are those of the State Services Commission, not Statistics NZ.

Access to the anonymised data used in this study was provided by Statistics NZ in accordance with security and confidentiality provisions of the Statistics Act 1975. Only people authorised by the Statistics Act 1975 are allowed to see data about a particular person, household, business, or organisation, and the results in this report have been confidentialised to protect these groups from identification.

Careful consideration has been given to the privacy, security, and confidentiality issues associated with using administrative and survey data in the IDI. Further detail can be found in the Privacy impact assessment for the Integrated Data Infrastructure available from www.stats. govt.nz.

The results are based in part on tax data supplied by Inland Revenue to Statistics NZ under the Tax Administration Act 1994. This tax data must be used only for statistical purposes, and no individual information may be published or disclosed in any other form, or provided to Inland Revenue for administrative or regulatory purposes.

Any person who has had access to the unit record data has certified that they have been shown, have read, and have understood section 81 of the Tax Administration Act 1994, which relates to secrecy. Any discussion of data limitations or weaknesses is in the context of using the IDI for statistical purposes, and is not related to the data's ability to support Inland Revenue's core operational requirements.

Last modified: