Data as at 31 December 2010

To ensure the confidentiality of all data, a minimum number of observations is required in order for statistics to be displayed. Three organisations must report at least three observations for a variable in order for the mean to be displayed. Four organisations and four observations are required for display of the median. Four organisations reporting at least four observations are required to display 25th and 75th Percentiles. Where there has been insufficient data for analysis, this has been indicated with “-“.

Variances may exist in survey data. Data may fluctuate slightly from year to year due to changes in the participant base. It is also important to note that within a sample, a significant amount of data may be reported by one organisation. It is also possible for data to change drastically from year to year due to internal departmental and agency related factors and economic conditions.

The information and data contained in this report are for information purposes only and are not intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional advice. In no event will Mercer be liable to you or to any third party for any decision made or action taken in reliance of the results obtained through the use of the information and/or data contained or provided in this report.

Mercer is providing this survey information to the participants to permit them to make independent decisions regarding salaries and benefits. Mercer has taken appropriate steps in collecting and disseminating this information in order to avoid information about particular Departments or organisations being disclosed.

© Mercer (Australia) Pty Ltd ABN 32 005 315 917

This document has been prepared solely for the client to whom it is addressed, for its internal use for the purpose stated in this document. It contains confidential and proprietary information of Mercer and is not to be distributed more widely without the prior permission of Mercer. Mercer and its employees do not accept responsibility to any third party for anything in or arising out of the material and information herein, and it is not intended that any third party should rely on such material.

---

Executive Overview

Survey Purpose and Objectives

The Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) commissioned Mercer (Australia) Pty Ltd (Mercer) to conduct the 2010 Australian Public Service (APS) Remuneration Survey. The Survey of Senior Executive Service (SES) and non-SES remuneration plus the Broader Market Comparison provides a comprehensive overview of remuneration trends and outcomes across the APS, State and Territory public services and the wider market. It should be noted that the Survey does not take into account non-monetary benefits.

The Survey aims to inform APS agencies in the determination of remuneration practice and policy. Specifically, it seeks to provide:

• comparisons with the previous APS Remuneration Surveys
• detailed information about individual remuneration components and the value of each remuneration package by classification and agency
• remuneration ranges for the classification levels in each participating APS agency and the APS as a whole
• capacity for agencies to compare their remuneration with comparable positions in the private sector, and State and Territory public services
• individual agency reports which allow each participating agency to compare its current data with APS-wide data.

The 2010 Survey is based on a sample of remuneration data as at 31 December 2010 and payments/entitlements for the 2010 calendar year. The Survey findings are presented in four reports: an SES Report, a Non‑SES Report, a Broader Market Comparison Report and an Individual Agency Report.

The 2010 Non-SES Report provides a detailed analysis of remuneration data and policies affecting all non-SES classifications.

Survey participants and methodology

Last year, a government decision mandated that all agencies participate in the 2010 APS Remuneration Survey. A total of 105 agencies participated in 2010 and, of these, 57 also participated in 2009 (one agency that participated in 2009 did not participate in 2010). For 2010, a total of 96 agencies provided SES data, an increase of 38 over 2009. Two survey briefings were held in January 2011 and further instructions were provided to all agencies after the briefings.

The size of the non-SES sample increased by ~10 per cent for 2010. Of the 151,662 non-SES records submitted, 130,153 were included in the non-SES survey remuneration database, using a sampling framework developed to minimise any possible ‘skewing’ by particularly large agencies. For further information in relation to survey participants and sample sizes, please refer to Appendix A.

To ensure the accuracy of the data collected, Mercer performed several integrity checks. Where the data was not within expected values, Mercer returned the data to the relevant agency for confirmation and only included the data once it had been confirmed. In excess of 1,800 calculations (such as the costing of individual packages and the main remuneration statistics quoted throughout this report) were then submitted to the statistics department of the University of New South Wales for review and verification. Once the calculations were confirmed, Mercer finalised the dataset and commenced data analysis and reporting.

Prior to releasing the final report, Mercer and the APSC agreed on all items to be included in the analyses. Mercer presented a summary of initial findings and draft reports to the APSC for review. However, Mercer retains full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of all data presented in this report. For an overview of Mercer’s methodology for the 2010 APS Remuneration Survey, please refer to Appendix B.

Data in this report is provided for the following components/aggregates of remuneration:

• Base Salary
• Total Remuneration Package, including Base Salary, plus:
• • Superannuation
  • Motor vehicles
  • Other benefits (including Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) where applicable)
• Total Reward, including Total Remuneration Package, plus:
• • Performance bonuses
  • Retention bonuses
  • Other bonuses.

Please refer to Appendix C for definitions of these terms.

Analysis for each non-SES classification provides the spread of remuneration from the minimum to the maximum across the sample, as well as descriptive statistics including the 5^th percentile, Q1, median, Q3, 95^th percentile and average for each level (refer to Appendix C for definitions). Comparisons have also been made with the 2009 dataset. Commentary is also provided where there are outliers in the sample.

Information is also provided regarding the following remuneration policies and practices:

• non-SES remuneration strategy
• remuneration management practices
• performance and reward linkages
• non-SES employment agreements
• Graduate programs.

Main Remuneration Findings

The detailed remuneration data tables are contained in Section 2: ‘Remuneration Data and Analysis’. A summary of findings is provided below.

Base Salary

Overall, the median 2010 Base Salary movement across all non-SES classifications was

3.4 per cent, compared with 6.6 per cent in 2009. APS 1 employees had the lowest median Base Salary movement (1.2 per cent) in 2010, compared to 2009, when they experienced the second highest median movement at 8.8 per cent. APS 3 employees had the highest median Base Salary increase at 4.3 per cent. At the average, the overall non-SES movement decreased from 5.6 per cent in 2009 to 3.5 per cent in 2010. Median base salary increases for all classification levels were lower than in 2009, except at Graduate level which remained constant at 3.3 per cent.

Table 1.1 presents a summary of Base Salary for each classification. Increases at the median and average from 2009 to 2010 are shown in ( ). Charts 1.1 and 1.2 overleaf graphically represent the median remuneration data provided in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 – Base Salary in 2010

Classification	n	Q1	Median		Q3	Average
Graduate	1,297	$50,770	$53,040	(3.3%)	$57,568	$54,012	(5.0%)
APS 1	1,529	$37,557	$41,148	(1.2%)	$44,413	$40,159	(1.3%)
APS 2	4,737	$46,816	$49,233	(3.3%)	$50,471	$48,549	(2.8%)
APS 3	19,760	$52,161	$54,577	(4.3%)	$56,359	$54,202	(4.6%)
APS 4	19,687	$59,116	$61,299	(4.0%)	$62,582	$60,698	(3.6%)
APS 5	20,167	$65,010	$67,017	(3.5%)	$68,092	$66,550	(3.2%)
APS 6	26,978	$73,949	$77,824	(3.8%)	$79,555	$76,790	(3.6%)
EL 1	24,309	$92,878	$97,275	(3.7%)	$99,285	$96,506	(3.4%)
EL 2	11,689	$115,410	$120,840	(3.2%)	$124,597	$121,268	(4.0%)

 

 

Chart 1.1 – Median Base Salary in 2010 ($)

 

 

Chart 1.2 – Increase in Median Base Salary from 2009

 

 

 

Total Remuneration Package

 

Overall, the median 2010 Total Remuneration Package (TRP) movement across all non-SES classifications was 3.6 per cent, compared with 6.1 per cent in 2009. The highest median movement was 5.1 per cent for APS 3 employees and the lowest was 2.7 per cent for APS 1 employees. The overall movement at the average in 2010 was 3.6 per cent, compared to 5.3 per cent in 2009. In 2010, median TRP increases for all classification levels, except at the Graduate level, were lower than in 2009.

Table 1.2 presents a summary of TRP for each classification. Increases in the median and average from 2009 to 2010 are shown in ( ). Charts 1.3 and 1.4 graphically represent the median remuneration data provided in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2 – TRP in 2010

Classification	n	Q1	Median		Q3	Average
Graduate	1,297	$58,244	$61,287	(3.7%)	$65,824	$62,185	(5.1%)
APS 1	1,529	$43,267	$47,546	(2.7%)	$50,971	$46,502	(1.4%)
APS 2	4,737	$53,799	$56,933	(3.6%)	$58,496	$56,357	(3.2%)
APS 3	19,760	$60,571	$63,238	(5.1%)	$65,648	$63,110	(4.8%)
APS 4	19,687	$68,273	$70,347	(3.8%)	$72,982	$70,421	(3.8%)
APS 5	20,167	$74,677	$77,483	(3.1%)	$79,356	$77,364	(3.1%)
APS 6	26,978	$85,555	$89,882	(4.0%)	$92,407	$89,218	(3.7%)
EL 1	24,309	$107,831	$112,788	(3.0%)	$115,454	$112,239	(3.5%)
EL 2	11,689	$134,084	$140,397	(3.0%)	$146,807	$141,775	(3.9%)

Chart 1.3 – Median TRP in 2010 ($)

 

 

 

Chart 1.4 – Increase in Median TRP from 2009

 

 

Major Benefits

Superannuation

Superannuation, as a percentage of Base Salary, was fairly consistent across all non-SES classifications, with the median being a uniform 15.4 per cent, except at EL 1 (15.7 per cent) and EL 2 (15.6 per cent) levels, as shown in Table 1.3. Across all non-SES levels, the average employer superannuation contribution, as a percentage of Base Salary, was 16 per cent, only slightly higher than the 2010 figure of 15.9 per cent. Average percentages for most classifications were slightly higher than in 2009.

Table 1.3 – Superannuation as a Percentage of Base Salary in 2010

Classification	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Graduate	1,297	9.1%	14.8%	15.4%	15.4%	19.6%	15.1%
APS 1	1,529	5.3%	15.0%	15.4%	16.1%	46.1%	15.7%
APS 2	4,737	7.2%	15.4%	15.4%	16.5%	34.7%	16.0%
APS 3	19,760	0.0%	14.9%	15.4%	17.1%	44.2%	16.4%
APS 4	19,687	0.0%	14.9%	15.4%	16.9%	85.5%	16.0%
APS 5	20,167	7.0%	14.9%	15.4%	17.1%	42.8%	16.2%
APS 6	26,978	6.5%	14.9%	15.4%	16.9%	51.0%	16.1%
EL 1	24,309	5.3%	14.9%	15.7%	16.7%	42.5%	16.2%
EL 2	11,689	4.0%	14.8%	15.6%	17.0%	42.6%	16.3%

There are some cases where an employee’s superannuation is lower than the statutory minimum of 9 per cent of Base Salary due to the individual’s salary for superannuation purposes in 2010 being lower than their Base Salary as at 31 December 2010.

The maximum column in Table 1.3 contains some very high values (up to 85.5 per cent), where the individual’s salary for superannuation purposes in 2010 was significantly higher than their Base Salary as at 31 December 2010. Further analysis can be found in Section 3 of this report.

Motor Vehicles

The incidence of motor vehicles as a part of TRP for non-SES employees remains low, with only ~1 per cent of EL 2 employees and less than 0.5 per cent of EL 1 employees receiving a motor vehicle benefit.

Performance Bonuses

Performance bonuses are used by some agencies to reward high performance. Across the classification levels, no consistent pattern is evident regarding either the eligibility for performance bonuses (ranging from 4 per cent at the APS 4 level to 25 per cent at APS 2) or the proportion of eligible employees who actually received performance bonuses (ranging from 29.9 per cent at APS 4 to 89.2 per cent at APS 1). The size of average bonuses generally increased according to classification in 2010, ranging from $572 for APS 2 (just slightly below the average of $582 for APS 1) to $5,264 for EL 2. At all levels the minimum performance bonus payment was zero, indicating that some eligible employees did not receive a payment.

Retention Bonuses

Eligibility for retention bonuses was uniformly low in 2010. Only ~1 per cent of APS 2, APS 4 and EL 1 and ~2 per cent of EL 2 employees were eligible for a retention bonus in 2010. Actual bonus payments were also quite low, with a median of $1,000 at all eligible levels.

Allowances

Like previous years, there was limited incidence of allowances, shift and other penalties provided at any classification, and eligibility rates have been reasonably stable compared to 2010. Eligibility for allowances ranged from ~6 per cent (Graduate) to ~37 per cent (APS 3). Average actual allowance amounts provided ranged from $4,442 (Graduate, EL 2) to $10,600 (APS 3). Median actual allowance amounts ranged from $1,523 (Graduate) to $6,967 (APS 3).

Total Reward and Total Reward plus Allowances

Across the sample, there was little remuneration difference between TRP and Total Reward (TR) or Total Reward plus Allowances (TR+A) due to low incidence of bonuses, allowances, overtime and penalties.

Table 1.4 provides an indication of the difference between median TRP and TR, as well as between TRP and TR+A at each classification.

Table 1.4 – Comparison of Median TRP with Median TR and TR+A in 2010

Classification	n	TRP	TR	Difference		TR+A	Difference
				(TR – TRP)			(TR+A – TRP)
		Median	Median	$	%	Median	$	%
Graduate	1,297	$61,287	$61,287	$0	0.0%	$61,287	$0	0.0%
APS 1	1,529	$47,546	$47,546	$0	0.0%	$47,662	$116	0.2%
APS 2	4,737	$56,933	$57,125	$192	0.3%	$57,875	$942	1.7%
APS 3	19,760	$63,238	$63,326	$88	0.1%	$64,563	$1,325	2.1%
APS 4	19,687	$70,347	$70,408	$61	0.1%	$70,996	$649	0.9%
APS 5	20,167	$77,483	$77,709	$226	0.3%	$78,466	$983	1.3%
APS 6	26,978	$89,882	$90,005	$123	0.1%	$90,782	$900	1.0%
EL 1	24,309	$112,788	$113,384	$596	0.5%	$113,812	$1,024	0.9%
EL 2	11,689	$140,397	$141,170	$773	0.6%	$141,877	$1,480	1.1%

Table 1.4 indicates that the difference between TR and TRP ranges from 0 per cent (Graduate, APS 1) to 0.6 per cent (EL 2), indicating that variable rewards such as bonuses comprised a very small proportion of remuneration packages for non-SES employees. The classification where the difference was greatest was EL 2 as, at this level, there is a greater incidence and quantum of bonuses than other non-SES classifications.

Remuneration policy findings

In 2010, 72 per cent of agencies reported that they had a formal non-SES remuneration strategy which was used as a basis for program design and pay decisions and, of those agencies, 86 per cent communicated the strategy to employees.

By far the focus of remuneration strategy for most non-SES employees was Base Salary (81 per cent), while Base Salary plus bonuses was the next most popular (11 per cent).

The APS Remuneration Survey and/or selected public sector agencies were commonly used benchmarking comparators when setting remuneration arrangements for non-SES employees across all employment instruments, though they were particularly prevalent for employees appointed under an Enterprise Agreement[1] (EA) where an equal proportion of agencies (51 per cent) reported benchmarking at either of the aforementioned comparator groups.

While most agencies report benchmarking their remuneration for non-SES employees primarily against other APS agencies and selected public sector organisations, Government Business Enterprises and the private sector continue to be regarded as competitors for the attraction and retention of APS employees.

Although such organisations are considered a market for talent, they are infrequently considered as a benchmark when determining salary levels.

The spread of the minimum and maximum TRP (as defined under the agencies’ remuneration policy) can be quite varied, with the range between Q1 and Q3 being as small as ~$1,500 to as high as $26,550. Starting salaries are usually set at the minimum of the classification applicable to the position, although in some cases starting salaries are at the discretion of the Agency Head.

Rating scales are commonly used to manage performance pay arrangements, with four or five point rating scales being the most frequently used. The majority of agencies required a ‘satisfactory’ level of performance to receive a performance payment, although some required a higher rating of ‘superior/outstanding’.

In 2010, 44 per cent of agencies reported having a formal Graduate program in place, which represents a 12 per cent decrease from 2009. The majority of agencies start all Graduates on the same Base Salary, although some agencies also took into account the qualification held by the Graduate, and others reported that the Agency Head could exercise discretion.

On satisfactory completion of the Graduate program, the majority of agencies (51 per cent) place Graduates at the APS 4 level (down from 73 per cent in 2009), 30 per cent advance Graduates to the APS 5 level (up from 18 per cent last survey), and 19 per cent place them at the APS 3 level.

Remuneration Outcomes by Various Parameters

Mercer’s analysis of TRP by department size, location and job family indicates that:

• there is significant variation in TRP across agencies:
• • agencies with more than 2,500 employees generally had higher average TRP values than other agency size categories for APS 1 to APS 6. The smallest agency category had the highest average TRP for EL 1 and EL 2 employees
• there is no consistent pattern across classifications in terms of which locations have higher TRPs, although:
• • Victoria was the highest paying for APS 1 and APS 4
  • Queensland was the highest paying for APS 3 and APS 6
  • employees placed overseas were paid highest at APS 5 and EL 2
• a more consistent pattern emerged regarding the lowest paying jurisdictions:
• • Northern Territory paid lowest at Graduate, APS 1, APS 3 and EL 1 levels
  • ACT paid lowest at APS 2, APS 4 and APS 5 levels
  • employees placed overseas received the lowest TRP at APS 6 level, while those in Queensland received the lowest TRP at EL 2 level
• variances in remuneration by job family were statistically significant for all classifications. The Audit job family was the highest paying at APS 2 through APS 6, and the Medical job family was the highest paying at EL 1 and EL 2
• there was no particular trend in terms of the lowest paying job family across classifications. Only the Economics (APS 5, APS 6 and EL 1) and Communications (APS 3 and EL 2) job families were paid lowest at more than one level. 

Remuneration Data and Analysis – Overall Findings

This section provides summaries of median and average Base Salary, Total Remuneration Package (TRP) and Total Reward (TR), and the relative APS percentage movements from 2009 to 2010.

Base Salary

Base Salary represents full time equivalent annualised PAYG salary. It includes pre-tax employee superannuation contributions made by salary sacrifice and any additional salary sacrifice amounts for other benefits. It excludes all other cash components such as bonuses and allowances.

Table 2.1 provides a summary of median and average Base Salary movements for non-SES employees from 2009 to 2010.

Table 2.1 – Base Salary Median and Average Movements from 2009 to 2010

Classification	Median Base Salary			Average Base Salary
	2009	2010	Movement	2009	2010	Movement
Graduate	$51,370	$53,040	3.3%	$51,462	$54,012	5.0%
APS 1	$40,659	$41,148	1.2%	$39,641	$40,159	1.3%
APS 2	$47,680	$49,233	3.3%	$47,205	$48,549	2.8%
APS 3	$52,327	$54,577	4.3%	$51,803	$54,202	4.6%
APS 4	$58,949	$61,299	4.0%	$58,582	$60,698	3.6%
APS 5	$64,728	$67,017	3.5%	$64,478	$66,550	3.2%
APS 6	$74,969	$77,824	3.8%	$74,131	$76,790	3.6%
EL 1	$93,826	$97,275	3.7%	$93,296	$96,506	3.4%
EL 2	$117,127	$120,840	3.2%	$116,588	$121,268	4.0%

2010 median Base Salary movements ranged between 1.2 per cent and 4.3 per cent, with average movements of between 1.3 per cent and 5 per cent. Across all non-SES classifications, the overall median movement was 3.4 per cent and the overall average movement was 3.5 per cent. Except at the Graduate level, the 2010 increases are lower than 2009 movements.

Charts 2.1 and 2.2 show the significant overlaps in Base Salary distributions between the non-SES classifications.

Chart 2.1* – Base Salary Distribution in 2010 for APS 1 to APS 5

 

*All data items shown in the above chart reference the detailed summary tables in Appendix E.

Chart 2.2* – Base Salary Distribution in 2010 for APS 6, EL 1 and EL 2

 

*All data items shown in the above chart reference the detailed summary tables in Appendix E.

 

 

The relationship between the median of each classification and the next classification is detailed in Table 2.2 below, and is similar to the progression patterns noted in 2009. The progression from EL 2 to SES 1 was ~31 per cent.

 

Table 2.2 – Difference between Median Base Salaries at each APS Classification in 2010

Classification	Median Base Salary	Difference to next APS classification
		$	%
Graduate*	$53,040	$8,259	15.6%
APS 1	$41,148	$8,085	19.6%
APS 2	$49,233	$5,344	10.9%
APS 3	$54,577	$6,722	12.3%
APS 4	$61,299	$5,718	9.3%
APS 5	$67,017	$10,807	16.1%
APS 6	$77,824	$19,451	25.0%
EL 1	$97,275	$23,565	24.2%
EL 2*	$120,840	$37,437	31.0%

* For the purpose of this analysis, Graduate salaries were compared with APS 4 as the ‘next classification’ and EL 2 was compared with SES 1 ($158,227)

Charts 2.1 and 2.2, and Table 2.2, show diverse progression rates between median Base Salary levels from one classification to the next, ranging from 9.3 per cent to 31 per cent for EL 2 to SES 1. As was noted in 2009, however, there is a degree of overlap between classifications resulting from the wide salary ranges in each classification, with some employees receiving more than others two (or even three) classification levels higher.

Total Remuneration Package

TRP represents the sum of:

• Base Salary
• superannuation (including Employer Productivity Superannuation Component (EPSC) amounts where applicable)
• annual remuneration value of motor vehicles (including parking and Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT))
• other fixed benefit items (including FBT where applicable).

TRP excludes business-related on-costs such as workers’ compensation premiums or payroll tax, or the reimbursement of business expenses.

Table 2.3 provides a summary of median and average TRP movements from 2009 to 2010.

Table 2.3 – TRP Median and Average Movements in 2009 and 2010

Classification	Median TRP			Average TRP
	2009	2010	Movement	2009	2010	Movement
Graduate	$59,105	$61,287	3.7%	$59,167	$62,185	5.1%
APS 1	$46,304	$47,546	2.7%	$45,876	$46,502	1.4%
APS 2	$54,963	$56,933	3.6%	$54,613	$56,357	3.2%
APS 3	$60,197	$63,238	5.1%	$60,247	$63,110	4.8%
APS 4	$67,798	$70,347	3.8%	$67,876	$70,421	3.8%
APS 5	$75,133	$77,483	3.1%	$75,059	$77,364	3.1%
APS 6	$86,391	$89,882	4.0%	$86,074	$89,218	3.7%
EL 1	$109,466	$112,788	3.0%	$108,482	$112,239	3.5%
EL 2	$136,310	$140,397	3.0%	$136,467	$141,775	3.9%

Median TRP movements ranged between 2.4 per cent and 5.1 per cent, with an overall movement of 3.6 per cent. Average TRP movements ranged from 1.4 per cent to 5.1 per cent, also with an overall movement of 3.6 per cent.

Charts 2.3 and 2.4 show the distribution and spread of TRP for each non-SES classification.

 

 

 

Chart 2.3* – TRP Distribution in 2009 for APS 1 to APS 5

 

 

*All data items shown in the above chart reference the detailed summary tables in Appendix E.

Chart 2.4* – TRP Distribution in 2010 for APS 6, EL 1 and EL 2

 

*All data items shown in the above chart reference the detailed summary tables in Appendix E.

 

 

The relationship between the median TRP of each classification and the next classification is detailed in Table 2.4, and is broadly similar to the progression patterns noted in 2009.

 

Table 2.4 – Difference between Median TRP at each APS Classification in 2010

Classification	Median TRP	Difference to next APS classification
		$	%
Graduate*	$61,287	$9,060	14.8%
APS 1	$47,546	$9,387	19.7%
APS 2	$56,933	$6,305	11.1%
APS 3	$63,238	$7,109	11.2%
APS 4	$70,347	$7,136	10.1%
APS 5	$77,483	$12,399	16.0%
APS 6	$89,882	$22,906	25.5%
EL 1	$112,788	$27,609	24.5%
EL 2*	$140,397	$69,778	49.7%

* For the purpose of this analysis, Graduate TRP values were compared with APS 4 as the ‘next classification’ and EL 2 was compared with SES 1 ($210,175)

Charts 2.3 and 2.4, and Table 2.4, show a reasonably smooth TRP progression between classifications, ranging from 10.1 per cent for APS 4 to APS 5 and 49.7 per cent for EL 2 to SES 1. There was a significant difference between the median EL 2 TRP and the SES 1 TRP, due to both a higher Base Salary and benefits value (such as a vehicle) for SES 1 employees.

Total reward

The following section provides analysis of TR for each classification. TR is TRP plus bonuses.

Table 2.5 shows the distribution of TR at each classification. The overall 2010 movement at the TR median was 3.4 per cent, while the overall movement at the average was also 3.4 per cent. These 2010 TR movements were lower than in 2009, which were 5.1 per cent and 4.6 per cent respectively.

Table 2.5 – Non-SES TR Distribution in 2010

Classification	n	Min	Q1	Median	Q3	Max	Ave	SD
Graduate	1,297	$54,232	$58,328	$61,287	$65,824	$80,367	$62,228	$4,388
APS 1	1,529	$27,837	$43,267	$47,546	$50,971	$64,866	$46,602	$5,361
APS 2	4,737	$42,623	$53,809	$57,125	$59,161	$79,609	$56,542	$3,650
APS 3	19,760	$48,059	$60,899	$63,326	$65,844	$82,036	$63,368	$4,102
APS 4	19,687	$50,687	$68,273	$70,408	$73,073	$108,774	$70,517	$3,586
APS 5	20,167	$55,953	$74,902	$77,709	$79,665	$112,976	$77,627	$3,721
APS 6	26,978	$61,346	$85,694	$90,005	$92,885	$137,322	$89,478	$5,949
EL 1	24,309	$71,790	$108,178	$113,384	$115,849	$253,880	$112,753	$7,602
EL 2	11,689	$103,784	$134,822	$141,170	$148,369	$708,040	$143,269	$19,667

Table 2.6 shows the difference between TR and TRP across all classifications. The difference between the two aggregates is negligible at all classification levels, but especially at level APS 6 and below, indicative of small bonus amounts.

Table 2.6 – Difference between TRP and TR in 2010 (Median and Average)

Classification	Median		Difference (TR - TRP)		Average		Difference (TR - TRP)
	TRP	TR	$	%	TRP	TR	$	%
Graduate	$61,287	$61,287	$0	0.0%	$62,185	$62,228	$43	0.1%
APS 1	$47,546	$47,546	$0	0.0%	$46,502	$46,602	$100	0.2%
APS 2	$56,933	$57,125	$192	0.3%	$56,357	$56,542	$185	0.3%
APS 3	$63,238	$63,326	$88	0.1%	$63,110	$63,368	$258	0.4%
APS 4	$70,347	$70,408	$61	0.1%	$70,421	$70,517	$96	0.1%
APS 5	$77,483	$77,709	$226	0.3%	$77,364	$77,627	$263	0.3%
APS 6	$89,882	$90,005	$123	0.1%	$89,218	$89,478	$260	0.3%
EL 1	$112,788	$113,384	$596	0.5%	$112,239	$112,753	$514	0.5%
EL 2	$140,397	$141,170	$773	0.6%	$141,775	$143,269	$1,494	1.1%

Across all classifications, the overall difference between median TR and TRP was 0.2 per cent, a reduction from 0.4 per cent in 2009, due both to the relatively low incidence of bonuses and relatively low value of actual bonuses received by non-SES employees.

Superannuation

Superannuation is defined as employer contribution plus the Employer Productivity Superannuation Component (EPSC) or the Superannuation Guarantee (SG). Mercer notes that, as at 1 July 2008, the Superannuation Guarantee Administration Act 1992 required employers to use ordinary time earnings (OTE) as the earning base to calculate their Superannuation Guarantee obligation.

Non-SES employees are generally members of one of four superannuation funds (unless they have made their own superannuation arrangements). The funds and their abbreviations are described below:

• Australian Government Employees Superannuation Trust (AGEST): this fund is for contractors and people employed for a defined period. Employer contributions are set at the statutory amount of 9 per cent for income levels up to the statutory maximum of $160,680 per annum
• Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS): this scheme is closed to new members, and the employer contribution (as a weighted average across participating agencies) is currently 21.4 per cent (including the productivity component of nearly 3 per cent)
• Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS): this scheme is also closed to new members, with the employer contribution (as a weighted average across participating agencies) currently set at 16.2 per cent (including the productivity component)
• Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan (PSSAP): employer contribution is set at 15.4 per cent, and the fund has been in operation since July 2005
• Other: this is usually for employees who have chosen their own superannuation arrangements, including employees who self manage their superannuation.

Table 2.7 shows the employer superannuation contributions for each non-SES classification.

Table 2.7 – 2010 Employer Superannuation Contribution Distribution for Non-SES Employees

Classification	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
Graduate	$4,660	$7,650	$7,993	$8,688	$11,104	$8,159	$679
APS 1	$2,224	$5,754	$6,398	$7,000	$20,453	$6,332	$1,486
APS 2	$3,456	$6,999	$7,732	$8,394	$19,471	$7,800	$1,226
APS 3	$0	$7,901	$8,450	$9,515	$24,748	$8,900	$1,606
APS 4	$0	$8,784	$9,323	$10,494	$50,141	$9,698	$1,412
APS 5	$4,527	$9,726	$10,482	$11,555	$29,405	$10,784	$1,767
APS 6	$4,824	$11,095	$12,121	$13,379	$40,619	$12,387	$2,028
EL 1	$4,517	$14,148	$15,281	$16,322	$42,012	$15,614	$2,590
EL 2	$4,954	$17,461	$18,978	$21,135	$55,150	$19,755	$3,873

Across all non-SES classifications, median superannuation contributions in 2010 were higher than in 2009, reflecting increases in Base Salary and the fact that many non-SES employees had a salary for superannuation purposes that was higher than their Base Salary as at 31 December 2010. At the minimum, at least one employee at both APS 3 and APS 4 levels was either over the age of 70 or had reached the maximum benefit limit and did not, therefore, receive any employer superannuation contribution.

Table 2.8 provides an analysis of salary for superannuation purposes as a percentage of Base Salary across the total sample of non-SES employees, according to superannuation fund membership. The table indicates the proportion of non-SES employees within each ‘Percentage of Base Salary’ range.

The majority of non-SES employees had a salary for superannuation purposes within

±10 per cent of their Base Salary. For non-SES employees in AGEST, PSSAP and Other funds, the distribution was skewed to the plus 10 per cent category.

Table 2.8 – Salary for Superannuation as a Percentage of Base Salary, sorted by Fundfor Non-SES Employees in 2010

Fund	n	Percentage of Base Salary (as at 31 December 2010) used as ‘Base Salary’ for superannuation calculation purposes
		<70%	70-79%	80-89%	90-99%	100-109%	110-119%	120-129%	130+%
AGEST	1,103	0%	1%	3%	23%	71%	1%	1%	1%
CSS	8,974	0%	0%	1%	44%	43%	6%	3%	4%
PSS	70,135	0%	0%	2%	48%	40%	5%	3%	3%
PSSAP	44,488	0%	1%	4%	33%	56%	2%	2%	2%
Other	4,391	0%	0%	2%	20%	75%	1%	1%	0%

A more detailed analysis of superannuation trends for each non-SES classification is provided in Section 3 of this report.

Motor Vehicles

Motor vehicles are a traditional feature of Executive remuneration in Australia, with their continued popularity reflecting their relative cost effectiveness as a remuneration component. As with previous surveys, Mercer reports on motor vehicle costs in terms of actual motor vehicle costs and cash in lieu of cars (refer to Appendix E for detailed information on car parking costs). Please note that FBT costs are included in the motor vehicle cost and car parking remuneration items.

Mercer considers vehicle availability to the non-SES employee when calculating vehicle cost. For example, for agencies using a car formula, a car will only be costed at the full market value if the non-SES employee has full private and unrestricted usage of the car. Where a non-SES employee is required to make the car available for use by other employees at certain times, or where there are other restrictions such as the vehicle not being available for periods of annual leave or on weekends the car has been costed at less than the full market value (refer to Appendix C for further details).

Table 2.9 presents the 2010 distribution of motor vehicle costs, including FBT, for EL 1 and EL 2 employees. These costs include all leasing and running costs, but exclude other related costs such as parking. Note that the costs refer to the cost to an employee’s package, either calculated by the Mercer car formula or using the agency’s identified vehicle budget.

Table 2.9 – Distribution of Motor Vehicle Costs* in 2010 for EL 1 and EL 2 Employees

Classification	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
EL 1	$16,579	$22,295	$25,802	$28,708	$45,808	$25,405	$4,646	0
EL 2	$16,579	$22,000	$24,000	$28,708	$113,052	$27,838	$13,833	1

*Includes FBT

Table 2.9 shows that in 2010, only ~1 per cent of EL 2 employees and less than 0.5 per cent of EL 1 employees had a motor vehicle as part of their remuneration package. EL 1 employees had a higher median motor vehicle value than their EL 2 counterparts but a lower average value.

Performance bonuses

Performance bonuses are used by some agencies to reward high performance. Table 2.10 presents the distribution and eligibility of performance bonuses at each classification, as well as the proportion of eligible employees that received a performance bonus payment.

Eligibility for performance bonuses ranged from 6 per cent at the Graduate level to 25 per cent at APS 2, with an overall average of 14 per cent. Compared to 2009, there was a reduction in eligibility at all levels except APS 3.

The average eligibility for Graduates and APS 1 to APS 6 classifications was 12 per cent, down from the 2009 average of 15 per cent. For EL 1 and EL 2, the average eligibility was 21 per cent, compared to 25 per cent in 2009.

The overall average bonus size was $1509, which represents a small increase from 2009 ($1,412). While the size of average bonuses generally increased according to classification, the percentage of eligible employees and the proportion of eligible employees who received performance payments did not.

Table 2.10 – Performance Bonus Payment Distribution in 2010 for Non-SES Employees

Classification	Min	Q1	Median	Q3	Max	Avg	% Rep¹	% > 0²
Graduate	--	--	--	--	--	--	6	--
APS 1	$0	$665	$665	$665	$1,165	$582	11	89.2%
APS 2	$0	$467	$665	$665	$4,400	$572	25	82.0%
APS 3	$0	$665	$665	$767	$8,500	$731	9	33.3%
APS 4	$0	$0	$0	$1,197	$11,200	$838	4	29.9%
APS 5	$0	$681	$681	$786	$10,829	$856	15	54.6%
APS 6	$0	$0	$796	$919	$15,167	$1,129	14	51.0%
EL 1	$0	$794	$993	$1,920	$44,059	$2,101	17	74.3%
EL 2	$0	$201	$2,466	$7,615	$277,889	$5,264	24	81.1%

¹ Eligible employees.

² Eligible employees who received a performance bonus payment greater than zero.

Retention bonuses

Table 2.11 shows the distribution and eligibility of retention bonuses at each classification, as well as the proportion of eligible employees that received a retention bonus payment. The incidence of retention bonuses was quite low for non-SES employees, and not all eligible employees received such payments. Eligibility for retention bonuses in 2010 was comparable to 2009, though median and average payments decreased for most classifications from 2009 to 2010.

Table 2.11 – Retention Bonus Payment Distribution in 2010 for Non-SES Employees

Classification	Min	Q1	Median	Q3	Max	Avg	% Rep¹	% > 0²
Graduate	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--
APS 1	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--
APS 2	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--
APS 3	--	--	--	--	--	$1,042	0	49.2%
APS 4	$97	$1,000	$1,000	$1,343	$4,984	$1,397	1	49.4%
APS 5	$125	$1,000	$1,000	$1,912	$4,487	$1,350	0	42.3%
APS 6	$142	$1,000	$1,000	$1,000	$19,936	$1,468	0	47.1%
EL 1	$0	$1,000	$1,000	$3,000	$17,310	$2,363	1	61.3%
EL 2	$0	$1,000	$1,000	$3,541	$34,620	$3,400	2	64.5%

¹ Eligible employees.

² Eligible employees who received a retention bonus payment greater than zero.

Refer to Section 3 for further details on performance, retention and other bonuses by classification.

Other benefits

Other benefits (as described by agencies) for non-SES employees include items such as study and additional annual leave, telephone (for private use only), study assistance, professional memberships, or other benefits which relate to the position’s responsibility or location, and include FBT where applicable. Examples of other benefits provided in 2010 include:

• home office, PC, remote access (IT)
• non-business expenses
• family care
• use of recreation facilities
• temporary accommodation allowance
• airline membership
• other various job-specific allowances.

Some employees based overseas may obtain an incidental benefit for services such as cleaning or housekeeping, which are mainly provided for the upkeep of the Australian Government’s mission or facility. In these cases, the private use element of the benefit amount and associated FBT costs only was included.

Other benefits apply to relatively few non-SES employees at APS 3 or above, and detailed information for each classification where such payments are made is provided in Section 3. 

Total Reward Plus Allowances

TR+A consists of TR plus the sum of shift loading, overtime and any other non-reimbursable allowances paid to the employee. Other allowances can apply at any classification, and between 6 per cent and 37 per cent of non-SES employees (depending on classification) received such payments. As described by participating agencies, other allowances include items such as:

• shift allowance
• district allowance
• first aid allowance
• language allowance
• staff allowance
• computer allowance
• professional lifestyle allowance
• telephone allowance
• fire warden allowance
• community allowance
• leave allowance
• taskforce allowance
• skill and responsibility allowance
• on-call allowance

Detailed information on the provision of other allowances for all non-SES classifications is provided in Section 3.

Table 2.12 shows the 2010 distribution of TR+A across all classifications. Similar to 2009, TR+A was similar to their TR value for the majority of non-SES employees due to the relatively low frequency of these payments and small actual amounts at most classifications.

Table 2.12 – Non-SES TR+A Distribution in 2010

Classification	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
Graduate	$54,232	$58,589	$61,287	$66,079	$81,391	$62,515	$4,552
APS 1	$28,050	$43,939	$47,662	$51,584	$75,079	$47,976	$6,182
APS 2	$42,623	$54,179	$57,875	$60,175	$129,429	$58,039	$6,370
APS 3	$48,859	$61,536	$64,563	$68,609	$145,176	$67,246	$10,039
APS 4	$50,687	$68,541	$70,996	$74,242	$132,483	$71,949	$5,966
APS 5	$55,953	$75,370	$78,466	$81,438	$167,457	$79,649	$8,018
APS 6	$61,346	$86,261	$90,782	$93,962	$203,216	$90,946	$8,612
EL 1	$71,790	$108,603	$113,812	$116,607	$253,880	$113,621	$8,636
EL 2	$103,784	$135,406	$141,877	$149,921	$708,040	$144,140	$19,955

Although not shown in the above table, TR+A values up to Q3 were broadly similar to TR values. TR+A at the maximum was significantly higher than TR values, as a few employees at most classifications received relatively large payments for other allowances. A similar trend occurred in 2009.

Remuneration Movements by Agency

Table 2.13 analyses the 2009/2010 median TRP movements at each classification by agency. Each agency’s 2010 percentage median TRP increase was calculated and grouped according to the magnitude of the increase. Note that not all agencies employed staff at each classification.

Table 2.13 – Distribution of Median TRP Increases from 2009 to 2010 by Agency

Classification	Movement of the Median from 2009 to 2010				Total Number
	<0	0% to <5%	6% to <10%	>10%
Graduate	3	15	7	2	27
APS1	3	19	6	2	30
APS2	5	23	11	4	43
APS3	3	29	17	2	51
APS4	3	40	11	1	55
APS5	2	46	7	1	56
APS6	2	41	12	1	56
EL1	2	46	7	1	56
EL2	4	42	9	1	56

Similar to 2009, the majority of agencies recorded median TRP movements in the range of 0 per cent to 5 per cent, followed by movements of between 6 per cent and 10 per cent. A few agencies had negative median TRP movements, and even fewer agencies reported increases greater than 10 per cent at any classification. This indicates that most agencies were reasonably restrained in managing their non-SES remuneration.

3  Remuneration data and dnalysis – Details by APS classification

This section provides detailed analysis of Base Salary, TRP and TR for 2010 and 2009. For each non-SES classification, the distribution of each salary aggregate for 2010 is compared with the findings from 2009, as well as the percentage change between 2009/2010 and 2008/2009. A discussion of the key characteristics of the 2010 sample is also presented. The subsection under each classification also includes analysis of superannuation which is the main benefit for all non-SES employees as well as any benefits such as vehicles, performance bonuses, retention bonuses and other allowances.

Graduate

Remuneration Overview

Tables 3.1 to 3.3, and Chart 3.1, show the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for Graduate employees compared with 2009, as well as the percentage change between 2009/2010 and 2008/2009.

Table 3.1 – Base Salary Distribution and Movements for Graduate Employees

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	1,297	$46,995	$50,770	$53,040	$57,568	$69,642	$54,012	$3,936
2009	1,281	$44,692	$47,631	$51,370	$54,630	$63,000	$51,462	$4,265
% Change 09/10	1.2%	5.2%	6.6%	3.3%	5.4%	10.5%	5.0%	-7.7%
% Change 08/09	32.6%	3.6%	1.4%	3.3%	2.7%	2.7%	1.2%	-14.0%

Table 3.2 – TRP Distribution and Movements for Graduate Employees

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	1,297	$54,232	$58,244	$61,287	$65,824	$80,367	$62,185	$4,402
2009	1,281	$51,538	$54,529	$59,105	$63,346	$72,702	$59,167	$4,756
% Change 09/10	1.2%	5.2%	6.8%	3.7%	3.9%	10.5%	5.1%	-7.5%
% Change 08/09	32.6%	4.1%	0.6%	2.4%	1.7%	-5.5%	0.8%	-18.1%

Table 3.3 – TR Distribution and Movements for Graduate Employees

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	1,297	$54,232	$58,328	$61,287	$65,824	$80,367	$62,228	$4,388
2009	1,281	$51,538	$54,892	$59,105	$63,346	$75,620	$59,496	$5,082
% Change 09/10	1.2%	5.2%	6.3%	3.7%	3.9%	6.3%	4.6%	-13.7%
% Change 08/09	32.6%	4.1%	1.3%	1.6%	1.2%	-1.7%	1.0%	-13.5%

The information provided in Tables 3.1 to 3.3 (and calculations based on this data) indicates that for Graduate employees:

• remuneration increases were higher than the 2008/2009 movements across all metrics
• Base Salary: 50 per cent of Graduate employees were paid between $50,770 and $57,568, with 68 per cent being paid between $50,076 and $57,948
• TRP: 50 per cent of Graduate employees were paid between $58,244 and $65,824, with 68 per cent being paid between $57,783 and $66,587
• TR: 50 per cent of Graduate employees were paid between $58,328 and $65,824, with 68 per cent of Graduate employees being paid between $57,840 and $66,616
• TRP and TR ranges are identical, from $54,232 to $80,367, a spread of ~$26,100, while the Base Salary spread was ~$22,600
• the only gap between TR and TRP occurred at Q1 – the gap at all other points of measurement (minimum, median, Q3, maximum) was zero.

Chart 3.1* – Remuneration Comparisons for Graduate Employees in 2009 and 2010

*All data items shown in the above chart reference the detailed summary tables in Appendix E.

Chart 3.1 shows that:

• the Q1 to Q3 ranges (representing 50 per cent of employees) for Base Salary, TRP and TR were relatively narrower in 2010 than 2009
• in both 2009 and 2010, the variation from the minimum to the 5^th percentile was less than the variation from the 95^th percentile to the maximum; thus, average Base Salary, TRP and TR were greater than the corresponding medians
• the range from the 5^th percentile to the 95^th percentile, which includes 90 per cent of employees (represented by the coloured cylinders in Chart 3.1), was narrower in 2010 than in 2009 at BS (~$12,000), TRP (~$12,600) and TR (~$12,600)
• § the variation between the 95^th percentile and the maximum was larger in 2010 than in 2009
• § the difference between 2010 and 2009 Graduate remuneration at the maximum was disproportionate to the difference at all other points of measurement.

Major Benefits and Bonuses

Superannuation

Table 3.4 shows the distribution and movement of superannuation contributions for Graduate employees. The 2009/2010 median superannuation contribution for Graduate employees has increased by 3.7 per cent, up from 2.1 per cent in 2008/2009.

Table 3.4 – Superannuation Distribution and Movements for Graduate Employees

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	$4,660	$7,650	$7,993	$8,688	$11,104	$8,159	$679
2009	$4,330	$7,169	$7,706	$8,012	$10,507	$7,635	$662
% Change 09/10	7.6%	6.7%	3.7%	8.4%	5.7%	6.9%	2.6%
% Change 08/09	4.0%	1.1%	2.1%	-8.3%	-29.7%	-3.0%	-38.9%

Table 3.5 shows a slight increase in superannuation contributions as a proportion of Base Salary for Graduate employees in 2010, as compared to 2009. This pushes APS Graduates further above general market practice, where a 9 per cent contribution is common.

Table 3.5 – Superannuation as a Proportion of Base Salary for Graduate Employees

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
2010	9.1%	14.8%	15.4%	15.4%	19.6%	15.1%
2009	9.0%	14.3%	15.1%	15.4%	22.7%	14.9%

There were also cases where the employee received a relatively high superannuation contribution as a percentage of their Base Salary. These cases were very few, and occurred because the employee had a higher salary for superannuation purposes than their Base Salary as at 31 December 2010.

Table 3.6 provides an analysis of salary for superannuation purposes as a percentage of Base Salary for Graduate employees, according to superannuation fund membership, and indicates the proportion of Graduate employees within each ‘Percentage of Base Salary’ range. The majority of Graduate employees (93 per cent) are members of the PSSAP fund, where the employer contribution is set at 15.4 per cent.

Table 3.6 – Salary for Superannuation as a Percentage of Base Salary, sorted by Fund for Graduate Employees in 2010

Fund	n	Percentage of Base Salary (as at 31 December 2010) used as ‘Base Salary’ for superannuation calculation purposes
		<70%	70-79%	80-89%	90-99%	100-109%	110-119%	120-129%	130+%
AGEST	3	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
CSS	0	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
PSS	13	0.0%	0.0%	7.7%	61.5%	30.8%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
PSSAP	1,166	0.0%	1.2%	10.2%	33.4%	54.4%	0.6%	0.3%	0.0%
Other	71	0.0%	0.0%	11.3%	31.0%	57.7%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

 

 

Like the trend in 2009, the majority of employees had a salary for superannuation purposes within ±10 per cent of their Base Salary, with more employees in the plus 10 per cent category overall, though members of the PSS fund tended towards the minus 10 per cent category.

 

Performance Bonuses

Table 3.7 shows 2010 and 2009 performance bonus payments for Graduate employees, along with comparisons from 2008/2009. The data includes those employees who were eligible but did not receive a performance bonus payment (i.e. data reported as $0).

In 2010, 6 per cent of all Graduate employees were eligible to receive a performance bonus, down from 11 per cent in 2009. However, the 2010 sample of performance bonus data was not sufficient to report.

Table 3.7 – Performance Bonus Payment Distribution and Movements for Graduate Employees

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	6
2009	$0	$0	$4,000	$4,000	$4,000	$2,429	$1,835	11
% Change 09/10	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	-45.5%
% Change 08/09	--	--	--	614.3%	53.8%	507.3%	193.1%	0.0%

Table 3.8 shows performance bonus payments received as a proportion of Base Salary and TRP for Graduate employees over the past three years. The data only includes those employees eligible for performance bonuses. As Table 3.8 shows, the 2010 sample was insufficient to complete the analyses conducted in previous years. As such, it is unknown whether the increase in bonus as a percentage of Base Salary and TRP observed in 2008/2009 also carried over to 2009/2010.

Table 3.8 – Average Performance Bonuses as a Percentage of Base Salary and TRP from 2008 to 2010

Band	Average Bonuses as % of Base Salary			Average Bonuses as % of TRP
	2008	2009	2010	2008	2009	2010
Graduate	1.6%	4.5%	--	1.4%	3.8%	--

 

Other Allowances

Table 3.9 shows that in 2010, 6 per cent of Graduate employees received a payment for other allowances, representing a slight decrease compared to 2009. The median value of these benefits was $1,523, which is a 27 per cent decrease from 2009 ($2,098).

Table 3.9 – Other Allowances for Graduate Employees in 2010 and 2009

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$76	$1,092	$1,523	$3,684	$20,742	$4,442	$5,798	6
2009	$1,000	$1,356	$2,098	$3,792	$18,648	$4,012	$4,859	7

 

 

APS 1

 

Remuneration Overview

Tables 3.10 to 3.12, and Chart 3.2, show the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for APS 1 employees compared with 2009, as well as the percentage change between 2009/2010 and 2008/2009.

Table 3.10 – Base Salary Distribution and Movements for APS 1

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	1,529	$22,233	$37,557	$41,148	$44,413	$48,166	$40,159	$4,201
2009	1,138	$20,714	$38,020	$40,659	$42,582	$49,711	$39,641	$4,436
% Change 09/10	34.4%	7.3%	-1.2%	1.2%	4.3%	-3.1%	1.3%	-5.3%
% Change 08/09	49.5%	10.1%	13.9%	8.8%	4.3%	14.4%	8.0%	-4.6%

Table 3.11 – TRP Distribution and Movements for APS 1

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	1,529	$27,837	$43,267	$47,546	$50,971	$64,866	$46,502	$5,327
2009	1,138	$23,904	$43,118	$46,304	$49,819	$57,366	$45,876	$5,322
% Change 09/10	34.4%	16.5%	0.3%	2.7%	2.3%	13.1%	1.4%	0.1%
% Change 08/09	49.5%	10.1%	12.1%	6.8%	6.3%	-1.2%	7.9%	-9.6%

Table 3.12 – TR Distribution and Movements for APS 1

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	1,529	$27,837	$43,267	$47,546	$50,971	$64,866	$46,602	$5,361
2009	1,138	$23,904	$43,322	$46,544	$49,987	$57,366	$46,117	$5,509
% Change 09/10	34.4%	16.5%	-0.1%	2.2%	2.0%	13.1%	1.1%	-2.7%
% Change 08/09	49.5%	10.1%	12.7%	7.3%	6.7%	-2.1%	8.3%	-7.1%

The information provided in Tables 3.10 to 3.12 (and calculations based on this data) indicates that for APS 1 employees:

§ the 2009/2010 median and average Base Salary, TRP and TR increases were lower than 2008/2009 movements

§ Base Salary: 50 per cent of APS 1 employees were paid between $37,557 and $44,413, with 68 per cent being paid between $35,958 and $44,360

§ TRP: 50 per cent of APS 1 employees were paid between $43,267 and $50,971, with 68 per cent being paid between $41,175 and $51,829

§ TR: 50 per cent of APS 1 employees were paid between $43,267 and $50,971, with68 per cent being paid between $41,241 and $51,963

§ TRP and TR ranges are identical, from $27,837 to $64,866, with only a small gap between average TRP and TR, indicating low bonus payments for APS 1 employees.

 

 

Chart 3.2* – Remuneration Comparisons for APS 1 in 2009 and 2010

 

*All data items shown in the above chart reference the detailed summary tables in Appendix E.

Chart 3.2 shows that:

§ the Q1 to Q3 ranges (which represent 50 per cent of employees) for Base Salary, TRP and TR were slightly broader in 2010 compared with 2009

§ the variation from the minimum to the 5^th percentile was greater than the variation from the 95^th percentile to the maximum for Base Salary; thus, average Base Salary was less than the median. The inverse occurred for TRP and TR

§ the range from the 5^th percentile to the 95^th percentile, which includes 90 per cent of employees (represented by the coloured cylinders in Chart 3.2), was narrower in 2010 than in 2009 for Base Salary (~$12,600), TRP (~$16,300) and TR (~$16,300).

 

 

Major Benefits and Bonuses

 

Superannuation

Table 3.13 shows the distribution and movement of superannuation contributions for APS 1 employees. The 2010 median superannuation contribution for APS 1 employees has increased by 3.7 per cent, considerably less than the 9.6 per cent movement in 2008/2009.

Table 3.13 – Superannuation Distribution and Movements for APS 1

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	$2,224	$5,754	$6,398	$7,000	$20,453	$6,332	$1,486
2009	$2,207	$5,630	$6,167	$6,875	$13,245	$6,200	$1,347
% Change 09/10	0.8%	2.2%	3.7%	1.8%	54.4%	2.1%	10.3%
% Change 08/09	-8.7%	16.4%	9.6%	7.8%	-18.1%	6.8%	-24.7%

Table 3.14 shows that median superannuation contribution as a proportion of Base Salary was identical in 2010 and 2009 for APS 1 employees. The average superannuation contribution as a proportion of Base Salary was slightly higher in 2010 than 2009. These proportions are higher than the general market practice, where a 9 per cent contribution is common.

Table 3.14 – Superannuation as a Proportion of Base Salary for APS 1

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
2010	5.3%	15.0%	15.4%	16.1%	46.1%	15.7%
2009	6.8%	14.8%	15.4%	16.0%	39.6%	15.6%

The minimum values were less than 9 per cent because there were cases where salary for superannuation purposes was less than the individual’s Base Salary. There were also cases where the employee received a relatively high superannuation contribution as a percentage of their Base Salary, due to the employee having a higher salary for superannuation purposes than their Base Salary as at 31 December 2010.

Table 3.15 provides a summary of salary for superannuation purposes as a percentage of Base Salary for APS 1 employees, according to superannuation fund membership, and indicates the proportion of APS 1 employees within each ‘Percentage of Base Salary’ range. A majority of APS 1 employees (63 per cent) are members of the PSSAP fund, where the employer contribution is set at 15.4 per cent.

Table 3.15 – Salary for Superannuation as a Percentage of Base Salary, sorted by Fund for APS 1 Employees in 2010

Fund	n	Percentage of Base Salary (as at 31 December 2010) used as ‘Base Salary’ for superannuation calculation purposes
		<70%	70-79%	80-89%	90-99%	100-109%	110-119%	120-129%	130+%
AGEST	49	0.0%	2.0%	0.0%	8.2%	83.7%	2.0%	2.0%	2.0%
CSS	65	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	30.8%	35.4%	26.2%	4.6%	3.1%
PSS	321	0.3%	0.0%	0.0%	40.8%	34.3%	18.4%	2.5%	3.7%
PSSAP	951	0.6%	0.1%	0.3%	21.6%	68.3%	3.7%	1.9%	3.5%
Other	129	0.8%	0.8%	1.6%	8.5%	88.4%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

As in 2009, the majority of employees had a salary for superannuation purposes within ±10 per cent of their Base Salary, with more employees in the plus 10 per cent category.

Performance Bonuses

Table 3.16 shows 2010 and 2009 performance bonus payments for APS 1 employees, along with comparisons from 2008/2009. The data includes employees who were eligible but did not receive a performance bonus payment (i.e. data reported as $0).

Eleven per cent of all APS 1 employees were eligible to receive a performance bonus in 2010, down from 16 per cent in 2009. Median and average performance bonus payments for APS 1 employees increased from 2009 to 2010.

Table 3.16 – Performance Bonus Payment Distribution and Movements for APS 1

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$0	$665	$665	$665	$1,165	$582	$211	11
2009	$0	$500	$500	$500	$1,000	$445	$151	16
% Change 09/10	--	33.0%	33.0%	33.0%	16.5%	30.8%	39.7%	-31.3%
% Change 08/09	--	--	0.0%	0.0%	-27.0%	29.7%	-42.1%	14.3%

Table 3.17 shows performance bonus payments as a proportion of Base Salary and TRP for APS 1 employees over the past three years. The data includes only those employees eligible for performance bonuses.

Performance bonus amounts for APS 1 employees, as a percentage of Base Salary and TRP, have increased slightly since 2009.

Table 3.17 – Average Performance Bonuses as a Percentage of Base Salary and TRP from 2008 to 2010

Band	Average Bonuses as % of Base Salary			Average Bonuses as % of TRP
	2008	2009	2010	2008	2009	2010
APS 1	1.0%	1.0%	1.3%	0.9%	0.9%	1.1%

Other Allowances

Table 3.18 shows that 25 per cent of APS 1 employees received a payment for other allowances in 2010, compared to 17 per cent in 2009. There was also an increase in the median and average value of these allowances.

Table 3.18 – Other Allowances for APS 1 Employees in 2010 and 2009

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$657	$1,949	$4,540	$8,036	$20,024	$5,600	$4,311	25
2009	$1,013	$1,811	$3,939	$7,307	$27,100	$5,441	$4,746	17

 

 

Other Remuneration Items

 

Similar to previous years, there were no APS 1 employees who received a vehicle or cash in lieu of a vehicle or car parking benefits in 2010. Unlike in 2009, where 2 per cent of APS 1 employees received payment for other benefits or bonuses, there was no incidence of this in 2010.

 

 

APS 2

 

Remuneration Overview

Tables 3.19 to 3.21, and Chart 3.3, show the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for APS 2 employees compared with 2009, as well as the percentage change between 2009/2010 and 2008/2009.

Table 3.19 – Base Salary Distribution and Movements for APS 2

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	4,737	$36,935	$46,816	$49,233	$50,471	$65,037	$48,549	$2,668
2009	4,291	$35,993	$45,110	$47,680	$49,288	$62,535	$47,205	$2,619
% Change 09/10	10.4%	2.6%	3.8%	3.3%	2.4%	4.0%	2.8%	1.9%
% Change 08/09	176.7%	6.4%	6.8%	9.2%	7.8%	14.7%	7.8%	-3.1%

Table 3.20 – TRP Distribution and Movements for APS 2

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	4,737	$42,623	$53,799	$56,933	$58,496	$79,609	$56,357	$3,566
2009	4,291	$41,419	$52,025	$54,963	$57,322	$79,076	$54,613	$3,512
% Change 09/10	10.4%	2.9%	3.4%	3.6%	2.0%	0.7%	3.2%	1.6%
% Change 08/09	176.7%	8.2%	7.2%	8.3%	7.7%	1.3%	7.4%	-9.0%

Table 3.21 – TR Distribution and Movements for APS 2

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	4,737	$42,623	$53,809	$57,125	$59,161	$79,609	$56,542	$3,650
2009	4,291	$41,419	$52,115	$55,263	$58,078	$79,076	$55,006	$3,693
% Change 09/10	10.4%	2.9%	3.3%	3.4%	1.9%	0.7%	2.8%	-1.2%
% Change 08/09	176.7%	8.2%	7.3%	8.4%	8.3%	-0.3%	7.8%	-6.8%

The information provided in Tables 3.19 to 3.21 (and calculations based on this data) indicates that for APS 2 employees:

§ the 2009/2010 Base Salary, TRP and TR increases were lower than 2008/2009 movements

§ Base Salary: 50 per cent of APS 2 employees were paid between $46,816 and $50,471, with 68 per cent being paid between $45,881 and $51,217

§ TRP: 50 per cent of APS 2 employees were paid between $53,799 and $58,496, with 68 per cent being paid between $52,791 and $59,923

§ TR: 50 per cent of APS 2 employees were paid between $53,809 and $59,161, with68 per cent being paid between $52,892 and $60,192

§ TRP and TR ranges for minimum to maximum are identical, from $42,623 to $79,609 a spread of ~$37,000. This is larger than the Base Salary spread of ~$28,100.

 

 

Chart 3.3 – Remuneration Comparisons for APS 2 in 2009 and 2010*

 

*All data items shown in the above chart reference the detailed summary tables in Appendix E.

Chart 3.3 shows that:

§ the 2010 Q1 to Q3 ranges (which represent 50 per cent of employees) for Base Salary, TRP and TR were slightly narrower than in 2009

§ as in 2009, the variation from the minimum to the 5^th percentile was much less than the variation from the 95^th percentile to the maximum

§ the range from the 5^th percentile to the 95^th percentile, which includes 90 per cent of employees (represented by the coloured cylinders in Chart 3.3), was ~$8,100 for Base Salary, ~$11,000 for TRP and ~$11,200 TR. This was very similar to 2009.

 

 

 

Major Benefits and Bonuses

 

Superannuation

Table 3.22 shows the distribution and movement of superannuation contributions for APS 2 employees. The 2010 median superannuation contribution has increased by 4.8 per cent, which is considerably lower than the 2008/2009 increase of 11 per cent.

Table 3.22 – Superannuation Distribution and Movements for APS 2

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	$3,456	$6,999	$7,732	$8,394	$19,471	$7,800	$1,226
2009	$0	$6,658	$7,379	$7,975	$21,368	$7,396	$1,377
% Change 09/10	--	5.1%	4.8%	5.3%	-8.9%	5.5%	-11.0%
% Change 08/09	-100.0%	6.8%	11.0%	9.4%	-20.0%	4.7%	-28.9%

 

Table 3.23 shows 2010 superannuation contributions as a proportion of Base Salary for APS 2 employees. The proportions for 2010 are similar to those of 2009, though they diverge at the minimum and maximum. At the maximum, employer contributions decreased by 5.4 per cent compared to 2009. These proportions are higher than the general market, where a 9 per cent contribution is the common practice.

Table 3.23 – Superannuation as a Proportion of Base Salary for APS 2

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
2010	7.2%	15.4%	15.4%	16.5%	34.7%	16.0%
2009	0.0%	14.7%	15.4%	16.0%	40.1%	15.6%

As in 2009, there were a number of cases where the employee received a relatively high superannuation contribution as a percentage of their Base Salary. This is due to the employee having a higher salary for superannuation purposes than their Base Salary as at 31 December 2010.

Table 3.24 provides a summary of salary for superannuation purposes as a percentage of Base Salary for APS 2 employees, according to superannuation fund membership, and indicates the proportion of APS 2 employees within each ‘Percentage of Base Salary’ range. A large percentage of APS 2 employees belong to either the PSS fund (45 per cent) or PSSAP fund (43 per cent), where the employer contribution is set at 15.4 per cent. This is comparable to 2009.

Table 3.24 – Salary for Superannuation as a Percentage of Base Salary, sorted by Fund for APS 2 Employees in 2010

Fund	n	Percentage of Base Salary (as at 31 December 2010) used as ‘Base Salary’ for superannuation calculation purposes
		<70%	70-79%	80-89%	90-99%	100-109%	110-119%	120-129%	130+%
AGEST	107	0.0%	0.0%	0.9%	23.4%	72.9%	0.0%	0.9%	1.9%
CSS	196	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	37.2%	43.4%	7.1%	7.7%	4.6%
PSS	2,112	0.0%	0.0%	0.3%	39.3%	46.3%	8.3%	3.6%	2.2%
PSSAP	2,058	0.1%	0.0%	2.0%	28.2%	65.0%	2.7%	1.6%	0.4%
Other	233	0.0%	0.0%	0.4%	21.0%	76.8%	0.9%	0.4%	0.4%

As can be seen from Table 3.24, the majority of employees had a salary for superannuation purposes within ±10 per cent of their Base Salary, with more employees in the plus 10 per cent category. This is different to 2009, in which more employees were in the minus 10 per cent category.

Performance Bonuses

Table 3.25 shows 2010 and 2009 performance bonus payments for APS 2 employees, along with comparisons from 2008 to 2009. Note that the data includes employees who were eligible but did not receive a performance bonus payment (i.e. data reported as $0).

In 2010, 25 per cent of all APS 2 employees were eligible to receive a performance bonus, representing a slight decrease from 2009. The value of both the median and average performance bonus has increased relative to 2009.

Table 3.25 – Performance Bonus Payment Distribution and Movements for APS 2

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$0	$467	$665	$665	$4,400	$572	$346	25
2009	$0	$300	$500	$500	$3,333	$408	$279	26
% Change 09/10	--	55.7%	33.0%	33.0%	32.0%	40.2%	24.0%	-3.8%
% Change 08/09	--	--	--	0.0%	-33.3%	-13.6%	-65.5%	62.5%

Table 3.26 shows performance bonus payments as a proportion of Base Salary and TRP for APS 2 employees over the past three years, and only includes those employees eligible for performance bonuses.

After decreasing from 2008 to 2009, performance bonuses as a percentage of Base Salary and TRP increased from 2009 to 2010, returning to approximately 2008 levels.

Table 3.26 – Average Performance Bonuses as a Percentage of Base Salary and TRP from 2008 to 2010

Band	Average Bonuses as % of Base Salary			Average Bonuses as % of TRP
	2008	2009	2010	2008	2009	2010
APS 2	1.2%	0.9%	1.1%	1.0%	0.7%	1.0%

Other Allowances

Table 3.27 shows that 24 per cent of APS 2 employees received a payment for other allowances in 2010, up from 18 per cent in 2009. The median value of these allowances increased by 14 per cent from 2009 to 2010 and the average value increased by 26 per cent.

Table 3.27 – Other Allowances for APS 2 Employees in 2010 and 2009

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$1,000	$1,860	$3,531	$7,997	$70,850	$6,234	$7,790	24
2009	$1,005	$1,807	$3,102	$6,227	$41,645	$4,966	$5,065	18

 

 

Other Remuneration Items

 

Similar to previous years, no APS 2 employees received a vehicle or cash in lieu of a vehicle or car parking benefits in 2010. Less than 0.5 per cent of APS 2 employees received payment for other benefits, down from 1 per cent in 2009. The number of employees receiving other bonuses also decreased considerably from 37 per cent in 2009 to 6 per cent (as it was in 2008). These bonuses had a median value of $450 and average value of $577.

 

 

APS 3

 

Remuneration Overview

Tables 3.28 to 3.30, and Chart 3.4, show the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for APS 3 employees compared with 2009, as well as the percentage change between 2009/2010 and 2008/2009.

Table 3.28 – Base Salary Distribution and Movements for APS 3

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	19,760	$41,594	$52,161	$54,577	$56,359	$70,581	$54,202	$2,999
2009	20,143	$30,232	$49,147	$52,327	$54,044	$69,006	$51,803	$2,926
% Change 09/10	-1.9%	37.6%	6.1%	4.3%	4.3%	2.3%	4.6%	2.5%
% Change 08/09	712.2%	-4.7%	4.2%	6.8%	5.9%	8.2%	6.1%	-3.7%

Table 3.29 – TRP Distribution and Movements for APS 3

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	19,760	$47,621	$60,571	$63,238	$65,648	$82,036	$63,110	$4,014
2009	20,143	$35,383	$56,700	$60,197	$63,042	$90,613	$60,247	$4,097
% Change 09/10	-1.9%	34.6%	6.8%	5.1%	4.1%	-9.5%	4.8%	-2.0%
% Change 08/09	712.2%	-3.5%	4.7%	6.1%	6.5%	13.4%	6.4%	-2.4%

Table 3.30 – TR Distribution and Movements for APS 3

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	19,760	$48,059	$60,899	$63,326	$65,844	$82,036	$63,368	$4,102
2009	20,143	$35,383	$56,722	$60,281	$63,657	$91,909	$60,387	$4,195
% Change 09/10	-1.9%	35.8%	7.4%	5.1%	3.4%	-10.7%	4.9%	-2.2%
% Change 08/09	712.2%	-18.5%	4.1%	6.0%	7.1%	10.9%	6.0%	-2.0%

The information provided in Tables 3.28 to 3.30 (and calculations based on this data) indicates that for APS 3 employees:

§ the 2009/2010 Base Salary, TRP and TR increases were generally lower than corresponding 2008/2009 movements, except at the minimum and Q1

§ Base Salary: 50 per cent of APS 3 employees were paid between $52,161 and $56,359, with 68 per cent being paid between $51,203 and $57,201

§ TRP: 50 per cent of APS 3 employees were paid between $60,571 and $65,648, with 68 per cent being paid between $59,096 and $67,124

§ TR: 50 per cent of APS 3 employees were paid between $60,899 and $65,844, with 68 per cent being paid between $59,266 and $69,470

§ the spread between the minimum and maximum values was much lower in 2010 for TR (~$34,000), TRP ($34,400) and BS ($29,000) than in 2009 (~$55,200, ~$56,500 and ~$38,800, respectively).

 

 

 

Chart 3.4 – Remuneration Comparisons for APS 3 in 2009 and 2010*

 

*All data items shown in the above chart reference the detailed summary tables in Appendix E.

Chart 3.4 shows that:

§ the 2010 Q1 to Q3 ranges for Base Salary, TRP and TR were relatively narrower compared to 2009

§ the variation from the minimum to the 5^th percentile was lower than the variation from the 95^th percentile to the maximum for BS, TRP and TR

§ the variation from the minimum to the 5^th percentile was much smaller in 2010 than in 2009, and this was also the case for the variation from the 95th percentile to the maximum

§ the range from the 5^th percentile to the 95^th percentile, which includes 90 per cent of employees (represented by the coloured cylinders in Chart 3.4), is ~$8,200 for Base Salary, ~$13,100 for TRP and ~$14,300 for TR, a similar trend to 2009

§ there was a significant increase in the minimum value across all remuneration aggregates.

 

 

Major Benefits and Bonuses

 

Superannuation

Table 3.31 shows the distribution and movement of superannuation contributions for APS 3 employees. The median superannuation contribution has increased by 6.5 per cent compared to 7.7 per cent in 2009.

Table 3.31 – Superannuation Distribution and Movements for APS 3

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	$0	$7,901	$8,450	$9,515	$24,748	$8,900	$1,606
2009	$0	$7,394	$7,936	$8,845	$37,270	$8,433	$1,777
% Change 08/09	--	6.9%	6.5%	7.6%	-33.6%	5.5%	-9.6%
% Change 08/09	-100.0%	6.0%	7.7%	9.5%	58.3%	8.4%	-2.6%

Table 3.32 shows 2010 superannuation contributions as a proportion of Base Salary for

APS 3 employees. Compared to 2009, 2010 proportions are generally similar, except at the maximum. At the minimum, there was at least one APS 3 employee for whom no employer superannuation contributions were made, as the employee was either over the age of 70 or had reached the maximum benefit limit. At the maximum, employer contributions decreased by ~33 per cent compared to 2009. These proportions are higher than the general market, where a 9 per cent contribution is a common practice.

Table 3.32 – Superannuation as a Proportion of Base Salary for APS 3

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
2010	0.0%	14.9%	15.4%	17.1%	44.2%	16.4%
2009	0.0%	14.7%	15.4%	16.6%	77.0%	16.2%

There were also cases where the employee received a relatively high superannuation contribution as a percentage of their Base Salary, due to the employee having a higher salary for superannuation purposes than their Base Salary as at 31 December 2010.

Table 3.33 provides an analysis of salary for superannuation purposes as a percentage of Base Salary for APS 3 employees, according to superannuation fund membership, and indicates the proportion of APS 3 employees within each ‘Percentage of Base Salary’ range. A slight majority of APS 3 employees (51 per cent) are members of the PSSAP fund, where the employer contribution is set at 15.4 per cent.

 

 

Table 3.33 – Salary for Superannuation as a Percentage of Base Salary, sorted by Fund for APS 3 Employees in 2010

 

Fund	n	Percentage of Base Salary (as at 31 December 2010) used as ‘Base Salary’ for superannuation calculation purposes
		<70%	70-79%	80-89%	90-99%	100-109%	110-119%	120-129%	130+%
AGEST	190	0.0%	1.1%	2.1%	22.6%	71.6%	1.1%	0.5%	1.1%
CSS	598	0.0%	0.0%	0.2%	32.1%	35.6%	8.4%	3.8%	19.9%
PSS	8,003	0.0%	0.0%	0.5%	41.6%	31.1%	7.0%	8.1%	11.7%
PSSAP	10,042	0.1%	0.2%	4.5%	33.1%	48.2%	2.5%	5.7%	5.7%
Other	862	0.0%	0.2%	1.5%	22.0%	71.2%	1.4%	2.3%	1.3%

As can be seen in Table 3.33, the majority of employees had a salary for superannuation purposes within ±10 per cent of their Base Salary, with more employees in the plus 10 per cent category. This was unlike 2009, where more employees fell in the minus 10 per cent category.

Performance Bonuses

Table 3.34 shows performance bonus payments for APS 3 employees in 2010 and 2009, along with comparisons from 2008/2009. The data includes those employees who were eligible but did not receive a performance bonus payment (i.e. data reported as $0).

 

Average payments increased by ~32 per cent over the 2009/2010 period, following a steep decrease (~44 per cent) in 2008/2009. There was also a slight increase in eligibility, with 9 per cent of APS 3 employees entitled to receive a performance bonus in 2010, compared with 8 per cent in 2009.

Table 3.34 – Performance Bonus Payment Distribution and Movements for APS 3

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$0	$665	$665	$767	$8,500	$731	$606	9
2009	$0	$437	$546	$546	$11,523	$553	$680	8
% Change 09/10	--	52.2%	21.8%	40.5%	-26.2%	32.2%	-10.9%	12.5%
% Change 08/09	-	-	-	-62.6%	21.3%	-44.2%	-54.8%	-57.9%

Table 3.35 shows performance bonus payments as a proportion of Base Salary and TRP for APS 3 employees over the past three years. The data includes only those employees eligible for performance bonuses. The performance bonus amounts, as a percentage of Base Salary and TRP, decreased from 2008 to 2009 and decreased again from 2009 to 2010.

Table 3.35 – Average Performance Bonuses as a Percentage of Base Salary and TRP from 2008 to 2010

Band	Average Bonuses as % of Base Salary			Average Bonuses as % of TRP
	2008	2009	2010	2008	2009	2010
APS 3	2.1%	1.1%	0.5%	1.8%	0.9%	0.5%

 

 

Other Allowances

 

Table 3.36 shows that 37 per cent of APS 3 employees received a payment for other allowances in 2010, up from 32 per cent in 2009. There was also an increase in the amount of allowances received. The median value of these allowances increased 6 per cent from $6,552 in 2009 to $6,967, while the 2010 average of $10,063 also represents a 9 per cent increase from the 2009 figure.

Table 3.36 – Other Allowances for APS 3 Employees in 2010 and 2009

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$58	$2,350	$6,967	$16,770	$71,103	$10,600	$10,487	37
2009	$411	$2,171	$6,552	$16,509	$66,505	$10,063	$9,662	32

Other Remuneration Items

As in previous years, less than 0.5 per cent of APS 3 employees received a vehicle or cash in lieu of a vehicle or car parking benefits in 2010. There were also no employees who received a retention bonus. Fifteen per cent of APS 3 employees received such additional other bonuses in 2010, an increased from 12 per cent in 2009. These bonuses had a median value of $1,350 and an average value of $1,238.

 

 

APS 4

 

Remuneration Overview

Tables 3.37 to 3.39, and Chart 3.5, show the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for APS 4 employees compared with 2009, as well as the percentage change between 2009/2010 and 2008/2009.

Table 3.37 – Base Salary Distribution and Movements for APS 4

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	19,687	$45,946	$59,116	$61,299	$62,582	$75,462	$60,698	$2,596
2009	18,303	$33,230	$56,760	$58,949	$60,446	$73,264	$58,582	$2,438
% Change 09/10	7.6%	38.3%	4.2%	4.0%	3.5%	3.0%	3.6%	6.5%
% Change 08/09	455.5%	-23.0%	5.6%	6.5%	5.6%	6.3%	5.9%	-20.5%

Table 3.38 – TRP Distribution and Movements for APS 4

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	19,687	$50,687	$68,273	$70,347	$72,982	$108,774	$70,421	$3,545
2009	18,303	$43,149	$65,581	$67,798	$70,518	$85,826	$67,876	$3,411
% Change 09/10	7.6%	17.5%	4.1%	3.8%	3.5%	26.7%	3.7%	3.9%
% Change 08/09	455.5%	-11.6%	6.7%	6.2%	6.0%	-3.1%	5.9%	-18.3%

Table 3.39 – TR Distribution and Movements for APS 4

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	19,687	$50,687	$68,273	$70,408	$73,073	$108,774	$70,517	$3,586
2009	18,303	$43,149	$65,764	$67,903	$71,268	$86,246	$68,083	$3,530
% Change 09/10	7.6%	17.5%	3.8%	3.7%	2.5%	26.1%	3.6%	1.6%
% Change 08/09	455.5%	-11.6%	6.1%	5.7%	6.3%	-3.6%	5.4%	-18.8%

The information provided in Tables 3.37 to 3.39 (and calculations based on this data) indicates that for APS 4 employees:

§ the Base Salary, TRP and TR increases at Q1, median, Q3 and average were lower than 2008/2009 movements. However, increases at the minimum and maximum values were considerably larger in 2009/2010 than 2008/2009

§ Base Salary: 50 per cent of APS 4 employees were paid between $59,116 and $62,582, with 68 per cent being paid between $58,102 and $63,294

§ TRP: 50 per cent of APS 4 employees were paid between $68,273 and $72,982, with68 per cent being paid between $66,876 and $73,966

§ TR: 50 per cent of APS 4 employees were paid between $68,273 and $73,073, with 68 per cent being paid between $66,931 and $74,103

§ TRP and TR ranges from minimum to maximum are identical, from ~$50,687 to ~$108,774, a spread of ~$58,100. The 2010 Base Salary spread of $29,500 is considerably lower than in 2009 (~$40,000).

 

 

Chart 3.5 – Remuneration Comparisons for APS 4 in 2009 and 2010*

 

*All data items shown in the above chart reference the detailed summary tables in Appendix E.

Chart 3.5 shows that:

§ the 2010 Q1 to Q3 ranges for Base Salary, TRP and TR were slightly narrower than in 2009

§ the range from the 5^th percentile to the 95^th percentile, which includes 90 per cent of employees (represented by the coloured cylinders in Chart 3.5), covers a range of ~$8,200 for Base Salary, ~$11,400 for TRP and ~$11,500 for TR, which is more than the values in 2009

§ the variation from the minimum to the 5^th percentile was less than the variation from the 95^th percentile to the maximum. The opposite trend occurred in 2009.

 

 

Major Benefits and Bonuses

 

Superannuation

Table 3.40 shows the distribution and movement of superannuation contributions for APS 4 employees. The median superannuation contribution increase observed in 2008/2009 (6.9 per cent) almost halved in 2009/2010 (3.7 per cent).

Table 3.40 – Superannuation Distribution and Movements for APS 4

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	$0	$8,784	$9,323	$10,494	$50,141	$9,698	$1,412
2009	$0	$8,440	$8,990	$9,917	$26,302	$9,248	$1,560
% Change 09/10	--	4.1%	3.7%	5.8%	90.6%	4.9%	-9.5%
% Change 08/09	-100.0%	6.5%	6.9%	10.1%	-8.2%	5.4%	-18.6%

 

Table 3.41 shows 2010 superannuation contributions as a proportion of Base Salary for APS 4 employees. These proportions are higher than the general market, where a 9 per cent contribution is a common practice. A large proportion of APS 4 employees (48 per cent) are members of the PSS fund, where the employer contribution is currently a weighted average of 16.2 per cent. Compared to 2009, 2010 proportions are generally similar, with the exception of the maximum. At the minimum, there was at least one APS 4 employee for whom no employer superannuation contributions were made, as the employee was either over the age of 70 or had reached the maximum benefit limit.

Table 3.41 – Superannuation as a Proportion of Base Salary for APS 4

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
2010	0.0%	14.9%	15.4%	16.9%	85.5%	16.0%
2009	0.0%	14.5%	15.4%	16.4%	55.8%	15.8%

There were also cases where the employee received a relatively high superannuation contribution as a percentage of their Base Salary, due to the employee having a higher salary for superannuation purposes than their Base Salary as at 31 December 2010.

Table 3.42 provides an analysis of salary for superannuation purposes as a percentage of Base Salary for APS 4 employees, according to superannuation fund membership, and indicates the proportion of APS 4 employees within each ‘Percentage of Base Salary’ range.

Table 3.42 – Salary for Superannuation as a Percentage of Base Salary, sorted by Fund for APS 4 Employees in 2010

Fund	n	Percentage of Base Salary (as at 31 December 2010) used as ‘Base Salary’ for superannuation calculation purposes
		<70%	70-79%	80-89%	90-99%	100-109%	110-119%	120-129%	130+%
AGEST	159	0.0%	0.0%	3.1%	23.9%	70.4%	1.3%	1.3%	0.0%
CSS	613	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	44.0%	46.0%	6.0%	1.5%	2.4%
PSS	9,405	0.0%	0.0%	0.6%	47.3%	41.9%	4.5%	3.2%	2.4%
PSSAP	8,605	0.1%	0.4%	3.9%	34.8%	57.5%	2.0%	0.8%	0.5%
Other	747	0.0%	0.3%	3.5%	21.7%	73.1%	0.9%	0.4%	0.1%

As can be seen from Table 3.42, the majority of employees had a salary for superannuation purposes within ±10 per cent of their Base Salary, with more employees in the plus 10 per cent category. This was in contrast to 2009, where more employees fell into the minus 10 per cent category.

Other Benefits

Table 3.43 details the 2010 and 2009 distribution of other benefits for APS 4 employees. Compared to 2009, the 2010 benefits values have increased at all aggregates, especially at Q3 and the maximum where there were increases of ~65 per cent and ~89 per cent, respectively.

Table 3.43 – Distribution of Payments for Other Benefits in 2010 and 2009 for APS 4

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$1,008	$1,152	$1,157	$1,832	$24,357	$1,814	$2,163	1
2009	$1,000	$1,000	$1,000	$1,110	$12,875	$1,345	$1,231	3

 

Performance Bonuses

Table 3.44 shows performance bonus payments for APS 4 employees in 2010 and 2009, along with change comparisons from 2008/2009. The data includes those employees who were eligible but did not receive a performance bonus payment (i.e. data reported as $0).

Only 4 per cent of APS 4 employees were eligible to receive a performance bonus in 2010, down from 10 per cent in 2009. Along with the lower prevalence of performance bonuses, their actual value also decreased, with a median of $0 in 2010 (down from $611 in 2009), though the average actual value increased from $664 to $838 over this period.

Table 3.44 – Performance Bonus Payment Distribution and Movements for APS 4

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$0	$0	$0	$1,197	$11,200	$838	$1,541	4
2009	$0	$0	$611	$611	$11,200	$664	$850	10
% Change 09/10	--	--	-100.0%	95.9%	0.0%	26.2%	81.3%	-60.0%
% Change 08/09	-	-	-46.8%	-79.6%	-2.6%	-63.8%	-62.4%	-56.5%

 

Table 3.45 shows performance bonus payments as a proportion of Base Salary and TRP for APS 4 employees over the past three years. The data includes only those employees eligible for performance bonuses.

 

Performance bonus amounts for APS 4 employees, as a percentage of Base Salary and TRP, decreased annually since 2008.

Table 3.45 – Average Bonuses as a Percentage of Base Salary and TRP from 2008 to 2010

Band	Average Bonuses as % of Base Salary			Average Bonuses as % of TRP
	2008	2009	2010	2008	2009	2010
APS 4	3.3%	1.4%	1.2%	2.9%	1.2%	1.1%

 

 

Other Allowances

Table 3.46 shows that 22 per cent of APS 4 employees received other allowances in 2010, a slight decrease from 24 per cent in 2009. Except at Q1, the value of these allowances was greater in 2010 when compared to 2009.

Table 3.46 – Other Allowances for APS 4 Employees in 2010 and 2009

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$404	$1,798	$3,550	$8,331	$50,607	$6,545	$7,075	22
2009	$334	$1,821	$3,426	$7,405	$41,718	$6,026	$6,312	24

Other Remuneration Items

As in previous years, there were no APS 4 employees who received a vehicle or cash in lieu of a vehicle or car parking benefits in 2010. Approximately 1 per cent of APS 4 employees received retention bonuses in 2010. Following a large increase in the percentage of employees receiving other bonuses from 2008 to 2009 (from 2 per cent to 15 per cent), this figure decreased to 3 per cent in 2010, nearly returning to 2008 levels. The median ($600) and average ($696) value of these bonuses also decreased when compared to 2009 ($750 and $767, respectively).

 

 

APS 5

 

Remuneration Overview

Tables 3.47 to 3.49, and Chart 3.6, show the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for APS 6 employees compared with 2009, as well as the percentage change between 2008/2009 and 2009/2010.

Table 3.47 – Base Salary Distribution and Movements for APS 5

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	20,167	$50,459	$65,010	$67,017	$68,092	$97,224	$66,550	$2,462
2009	18,623	$41,496	$62,510	$64,728	$66,496	$83,500	$64,478	$2,441
% Change 09/10	8.3%	21.6%	4.0%	3.5%	2.4%	16.4%	3.2%	0.8%
% Change 08/09	433.0%	-4.8%	6.0%	6.1%	5.9%	3.1%	5.8%	-21.6%

Table 3.48 – TRP Distribution and Movements for APS 5

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	20,167	$54,986	$74,677	$77,483	$79,356	$112,976	$77,364	$3,595
2009	18,623	$56,483	$72,258	$75,133	$77,335	$115,492	$75,059	$3,799
% Change 09/10	8.3%	-2.7%	3.3%	3.1%	2.6%	-2.2%	3.1%	-5.4%
% Change 08/09	433.0%	12.3%	6.2%	7.0%	5.9%	20.3%	6.1%	-16.7%

Table 3.49 – TR Distribution and Movements for APS 5

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	20,167	$55,953	$74,902	$77,709	$79,665	$112,976	$77,627	$3,721
2009	18,623	$56,483	$72,415	$75,319	$78,219	$119,501	$75,363	$4,011
% Change 09/10	8.3%	-0.9%	3.4%	3.2%	1.8%	-5.5%	3.0%	-7.2%
% Change 08/09	433.0%	12.3%	5.3%	5.8%	5.6%	11.5%	5.0%	-17.0%

The information provided in Tables 3.47 to 3.49 (and calculations based on this data) indicates that for APS 5 employees:

§ the 2009/2010 median and average Base Salary TRP and TR movements were lower than 2008/2009 increases

§ Base Salary: 50 per cent of APS 5 employees were paid between $65,010 and $68,092, with 68 per cent being paid between $64,088 and $69,012

§ TRP: 50 per cent of APS 5 employees were paid between $74,677 and $79,356, with 68 per cent being paid between $73,769 and $80,959

§ TR: 50 per cent of APS 5 employees were paid between $74,902 and $79,665, with68 per cent being paid between $73,906 and $81,348

§ the spread in TRP and TR are ~$58,000 and ~$57,000 respectively between the minimum and maximum values, which is larger than the Base Salary spread of ~$47,000.

 

 

Chart 3.6 – Remuneration Comparisons for APS 5 in 2009 and 2010

 

*All data items shown in the above chart reference the detailed summary tables in Appendix E.

Chart 3.6 shows that:

§ the 2010 Q1 to Q3 ranges for Base Salary, TRP and TR were slightly narrower than in 2009

§ the range from the 5^th percentile to the 95^th percentile, which includes 90 per cent of employees (represented by the coloured cylinders in Chart 3.6), was comparable to 2009, covering a range of ~$7,400 for Base Salary, ~$11,100 for TRP and ~$11,600 for TR

§ the variation from the minimum to the 5^th percentile was much less than the variation from the 95^th percentile to the maximum for BS, TRP and TR.

 

 

Major Benefits and Bonuses

 

Superannuation

Table 3.50 shows the distribution and movement of superannuation contributions for APS 5 employees. Median superannuation contribution has increased by 3.2 per cent from 2009/2010, down from 9.3 per cent over 2008/2009.

Table 3.50 – Superannuation Distribution and Movements for APS 5

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	$4,527	$9,726	$10,482	$11,555	$29,405	$10,784	$1,767
2009	$0	$9,314	$10,153	$11,026	$36,416	$10,506	$2,136
% Change 09/10	--	4.4%	3.2%	4.8%	-19.3%	2.6%	-17.3%
% Change 08/09	-100.0%	6.5%	9.3%	11.2%	24.4%	7.5%	-11.4%

Table 3.51 shows 2010 superannuation contributions as a proportion of Base Salary for

APS 5 employees. These proportions are higher than the general market practice, where a 9 per cent contribution is common

Compared to 2009, 2010 proportions are similar at Q1, median and Q3, with considerable variation at the minimum and maximum. At the maximum, employer contributions decreased by ~20 per cent compared to 2009.

Table 3.51 – Superannuation as a Proportion of Base Salary for APS 5

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
2010	7.0%	14.9%	15.4%	17.1%	42.8%	16.2%
2009	0.0%	14.7%	15.4%	17.0%	62.2%	16.3%

There were cases where the employee received a relatively high superannuation contribution as a percentage of their Base Salary, due to the employee having a higher salary for superannuation purposes than their Base Salary as at 31 December 2010.

Table 3.52 provides an analysis of salary for superannuation purposes as a percentage of Base Salary for APS 5 employees, according to superannuation fund membership, and indicates the proportion of APS 5 employees within each ‘Percentage of Base Salary’ range. A majority of APS 5 employees (55 per cent) are members of the PSS fund, where the weighted average employer contribution is currently 16.2 per cent.

Table 3.52 – Salary for Superannuation as a Percentage of Base Salary, sorted by Fund for APS 5 Employees in 2010

Fund	n	Percentage of Base Salary (as at 31 December 2010) used as ‘Base Salary’ for superannuation calculation purposes
		<70%	70-79%	80-89%	90-99%	100-109%	110-119%	120-129%	130+%
AGEST	144	0.0%	1.4%	2.1%	21.5%	72.9%	0.0%	1.4%	0.7%
CSS	1,045	0.0%	0.1%	0.4%	36.1%	41.9%	5.6%	3.3%	12.7%
PSS	11,048	0.0%	0.0%	0.6%	45.3%	42.0%	5.2%	2.9%	3.8%
PSSAP	7,179	0.1%	0.9%	5.3%	34.0%	57.5%	0.8%	0.6%	0.8%
Other	578	0.0%	1.0%	3.1%	18.3%	76.6%	0.5%	0.2%	0.2%

As can be seen from Table 3.52, the majority of employees had a salary for superannuation purposes within ±10 per cent of their Base Salary, with more employees in the plus 10 per cent category. This was in contrast to 2009, where more employees fell in the minus 10 per cent category.

Other Benefits

Table 3.53 shows that only 1 per cent of APS 5 employees received other benefits in 2010 compared to 4 per cent in 2009. However, the value of these benefits was greater than in 2009 with the exception of the maximum, where it decreased by 51 per cent.

Table 3.53 – Other Benefits for APS 5 Employees in 2010 and 2009

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$1,000	$1,255	$1,530	$2,503	$17,322	$2,572	$2,688	1
2009	$1,000	$1,000	$1,000	$1,200	$35,015	$1,678	$2,542	4

Performance Bonuses

Table 3.54 shows performance bonus payments for APS 5 employees in 2010 and 2009, along with comparisons from 2008 to 2009. The data includes those employees who were eligible but did not receive a performance bonus payment (i.e. data reported as $0).

Only 15 per cent of all APS 5 employees were eligible to receive a performance bonus in 2010, down from 17 per cent in 2009. Table 3.54 shows that 2010 median performance bonus payments for APS 5 increased relative to 2009, while average payments decreased only slightly.

Table 3.54 – Performance Bonus Payment Distribution and Movements for APS 5

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$0	$681	$681	$786	$10,829	$856	$1,108	15
2009	$0	$665	$665	$665	$13,000	$866	$1,212	17
% Change 09/10	--	2.4%	2.4%	18.2%	-16.7%	-1.2%	-8.6%	-11.8%
% Change 08/09	--	7.1%	-66.8%	-85.2%	0.0%	-68.5%	-53.5%	-50.0%

Table 3.55 shows performance bonus payments as a proportion of Base Salary and TRP for APS 5 employees over the past three years. The data includes only those employees eligible for performance bonuses.

Performance bonus amounts as a percentage of Base Salary and TRP have decreased each year since 2008 for APS 5 employees.

Table 3.55 – Average Performance Bonuses as a Percentage of Base Salary and TRP from 2008 to 2010

Band	Average Bonuses as % of Base Salary			Average Bonuses as % of TRP
	2008	2009	2010	2008	2009	2010
APS 5	4.2%	1.5%	0.9%	3.6%	1.3%	0.8%

 

Other Allowances

Table 3.56 details the distribution of payments for other allowances in 2010 and 2009 for APS 5 employees. Slightly fewer APS 5 employees received other allowances in 2010 than in 2009, though the value of these allowances was relatively similar except at the maximum.

Table 3.56 – Other Allowances for APS 5 Employees in 2010 and 2009

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$32	$1,832	$4,245	$12,110	$81,378	$9,090	$10,997	22
2009	$411	$1,952	$4,142	$11,108	$62,101	$8,356	$9,727	24

 

Other Remuneration Items

No APS 5 employees received a vehicle benefit or cash in lieu of a vehicle in 2010, which is a similar trend to previous years. One per cent of APS 5 employees received a car parking benefit in 2010 (median value $1,000), up from less than 0.5 per cent in 2009. Less than 0.5 per cent of employees received a retention bonus, though 10 per cent received other bonus payments. Though the prevalence of these bonuses decreased from 18 per cent in 2009, their median value increased from $750 to $1,350 and their average value increased from $754 to $1,151 over this period.

 

 

APS 6

 

Remuneration Overview

Tables 3.57 to 3.59, and Chart 3.7, show the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for APS 6 employees compared with 2010, as well as the percentage change between 2009/2010 and 2008/2009.

Table 3.57 – Base Salary Distribution and Movements for APS 6

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	26,978	$47,915	$73,949	$77,824	$79,555	$111,448	$76,790	$4,416
2009	24,097	$52,263	$71,037	$74,969	$76,461	$119,729	$74,131	$4,293
% Change 09/10	12.0%	-8.3%	4.1%	3.8%	4.0%	-6.9%	3.6%	2.9%
% Change 08/09	405.5%	-3.7%	6.4%	6.2%	4.7%	5.0%	5.7%	-12.4%

Table 3.58 – TRP Distribution and Movements for APS 6

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	26,978	$61,346	$85,555	$89,882	$92,407	$131,647	$89,218	$5,793
2009	24,097	$63,304	$82,493	$86,391	$89,743	$141,166	$86,074	$5,733
% Change 09/10	12.0%	-3.1%	3.7%	4.0%	3.0%	-6.7%	3.7%	1.0%
% Change 08/09	405.5%	1.4%	7.2%	6.3%	5.5%	-1.1%	5.5%	-15.7%

Table 3.59 – TR Distribution and Movements for APS 6

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	26,978	$61,346	$85,694	$90,005	$92,885	$137,322	$89,478	$5,949
2009	24,097	$64,139	$82,713	$86,644	$90,438	$169,368	$86,381	$5,919
% Change 09/10	12.0%	-4.4%	3.6%	3.9%	2.7%	-18.9%	3.6%	0.5%
% Change 08/09	405.5%	2.7%	6.1%	4.7%	4.3%	14.3%	4.2%	-18.8%

The information provided in Tables 3.57 to 3.59 (and calculations based on this data) for

APS 6 employees indicate that:

§ the 2009/2010 median Base Salary, TRP and TR movements were lower than the 2008/2009 increases

§ Base Salary: 50 per cent of APS 6 employees were paid between $73,949 and $79,555, with 68 per cent being paid between $72,374 and $81,206

§ TRP: 50 per cent of APS 6 employees were paid between $85,555 and $92,407, with68 per cent being paid between $83,425 and $95,011

§ TR: 50 per cent of APS 6 employees were paid between $85,694 and $92,885, with 68 per cent being paid between $83,539 and $95,427

§ the spread between minimum and maximum TRP and TR values was approximately ~$70,300 and $~76,000, respectively, in 2010, down from ~$77,900 and ~$105,200, respectively, in 2009.

 

 

Chart 3.7 – Remuneration Comparisons for APS 6 in 2009 and 2010*

 

*All data items shown in the above chart reference the detailed summary tables in Appendix E.

Chart 3.7 shows that:

§ the 2010 Q1 to Q3 ranges for Base Salary, TRP and TR were marginally narrower than the 2009 ranges

§ the range from the 5^th percentile to the 95^th percentile, which includes 90 per cent of employees (represented by the coloured cylinders in Chart 3.7), covers a range of ~$12,700 for Base Salary, ~$18,400 for TRP and ~$18,700 for TR, a slightly broader spread for TRP and TR than was the case in 2009

§ as in 2009, the gap between the 5^th percentile and the minimum was narrower than the gap between the 95^th percentile and the maximum

§ both the minimum and maximum values for all three remuneration measures were lower than those of 2009.

 

 

Major Benefits and Bonuses

 

Superannuation

Table 3.60 shows the distribution and movement of superannuation contributions for APS 6 employees. The median superannuation contribution increased by 4.4 per cent over 2009/2010, compared to the 2008/2009 movement of 8.9 per cent.

Table 3.60 – Superannuation Distribution and Movements for APS 6

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	$4,824	$11,095	$12,121	$13,379	$40,619	$12,387	$2,028
2009	$4,016	$10,577	$11,609	$12,646	$31,770	$11,864	$2,269
% Change 09/10	20.1%	4.9%	4.4%	5.8%	27.9%	4.4%	-10.6%
% Change 08/09	-5.7%	8.0%	8.9%	8.2%	1.9%	3.7%	-27.4%

Table 3.61 shows 2010 superannuation contributions as a proportion of Base Salary for

APS 6 employees. Compared to 2009, 2010 proportions are similar, except at the maximum. These proportions are higher than the general market practice, where a 9 per cent contribution is common.

Table 3.61 – Superannuation as a Proportion of Base Salary for APS 6

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
2010	6.5%	14.9%	15.4%	16.9%	51.0%	16.1%
2009	5.2%	14.7%	15.4%	17.0%	40.1%	16.0%

The minimum values were less than 9 per cent because the salary for superannuation purposes was less than the individual’s Base Salary. There were also cases where the employee received a relatively high superannuation contribution as a percentage of their Base Salary, due to the employee having a higher salary for superannuation purposes than their Base Salary as at 31 December 2010.

Table 3.62 provides an analysis of salary for superannuation purposes as a percentage of Base Salary for APS 6 employees, according to superannuation fund membership, and indicates the proportion of APS 6 employees within each ‘Percentage of Base Salary’ range. A majority of APS 6 employees (57 per cent) are members of the PSS fund, where the employer contribution is currently a weighted average of 16.2 per cent.

Table 3.62 – Salary for Superannuation as a Percentage of Base Salary, sorted by Fund for APS 6 Employees in 2010

Fund	n	Percentage of Base Salary (as at 31 December 2010) used as ‘Base Salary’ for superannuation calculation purposes
		<70%	70-79%	80-89%	90-99%	100-109%	110-119%	120-129%	130+%
AGEST	222	0.5%	1.4%	4.5%	24.8%	66.7%	1.4%	0.9%	0.0%
CSS	1,783	0.0%	0.1%	0.4%	44.7%	37.9%	7.1%	5.7%	4.2%
PSS	15,303	0.0%	0.1%	1.1%	51.0%	38.1%	5.1%	3.1%	1.5%
PSSAP	8,493	0.1%	0.7%	4.3%	34.4%	57.5%	1.6%	1.1%	0.3%
Other	886	0.2%	0.5%	2.5%	17.6%	78.0%	0.7%	0.3%	0.2%

 

 

As can be seen from Table 3.62, the majority of APS 6 employees had a salary for superannuation purposes within ±10 per cent of their Base Salary, with more employees in the plus 10 per cent category. In 2009, the majority of employees were in the minus 10 per cent category.

 

Other Benefits

Table 3.63 shows that only 1 per cent of APS 6 employees received other benefits in 2010, down from 4 per cent in 2009. The nature of these benefits relates to the position’s responsibility or locality, and includes FBT where applicable.

Table 3.63 – Other Benefits for APS 6 Employees in 2010 and 2009

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$1,010	$1,472	$2,342	$3,018	$20,456	$2,832	$2,453	1
2009	$1,000	$1,000	$1,000	$1,267	$29,076	$1,707	$2,192	4

Performance Bonuses

Table 3.64 shows performance bonus payments for APS 6 employees in 2010 and 2009, along with comparisons from 2008 to 2009. The data includes those employees who were eligible but did not receive a performance bonus payment (i.e. data reported as $0).

In 2010, 14 per cent of APS 6 employees were eligible to receive a performance bonus payment, representing a slight decrease from 16 per cent in 2009, though the value of these bonuses has generally increased compared to 2009.

Table 3.64 – Performance Bonus Payment Distribution and Movements for APS 6

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$0	$0	$796	$919	$15,167	$1,129	$1,705	14
2009	$0	$0	$777	$777	$13,333	$997	$1,439	16
% Change 09/10	--	--	2.4%	18.3%	13.8%	13.2%	18.5%	-12.5%
% Change 08/09	--	-100.0%	-72.9%	-83.7%	-4.8%	-69.4%	-51.0%	-55.6%

 

Table 3.65 shows performance bonus payments as a proportion of Base Salary and TRP for APS 6 employees over the past three years. The data includes only those employees eligible for performance bonuses.

Table 3.65 – Average Performance Bonuses as a Percentage of Base Salary and TRP from 2008 to 2010

Band	Average Bonuses as % of Base Salary			Average Bonuses as % of TRP
	2008	2009	2010	2008	2009	2010
APS 6	4.4%	1.5%	1.2%	3.8%	1.3%	1.0%

Performance bonus amounts as a percentage of both Base Salary and TRP have decreased annually since 2008.

 

Retention Bonuses

Special payments are made to some non-SES employees as a means of retaining these employees for an identified period of time, such as for the duration of a project. Table 3.66 shows the distribution of retention bonuses to eligible APS 6 employees in 2010 and 2009.

 

Less than 0.5 per cent of APS 6 employees were eligible for retention bonuses in 2010, as was the case in 2009. Payments received in 2010 ranged from $142 to $19,936.

Table 3.66 – Distribution of Actual Retention Bonuses to Eligible Employees in 2010 and 2009 for APS 6

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$142	$1,000	$1,000	$1,000	$19,936	$1,468	$2,190	0
2009	$295	$1,000	$1,965	$2,750	$19,936	$3,178	$4,469	0

Other Bonuses

Fewer employees (8 per cent) were eligible for other bonus payments in 2010 compared with 2009 (15 per cent). However, the value of these bonuses generally increased from 2009 to 2010 (e.g. median $900, up from $750 in 2009). Refer to Appendix E for further details.

Other Allowances

Table 3.67 outlines the distribution of payments for other allowances in 2010 and 2009 for APS 6 employees. As was the case in 2009, 19 per cent of employees were entitled to receive other allowances. There were small increases in the median and average amounts of these allowances.

 

Table 3.67 – Other Allowances for APS 6 Employees in 2010 and 2009

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$240	$2,000	$3,855	$9,092	$81,402	$7,913	$10,029	19
2009	$411	$1,955	$3,660	$8,930	$68,314	$7,150	$8,790	19

 

 

EL 1

 

Remuneration Overview

Tables 3.68 to 3.70, and Chart 3.8, show the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for EL 1 employees compared with 2009, as well as the percentage change between 2009/2010 and 2008/2009.

Table 3.68 – Base Salary Distribution and Movements for EL 1

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	24,309	$57,264	$92,878	$97,275	$99,285	$220,000	$96,506	$5,604
2009	20,836	$52,014	$90,128	$93,826	$96,420	$142,689	$93,296	$4,990
% Change 09/10	16.7%	10.1%	3.1%	3.7%	3.0%	54.2%	3.4%	12.3%
% Change 08/09	236.6%	-14.0%	5.2%	6.3%	4.9%	16.8%	5.0%	-14.8%

Table 3.69 – TRP Distribution and Movements for EL 1

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	24,309	$71,186	$107,831	$112,788	$115,454	$253,880	$112,239	$7,236
2009	20,836	$65,662	$104,589	$109,466	$111,480	$165,466	$108,482	$6,567
% Change 09/10	16.7%	8.4%	3.1%	3.0%	3.6%	53.4%	3.5%	10.2%
% Change 08/09	236.6%	-6.9%	6.2%	6.7%	3.0%	7.1%	4.3%	-22.6%

Table 3.70 – TR Distribution and Movements for EL 1

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	24,309	$71,790	$108,178	$113,384	$115,849	$253,880	$112,753	$7,602
2009	20,836	$65,662	$105,026	$109,784	$113,021	$173,196	$109,117	$7,009
% Change 09/10	16.7%	9.3%	3.0%	3.3%	2.5%	46.6%	3.3%	8.5%
% Change 08/09	236.6%	-9.3%	4.3%	3.9%	0.8%	12.1%	2.3%	-24.3%

The information provided in Tables 3.68 to 3.70 (and calculations based on this data) for

EL 1 employees indicate that:

§ median movements were lower than in 2009 at all three aggregates

§ Base Salary: 50 per cent of EL 1 employees are paid between $92,878 and $99,285, with 68 per cent being paid between $90,902 and $102,110

§ TRP: 50 per cent of EL 1 employees are paid between $107,831 and $115,454, with 68 per cent being paid between $105,003 and $119,475

§ TR: 50 per cent of EL 1 employees are paid between $108,178 and $115,849, with 68 per cent being paid between $105,151 and $120,351

§ the spread between minimum and maximum values for Base Salary (~$162,700), TRP (~$182,700) and TR (~$182,100) was much higher than in 2009 (~$90,700, ~$99,800 and ~$107,500, respectively).

 

 

Chart 3.8 – Remuneration Comparisons for EL 1 in 2009 and 2010*

 

*All data items shown in the above chart reference the detailed summary tables in Appendix E.

Chart 3.8 shows that:

§ the 2010 Q1 to Q3 range for Base Salary and TRP was comparable to the 2009 range, but was slightly narrower for TR

§ the range from the 5^th percentile to the 95^th percentile, which includes 90 per cent of employees (represented by the coloured cylinders in Chart 3.8), covers a range of ~$17,100 for Base Salary, ~$22,900 for TRP and ~$23,200 for TR, all of which are broader than in 2009

§ the variation from the minimum to the 5^th percentile was less than the variation from the 95^th percentile to the maximum

§ after decreasing from 2008 to 2009, minimum values have increased from 2009 to 2010.

 

 

Main Benefits and Bonuses

 

Superannuation

Table 3.71 shows the distribution and movement of superannuation contributions for EL 1 employees. The median superannuation contribution has increased by 5.2 per cent since 2009, which is less than the 2008/2009 movement of 6.2 per cent.

Table 3.71 – Superannuation Distribution and Movements for EL 1

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	$4,517	$14,148	$15,281	$16,322	$42,012	$15,614	$2,590
2009	$4,894	$13,649	$14,522	$15,872	$41,600	$15,009	$2,601
% Change 09/10	-7.7%	3.7%	5.2%	2.8%	1.0%	4.0%	-0.4%
% Change 08/09	-16.7%	8.0%	6.5%	6.2%	-2.3%	1.1%	-39.1%

Table 3.72 shows 2010 and 2009 superannuation contributions as a proportion of Base Salary for EL 1 employees. Compared to 2009, 2010 proportions are very similar, excepting a decrease at the maximum. These proportions are higher than the general market practice, where a 9 per cent contribution is common.

Table 3.72 – Superannuation as a Proportion of Base Salary for EL 1

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
2010	5.3%	14.9%	15.7%	16.7%	42.5%	16.2%
2009	5.4%	14.7%	15.4%	16.9%	53.9%	16.1%

The minimum values were less than 9 per cent because the salary for superannuation purposes was less than the individual’s Base Salary. There were also a number of cases where the employee received a relatively high superannuation contribution as a percentage of their Base Salary, due to the employee having a higher salary for superannuation purposes than their Base Salary as at 31 December 2010.

Table 3.73 provides an analysis of salary for superannuation purposes as a percentage of Base Salary for EL1 employees, according to superannuation fund membership, and indicates the proportion of EL 1 employees within each ‘Percentage of Base Salary’ range. A majority of EL 1 employees (67 per cent) are members of the PSS fund, where the employer contribution is currently 16.2 per cent (weighted average across participating agencies).

Table 3.73 – Salary for Superannuation as a Percentage of Base Salary, sorted by Fund for EL 1 Employees in 2010

Fund	n	Percentage of Base Salary (as at 31 December 2010) used as ‘Base Salary’ for superannuation calculation purposes
		<70%	70-79%	80-89%	90-99%	100-109%	110-119%	120-129%	130+%
AGEST	161	0.0%	0.0%	1.2%	23.6%	73.9%	1.2%	0.0%	0.0%
CSS	2,527	0.0%	0.2%	0.9%	43.5%	47.4%	4.9%	1.5%	1.6%
PSS	16,215	0.0%	0.4%	2.8%	49.8%	42.9%	2.9%	0.7%	0.4%
PSSAP	4,629	0.3%	2.7%	5.2%	32.1%	58.4%	0.8%	0.2%	0.2%
Other	588	0.0%	0.7%	2.4%	22.8%	73.6%	0.5%	0.0%	0.0%

As can be seen from Table 3.73, the majority of employees had a salary for superannuation purposes within ±10 per cent of their Base Salary, with more employees in the plus 10 per cent category. This represents a shift from 2009, when the majority fell within the minus 10 per cent category. As in previous years, there were some employees with very low and very high salary for superannuation purposes compared to their Base Salary.

Motor Vehicles and Car Parking Costs

Table 3.74 presents the 2010 and 2009 distribution of motor vehicle costs, including FBT, for EL 1 employees. These costs include all leasing and running costs, but exclude other related costs such as parking. Note that the costs refer to the cost to an employee’s package, either calculated by the Mercer car formula (refer to Appendix C) or using the agency’s identified vehicle budget.

Table 3.74 – Distribution of Motor Vehicle Costs* in 2010 and 2009 for EL 1

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$16,579	$22,295	$25,802	$28,708	$45,808	$25,405	$4,646	0
2009	$15,099	$20,693	$26,313	$27,966	$48,125	$25,172	$5,099	0

*Includes FBT

Table 3.74 shows that:

§ As in 2009, less than 0.5 per cent of EL 1 employees in 2010 received a motor vehicle as part of their remuneration package

§ compared to 2009, median motor vehicle costs have decreased slightly, while average costs have increased slightly.

 

Refer to Appendix E for information on car parking costs for EL 1.

 

Other Benefits

Table 3.75 shows that only 1 per cent of EL 1 employees received a payment for other benefits in 2010, down from 5 per cent in 2009. Benefit values have increased, except at the maximum, where the benefit value decreased by 53 per cent compared to 2009. The relatively large payments made in 2009 were related to the private use component of benefits provided to employees serving overseas.

Table 3.75 – Other Benefits for EL 1 Employees in 2010 and 2009

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$1,002	$1,557	$2,275	$3,548	$30,195	$3,070	$2,997	1
2009	$1,000	$1,000	$1,000	$1,528	$64,090	$2,223	$4,510	5

Performance Bonuses

Table 3.76 shows 2010 and 2009 performance bonus payments for EL 1 employees, along with annual changes from 2009 to 2010 and from 2008 to 2009. Data includes those employees who were eligible but did not receive a performance bonus payment (i.e. data reported as $0).

Seventeen per cent of all EL 1 employees were eligible to receive a performance bonus in 2010, down from 19 per cent in 2009. Actual performance bonus payments in 2010 were comparable to 2009, though considerably higher at the maximum.

 

 

Table 3.76 – Performance Bonus Payment Distribution and Movements for EL 1

 

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$0	$794	$993	$1,920	$44,059	$2,101	$2,946	17
2009	$0	$777	$970	$2,874	$18,800	$2,122	$2,615	19
% Change 09/10	--	2.2%	2.4%	-33.2%	134.4%	-1.0%	12.7%	-10.5%
% Change 08/09	--	-64.9%	-74.5%	-57.3%	-40.2%	-55.0%	-30.9%	-62.7%

Table 3.77 shows performance bonus payments received as a proportion of Base Salary and TRP for EL 1 employees over the past three years. The data includes only those employees eligible for performance bonuses. Performance bonus amounts as a percentage of Base Salary and TRP for 2010 have reduced annually since 2008 for EL 1 employees.

Table 3.77 – Average Performance Bonuses as a Percentage of Base Salary and TRP from 2008 to 2010

Band	Average Bonuses as % of Base Salary			Average Bonuses as % of TRP
	2008	2009	2010	2008	2009	2010
EL 1	5.3%	2.5%	2.0%	4.5%	2.1%	1.7%

Retention Bonuses

Table 3.78 shows the distribution of retention bonuses to eligible EL 1 employees in 2010 and 2009. As in 2009, only 1 per cent of EL 1 employees were eligible for retention bonuses in 2010. Unlike 2009, where most eligible employees did not receive a payment, the majority did receive a payment in 2010.

Table 3.78 – Distribution of Actual Retention Bonuses to Eligible Employees in 2010 and 2009 for EL 1

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$0	$1,000	$1,000	$3,000	$17,310	$2,363	$2,739	1
2009	$0	$0	$0	$3,624	$15,000	$2,086	$3,285	1

Other Bonuses

Fewer employees (6 per cent) were eligible for other bonus payments in 2010 compared with 2009 (16 per cent). However, with the exception of the minimum amount recorded, the value of individual payments increased from 2009 to 2010.

 

 

Other Allowances

 

Table 3.79 details the distribution of payments made for other allowances in 2010 and 2009 for EL 1 employees. Eligibility for other allowances increased only slightly over this period, from 11 per cent in 2009 to 12 per cent in 2010. Except at the minimum and maximum, payment amounts have increased compared to 2009.

Table 3.79 – Other Allowances for EL 1 Employees in 2010 and 2009

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$344	$2,490	$4,530	$8,318	$87,534	$7,263	$8,416	12
2009	$411	$1,955	$3,824	$7,353	$109,284	$6,268	$7,192	11

 

 

EL 2

 

Remuneration Overview

Tables 3.80 to 3.82, and Chart 3.9, show the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for EL 2 employees compared with 2009, as well as the percentage change between 2009/2010 and 2008/2009.

Table 3.80 – Base Salary Distribution and Movements for EL 2

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	11,689	$93,000	$115,410	$120,840	$124,597	$412,844	$121,268	$13,086
2009	9,580	$66,722	$111,554	$117,127	$120,396	$360,804	$116,588	$9,269
% Change 09/10	22.0%	39.4%	3.5%	3.2%	3.5%	14.4%	4.0%	41.2%
% Change 08/09	70.5%	-8.3%	5.3%	6.1%	4.9%	76.0%	5.3%	-1.5%

Table 3.81 – TRP Distribution and Movements for EL 2

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	11,689	$103,784	$134,084	$140,397	$146,807	$430,151	$141,775	$15,870
2009	9,580	$79,449	$129,617	$136,310	$141,791	$399,836	$136,467	$12,300
% Change 09/10	22.0%	30.6%	3.4%	3.0%	3.5%	7.6%	3.9%	29.0%
% Change 08/09	70.5%	-10.7%	5.3%	5.4%	1.7%	54.1%	3.7%	-12.5%

Table 3.82 – TR Distribution and Movements for EL 2

Year	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	11,689	$103,784	$134,822	$141,170	$148,369	$708,040	$143,269	$19,667
2009	9,580	$79,449	$130,410	$137,885	$144,085	$399,836	$138,020	$13,133
% Change 09/10	22.0%	30.6%	3.4%	2.4%	3.0%	77.1%	3.8%	49.7%
% Change 08/09	70.5%	-10.7%	3.5%	2.8%	0.3%	42.8%	1.8%	-14.4%

The information provided in Tables 3.80 to 3.82 (and calculations based on this data) indicates that:

§ median Base Salary, TRP and TR movements were lower in 2010 than in 2009

§ Base Salary: 50 per cent of EL 2 employees are paid between $115,410 and $124,597, with 68 per cent being paid between $108,182 and $134,354

§ TRP: 50 per cent of EL 2 employees are paid between $134,084 and $146,807, with 68 per cent being paid between $125,905 and $157,645

§ TR: 50 per cent of EL 2 employees are paid between $134,822 and $148,369, with 68 per cent being paid between $123,602 and $162,936

§ the spread between minimum and maximum values was $319,844 for BS, $326,367 for TRP and $604,256 for TR

§ the difference between TRP and TR ranged from $0 to ~$277,900 in 2010, while the gap between BS and TRP ranged from ~$10,800 to ~$22,200. These gaps were much smaller in 2009, when the largest difference was ~$2,300 for BS-TRP and ~$39,000 for TRP-TR.

 

 

Chart 3.9 – Remuneration Comparisons for EL 2 in 2009 and 2010*

 

*All data items shown in the above chart reference the detailed summary tables in Appendix E.

Chart 3.9 shows that:

§ the 2010 Q1 to Q3 ranges for Base Salary, TRP and TR are comparable to the 2009 ranges

§ the range from the 5^th percentile to the 95^th percentile, which includes 90 per cent of employees (represented by the coloured cylinders in Chart 3.8), covers a range of ~$31,900 for Base Salary, ~$42,500 for TRP and ~$44,100 for TR; all of which are larger than in 2009

§ the variation from the minimum to the 5^th percentile was much less than the variation from the 95^th percentile to the maximum.

 

 

Main Benefits and Bonuses

 

Superannuation

Table 3.83 shows the distribution and movement of superannuation contributions for EL 2 employees. The median superannuation contribution increased by 4.2 per cent over 2009/2010, which is lower than the 2008/2009 change of 6.4 per cent.

Table 3.83 – Superannuation Distribution and Movements for EL 2

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD
2010	$4,954	$17,461	$18,978	$21,135	$55,150	$19,755	$3,873
2009	$5,850	$16,813	$18,150	$20,674	$48,857	$19,165	$3,936
% Change 09/10	-15.3%	3.9%	4.6%	2.2%	12.9%	3.1%	-1.6%
% Change 08/09	0.0%	7.1%	6.4%	1.1%	-17.0%	-3.1%	-40.0%

 

Table 3.84 shows 2010 superannuation contributions as a proportion of Base Salary for EL 2 employees, which are broadly similar to 2009 percentages.

Table 3.84 – Superannuation as a Proportion of Base Salary for EL 2

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
2010	4.0%	14.8%	15.6%	17.0%	42.6%	16.3%
2009	4.9%	14.7%	15.4%	17.4%	47.9%	16.4%

The minimum values were less than 9 per cent because the salary for superannuation purposes was less than the individual’s Base Salary. There were also a number of cases where the employee received a relatively high superannuation contribution as a percentage of their Base Salary, due to the employee having a higher salary for superannuation purposes than their Base Salary as at 31 December 2010.

Table 3.85 provides an analysis of salary for superannuation purposes as a percentage of Base Salary for EL 2 employees, according to superannuation fund membership, and indicates the proportion of EL 2 employees within each ‘Percentage of Base Salary’ range. A majority of EL 2 employees (67 per cent) are members of the PSS fund, where the weighted average employer contribution is currently 16.2 per cent.

Table 3.85 – Salary for Superannuation as a Percentage of Base Salary, sorted by Fund for EL 2 Employees in 2010

Fund	n	Percentage of Base Salary (as at 31 December 2010) used as ‘Base Salary’ for superannuation calculation purposes
		<70%	70-79%	80-89%	90-99%	100-109%	110-119%	120-129%	130+%
AGEST	68	0.0%	0.0%	4.4%	29.4%	64.7%	1.5%	0.0%	0.0%
CSS	2,147	0.0%	0.1%	1.5%	50.4%	43.0%	3.7%	0.7%	0.5%
PSS	7,715	0.1%	0.3%	3.4%	51.1%	42.5%	1.7%	0.5%	0.5%
PSSAP	1,365	0.0%	0.9%	4.6%	35.5%	57.7%	0.7%	0.4%	0.3%
Other	297	0.0%	0.0%	1.7%	20.9%	76.1%	0.3%	0.7%	0.3%

 

 

As can be seen from Table 3.85, the majority of employees had a salary for superannuation purposes within ±10 per cent of their Base Salary, with slightly more employees in the minus 10 per cent category. This was a similar finding to that of 2009.

 

Motor Vehicles and Car Parking Costs

Table 3.86 presents the distribution of motor vehicle costs, including FBT, for EL 2 employees for 2010 and 2009, and refers to the cost to an employee’s package, either calculated by the Mercer car formula (refer to Appendix C) or using the agency’s identified vehicle budget. These costs include all leasing and running costs, but exclude other related costs such as parking.

Table 3.86 – Distribution of Motor Vehicle Costs* in 2010 and 2009 for EL 2

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$16,579	$22,000	$24,000	$28,708	$113,052	$27,838	$13,833	1
2009	$16,487	$20,771	$23,883	$27,966	$56,194	$27,002	$10,438	1

*Includes FBT

Table 3.86 shows that:

§ as was the case in 2009, only 1 per cent of all EL 2 employees received a motor vehicle in 2010

§ median and average motor vehicle costs in 2010 remained comparable to 2009 costs.

 

Refer to Appendix E for information on car parking costs for EL 2 employees.

Table 3.87 presents the distribution of cash payments provided in lieu of motor vehicles for EL 2 employees for 2010 and 2009.

Table 3.87 - Cash in Lieu of Motor Vehicle in 2010 and 2009 for EL 2

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$7,476	$22,000	$23,504	$25,000	$28,000	$23,197	$2,975	1
2009	$7,500	$16,000	$20,904	$22,152	$28,000	$19,409	$3,712	1

Table 3.87 shows that:

§ as was the case in 2009, only 1 per cent of EL 2 employees received cash in lieu of a motor vehicle

§ the cash in lieu values for 2010 have generally increased relative to 2009.

 

Considering the data in Tables 3.86 and 3.87 in combination, only 2 per cent of EL 2 employees received a vehicle benefit (or cash in lieu) in 2010, which was also the case in 2009.

 

Other Benefits

Table 3.88 shows that just 1 per cent of EL 2 employees received other benefits in 2010, compared to 2 per cent in 2009, although the value of these benefits has generally increased, except at the maximum.

 

 

Table 3.88 – Other Benefits for EL 2 Employees in 2010 and 2009

 

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$1,001	$1,874	$3,705	$6,988	$18,340	$5,159	$4,239	1
2009	$1,000	$1,000	$1,000	$4,000	$57,142	$3,779	$5,985	2

 

Performance Bonuses

Table 3.89 shows performance bonus payments for EL 2 employees in 2010 and 2009, along with annual changes from 2009/2010 and 2008/2009. The data includes employees who were eligible but did not receive a performance bonus payment (i.e. data reported as $0).

In 2010, 24 per cent of all EL 2 employees were eligible to receive a performance bonus, which is a decrease from 30 per cent in 2009. The 2010 actual performance bonus payments for EL 2 employees were lower at the median, though higher on average, than in 2009. Maximum performance bonus payments were significantly (892 per cent) higher in 2010 than in 2009.

 

Table 3.89 – Performance Bonus Payment Distribution and Movements for EL 2

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$0	$201	$2,466	$7,615	$277,889	$5,264	$12,942	24
2009	$0	$1,188	$2,866	$7,028	$28,000	$4,221	$4,191	30
% Change 09/10	--	-83.1%	-14.0%	8.4%	892.5%	24.7%	208.8%	-20.0%
% Change 08/09	--	-62.9%	-47.0%	-16.6%	-35.2%	-31.1%	-11.7%	-47.4%

 

Table 3.90 shows performance bonus payments received as a proportion of Base Salary and TRP for EL 2 employees over the past three years. The data includes only those employees eligible for performance bonuses. Performance bonus amounts as a percentage of Base Salary and TRP have decreased annually over this period.

Table 3.90 – Average Performance Bonuses as a Percentage of Base Salary and TRP from 2008 to 2010

Band	Average Bonuses as % of Base Salary			Average Bonuses as % of TRP
	2008	2009	2010	2008	2009	2010
EL 2	5.4%	3.7%	3.5%	4.5%	3.1%	3.0%

Retention Bonuses

Table 3.91 shows the distribution of retention bonuses to eligible EL 2 employees in 2010 and 2009. As was the case in 2009, 2 per cent of EL 2 employees were eligible for retention bonuses in 2010. The actual value of these payments decreased at the median and average, relative to 2009.

Table 3.91 – Distribution of Actual Retention Bonuses to Eligible Employees in 2010 and 2009 for EL 2

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$0	$1,000	$1,000	$3,541	$34,620	$3,400	$5,975	2
2009	$0	$0	$1,740	$8,645	$30,000	$5,026	$6,927	2

 

Other Bonuses

Table 3.92 shows the distribution of other bonus payments to eligible EL 2 employees in 2010 and 2009. Eight per cent of EL 2 employees were eligible for other bonus payments, down from the 15 per cent in 2009. The value of these payments increased relative to 2009 at all aggregates except the minimum, with more than 75 per cent of eligible employees receiving a bonus payment of $900 or greater.

Table 3.92 – Distribution of Other Bonus Payments to Eligible Employees in 2010 and 2009 for EL 2

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$96	$900	$1,350	$1,435	$24,000	$1,445	$1,086	8
2009	$200	$750	$750	$750	$14,747	$845	$838	15

Other Allowances

Table 3.93 details the distribution of payments made for other allowances in 2010 and 2009 for EL 2 employees. The percentage of employees receiving such allowances decreased from 23 per cent in 2009 to 20 per cent in 2010, though the values of such allowances have generally increased.

Table 3.93 – Other Allowances for EL 2 Employees in 2010 and 2009

Year	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average	SD	% Rep
2010	$152	$1,800	$2,100	$5,425	$80,089	$4,442	$5,766	20
2009	$1,000	$1,500	$1,500	$3,443	$80,089	$4,078	$5,644	23

Summary Comment

Mercer provides the following summary commentary regarding APS non-SES remuneration movements:

§ the variation in median BS (1.2 per cent to 4.3 per cent) and TRP (2.7 per cent to 5.1 per cent) movements has stabilised relative to 2009, where much wider variation was observed

§ median and average remuneration movements over the 2009/2010 period were generally lower than over the 2008/2009 period

§ minimum and maximum BS and TRP generally increased from 2009 to 2010, though the spread between the 5^th and 95^th percentiles was broadly comparable in 2009 and 2010

§ superannuation contributions were broadly comparable to 2009 levels. The majority of employees had a salary for superannuation purposes within ±10 per cent of their Base Salary, though more employees fell in the plus 10 per cent category in 2010 while more fell in the minus 10 per cent category in 2009

§ eligibility for performance, retention and other bonuses generally decreased relative to 2009, which may be reflective of a policy shift in the composition of remuneration packages

§ there was no clear relationship between this trend and actual bonus values – in some classification levels median and average bonus values increased from 2009 to 2010.

 4  

Primary Employment Instrument Data and Analysis

This section provides a comparative analysis for Base Salary, TRP and TR according to the following employment instruments:

§ Enterprise Agreements[2] (EA)

§ Australian Workplace Agreements[3] (AWA)

§ Collective Section 24(1) Determinations (S24(1)C)

§ Individual Section 24(1) Determinations (S24(1)I)

§ Common Law Agreements (CLA).

This data was reported for the first time in the 2008 survey.

Table 4.1 shows that, in 2010, most employees across all non-SES classifications were employed under an Enterprise Agreement, rather than other employment instruments. This was also the case in 2009.

Table 4.1 – Proportion of non-SES Employees Employed According to Employment Instrument in 2010

Classification	EA		AWA		S24(1)C		S24(1)I		CLA		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n
Graduate	1,297	100%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	1,297
APS 1	1,514	99%	0	0%	15	1%	0	0%	0	0%	1,529
APS 2	4,734	100%	3	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	4,737
APS 3	19,741	100%	14	0%	3	0%	0	0%	2	0%	19,760
APS 4	19,625	100%	42	0%	9	0%	2	0%	9	0%	19,687
APS 5	20,105	100%	29	0%	20	0%	0	0%	13	0%	20,167
APS 6	26,859	100%	71	0%	30	0%	6	0%	12	0%	26,978
EL 1	24,090	99%	125	1%	50	0%	11	0%	33	0%	24,309
EL 2	11,380	97%	242	2%	17	0%	10	0%	40	0%	11,689

 

 

Comparisons According to Employment Instrument

 

Tables 4.2 to 4.26 show the Base Salary, TRP and TR distribution according to employment instrument for each non-SES classification. Please note that while some classification levels might have a number of individuals covered by a particular primary employment instrument, remuneration data is displayed only in instances where Mercer’s confidentiality guidelines are satisfied.

Graduate

In 2010, all Graduates in the sample were employed under an EA.

Table 4.2 – Graduate Employees under an Enterprise Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base salary	1,297	$46,995	$50,770	$53,040	$57,568	$69,642	$54,012
TRP	1,297	$54,232	$58,244	$61,287	$65,824	$80,367	$62,185
TR	1,297	$54,232	$58,328	$61,287	$65,824	$80,367	$62,228

 

APS 1

As was the case in 2009, almost all APS 1 employees (~99 per cent) were employed under an EA. The remaining ~1 per cent were employed under S24(1)C arrangements, though this section of the sample provided insufficient data to report.

 

Table 4.3 – APS 1 Employees under an Enterprise Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	1,514	$22,233	$37,676	$41,148	$44,413	$48,166	$40,184
TRP	1,514	$27,837	$43,267	$47,546	$50,971	$64,866	$46,534
TR	1,514	$27,837	$43,267	$47,546	$50,971	$64,866	$46,635

 

APS 2

Tables 4.4 and 4.5 show that almost all APS 2 employees were employed under an EA, with less than 1 per cent of employees employed on an AWA, as was the case in 2009. APS 2 employees on an AWA were paid comparably to those on a CA, though it is difficult to draw conclusions from the very small sample of employees on an AWA.

 

Table 4.4 – APS 2 Employees under an Enterprise Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	4,734	$36,935	$46,816	$49,233	$50,471	$65,037	$48,549
TRP	4,734	$42,623	$53,799	$56,933	$58,496	$79,609	$56,357
TR	4,734	$42,623	$53,809	$57,125	$59,161	$79,609	$56,542

 

 

Table 4.5 – APS 2 Employees under an Australian Workplace Agreement

 

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	3	--	--	--	--	--	$49,124
TRP	3	--	--	--	--	--	$56,326
TR	3	--	--	--	--	--	$57,326

 

APS 3

Almost all APS 3 employees were employed under an EA in 2010, as was the case in 2009, with less than 1 per cent of employees on other arrangements and only AWA being able to be reported here. As can be seen in Tables 4.6 and 4.7, average remuneration for employees on an AWA was higher than those on an EA, though median remuneration was comparable for both instruments.

 

Table 4.6 – APS 3 Employees under an Enterprise Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	19,741	$41,594	$52,161	$54,577	$56,359	$70,581	$54,202
TRP	19,741	$47,621	$60,571	$63,238	$65,648	$82,036	$63,111
TR	19,741	$48,059	$60,899	$63,326	$65,842	$82,036	$63,368

Table 4.7 – APS 3 Employees under an Australian Workplace Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	14	$45,346	$52,344	$54,362	$57,789	$64,022	$55,257
TRP	14	$53,270	$60,327	$62,562	$68,747	$75,089	$64,166
TR	14	$53,270	$62,353	$64,497	$70,670	$75,089	$66,039

 

APS 4

Tables 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 show that, although the majority of APS 4 employees were under an EA, employees employed under an AWA had higher median and average remuneration levels when compared with those employed under an EA. This pattern was also observed in 2009. Employees on a S24(1)C instrument received the lowest average remuneration of all three instruments reported here.

 

Table 4.8 – APS 4 Employees under an Enterprise Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	19,625	$45,946	$59,116	$61,299	$62,582	$75,462	$60,694
TRP	19,625	$50,687	$68,273	$70,340	$72,982	$108,774	$70,416
TR	19,625	$50,687	$68,273	$70,408	$73,051	$108,774	$70,507

 

 

Table 4.9 – APS 4 Employees under an Australian Workplace Agreement

 

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	42	$51,993	$61,450	$62,107	$62,427	$69,000	$62,494
TRP	42	$59,765	$70,702	$72,397	$75,654	$84,604	$73,293
TR	42	$63,715	$72,488	$75,681	$78,780	$86,864	$75,767

 

Table 4.10 – APS 4 Employees under a Collective Section 24(1) Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	9	--	--	--	--	--	$59,587
TRP	9	--	--	--	--	--	$68,399
TR	9	--	--	--	--	--	$68,843

 

APS 5

As demonstrated in Tables 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13, almost all APS 5 employees were employed under an EA, with less than 1 per cent on an AWA or CLA. Base Salary was generally higher for employees under an EA than an AWA, except at the minimum. Employees on an AWA generally received higher TRP and TR, except at the maximum.

 

Table 4.11 – APS 5 Employees under an Enterprise Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	20,105	$50,685	$65,010	$67,017	$68,092	$97,224	$66,548
TRP	20,105	$58,011	$74,677	$77,483	$79,356	$112,976	$77,365
TR	20,105	$58,011	$74,902	$77,702	$79,656	$112,976	$77,624

Table 4.12 – APS 5 Employees under an Australian Workplace Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	29	$61,000	$65,107	$66,829	$68,093	$81,889	$67,324
TRP	29	$69,624	$75,010	$77,825	$81,165	$94,149	$78,209
TR	29	$71,452	$78,532	$80,716	$84,267	$101,409	$81,673

 

Table 4.13 – APS 5 Employees under a Common Law Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	13	--	--	--	--	--	$68,436
TRP	13	--	--	--	--	--	$75,526
TR	13	--	--	--	--	--	$77,319

 

APS 6

Tables 4.14 to 4.18 show that, although the majority of APS 6 employees were under an EA, employees covered by an AWA generally received higher remuneration. On average, APS 6 employees on a CLA received the highest remuneration of any instrument, though it is difficult to draw conclusions based on the small sample size.

 

Table 4.14 – APS 6 Employees under an Enterprise Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	26,859	$47,915	$73,949	$77,824	$79,555	$111,448	$76,784
TRP	26,859	$61,346	$85,557	$89,882	$92,407	$131,647	$89,214
TR	26,859	$61,346	$85,694	$90,005	$92,871	$137,322	$89,463

Table 4.15 – APS 6 Employees under an Australian Workplace Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	71	$68,000	$75,000	$79,000	$80,634	$100,294	$78,569
TRP	71	$77,702	$85,572	$91,048	$94,712	$126,199	$91,310
TR	71	$82,065	$89,272	$93,245	$98,382	$126,199	$94,840

Table 4.16 – APS 6 Employees under a Collective Section 24(1) Determination

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	30	--	--	--	--	--	$76,062
TRP	30	--	--	--	--	--	$87,640
TR	30	--	--	--	--	--	$87,962

 

Table 4.17 – APS 6 Employees under an Individual Section 24(1) Determination

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	6	--	--	--	--	--	$77,653
TRP	6	--	--	--	--	--	$90,095
TR	6	--	--	--	--	--	$90,860

 

Table 4.18 – APS 6 Employees under a Common Law Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	12	--	--	--	--	--	$80,174
TRP	12	--	--	--	--	--	$89,420
TR	12	--	--	--	--	--	$94,167

 

 

EL 1

 

In 2010, ~99 per cent and ~1 per cent of EL 1 employees were employed under an EA and AWA respectively, compared with ~98 per cent and ~2 per cent in 2009. Tables 4.19 to 4.22 indicate that EL 1 employees employed under a CLA received considerably higher median and average remuneration levels than those employed under other employment instruments. This was in contrast to 2009, when EL 1 employees under an AWA received the highest median and average remuneration.

Table 4.19 – EL 1 Employees under an Enterprise Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	24,090	$57,264	$92,878	$97,275	$99,285	$157,975	$96,430
TRP	24,090	$71,186	$107,831	$112,770	$115,454	$177,784	$112,157
TR	24,090	$71,790	$108,178	$113,346	$115,849	$181,537	$112,641

Table 4.20 – EL 1 Employees under an Australian Workplace Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	125	$84,634	$94,229	$98,000	$100,162	$169,706	$98,202
TRP	125	$97,565	$108,683	$113,724	$117,708	$195,841	$114,234
TR	125	$99,500	$112,802	$118,319	$123,638	$195,841	$118,645

Table 4.21 – EL 1 Employees under an Individual Section 24(1) Determination

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	11	$89,445	$91,931	$94,229	$96,990	$122,054	$97,050
TRP	11	$102,673	$105,752	$107,911	$112,823	$145,610	$112,447
TR	11	$102,673	$107,911	$108,427	$114,743	$145,610	$113,439

 

Table 4.22 – EL 1 Employees under a Common Law Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	33	$98,849	$134,175	$160,000	$164,781	$220,000	$148,967
TRP	33	$109,520	$145,420	$183,458	$190,157	$253,880	$168,572
TR	33	$109,520	$152,413	$184,640	$190,157	$253,880	$176,617

 

 

EL 2

 

In 2010, the majority of EL 2 employees (~97 per cent, up from ~90 per cent in 2009) were employed under an EA. Only ~2 per cent of EL 2 employees were on an AWA in 2010, a decrease from ~7 per cent in 2009. As Tables 4.23 to 4.26 demonstrate, EL 2 employees under a CLA had higher median and average remuneration compared to those employed under other employment instruments, which was also the case in 2009.

 

Table 4.23 – EL 2 Employees under an Enterprise Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	11,380	$93,956	$115,100	$120,690	$124,597	$312,616	$120,756
TRP	11,380	$103,784	$133,882	$140,367	$146,463	$357,276	$141,203
TR	11,380	$103,784	$134,675	$141,144	$148,121	$365,537	$142,409

Table 4.24 – EL 2 Employees under an Australian Workplace Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	242	$93,000	$120,736	$122,427	$129,171	$412,844	$132,920
TRP	242	$111,379	$141,205	$143,556	$154,197	$430,151	$155,498
TR	242	$111,379	$142,907	$149,673	$162,576	$708,040	$166,261

Table 4.25 – EL 2 Employees under an Individual Section 24(1) Determination

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	10	$100,959	$117,017	$121,713	$127,375	$131,000	$120,691
TRP	10	$120,075	$136,336	$141,060	$147,037	$157,813	$141,240
TR	10	$120,075	$141,008	$146,903	$153,260	$164,727	$146,427

 

Table 4.26 – EL 2 Employees under a Common Law Agreement

Remuneration Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Base Salary	40	$116,944	$151,174	$189,450	$233,945	$364,220	$196,128
TRP	40	$136,599	$176,068	$206,670	$258,162	$389,656	$221,546
TR	40	$136,599	$176,734	$230,543	$269,928	$599,308	$248,639

 5  

Gender Remuneration Data and Analysis

This section provides a comparative analysis of Base Salary, TRP and TR for each non-SES classification according to gender, together with a discussion of the characteristics of the sample.

This is the second year this data has been included in the APS Remuneration Surveys and will provide agencies with the basis for additional analysis of broader remuneration practices into the future.

 

 

Graduate

 

Table 5.1 and Chart 5.1 compare the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for Graduate male and female employees.

Table 5.1 – 2010 Remuneration Comparisons for Graduate Male and Female Employees

Sub-sample Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Male Base Salary	592	$46,995	$51,307	$54,306	$57,660	$69,642	$54,557
Female Base Salary	705	$46,995	$50,471	$53,040	$57,568	$65,986	$53,554
Male TRP	592	$54,232	$59,120	$62,552	$65,946	$80,367	$62,799
Female TRP	705	$54,232	$58,244	$61,028	$65,821	$76,148	$61,669
Male TR	592	$54,232	$59,158	$63,121	$65,946	$80,367	$62,843
Female TR	705	$54,232	$58,244	$61,028	$65,821	$76,148	$61,711

Chart 5.1 – 2010 Remuneration Distribution for Graduate Male and Female Employees

The information in Table 5.1 and Chart 5.1 indicates that:

§ the median and average remuneration for Graduate males are higher than for Graduate females

§ while the minimum values are identical for male and female Graduates, the maximum BS, TRP and TR value is higher for males than for females

§ the variation between minimum and maximum values for Base Salary, TRP and TR was greater for males than for females, due to their higher maximum values.

 

 

APS 1

 

Table 5.2 and Chart 5.2 compare the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for

APS 1 male and female employees.

Table 5.2 – 2010 Remuneration Comparisons for APS 1 Male and Female Employees

Sub-sample Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Male Base Salary	638	$24,689	$38,075	$41,148	$44,413	$48,166	$40,681
Female Base Salary	891	$22,233	$37,445	$41,148	$43,828	$46,224	$39,785
Male TRP	638	$28,528	$43,939	$47,546	$51,390	$64,866	$47,246
Female TRP	891	$27,837	$42,235	$47,220	$50,971	$56,283	$45,969
Male TR	638	$28,528	$43,939	$47,546	$51,505	$64,866	$47,369
Female TR	891	$27,837	$42,291	$47,251	$50,971	$56,283	$46,053

Chart 5.2 – 2010 Remuneration Distribution for APS 1 Male and Female Employees

The information in Table 5.2 and Chart 5.2 indicates that:

§ the median and average TRP and TR for APS 1 males are higher than for female employees

§ average Base Salary for male APS 1 employees is higher than for females, though the median for males and females is identical

§ both the minimum and maximum values are higher for male APS 1 employees than for females

§ the variation between the minimum and maximum TRP and TR values was slightly greater for males than females at the TRP and TR aggregates

§ the variation between minimum and maximum BS values was considerably greater for females than males.

 

 

APS 2

 

Table 5.3 and Chart 5.3 compare the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for

APS 2 male and female employees.

Table 5.3 – 2010 Remuneration Comparisons for APS 2 Male and Female Employees

Sub-sample Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Male Base Salary	1,512	$39,181	$46,924	$49,502	$50,471	$60,138	$48,560
Female Base Salary	3,225	$36,935	$46,806	$49,233	$50,471	$65,037	$48,544
Male TRP	1,512	$44,415	$53,905	$57,426	$58,496	$79,609	$56,544
Female TRP	3,225	$42,623	$53,779	$56,759	$58,496	$77,106	$56,270
Male TR	1,512	$44,415	$53,924	$57,515	$59,161	$79,609	$56,734
Female TR	3,225	$42,623	$53,779	$56,878	$59,161	$77,732	$56,452

Chart 5.3 – 2010 Remuneration Distribution for APS 2 Male and Female Employees

The information in Table 5.3 and Chart 5.3 indicates that:

§ average and median salaries for APS 2 male employees were slightly higher than female employees across all remuneration aggregates

§ male APS 2 employees received greater TRP and TR at the minimum and maximum than their female counterparts

§ although BS for female employees was lower than at the minimum, it was higher at the maximum

§ the variation between the minimum and maximum TRP and TR values was slightly greater for males than females at the TRP and TR aggregates

§ the variation between minimum and maximum BS values was considerably greater for females than males.

 

 

APS 3

 

Table 5.4 and Chart 5.4 compare the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for

APS 3 male and female employees.

Table 5.4 – 2010 Remuneration Comparisons for APS 3 Male and Female Employees

Sub-sample Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Male Base Salary	6,860	$43,257	$51,634	$54,870	$57,245	$68,699	$54,366
Female Base Salary	12,900	$41,594	$52,349	$54,577	$56,359	$70,581	$54,115
Male TRP	6,860	$49,036	$60,571	$63,995	$66,705	$82,036	$63,739
Female TRP	12,900	$47,621	$60,563	$62,818	$64,808	$80,902	$62,776
Male TR	6,860	$49,474	$60,987	$64,213	$66,729	$82,036	$64,095
Female TR	12,900	$48,059	$60,814	$62,964	$65,304	$80,902	$62,981

Chart 5.4 – 2010 Remuneration Distribution for APS 3 Male and Female Employees

The information in Table 5.4 and Chart 5.4 indicates that:

§ median and average remuneration for APS 3 males was slightly higher than for females, and this difference was more pronounced at the TR aggregate

§ male APS 3 employees received greater TRP and TR at the minimum and maximum than their female counterparts

§ although BS for female employees was lower than at the minimum, it was higher at the maximum

§ the difference between minimum and maximum remuneration was greater for females than for males.

 

 

APS 4

 

Table 5.5 and Chart 5.5 compare the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for

APS 4 male and female employees.

Table 5.5 – 2010 Remuneration Comparisons for APS 4 Male and Female Employees

Sub-sample Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Male Base Salary	6,611	$45,946	$59,116	$61,307	$62,783	$72,288	$60,788
Female Base Salary	13,076	$45,946	$59,116	$61,195	$62,403	$75,462	$60,653
Male TRP	6,611	$52,685	$68,273	$70,594	$73,273	$108,774	$70,650
Female TRP	13,076	$50,687	$68,273	$70,239	$72,958	$92,647	$70,306
Male TR	6,611	$52,685	$68,273	$70,647	$73,299	$108,774	$70,730
Female TR	13,076	$50,687	$68,273	$70,278	$72,982	$93,194	$70,410

Chart 5.5 – 2010 Remuneration Distribution for APS 4 Male and Female Employees

The information in Table 5.5 and Chart 5.5 indicates that:

§ generally, the median and average remuneration for male and female APS 4 employees are very similar, with the difference being no more than ~$400

§ while the minimum TRP and TR values were higher for APS 4 males, the minimum BS value was identical for males and females

§ the variation between the minimum and maximum TRP and TR values was considerably greater for males than females

§ the variation between minimum and maximum BS values was considerably greater for females than males.

 

 

APS 5

 

Table 5.6 and Chart 5.6 compare the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for

APS 5 male and female employees.

Table 5.6 – 2010 Remuneration Comparisons for APS 5 Male and Female Employees

Sub-sample Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Male Base Salary	8,479	$50,685	$65,010	$67,287	$68,092	$90,713	$66,685
Female Base Salary	11,688	$50,459	$65,010	$66,657	$68,092	$97,224	$66,451
Male TRP	8,479	$58,776	$75,045	$78,349	$79,940	$105,739	$77,749
Female TRP	11,688	$54,986	$74,578	$77,121	$79,085	$112,976	$77,084
Male TR	8,479	$59,214	$75,218	$78,549	$80,445	$105,739	$78,074
Female TR	11,688	$55,953	$74,661	$77,338	$79,556	$112,976	$77,303

Chart 5.6 – 2010 Remuneration Distribution for APS 5 Male and Female Employees

The information in Table 5.6 and Chart 5.6 indicates that:

§ median and average remuneration was slightly higher for APS 5 males when compared to females

§ while the minimum remuneration values were higher for APS 5 males, the difference was minor at the BS aggregate

§ maximum values were considerably higher for female APS 5 employees than their male counterparts at the maximum TR

§ the difference between the minimum and maximum values was much higher for female employees at all aggregates.

 

 

APS 6

 

Table 5.7 and Chart 5.7 compare the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for

APS 6 male and female employees.

Table 5.7 – 2010 Remuneration Comparisons for APS 6 Male and Female Employees

Sub-sample Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Male Base Salary	11,964	$58,926	$74,736	$77,950	$79,555	$105,963	$77,130
Female Base Salary	15,014	$47,915	$73,643	$77,636	$79,136	$111,448	$76,519
Male TRP	11,964	$67,172	$86,207	$90,315	$92,788	$131,647	$89,782
Female TRP	15,014	$61,346	$85,242	$89,592	$92,140	$131,566	$88,768
Male TR	11,964	$67,610	$86,447	$90,658	$93,135	$131,647	$90,071
Female TR	15,014	$61,346	$85,337	$89,650	$92,695	$137,322	$89,005

Chart 5.7 – 2010 Remuneration Distribution for APS 6 Male and Female Employees

The information in Table 5.7 and Chart 5.7 indicates that:

§ as was the case in 2009, average and median remuneration was higher for male APS 6 employees than for their female counterparts

§ minimum BS, TRP and TR values were higher for males than females

§ APS 6 male employees were paid slightly more than female employees at the TRP maximum, but females were paid considerably more at the BS and TR maximums

§ the difference between the minimum and maximum values was significantly higher for female employees at all aggregates.

 

 

EL 1

 

Table 5.8 and Chart 5.8 compare the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for EL 1 male and female employees.

Table 5.8 – 2010 Remuneration Comparisons for EL 1 Male and Female Employees

Sub-sample Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Male Base Salary	12,589	$74,340	$92,878	$97,505	$99,554	$220,000	$96,781
Female Base Salary	11,720	$57,264	$92,832	$97,244	$99,285	$157,975	$96,210
Male TRP	12,589	$85,788	$108,117	$113,459	$115,849	$253,880	$112,658
Female TRP	11,720	$71,186	$107,513	$112,255	$115,409	$177,784	$111,789
Male TR	12,589	$85,788	$108,478	$113,995	$115,895	$253,880	$113,223
Female TR	11,720	$71,790	$107,905	$112,724	$115,760	$177,784	$112,249

Chart 5.8 – 2010 Remuneration Distribution for EL 1 Male and Female Employees

The information in Table 5.8 and Chart 5.8 indicates that:

§ remuneration at all levels was generally higher for male EL 1 employees than female EL 1 employees

§ EL 1 male employees were paid significantly more than female employees at the minimum (up to ~$17,000) and the maximum (up to ~$76,000) of all remuneration aggregates

§ the difference between the minimum and maximum values was greater for male than female ES 1 employees (e.g. ~$62,000 more at TR) at all aggregates.

 

 

EL 2

 

Table 5.9 and Chart 5.9 compare the 2010 distribution of Base Salary, TRP and TR for EL 2 male and female employees.

Table 5.9 – 2010 Remuneration Comparisons for EL 2 Male and Female Employees

Sub-sample Aggregate	n	Minimum	Q1	Median	Q3	Maximum	Average
Male Base Salary	7,007	$93,956	$116,016	$121,537	$124,597	$412,844	$122,129
Female Base Salary	4,682	$93,000	$114,527	$120,038	$124,325	$321,101	$119,980
Male TRP	7,007	$106,782	$134,820	$140,943	$148,121	$430,151	$142,932
Female TRP	4,682	$103,784	$132,741	$139,351	$144,945	$357,276	$140,044
Male TR	7,007	$107,699	$135,602	$141,789	$149,321	$708,040	$144,470
Female TR	4,682	$103,784	$133,689	$140,513	$146,664	$515,359	$141,473

Chart 5.9 – 2010 Remuneration Distribution for EL 2 Male and Female Employees

The information in Table 5.9 and Chart 5.9 indicates that:

§ EL 2 male employees had higher remuneration at all levels when compared to their female counterparts

§ In contrast to the trend that occurred in 2009, the maximum remuneration values were much higher for male employees, ranging from ~$72,900 to ~$192,700 higher than their female counterparts

§ the difference between the minimum and maximum values was also much higher for male employees: ~$90,800 higher for Base Salary, ~$69,900 higher for TRP and ~$188,800 higher for TR.

 

 

Similar to the trend in 2009, when comparing 5^th to 95^th percentile range data, at most levels the range of TRP which applies to male employees is broader, and the top end of the range for male employees is higher than for female employees. This variation is more notable at the higher levels, with EL 2 male employees paid ~$6,200 TRP more at the 95^th percentile. Male employees had a higher minimum remuneration level than their female counterparts at all levels except Graduate (minimum remuneration was equal for both genders at all aggregates) and APS 4 (Base Salary was equal for both genders). Males also received higher remuneration at the maximum of all aggregates except APS 2 (BS), APS 3 (BS), APS 4 (BS), APS 5 (all aggregates) and APS 6 (TR).

 

 6  

Time Series Analysis

This section contains time series analysis for the main components of remuneration, based on the results of previous surveys. When reviewing the time series data, it is important to take into account changes in the composition of the sample from year to year (i.e. the agencies participating from one survey period to the next) as well as changes to survey questions, as these changes can impact data results.

 

In 2009, due to a sampling approach which better reflected the primary employment instrument makeup of the workforce, the overall number of non-SES employees included in the survey has increased from 2008 by ~300 per cent, and has grown by a further ~10 per cent since 2009. However, this increased sample size has had little impact on the results from a time series perspective.

Time series data is provided from 2005 with data for all years taken at 31 December. Mercer notes that, as at 1 July 2008, the Superannuation Guarantee Administration Act 1992 required employers to use ordinary time earnings (OTE) as the earning base to calculate their Superannuation Guarantee obligation.

 

 

Base Salary

 

Table 6.1 shows the median Base Salary for each classification from 2005 to 2010. The year-on-year percentage movement is also presented.

 

Table 6.1 – Median Base Salary from 2005 to 2010

Classification		2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
Graduate	$ median	$41,000	$43,412	$45,902	$49,753	$51,370	$53,040
	% change	2.5%	5.9%	5.7%	8.4%	3.3%	3.3%
APS 1	$ median	$33,935	$35,371	$36,040	$37,371	$40,659	$41,148
	% change	3.2%	4.2%	1.9%	3.7%	8.8%	1.2%
APS 2	$ median	$39,028	$39,028	$40,786	$43,682	$47,680	$49,233
	% change	3.2%	0.0%	4.5%	7.1%	9.2%	3.3%
APS 3	$ median	$43,923	$45,345	$46,542	$49,000	$52,327	$54,577
	% change	3.5%	3.2%	2.6%	5.3%	6.8%	4.3%
APS 4	$ median	$48,944	$50,833	$52,812	$55,343	$58,949	$61,299
	% change	3.5%	3.9%	3.9%	4.8%	6.5%	4.0%
APS 5	$ median	$53,931	$56,400	$58,825	$61,000	$64,728	$67,017
	% change	3.7%	4.6%	4.3%	3.7%	6.1%	3.5%
APS 6	$ median	$62,775	$65,519	$68,000	$70,580	$74,969	$77,824
	% change	3.9%	4.4%	3.8%	3.8%	6.2%	3.8%
EL 1	$ median	$77,767	$80,921	$84,875	$88,270	$93,826	$97,275
	% change	4.0%	4.1%	4.9%	4.0%	6.3%	3.7%
EL 2	$ median	$96,063	$100,000	$105,299	$110,400	$117,127	$120,840
	% change	4.3%	4.1%	5.3%	4.8%	6.1%	3.2%
Overall	% change	3.5%	3.8%	4.1%	5.1%	6.6%	3.4%

 

Overall, the median Base Salary has been progressively increasing since 2005. Year-on-year movement was greatest from 2008 to 2009 (6.6 per cent). The greatest variation in Base Salary movements occurred in 2006 (ranging from 0 to 5.9 per cent) and 2009 (3.3 per cent to 9.2 per cent), and the smallest in 2005 (2.5 per cent to 4.3 per cent). After significant Base Salary increases for APS 1 and APS 2 employees in 2009 (6.3 per cent and 6.1 per cent, respectively), this trend eased in 2010, with relatively smaller increases at these levels (3.7 per cent and 3.2 per cent, respectively).

 

 

Total Remuneration Package (TRP)

 

Table 6.2 shows the median TRP for each classification from 2005 to 2010, as well as the year-on-year percentage movement.

 

Table 6.2 – Median TRP from 2005 to 2010

Classification		2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
Graduate	$ median	$47,203	$49,890	$52,971	$57,738	$59,105	$61,287
	% change	4.1%	5.7%	6.2%	9.0%	2.4%	3.7%
APS 1	$ median	$37,930	$40,570	$41,507	$43,366	$46,304	$47,546
	% change	2.3%	7.0%	2.3%	4.5%	6.8%	2.7%
APS 2	$ median	$44,604	$46,141	$47,128	$50,759	$54,963	$56,933
	% change	3.6%	3.4%	2.1%	7.7%	8.3%	3.6%
APS 3	$ median	$50,472	$52,356	$53,679	$56,729	$60,197	$63,238
	% change	4.1%	3.7%	2.5%	5.7%	6.1%	5.1%
APS 4	$ median	$56,157	$58,395	$60,806	$63,863	$67,798	$70,347
	% change	3.3%	4.0%	4.1%	5.0%	6.2%	3.8%
APS 5	$ median	$62,021	$64,717	$67,717	$70,188	$75,133	$77,483
	% change	3.9%	4.3%	4.6%	3.6%	7.0%	3.1%
APS 6	$ median	$72,322	$75,536	$78,411	$81,295	$86,391	$89,882
	% change	4.2%	4.4%	3.8%	3.7%	6.3%	4.0%
EL 1	$ median	$89,828	$93,784	$98,234	$102,614	$109,466	$112,788
	% change	3.7%	4.4%	4.7%	4.5%	6.7%	3.0%
EL 2	$ median	$113,820	$117,832	$123,277	$129,329	$136,310	$140,397
	% change	4.3%	3.5%	4.6%	4.9%	5.4%	3.0%
Overall	% change	3.7%	4.5%	3.9%	5.4%	6.1%	3.6%

As was the case with Base Salary, median TRP movement was highest in 2009, with an overall movement of 6.1 per cent. Also like Base Salary, the largest variation in median TRP movements occurred in 2009 (2.4 per cent to 8.3 per cent), while the smallest variation occurred in 2005 (2.3 per cent to 4.3 per cent).

 

 

 

Superannuation

 

Table 6.3 shows the average superannuation contributions for each classification from 2005 to 2010, as well as the year-on-year percentage movement. Average movements are provided for superannuation, rather than median, to be consistent with the approach adopted in previous years.

It should be noted that the survey questions have not changed since 2005 and have been limited to gaining additional data on salary for superannuation purposes, which has not significantly impacted on the superannuation values reported. These methodological changes have had no bearing on the 2010 outcomes, but are mentioned only as a contributing factor to past years’ highly variable – and therefore unpredictable – movements.

 

As the APS has five different superannuation funds, with CSS contributions being significantly higher than other funds, any change in the proportion of CSS members at a particular classification from year to year will affect average superannuation contributions for that classification. Caution is also needed in focussing only on the percentage movements without considering the actual dollar amounts, as the base figure for the calculation is a much lower value than percentage movement calculations for Base Salary, TRP and TR.

 

Table 6.3 – Average Superannuation Contributions from 2005 to 2010

Classification		2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
Graduate	$ average	$6,244	$6,693	$7,130	$7,875	$7,635	$8,159
	% change	7.7%	7.2%	6.5%	10.4%	-3.0%	6.9%
APS 1	$ average	$4,780	$5,460	$5,078	$5,803	$6,200	$6,332
	% change	4.0%	14.2%	-7.0%	14.3%	6.8%	2.1%
APS 2	$ average	$5,833	$6,131	$6,338	$7,063	$7,396	$7,800
	% change	10.6%	5.1%	3.4%	11.4%	4.7%	5.5%
APS 3	$ average	$6,851	$7,066	$7,329	$7,781	$8,433	$8,900
	% change	7.2%	3.1%	3.7%	6.2%	8.4%	5.5%
APS 4	$ average	$7,597	$7,740	$8,214	$8,773	$9,248	$9,698
	% change	6.4%	1.9%	6.1%	6.8%	5.4%	4.9%
APS 5	$ average	$8,666	$8,836	$9,368	$9,777	$10,506	$10,784
	% change	4.3%	2.0%	6.0%	4.4%	7.5%	2.6%
APS 6	$ average	$10,219	$10,520	$10,919	$11,444	$11,864	$12,387
	% change	4.6%	2.9%	3.8%	4.8%	3.7%	4.4%
EL 1	$ average	$13,045	$13,208	$14,122	$14,849	$15,009	$15,614
	% change	2.7%	1.2%	6.9%	5.1%	1.1%	4.0%
EL 2	$ average	$18,252	$17,908	$18,846	$19,778	$19,165	$19,755
	% change	7.7%	-1.9%	5.2%	4.9%	-3.1%	3.1%
Overall	% change	6.1%	4.0%	3.9%	7.6%	3.5%	4.3%

 

As can be seen from Table 6.3, average superannuation contribution movements across the different classifications vary considerably from year to year. There is a wide disparity in movements from 2005 to 2010, ranging from minus 7 per cent to 14.2 per cent. The overall average year-on-year movement for 2009 (3.5 per cent) was the lowest during this period, while the 2007 movement was the highest.

Total Reward (TR)

Table 6.4 shows the median TR for each classification from 2005 to 2010, as well as the year-on-year percentage movement.

Table 6.4 – Median TR from 2005 to 2010

Classification		2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
Graduate	$ median	$47,221	$50,666	$52,971	$58,152	$59,105	$61,287
	% change	3.9%	7.3%	4.5%	9.8%	1.6%	3.7%
APS 1	$ median	$38,032	$40,628	$41,507	$43,397	$46,544	$47,546
	% change	2.5%	6.8%	2.2%	4.6%	7.3%	2.2%
APS 2	$ median	$44,684	$46,339	$47,128	$50,996	$55,263	$57,125
	% change	3.8%	3.7%	1.7%	8.2%	8.4%	3.4%
APS 3	$ median	$50,732	$52,414	$53,864	$56,888	$60,281	$63,326
	% change	4.4%	3.3%	2.8%	5.6%	6.0%	5.1%
APS 4	$ median	$56,256	$58,685	$61,409	$64,265	$67,903	$70,408
	% change	2.9%	4.3%	4.6%	4.7%	5.7%	3.7%
APS 5	$ median	$62,337	$65,168	$68,393	$71,165	$75,319	$77,709
	% change	3.8%	4.5%	4.9%	4.1%	5.8%	3.2%
APS 6	$ median	$72,628	$76,027	$79,440	$82,737	$86,644	$90,005
	% change	3.5%	4.7%	4.5%	4.2%	4.7%	3.9%
EL 1	$ median	$92,024	$96,087	$101,339	$105,613	$109,784	$113,384
	% change	4.4%	4.4%	5.5%	4.2%	3.9%	3.3%
EL 2	$ median	$116,895	$120,918	$127,442	$134,074	$137,885	$141,170
	% change	4.5%	3.4%	5.4%	5.2%	2.8%	2.4%
Overall	% change	3.7%	4.7%	4.0%	5.6%	5.1%	3.4%

 

The overall movement of 3.4 per cent in 2010 is notably smaller than 2009, and is the lowest year-on-year movement since 2005. In 2010, the average movement varied from 2.2 per cent (APS 1) to 5.1 per cent (APS 3), a considerably narrower range than in 2009 (1.6 per cent to 8.4 per cent for Graduate and APS 2 employees, respectively).

 7  

Remuneration Policy Findings

Out of the 105 agencies that participated in the 2010 APS Remuneration Survey, 102 completed the HR Policies and Practices Questionnaire, and the information and analysis presented in this section is based on responses from those contributing agencies.

Non-SES Remuneration Strategy

A well-developed remuneration strategy is an essential component of any agency’s human resource and management policy framework. Such policies need to be consistent with, and reinforce, the agency’s broader business and HR strategies. It is equally important to communicate this strategy to all employees in order to obtain their understanding and commitment to it.

In 2010, 72 per cent of agencies reported that they had a formal non-SES remuneration strategy, a policy which was used as a basis for program design and pay decisions, which is a slight increase from 71 per cent in 2009. Of those agencies, 86 per cent indicated that they communicated the strategy to employees.

As can be seen in Table 7.1, in terms of the focus of remuneration strategy, 81 per cent of agencies reported managing remuneration at the Base Salary level (compared with 83 per cent in 2009), with 11 per cent using Base Salary plus performance bonuses (compared with 10 per cent in 2009). Unlike SES remuneration strategies, few agencies reported focusing on TRP or TR for non-SES employees. Only 3 per cent of agencies indicated that they use a TRP approach, and 4 per cent reported using a TR approach for non-SES employees.

Table 7.1 – Focus of Remuneration Strategy (% of Agencies)

	2009	2010
	n=41	n=79
Base Salary	83%	81%
Total Remuneration Package (TRP)	5%	3%
Base Salary and Performance Bonus	10%	11%
Performance Bonus	2%	1%
TRP and Performance Bonus (i.e. TR)	--	4%

Remuneration Benchmarking

In terms of managing and reviewing remuneration, agencies generally have a policy which reflects the:

§ groups or market sectors used for comparison and benchmarking purposes

§ targeted pay policy position or competitiveness (e.g. Q1, median, Q3 etc).

The following chart shows the comparator groups used by agencies to benchmark their remuneration levels for non-SES employees, split by employment instrument.

Chart 7.1 – Remuneration Benchmark Comparator Groups for non-SES Employees

As Chart 7.1 shows, the APS Remuneration Survey and/or selected public sector agencies were the most commonly used benchmarking comparators when setting remuneration arrangements for non-SES employees across all employment instruments, though they were particularly prevalent for employees appointed under an EA.

Table 7.2 shows the percentage of agencies who regarded various market sectors as key competitors for the attraction and retention of talented and experienced employees. As can be seen, the responses in 2010 are similar to 2009.

Table 7.2 – Key Competitors for the Attraction and Retention of Talent (% of Agencies)

	2009	2010
	n=56	n=101
Federal public sector	98%	94%
Other public sector (State or local government)	79%	73%
Government Business Enterprises	48%	39%
Private sector	57%	60%
Other	11%	9%

Most agencies reported benchmarking their remuneration for non-SES employees against other APS agencies and select public sector organisations at State and Territory level. As was the case in 2009, a considerable proportion of agencies also consider Government Business Enterprises (39 per cent) and the private sector (60 per cent) as competitors for the attraction and retention of staff.

Remuneration Management Practices

Definition and Setting of Remuneration

Tables 7.3 and 7.4 show the data for the minimum and maximum TRP values as defined by each agency at a policy level, according to employment instrument. As the data has been aggregated according to employment instrument, the statistics shown below will not necessarily reflect the actual amounts specified by any one agency.

Table 7.3 – Minimum TRP as Defined in Agencies’ Remuneration Policies in 2010

Classification	Employment Instrument	n	Q1	Median	Q3	Average
Graduate	EA	45	$48,772	$50,891	$52,987	$50,186
APS 1	EA	85	$37,695	$39,006	$39,821	$37,428
APS 2	EA	89	$43,540	$44,644	$45,671	$44,448
APS 3	EA	91	$49,804	$50,834	$51,855	$50,572
APS 4	EA	90	$55,368	$56,766	$57,972	$56,712
APS 5	EA	91	$61,703	$62,910	$64,202	$62,877
APS 6	EA	91	$67,651	$69,389	$71,023	$69,509
	S24(1)I	6	$68,212	$72,215	$81,512	$74,492
EL 1	EA	91	$84,921	$86,589	$88,381	$87,059
	S24(1)I	12	$85,361	$91,104	$101,791	$94,650
EL 2	EA	91	$98,359	$101,962	$104,819	$102,731
	S24(1)I	15	$102,977	$104,819	$124,528	$113,093

As Table 7.3 indicates, the spread of agencies’ minimum TRP values was quite varied, with the difference between Q1 and Q3 ranging from $2,050 (APS 3) to $21,550 (EL 2 on an

S24(1)I). Please note that data for this analysis was unable to be reported for other employment instruments in order to protect employee confidentiality.

 

 

Table 7.4 – Maximum TRP as Defined in Agencies’ Remuneration Policies in 2010

 

Classification	Employment Instrument	n	Q1	Median	Q3	Average
Graduate	EA	43	$50,039	$54,698	$60,162	$54,750
APS 1	EA	85	$42,638	$43,230	$44,185	$43,209
APS 2	EA	89	$48,390	$49,233	$50,439	$49,243
APS 3	EA	90	$54,015	$55,146	$56,836	$55,536
APS 4	EA	90	$60,246	$61,507	$62,809	$61,863
APS 5	EA	91	$65,948	$67,479	$69,087	$68,085
APS 6	EA	91	$77,353	$78,806	$81,562	$80,260
	S24(1)I	5	$76,384	$83,719	$100,815	$87,623
EL 1	EA	91	$94,790	$98,661	$104,056	$100,375
	S24(1)I	12	$99,062	$104,507	$111,824	$106,792
EL 2	EA	91	$117,677	$120,910	$128,768	$126,876
	S24(1)I	14	$117,716	$133,334	$144,295	$136,263

As can be seen from Table 7.4, agencies’ stated maximum TRP values are also quite varied, with the spread from Q1 to Q3 being in the range $1,500 (APS 1) to ~$26,600 (EL 2 on an

S24(1)I). Again, data for this analysis was unable to be reported for other employment instruments to protect employee confidentiality.

Ongoing remuneration management also involves agencies making decisions about starting salaries, both for new engagements and/or for employees moving into a higher classification. Table 7.5 shows the percentage of agencies reporting the use of particular methods of determining starting salaries.

Table 7.5 – Determining Starting Salaries in 2010

Classification	Grad	APS 1	APS 2	APS 3	APS 4	APS 5	APS 6	EL 1	EL 2
	n=54	n=88	n=92	n=96	n=99	n=100	n=100	n=101	n=101
At the discretion of the Agency head	6%	7%	7%	6%	8%	9%	9%	12%	14%
Using market data	2%	--	--	--	1%	1%	1%	1%	1%
In line with others in the agency at the same classification	6%	6%	5%	5%	5%	5%	5%	4%	3%
Job evaluation	--	--	--	--	1%	--	--	--	--
At the minimum of the classification	74%	86%	87%	88%	84%	84%	84%	82%	79%
Other	13%	1%	1%	1%	1%	1%	1%	1%	3%

As with previous years, Table 7.5 shows that the majority of agencies set starting salaries at the minimum of the classification, across all classifications. A higher proportion of Agency Heads in 2010 exercised their discretion in setting remuneration, presumably on a case by base basis, than in 2009. However, it is likely that in exercising their discretion, Agency Heads would be cognisant of their agency’s minimum salary points and the salaries of other employees within that classification.

Superannuation

Data presented in Section 3 indicates that many employees have a different salary for superannuation purposes than their Base Salary as at 31 December 2010. Nineteen per cent of agencies allowed employees to negotiate a salary for superannuation purposes that was different to their Base Salary, considerably lower than the 28 per cent in 2009.

For the CSS and PSS superannuation schemes, 17 per cent of agencies allowed employees to have a higher salary for superannuation purposes, which is lower than the reported 29 per cent in 2009. For PSSAP and AGEST superannuation funds, the proportion of agencies allowing for higher employer superannuation contributions was 42 per cent, down from 44 per cent in 2009.

Non-SES Agreements

This section provides a snapshot of terms and conditions for non-SES employees in 2010.

Since its introduction on 1 July 2009, section 172 of the Fair Work Act 2009 has provided for the making of enterprise agreements. Table 7.6 shows that 61 per cent of agencies employ staff under an Enterprise Agreement governed by the Fair Work Act 2009. In 2009, 51 per cent of agencies employed staff under a union collective agreement (s328); however, due to the introduction and subsequent uptake of enterprise agreements under the Fair Work Act 2009, this figure has significantly reduced in 2010 to 18 per cent. Of the remaining agencies, 4 per cent operate under a Workplace Relations Act 1996 union certified agreement (s170LJ) and 2 per cent under a Workplace Relations Act 1996 employee certified agreement (s170LK).

Table 7.6 – Agreements Made Under the Federal Workplace Relations Legislation

n=101	2010
Enterprise Agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009	61%
s327 (under the WR Act)	9%
s328 (under the WR Act)	18%
s170LJ (under the WR Act)	4%
s170LK (under the WR Act)	2%
Not Applicable	7%
Other	3%

Fifteen per cent of agencies offered Individual Section 24(1) Determinations to employees in particular classifications, compared with only 1 per cent of agencies offering Common Law Agreements. In comparison to 2009, fewer agencies in 2010 offered Individual Section 24(1) Determinations and fewer agencies offered Common Law Agreements.

 

 

 Performance and Reward Linkages

 

Performance System

Table 7.7 shows the proportion of agencies that have in place a formal goal setting and performance appraisal process, according to employment instrument. Similar to 2009, 96 per cent of agencies reported having a formal goal setting and performance appraisal process in place for EA employees. For AWA employees, this percentage has reduced from 92 per cent of agencies in 2009 to 69 per cent in 2010.

Table 7.7 – Formal Goal Setting and Performance Appraisal

	EA	AWA	S24(1)C	S24(1)I	Other
	n=93	n=48	n=25	n=40	n=27
% of Agencies	96%	69%	28%	55%	30%

Performance Rating Scales

Table 7.8 shows the percentage of agencies that use performance rating scales and also the proportion that used them to determine performance bonus payments, according to the relevant employment instrument. Similar to 2009, most agencies used performance rating scales for EA and AWA employees, with comparatively fewer agencies using these performance rating scales to determine the amount of an employee’s performance bonus payment. There were notably fewer agencies using rating scales to determine performance ratings (23 per cent fewer) for those employed under an Individual S24(1) agreement, and similarly, 24 per cent fewer agencies used rating scales to determine bonus payments under this employment instrument.

Table 7.8 – Use of Rating Scale for Performance Pay Arrangements in 2010

	EA	AWA	S24(1)C	S24(1)I
	n=73-75	n=38	n=20-21	n=32-34
Used for performance ratings	79%	58%	10%	41%
Used to determine performance bonus eligibility	34%	47%	5%	26%

According to Table 7.9, for most agencies, the number of main points contained within the appraisal rating scale for other employment instruments was the same as those contained in the EA, except for those employed under ‘Other’ employment instruments. However, a higher proportion of agencies reported this finding in 2009 than in 2010.

Table 7.9 – Number of Points Contained Within the Appraisal Rating Scale in Other Employment Instruments Compared to EA

n=9-31	Same	Different
Australian Workplace Agreements	77%	23%
Collective Section 24(1)	56%	44%
Individual Section 24(1)	78%	22%
Common Law Agreements	78%	22%
Other	16%	81%

For those agencies using the same rating scale as the EA, there are only minor differences across classifications, as shown in Table 7.10. Similar to 2009, rating scales with either four or five points were the most frequently used. However, compared to 2009, there was a decrease in the use of a 3-points rating scale and an increase in the use of a 5-points rating scale.

Table 7.10 – Points Contained Within Appraisal Rating Scale When the Same as EA

n=40-60	2 points	3 points	4 points	5 points	More than 5 points
Graduate	3%	23%	25%	45%	5%
APS 1	2%	20%	25%	47%	6%
APS 2	2%	19%	25%	49%	6%
APS 3	2%	18%	27%	48%	5%
APS 4	2%	18%	26%	49%	5%
APS 5	2%	17%	26%	50%	5%
APS 6	2%	17%	26%	50%	5%
EL 1	2%	17%	25%	50%	7%
EL 2	0%	18%	25%	48%	8%

Tables 7.11 and 7.12 show the number of main points within the appraisal system for employees engaged under AWAs and Individual S24(1) Determinations, where the number of main points was the same as the EA.

For the three to 10 agencies in Table 7.11 which used the same rating scale for AWA employees (as for EA employees), there were notable differences in the number of main points across classifications. The most common scale for AWA employees was one that utilised more than five points.

Table 7.11 – Points Contained Within Appraisal Rating Scale in AWAs When the Same as EA

n=3-10	2 points	3 points	4 points	5 points	More than 5 points
Graduate	--	--	--	--	--
APS 1	--	--	--	--	--
APS 2	--	--	--	--	--
APS 3	25%	25%	--	25%	25%
APS 4	--	20%	20%	20%	40%
APS 5	--	25%	--	25%	50%
APS 6	0%	33%	17%	17%	33%
EL 1	0%	14%	29%	14%	43%
EL 2	0%	20%	20%	30%	30%

Although variation in the number of points across classifications also exists for

Individual S24(1) employees, as seen in Table 7.12, it is less than the variation for AWA employees. The most frequently used scale for Individual S24(1) employees was a 5-point scale.

Table 7.12 – Points Contained Within Appraisal Rating Scale in Individual S24(1) Determinations When the Same as EA

n=5-7	2 points	3 points	4 points	5 points	More than 5 points
Graduate	--	20%	--	60%	20%
APS 1	--	20%	--	60%	20%
APS 2	--	20%	--	60%	20%
APS 3	--	20%	--	60%	20%
APS 4	--	20%	--	60%	20%
APS 5	--	20%	--	60%	20%
APS 6	--	17%	17%	50%	17%
EL 1	--	14%	14%	57%	14%
EL 2	--	14%	--	71%	14%

Table 7.13 shows the performance rating(s) required to receive a performance bonus, according to employment instrument. For EA, AWA and Individual S24(1) employees, the majority of agencies required a ‘satisfactory’ level of performance to receive a performance payment, although some required a higher rating of ‘superior/outstanding’. Due to an insufficient sample size, to protect confidentiality of participants, no data could be reported for those employees under a CLA. However, in 2009, for CLA employees, 50 per cent of agencies required an above satisfactory performance rating in order to receive a bonus payment.

Table 7.13 – Performance Level Required to Receive a Bonus Payment in 2010

	EA	AWA	S24(1)C	S24(1)I	CLA	Other
	n=30	n=22	n=2	n=12	n=3	n=10
Above satisfactory performance (e.g. superior/outstanding)	30%	27%	--	17%	--	20%
Satisfactory performance (e.g. fully effective/effective)	57%	45%	--	58%	--	40%
No rating specified	3%	--	--	--	--	--
Other	10%	27%	--	25%	--	40%

Table 7.14 shows the performance rating(s) required to receive a maximum performance payment, according to employment instrument. Similar to 2009, the majority of agencies required a performance rating of ‘outstanding’ to provide a maximum performance bonus payment – a trend which is most pronounced for EA and AWA employees.

Table 7.14 – Performance Level Required to Receive a Maximum Bonus Payment in 2010

	EA	AWA	S24(1)C	S24(1)I	CLA	Other
	n=29	n=22	n=2	n=11	n=3	n=7
Outstanding (e.g. far exceeds)	62%	59%	--	45%	--	57%
Superior (e.g. exceeds)	14%	14%	--	9%	--	--
Above satisfactory (e.g. highly effective)	3%	--	--	--	--	--
Satisfactory (e.g. effective)	14%	5%	--	18%	--	--
No rating specified	--	--	--	--	--	--
Other	7%	23%	--	27%	--	43%

Performance Pay Eligibility

Within the APS, formal links between performance and reward have been a common element of SES and non-SES remuneration strategies for some years. Table 7.15 shows the percentage of agencies whose non-SES employees are eligible for performance bonuses according to employment instrument.

Table 7.15 – Eligibility for Performance Bonuses (% of Agencies) in 2010

Classification	EA	AWA	S24(1)C	S24(1)I	CLA	Other2
	n1=75-96	n=33-47	n=29-32	n=28-41	n=27-31	n=25-28
Graduate	13%	6%	--	4%	--	4%
APS 1	24%	8%	6%	7%	--	8%
APS 2	24%	11%	6%	6%	--	8%
APS 3	28%	17%	6%	9%	4%	8%
APS 4	27%	24%	6%	15%	7%	8%
APS 5	27%	22%	6%	12%	7%	8%
APS 6	29%	26%	6%	18%	7%	8%
EL 1	30%	30%	3%	22%	10%	15%
EL 2	35%	34%	6%	24%	13%	18%

¹ n represents the number of agencies which responded to the question and is expressed as a range because not all agencies responded to every option.

² Other includes individual flexibility agreements.

As can be seen from Table 7.15, performance bonuses were used more extensively for EA and AWA employees and employees at higher classification levels. The proportion of agencies using performance bonuses decreased since 2009 for employees under AWA, S.24(1)C and S.24(1)I agreements, but increased for those under EA, CLA and Other agreements.

Performance Bonus Determination and Payment

Table 7.16 shows how the performance bonus is determined for non-SES employees, according to employment instrument. Bonuses are typically determined as a percentage of the non-SES employee’s remuneration, which was a similar finding to previous years.

Table 7.16 – Determining the Performance Bonus Amount in 2010

	EA	AWA	S24(1)C	S24(1)I	Other
	n=30	n=21	n=3	n=10	n=10
Percentage of bonus pool	--	--	--	--	--
Percentage of employee's remuneration	70%	71%	--	60%	80%
$ value	13%	10%	--	10%	--
Discretionary	--	5%	--	--	--
Other	17%	14%	--	30%	20%

 

 

When performance bonuses were paid to employees the majority were paid as a cash lump sum, as shown in Table 7.17.

 

Table 7.17 – Performance Bonus Payment Method (% of Agencies)

	EA	AWA	S24(1)C	S24(1)I	Other
	n=38	n=22	n=3	n=11	n=11
Cash lump sum	66%	77%	--	73%	55%
Increase in base salary	29%	18%	--	9%	9%
Other	5%	5%	--	18%	36%

 

Retention Bonuses

As has been reported in Section 2, the incidence of non-SES employees receiving retention bonuses is low, and not all eligible employees received such payments. According to agencies’ remuneration policies, eligibility was higher at the higher classification levels, as can be seen in Chart 7.2.

Chart 7.2 – Eligibility for Retention Bonuses (% of Agencies)

Agencies reported a substantial increase in the proportion of eligible non-SES employees who received a retention bonus in 2010. The receipt of retention bonus payments in 2009 ranged from 0 per cent of employees at APS 1, APS 2 and APS 3 to 3.5 per cent of employees at EL 2, whereas payments in 2010 (refer Table 7.18 overleaf) ranged from an average of 15 per cent (across five agencies) of APS 2 employees to 23 per cent (across 15 agencies) of APS 4 and APS 5 employees.

 

 

Table 7.18 – Non-SES Employees Who Received Retention Bonus Payments

 

Classification	Number of Agencies	Average % of Employees
Graduate	5	20%
APS 1	11	18%
APS 2	12	15%
APS 3	12	17%
APS 4	15	23%
APS 5	15	23%
APS 6	17	19%
EL 1	22	20%
EL 2	23	16%

The most common criteria for offering a retention bonus to employees were the need for specialist skills (59 per cent of agencies), retention of employees (56 per cent) and criticality to a project (47 per cent).

Even though many agencies have policies in place governing retention bonuses for non-SES employees, the incidence of such payments is low (at all classification levels, less than a quarter of employees received such payments, although the amounts paid may be significant).

Graduate Program

Forty-four per cent of agencies reported having a formal Graduate program in place, which was a 12 per cent decrease from 2009. As can be seen from Table 7.19, the majority of Graduates commence on the same Base Salary, with qualifications also having some level of influence.

Table 7.19 – Determining Graduate Starting Salaries

	n=48
All graduates commence on the same salary	69%
At the discretion of the Agency Head	4%
Dependent on qualifications held	17%
Using market data from remuneration surveys	--
In line with others in the agency in the same classification	8%
Other	2%

On satisfactory completion of the training program, the majority of agencies (51 per cent) place their Graduates at the APS 4 classification. Some 30 per cent of agencies advance their Graduates to the APS 5 classification, with 19 per cent placing them at the APS 3 classification.

 8  

APS Employee Demographics

This section provides an analysis of the age distribution and number of years at the current agency according to classification level, as well as the number of years at the current classification level.

This is only the second time this data has been included in the APS Remuneration Surveys. It is hoped that this data could assist agencies with future development of workforce planning and management strategies.

Age Distribution

Table 8.1 shows the percentage of non-SES employees which fall within each of the age brackets according to classification level. A large majority of Graduates (~89 per cent) are aged 21-30 years, similar to 2009 (~88 per cent). From APS 2 to APS 6, the demographic profile of the APS workforce is relatively similar, with the majority of employees fairly evenly distributed between the ages of 21 to 60 years of age. Overall, an average of ~23 per cent of non-SES employees are age 51 or over, and are therefore either eligible for or approaching retirement. As expected, the proportion of employees in this age bracket is higher at more senior levels. For example, ~29 per cent of EL 1 and EL 2 employees are older than 51. This figure has increased marginally since 2009 (~28 per cent) and continues to pose a significant workforce planning consideration for the APS.

Table 8.1 – Classification by Age Bracket

Classification	Age Bracket (% Employees)
	<= 20	21-30	31-40	41-50	51-60	61-70	>70
Graduate	0.1	89.7	8.6	0.9	0.6	0.1	--
APS 1	14.7	29.5	13.6	19.5	17.0	5.5	0.2
APS 2	3.8	20.9	16.5	27.5	23.9	7.0	0.3
APS 3	1.3	25.5	24.6	25.2	19.1	4.2	0.1
APS 4	0.5	26.6	25.4	25.7	18.0	3.7	0.1
APS 5	0.0	22.4	26.9	27.0	20.0	3.6	0.1
APS 6	0.0	18.5	29.0	28.5	20.6	3.4	0.1
EL 1	--	9.0	31.8	32.9	22.6	3.7	0.0
EL 2	--	1.8	24.2	39.4	30.3	4.2	0.0

Number of Years at Current Classification Level

Table 8.2 shows the distribution in the number of years non-SES employees have spent at their current classification level. As was the case in 2009, at the median and average, Graduate employees have been at that classification level for one year. At all other classification levels, the median and average number of years employees have been at their current classification level is generally between three and six years.

Table 8.2 – Number of Years at Current Classification Level*

Classification	n	Min	Q1	Median	Q3	Max	Average
Graduate	555	1	1	1	1	5	1
APS 1	830	1	1	3	6	37	5
APS 2	3,294	1	2	5	9	41	6
APS 3	15,819	1	2	4	8	34	6
APS 4	14,362	1	2	3	7	31	5
APS 5	14,048	1	2	3	6	35	4
APS 6	18,346	1	2	3	6	37	4
EL 1	17,167	1	2	4	6	44	5
EL 2	8,458	1	2	4	7	42	5

* Incumbents at their current classification level for less than 6 months are not included in this analysis

Number of Years at Current Agency

Table 8.3 shows the distribution in the number of years non-SES employees have spent at their current agency. Generally, a similar trend exists to that described for tenure at current classification level, though on a larger scale. At the median and average, Graduate employees have been at their current agency for one year. At all other classification levels, the median number of years employees have been at their current agency is generally between four and nine years, while the average is somewhat higher at eight to 11 years.

Table 8.3 – Number of Years at Current Agency*

Classification	n	Min	Q1	Median	Q3	Max	Average
Graduate	120	1	1	1	1	8	1
APS 1	864	1	2	4	15	42	9
APS 2	3,679	1	3	7	16	49	10
APS 3	16,558	1	3	5	10	49	8
APS 4	17,032	1	3	5	10	48	8
APS 5	17,842	1	3	7	13	50	9
APS 6	23,776	1	3	6	12	58	9
EL 1	21,518	1	3	7	13	53	10
EL 2	10,496	1	4	9	17	51	11

* Incumbents at their current agency for less than 6 months are not included in this analysis

 

Appendix A  

Survey Participants and Sample Size

A total of 105 agencies participated in the 2010 APS Remuneration Survey, almost double the number that participated in 2009 (58). Of these 105, 57 agencies participated in 2009, with 48 new agencies participating in 2010. Only one agency that participated in 2009 did not participate in 2010.

 

Table A.1 – Survey Participants in 2010 (n=105)

Aboriginal Hostels Limited	Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
Administrative Appeals Tribunal	Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government
Attorney-General's Department	Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism
Australian Agency for International Development	Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
Australian Bureau of Statistics	Department of the House of Representatives
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research	Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity	Department of the Treasury
Australian Communications and Media Authority	Department of Veterans' Affairs
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission	Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency
Australian Crime Commission	Fair Work Australia
Australian Customs & Border Protection Service	Family Court of Australia
Australian Electoral Commission	Federal Court of Australia
Australian Fisheries Management Authority	Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
Australian Human Rights Commission	Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies	Future Fund Management Agency
Australian Institute of Family Studies	Geoscience Australia
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare	Great Barrier Marine Park Authority
Australian National Audit Office	Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia
Australian National Maritime Museum	IP Australia
Australian Office of Financial Management	Medicare Australia
Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplant Authority	Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority	Murray Darling Basin Authority
Australian Public Service Commission	Museum of Australian Democracy Old Parliament House
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency	National Archives of Australia
Australian Research Council	National Blood Authority
Australian Securities and Investments Commission	National Capital Authority
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority	National Competition Council
Australian Taxation Office	National Film and Sound Archive
Australian Trade Commission (Austrade)	National Health and Medical Research Council
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre	National Library of Australia
Australian Transport and Safety Bureau	National Museum of Australia
Australian War Memorial	National Native Title Tribunal
Bureau of Meteorology	National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority
Cancer Australia	National Water Commission
Centrelink	Office of National Assessment
ComCare	Office of Parliamentary Counsel
Commonwealth Grants Commission	Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner
Commonwealth Superannuation Administration (ComSuper)	Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
CrimTrac	Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
CRS Australia	Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman
Defence Housing Australia	Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry	Office of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy	Office of the Inspector General of Taxation
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency	Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator
Department of Defence	Private Health Insurance Ombudsman
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations	Productivity (Industry) Commission
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs	Professional Services Review
Department of Finance and Deregulation	Royal Australian Mint
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade	Safe Work Australia
Department of Health and Ageing	Screen Australia
Department of Human Services	Torres Strait Regional Authority
Department of Immigration and Citizenship	Wheat Exports Australia
Department of Infrastructure andTransport

Table A.2 – Participating Agencies in 2010 but not in 2009 (n=48)

Aboriginal Hostels Limited	Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Administrative Appeals Tribunal	Future Fund Management Agency
Australian Agency for International Development	Great Barrier Marine Park Authority
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research	Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity	IP Australia
Australian Fisheries Management Authority	Migration Review Tribunial and Refugee Review Tribunial
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies	National Competition Council
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare	National Library of Australia
Australian National Maritime Museum	National Museum of Australia
Australian Office of Financial Management	National Native Title Tribunal
Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplant Authority	National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency	Office of Parliamentary Counsel
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority	Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre	Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Australian War Memorial	Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Bureau of Meteorology	Office of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security
Cancer Australia	Office of the Inspector General of Taxation
Defence Housing Australia	Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency	Private Health Insurance Ombudsman
Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency	Professional Services Review
Fair Work Australia	Royal Australian Mint
Family Court of Australia	Screen Australia
Federal Court of Australia	Torres Strait Regional Authority
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia	Wheat Exports Australia

 

Table A.3 – Participating Agencies in 2009 but not in 2010 (n=1)

Ministerial and Parliamentary Services

 

 

Sample Size

 

The following table shows the number of records provided for the non-SES group. As agencies were able to submit a 100 per cent sample with Mercer conducting the sampling for them, the total number of records provided is higher than the number of sampled records, which comprise the APS-wide database for non-SES. Of the 151,662 non-SES records provided, 130,153 comprised Mercer’s APS-wide non-SES sample. This is a larger sample size compared with 2009 (138,529 and 117,011, respectively). In 2009, the sampling model was modified to better reflect the change in the proportion of the primary employment instruments under which APS employees were engaged, and this model was also used in 2010. The result is a more realistic cross-section of the overall APS workforce. All data submitted by agencies was used in the preparation of each agency’s Individual Agency Report.

 

Table A.4 – Non-SES Sample Size

	Classification
	Grad	APS 1	APS 2	APS 3	APS 4	APS 5	APS 6	EL 1	EL 2	Total
Total for 2010 provided	1,297	1,529	4,834	21,140	31,162	20,886	31,452	26,703	12,659	151,662
Total for 2010 APS sample	1,297	1,529	4,737	19,760	19,687	20,167	26,978	24,309	11,689	130,153
Total for 2009 sample	1,281	1,138	4,291	20,143	18,303	18,623	24,097	20,836	9,580	118,292

 

Appendix B  

Survey Methodology

In 2010, the government mandated that all APS agencies participate in the APS Remuneration Survey. Agencies were invited to attend survey briefings held in Sydney and Canberra in January 2010. The briefings informed agencies about the project and prepared them for the data collection phase. Detailed instructions and information booklets were distributed to all agencies, including those agencies unable to attend the briefing session.

Data Collection

Participating agency staff completed all of the following:

§ SES Remuneration Input Spreadsheet

§ Non-SES Remuneration Input Spreadsheet

§ HR Policies and Practices Questionnaire.

 

To ensure the accuracy of data collected from agencies, Mercer performed several integrity checks prior to including agency data in the database. Checks were conducted for the following:

§ face validity: to ensure the data was consistent and had no obvious errors or omissions

§ range validity: to check that the data fell within realistic ranges

§ visual data checking: for accuracy and consistency, using our detailed knowledge and experience acquired through many years of remuneration analysis in the public sector.

 

 

Data Analysis and Validation

 

Agencies submitted a dataset on spreadsheets provided by Mercer. Each dataset was analysed and validated using the following steps:

§ each record was checked for valid input for each compulsory field

§ each field was checked to ensure the entry corresponded with the instructions

§ outlier analysis was undertaken for Base Salary using Boxplots (Tukey method).Note: records were classified as outliers if they were greater than the upper whisker or less than the lower whisker. These ranges were set at 2.5 times the inter-quartile range either side of the median

§ records that were flagged as outliers or were outside expected ranges in other collection fields or data input errors were returned to the agencies for verification and/or correction

§ outliers that were verified or corrected by agencies were then included in the overall dataset for analysis

§ Mercer calculated the full value of each individual’s remuneration package

§ Mercer submitted a sample of all key data to the statistics department of the University of New South Wales for review of all calculations performed. In total, nearly 2,000 calculations were checked, with 100 per cent of calculations being confirmed as accurate to the precise dollar

§ individual agencies were provided with basic agency-specific data tables for review and sign-off

§ the overall dataset was finalised only after all verifications and corrections were received.

The majority of the statistical analysis undertaken is descriptive in nature (i.e. frequencies, averages, medians, percentiles). Tests of significance between groups were also performed for the analysis of data by various parameters.

All analyses and report formats are based on requirements as specified by the APSC. Prior to releasing the final report, Mercer and APSC agreed on all items to be included in the analyses. Mercer presented a summary of initial findings and draft reports to the APSC for review. However, Mercer retains full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of all data presented in this report.

Please note that where a range is provided for ‘n’ (the number of agencies or individuals providing data for a specific question/item), it reflects that not all respondents provided data for each possible option. This is most likely the result of some participating agencies not having staff at all classifications, resulting in the non-applicability of particular response categories.

Missing Data

The following approach has been used to represent missing, suppressed or ‘zero’ returns:

§ where fewer than three agencies provide a component (i.e. data is suppressed to ensure confidentiality) the symbol ‘--’ is used

§ where no data is provided, a ‘-’ is used

§ where a zero value is returned, the number zero (‘0’) is shown.

 

 

Motor Vehicle Calculations

 

Mercer has utilised two methods to determine vehicle costs. Where agencies have provided full costs, Mercer has used those figures in the analysis. Where agencies were unable to provide full vehicle costs, Mercer has costed the vehicles using the Mercer Car Formula 2010/2011, based on the purchase prices of the motor vehicles and the degree of usage the employee has of the vehicle. Mercer’s 2010/2011 Car Formula is reproduced in Appendix C.

The Mercer Car Formula is a market-based methodology for valuing the package cost of a motor vehicle, taking into account purchase price, lease costs, running costs and FBT. The formula applies a number of consistent assumptions to all vehicles to enable data comparisons. Purchase prices were calculated by Mercer using the make, model and year as provided by each agency.

Mercer has costed each vehicle according to the level of availability of the vehicle to the employee to whom it is provided. For example, a car will only be costed to a package at full market value if the employee has full private and unrestricted usage of the car. Where an employee is required to make the car available for use by other employees at certain times, the car has been costed at less than the full market value.

Appendix C  

Additional Notes and Definitions

Confidentiality

Mercer is aware of the confidential nature of the information provided and stresses that we appreciate and protect this.

 

Mercer’s commitment to ensuring confidentiality is exemplified clearly by the following factors:

§ to protect confidentiality, for APS-wide statistics where fewer than three agencies provide a component, no data is shown. In these circumstances, this is indicated by the symbol ‘--‘, while the ‘per cent Rep’ column will indicate the percentage of the sample provided with the component

§ Mercer reserves the right not to change the names of recipients of our surveys unless authorised to do so in writing. This is to prevent confidential survey information being provided to unauthorised personnel.

 

For the calculation of APS-wide statistics, several criteria—including the number of records and the number of agencies—were adopted to preserve confidentiality, as shown below:

§ average – at least three records from at least three agencies

§ Q1, median, Q3 – four or more records from four or more agencies

§ maximum and minimum – more than 10 records from four or more agencies.

 

The above APS-wide criteria were used in the preparation of this report, as well as the SES Remuneration Survey Report, Broader Market Comparison Report and the Individual Agency Reports.

 

 

Glossary

 

Remuneration Items

Base Salary

Base Salary represents full time equivalent annualised PAYG salary. It includes pre-tax employee superannuation contributions made by salary sacrifice and any additional salary sacrifice amounts for other benefits. It excludes all other cash components such as bonuses and allowances.

Bonuses

At a practical level, terms ‘bonus’ and ‘incentive’ are often used interchangeably. For the purposes of consistency throughout the 2010 APS Remuneration Survey, performance-based payments have been referred to as ‘bonuses’ even though in the APS they are often related to achievement of key performance indicators and hence meet the defining criteria of incentives. Performance-based bonuses in the private sector would more likely be referred to as incentives.

Total Remuneration Package (TRP)

TRP is defined as Base Salary plus the value of any benefits such as superannuation and motor vehicles, plus FBT on all benefit items. It does not include any bonus payments.

Total Reward (TR)

TR is TRP plus bonus payments.

Statistical Terms

Average

The average is the arithmetic mean, calculated by summing all values and dividing by the number of values.

 

First Quartile/Q1

The first quartile or 25^th percentile (Q1) is the mid-point of the lower half of the sample. That is, the first quartile is the point where 25 per cent of the cases fall below and where

75 per cent of the cases fall above.

Median

The median is the midpoint of a range of figures. It is calculated by sorting all the values into ascending order, then locating the value where 50 per cent of the cases fall below and where 50 per cent of the scores fall above.

Third Quartile/Q3

The third quartile or 75^th percentile (Q3) is the mid-point of the upper half of the sample. That is, the third quartile is the point where 75 per cent of the cases fall below and where

25 per cent of the cases fall above.

Percentile

A percentile is calculated by dividing the distribution of a set of scores into 100 equal parts. Hence, at the 5^th percentile, 5 per cent of the sample falls below this point, and 95 per cent of the sample is above. The 95^th percentile is the value at which 95 per cent of the sample fall below, and 5 per cent of the sample are above.

Standard Deviation (SD)

SD is used to measure the spread of data from the average. The SD is sensitive to outliers, so where significant outliers are present this can significantly increase the SD. The greater the spread of data, the higher the SD value.

Symbols

The symbol ~ means ‘approximately’.

Within +10 per cent refers to a range between 90 per cent and 110 per cent of a figure.

 

 

Car Formula – 2010/2011

 

Purchase Price* × 0.309 + $4,514** + ***[0.097 × (P* − $57,466)]

* GST inclusive purchase price

** GST exclusive running costs (i.e. after input tax credits)

*** Only use the second part of the formula if P (original purchase price) is greater than the depreciation limit

NB: This formula does not include FBT.

 

Assumptions:

Cost of Funds	10.57%	Changeover	3 years
Depreciation	22.60%	Registration and Insurance	$1,558**
Annual Kilometres	16,000	Corporate Tax Rate	30%
Depreciation Limit	$57,466	Cost of Petrol(cents/litre)	124.42 (weighted average of 8 capital cities @ June 2010)

Running Costs:

Car Size	Engine Size	Cents/Km	Total Running costs****
Light	up to 1.6 litres	13.80**	$3,765**
Small	1.6 – 2.0 litres	16.16**	$4,143**
Medium	2.1 – 3.0 litres	18.13**	$4,459**
Large	3.1 – 4.0 litres	18.47**	$4,514**
Very Large	Over 4.0 litres	27.87**	$6,017**
**** Total running costs equal the sum of the running costs plus registration and insurance costs

FBT Calculation = Purchase Price × 2.0647 × 0.465 × Statutory Fraction

Total Kms Travelled in the FBT Year		Statutory Fraction
Less than 15,000		0.26
15,000 to 24,999		0.20
25,000 to 40,000		0.11
More than 40,000		0.07

Appendix D  

Remuneration Outcomes by Various Parameters

As has been the case in previous reports, in addition to the remuneration information, data concerning agency size, work location (by State) and job family have also been collected.

Mercer has conducted a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test to determine whether differences observed in the average TRPs for each of these groups was significant. The following tables reflect these analyses, which essentially assess whether the null hypotheses—that all the averages are the same—should be accepted or rejected.

The greater the ‘F’ value, the lower the probability that the observed differences could have occurred by chance. If the differences in the averages for each category could have occurred by chance in less than 1 per cent of occurrences (p≤ .01), we could safely reject the null hypothesis.

 

 

Agency Size

 

The table below analyses TRP by size of agency (using employee numbers).

Table D.1 – Average TRP levels by Agency Size in 2010

Agency Size	Classification
	Grad	APS 1	APS 2	APS 3	APS 4	APS 5	APS 6	EL 1	EL 2
Less than 100	--	--	$51,391	$59,549	$69,759	$76,480	$87,940	$118,692	$170,804
100 to 499	$64,463	$40,785	$54,462	$60,555	$68,431	$75,642	$87,837	$110,588	$141,216
500 to 999	$60,807	$45,996	$54,225	$61,398	$69,259	$76,760	$88,178	$110,547	$139,006
1,000 to 2,499	$63,121	$46,605	$55,312	$62,342	$69,352	$77,304	$88,543	$112,864	$140,471
2,500 or more	$61,824	$48,079	$57,202	$63,442	$70,826	$77,580	$89,651	$112,461	$142,105
% difference min/max	6.0%	17.9%	11.3%	6.5%	3.5%	2.6%	2.1%	7.4%	22.9%
F	1.612	25.641	39.896	90.073	105.373	78.505	38.658	13.791	12.453
p	0.128	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01
significance	ns	sg	sg	sg	sg	sg	sg	sg	sg

The difference in average TRP levels between the small, medium and large agencies is statistically significant for all classifications. Agencies with more than 2,500 employees generally had higher average TRP values than other agency size categories for all levels except Graduate and EL 1. The smallest agency category had the lowest average TRP for APS 2 and APS 3 classifications. The variance between the highest and lowest paying agencies ranged from 2.1 per cent (APS 6) to 22.9 per cent (EL 2).

Tables D.2 to D.10 provide Q1, median and Q3 statistics for Base Salary and TRP for all non-SES classifications by agency size.

Table D.2 – Graduate Base Salary and TRP by Agency Size in 2010

Number of Employees		Q1	Median	Q3
Less than 100	Base Salary	--	--	--
(n=0)	TRP	--	--	--
100 to 499	Base Salary	$49,060	$57,165	$61,703
(n=64)	TRP	$57,721	$66,024	$69,096
500 to 999	Base Salary	$50,302	$53,324	$54,269
(n=86)	TRP	$58,049	$61,116	$62,404
1,000 to 2,499	Base Salary	$51,724	$56,750	$57,568
(n=298)	TRP	$59,457	$65,612	$65,883
2,500 or more	Base Salary	$50,471	$53,040	$57,660
(n=849)	TRP	$58,244	$61,028	$65,824

 

 

Table D.3 – APS 1 Base Salary and TRP by Agency Size in 2010

 

Number of Employees		Q1	Median	Q3
Less than 100	Base Salary	--	--	--
(n=2)	TRP	--	--	--
100 to 499	Base Salary	$34,095	$35,473	$36,963
(n=294)	TRP	$37,905	$40,368	$41,853
500 to 999	Base Salary	$39,166	$39,556	$42,815
(n=31)	TRP	$41,605	$46,470	$50,054
1,000 to 2,499	Base Salary	$39,086	$40,117	$42,805
(n=131)	TRP	$45,105	$46,295	$49,501
2,500 or more	Base Salary	$39,006	$42,285	$44,413
(n=1071)	TRP	$45,012	$48,797	$51,505

Table D.4 – APS 2 Base Salary and TRP by Agency Size in 2010

Number of Employees		Q1	Median	Q3
Less than 100	Base Salary	--	--	--
(n=19)	TRP	--	--	--
100 to 499	Base Salary	$44,644	$47,092	$49,335
(n=464)	TRP	$51,197	$54,971	$57,426
500 to 999	Base Salary	$44,867	$48,239	$48,974
(n=452)	TRP	$51,777	$54,798	$56,049
1,000 to 2,499	Base Salary	$45,700	$48,561	$49,717
(n=674)	TRP	$52,542	$55,907	$57,098
2,500 or more	Base Salary	$47,468	$50,471	$50,471
(n=3,128)	TRP	$54,778	$58,244	$59,494

Table D.5 – APS 3 Base Salary and TRP by Agency Size in 2010

Number of Employees		Q1	Median	Q3
Less than 100	Base Salary	$49,943	$51,635	$53,227
(n=61)	TRP	$57,634	$59,587	$62,302
100 to 499	Base Salary	$50,850	$52,770	$54,880
(n=827)	TRP	$58,172	$60,815	$63,177
500 to 999	Base Salary	$51,317	$53,723	$55,125
(n=1,198)	TRP	$58,956	$61,814	$63,234
1,000 to 2,499	Base Salary	$51,529	$53,999	$55,114
(n=1,348)	TRP	$59,464	$62,585	$63,649
2,500 or more	Base Salary	$52,920	$54,577	$56,370
(n=16,326)	TRP	$61,174	$63,878	$66,146

 

 

Table D.6 – APS 4 Base Salary and TRP by Agency Size in 2010

 

Number of Employees		Q1	Median	Q3
Less than 100	Base Salary	$58,032	$59,520	$62,060
(n=128)	TRP	$66,811	$68,821	$72,239
100 to 499	Base Salary	$57,048	$59,528	$61,117
(n=1,296)	TRP	$65,753	$68,642	$71,024
500 to 999	Base Salary	$58,248	$60,155	$61,437
(n=1,394)	TRP	$66,803	$69,334	$71,237
1,000 to 2,499	Base Salary	$58,345	$60,484	$61,797
(n=1,724)	TRP	$66,862	$69,674	$71,195
2,500 or more	Base Salary	$59,321	$61,307	$62,783
(n=15,145)	TRP	$68,541	$70,594	$73,299

Table D.7 – APS 5 Base Salary and TRP by Agency Size in 2010

Number of Employees		Q1	Median	Q3
Less than 100	Base Salary	$63,749	$65,406	$67,871
(n=125)	TRP	$73,281	$75,479	$78,057
100 to 499	Base Salary	$63,578	$65,500	$67,282
(n=1,210)	TRP	$72,968	$75,528	$77,952
500 to 999	Base Salary	$64,975	$66,068	$68,397
(n=1,578)	TRP	$74,192	$76,778	$78,983
1,000 to 2,499	Base Salary	$65,000	$67,033	$67,315
(n=2,143)	TRP	$75,054	$77,345	$79,116
2,500 or more	Base Salary	$65,010	$67,287	$68,092
(n=15,111)	TRP	$74,866	$77,995	$79,638

Table D.8 – APS 6 Base Salary and TRP by Agency Size in 2010

Number of Employees		Q1	Median	Q3
Less than 100	Base Salary	$72,097	$75,842	$79,567
(n=208)	TRP	$82,521	$87,539	$92,938
100 to 499	Base Salary	$72,962	$76,601	$78,724
(n=1,792)	TRP	$83,647	$88,328	$91,084
500 to 999	Base Salary	$73,495	$76,839	$78,140
(n=2,396)	TRP	$84,476	$88,803	$91,472
1,000 to 2,499	Base Salary	$72,765	$77,002	$78,764
(n=4,116)	TRP	$83,971	$89,204	$91,458
2,500 or more	Base Salary	$74,736	$78,170	$79,555
(n=18,466)	TRP	$86,173	$90,536	$92,695

 

 

Table D.9 – EL 1 Base Salary and TRP by Agency Size in 2010

 

Number of Employees		Q1	Median	Q3
Less than 100	Base Salary	$91,148	$95,369	$103,279
(n=256)	TRP	$104,710	$110,164	$119,317
100 to 499	Base Salary	$91,585	$95,238	$98,539
(n=1,713)	TRP	$105,763	$110,427	$114,634
500 to 999	Base Salary	$92,832	$94,069	$99,374
(n=2,811)	TRP	$106,652	$110,126	$115,204
1,000 to 2,499	Base Salary	$92,684	$94,996	$98,808
(n=3,964)	TRP	$107,045	$111,030	$117,396
2,500 or more	Base Salary	$93,413	$97,860	$99,554
(n=15,565)	TRP	$108,667	$113,910	$115,409

Table D.10 – EL 2 Base Salary and TRP by Agency Size in 2010

Number of Employees		Q1	Median	Q3
Less than 100	Base Salary	$118,013	$123,699	$170,232
(n=198)	TRP	$135,034	$143,646	$189,149
100 to 499	Base Salary	$114,879	$119,476	$124,342
(n=1,017)	TRP	$133,378	$139,902	$146,299
500 to 999	Base Salary	$113,454	$117,105	$122,417
(n=1,639)	TRP	$130,930	$137,051	$144,441
1,000 to 2,499	Base Salary	$113,535	$118,911	$123,183
(n=2,175)	TRP	$132,050	$138,908	$147,865
2,500 or more	Base Salary	$116,784	$122,427	$124,597
(n=6,660)	TRP	$135,261	$141,038	$146,574

 

Location

APS agencies employ people in a wide variety of locations across all States and Territories. Within each classification, it could be expected that remuneration would vary to some extent by location, given the wide differentials in the labour market between different States and Territories, and the cost of living. If the average TRP in some locations is higher than others, at least some of this difference could be due to length of service or other local factors.

 

 

Table D.11 – Average TRP Levels by Location in 2010

 

Location	Classification
	Grad	APS 1	APS 2	APS 3	APS 4	APS 5	APS 6	EL 1	EL 2
ACT	$62,187	$46,524	$54,935	$61,678	$69,404	$76,588	$88,600	$111,996	$141,056
NSW	$61,203	$47,807	$57,259	$63,435	$70,908	$77,853	$89,738	$112,502	$140,900
NT	$60,015	$41,794	$55,069	$60,716	$69,614	$76,658	$88,300	$111,386	$141,108
QLD	$62,064	$45,731	$56,602	$63,636	$70,839	$77,826	$89,943	$112,913	$140,897
SA	$63,125	$46,919	$56,172	$63,426	$70,557	$77,432	$89,718	$112,763	$144,472
TAS	$61,326	$47,788	$55,756	$63,255	$70,106	$78,039	$89,370	$114,663	$145,639
VIC	$62,758	$47,916	$56,703	$63,375	$71,213	$77,971	$89,833	$112,105	$143,800
WA	$63,666	$44,688	$55,615	$62,904	$70,706	$77,934	$89,822	$113,867	$144,817
Overseas	--	--	--	--	$70,406	$78,120	$87,406	$113,150	$146,409
% diff min/max	6.1%	14.6%	4.2%	4.4%	2.2%	2.0%	2.9%	2.9%	3.9%
F	40.526	13.386	6.252	46.205	128.343	69.425	69.425	27.346	70.817
p	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01
significance	sg	sg	sg	sg	sg	sg	sg	sg	sg

 

There is no consistent pattern across classifications in terms of which locations are associated with higher TRPs. Victoria was the highest paying for APS 1 and APS 4 level employees, while Queensland paid highest at APS 3 and APS 6 levels. Employees based overseas were paid highest at APS 5 and EL 2 level. New South Wales paid the highest average TRP at APS 2 level, and Tasmania at EL 2 level.

There was a more consistent pattern for the lowest TRP values in 2010, with lowest average TRP at most levels being paid in either of the Territories. Northern Territory paid lowest at Graduate, APS 1, APS 3, APS 6 and EL 1 levels, while the ACT paid lowest at APS 2, APS 4 and APS 5 levels. Employees based overseas received the lowest TRP at APS 6 level, while those in Queensland received the lowest TRP at EL 2 level.

The difference between the minimum and maximum value ranged between ~$1,500 and ~$6,100 across classifications.

 

 

Job Family

 

Job family analysis by TRP level has been conducted to examine any statistically significant differences in the sample. A summary of ANOVA outcomes are shown below.

Table D.12 – Average TRP Levels by Job Family in 2010

Job Family	Classification
	Grad	APS 1	APS 2	APS 3	APS 4	APS 5	APS 6	EL 1	EL 2
Audit	$58,214	--	$58,728	$66,459	$73,651	$80,272	$91,773	$115,256	$141,425
Communications	$58,801	--	$58,070	$61,906	$70,177	$77,285	$89,041	$114,633	$139,948
Corporate Services	$62,085	$48,890	$56,526	$63,832	$71,618	$77,963	$90,215	$113,443	$140,392
Economics	$65,414	--	--	--	$70,821	$76,540	$88,051	$110,506	$142,811
Engineering & Technical	--	--	$56,983	$62,195	$70,453	$78,219	$89,729	$113,500	$143,058
Finance	$62,173	$46,968	$56,961	$63,306	$70,733	$77,328	$89,428	$112,858	$143,652
HR	$60,810	$46,100	$54,165	$63,559	$70,733	$77,553	$89,984	$112,757	$141,814
IT	$65,992	$47,064	$55,324	$62,014	$69,991	$76,648	$89,052	$111,624	$141,127
Legal	$67,116	--	$54,127	$64,133	$70,432	$77,744	$88,616	$115,122	$142,587
Medical	--	--	--	$64,560	$71,290	$78,374	$89,591	$124,108	$187,525
Management (generalist)	--	--	--	--	--	--	$88,586	$111,148	$143,829
Other	$59,157	$45,498	$56,428	$62,903	$69,940	$76,976	$88,885	$111,183	$140,287
Policy Devt	$63,853	$46,309	$55,649	$63,636	$69,875	$77,041	$88,995	$111,518	$141,693
Scientific	$71,832	--	$54,339	$63,811	$69,341	$77,515	$89,648	$111,239	$147,882
Intelligence & Security	--	--	--	$62,645	$70,187	$77,756	$88,922	$115,133	$140,393
Min	Aud
Max	Sci	CS	Audit	Audit	Audit	Audit	Audit	Med	med
% difference min/max	23.4%	7.5%	8.5%	7.4%	6.2%	4.9%	4.2%	12.3%	34.0%
F	15.417	150.846	159.534	198.125	240.296	98.131	88.206	125.125	194.946
p	<0.00	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01
significance	sg	sg	sg	sg	sg	sg	sg	sg	sg

At five of the eight non-SES levels (APS 2 to APS 6), jobs within the Audit job family attracted the highest TRP. At Graduate level, Scientific jobs were paid highest, while Medical jobs received the highest TRP at EL 1 and EL 2 levels.

There was no particular trend in terms of the lowest paying job family across classifications. Only the Economics and Communications job families were paid lowest at more than one level, with Economics jobs attracting the lowest TRP at the APS 5, APS 6 and EL 1 levels and Communications jobs at APS 3 and EL 2 levels.

As can be seen at each classification, average TRP for all job families was significantly different

 

 

Appendix E  

 

Consolidated Summary Data

 

 

 

Table E.1 – Detailed Remuneration Findings for Graduate

 

Scope: All Sample Data
Classification Level: Grad Number of Individuals: APS 2010 = 1,297 APS 2009 = 1,281
		Min	5th	Q1	Median	Q3	95th	Max	% Rep	Avg	SD
Base Salary	APS 2010	46,995	48,992	50,770	53,040	57,568	61,012	69,642	100	54,012	3,936
	APS 2009	44,692	45,144	47,631	51,370	54,630	58,949	63,000	100	51,462	4,265
	% Change 09-10	5.2	8.5	6.6	3.3	5.4	3.5	10.5		5.0	-7.7
Employer Super Contribution	APS 2010	4,660	7,237	7,650	7,993	8,688	9,396	11,104	100	8,159	679
	APS 2009	4,330	6,658	7,169	7,706	8,012	9,078	10,507	100	7,635	662
Car Cost	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Cash in lieu of Car	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Car Parking	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Other Benefits	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	6	1,094	--
Total Remuneration Package	APS 2010	54,232	56,537	58,244	61,287	65,824	69,096	80,367	100	62,185	4,402
	APS 2009	51,538	52,096	54,529	59,105	63,346	68,027	72,702	100	59,167	4,756
	% Change 09-10	5.2	8.5	6.8	3.7	3.9	1.6	10.5		5.1	-7.5
Performance Bonus	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	6	--	--
	APS 2009	0	0	0	4,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	11	2,429	1,835
Retention Bonus	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Other Bonuses	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	4	971	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	7	808	--
Total Reward	APS 2010	54,232	56,537	58,328	61,287	65,824	69,096	80,367	100	62,228	4,388
	APS 2009	51,538	52,096	54,892	59,105	63,346	68,027	75,620	100	59,496	5,082
	% Change 09-10	5.2	8.5	6.3	3.7	3.9	1.6	6.3		4.6	-13.7

Table E.2 – Detailed Remuneration Findings for APS 1

Scope: All Sample Data
Classification Level: APS 1 Number of Individuals: APS 2010 = 1,529 APS 2009 = 1,138
		Min	5th	Q1	Median	Q3	95th	Max	% Rep	Avg	SD
Base Salary	APS 2010	22,233	32,773	37,557	41,148	44,413	45,401	48,166	100	40,159	4,201
	APS 2009	20,714	30,304	38,020	40,659	42,582	44,045	49,711	100	39,641	4,436
	% Change 09-10	7.3	8.1	-1.2	1.2	4.3	3.1	-3.1		1.3	-5.3
Employer Super Contribution	APS 2010	2,224	3,456	5,754	6,398	7,000	9,009	20,453	100	6,332	1,486
	APS 2009	2,207	3,728	5,630	6,167	6,875	8,755	13,245	100	6,200	1,347
Car Cost	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Cash in lieu of Car	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Car Parking	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Other Benefits	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	2	--	--
Total Remuneration Package	APS 2010	27,837	37,445	43,267	47,546	50,971	53,727	64,866	100	46,502	5,327
	APS 2009	23,904	33,726	43,118	46,304	49,819	52,308	57,366	100	45,876	5,322
	% Change 09-10	16.5	11.0	0.3	2.7	2.3	2.7	13.1		1.4	0.1
Performance Bonus	APS 2010	0	0	665	665	665	765	1,165	11	582	211
	APS 2009	0	0	500	500	500	500	1,000	16	445	151
Retention Bonus	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Other Bonuses	APS 2010	18	260	359	359	438	600	909	9	400	108
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	22	767	--
Total Reward	APS 2010	27,837	37,549	43,267	47,546	50,971	54,162	64,866	100	46,602	5,361
	APS 2009	23,904	33,726	43,322	46,544	49,987	52,606	57,366	100	46,117	5,509
	% Change 09-10	16.5	11.3	-0.1	2.2	2.0	3.0	13.1		1.1	-2.7

 

 

Table E.3 – Detailed Remuneration Findings for APS 2

 

Scope: All Sample Data
Classification Level: APS 2 Number of Individuals: APS 2010 = 4,737 APS 2009 = 4,291
		Min	5th	Q1	Median	Q3	95th	Max	% Rep	Avg	SD
Base Salary	APS 2010	36,935	43,492	46,816	49,233	50,471	51,640	65,037	100	48,549	2,668
	APS 2009	35,993	41,890	45,110	47,680	49,288	50,015	62,535	100	47,205	2,619
	% Change 09-10	2.6	3.8	3.8	3.3	2.4	3.2	4.0		2.8	1.9
Employer Super Contribution	APS 2010	3,456	6,520	6,999	7,732	8,394	10,088	19,471	100	7,800	1,226
	APS 2009	0	5,710	6,658	7,379	7,975	9,707	21,368	100	7,396	1,377
Car Cost	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Cash in lieu of Car	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Car Parking	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Other Benefits	APS 2010	--	1,200	1,200	3,290	5,000	7,011	--	0	3,545	2,077
	APS 2009	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,200	4,926	10,705	1	1,492	1,711
Total Remuneration Package	APS 2010	42,623	50,137	53,799	56,933	58,496	61,125	79,609	100	56,357	3,566
	APS 2009	41,419	48,218	52,025	54,963	57,322	59,307	79,076	100	54,613	3,512
	% Change 09-10	2.9	4.0	3.4	3.6	2.0	3.1	0.7		3.2	1.6
Performance Bonus	APS 2010	0	0	467	665	665	767	4,400	25	572	346
	APS 2009	0	0	300	500	500	500	3,333	26	408	279
Retention Bonus	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	1	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Other Bonuses	APS 2010	128	200	363	450	650	1,150	2,000	6	577	377
	APS 2009	317	750	750	750	750	835	3,006	37	761	76
Total Reward	APS 2010	42,623	50,137	53,809	57,125	59,161	61,337	79,609	100	56,542	3,650
	APS 2009	41,419	48,290	52,115	55,263	58,078	59,393	79,076	100	55,006	3,693
	% Change 09-10	2.9	3.8	3.3	3.4	1.9	3.3	0.7		2.8	-1.2

 

 

Table E.4 – Detailed Remuneration Findings for APS 3

 

Scope: All Sample Data
Classification Level: APS 3 Number of Individuals: APS 2010 = 19,760 APS 2009 = 20,143
		Min	5th	Q1	Median	Q3	95th	Max	% Rep	Avg	SD
Base Salary	APS 2010	41,594	49,080	52,161	54,577	56,359	57,273	70,581	100	54,202	2,999
	APS 2009	30,232	47,421	49,147	52,327	54,044	56,387	69,006	100	51,803	2,926
	% Change 09-10	37.6	3.5	6.1	4.3	4.3	1.6	2.3		4.6	2.5
Employer Super Contribution	APS 2010	0	7,400	7,901	8,450	9,515	12,188	24,748	100	8,900	1,606
	APS 2009	0	6,792	7,394	7,936	8,845	12,052	37,270	100	8,433	1,777
Car Cost	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Cash in lieu of Car	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Car Parking	APS 2010	946	946	1,000	1,000	1,000	2,620	2,982	0	1,115	420
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Other Benefits	APS 2010	1,003	1,005	1,200	1,800	4,228	9,968	13,740	0	2,830	2,637
	APS 2009	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	3,142	27,025	1	1,515	2,482
Total Remuneration Package	APS 2010	47,621	56,638	60,571	63,238	65,648	69,736	82,036	100	63,110	4,014
	APS 2009	35,383	54,724	56,700	60,197	63,042	67,424	90,613	100	60,247	4,097
	% Change 09-10	34.6	3.5	6.8	5.1	4.1	3.4	-9.5		4.8	-2.0
Performance Bonus	APS 2010	0	0	665	665	767	1,973	8,500	9	731	606
	APS 2009	0	0	437	546	546	1,484	11,523	8	553	680
Retention Bonus	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	1,042	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Other Bonuses	APS 2010	50	481	1,350	1,350	1,350	1,350	2,000	15	1,238	286
	APS 2009	100	750	750	750	750	835	3,772	12	777	257
Total Reward	APS 2010	48,059	56,638	60,899	63,326	65,844	70,936	82,036	100	63,368	4,102
	APS 2009	35,383	54,724	56,722	60,281	63,657	67,618	91,909	100	60,387	4,195
	% Change 09-10	35.8	3.5	7.4	5.1	3.4	4.9	-10.7		4.9	-2.2

 

 

Table E.5 – Detailed Remuneration Findings for APS 4

 

Scope: All Sample Data
Classification Level: APS 4 Number of Individuals: APS 2010 = 19,687 APS 2009 = 18,303
		Min	5th	Q1	Median	Q3	95th	Max	% Rep	Avg	SD
Base Salary	APS 2010	45,946	56,059	59,116	61,299	62,582	64,186	75,462	100	60,698	2,596
	APS 2009	33,230	54,532	56,760	58,949	60,446	62,166	73,264	100	58,582	2,438
	% Change 09-10	38.3	2.8	4.2	4.0	3.5	3.2	3.0		3.6	6.5
Employer Super Contribution	APS 2010	0	8,225	8,784	9,323	10,494	12,263	50,141	100	9,698	1,412
	APS 2009	0	6,711	8,440	8,990	9,917	12,203	26,302	100	9,248	1,560
Car Cost	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Cash in lieu of Car	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Car Parking	APS 2010	841	946	1,000	1,000	1,000	5,509	6,751	0	1,614	1,398
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	2,281	--
Other Benefits	APS 2010	1,008	1,058	1,152	1,157	1,832	4,192	24,357	1	1,814	2,163
	APS 2009	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,110	2,927	12,875	3	1,345	1,231
Total Remuneration Package	APS 2010	50,687	64,237	68,273	70,347	72,982	75,604	108,774	100	70,421	3,545
	APS 2009	43,149	62,194	65,581	67,798	70,518	73,057	85,826	100	67,876	3,411
	% Change 09-10	17.5	3.3	4.1	3.8	3.5	3.5	26.7		3.8	3.9
Performance Bonus	APS 2010	0	0	0	0	1,197	3,561	11,200	4	838	1,541
	APS 2009	0	0	0	611	611	1,813	11,200	10	664	850
Retention Bonus	APS 2010	97	623	1,000	1,000	1,343	4,233	4,984	1	1,397	1,004
	APS 2009	367	367	1,699	3,704	4,320	5,566	5,566	0	3,166	1,662
Other Bonuses	APS 2010	100	381	533	600	900	1,195	2,000	3	696	280
	APS 2009	100	750	750	750	750	835	4,223	15	767	229
Total Reward	APS 2010	50,687	64,263	68,273	70,408	73,073	75,781	108,774	100	70,517	3,586
	APS 2009	43,149	62,268	65,764	67,903	71,268	73,317	86,246	100	68,083	3,530
	% Change 09-10	17.5	3.2	3.8	3.7	2.5	3.4	26.1		3.6	1.6

 

 

Table E.6 – Detailed Remuneration Findings for APS 5

 

Scope: All Sample Data
Classification Level: APS 5 Number of Individuals: APS 2010 = 20,167 APS 2009 = 18,623
		Min	5th	Q1	Median	Q3	95th	Max	% Rep	Avg	SD
Base Salary	APS 2010	50,459	62,529	65,010	67,017	68,092	69,916	97,224	100	66,550	2,462
	APS 2009	41,496	60,380	62,510	64,728	66,496	67,715	83,500	100	64,478	2,441
	% Change 09-10	21.6	3.6	4.0	3.5	2.4	3.3	16.4		3.2	0.8
Employer Super Contribution	APS 2010	4,527	8,876	9,726	10,482	11,555	13,998	29,405	100	10,784	1,767
	APS 2009	0	8,294	9,314	10,153	11,026	14,067	36,416	100	10,506	2,136
Car Cost	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Cash in lieu of Car	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Car Parking	APS 2010	225	946	1,000	1,000	1,000	3,172	7,837	1	1,256	883
	APS 2009	1,750	1,750	1,750	1,750	2,435	7,837	7,837	0	2,333	1,571
Other Benefits	APS 2010	1,000	1,106	1,255	1,530	2,503	8,432	17,322	1	2,572	2,688
	APS 2009	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,200	4,652	35,015	4	1,678	2,542
Total Remuneration Package	APS 2010	54,986	71,607	74,677	77,483	79,356	82,661	112,976	100	77,364	3,595
	APS 2009	56,483	69,264	72,258	75,133	77,335	80,601	115,492	100	75,059	3,799
	% Change 09-10	-2.7	3.4	3.3	3.1	2.6	2.6	-2.2		3.1	-5.4
Performance Bonus	APS 2010	0	0	681	681	786	3,006	10,829	15	856	1,108
	APS 2009	0	0	665	665	665	3,181	13,000	17	866	1,212
Retention Bonus	APS 2010	125	363	1,000	1,000	1,912	3,353	4,487	0	1,350	859
	APS 2009	0	0	1,500	2,000	3,245	6,406	6,406	0	2,414	1,541
Other Bonuses	APS 2010	100	500	900	1,350	1,350	1,350	2,000	10	1,151	336
	APS 2009	100	750	750	750	750	750	4,337	18	754	133
Total Reward	APS 2010	55,953	71,661	74,902	77,709	79,665	83,292	112,976	100	77,627	3,721
	APS 2009	56,483	69,327	72,415	75,319	78,219	81,309	119,501	100	75,363	4,011
	% Change 09-10	-0.9	3.4	3.4	3.2	1.8	2.4	-5.5		3.0	-7.2

 

 

Table E.7 – Detailed Remuneration Findings for APS 6

 

Scope: All Sample Data
Classification Level: APS 6 Number of Individuals: APS 2010 = 26,978 APS 2009 = 24,097
		Min	5th	Q1	Median	Q3	95th	Max	% Rep	Avg	SD
Base Salary	APS 2010	47,915	69,069	73,949	77,824	79,555	81,805	111,448	100	76,790	4,416
	APS 2009	52,263	66,525	71,037	74,969	76,461	79,230	119,729	100	74,131	4,293
	% Change 09-10	-8.3	3.8	4.1	3.8	4.0	3.3	-6.9		3.6	2.9
Employer Super Contribution	APS 2010	4,824	9,998	11,095	12,121	13,379	16,174	40,619	100	12,387	2,028
	APS 2009	4,016	9,038	10,577	11,609	12,646	15,870	31,770	100	11,864	2,269
Car Cost	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Cash in lieu of Car	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Car Parking	APS 2010	300	781	1,000	1,000	1,000	3,707	6,881	1	1,377	1,085
	APS 2009	1,591	1,663	1,750	2,372	2,435	5,654	5,654	0	2,375	992
Other Benefits	APS 2010	1,010	1,200	1,472	2,342	3,018	6,357	20,456	1	2,832	2,453
	APS 2009	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,267	5,293	29,076	4	1,707	2,192
Total Remuneration Package	APS 2010	61,346	79,262	85,555	89,882	92,407	97,705	131,647	100	89,218	5,793
	APS 2009	63,304	76,112	82,493	86,391	89,743	93,858	141,166	100	86,074	5,733
	% Change 09-10	-3.1	4.1	3.7	4.0	3.0	4.1	-6.7		3.7	1.0
Performance Bonus	APS 2010	0	0	0	796	919	4,623	15,167	14	1,129	1,705
	APS 2009	0	0	0	777	777	4,153	13,333	16	997	1,439
Retention Bonus	APS 2010	142	686	1,000	1,000	1,000	3,000	19,936	0	1,468	2,190
	APS 2009	295	295	1,000	1,965	2,750	18,942	19,936	0	3,178	4,469
Other Bonuses	APS 2010	164	377	604	900	1,350	1,350	4,000	8	951	387
	APS 2009	100	750	750	750	750	835	17,943	15	814	570
Total Reward	APS 2010	61,346	79,315	85,694	90,005	92,885	97,975	137,322	100	89,478	5,949
	APS 2009	64,139	76,249	82,713	86,644	90,438	94,727	169,368	100	86,381	5,919
	% Change 09-10	-4.4	4.0	3.6	3.9	2.7	3.4	-18.9		3.6	0.5

 

 

Table E.8 – Detailed Remuneration Findings for EL 1

 

Scope: All Sample Data
Classification Level: EL 1 Number of Individuals: APS 2010 = 24,309 APS 2009 = 20,836
		Min	5th	Q1	Median	Q3	95th	Max	% Rep	Avg	SD
Base Salary	APS 2010	57,264	87,905	92,878	97,275	99,285	104,957	220,000	100	96,506	5,604
	APS 2009	52,014	85,436	90,128	93,826	96,420	100,893	142,689	100	93,296	4,990
	% Change 09-10	10.1	2.9	3.1	3.7	3.0	4.0	54.2		3.4	12.3
Employer Super Contribution	APS 2010	4,517	12,499	14,148	15,281	16,322	19,795	42,012	100	15,614	2,590
	APS 2009	4,894	12,142	13,649	14,522	15,872	19,286	41,600	100	15,009	2,601
Car Cost	APS 2010	16,579	18,034	22,295	25,802	28,708	29,760	45,808	0	25,405	4,646
	APS 2009	15,099	17,344	20,693	26,313	27,966	28,967	48,125	0	25,172	5,099
Cash in lieu of Car	APS 2010	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
	APS 2009	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	0	--	--
Car Parking	APS 2010	225	585	1,000	1,000	1,199	3,602	14,240	1	1,434	1,488
	APS 2009	571	1,342	2,188	2,435	3,732	8,242	11,855	0	3,255	2,045
Other Benefits	APS 2010	1,002	1,131	1,557	2,275	3,548	7,402	30,195	1	3,070	2,997
	APS 2009	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,528	6,645	64,090	5	2,223	4,510
Total Remuneration Package	APS 2010	71,186	100,850	107,831	112,788	115,454	123,682	253,880	100	112,239	7,236
	APS 2009	65,662	97,929	104,589	109,466	111,480	118,836	165,466	100	108,482	6,567
	% Change 09-10	8.4	3.0	3.1	3.0	3.6	4.1	53.4		3.5	10.2
Performance Bonus	APS 2010	0	0	794	993	1,920	7,553	44,059	17	2,101	2,946
	APS 2009	0	0	777	970	2,874	7,629	18,800	19	2,122	2,615
Retention Bonus	APS 2010	0	1,000	1,000	1,000	3,000	9,968	17,310	1	2,363	2,739
	APS 2009	0	0	0	0	3,624	9,138	15,000	1	2,086	3,285
Other Bonuses	APS 2010	55	528	900	1,118	1,350	1,997	20,000	6	1,136	713
	APS 2009	100	750	750	750	750	900	17,013	16	851	767
Total Reward	APS 2010	71,790	101,239	108,178	113,384	115,849	124,440	253,880	100	112,753	7,602
	APS 2009	65,662	98,335	105,026	109,784	113,021	120,236	173,196	100	109,117	7,009
	% Change 09-10	9.3	3.0	3.0	3.3	2.5	3.5	46.6		3.3	8.4

 

 

Table E.9 – Detailed Remuneration Findings for EL 2

 

Scope: All Sample Data
Classification Level: EL 2 Number of Individuals: APS 2010 11,689 APS 2009 = 9,580
		Min	5th	Q1	Median	Q3	95th	Max	% Rep	Avg	SD
Base Salary	APS 2010	93,000	105,377	115,410	120,840	124,597	137,238	412,844	100	121,268	13,086
	APS 2009	66,722	103,176	111,554	117,127	120,396	130,686	360,804	100	116,588	9,269
	% Change 09-10	39.4	2.1	3.5	3.2	3.5	5.0	14.4		4.0	41.2
Employer Super Contribution	APS 2010	4,954	15,316	17,461	18,978	21,135	26,853	55,150	100	19,755	3,873
	APS 2009	5,850	14,802	16,813	18,150	20,674	26,565	48,857	100	19,165	3,936
Car Cost	APS 2010	16,579	17,847	22,000	24,000	28,708	63,697	113,052	1	27,838	13,833
	APS 2009	16,487	17,344	20,771	23,883	27,966	53,295	56,194	1	27,002	10,438
Cash in lieu of Car	APS 2010	7,476	16,408	22,000	23,504	25,000	26,000	28,000	1	23,197	2,975
	APS 2009	7,500	12,349	16,000	20,904	22,152	24,000	28,000	1	19,409	3,712
Car Parking	APS 2010	225	1,000	1,680	1,680	3,500	7,464	19,282	7	2,798	2,154
	APS 2009	271	1,591	1,750	1,750	3,500	7,837	15,961	4	3,118	2,172
Other Benefits	APS 2010	1,001	1,109	1,874	3,705	6,988	14,687	18,340	1	5,159	4,239
	APS 2009	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	4,000	15,602	57,142	2	3,779	5,985
Total Remuneration Package	APS 2010	103,784	121,293	134,084	140,397	146,807	163,807	430,151	100	141,775	15,870
	APS 2009	79,449	118,979	129,617	136,310	141,791	155,658	399,836	100	136,467	12,300
	% Change 09-10	30.6	1.9	3.4	3.0	3.5	5.2	7.6		3.9	29.0
Performance Bonus	APS 2010	0	0	201	2,466	7,615	14,171	277,889	24	5,264	12,942
	APS 2009	0	0	1,188	2,866	7,028	12,898	28,000	30	4,221	4,191
Retention Bonus	APS 2010	0	0	1,000	1,000	3,541	15,914	34,620	2	3,400	5,975
	APS 2009	0	0	0	1,740	8,645	20,000	30,000	2	5,026	6,927
Other Bonuses	APS 2010	96	600	900	1,350	1,435	3,138	24,000	8	1,445	1,086
	APS 2009	200	750	750	750	750	900	14,747	15	845	838
Total Reward	APS 2010	103,784	122,273	134,822	141,170	148,369	166,346	708,040	100	143,269	19,667
	APS 2009	79,449	119,632	130,410	137,885	144,085	159,651	399,836	100	138,020	13,133
	% Change 09-10	30.6	2.2	3.4	2.4	3.0	4.2	77.1		3.8	49.7

 

 

 

 

		Mercer (Australia) Pty Ltd ABN 32 005 315 917 123 Eagle Street Brisbane QLD 4000 GPO Box 9946 Brisbane QLD 4001 61 7 3234 4900

 

---

[1] Also includes all continuing collective agreements signed prior to 1 July 2009.

[2] Also includes all continuing collective agreements signed prior to 1 July 2009.

[3] Refers to continuing AWA which were entered into prior to November 2007.