many employers. Employers who subsequently made submissions amounting to unqualified support for the Joint Submission included: Jobs Australia Anglicare (Canberra & Goulburn) St Vincent de Paul Society Hanover Welfare Services Inclusion Melbourne Domestic Violence Victoria Connections UnitingCare. Other employer groups raised concerns about the need for full funding of the claim in the course of expressing support for the proposed outcome. For example, National Delivery Services submitted that not-for-profit service providers have no capacity to pay for wage increases without increased government funding. The National People with Disabilities Council submitted that increases that were not fully funded will result in service Carer’s reductions. Other employers who expressed similar concerns included Berry Street, Home Ground Services, the Federation of Community Legal Services, and the Association of Neighbourhood Houses and Learning Centres. Catholic Social Services Australia submitted that inadequate funding would impact adversely on jobs, the people seeking services and the community more generally. It submitted that at the time of the hearings, in December 2011, 75 per cent of its services remained unfunded to meet the proposed wage increase. A number of employer organisations and individual employers made submissions opposing the proposals in the Joint Submission. We deal now with some of those submissions. Australian Industry Group The Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) submitted that it is essential that we adopt a very careful, methodical and rigorous approach. It did not identify an amount which would be needed to address the gender inequality which the tribunal has found to exist, but put forward an analysis intended to assist the tribunal to determine the appropriate amount. It relied on a study published in The Economic Record for the proposition that at all levels of the wage distribution, public sector employees receive a wages premium unrelated to gender. The premium is significant in most cases—ranging from 15 per cent to 25 per cent, except in the 90th percentile, where the difference is much less. It submitted that it must be assumed that public sector rates are set on a gender neutral basis and rates which are higher than the lowest rate are not influenced by gender. Hence, the lowest public sector rate should be considered and discounted for factors that are not related to gender. Ai Group submitted that a number of factors should be considered, including the need to ensure that awards remain relevant and that their role as the safety net is not undermined, the need to avoid disturbing relativities in the safety nets that operate in different industries, the need to encourage collective bargaining and the need to avoid undermining the low paid
many employers. Employers who subsequently made submissions amounting to unqualified support for the Joint Submission included: Jobs Australia Anglicare (Canberra & Goulburn) St Vincent de Paul Society Hanover Welfare Services Inclusion Melbourne Domestic Violence Victoria Connections UnitingCare. Other employer groups raised concerns about the need for full funding of the claim in the course of expressing support for the proposed outcome. For example, National Delivery Services submitted that not-for-profit service providers have no capacity to pay for wage increases without increased government funding. The National People with Disabilities Carer’s Council submitted that increases that were not fully funded will result in service reductions. Other employers who expressed similar concerns included Berry Street, Home Ground Services, the Federation of Community Legal Services, and the Association of Neighbourhood Houses and Learning Centres. Catholic Social Services Australia submitted that inadequate funding would impact adversely on jobs, the people seeking services and the community more generally. It submitted that at the time of the hearings, in December 2011, 75 per cent of its services remained unfunded to meet the proposed wage increase. A number of employer organisations and individual employers made submissions opposing the proposals in the Joint Submission. We deal now with some of those submissions. Australian Industry Group The Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) submitted that it is essential that we adopt a very careful, methodical and rigorous approach. It did not identify an amount which would be needed to address the gender inequality which the tribunal has found to exist, but put forward an analysis intended to assist the tribunal to determine the appropriate amount. It relied on a study published in The Economic Record for the proposition that at all levels of the wage distribution, public sector employees receive a wages premium unrelated to gender. The premium is significant in most cases—ranging from 15 per cent to 25 per cent, except in the 90th percentile, where the difference is much less. It submitted that it must be assumed that public sector rates are set on a gender neutral basis and rates which are higher than the lowest rate are not influenced by gender. Hence, the lowest public sector rate should be considered and discounted for factors that are not related to gender. Ai Group submitted that a number of factors should be considered, including the need to ensure that awards remain relevant and that their role as the safety net is not undermined, the need to avoid disturbing relativities in the safety nets that operate in different industries, the need to encourage collective bargaining and the need to avoid undermining the low paid