Go to top of page

2010 APS Non-SES Remuneration survey

This is not the latest report. Go to our Remuneration reports page for the most recent publication.

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 5th percentile, Q1, median, Q3, 95th 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 5th percentile was less than the variation from the 95th percentile to the maximum; thus, average Base Salary, TRP and TR were greater than the corresponding medians
  • the range from the 5th percentile to the 95th 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 95th 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 5th percentile was greater than the variation from the 95th 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 5th percentile to the 95th 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 5th percentile was much less than the variation from the 95th percentile to the maximum

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

§ the variation from the minimum to the 5th 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 5th percentile to the 95th 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 5th percentile to the 95th 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 5th percentile was less than the variation from the 95th 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 5th percentile to the 95th 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 5th percentile was much less than the variation from the 95th 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 5th percentile to the 95th 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 5th percentile and the minimum was narrower than the gap between the 95th 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 5th percentile to the 95th 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 5th percentile was less than the variation from the 95th 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 5th percentile to the 95th 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 5th percentile was much less than the variation from the 95th 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 5th and 95th 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 5th to 95th 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 95th 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 25th 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 75th 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 5th percentile, 5 per cent of the sample falls below this point, and 95 per cent of the sample is above. The 95th 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

MER_STD_Blue

 

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.